"This," fays he, "we ought to understand, "that as the law was a fhadow of good things "to come, fo is the gospel as it is understood

by the generality. But that which John calls "the everlasting gofpel, and which may be more "properly called the Spiritual, inftructs the in"telligent very clearly concerning the Son of "God. Wherefore the gospel must be taught "both corporeally and spiritually; and when it "is neceffary we must preach the corporeal gof"pel, faying to the carnal that we know nothing "but Jefus Chrift and him crucified. But when "perfons are found confirmed in the fpirit, bring"ing forth fruits in it, and in love with heavenly wisdom, we muft impart to them the logos re"turning from his bodily ftate, in that he was in "the beginning with God *."

"There,

μεν πασων γράφων είναι τα ευαγγέλια, των δε ευαγγελιων υπαρχην το κατά Ιωάννην, ὁ τον νεν εδεις δυναται λάβει μη αναπέσων επι το ςήθος Ιησε, μηδε λαβων απο Ίησε την Μαριάν γενομένην και αυτό μητέρα; καὶ τηλικεῖον δε γενέθαι διε τον εσομενον άλλον Ιωάννην, ως τε οιονει τον Ιωάννην δειχθήναι ονία Ιησεν απο Ιησε-κὶ γαρ πας ο τετελειωμενο ζη εκετι, αλλ ἐν αυτω ζη Χρισος, και επει ζη εν αυτώ Χριςθ, λεγεται ope aufs in Mapia, ide o vi os o Xpis. Comment in Johan. vol. II. p. 5.

Και τότο δε ειδεναι έχρην, ότι ως περ ἐσι νομῷ σκιαν παρέχων των μελλόντων αγαθών, υπό το κατ' αλήθεια καταγγελλομενο νομο δηλωμένων ; σίω και ευαγγελιου σκιαν μυςηρίων Χρισε διδάσκει, το νομιζόμενον υπο πάντων των ANTONY APOPTON POand 21. O de quoir Iwarrus svayy shior Zimrior, σικέως αν λεχθησομένων πνευματικού, σαφώς παράτησε τους

"There are," fays he, "who partake of the "logos which was from the beginning, the logos "that was with God, and the logos that was « God, as Hofea, Ifaiah, and Jeremiah, and any « others that fpeak of him as the logos of God, " and the logos that was with him; but there are others who know nothing but Jefus Chrift " and him crucified, the logos that was made "flesh; thinking they have every thing of the logos when they acknowledge Chrift according to the flesh. Such is the multitude of those « who are called chriftians *.39

"Again, he fays, "the multitudes (i. e. the great mass or body) of believers are instructed "in the fhadow of the logos, and not in the

νουσι τα πάντα ενώπιον περί υικ τε θεο.-Διοπερ αναγκαίον πνευματικως και σωματικώς Χρισιανίζειν και από μεν χρη το σωματικόν κηρύσσειν ευαγγελιον, φάσκοντα μηδεν ειδεναι τοις σαρκικοίς ο Ιησεν Χρισον καὶ τείον εσαυρωμένον, τότο ποιητέον. επαν δε ευρεθώσι κατηρτισμένοι τω πνεύματι, και καρποφορώντες εν αυτώ, ερωντές τε ερανιό σοφίας, μεταδοτέον αυτοις το λόγο, επανελθονα από το σεσαρκωθοις εφ ο ην εν αρχή προς τον θεον. Comment. in Johan. vol. 11. p. 9.

* Ουτω τοινυν οι μεν τινες μέτεχεσίν αυτό το εν αρχη λογο και προς τον θεον λογο, και θες λόγε, ως περ ωστε και εσειας κα σερεμίας, και ει τις ετερος τοῖστον εαυτον παρέςησεν ως τον λόγον κρυικ, η τον λόγον γενέθαι προς αυτόν. ετερος δε οι μηδεν ειδοτές έιμη Ιησεν Χρισον καὶ τετον εσαυρωμένον, τον γενόμενον σαρκα λόγον, το παν νομίζοντες είναι το λογο Χρισον κατα σαρκα μόνον γνώσκεσι. Τέτο δε εςι το πλήθος των πεπιςευκείναι νομιζομένων. Comment. in Johan. vol. II. p. 49.

σε true

"true logos of God, which is in the open "heaven *."

These humble chriftians of Origen who got no farther than the fhadow of the logos, and the fimplices and idiota of Tertullian, were probably the fimplices credentium of Jerom, who, as well as the heretics, he fays, " did not understand the

scriptures as became their majesty.” For had thefe fimple chriftians, within the pale of the church, inferred from what John fays of the logos, and from what Chrift fays of himself, that he was, perfonally confidered, equal to the father, Jerom would hardly have faid that they did not underftand the fcriptures according to their majesty: for he himself would not pretend to a perfect knowledge of the mystery of the trinity. "For "thefe fimple chriftians, he says, "the earth of "the people of God brought forth bay, as for "the heretics it brought forth thornst." For the intelligent, I fuppofe, it produced richer fruits.

From all these paffages, and others quoted before, especially the major pars credentium of Ter

• Τα δε πλήθη των πεπιτευκεναι νομιζομεναν τη σκια το λογο, και και το αληθινώ λόγω θες εν τω ανεωγοτι κρατο Toysavoris, MaInTever21. Comment. in Johan. vol. II. p. 52.

+ Quod dicitur fuper terram populi mei spinæ et fænum afcendent, referri poteft et ad hæreticos, et ad fimplices quofque credentium, qui non ita fcripturam intelligunt ut illius convenit majeftati. Unde fingula fingulis coaptavimus, ut terra populi dei hæreticis fpinas, imperitis quibufque ecclefiæ fœnum afferat. In If. xxxii. 20. Opera, vol. IV. p. 118.

2

tullian,

tullian, I cannot help inferring, that the doctrine of Chrift being any thing more than a man, who was crucified and rofe from the dead (the whole. doctrine of the incarnation of the eternal logos, that was in God, and that was God) was confidered as a more abstruse and refined doctrine, with which there was no occafion to trouble the common people; and it is evident that this clafs of chriftians was much ftaggered by it, and offended when they did hear of it. This could never have been the cafe if it had been supposed to be the doctrine of the apostles, and to have been delivered by them as the most effential article of chriftian faith, in which light it is now represented. Such terms as fcandalizare, expavefcere, &c. ufed by Tertullian, and Taparoen by Origen, can only apply to the case of some novel and alarming doctrine, fomething that men had not been accustomed to. In the language of Origen, it had been the corporeal gospel only, and not this fpiritual and myfterious one that they had been taught.

Of the light in which the Unitarians were confidered in later ages, and of the state of the common people at all times.

REV. SIR,

IT appears from what has been advanced in the preceding letters, 'that, whatever might be the opinion of the more learned christians, and of course that of the writers, the bulk of the common people were not brought to a belief, or rather a profeffion, of the doctrine of the trinity till a pretty late period; and that if they did not of themfelves leave the communion of the orthodox, and raised no disturbance in the church, they were connived at. In fact, they were confidered by the more learned as fimple ignorant people, who knew no better, and who acquiefced in the doctrine of the simple bumanity of Christ, because they were incapable of comprehending that of his divinity, and the fublime doctrine of three perfons in one God. This must have been the cafe with the woo, the many, or multitude, of Atha

nafius.

This writer, confidering the violence of his cha racter, speaks of the unitarians with a good deal of tenderness on account of the difficulty of underAtanding