"being, as it were, a verbal explication of what reason had "first silently thought, disposed, and resolved within it"self."

4. If there still remains any doubt of this matter, there is a farther argument to be urged, which may be justly looked upon as clear, full, and decisive in the case. Had these Fathers believed that the Aóyos, or Word, was an attribute only, or power, &c. before the procession, or generation, which they speak of; then it would follow, that the Son began first to be, and was properly a creature, §§ οὐκ ὄντων, in their opinion; and that procession was but another word for being created. But these writers do expressly guard against any such notion. n Novatian very clearly distinguishes between procession and creation. Athenagoras is still more express to the same purpose; °declaring that the Son was not then made, but had existed in the Father, as the Λόγος, or Word, from all eternity.

Justin Martyr is the first and the most considerable of those writers; and therefore it will be proper to examine his sentiments with a more particular care and exactness. I have selected the most material passages I could find, which may help to give us a just idea of his doctrine; and have placed them in distinct columns in the P margin. It

n Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo dicit, “ Ego ex Deo prodii,” Joh. xvi.- —cum constat, hominem a Deo factum esse, non ex Deo processisse ? c. xxiii.

Ο

Οὐχ ὡς γενόμενον· ἐξ ἀρχῆς γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς νοῦς ἀΐδιος ὤν, εἶχεν αὐτὸς ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸν λόγον ἀϊδίως λογικὸς ὤν. c. x. p. 39.

• 1. Ὁ μὲν γὰρ Μωϋσῆς, ὁ ὢν, ἔφη· ὁ δὲ Πλάτων, τὸ ὄν. ἑκάτερον δὲ τῶν ἀρημένων τῷ ἀεὶ ὄντι Θεῷ προσήκειν φαίνε- | ται· αὐτὸς γάρ ἐσι μόνος ὁ ἀεὶ ὢν γένεσιν δὲ μὴ ἔχων εὑρήσομεν γὰρ αὐτὸν τὸν μὲν ἀγέννητον ἀΐδιον εἶναι λέγοντα· τοὺς δὲ γεννητοὺς ἢ δημιουργητοὺς-γινομένος καὶ ἀπολλυμένες. Paran. p. 90, 91. Οχ.

2. Όσα γάρ ἐσι μετὰ τὸν Θεὸν ἢ ἔσαι ποτέ, ταῦτα φύσιν φθαρτὴν ἔχειν, καὶ οἷά τε ἐξαφανισθῆναι ἢ μὴ εἶναι ἔτι. μό

νης γὰρ ἀγέννητος καὶ ἄφθαρτος Θεός, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Θεός ἐσι. Dial. p. 21. Jebb.

3. Ἐγὼ γὰρ, φησὶν, εἰμὶ ὁ ὤν. ἀντιδιασέλλων ἑαυτὸν δηλονότι ὁ ὢν τοῖς μὴ οὖσιν. Paren. p. 87.

4. Ὄνομα τῷ πάντων πατρὶ θετὸν, ἀγεννήτῳ ὄντι, ἐκ ἔσιν. ᾧ γὰρ ἂν κ ὀνό ματι προσαγορεύηται, πρεσβύτερον ἔχει τὸν θέμενον τὸ ὄνομα, τὸ δὲ Πατὴς, καὶ Θεὸς, καὶ Κτίσης, και Κύριος, και Δεσπότης, οὐκ ὀνόματά ἐσιν ἀλλ ̓ ἐκ τῶν εὐποιϊῶν

would signify little to translate them, because the arguments arising from them are proper only to scholars. I have distinguished the several citations by figures, for the more convenient referring to them.

I. I observe, first, (see notes I, 2.) that he joins ἀγέννητος with ἄφθαρτος and ἀΐδιος; opposing them to φθαρτός, γενόμενος, δημιουργητὸς, and ἀπολλύμενος: here therefore 9 ἀγέννητος is not considered as the personal character of the Father, and as signifying unbegotten; but as it belongs to the τὸ θεῖον, and denotes eternal, uncreated, immutable existence. Either Justin must have believed that ἀγέννητος, in this latter sense, is applicable to the Son; or else he must have supposed him not only γεννητὸς, but γενόμενος, δημιουργητός, and φθαρτός also, which must appear highly absurd to any one who has ever considered Justin's writings.

2. I observe (see note 2.) that God's being ἀγέννητος and

* τῶν ἔργων προσρήσεις. Αpol. ii. p. 13. Θεῷ δὲ οὔτε ὁ τιθεὶς ὄνομα, προϋπῆρχεν, ἔτε αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ὀνομάζειν ὠήθη δεῖν. εἷς ἢ μόνος ὑπάρχων. Paran. p. 87.

5. Ἰουδαῖοι ἦν ἡγησάμενοι ἀεὶ τὸν πα τέρα τῶν ὅλων λελαληκέναι τῷ Μωσεί, τῇ λαλήσαντος αὐτῷ ὄντος υἱὲ τῇ Θεοῦ, ὃς καὶ ἄγγελος καὶ ἀπόςολος κέκληται, δι καίως ἐλέγχονται καὶ διὰ τὰ προφητικοῦ πνεύματος, κ δι' αὐτοῦ τῇ Χρισοῦ, ὡς οὔτε τὸν πατέρα οὔτε τὸν υἱὸν ἔγνωσαν

ὃς καὶ λόγος πρωτότοκος ὢν τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ Θεὸς ὑπάρχει. Apol. i. p. 122, 123.

Compare the citations before given. in p. 27.

6. Ὁ δὲ υἱὸς ἐκείνου, ὁ μόνος λεγόμενος κυρίως υἱὸς, ὁ λόγος πρὸ τῶν ποιημάτων καὶ συνῶν, καὶ γεννώμενος ὅτε τὴν ἀρχὴν δι ̓ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε κ ἐκόσμησε, Χριτὸς μὲν κατὰ τὸ κεχρίσθαι καὶ κοσμῆσαι τὰ πάντα δὲ αὐτοῦ τὸν Θεὸν, λέγεται, ὄνομα κ αὐτὸ περιέχον ἄγνωσον σημα σίαν· ὃν τρόπον καὶ τὸ Θεὸς προσαγά ρευμα ἐκ ὄνομά ἐσιν, ἀλλὰ πράγματος δυσεξηγήτε ἔμφυτος τῇ φύσει τῶν ἀνθρώ πων δόξα. Apol. ii. p. 14. Οx.

4 I need but hint that the words ἀγέννητος and ἀγένητος, with double or single, have been used very promiscuously in authors; and hardly came to be accurately distinguished, till the Arian controversy gave occasion for it. See Suicer's Thesaurus, upon the ecclesiastical use of these words; and Cudworth for profane writers, p. 253, 254. and Montfaucon admon. in Athan. Decret. Syn. N. p. 207. The Son is properly ἀγένητος, as well as the Father; so Ignatius, so Irenæus, so Origen expressly styles him; and AtheRagoras's & γενόμενος is to the same effect. The similitude of the word and sound was, very probably, the chief reason why the title of ἀγένητος was not oftener applied to the Son; which omission however is compensated by other equivalent expressions.

papros is supposed, as it were, the very ground and foundation of his being God; on account of which he is Oeds; and without which, consequently, he could not be Оɛós. If therefore the Aóyos be not, in this sense, ayévvηtos and apagros, he is not eos, according to Justin Martyr: and yet no man is more express than Justin, every where, in making the Son eòs, 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 aì 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 Aóyos to be i av, 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 i v;) it is because he is Oeòç, 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 καὶ ἀφθάρτε γεγέννηται, τότο πάντως ä¤Dagrov, à åyévntov. 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 apdagros. 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 Aoyos 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 either 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 pas. In respect of the λόγος, σοφία, φῶς. 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 pãs ex pwτós. y 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 audEvría, the designing part, was thought most properly to be reserved to the Father, as the first Person. These are things not to

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

z Vid. Huet. Origenian. p. 41.

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: Ilargi avvaïdios, adv. Jud. p. 4. Υἱὸς ἐποίησεν, contr. Noet. p. 16. Αεὶ γὰρ ἦν ἐν δόξῃ θεοπρεπεῖ, τῷ ἰδίῳ συνυπάρ χων γεννήτορι πρὸ παντὸς αἰῶνος, καὶ χρόνε, κ τῆς τῷ κόσμε καταβολῆς. Fabric. vol. ii. p. 29. Origen we have seen before.