of the common people, the idiota of Tertullian, though not the ideots of Dr. Horsley, might be unitarians, and yet continue in communion with the church after its forms became trinitarian, efpecially as they would not become fo all at

In the most ancient liturgies, you know, there were no prayers addressed to Chrift; and as the members of chriftian focieties were not required to fubfcribe to any thing*, there was nothing that they were expected to bear a part in, concerning which they might not be able to fàtisfy themselves.

I am, &c.

LETTER X.

Of the Quotation from Athanafius.

REV. SIR.

IT is with very little effect, indeed, that you cavil at

my quotation from Athanafius, and the defence I made of it. To every impartial reader it discovers how extremely averfe the Jews were to the doctrine of the divinity of Chrift; and, to borrow a word from

In the times in which the doctrine of the trinity was most agitated, fome of the more zealous bishops propofed the Nicene creed, and other tefts, to those who were in communion with them; but even then this practice does not appear to have been general.

you

you and Mr. Badcock, to what management the apofties were reduced in divulging this offensive doctrine to them. I have nothing to offer in addition to what I faid on that fubject, except that I have no objection to your rendering cuλ 171, a good reason, instead of a plausible pretence; for I doubt not that it appeared a very good reason to Athanafius, who had nothing better to suggest.

Athanafius, however, by no means ftands fingle in his view of the prejudices of the Jews, and of the conduct of the apostles with respect to them. Epiphanius, as quoted above, fhews how prevalent the doctrine of the fimple humanity of Chrift was at the time that John wrote. There are alfo paffages in feveral of the Fathers, and especially a great number in Chryfollom, by which we clearly perceive that their ideas of the conduct of the apoftles was precifely the fame with that which I have afcribed to Athanafius; and as it is poffible that by a different kind of inftinct, my rapid glances may have discovered more paffages of this kind than have occurred to you, in the actual reading and study of all the authors, I fhall here produce one of them from the preface to his Commentaries on the Book of Acts.

After treating pretty largely of the conduct of the apofties with refpect to their infifting on the doctrine of the refurrection of Chrift, rather than that of his divinity, immediately after the defcent of the Holy Spirit, he fays, "As to the Jews, who had

"daily heard, and been taught out of the law, Hear "O Ifrael, the Lord thy God is one Lord, and befides "bim there is no other; having feen him (Jefus) "nailed to a crofs, yea having killed and buried "him themselves, and not having feen him rifen

again, if they had heard that this person was God, "equal to the Father, would not they have re"jected and spurned at it." I want words in Englifh to exprefs the force of the Greek, in this place. The Latin tranflator renders it nonne maxime omnes ab his verbis abhorruiffent, ac refiliffent, et oblatraffunt. "On this account," he adds "they (the "apostles) brought them forwards gently, and by "flow degrees, and ufed great art in condescending "to their weaknefs *."

In how different a light do Cryfoftom and you represent the fame thing. According to you, the Jews were always fully perfuaded that their Meffiah was to be God, equal to the Father; and therefore, after the apoftles had perfuaded them that Jefus was the Meffiah, they had nothing to apprehend from their attachment to the doctrine of the

*

Πως δε αν Ιεδαίοι οι και εκάσην ημέραν, μανθανονίες υπο το νομό, Ακκε Ισραήλ, κύριος ο θεός σε κύριθ εις εστι, κα πλην αυτό εκ εςιν άλλος, επί ξύλα σαυρό ιδούλες προσηλωμεν ν αιζόν, μάλλον δε καὶ σαυρωσαντες και θαψανίες, και εδε αναπανία Jeaoamiror, an80: TES OT DIE Sir aux) Tex 100, xx αν μάλιςα παντων απεπήδησαν και απέρράγησαν. Διαιτολο ηρέμα, κι καλα μικρον, αυτός προσβιβάζεσι, και πολλή μεν κεχρηνται τη της συγκαταβάσεως οικονομία. In Acta Hom. i. Opera, vol. VIII. p. 447.

unity of God, and had no occafion for any art or management with respect to it. However, their view of things, I doubt not, affifted Athanafius, Chryfoftom, and others, who lived nearer to thofe times, than the prefent Archdeacon of St. Albans, to account for the great number of unitarians among the early Jewish chriftians. Nor could they wonder at the fame among the Gentiles, confidering, as Athanafius does, that they could only learn chriftianity from the Jews; and it would have anfwered no end for the apoftles to have fpoken with caution to the Jews, and with openness to the Gentiles. Befides, according to Chryfoftom, the Gentiles were not much better prepared to receive the doctrine of the divinity of Chrift, than the Jews themselves.

In the fame paffage, part of which I have quoted above, after obferving that, if the apoftles had not conducted themselves in this cautious manner with refpect to the Jews, their whole doctrine would have appeared incredible to them, he adds, "and at Athens "Paul calls him (Jefus) fimply a man, and nothing "farther, and for a good reafon. For if, when

they had heard Chrift himself fpeaking of his equa"lity to the Father, they would on that account have "often ftoned him, and called him a blafphemer;

they would hardly, therefore, have received this "doctrine from fifhermen, efpecially after speaking "of him as crucified. And why do I fpeak of the "Jews, when at that time, even the difciples " of Chrift himfelf were often difturbed, and fcan"dalized at him, when they heard fublime doc"trines;

"trines; on which account he faid, I have many

things to fay to you, but ye are not yet able to "bear them. And if they could not bear thele

things who had lived fo long with him, and had " received fo many myfteries, and feen fo many "miracles, how could men from their altars, and " idols, and facrificcs, and cats, and crocodiles; "for fuch was the worship of the heathens! But being firft brought off from thefe abominations, they would readily receive their difcourfe concerning more fublime do&trines *.”

66

But we find no trace of either Jews or Gentiles having received thefe fublime doctrines that Chryfoftom alludes to in the age of the apostles. Nay he himself reprefents the apostle Paul as obliged to use the same caution with refpect to the Jews, when he wrote the Epiftle to the Hebrews, which was fo late as A. D. 62, about two years before his death.

Εν δε Αθήναις και ανθρωπον αυτόν απλώς καλει ο Παυλό εδέ πλέον είπων. εικοτως. ει γαρ αυτον τον χρισον διαλογι μενον περί της εις τον πατερα ισοτητα, λιθάσαι πολλακις επιχείρησαν, καὶ βλασφημον δια τετο εκαλοι, χολη γαρ παρά των αλιέων τετον τον λογον εδέξαντο, καὶ τοτοπον σαυρόν προχώρη σαντες . Και τι δει λέγειν της Ιεδαίος ; οπεγε κ αυτοι τοτε πολλακις οι μαθηται των υψιλοτερων ακ κοντες εθορύβαντο κα εσκανδαλίζοντο . δια τετο και ελεγε πολλά έχω λεγειν υμιν αλλ' ει δύναθε βαςάζειν αρτι . ει δέ εκείνοι εκ εδιναντο οι συγγενόμενοι χρονον τοσέτον, καὶ τοσέτων κοινονήσαντες απορρητων, και τοσαυτα θεασαμένοι θαύματα, πως ανθρωποι απο βομεν, καὶ εἰδώλων, καὶ θυσίων, και αιλερων, και κροκοδείλων, τοιαύτα γαρ ην των ελλήνων σεβάσματα: και των άλλων των κακων τοτέ πρωτον αποσπάθεντες, αθρόον τις υψηλος των δογματων εδέξαντο λογος. Ibid.

T