adaptos is supposed, as it were, the very ground and foundation of his being God; on account of which he is Osos; and without which, consequently, he could not be eós. If therefore the Aóyos be not, in this sense, ayévvηtos and apagros, he is not Osòs, according to Justin Martyr: and yet no man is more express than Justin, every where, in making the Son Oeds, and insisting very much upon it.

3. Justin makes i v to answer to the Platonists' rò ov. (see note 1.) And either of them equivalent to deì v, and that to yéveo un xwv, uncreated, immutable, necessarilyexisting. Now compare note 5. and two more citations given above, p. 27. and from thence it is manifest that Justin makes the Aoyos to be iv, in his own proper person. And he gives the reason here why, or on what account, he might justly style himself Oeds; (and the same must hold for iv;) it is because he is Oeds, as God's Son; πρωτότοκος ὢν τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ Θεὸς ὑπάρχει.

4. Justin Martyr, having taken notice that the Father had properly no name, (see not. 4, 6.) as having nothing antecedent or preexistent, does immediately after repeat the observation of having no name, and applies it to the Son; observing that neither he, properly, has any name, but only some titles or appellations given him, from what he did in time; particularly from his coming forth to create and put into beautiful order the whole system of things. This seems to insinuate his coeternity with the Father; and the more so, because Justin observes, at the same time, that he is emphatically Son of the Father, (¿ μόνος λεγόμενος κυρίως υἱός,) and coexistent (συνών) with his Father before the world; though begotten, or sent forth, in time, to create the universe. These considerations convince me, that Justin as well as Athenagoras taught the

Compare Dial. p. 364, 183, 371, 184. ed. Jebb. I add for illustration these words of Cyril. Ὅπερ ἂν ἐξ ἀγενήτου κ ἀφθάρτα γεγέννηται, τότο πάντως äßdagrov, & àyśvrov. Cyril. Alex. Thesaur. p. 34. Much to the same purpose is that of Philo before Justin. Ὃς τοῦ ἀϊδίου λόγος ὤν, ἐξ ἀναγκὴς καὶ αὐτός is äpdagros. Phil. de Conf. Lingu. p. 326.

strict coeternity of the Son; which is equally true of all the other writers.

Besides this, the several s similitudes, which these authors used to illustrate the nature of that procession, such as the sun and its rays, the fountain and its streams, the root and its branches, one fire lighting another, and the like, manifestly show that they never dreamed of the Son's being created. Then, the care they took lest any one should imagine there was any division of the Father's substance, and their inculcating that he was prolatus, non separatus, brought forth, but not separated from the Father, demonstrate their meaning to be, that here was no production of a new substance, but an emanation, manifestation, or procession of what was before. Farther, their declaring that, though he proceeded from the Father, he was still in the Father, (taken together with the maxim, that "nothing is in God but what is God,") sets the matter beyond all reasonable scruple. In a word; as they all held the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, which is as clear as the light, in their writings; they must have been the most inconsistent men in the world, had they thought that the procession, or generation, of the Son was a creation, or new production, of him; or had they not firmly believed that he existed, the living and substantial Word, from all eternity.

Justin Martyr seems to have spoke the sense of all, in saying, "That the Aóyos coexisted with the Father before "the creatures; and was then begotten, when the Father "at first created and put into beautiful order the frame of "things." See the passage above ". The emperor Con

• Justin. M. Dial. p. 183, 373. Jebb. Athenagoras, p. 40, 96. Ox. ed. Tatian, c. viii. p. 21, 22. Ox. ed. Tertull. Apol. c. 21. adv. Prax. c. 8. Hippolytus contr. Noet. c. xi. p. 13. contr. Jud. p. 4. Fabric. vol. 2.

N. B. Athenagoras's words are, in strictness, meant of the Holy Ghost only, in both places. But the reason being the same for one as the other, they are equally applicable to either; and it is thus only I would be understood, wherever I apply cither of the passages to the Son.

Vid. Bull. D. F. N. p. 198.

"P. 109. Note 6.

stantine afterwards expresses the same thought something more fully and distinctly, thus. "The Son, who was always in the Father, was begotten, or rather proceeded "forth, for the orderly and ornamental methodising of "the creation." I choose to follow the sense, rather than the strict letter. Whether those writers went upon any solid reasons, in assigning such or such parts, in the work of creation, to Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, is not very material. It is manifest they supposed the whole Trinity to be concerned in it; and to create, as it were, in concert. Their ascribing the orderly adjustment and beautifying part to the Son, seems to have been in allusion to his names of λóyos, and copía, and ps. In respect of the last of them, Hippolytus supposes the generation to be posterior to the creation, upon God's saying, "Let there "be light." Then did the Son proceed pus ex pwrós. Tertullian seems to have had the same thought; and perhaps z Origen. Athenagoras likewise supposes the procession to be after the creating of the unformed mass of things. And yet nothing is plainer than that a all these writers believed the prior existence of the Son; and that things were at first created by him, as well as afterwards adorned and regulated. In short, whatever the Father is supposed to have done, was by his Son and Holy Spirit; therefore frequently styled manus Patris: but the au evría, the designing part, was thought most properly to be reserved to the Father, as the first Person.

કે

These are things not to

* Εγεννήθη, μᾶλλον δὲ προῆλθεν αὐτὸς, καὶ πάντοτε ἐν τῷ πατρὶ ὤν, ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν ir' avrỡ yeyevnμívwv dianóopnow. Apud Gelas. Act. Syn. Nic. part. iii. p. 58. y Contr. Prax. c. vii. 12.

2 Vid. Huet. Origenian. p. 41.

a As to Athenagoras, vid. supra. Tertullian says: Deum immutabilem et informabilem credi necesse est, ut æternum; quodcunque transfiguratur in aliud, desinit esse quod fuerat, et incipit esse quod non erat. Deus autem neque desinit esse, neque aliud potest esse; Sermo autem Deus, &c. Contr. Prax. c. 27. Hippolytus hath these words: Targi ovraïdios, adv. Jud. p. 4. Υἱὸς ἐποίησεν, contr. Noet. p. 16. Αεὶ γὰρ ἦν ἐν δόξῃ θεοπρεπεῖ, τῷ ἰδίῳ συνυπάρχων γεννήτορι πρὸ παντὸς αἰῶνος, καὶ χρόνε, κ τῆς τῷ κόσμῳ καταβολῆς. Fabric. vol. ii. p. 29. Origen we have seen before.

be too curiously inquired into, or too rigorously interpreted; but to be understood Songs. In the whole they have a very good meaning, and were founded in the belief of a coessential and coeternal Trinity.

From what hath been said, I presume it is evident that there was no difference at all, in the main of the doctrine, between these and the other Catholic writers; but a different manner only of expressing the same things. The question was not whether the hypostasis, or Person, of the Son was from all eternity, coeval with the Father, and consubstantial with him; in that they all perfectly agreed. Nor was there any difference about the procession: for the blatter writers acknowledged it, as well as those before them; and made it temporary and voluntary, as those did. But the question was, whether the Son's eternal coexistence (I should rather say the coeternal existence of the Aóyos) should be deemed sonship and filiation or no; or whether the procession might not more properly be so styled. Tertullian (and perhaps others) was of opinion that this latter was perfecta nativitas Sermonis, the perfect nativity or birth of the Word; who had been, as it were, quiescent and unoperating from all eternity, till he came forth to create the world. And Hippolytus carried this notion so far, as to think the filiation not completed till he had run through the last sort of sonship, in becoming man. All this is true, in some sense, and when rightly explained. But other Fathers, thinking this way of speaking liable to abuse and misconstruction; and considering, probably, that the Aoyos, or Word, might properly be

b Vid. Bull. Def. F. N. sect. iii. c. 9.

e Contr. Prax. c. 8.

d Contr. Noet. c. xv. p. 17. Οὔτε γὰρ ἄσαρκος καὶ καθ ̓ ἑαυτὸν ὁ λόγος τέλειος ἦν υἱὸς, καί τοι τίλειος λόγος ὢν μονογενής. It is remarkable, that he makes the Son perfectly μovoysvs, though not perfectly viòs, before the incarnation. Others might perhaps reason, in like manner, with regard to the goiasis; thinking him to have been λóyos, or povoysvas, before it, but not viés.

• Omnis origo parens est; omne quod ex origine profertur, progenies est. Tertull. contra Prax. c. 8. See Novat. above, p. 100.

called Son, in respect of that eternal existence which he ever enjoyed in and from the Father, as the head, root, fountain, and cause of all; they chose to give that the name of generation: and to call the other two f condescensions, manifestations, proceeding forth, or the like. So we have seen it in Methodius, before cited for the eternal generation: and he very probably had the notion from 8 Justin Martyr; who, in like manner, interprets generation, in the secondary sense, by manifestation. And even h Hippolytus, as before observed, explains the procession, or generation of the Son, a little after the creation, by manifestation of him.

After Arius arose, the Catholics found it highly necessary to insist much on the eternal generation. For, the Arians, taking advantage of it, that the temporary condescension of the Son, to create the world, had been often called his generation, were for looking no higher; but artfully insinuated that this was the first production of him; and that it was absurd to talk of the Son's existing before he was begotten: in opposition to which pretence we find the Nicene Fathers anathematising such as should say, that the "Son existed not before he was begotten ;'

Γεννᾷ μὲν ἦν καὶ ὁ ἥλιος τὴν αὐγήν. Eus. Eccl. Th. 1. i. c. 12. p. 73.

Τὸ ἔκ τινες ὑπάρχον υἱός ἐσιν ἐκείνα, ἐξ οὗ καὶ ἔσιν. Athan. Orat. iv. p. 628. f It is observable that Justin Martyr applies the word zgodaλ to the latter of them, as well as to the former. Dial. 228. Jebb.

And, in like manner, Clement of Alexandria uses weλd of both, p. 654. and Hippolytus, of the latter. Contr. Noet. c. 17.

On the words "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” he comments thus : Τότε γένεσιν αὐτοῦ λέγων γίνεσθαι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, ἐξότου ἡ γνῶois avro quedas vívoda. Dial. p. 270. ed. Jebb.

* Τὸν ἴδιον νῦν αὐτῷ μόνῳ πρότερον ὁρατὸν ὑπάρχοντα, τῷ δὲ γινομένῳ κόσμῳ ασυ βατον ὄντα, ὁρατὸν ποιεῖ. C. x. p. 13. A little before he had said, Τῶν δὲ γινομένων ἀρχηγὸν καὶ σύμβολον καὶ ἐργάτην ἐγέννα λόγον, ὃν λόγον ἔχων ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἀόρατόν τε ὄντα, τῷ κτιζομένῳ κόσμῳ, ὁρατὸν ποιεῖ, προτέραν φωνὴν φθεγγόμενος, καὶ φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς γεννῶν.

The words of Zeno Veronensis may be added, as a good comment upon the former. Cujus (Patris) ex ore, ut rerum natura, quæ non erat, fingeretur, prodivit unigenitus Filius, cordis ejus nobilis inquilinus: exinde visibilis effectus, quia humanum genus visitaturus erat, &c.

1 *Ην ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν.