This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this text, in whole or in part. Please contact project staff at eebotcp-info@umich.edu for further information or permissions.
FRom the Nazarens, that is, the Jewish Christians, I go on to the Alogi or Alogians, who were the an∣tient Gentile Christians. They were called Alogian, or Alogi, because they denied the Logos or WORD, of which St. John speaks in his Gospel, Epistles and Revelation: they said, that all those Pieces were written by Cerinthus, under the Name of St.
John; to confirm Cerinthus his Con∣ceits about the Logos, and the Mille∣nium or thousand Years Reign of Christ here upon Earth. For tho the Alogi held, that the Lord Christ is a Man only; as also did Cerinthus; yet Cerinthus (of the antient Unita∣rians) had these two things, peculiar to himself. 1. That the World was made, not immediately by God; but by God, by the Ministry of his Angels. 2. That the Lord Christ was a Man only, the Son of Joseph and Mary; but there rested on him the Logos or Divine WORD, which he also called the Christ, by which Cerinthus intended the Spirit, Ener∣gy or Power of God, that Power by which he created Original Matter, and made the World: but as the Christ or WORD descended on Je∣sus at his Baptism, so it left him at his Crucifixion. The Alogians be∣lieved none of these things: they said, they had only received from the Aposiles; that the Lord Christ was the great Prophet promised by Moses in the Law, and the Messias (or Christ) intended in the Prophet Da∣niel, and who (in the Fulness of Time) was sent by God to unite both Jews and Gentiles under one com∣mon Institution, or Law of Religion.
Epiphanius is the first, who gave to them the Name of Alogi: before him, that is before the Year 368, they were simply called Christians; without any other Name, that might signify them to be a particular Sect. They were those Christians of the Gentiles, who retained the sincere Apostolick Doctrine concerning the Unity of God, and the Person of our Saviour, without corrupting it (more or less) with Platonick Notions, or Gnostick Novelties: they were very antient, co-eval with the Apostles; and flourished (as the prevailing Par∣ty) in the Period called the Aposto∣lick Succession, or to about the Year 140. Epiphanius all along speaks of them, as the antient Unitarians of the Gentiles: He says also expresly, Theo∣dotus adjunxit se Haeresi Alogorum; Theodotus joined himself to the Sect and Churches of the Alogians. Theo∣dotus appeared about the Year 190; by joining himself to the Alogian Sect, we learn, that before he was of the Number of the (new) Platonick Christians; who held the Pre-ex∣istence of our Saviour. Eusebius is strangely out, or prevaricates too no∣toriously, when he says, Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 28. that this Theodotus was the first, who held that our Saviour was a mere Man: for not only the Alogians so held, but so also did both sorts of Ebionites, and that by Con∣fession of Eusebius himself elsewhere, particularly H. Eccl. l. 3. c. 27. But Eusebius takes all Occasions, tho ne∣ver so fraudulently, to depress the Unitarians, whom he had undertaken to confute in the Person of Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra. We may take notice too, that the Excerpta at the End of Clemens of Alexandria his Books of Stromata, which bear the Title of the Oriental Doctrine of Theodotus, were not Particulars of the Doctrine of Theodotus the Unita∣rian;
for the Doctrine of Theodotus was diametrically opposite to the Contents of those Excerpta: but the Excerpta are nothing else but a Frag∣ment of the Hypotyposes of St. Cle∣mens himself; which also is observed by the learned Valesius, in his first Note on Euseb. H. E. l. 5. c. 11. and again on lib. 6. c. 14. In few Words; that the Alogi held our Sa∣viour was a Man only, is not questi∣oned by any: that they belonged at least to the Apostolick Succession is proved; because 'tis confessed by the Trinitarian Historians, that the Theo∣dotians (who appeared about the Year 190) joined themselves to the Alogian Churches; and because Epi∣phanius speaks of them (throughout) as flourishing in that Period. We have therefore deservedly here reckoned them, among the antient and first Witnesses of the true Doctrine. As to the Reasons which they gave, and which I affirm not, against the Go∣spel, and other Works, which we now account to St. John, I have al∣ready (briefly) intimated them, in the Considerations on the 4 Sermons of his Grace the Archbishop of Can∣terbury. It was 400 Years before the Epistle to the Hebrews was re∣ceived as Canonical, any where in the West, and but in few Places of the Orient; and other Books of the New Testament, especially St. John's Revelation, were not presently ad∣mitted by the Catholick Church: it ought not therefore to seem strange, that the modern Unitarians allow of the Gospel and other Pieces of St. John; tho they are aware that many of the Antients, and particularly some Unitarians suspected, and (too hastily) rejected them. As it often happens, that Time detects Frauds and Falshoods, so also (not unfre∣quently) it discovers and vindicates oppressed Truths.
The last Monument or Remain of the Apostolick Succession, which agrees with the Socinian Doctrine concern∣ing our Saviour, are the Recognitions, imputed to Clemens Romanus. They seem to be falsly reckoned to St. Cle∣mens: but they are very antient, published (probably) in the Begin∣ning of the 2d Century, or the second Century being but little advanced; when so many other spurious Pieces were set forth, under the Names of Apostles, or of Apostolical Men. The Recognitions are quoted (divers times) by Origen, who began to flourish about the Year 210. But they are much antienter than Origen, for in a Fragment of Bardesanes (apud Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 6. c. 10.) who flourished about the Year 170, there is a Passage taken word for word out of the 9th Book of the Re∣cognitions. Whereas Dr. Cave con∣jectures, that Bardesanes was the Au∣thor of the Recognitions; his Guess is nothing probable, nay a manifest Mistake; because the Author of the Recognitions was an Ebionite; but Bardesanes a Valentinian, that is, held the Pre-existence of our Saviour, and that he was not (as the Apostle speaks) made of a Woman, but brought his Flesh from Heaven. It
remains therefore, that the Recogni∣tions are antienter, not only than O∣rigen, but than Bardesanes: how much antienter we cannot determi∣nately say; but probably published when the 2d Century was but little advanced, when so many affected to countenance their own Productions, with the authoritative Names of the Aposiles and Apostolical Men. But tho the Recogaitions are not the Work of Clemens Romanus, yet they serve to let us know, what Doctrines and Rites were current or in use in those times: and to this purpose they are quoted by the severely Criticks, of all Parties and Perswasions. I shall not need to cite particular Passages out of these Books: for 'tis consessed by the Trinitarian Criticks, and by Monsieur du Pin, who hath written last on the Fathers, that the Author of the Recognitions was a manifest Ebionite. Eccl. Hist. cent. 1. p. 28.
But hitherto of the Apostolick Fa∣thers, and the Writings and Remains of the Apostolick Succession. I have proved, I think, that hitherto we have no certain or probable notice, that there were yet any who publick∣ly professed to hold the Pre-existence of our Saviour; or that he was God, in any Sense of that Word. But on the contrary, the Apostles Creed. the true (and by all confessed) St. Cle∣mens Romanus, the Nazaren, Minean or Ebionite (that is, the Jewish) Churches, the Alogians (or Gentile Churches) Hegesippus the Father of Ecclefiastical History, the most antient Author of the Recognitions, were all of them Unitarians; that is, held there is but one Divine Person, and the Lord Christ was a Man only.
It should seem then, that very thing hapned to the Christian Church, which had formerly come to pass in the Church of the Jews. For as the Author of the Book of Judges (Judg. 2.7.) says;
"The People of Israel served the Lord, all the Days of Joshua, and of the Elders that outlived Joshua;—but when all that Generation was gathered to their Fathers, there arose another after them, which knew not the Lord: so the Children of Israel did Evil in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim, i. e. the Gods.In like manner, while the Apostles lived, and those Elders who had con∣versed with the Apostles, the Christi∣an Church kept her self to the Ac∣knowledgment and Worship of the one true God; and preserved the true Doctrine and Faith concerning the Person of the Lord Christ, that he was a holy Man, the great Pro∣phet and Messias, promised in the Law and other Book, of the Old Testament. But 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Aposiles themselves, and the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the A∣postolick Succussion, were gathered to their Fathers, then 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Corrup∣tions to prevail apace: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they san∣cied a pre-existent 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of God, God's Minister and Instrument in the creating of all things, and but little less than his Father. A Son, said they, who being (tho but the instru∣mental, yet) the immediate Creator of all things, is to be worshipped by
us his Creatures. A Son, who, tho with respect to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as they still spoke) the true and very God the Father, is but a Minister and Subject; yet with respect to us (his Creatures) is a God. A Son, who must be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a God: tho on∣ly the Father may be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the God; that is, God by way of Ex∣cellence and true Propriety. In a word, after the Apostles, and Apo∣stolical Elders or Pastors, were com∣posed to rest, the next Generation, like the Jewish Church, did Evil in the Sight of the Lord, and served Baalim: that is, the half-Gods of their own devising. Nemo repente fit turpissimus, therefore here they stop a considerable time; namely, from about the Year 140 and 150, to the Nicene Council, or the Year 325. at what time, as we shall see hereaf∣ter, Superstition and Impiety made a sudden and wonderful Advance.
The first Defender and publick Pa∣tron of the Apostacy, mentioned in the foregoing Paragraph, was Justin Martyr, about the Year 150. Our Opposers can quote no Father (or genuine Monument) older than Ju∣stin Martyr, for the Pre-existence of our Saviour; or that he ought to be called a God, in so much as the re∣strained inseriour Sense, before said. Dr. Bull indeed pretends to prove the contrary, from (the counterseit) Bar∣nabas, the false Ignatius, aliàs Pio∣nius, and the Impostor Hermas: how injudiciously, I think, hath been competently shown in these present Papers; but I will yet oppose to him one Authority, which (I doubt not) will convince the indifferent unpre∣judiced Reader.
Eusebius, that capital Antagonist of the Nazaren and Alogian Christi∣ans; and who searched with the ut∣most Diligence, into the remotest An∣tiquity, for whatsoever might seem to make against them, quotes (H. E. l. 5. c. 28.) a very antient Au∣thor, whom (in his foregoing Chap∣ter) he reckons among the Ecclesi∣astical Writers that deserve (saith he) to be esteemed for their laudable Zeal and Industry. This laudable Man, you must know, wrote a Book against the Theodotians and Artemonites, who were Branches of the Alogians: what Eusebius there cites out of him, is as follows:
"The Unitarians pretend, that the Apostles and all the Antients held the very Do∣ctrine, concerning the Person of our Saviour, that is now main∣tained by the Unitarians: and that it is but only since the Times of the Popes Victor and Zepherin, that the Truth has been adultera∣ted and discountenanced. This would be credible, if (first) the Unitarian Doctrine were not con∣trary to Holy Scripture; and if divers before Victor and Zepherin had not contended for the Divi∣nity of the Lord Christ, namely, Justin Martyr, Miltiades, Tatia∣nus, Clemens of Alexandria, Ire∣neus, Melito. To whom we may add the antient Hymns or Psalms, wrote from the beginning by the Brethren; which speak of Christ,
as the WORD of God, and attri∣bute to him Divinity.I will omit now, that all these, but only Justin, were but Contemporaries to Victor and Zepherin; or after them: for it is home to my purpose, that the first whom our Opposers (of those early times) could quote, was Justin Martyr, who saith himself, in his first Apology, that he presented his Apology in the Year 150. The Epistles of Barnabas and Ignatius, and the Prophecies and Visions of Hermas, were not (it should seem) yet come out of the Mint; or were so well known to be Impostures, that no Body durst to alledg them, in these Controversies. The Question be∣tween Dr. Bull and the present Uni∣tarians is, concerning the Fathers and Monuments of the Apostolick Suc∣cession: whether these held our Savi∣our's Pre-existence and Divinity? Eusebius answers us, out of a lauda∣ble Author; that Justin Martyr op∣posed our Doctrine, that is, he gi∣veth up to us the whole Apostolick Succession; which is as much as the Socinians ever claimed. As to the Hymns or Psalms of the Brethren, which (he saith) spoke of Christ as the WORD of God, and attributed to him Divinity; 'tis plain, that he spoke rashly and at adventures, when he added, they were composed by the Brethren from the very first: for see∣ing the Authors of them were un∣known; so also of necessity must their Date. Is doubt not, these are the Psalms in Honour of Christ, which were put down in the Patriar∣chal Church of Antioch, under this Censure, that in very deed they were novel Compositions, by later Men, and containing some dangerous Strains. As we learn from a Letter of the Council at Anticch, apud Euseb. H. E. l. 7. c. 30.
Having said what was necessary, concerning the Apostolick Fathers, I might now proceed immediately to the Primitive Fathers, so called, to distinguish them from the Fathers that lived after the Nicene Council, or the Year 325, who are simply called Fathers. But because I would have nothing else to do, in the 2d and 3d Parts of this Answer to Dr. Bull, but only to examine and dis∣cuss his (impertinent and most frau∣dulent) Citations out of the Fa∣thers; and to oppose to them (the certain and clear) Testimonies of the same (and other) Fathers: therefore here I will consider the two Passages in Dr. Bull's Defence of the Nicene Council, which (in my opinion) are the only Parts of his Book that needed to be at all remarked on by the Soci∣nians. The first is, concerning the Grounds on which Justin Martyr and the following Fathers built their new Doctrine of our Saviour's Pre-ex∣istence; and that he was (tho a Mi∣nisterial and Subordinate, yet) an A∣gent in the Creation of all things. The other is; whether the Explication of the Trinity (or how three Divine co∣eternal co-equal Persons and Spirits, can be but one God) given by Dr. Bull, as out of the Fathers, be not an unde∣niable unavoidable Tritheism?