modes of answering the Gnostics, if it had not been supposed that Peter and Clement, though no philosophers, were at least Unitarians.

To the passages quoted from this work before, I shall here add another, in which, contrary to the orthodox doctrine of the world not having been made by God himself, but by the logos, and without noticing any such doctrine, he gives a fine enumeration of the attributes of the one true God, and represents him as the demiurgus, the immediate maker of the world, and all the several parts of it, the heavens and the heavenly bodies, the earth and water, mountains and seas, fountains and fruits, &c. &c. *

1

Dr. Lardner observes, that the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions "may deserve a more particular examination than has yet been given them."+ And, indeed, in the view in which I have mentioned them, and also in many others, they are justly entitled to it; as they contain a particular account of the opinions of those times, especially of the manner in which Christianity was treated and defended by philosophers. More may be learned concerning the theology and philosophy of those times, from this single work, than from many others. It is true that the philosophical doctrines in it are absurd enough; but the age afforded no better, and they are exhibited in a very pleasing dress.

SECTION II.

Direct Evidence in Favour of the Gentile Christians having been generally Unitarians.

BUT there is no occasion to argue in this manner from circumstances and the nature of the thing, since it appears from the evidence of all history, so as never to have been questioned by any writer of reputation, that the Unitarians had not any places of worship separate from those of other Christians in early times. It was allowed by Mosheim, a

Διο, ω τεκνον Κλήμης, επεχε, μη αλλο τι φρονησης περι τα Θεου, η ότι αυτος μονο εσιν Θεός, και κυριος, και πατηρ, αγαθος και δικαιον, δημιεργος, μακροθυμος, ελεημων, τροφευς ευεργείης, φιλανθρωπίαν νομίζευων, άγνειαν συμβελεύων, αιωνιός, αιώνιες ποιων, ασυγκριτΘ, ταις των αγαθών ψυχαις οικιζομενος, αχώρητος και χωρεμενο, ὁ εν απειρῳ τον μεγαν αιώνα ὡς κέντρον πήξας, ὁ ἔρανον εφαπλωσας, και γην πίλωσας, ύδωρ ταμίευσας, αςρα εν κρανῳ διαθεις, πηγας γης βρυσας, καρπες εκφυσας, ορη ύψωσας, θάλασσαν περιορίσας, ανεμός τε και πνευματα διαλαξας· ὁ το περιέχον σωμα εν απειρῳ πελαγει πνευματι βελης arpaing aopatiapers. Hom. ii. Sect. xlv. p. 632. (P.)

+ Credibility, II. p. 804. (P.) Works, II. pp. 358, 359.

zealous Trinitarian, who says, "However ready many have been to embrace this erroneous doctrine, it does not appear that this sect formed to themselves a separate place of worship, or removed themselves from the ordinary assemblies of Christians."* But does it not also follow from the same fact, that these Unitarians were not expelled from Christian societies by others, as they certainly would have been, if they had been considered as heretics?

"In former times," says Nicephorus, "all who were called Christians, though they held different opinions, being considered in the same light by the Gentiles, and suffering from them, made little account of their differences, while they were exposed to equal hardships, on which account they easily joined in the common assemblies; and having frequent intercourse, while they were few in number, did not divide into parties." In these circumstances, however, the Gnostics held separate assemblies, and as the violence of persecution did not make the orthodox receive them into their assemblies, so neither would they have admitted the Unitarians, if they had been at all obnoxious to them.

That Unitarians were included among those who, holding different opinions, were considered by the orthodox as fellowchristians, is evident from the following passage of Origen; but it will be more evident from other passages which I shall have occasion to quote from him hereafter. It is only to be observed, that the Unitarians are here described as being Patripassians; but these were only the more philosophical of the Unitarians, as I shall shew in its proper place. "It is allowed," he says, "that as in the great multitude of believers, who admit of difference of opinion, there are some who say that the Saviour is God over all; but we do not say só, who believe him when he said, 'My Father is greater than I?"" +

Eusebius, describing two sorts of heretics, one of whom denied the humanity of Christ, and the other his pre-existence and divinity, says, that the former were out of the

Eccles. Hist. I. pp. 190, 191. (P.) Cent. ii. Pt. ii. Ch. v. Sect. xx.

† Επι μεν γαρ των ανω χρονων όσοι κλησει Χριςε εσεμνυνονίο, ει και διαφοροι ταις δόξαις ησαν, ισοι πανίες προς των τα Ελληνων θαυμαζονίων ενομίζοντο και κακώς εξ εκείνων πασο χονίες, απολυπραγμόνητον το διακρινεσθαι είχον, κοινας ὑφισαμενοι συμφορας δια τι και ῥᾷςα καθ' ἑαυλες συντονίες, εκκλησιαζον· πυκνήν τε την όμιλαν εχονίες, ει δε ολίγοι ήσαν, öμws ouk eis woλλa dieλudygav. Hist. L. viii. C. lii. I. p. 661. (P.)

† Εςω δε, τινας ώς εν πλήθει πιςευονίων, και δεχομενων διαφωνίαν, δια την προπείειαν αποτίθεσθαι τον σωτηρα είναι τον επι πασι Θεον αλλ' ούτι γε ήμεις τουἶον, οι πειθόμενοι αυτῳ λεγοντι, Ὁ πατηρ, ὁ πέμψας με, μείζων με εσι. Ad Celsum, L. viii. p. 387. (Ρ.) See Vol. XVIII. p. 197. (P.)

church; but he is so far from saying the same of the latter, that he particularly complains that Marcellus, one of them, even presided in it, being then bishop of Ancyra.*

That Chrysostom considered almost all the Christians as being Unitarians in the age of the apostles has been shewn already [p. 429]; and yet he says, that "in their time there was no heresy." This, however, could not be strictly true, because there were Gnostics in the time of the apostles; but they were few compared with their numbers afterwards. On this account, it is said by several of the ancients, that heresy began in the time of Adrian, when the most distinguished of the Gnostics made their appearance. Cyprian says, that "the worst of the heresies did not arise till after the time of the apostles."+

That the common people among Christians were actually Unitarians in the early ages, and believed nothing of the preexistence or divinity of Christ, before the Council of Nice, we have as express a testimony as can be desired in the case. These sublime doctrines were thought to be above their comprehension, and to be capable of being understood and received by the learned only. This we see most clearly in the general strain of Origen's writings, who was himself a firm believer and a zealous defender of the pre-existence and divinity of Christ.

"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 fruit in it, and in love with heavenly

* Των γαρ ἑτεροδόξων, οι μεν, μη προειναι μηδε προϋπαρχειν τον υιον του Θεου φαντές, ανθρωπον είναι αυτον τοις λοιποις όμοιον υποθέμενοι εξ ανθρώπου, υιοθεσια τελιμησθαι αυτόν εφασαν, και τελο δοντες, αθαναίον και αλελευληλον αυτῳ τιμήν και δοξαν και βασίλειαν αιώνιον ὡμολογήσαν' δι δε τον ανθρωπον αρνησαμένοι υιον είναι Θεού, Θεον προονία ὑφεςησαν ο αλλ' δι μεν της εκκλησίας αλλότριοι, μέχρι τοσείε πλανης ελασαν· ὁ δὲ της εκκλησίας του Θεου τοσουτοις καθηγησαμενος χρόνοις, την ύπαρξιν αναιρεί το ύιο το Θεου τῳ αυτό λειτεργησας Svelasp. Contra Marcellum, I. p. 33. (P.)

† Τοτε τοινον, ἥνικα εκηρυτίον αυ οι καλα την οικεμένην πασαν, αίρεσις εδεμια την Ser. Ixi. Opera, V. p. 809. (P.)

1 Et hoc, cum nondum hæretica pestes acriores prorupissent." Epist. i. Opera, pp. 211, 219. (P.)

wisdom, we must impart to them the logos returning from his bodily state, in that he was in the beginning with God.'

"Some are adorned with the logos itself, but others with a logos which is a-kin to it, and seeming to them to be the true logos; who know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified, who look at the word made flesh."+%

"There are," says he, "who receive 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 others who speak of the logos as the logos of the Lord, 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 entirely embraced 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" (that is, the great mass 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 heaven." §

But nothing can be more decisive than the evidence of Tertullian to this purpose, who, in the following passage, which is too plain and circumstantial to be misunderstood by any person, positively asserts, though with much peevishness, that the Unitarians, who held the doctrine of the divinity of Christ in abhorrence, were the greater part of Christians in his time.

“ The simple, the ignorant, and unlearned, who are always

* Και τελο δε ειδέναι έχρην, ότι ώσπερ εςι νομου σκιαν παρεχών των μελλονίων αγαθων, ύπο το κατ' αληθειαν καταγελλομενο νομε δηλεμένων, έτω και ευαγγελιον σκιαν μυστηρίων Χριςε διδασκει, το νομίζομενον ὑπὸ πανίων των εντυγχανονίων νοεισθαι. Ο δε φησιν Ιωαννης ευαγέλιον αιώνιον, οικείως αν λεχθησομενον πνευματικον, σαφώς παρίςησι τοις νοεσι τα πανία ενώπιον περι ύια το Θεου.Διόπερ αναγκαιον πνευματικως και σωματικως Χριςια νίζειν' και όπε μεν χρη το σωμαίικον κηρύσσειν ευαγίελιον, φασκονία μηδεν ειδεναι τοις σαρκικοίς η Ιησέν Χριςον και τείον εσαυρωμενον, τοῖον ποιητεον· επαν δε ευρεθωσι κατηρτιαμένοι τῷ πνευματι, και καρποφορενίες εν αυτῷ, ερώντες το ερανια σοφίας, μεταδολεον αυτοις του λόγου, επανελθονο απο τον σεσαρκώσθαι, εφ' ὁ ην εν αρχή προς τον Θεον. Comment. in Johan. II. p. 9. (P.) See Vol. XVII. p. 198.

† Οι μεν γαρ αυτῷ τῷ λόγῳ κεκοσμηνίαι. Οι δε παρακειμενῳ τινι αυτῷ, και δοκεντι ειναι αυτῷ τῷ πρωίῳ λόγῳ, δι μηδεν ειδοίες, ει μη Ιησεν Χρισον, και τείον εςαυρωμενον, δι τον λογον σαρκα δρωνίες. Comment. in Johan. II. p. 49. (Ρ.)

† Ούτω τοινυν οι μεν τινες μετεχεσιν αυτου του εν αρχῇ λόγου, και προς τον Θεον λόγου, και Θεου λόγου, ώσπερ Ωσηε και Ησαιας και Ιερεμίας, και ει τις έτερος τοιυίον ἑαυτον παρεζησεν ὡς τον λογον κυριε, η τον λόγον γενεσθαι προς αυτον έτεροι δε οι μηδεν ειδοίες ειμη Ιησεν Χρισον και τείον εςαυρωμενον, τον γενομενον σαρκα λόγον, το παν νομίζονίες είναι του λόγου Χριςον καλα σαρκα μόνον γινώσκεσι· τείο δε εςι το πλήθος των πεπιτευκεναι νομιζομενων. Ibid. p. 49. (Ρ.) See Vol. XVIII. pp. 198, 199.

5. Τα δε πλήθη των πεπιςευκεναι νομιζομενων τη σκια του λόγου, και ουχί το αληθική λόγῳ Θεοῦ ἐν τῷ ανεωγοίι ουρανῳ τυγχανοντι, μαθητευεται. Comment. in Johan. II. p. 52. (Ρ.)

the greater part of the body of Christians, since the rule of faith," meaning, probably, the Apostles' Creed, "transfers the worship of many gods to the one true God, not understanding that the unity of God is to be maintained but with the œconomy, dread this œconomy; imagining that this number and disposition of a Trinity is a division of the Unity. They, therefore, will have it that we are worshippers of two, and even of three Gods, but that they are the worshippers of one God only. We, they say, hold the monarchy. Even the Latins have learned to bawl out for the monarchy, and the Greeks themselves will not understand the economy.

It is hardly possible in any words to describe the state of things more clearly than Tertullian here does. It is the language of strong feeling and complaint, the clearest of all proofs that he did not mis-state things on that side, as it would have been for the purpose of his argument to have represented the Unitarians as being inconsiderable on account of their numbers, as well as despicable on account of their want of learning.

Whoever Tertullian meant by the simplices and idiote, for any thing that appears, he meant the whole body of them. His language is general and unlimited. However, I am far from being willing to construe him rigorously, and am ready to allow that some of the simple and unlearned persons he describes might profess to believe the doctrine of the Trinity, though he says nothing of it. But, making all reasonable deductions on this account, he asserts a palpable falsehood, and against himself, if a very great majority of them were not Unitarians.

On the whole, it is impossible not to infer from this passage, that, in the time of Tertullian, the great body of unlearned Christians were Unitarians. Common sense cannot put any other construction on this passage, and Tertullian is far from being singular in this acknowledg

Simplices enim quippe, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotæ, quæ major semiper credentium pars est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei à pluribus diis seculi, ad unicum et Deum verum transfert; non intelligentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua œconomia esse credendum, expavescunt ad œconomiam. Numerum et dispositionem Trinitatis, divisionem præsumunt Unitatis; quando unitas ex semetipsa derivans Trinitatem, non destruatur ab illa, sed administretur. Itaque duos et tres jam jactitant à nobis prædicari, se vero unius Dei cultores præsumunt.- -Quasi non et unitas irrationaliter collecta, hæresim faciat, trinitas rationaliter expensa, veritatem constituat, Monarchiam, inquiunt, tenemus. Et ita sonum vocaliter exprimunt etiam Latini, etiam Opici, ut putes illos tam bene intelligere monarchiam, quam enunciant. Sed monarchiam sonare student Latini, œconomiam intelligere nolunt etiam Græci." Ad Praxeam, Sect, iii. p. 502. (P.) See Vol. XVIII. p. 191.