LETTER IV. Of the inference that may be drawn from the passage of Athanafius, concerning the opinion of the early Jewish Chriftians relating to Chrift. DEAR SIR, A Jerufalem was properly unitarian, maintain- ing the fimple humanity of Chrift, I obferved, that to use great caution in divulging the doctrine "of the proper divinity of Chrift." This I maintain to be a fhort, but true state of the cafe. Athanafius both expressly allowed that the Jewish chriftians were at first of the opinion that Chrift was no more than a man, and he accounts for the apostles conniving at it, without faying how long that prudent connivance continued. In my Appendix you will find a fomewhat fuller ftate of the argument. I fhall now diftin&ly confider all that you have advanced to invalidate the inference that I have made from this remarkable paffage. I fhall afterwards fhew that it was not Athanafius D 3 Athanafius only, but Chryfoftom also; and as he fays, the antients, and the moft diftinguished fathers of the church, who gave the fame representation of the ftate of things in the apoftolical age. You fay, p. 22. that Athanafius is here speaking of the unbelieving Jews. The expreffion is 01 TOTE Indagio, the Jews of that age; which includes both the believing and unbelieving Jews. Had he been speaking of the Jews of his own time, it would, I own, have been probable that he meant the unbelieving Jews; but speaking, as he does, of the Jews at the very first promulgation of christianity among them, it is moft natural to fuppofe that he meant all the Jews. Paul, long after his converfion to christianity, called himself a Jew. However, it will be fufficiently evident from the whole tenor of the paffage, that he must have meant the believing Jews principally, and in fome refpects the believing Jews only, exclufive of the unbelieving ones. And in this construction of the paffage I am by no means fingular, but have the fanction of trinitarians themselves. But admitting that the Jews here meant were unbelieving Jews, they were fuch as the apostles wished to convert to christianity, and many of them foon became christians. How the apostles conducted themselves with refpect to these men, first unbelieving, and then believing Jews, Athanafius thus informs us. the fidelity of the Our readers may judge of tranflation by confulting the original original in the margin; and as I only abridged the paffage before, I shall now give a larger portion of it at full length, for the whole is much too large to tranfcribe *. « Will they affirm that the apoftles held the doctrine of Arius, because they fay that Chrift was a man of Nazareth, “ and fuffered on the crois? Or becaufe they ufed "these words were the apoftles of opinion that' " Chrift was only a man, and nothing elfe ? By no means: this is not to be imagined. But "this they did as wife mafter builders, and stewards of the myfteries of God; and they had this fpecious pretence for it. For the Jews of that * Ουδέν γαρ αυτοις ατολμητον, οτι και αυτοί αποςολοί Τα Αρεις εφρονουν. ανθρωπον γαρ αυτον απο Ναζαρετ, και παθητον τον Χρισον απαγγέλλεσιν, εκείνων τοινυν τοιαύτα φανταζομένων, ας επειδη τοις ρημασι τετοις εχρησαν, μονον ανθρωπον ήδεισαν τον Χρισον οι Αποτολοί, και πλέον εδεν μη γενοίο· εκ εςιν ουδέ εις νουν ποτε τετο λαβεῖν· αλλά και το το ως αρχιτεκτονες σωφοι, και οικονομοι μυςηριων θεα πεποιήκασι . και την αίλιαν εχουσιν ευλογον· επειδή γαρ οι τοτε Ικδαίοι πλανηθέντες, και πλανησαντες Έλληνας, ἔνομιζον τον Χρισον, ψιλον ανθρωπον, μόνον εκ σπερματος Δαβίδ ερχέθαι, και ομοιοτητα των εκ τοὶ Δαβίδ αλλων γενομένων ουτε δε θεον αύζο», ουδε οτι λογος σαρξ εγένετο επισίυον . τούτου ενέκα, μετά πολλής της συνέσεως οι μακαρίοι απόςολοι τα ανθρωπινα τα σωτηρος εξηγούν ο πρώτον τοῖς Ιεδαίοις, ινα ολως πείσαντες αυτους, εκ των φαινομένων και γενομενων σημείων, ἐληλυθηναι τον Χρισον, λοιπον και εἰς τα περι της θεότητος αυτέ πιςιν αυτους αναγάγωσιν, δεικνυνίες οτι τα γενόμενα έργα εκ έσιν άνθρωπο, αλλά θεό. αμελεί Πέτρος ο λεγων ανδρα παθητον τον Χρισον, ευθυς συνηπίει όλος αρχηγος της ζωης έσιν. &c. &c, De Sententia DionyGi, Opera. vol. i. p. 553, 5540 τεκνων D 4 σε age age, being deceived themfelves, and having "deceived the Gentiles, thought that Chrift was a "mere man, only that he came of the feed of "David, refembling other defcendants of David, "and did not believe either that he was God, or "that the word was made flefh. On this account "the bleffed apostles, with great prudence, in the "first place, taught what related to the humanity "of our Saviour to the Jews; that having fully "perfuaded them, from his miraculous works, "that Chrift was come, they might afterwards "bring them to the belief of his divinity, fhewing "that his works were not thofe of a man, but of, "God. For example, Peter having faid that "Christ was a man who had suffered, immediately “added, he is the prince of life. In the gospel he "confeffes, Thou art the Chrift, the fon of the "living God; and in his epiftle he calls him the bifhop of Souls." 66 Here, I think, are fufficient marks of great caution, and of the apoftles leading their converts to the knowledge of the divinity of Chrift, by very diftant and uncertain inferences indeed, fuch as Jews, fo previously perfuaded as he reprefents them to have been, of the fimple humanity of their Meffiah, would not very readily understand. Now if this caution was requifite in the first instance, and with refpect to the first converts that the apostles made, it was equally requifite with refpect to the reft, at least for the fake of others who were not 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 fuch a Meffiah as they expected, viz. a man like themfelves, but the eternal God, the difference was fo 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 fo highly improbable to them) must have been impeded. We may therefore prefume, that, the apoftles must have connived at this state of ignorance, concerning the divinity of Chrift, in their Jewish converts, till there was little hope of making any farther converts among the Jews, and till the gospel began to be preached to the Gentiles. Indeed, this must have been the cafe, according to Athanafius's own account. For he fays, that thefe Jews, being in an error themselves, led the Gentiles into the fame error. For your notion, that by Gentiles, our author here meant profelytes of the gate, is altogether arbitrary and improbable. Nay, the very existence of these profelytes of the gate, you must know has been questioned, and I think fully difproved by Dr. Lardner and others. Befides, it is not to be fuppofed, that the doctrine of a Meffiah could have been very interefting to any, befides native Jews, or at the most, those that were complete profelytes; whereas to the Gentile chriftians it was a matter of the greatest moment. By these Gentiles, therefore, I conclude that Athanafius must have meant chriftian Gentiles, and confequently |