"and incarnation, though it is introduced. by John in a different manner from the "reft, but in perfect agreement with them. I fay, that the doctrine not

"But how?

being taught at firft, it was proper to "dwell upon the incarnation, and to exer"cife them in the doctrine of the flesh; "teaching them, from things grofs and "fenfible; but when the doctrine was fix"ed, and the preaching received, it was "then proper to ascend higher *

Cyril of Alexandria, explaining a paffage in Isaiah, fays, "here he mixes a great and profound mystery, which required a myf❝tical initiation; for fo it was revealed to "the divine Peter †.'

* Ούτω δη και η ταξις αύτη η περι της θεότητος και περι της οικονομιας, ει και απεναντίας τοις άλλοις γεγονε παρα Ιωάννε, αλλ' όμως σφοδρα συμφώνως αυτοις. κ) πως; εγω λεγω' ότι παρα μεν την αρχήν εδέπω τε λογο σπαρείλος, ακολυθον ην τω της οικονομίας ενδιατρίβειν λόγω, και περι της σαρκος γυμνάζειν διδασκαλίαν απο των παχύτερων κι αισθητων προοιμιαζομενες . επειδη δε επαγη τα της γνώσεως, καὶ εδεξαντο το κήρυγμα, λοιπον εύκαιρον ην ανωθεν άρχεσθαι. In Pl. 44. Opera, vol. 3. p. 223.

+ Immifcet autem hic myfterium profundum et magnum, et quod fuperna quadam myftagogia opus habet. Revelatum eft enim fic divino Petro.

Opera, vol. 1. p. 472.

In If. cap. 49.

Agobard

Agobard confidered what John taught concerning the divinity of Chrift as being fo difficult to be understood, that, in order to it, the fame inspiration was necessary that he himself had*.

"Perfection," fays Ecumenious," is the "doctrine concerning the divinity of Christ, "as far as the human understanding can comprehend it +." Again, he says, " by " first elements the apoftle means the incar"nation. For, as with refpect to letters, "fo in the divine oracles, what relates to "the incarnation must be learned in the "first place; for these were capable of

being received by unbelievers and chil"dren; but to philofophize concerning "the divinity of Chrift, is left to grown "men. Do you fee why he rests so

* Inde qui hæc dixit accepit Johannes ille, qui difcumbebat fuper pectus domini, et de pectore domini bibebat quod nobis propinaret. Sed propinavit verba. Intelletum autem debes capere unde et ipfe biberat qui tibi propinavit. De Imaginibus, p. 231.

+ Τελειοίης δε η ανωλαίω η περι της θεολογίας χρισ8. καθόσον επιν avIgwπo duvalov, angiens nalams. In Heb. Opera, vol. 2.

P. 35.

"" account

"account of the weaknefs of his hearers, "who were not able to receive the perfect « doctrine. For which reafon, having in the beginning of the epiftle philofophized "but a little concerning the divinity of • Chrift, he prefently changed his dif« courfe, and the epiftle is full of low things*.” This he gives from Photius. Again, after having obferved that the author of the epistle to the Hebrews had spoken of the naked word of God, he fays, that "he “ returned to the incarnation, left he fhould "confound his reader with the fublimity "of his doctrine+."

We fee then, that, in the opinion of these Fathers (and fome of them who write in

είσ

* Στοιχεία αρχής, την ενανθρώπησιν λέγει . ωςπερ γαρ επι των γραμμαίων πρώτον τα τοιχεια μανθάνομεν. είως και επι των θείων λογιων εδει πρώτον τα περί της ενανθρωπήσεως διδάσκεσθαι . ταύτα γαρ ταις απίτοις έτι και νηπιαις ακοαις χωρήλα . ως το γε περι της θεότητος τα χρισε φιλοσοφειν, τελείων ην λοιπον . όρας την αίλιαν δι ην τοις ταπεινοις εμφι λοχώρει ; δια την των ακκινίων ασθένειαν. εκ ισχυονίων τα τελεια δεξα σθαι· διο καὶ παρα τας αρχας της επιτολής βραχέα φιλοσοφησας περι της θεοληίας το χρισε. ευθυς κατέπαυσε τον λόγον . των μεντοι ταπείνων η επιτολή γεμεί. Ibid. p. 352.

† Ερηκως περι γυμν το θες λόγε, ήλθεν εις την ενανθρώπησιν, ινα μη τω υψει των ειρημέναν ιλιγγιάσωσι. In Heb. cap. 1. vol. 2.

320.

Ρ.

this

this manner lived pretty early, though others of them wrote in a later period) there were very mysterious and difficult doctrines to be revealed, of which no perfon to whom chriftianity was preached had the leaft conception, and to which it was apprehended they must be exceedingly averfe. Let us now fee in what manner they fuppofed that our Saviour and the apoftles conducted themfelves in this nice circumftance, and what period it was that they thought to be the moft proper for making the great discovery.

To give fome idea of the nature of this queftion, I would obferve, that, if it fhould appear that a discovery of fo great magnitude, as the Fathers reprefent this to have been, made no noife at all at the time fixed for the discovery, if it excited no particular attention; neither occafioning any doubt or controverfy among chriftians themselves, nor bringing any objection to their doctrine from their enemies, it will afford a strong reafon to fuppofe that no fuch discovery was made at that particular time. Jews, to whom the gofpel was first preached, as the Fathers admitted, expected no

The

thing more than a man for their Meffiah. They were fully fenfible that no Jew had any idea of his having pre-exifted at all, and much less of his having held any office of importance before he came into the world. When was it, then, that the Jews, to whom the gofpel was preached, were taught that Chrift had pre-exifted, that he was the logos of God, the maker of the world under God, or properly God himself?. Was it in our Saviour's own life-time? Was it at the descent of the Spirit at Pentecoft? Or was it in a later period of the gofpel hiftory? If no traces can be perceived of any fuch difcovery, in any period of the gospel history, an argument may be drawn from the confideration of it, highly unfavourable to the doctrine of Chrift having any nature fuperior to that of man; and when this circumftance fhall be fufficiently attended to (as I fufpect it never has been yet) the Arian hypothefis must be greatly fhaken, but especially that of the perfect equality of the Son to the Father.

Confiderations of this kind, if they occur, to him, no perfon, who thinks at all, can abfolutely