is

I have given as literal a translation as I was able to make. The necessity of all comment on this passage superseded. The similies made use of show, beyond a doubt, that Tatian had uttered something respecting the rise of the Logos, which he supposed his readers would, without some explanation, view as interfering with the doctrine of the divine immutability. The existence of the Logos in God from eternity, his leaping forth, (лgoлεdα) by the divine will, and becoming the first born work of God, are drawn in colours so graphic, that all the zeal, ability, and learning of Bull (Opera, pp. 209-213,) and the efforts of the Benedictine editor himself, have not been able to obscure the fact, that Tatian was no believer in the doctrine of eternal generation.

In confirmation of this, besides the passage itself, (the text of which the Benedictine has altered, without authority, and the translation of which Bishop Bull has accommodated to his own purposes,) the additional consideration may be stated, that Tatian was a disciple of Justin Martyr, and most probably agreed with his master. And Justin so clearly teaches the ante mundane generation of the Son, that the Benedictine editor is candid enough to acknowledge it, in his notes to some of the passages above cited.

αυτος ὑποστασις ην,

Καθο δε πασα δυναμις, ὁρατων τε και αορατων συν αυτῳ τα παντα. Συν αυτῳ γαρ δια λογικης δυναμεως, αυτος και ὁ λογος, ός ην εν αυτῳ, υπέστησε. Θεληματι δε της άπλοτητος αυτου προπηδᾳ λογος. ̔Ο δε λογος ου κατα κενου χωρησας έργον πρωτοτόκον του πατρος γίνεται. Τουτον ισμεν του κοσμου την αρχην ουτω και ο λογος προελθων εκ του πατρος δυναμεως, ουκ αλογον πεποιηκε τον γεγεννηκοτα. κ. τ. λ. Tatiani Orat. contra Graecos, § 5. pp. 247, 248.

THEOPHILUS.

This writer was Bishop of Antioch, and wrote three books in defence of Christianity, which he addressed to one Autolycus. Shroeckh assigns these books to the period between A. D. 170 and 180; Wolf to 180–183. The following passages relate to the subject in ques

tion.

"They, (the prophets) have harmoniously taught us, that God made all things out of nothing. For nothing is coeval with God. But he, being his own place, and in want of nothing, and existing before the worlds, was desirous to make man, by whom he might be known. For him he prepared the world. Now he who is created is exposed to want; but he, who is uncreated, needs nothing. God, then, having his Logos immanent in his own bowels, begat him with his own wisdom, emitting him (ežepevžaμevos) before all things. This Logos he had as an assistant in the work of creation, and by him he made all things, &c."

"And his Logos, who was always with him."* Here, then, we have the doctrine of Justin brought forward in a form sufficiently repulsive. Theophilus is not content, like his predecessors, to represent the Logos as the immanent reason or understanding of the Deity; but says, in somewhat offensive terms, that he was evdia, θετον εν τοις ιδίοις σπλαχνοις ; and that at his birth, he

he

εχων οὖν ὁ θεος τον ἑαυτου λογον ενδιάθετον εν τοις ιδίοις σπλαγχνοις, εγεννήσαν αυτον μετα της ἑαυτου σοφίας εξερευξαμενος προ των όλων. Τουτον τον λογον, κ. τ. λ.

Και ὁ λογος ὁ ἅγιος αυτου ὁ αιει συμπαρων αυτω. Ad Autolycum, Lib. II. § 10. p. 355.

was eģegevžaμevov cast forth from his place, in order to assist in creating the world.

a

Even Bishop Bull's courage fails him here. "Fateor, to doyo et Filio Dei generationem quandam a Theophilo tribui, quae creationem mundi paullo antecessit." But what kind of generation? Certainly not, he answers, of a person who did not actually exist before-but it was generation non veram ac propriam- -sed figurate et metaphoricus sic dictam. Opp. p. 215. Is then, the generation of the Son of God a proper one? Has it any concern with sex? No, the Bishop would say; but there is a real procession or emanation from God the Father, as the original source of all Being. But this, I reply, is just what Theophilus asserts. The difference, however, between him and the Bishop is, that Theophilus asserts the generation or procession of the Son to have been merely ante mundane; while his commentator asserts that it was from eternity.

That he declares the Logos to have been always with the Father is plain; and this is in perfect concord with Justin, Athenagoras, and Tatian. It is indeed a necessary consequence of his assertion, that the Logos was ενδιάθετον εν τοις σπλαγχνοις του πατρος. But the birth, the generation, the existence ad extra, or the hypostatical existence of the λoyos, most undoubtedly is asserted to be only ante mundane.

If, however, there be any doubt as to the opinion of Theophilus, another passage will serve to remove it. "God, the Father of the universe," says he, "is incomprehensible, and cannot be contained in any place.-But his Logos, by whom he made all things-assuming the person of the Father-came into paradise in his person, and conversed with Adam. For the holy Scrip

ture teaches us, that Adam said he heard a voice. Now what else is a voice, but the Word of God, who is his Son; not as poets and mythologers speak of the sons of God, born from carnal intercourse; but, as truth declares, the Logos who was always immanent (ενδιαθε τον laid up, deposited) in the heart of God. Before any thing was made, he had him for a counsellor, who was his understanding and his reason. But when God desired to make what he had purposed to make, he begat this Logos produced, (προφορικον, apparent, prophoric), the first born of all creation. Not that the Father deprived himself of reason; but having begotten the Logos, he converses always with his Logos, (or reason.) This, the holy Scriptures and all inspired men teach; of whom John says, In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God; shewing that, at first, God was alone, and his Logos in him. Afterwards he says, And the Logos was God. All things were made by him; and without him was nothing made. The Logos, therefore, being God, and produced from God, when it seemed good to the Father of the universe, he sends him to any particular place, &c.*

* Ο μεν θεος και πατηρ των όλων αχώρητος εστι, και εν τόπῳ ουκ εύρισκεται ὁ δε λογος αυτου αναλαμβάνων το προσω

που του πατρος

· παρεγένετο εις τον Παραδεισον

ός εστι και ύιος αυτου, ουκ ὡς οἱ ποιηται λέγουσιν — αλλα ως αλη θεια διηγείται τον λογον, τον οντα διαπαντος ενδιαθετον εν καρδια Θεου. Προ γαρ τι γινεσθαι, τουτον είχον συμβουλον, ἑαυτου νουν και φρόνησιν οντα. Όποτε δε ηθέλησεν ὁ θεος ποιησαι όσα εβου λευσατο, τουτον τον λογον εγεννησε προφορικόν, πρωτοτοκον πασης δεικνύς ότι εν πρωτοις μονος ὁ θεος, και εν αυτ θεος ουν ων ο λογος, και εκ θεου πεφυκως, όποτ' αν βουλεται ὁ πατηρ των όλων, κ. τ. λ. Ad Autolycum, Lib. II. § 22. p. 365.

κτίσεως

τῳ ὁ λογος

After the remarks which have been already made, further comment on this passage is unnecessary. The points in question-viz. antemundane and voluntary generation, (not that which is eternal and necessary,) are too plain not to be perceived, by every intelligent reader.

IRENEUS.

This writer was probably a native of Asia Minor; for as he himself informs us in his letter to Florinus, he was the disciple and friend of Polycarp. He came to Lyons, in France, where he was first a Presbyter under Photinus; whom as bishop, he succeeded, about A. D. 177. His work against the Gnostics, written originally in Greek, has come down to us, with the exception of the principal part of the first, book, in a literal and barbarous Latin translation.

The controversy with the Gnostics, in which this father was so deeply engaged, naturally led him to reject with warmth the emanation-philosophy, which is the distinguishing trait of this sect.

In doing this, he manifests his disapprobation of any attempt to explain the generation of the Son, by such comparisons as were common, in the age when he lived. “God,” says he, "being all mind and all Logos, what he thinks he speaks, and what he speaks he thinks. His thought is Logos; and his Logos, mind; and the Father himself is the Mind which comprises all. Whoever therefore speaks of the mind of God, as if externally produced, (prolationem propriam menti donat) makes him composite; as if God were one thing, and his essential mind another."