ledge of the divinity of Christ, by very distant and uncertain inferences indeed, such as Jews, so previously persuaded as he represents them to have been, of the simple humanity of their Messiah, would not very readily understand.

Now if this caution was requisite in the first instance, and with respect to the first converts that the apostles made, it was equally requisite with respect to the rest, at least for the sake of others who were not yet converted; unless the first should have been enjoined secrecy on that head. For whenever it had been known that the apostles were preaching not such a Messiah as they expected, viz. a man like themselves, but the eternal God, the difference was so great, that a general alarm must have been spread, and the conversion of the rest of the Jews (to a doctrine which must have appeared so highly improbable to them) must have been impeded. We may therefore presume that the apostles must have connived at this state of ignorance, concerning the divinity of Christ, in their Jewish converts, till there was little hope of making any further converts among the Jews, and till the gospel began to be preached to the Gentiles.

Indeed, this must have been the case, according to Athanasius's own account. For he says that these Jews, being in an error themselves, led the Gentiles into the same error. For your notion, that by Gentiles our author here meant proselytes of the gate, is altogether arbitrary and improbable. Nay, the very existence of these proselytes of the gate, you must know, has been questioned, and I think fully disproved by Dr. Lardner and others. Besides, it is not to be supposed that the doctrine of a Messiah could have been very interesting

to any besides native Jews, or, at the most, those that were complete proselytes; whereas to the Gentile christians it was a matter of the greatest moment. By these Gentiles, therefore, I conclude that Athanasius must have meant christian Gentiles, and consequently that by the Jews who led them into that mistake, he meant The the believing and not the unbelieving Jews. learned Beausobre, a trinitarian, and therefore an unexceptionable judge in this case, quoting this very passage, does not hesitate to pronounce that they were be« Ces lieving Jews who were intended by the writer. Juifs," he says, ne sont pas les Juifs incrédules, mais ceux qui faisoient profession du christianisme *.

99

What I have respect to in this passage, is the obvious general tenor and spirit of it, and not particular words or phrases; or I might observe, that the verbs in that part of the passage which mentions Christ being come of the seed of David, and the word being made flesh, are not in the future tense, and therefore do not naturally refer to the Messiah in general, who was to come, but to a person who was actually come, that is, The Latin translator to Jesus Christ in particular. of Athanasius, a catholic, and certainly no unitarian, had so little suspicion of any other meaning, that he renders Toy Xplotov in this place by Jesum; so that I am far from being singular, or particularly biassed by my own opinions, in my construction of this passage.

Supposing, however, not only the proselytes of the gate, but the whole body of the Gentiles (little as they were concerned in the question) to have been previously taught by the Jews that their Messiah, when

Histoire de Manichéisme, vol. ii. p. 517.

ever he should come, would be nothing more than a man; if this was an opinion that they were as fully persuaded of as Athanasius represents the Jews, their teachers, to have been, the same caution must have been as necessary with respect to them as with respect to the Jews themselves, and for the same reason.

Athanasius must, therefore, be understood to say that the Jewish converts, while (through the caution of the apostles) they were ignorant of the divinity of Christ, preached the gospel in that state to the Gentiles. And as he speaks of Gentiles in general, and without any respect to time, and also of their being actually brought over to that belief, it is impossible not to understand him of this caution being continued till the gospel had been fully preached to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. Besides, one of the instances that Athanasius here gives of the preaching of the simple humanity of Christ, is taken from the discourse of the apostle Paul at Athens, which was about the year 53 after Christ; and indeed at this time the gospel had not been preached to any great extent among the Gentiles. For it was on this very journey that this apostle first preached the gospel in Macedonia and Greece.

If, according to Athanasius, the apostolical reserve with respect to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ continued till this time (and he says nothing concerning the termination of it), we may presume that this great doctrine, supposing it to have been known to the apostles, had not been publicly taught by them till very near the time of their dispersion and death; and then I think it must have come too late even from them. For it appears from the book of Acts, that their mere authority was not sufficient to overbear the prejudices

of their countrymen. At least, such an extraordinary communication of a doctrine of which they had no conception must have occasioned such an alarm and consternation as we must have found some traces of in the history of the Acts of the apostles. It could not have been received without hesitation and debate.

If we can suppose that the apostles, some time before their death, did communicate this great and un-. expected doctrine, the effects of such communication must have been very transient. For, presently after the death of the apostles, we find all the Jewish christians distinguished by the name of Nazarenes or Ebionites, and no trace of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ among them. If you can produce any evidence to the contrary, I hope you will do it. It certainly behoves you to do it if you can; for without this you will hardly make it appear probable that the apostles ever communicated such a doctrine at all.

You say, p. 25, "With what readiness the apostles led their catechumens on from the simplest principles to the highest mysteries; of this consummate ability of the apostles, in the capacity of teachers, Athanasius speaks with due commendation. Their caution he never mentions. On the contrary, the rapid progress of their instruction, how they passed at once from the detail of our Lord's life on earth, to the mystery of his Godhead, is one principal branch of his encomium. I wish that Dr. Priestley had produced the passage in which he thinks the apostles are taxed with caution."

I now have produced the passage, and have pointed out a word, viz. σuveσis, which, in the connexion in which it stands, can bear no other sense than caution,' and great caution (μετα πολλης συνέσεως); and I have

likewise shown, from the whole tenor of the discourse, that Athanasius could have intended nothing else than to describe their prudence or extreme caution, and to account for it. He evidently does not represent them as deferring the communication of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, on account of its being more conveniently taught afterwards, as part of a system of faith, but only lest it should have given offence to the Jews. If this skill or prudence, in these circumstances, be not the same thing with caution, I do not know what is meant by caution.

On the other hand, I find no trace of rapidity in this account of the apostles' conduct. All that approaches to it is, that, immediately after any mention of the humanity of Christ, (which he speaks of as necessary on account of the Jewish prejudices,) he says, the apostles subjoin some expression which might have led their hearers to the knowledge of his divinity; but the instances he produces are such as plainly confute any pretensions to their being a distinct and full declaration of that doctrine.

The first instance he gives us is from the speech of Peter to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, in which he says, Acts ii. 22. Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know. In this Athanasius acknowledges that Peter preached the proper humanity of Christ, but says that immediately afterwards (referring to his discourse on the cure of the lame man in the temple) he called him the prince of life, Acts iii. 15. And killed the prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead.