Testament, he has made no use in proving his doctrines. This passage, according to the Septuagint translation which Justin used, runs thus; "In the beginning of his ways, the Lord CREATED me for his works." It is a part of the beautiful prosopopeia of wisdom, which the chapter contains to which this verse refers; and which Justin, with almost all the Christian Fathers, applied to the Logos. As Justin knew nothing of the original Hebrew, he possessed no means of correcting the Septuagint version of this passage; and therefore built his speculations about the generation of the Logos upon it. He appears to have taken no offence at the word created (entioɛ) here; nor did the early Fathers consider it a matter of importance, whether they used the word entire or eyevvnoɛ; for they had not yet learned the art of logomachy, so well as it was understood in after ages.

The Hebrew of this passage runs thus; "Jehovah POSSESSED me in the beginning of his way; before his works, even from ancient time (N2)." Even after Origen had shown the difference between the Septuagint and the Hebrew, the Fathers still continued to use the Greek text with exrse in it; a proof that speculation on the definite sense of this word, had not yet come into vogue; but not a proof, as any one versed in a moderate degree with the patristical dialect will see, that the Fathers believed as Arius did, that the Logos was properly a created being. In the same passage, they use indiscriminately εxt and eyermoe, as applied to the Son, commuting the one for the other.

ATHENAGORAS

was at first an Athenian philosopher. He became a convert to Christianity about A, D. 150; and wrote his Apology, (IIεoßeua, Legatio,) addressed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus, about A. D. 177.

In this Apology, § 10, stands the following remarkable passage. "I have sufficiently proved that we (Christians,) are not atheists, who believe in one eternal God, unbegotten, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, known only by reason and understanding, surrounded by light, and beauty, and spirit, and indescribable power; who by his Word, created, adorned, and preserves all things. We acknowledge also, a Son of God. Nor must any one think it ridiculous, that God should have a Son. For not as the poets feign, who exhibit gods nothing better than men, do we think, either concerning God the Father, or concerning the Son. But the Son of God is the Word of the Father, in idea and in operation; for by him and through him were all things made, inasmuch as the Father and Son are one. The Son, moreover, being in the Father, and the Father in the Son, by a oneness and energy of spirit; the Son of God is the understanding and reason (vous naι doyos) of the Father. What the Son is, I will briefly declare. He is the first progeny (yevvnua) of the Father, not as made, (for God, from the first, being eternal understanding, vous, had the Logos in himself, being eternally a reasonable Intelligence ;) but he came forth to be the idea and operation of all material things. With this account,

agrees the Spirit of prophecy. The Lord, saith he, created me in the beginning of his ways, for his works.”*

If some parts of this be unintelligible, I hope the fault is not in the translator, who has endeavoured, as closely as possible, to follow his original. The Benedictine Editor, Roesler, Martini, Lindner, all complain of the obscurity of some of the phrases in the original. What concerns us, however, is sufficiently plain; at least, as it appears to me. The first born of God is not to be considered as made, like the creation, or other intelligences; for he existed eternally in God as his vous na λoyos, understanding and reason. But he came forth (лроε) to be the idea and operation, i. e. the deviser and maker, of all material things. In proof of this, the same passage is cited, from Proverbs 8: 22, to which Justin appeals, for confirmation of his views; a passage which, supposing wisdom to mean the Logos, and that the Septuagint Version is correct, (as Justin, Athenagoras, and other Christian Fathers believed,) is well adapted to give countenance to their theory respecting the generation, or hypostatical origin of the Son.

Bishop Bull has made strenuous efforts, (Opp. pp. 203 -208,) to vindicate the passage in question from the sense just given of it. But Petavius, Huet, and many

* ἐστιν ὁ υιος του θεου λογος του πατρος εν ιδεα και ενέργεια, προς αυτου [αυτον] γαρ, και δι' αυτου, παντα εγενετο, ένος οντος του πατρος και του ύιου. Οντος δε του υιου εν πατρι, και πατρος εν υιῳ, ἑνοτητι και δυναμει πνευματος, νους και λογος του πατρος ὁ υιος του θεου — ό παις τι βουλεται, ερω δια βραχειων. Πρωτον γεννημα ειναι τῷ πατρι, ουχ ως γενομενον, (εξ αρχης γαρ ὁ θεος, νους αἴδιος ων, είχεν αυτος εν ἑαυτῷ τον λόγον, αίδιως λογικος ων) αλλ' ώς των ὑλικων ξυμπαντων ιδεα και ενέργεια ειναι προελθων, κ. τ. λ. Athenag. Legatio, § 10. p. 286, 287.

others, who have maintained the doctrine of eternal generation, have accused Athenagoras of heresy, on account of the passage just quoted, because, as they aver, he plainly teaches that the generation of the Son was simply ante mundane. The principal part of the Bishop's defence of Athenagoras' orthodoxy, rests on some hypercritical distinctions of a speculative and metaphysical nature, which he contends Athenagoras must have had in his mind. They amount to this. In every reasonable being who thinks, mental words are the necessary accompaniment of the act of thinking; i. e. they are, so to speak, the sons of the faculty of reason. Words spoken are only external copies of internal mental words. Like to this, is the origin of the Logos. He was from eternity the mental word, and therefore distinct from the Vous which produced this word, (i. e. a separate hypostasis;) while, at the creation, he was revealed or made his appearance externally.

The the theory is ingenious enough; and seems to have been first hit upon by Tertullian, in his book against Praxeas, chap. 5. But I am unable to find any support of it, in the passage of Athenagoras, under consideration. On the contrary, he expressly declares, that the Son of God is the vous na doyos of the Father; and that God being eternally vous had therefore the λoyos in himself, who came forth, ngoɛadov, at the formation of the world. Then he was the idea, pattern, type, deviser of the creation; and the evegyeua, operation, i. e. operating power which effected the work; for so, with the Benedictine editor, Roesler, Martini, and Muenscher, I believe this apparently obscure phrase is to be explained.

TATIAN.

This father was an Assyrian by birth, and was devoted, in early life, to the study of the Greek philosophy. After becoming a convert to the Christian religion, he wrote his Address to the Greeks, about A. D. 172. From this work, the following passage is extracted.

αρχην

"God was the beginning. By agym we understand the power of the Logos. For the Lord of the universe, being himself the substance of all things, whilst as yet nothing was created, existed alone. In so far as he possessed all power and was the substance, (vлooraois, the original cause or ground) of things visible and invisible, all things were with [in] him. With him, also, by virtue of his rational power, existed the Logos himself, who was in him. But by his will, the Logos leaped forth from his simple being; and not going into an empty sound, he became the first born work of the Father. This we know to be the beginning of the world. He became [the first born work] by communication, not by abscission; for what is abscinded, is separated from that whence it is abscinded. But that which is derived by communication does not diminish that from which it is taken. From one torch we may light many torches, and still the light of the first torch is not diminished. So when the Logos proceeded [came forth] from the power of the Father, it did not deprive him who begat the Logos of reason. Even so, I speak and you hear me; and yet by the transition of my word to you, I who speak am not at all deprived of the faculty of reason."*

* Θεος

- κατα μεν μεδηπω γεγεννημενην ποιησιν μονος ην.