body in which he might dwell, in the chosen body which seemed proper to him."* Again; "The Son of God is more ancient than every creature, so THAT he was present in council with his Father, when the world was created."+

That the phrase holy Spirit, in the above quotation, means the exalted nature which dwelt in Christ, there can be no doubt; inasmuch as the context clearly describes the incarnation of the Saviour. The second quotation seems pretty plainly to intimate what we are to understand by the affirmation of Hermas in the first, when he says that the exalted nature of Christ was created first of all; viz, he was created more anciently than every creature, ita ut, so that, (so anciently that,) he was present in the counsels of the Father, at the creation, &c.

I make but one remark on the word created, as applied to the more exalted nature of the Son. The early Fathers were not grammarians nor philologists. Nothing is more evident, as we may have opportunity to see in the sequel, than that many of the Fathers made no difference between the words creation and generation, when applied to the Son. It was not until near the time of Arius, that the word creation became limited to a strict sense in relation to the origin of the Son of God, and became the subject of warm and protracted dispute.

*Illum spiritum Sanctum, qui creatus est omnium primus, in corpore in quo habitaret deus collocavit; in delecto corpore quod ei videbatur. Simil. V. § 6. Such is the reading which Roesler gives, from a choice of the varieties in the best MSS. (Biblioth. B. I.) In Cotelerius, (Tom. I. p. 107) the text stands somewhat differently; but the varieties of the principal MSS. are exhibited in the margin, the best of which give the text above.

† Filius quidem Dei omni creatura antiquior est, ita ut in consilio Patri suo adfuerit, ad condendam creaturam. Simil IX. §12. Coteler. Tom. I. p. 118.

I will not say, that the sentiments of Hermas are altogether clear, in respect to the simple antemundane* generation or creation of the Son of God. Thus much however is clear, that they appear to be irreconcileable with the absolute eternity of filiation. We shall see, the sequel, that the natural explanation which they admit coincides altogether with the predominant opinion of the Antenicene Fathers.

in

IGNATIUS.

We come next to the Letters of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who flourished about the close of the first century. Of the fifteen letters which bear his name, only seven have met with reception among the learned as genuine. These also have been doubted by some of the most able critics and ecclesiastical historians. Calvin, the Magdeburg Centuriators, Blondell, Salmasius, Daillè Semler, Ernesti, Roesler, and many others have rejected them as spurious; and, to say the least, their authenticity is altogether of so doubtful a nature, that no certain reliance can be placed on them. Of course, we cannot be sure that we have, in them, the real views of Ignatius himself.

I will limit myself to a few remarks on the passage quoted from them by Bishop Bull, in commenting on which he has occupied twelve folio pages. The passage follows: "There is one God who revealed himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his eternal Logos, not pro

* I use the word antemundane, to signify what took place within some limited period before the creation, but not to designate, even by implication, what is properly eternal. I do this merely to avoid circumlocution, and to save time.

.

ceeding from Silence."*

If we grant that the latter

clause, "not proceeding from Silence," is opposed, as the Bishop has endeavoured to show, to some of the Gnostic doctrines, which taught that the Logos was a secondary emanation from yn or Silence; the objec tion to the genuineness of the passage, made because it has been supposed to refer to the errors of Valentine, who was of a later age than Ignatius, may be removed. But whether this is to be granted, is matter of controversy.

That the Logos is eternal, (aïdios,) the writer of this Epistle plainly asserts; but that the generation or procession of the Logos is eternal, is not asserted. Whether he supposed him to be eternal as immanent (evdiatezos,) or as emanated (popogixos,) does not appear from this passage. From another passage in the same Letter, cited in the note below, the former is the most probable.

Two special difficulties lie in the way, then, of finding among the early fathers support for the doctrine in question, from the passage under review. The first, that the great majority of the ablest patristical critics deny or strongly doubt the genuineness of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius; the second, that admitting their genuineness, the proof from the passage quoted can, at best, be regarded as only of a very doubtful nature.

If there be any doubt as to the sufficiency of the reasons why the passage in question should receive such a construction, as I have given to it, the testimony hereaf

* Εις θεος εστιν, ὁ φανερωσας ἑαυτον δια Ιησου Χριστου του Γιου αυτου, ός εστιν αυτού λογος αίδιος, ουκ απο Σιγης προελθων. Epist. ad Magnes. § 8. In another place, (§ 6 of the same Letter,) he says, Χριστος ός προ αιώνων παρα πατρι ην.

ter to be adduced from other Fathers will probably dissipate this doubt.

JUSTIN MARTYR.

This distinguished Father, a native of Flavia Neapolis in Samaria, and a heathen philosopher before his conversion to Christianity, flourished about the middle of the second Century, and died in A. D. 165, as a martyr to the Christian religion. Of the various works attributed to him, his two Apologies for Christianity, and his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, are the most important, and the only ones of which the genuineness is in any good degree certain.

I proceed to develope the evidences of his opinion, in respect to the generation of the Son. “God," says he, "in the beginning, before any thing was created, begat a Rational Power, (duvaμıv doyıxyy) from himself; which is called by the Holy Ghost, Glory of the Lord, and sometimes Son, Wisdom, Angel, God, Lord, Logos. Sometimes also he calls him Leader, (αρχιστρατηγον.) In the form of a man he appeared to Joshua, the son of Nun. All the above names he bears, because he ministers to the will of the Father, and was begotten by the will of the Father."* To show the probability of this,

*

αρχην, προ παντων των κτισμάτων, ὁ Θεος γεγεννηκε δυναμιν τινα εξ ἑαυτου λογικήν έχειν γαρ παντα προσονομαζεσθαι, εκ τε του υπηρετειν τῷ πατρικῳ βουλήματι, και εκ του απο του πατρος θελησει γεγεννήσθαι. Dialog. cum Tryphone, § 61, p. 157. edit. 1642. It may be proper to observe here, once for all, that (to save time and paper) only the more important parts of the originals are quoted in the Notes. Of parts omitted, notice is given by a Dash. If any reader doubts the correctness of the translation, as to passages the original of which is omitted, he has the means of correcting it placed in his power, by uniform reference to the places, where the whole passages extracted may be found.

he then proceeds; "Something like this, we see happens to ourselves. When we utter a reasonable word, we beget reason (λoyov ;) but not by abscission (aлого– uny,) so that our reason is diminished. Another thing like this we see, in respect to fire; which suffers no diminution by kindling another fire, but still remains the

Two points are here clearly asserted. First, the Logos, before creation, was produced or generated from God, ε εavrou; and secondly, he was begotten (not necessarily, but) by the will of the Father. The simile which follows the first statement, makes Justin's conceptions on the subject of the Logos very plain. He was in the Father, before his birth or generation, as reason is in us, which originates language; i. e. he was originally Logos immanent, (λoyos erdiaveros, as he was soon after called by other Fathers, who adopted Justin's views ;) but before the creation, he was begotten, produced out of the Father, as a word which originates from reason is uttered; and thus became Son of God, or loуos пgoφορικός.

be

The Logos was undoubtedly believed by Justin to be eternal. But he was eternal as the Reason or Understanding of the Father; not eternally begotten. If there any doubt left here, as to Justin's views, the following passage will dissipate it. "The Father of the universe, who is unbegotten, has no name; for to have a proper name, implies that there is one antecedent to the

* As this is mere explanation, it is unnecessary to cite the Greek. The a' ou, which stands at the beginning of the Greek of this passage, is undoubtedly spurious; or if not so, it is to be read interrogatively, as in the London edition. See the Note on it in the Benedictine edition, from which I quote.