Athanasius, Chrysostom, and other orthodox fathers of the church, considering what we know of the character and the instructions of the apostles. They were plain men, and little qualified to act the cautious part here ascribed to them. And their instructions certainly were to teach all that they knew, even what their master communicated to them in the greatest privacy. Whereas, upon this scheme, they must have suffered numbers to die in the ignorance of the most important truth in the gospel, lest, by divulging it too soon, the conversion of others should have been prevented. The case evidently was, that these fathers did not know how to account for the great prevalence of the unitarian doctrine among the Gentiles as well as the Jews in the early ages of christianity, but upon such a hypothesis as this. Let their successors do better if they

can.

This observation on the character and instructions of the apostles must make all such accounts of their conduct absolutely incredible with respect to every doctrine of consequence, on which they could not but lay proportionable stress. But it may perhaps enable us to account for the ignorance of the Jews, and other early christians, with respect to matters of little or no consequence, on which the apostles did not lay any stress, and for which reason they might say little or nothing about them, as for instance with respect to the miraculous conception.

In our Saviour's lifetime he certainly passed for the son of Joseph with the Jews in general. The first disciples would naturally adopt the same opinion; and it does not appear that the apostles thought it a matter of consequence enough to set them right with respect

to it. For there is no reference whatever to the miraculous conception either in the book of Acts, or in any of the Epistles. Indeed that doctrine has never been thought to be of any importance in itself; Christ being as properly a man on one supposition as on the other. It is therefore only of importance with respect to the credit of Matthew and Luke, as historians, and that not with respect to what they write from their own knowledge, but only as to what they collected from others. Whereas, if Christ was not a mere măn, but either truly God, or the maker of the world under God, it could not but have appeared to be a matter of the greatest consequence in the scheme of christianity itself; and the apostles would certainly have taken some opportunity of inculcating it with an energy suited to its importance. We may therefore easily account for the general prevalence of the opinion of Christ being the son of Joseph, though it was false; but it is absolutely impossible to account for the general prevalence of the doctrine of the mere humanity of Christ, on the supposition of his being either God, or the maker of the world under God, and consequently of his being known to be so by the apostles. I may perhaps take some future opportunity of making some further observations on the subject of the miraculous conception; and in the mean time the Monthly Reviewer may be indulging his conjectures, and preparing his exclamations; for which our readers will likewise be pretty well prepared. I am, &c.

LETTER V.

An Argument for the late Origin of the Doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, from the Difficulty of tracing the Time in which it was first divulged.

DEAR SIR,

I CANNOT dismiss this subject of the strong prejudices of the Jews in general in favour of their Messiah being merely a man, (thus explicitly acknowledged by Athanasius, Chrysostom, and others, who say, that on this account the apostles did not preach the doctrine of the divinity of Christ at first, but only after the people were satisfied with respect to his Messiahship,) without requesting your opinion with respect to the time when this great secret of Christ not being merely a man, but the eternal God himself, or the maker of heaven and earth under God, was communicated, first to the apostles themselves, and then by them to the body of christians.

You cannot say that John the Baptist preached any such doctrine; and when the apostles first attached themselves to Jesus, it is evident they only considered him as being such a Messiah as the rest of the Jews expected, viz. a man, and a king. When Nathaniel was introduced to him it was evidently in that light, John i. 45. Philip findeth Nathaniel, and saith unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. He had then, we may suppose, no knowledge even of the miraculous conception.

Now, as you say, p. 24, that " Christ was so much

more than man, that his being found in fashion as a man was really the most extraordinary part of his history and character;" and at first the apostles, you must allow, were wholly ignorant of this; there must have been a time within the compass of the evangelical history when this most extraordinary part of his character was communicated to them. Now what period in the gospel history can you pitch upon, in which you can suppose that this great discovery was made to them? What traces do you find of it?

That Jesus was even the Messiah was divulged with the greatest caution, both to the apostles and to the body of the Jews. For a long time our Lord said nothing explicit on this subject, but left his disciples as well as the Jews at large to judge of him from what they saw. In this manner only he replied to the messengers that John the Baptist sent to him.

If the high-priest expressed his horror by rending his clothes on Jesus avowing himself to be the Messiah, what would he have done if he had heard, or suspected, that he had made any higher pretensions? And if he had made them, they must have transpired. When the people in general saw his miraculous works, they only wondered that God should have given so much power to a man, Matt. ix. 8. When the multitude saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, who had given such power unto men; and yet this was on the occasion of his pronouncing the cure of a paralytic person, by saying, Thy sins be forgiven thee, which the Pharisees thought to be a blasphemous presumption.

At the time that Herod heard of him, it was conjectured by some that he was Elias, by others that he

was a prophet, and by some that he was John risen from the dead; but none of them imagined that he was either the most high God himself, or the maker of the world under God. It was not so much as supposed by any person that Jesus performed his mighty works by any proper power of his own; so far were they from suspecting that he was the God who had spoken to them by Moses, as you now suppose him to have been.

If he was known to be a God at all before his death, it could only have been revealed to his disciples, perhaps the apostles, or only his chief confidants among them, Peter, James, and John, suppose on the mount of transfiguration, though nothing is said concerning it in the history of that transaction. Certainly what they saw in the garden of Gethsemane could not have led them to suspect any such thing. But if it had ever been known to Peter, can we suppose he could have denied him as he did? Besides, as our Lord told them there were many things which he could not inform them of before his death, and that they should know afterwards; this was a thing so very wonderful and unsuspected, that if any articles of information were kept from them at that time, this must certainly have been one.

If you suppose that Thomas was acquainted with this most extraordinary part of his master's character, which led him to cry, My Lord and my God, when he was convinced of his resurrection, as he was not one of the three who had been intrusted with any secrets, it must have been known to all the twelve, and to Judas Iscariot among the rest. And suppose him to have known and to have believed that Jesus was his