a multiplicity of Gods; on which account it might be thought to require less caution to teach this favourite doctrine to them. But then, for the same reason for which it was thought improper for Moses and the prophets to teach it to the Jews, in the former periods of their history, when they were in danger of falling into idolatry, it was equally impro per to insist upon it with the Gentiles, lest they should have been encouraged to persevere in the same system. Also, after they were brought to the worship of one God, they would have been no less averse to such a doctrine as the Trinity than the Jews. On this account it was not less hazardous, according to Chrysostom, to teach the doctrine of the divinity of Christ to the Gentiles than it had been to the Jews. In the passage, part of which I have quoted above, [p. 418,] after observing, that if the apostles had not conducted themselves in this cautious manner with respect to the Jews, their whole doctrine would have appeared incredible to them, he adds, " And at Athens Paul calls him" (Jesus) "simply a man, and nothing farther, and for a good reason: for if they often attempted to stone Christ himself, when he spake of his equality with the Father, and called him on that account a blasphemer, they would hardly have received this doctrine from fishermen, especially after speaking of him as crucified. And why do I speak of the Jews, when at that time even the disciples of Christ himself were often disturbed and scandalized at him, when they heard sublime doctrines? On which account he said, [John xvi. 12,]' I have many things to say to you, but ye cannot bear them now.' And if they could not bear these things, who had lived so long with him, and had received so many mysteries, and seen so many miracles, how could men, who were then first taken from their altars, idols, and sacrifices, and cats, and crocodiles, (for such was the worship of the Heathens,) and being then first brought off from these abominations, readily receive sublime doctrines?" Εν δε Αθηναις και ανθρωπὸν αυτον ἁπλως καλει ὁ Παυλος, ουδε πλεον ειπων εικοτως ει γαρ αυτον τον Χριςον διαλεγόμενον περι της εις τον πατερα ισοτητος, λίθασαι πολλακις επιχείρησαν, και βλασφημον δια τετο εκαλεν, σχολη γ' αν παρα των ἁλιεων τελον τον λόγον εδεξαντο, και τείο του ςαυρου προχωρησαντος. Και τι δει λέγειν τες Ιεδαίας· όπε γε και αυτοι τοτε πολλακις οι μαθηται των υψηλότερων ακεονίες εξορύξενία και εσκανδαλιζονίο· δια τείο και έλεγε, Πολλα εχω λεγειν ύμιν, αλλ' ου δύνασθε βαςάζειν αρτι· ει δε εκείνοι ουκ εδυναντο οι συγΓενομενοι χρονον τοσείον, και τοσείων κοινωνησανίες αποῤῥηλων, και τοσαυία θεασαμενοι θαυμαία, πως ανθρωποι απο βωμων, και ειδώλων, και θυσίων, και αιλερων, και κροκοδείλων, τοιαυία γαρ ην των Ἑλληνων σεβασμαία; Και των αλλων των κακών τους πρωίον αποσπασθείες, αθρον της ύψηλος των δογμαίων εδεξαντο λόγες. In Acta, Hom. i. Opera, VIII. p. 447. (P.) Theodoret, commenting on 1 Cor. viii. 6, "To us there is but one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ," says, "Here he calls the one, God, and the other, Lord, lest he should give those who were just freed from Heathenism, and had learned the truth, a pretence for returning to their Heathenism and idolatry." Ecumenius, on the same place, says, "The apostle speaks cautiously concerning the Father and the Son, calling the Father the one God, lest they should think there were two Gods; and the Son the one Lord, lest they should think there were two Lords. For if he had said God and God, the Greeks, from their ignorance, would have thought it had been Polytheism; or if he had said Lord and Lord, they would have thought there were many Lords. This is the reason why he now says, that the Father was God, and the Son Lord. For he had premised that with us there was but one God. Had he called both the Father and the Son God, and Lord, he would have been found acting contrary to his own affirmation to the Greeks, and would have appeared to have introduced many Gods and many Lords. Therefore he calls the Father God, and the Son Lord; condescending to the state of novices in the Greeks."† Again, speaking of God having raised Christ from the dead, he says, "The apostle herein condescends to them as children, not that Christ was not able to raise himself." Theodoret also, in his exposition of 1 Cor. xv. 28, in which the apostle says, that the Son was subject to the Father, says, "The divine apostle, fearing the evil that might arise from the Grecian mythology, added these things, speaking in low terms for their advantage."§ According to Ecumenius, those whom John, in his first epistle, addresses as children, were those who were acquainted * Εναύθα μεντοι τον μεν Θεον προσηγόρευσε, τον δε κυριον· ἵνα μη τοις εναγχος της Ελληνικής πλάνης απαλλαγείσι, και την αλήθειαν μεταμαθεσι, παρασχῃ πρόφασιν εις την πολυθεον εξαπατην παλινδρομησαι. In loc. Opera, III. p. 158. (Ρ.) Η Διο και έτως ασφαλως τε πατρος και το ύις εμνήσθη τον μεν πατέρα ειπων ένα Θεόν, ένα μη δυο θεους νομίσωσι, τον και ύιον ένα κυριον, ίνα μη δυο κυριος νομίσωσιν ει γαρ είπε Θεον και Θεον, πολυθείαν αν εξ απειριας ενόμισαν Έλληνες, η Κύριον και Κυριον, πολυκυριοτητα αν ενόμισαν· ώςε και το νυν ειπειν Θεον πατέρα, και κυριον τον υιον αυτη ἡ αιτια ην γαρ ὑποσχόμενος παρ' ἡμιν ένα Θεον ειναι ει εν ειπεν και τον πατέρα και τον ύιον, Θεον * Κύριον, παλιν ευρισκελο τη οικειᾳ ὑποσχέσει ὅσον προς Έλληνας εναντιεμενος, και πολυθειαν η πολυκυριοτηλα κατα το φαινομενον εισαγων. Διο Θεον ειπων τον πατέρα, κύριον είπε τον ύιον τῇ νηπιοτηι συγκαταβαίνων των Ελληνων. Opera, I. p. 492. (Ρ.) † Ο δε Θεος και τον κύριον ηγειρεν. Ετι νηπίοις εσιν, εδει συγκαλαβαινειν, και προς την νηπιοτηία αυτων λαλειν μη θορυβήθης ακεσας ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς τον Χρισον ηγειρεν' ου γαρ επεί ουκ ίσχυσεν ἑαυτον εγειραι, τε ο φησιν. Ibid. p. 469. (Ρ.) § Ο μεν ουν θειος αποςόλος την εκ της Ελληνικής μυθολογιας φυομενην ύφορωμενος βλατην, ταύτα προς εθεικε, ταπεινοτέροις χρησάμενος λόγοις δια την εκείνων ωφελειαν. Opera, III. p. 201. (P.) with the humanity of Christ only, as the grown men were those who knew his divinity. Of the latter he says, that "they knew him that was from the beginning. But who is from the beginning, but God the logos, who was in the beginning with God?" He represents him as explaining his own meaning in the following manner : "Since I know that you will receive my writings according to the difference in your ages, I must measure my doctrine according to your ages, and discourse with some as children who know the Father;" he means God the Father only; "but to others as fathers, who know more than the children, and not as the Father only, but as without origin and unsearchable, for he was in the beginning. To these I must address more perfect discourses."* Inconsistently, however, with this, he says, that "by those who deny the Son, in this epistle, are meant they who say that Christ was a mere man;" and yet he says, that "by those who denied that Jesus was the Christ, were meant the Gnostics." Theophylact, commenting on 1 Cor. i. 9, says, "Since Paul was writing to the Greeks, who worshipped many gods and many lords, on this account he does not call the Son God, lest they should think there were two Gods, as being accustomed to Polytheism. Nor did he call the Father Lord, lest they should think there were many Lords. For the same reason he made no mention of the Holy Spirit, sparing the weakness of his hearers; as the prophets do not mention the Son clearly, on account of the Jews, lest they should think of a generation with passion." In his commentary on Col. i. 12, he observes, that "Paul mentions 'giving thanks unto the Father' only. He does the same, he says, "in the Epistle to the Corinthians, bringing them gradually to the doctrine concerning the Son." * Οις και έχειν την γνωσιν τε απ' αρχης μαρτυρει τις δε ὁ απ' αρχής; Ει μη ὁ Θεὸς λογος, ὃς ην εν αρχη προς τον Θεον. Επει ουν φησιν έτως ύμας οίδα, κατα τας των ἡλικιων διαφορας δεξόμενες τα παρ' εμε γραφομενα, αναγκη καμε παραμετρησαι τη διαθέσει της ἡλικιας ύμων την διδασκαλίαν, και τοις μεν, ὡς παιδίοις επεγνωκοσι τον πατέρα (λέγει δε τον Θεον) διαλεχθηναι· τοις δε, ὡς πατρασιν, οι πλεον εχεσι των παιδιων κατα την γνωσιν, το μη ὡς πατέρα μόνον επεγκωκεναι, αλλα και ως αναρχος και αδιεξίτηλος" ην γαρ εν αρχή τείοις δε και τελειωίερων αξίαν παράθεσιν ποιησασθαι λογων. In Johan. Opera, II. P. 570. (P.) † Αλλ' επειδη προς Έλληνας ην ὁ λογος αὐτῷ, πολυθειαν πρεσβευονίας και πολυκυριοτητα δια τείο, ούτε και τον ύιον Θεον είπεν, ίνα μη δυο Θεους νομισωσιν άτε πολυθειᾳ ενειθισμένοι ούτε και τον πατερα κυριον, ἵνα μη πολλες κυρίες και παρ' ἡμιν ειναι δοξωσι. Δια ταύτην δε την αιτίαν, ουδε το πνευμαίος εμνησθη ενταύθα, φειδομενος της ασθένειας των ακθόντων ώσπερ και οι προφηται το ύια σαφως ου μεμνηνται, δια τες Ιεδαίες, ίνα μη εμπαθή νομίσωσι Thy you. Opera, II. p. 226. (P.) † Οντω και εν τη προς Κορινθεος ποιει. hoyor. Ibid. p. 631. (P.) VOL. VI. Ηρεμα δε εμβιβάζει αυτός εις τον περί υπου 3 G The same writer, in his commentary on 1 Tim. ii. 5, "There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," says, "He does not speak plainly concerning the deity of Christ, because Polytheism then abounded, and lest he should be thought to introduce many gods; where, though he says, one and one, he does not put them together, and say two, but only one and one. Such is the caution of the Scriptures. On this account he makes no mention of the Spirit, lest he should seem to be a Polytheist."* Such abundant evidence as this, when there is nothing to oppose to it, (and many more passages to the same purpose might, I doubt not, be collected, if it could be thought that they were at all wanting,) must surely satisfy all the impartial, that, in the opinion of the Christian fathers, the doctrines of the pre-existence and divinity of Christ were considered as being of such a nature, as that it would not have been prudent to risk the communication of them either with Jews or Gentiles, on their first conversion to Christianity. And the plain inference from this is, that the orthodox fathers must necessarily have supposed, that the Christian church in general was at first Unitarian, and that it continued to be so a considerable time. For none of them say or hint when this caution on the part of the apostles ceased; and they represent them as using it in the very latest of their writings, as in those from Paul after his confinement at Rome, and therefore not long before the destruction of Jerusalem. At that time, therefore, they must have thought that the great body of Christians were Unitarians, and without being considered as heretics on that account. But the most decisive proof of this is their universally concluding, that the doctrines of the pre-existence and divinity of Christ were never taught clearly and explicitly till it was done by John, in the introduction to his Gospel,† which they supposed to have been published among the last of the books of the New Testament, and after the death of the other apostles. * Ουκ ειπε δε φανερως και περί της Θεοτηίος το Χρισε, επειδη πολυθεια τότε εκράτει, και να μη νομισθη και αυτος πολλες Θεους παρεισάγειν όπεγε ουδε το, εις και εις, ὅταν λέγηται, προσήκει συντιθέναι, και λεγειν δυο, αλλα εις και εις τοσαύτη γαρ ή ευλάβεια της γραφης δια τείο εκ εμνήσθη ουδε τα πνευμαῖος, ίνα μη δόξῃ πολυθεός είναι. p. 757. (P.) Ibid. "What none of the other evangelists has taught us,' says Theophylact,' he has thundered forth. For as they confined their narratives to what happened to Christ in the body, and speak nothing clearly or expressly of his eternal generation-the great John relates his heavenly generation."" Lindsey's Sequel, 1776, pp. 195, 196. CHAPTER VI. Of John being thought to have been the first who clearly and boldly taught the Doctrines of the Pre-existence and Divinity of Christ. As this is an article of considerable consequence, I shall produce a redundance of evidence in support of it; nothing being better calculated to satisfy us, that, in the opinion of the Christian fathers, the doctrines of the pre-existence and divinity of Christ were not generally received in the lifetime of the other apostles; and, therefore, that simple Unitarianism could not have been considered as any heresy in the early ages. These authorities I shall produce, as I have generally done others, nearly in the order of time in which the writers flourished. I shall only first observe, that John seems to have got the title of Deoλoy, divine, from this circumstance, of his teaching the doctrine of the divine logos, which was supposed to be peculiar to him.* This appellation is given to him in the title to the Book of Revelation. It is mentioned by Athanasius in his Sermo major de Fide, † and also by Cyril of Alexandria. ‡ For a similar reason Isaiah is styled Theologus by Eusebius, in Isaiah xxiv. 10. § I shall also remind my reader in this place, that this hypothesis of John having taught the doctrine of the divinity of Christ in the introduction of his Gospel, does not occur in the earliest writers. These being nearer to the source of information, say that John had a view to the Gnostics only, both in his Epistles and the introduction to his Gospel. This was the opinion of Irenaus, who wrote about the year 170. The first writer who says that John meant the Unitarians, I believe, was Origen. * «The popular error," says Mr. Lindsey, "concerning St. John's design in penning his Gospel, seems to have given occasion to that sarcastic censure of him by the emperor Julian, as if by a cunning after-thought he had contrived to bring in Christ as God, which neither Paul nor any of the other evangelists had presumed to do. But that good man John,' says the emperor, perceiving what multitudes were seized with this frenzy in the cities of Greece and Italy, he was thereby emboldened to advance that doctrine.' Julian's proof of his accusation brought against our apostle, as Cyril hath preserved it to us, shews great want of candour, and it is plain he entirely misunderstood his author." Sequel, pp. 196, 198. + Montfaucon's Collectio, II. p. 13. (P.) Hom., Opera, 11. p. 75. (P.) Montfaucon's Collectio, 11. p. 450. (P.) |