person named, who has given the appellation. For the titles, Father, God, Creator, Lord, Sovereign, are not properly names, but appellations deduced from his beneficence and his operations. But his Son, who only is properly called Son, the Logos, who existed with him before the creation, and was generated when (ôtɛ) in the beginning he created and adorned all things by him, is called Christ, because God anointed and adorned all things by him."*

This passage leaves no room for doubt. The Father can have no name, because no being existed before him to give it. The Son can properly have a name; for he was begotten in time, i.e. at or near the creation of the world, which was accomplished by him. The immanent Logos seems to be acknowledged as eternal; but his generation is definitely stated to be only ante mundane. He was ovvov, coexisting with the Father, or existing in him, before the creation; but yevrouevos begotten in time, or when (orɛ) the act of creation was about to be performed.

In conformity with this, Justin, in his second Apology, speaks of the Logos σлeguarios, i. e. begotten, seminal ; in distinction, as it would seem, from the Logos in his previous state, or before his birth. The passage, in which the appellation stands, is one where Justin declares that the Logos, or rather portions of the Logos or Reason, have dwelt in all distinguished men of every age and nation, who have spoken or written well. "It is the Christ, the first-born of God-who is the

* ὁ δε ύιος εκείνου, ὁ μονος λεγομενος κυρίως ύιος, ὁ λόγος προ των ποιηματων και συνων, και γεννωμενος ότε την αρχην δι αυτ του παντα έκτισε και εκόσμησε, Χριστος, κ. τ. λ. Apol. II. § 6.

Logos, of which all men are partakers.”*

Σπερματικός,

then, is evidently an epithet intended to designate the Logos as begotten, or the first born of God.

One other passage, to confirm the fact that Justin viewed the generation of the Son as proceeding from the will of the Father, and therefore not as necessary. "We have the Son of God described in the memoirs of the Apostles; and we call him the Son of God, and consider him as coming forth (poεovra, issuing out) from the Father, before the creation, by his power and will."+

With Justin's sentiments on the real and proper divinity of the Logos, I am not now concerned; and shall not therefore say any thing here respecting them. My business is not to examine his creed in general; but only whether he believed in the eternal and necessary generation of the Son. It is very remarkable that Bishop Bull should have quoted the passage just cited above from the Second Apology of Justin, (§ 6,) to prove that this father believed the doctrine of eternal generation, which clearly establishes the fact, that he was of the opposite opinion. But there is, indeed, no difficulty in coming to such a conclusion, if one may take the liberties, which the Bishop has taken, with the text of his author. The words, ó de vos exεivov, ό μονος λεγομενος nuous vios, &c, he translates, "Porro filius ejus, qui solus proprié dicitur filius, Verbum simul cum illo ante creaturas et existens et nascens, quoniam primitus per eum cuncta condidit," &c. And in his comment he his verbis docet Justinus, Deo Patri et Filio nullum propriè nomen competere, sed tantum appellationes quas* Apol. II. § 13.

says,

❝ In

† νενοηκαμεν και προ παντων ποιηματων απο του πατρος δυναμει αυτου και βουλη προελθοντα κ. τ. λ. Dial. cum Trypho. § 100.

dam ab ipsorum beneficiis et operibus petitas, ipsis a nobis tribui. Hujus autem assertionis rationem hanc affert, quod Deus Pater ingenitus atque eternus sit; Filius vero ut Verbum ejus ipsi coexistat, ac proinde uterque neminem habeat se antiquiorem, qui ipsi nomen imposuit."

Very different from the Bishop's translation is that of' the learned Benedictine, the editor of Justin. Instead of " Verbum simul cum illo ante creaturas existens et nascens, QUONIAM primitus per eum condidit," we have nearly an exact version of the Greek;" Verbum antequam mundus crearetur, quod et una cum eo aderat, et genitum est, cum per illud initio omnia condidit," &c. Instead of translating, then, as the Greek runs, begotten when (ore) in the beginning he created all things by him, the Bishop has contrived to throw back the word begotten upon the preceding clause, for the sake of joining it with προ των ποιηματων, and so rendered ante creaturas et existens et nascens, both existing and born before crcation; while ¿Te has been converted by him into one, and rendered by the patristic Latin conjunction quoniam in the sense of because or since. For his manner of pointing the sentence some apology might be made; because, by itself considered, it is a possible construction. For changing the text without any authority or necessity, all apology is out of question.

But the comment is, if possible, more against the spirit of Justin, than the version. Justin says that the Father has no name, because he is unbegotten and has no predecessor to name him; but, on the other hand, the Son has a name, as he is begotten in time, and his name is derived from his anointing the creation. The Bishop says, "By these words Justin teaches, that no name

properly belongs to the Father and the Son, but that only certain appellations are attributed to them by us, as derived from their beneficence and their operations."But Justin says this only of the Father; and places the case of the Son in direct antithesis to all this.

Again; the reason why no name is given to the Father and the Son, the Bishop represents to be, that "the Father is unbegotten and eternal-and the Son is his coexistent Word; and therefore, neither has any one more ancient than himself, who could impose a name upon him." Whereas Justin Martyr not only asserts that the Son is properly named, but assigns the reason of it, by alleging the fact, that he was begotten when

the world was created."

66

The Bishop then proceeds to quote a long passage from Justin's Cohortatio ad Graecos, (the genuineness of the Cohortation is disputed,) the object of which is to show, that when Jehovah revealed himself to Moses, he did not call himself by any name, and properly could have none. He only said, I am that I am. Now as Justin, in his Dialogue with Trypho, maintains that the Logos only was revealed to the Patriarchs, Bishop Bull concludes that Justin must have held, that the unknown Name, (if I may so speak) belonged to the Son, and that therefore he was regarded by Justin as eternal.

If the passage were known to be genuine; and Justin could be proved to be always a reasoner, whom later writers, with more purified and elevated ideas of the nature of the divine Being, would call consistent; the conclusion of Bishop Bull might be admitted. But if we do admit it, it does not touch the point in question. That the Logos was eternal as immanent, there can be little or no doubt Justin believed. But that he was

generated from eternity, never, I apprehend, once entered Justin's mind; or if it did, his language appears to speak, by every fair rule of construction, an opinion directly the reverse.

One other passage the Bishop has quoted, from the Epistle to Diognetus; (the authenticity of which epistle is generally denied, or doubted.) In this, it is said of the Son, ουτος ὁ αει, σημερον ύιος λογισθεις. In the same passage, a few words before, it is said of this same Logos, xaivos paveis, who appeared anew; how or where is not declared, for there is a hiatus in the text immediately after. But the words immediately antecedent are ὁ απ' αρχης; so that the sense seems to be, He who was from the beginning, appeared anew, (probably to the patriarchs, &c.) The sequel is, For he is continually produced [or begotten] anew in the hearts of the saints. Then follows ὁ ουτος αει, σημερον ύιος λογισθεις; from which I should derive, as before, a view of the sentiments of the writer, directly opposite to that which the Bishop has derived-viz, the Logos (evdiaetos) is eternal, as to his existence; but in regard to his Sonship, vos oyidεis he is reckoned Son onμegov, at present, to-day. This sentiment coincides, whoever was the writer, with the views of Justin as already given.

Such are Bishop Bull's proofs of eternal generation from Justin. Why he should have passed over in silence all the passages which militate so directly, or at least seem to militate so directly, against the assertion that Justin held this doctrine, is a question which I shall not undertake to answer.

The principal passage of Scripture, which seems to have led Justin to his views respecting the generation of the Logos, is found in Prov. 8: 22; for of the New