It is evident to me that in the time of Origen, viz. the beginning of the third century, the doctrine of the divinity of Christ was so far from being generally received, except by the bishops and the more learned of the clergy, that it was considered as a sublime doctrine, proper indeed for persons who had made advances in divine knowledge, but not adapted to the vulgar, who were content with the plain doctrine of Jesus Christ, and him crucified, looking no further than to his humanity, as it is delivered in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John's doctrine of the logos was thought to be too sublime for the generality of Christians. "No one," says Origen, "taught the divinity of Christ so clearly as John, who presents him to us, saying, I am the light of the world; I am the way, the truth, and the life; I am the resurrection; I am the gate; I am the good shepherd; and in the Revelation, I am the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. We may therefore boldly say, that as the gospels are the first fruits (or most excellent part) of the scriptures, so the gospel of John is the first fruits of the gospels; the sense of which no person can conceive except he who reclines on the breast of Jesus, and who can receive from Jesus his mother Mary, and make her his own. He must be another John, who was shown by Jesus as another Jesus. For, he who is perfect does not himself live, but Christ lives in him; and since Christ lives in him, he says to ὑποκειμενον. και οἱ απο των αἱρέσεων, φαντασία του μεγάλα περι αυτού φρονείν, αδικιαν εις το ύψος λαλούντες, και κακως λέγοντες του δημιουργον, ουκ εισιν ὑπερ αυτού. Comment. in Matt. ;-Origenis Commentar. edit. Huetii, Rothomag. 1668, vol. i. p. 470, Mary concerning him, Behold thy son, Christ himself *", "This," says he, "we ought to understand, that as the law was a shadow of good things to come, so is the gospel as it is understood by the generality. But that which John calls the everlasting gospel, and which may be more properly called the spiritual, instructs the intelligent very clearly concerning the Son of God. Wherefore the gospel must be taught both corporeally and spiritually; and, when it is necessary, we must preach the corporeal gospel, saying to the carnal that we know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified. But when persons are found confirmed in the spirit, bringing forth fruits in it, and in love with heavenly wisdom, we must impart to them the logos returning from his bodily state, in that he was in the beginning with Godt." * Ουδείς γαρ εκείνων ακράτως εφανέρωσεν αυτου την θεότητα ὡς Ιωάννης, παραστησας αυτον λεγοντα, Εγω ειμι το φως του κόσμου, εγω ειμι ἡ ὁδος, και η αλήθεια, και η ζωη. εγω ειμι ἡ αναστάσις, εγω ειμι ή θυρα, εγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλος. και εν τη Αποκάλυψει, Εγω ειμι το α και το ω, ή αρχή και το τελος, ὁ πρωτος και ὁ εσχατος. Τολμητεον τοινυν ειπειν απαρχήν μεν πασων γράφων είναι τα ευαγ γέλια, των δε ευαγγελίων απαρχην το κατα Ιωαννην, οὗ τον νουν ουδεις δυναται λαβειν μη αναπεσων επι το στηθος Ιησου, μηδε λαβων απο Ιησου την Μαρίαν γενομενην και αυτού μητέρα. και τηλικουτον δε γενεσθαι δει τον εσομενον αλλον Ιωάννην, ὡς τε οιονει τον Ιωαννην δείχθηναι οντα Ιησουν απο Ιησού—— και γαρ πας ὁ τετελειωμενος ζῇ ουκετι, αλλ' εν αυτῷ ζη. Χριστός, και επεί ζη εν αυτῷ Χριστος, λεγεται περί αυτού τη Μαρία, Ιδε ὁ υἱος σου ὁ Χριστος. Comment. in Johan. vol. ii. p. 5. + Και τουτο δε είδηναι εχρην, ὅτι ώσπερ εστι νόμος σκιαν περίέχων των μελλόντων αγαθών, ὑπο του κατ' αληθειαν καταγγελλομενου νομου δηλουμένων, ούτω και ευαγγελιον σκιαν μυστηριων Χριστου διδασκει, το νομιζόμενον ὑπο πάντων των εντυγχανόντων νοεισθαι. Ο δε φησιν Ιωαννης ευαγγελιον αιωνιον, οικείως αν λεχθησόμενον πνευματικόν, σαφως παρίστησι τοις νοουσι τα παντα ενώπιον περί αυτού του υιου του Θεου.- - Διοπερ αναγκαιον πνευματικως και σωματικως Χριστιανίζειν, και όπου μεν χρη το σωματικον κηρύσσει» "There are,” says he, "who partake of the logos which was from the beginning, the logos that was with God, and the logos that was God, as Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and any others that speak of him as the logos of God, and the logos that was with him: but there are others who know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified, the logos that was made flesh; thinking they have every thing of the logos when they acknowledge Christ according to the flesh. Such is the multitude of those who are called christians*." Again, he says, "the multitudes (i. e. or body) of believers are instructed in the shadow of the logos, and not in the true logos of God, which is in the open heavent.” These humble christians of Origen, who got no further than the shadow of the logos, and the simplices and idiote of Tertullian, were probably the simplices credentium of Jerom, who, as well as the heretics, he says, “did not understand the scriptures as became their majesty." For had these simple christians, within ευαγγελιον, φασκοντα μηδεν ειδεναι τοις σαρκίνοις η Ιησούν Χριστον και τούτον εσταυρωμενον, τουτο ποιητεον. επαν δε ευρεθώσι κατηρτισ μενοι τῳ πνευματι, και καρποφορούντες εν αυτώ, ερώντες τε της ουρα νιου σοφίας, μεταδοτεον αυτοίς του λόγου, επανέλθοντος από του σεσαρ κωσθαι, εφ' ό ην εν αρχή προς τον θεον. Comment. in Johan. vol. ii. P. 9. * Ούτω τοίνυν οἱ μεν τινες μετεχουσιν αυτού του εν αρχή λόγου και προς τον θεον λόγου, και θεου λόγου, ώσπερ Ωσηε και Ησαιας και Ιερεμίας, και ει τις έτερος τοιουτον ἑαυτὸν παρέστησεν ὡς την λογον κυρίου, η τον λογον γενεσθαι προς αυτόν. έτεροι δε οἱ μηδεν είδοτες ει μη Ιησούν Χριστον και τουτον εσταυρωμένον, τον γενομενον σαρκα λόγον, το παν νομίσαντες είναι του λόγου Χριστον κατα σαρκα μόνον γνώσκουσι. τοιούτον δε εστι το πλήθος των πεπιστευκεναι νόμι ζομενων. Comment in Johan, vol. ii. p. 48, 49. + Τα δε πλήθη των πεπιστευκεναι νομιζομένων τη σκια του λόγου, και ουχι τῳ αληθινῳ λόγῳ θεου εν τῳ ανεωγοτι ουρανῳ τυγχανοντί, μαθητευεται. Comment. in Johan. vol. ii. Ρ. 52. the pale of the church, inferred from what John says of the logos, and from what Christ says of himself, that he was, personally considered, equal to the Father, Jerom would hardly have said that they did not understand the scriptures according to their majesty: for he himself would not pretend to a perfect knowledge of the mystery of the trinity. "For these simple christians," he says, "the earth of the people of God brought forth hay, as for the heretics it brought forth thorns." For the intelligent, I suppose, it produced richer fruits. From all these passages, and others quoted before, especially the major pars credentium of Tertullian, I cannot help inferring, that the doctrine of Christ being any thing more than a man, who was crucified and rose from the dead, (the whole doctrine of the incarnation of the eternal logos, that was in God, and that was God,) was considered as a more abstruse and refined doctrine, with which there was no occasion to trouble the common people; and it is evident that this class of christians was much staggered by it, and offended when they did hear of it. This could never have been the case if it had been supposed to be the doctrine of the apostles, and to have been delivered by them as the most essential article of christian faith, in which light it is now represented. Such terms as scandalizare, expavescere, &c. used by Tertullian, and ragaoσs by ταράσσειν Origen, can only apply to the case of some novel and * Quod dicitur super terram populi mei spinæ et fænum ascendent, referri potest et ad hæreticos, et ad simplices quosque credentium, qui non ita scripturam intelligunt ut illius convenit majestati. Unde singula singulis coaptavimus, ut terra populi dei hæreticis spinas, imperitis quibusque ecclesiæ fœnum afferat. In Is. xxxii. 20. Opera, vol. iv. p. 118. alarming doctrine, something that men had not been accustomed to. In the language of Origen, it had been the corporeal gospel only, and not this spiritual and mysterious one, that they had been taught. 1 am, &c. LETTER IX. Of the Light in which the Unitarians were considered in later Ages, and of the State of the common People at all Times. IT REV. SIR, 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 profession, of the doctrine of the trinity till a pretty late period; and that, if they did not of themselves leave the communion of the orthodox, and raised no disturbance in the church, they were connived at. In fact, they were considered by the more learned as simple ignorant people, who knew no better, and who acquiesced in the doctrine of the simple humanity of Christ, because they were incapable of comprehending that of his divinity, and the sublime doctrine of three persons in one God. This must have been the case with the ci woλhoi, the many, or multitude, of Athanasius. . This writer, considering the violence of his character, speaks of the unitarians with a good deal of tenderness on account of the difficulty of understand |