he says, "If any one is desirous to see how the most explicit assertions of a writer can be perverted by an erroneous explanation of particular words, by arbitrary interpolations, &c, let him read Bull;" [viz, on the two passages last quoted.]

ORIGEN.

This father, who has so often been the subject of severe remark, by modern critics and divines, for his mystical exegesis and the extravagance of his theological opinions, was born at Alexandria, about A. D. 185. He yields to none of the fathers, except Jerome, in a knowledge of the Scriptures; and he has left very numerous writings behind him, most of which are in our hands.

No doubt can fairly be entertained, that Origen believed in the eternal generation of the Son. For the hypostatic existence of the Logos, he strongly contends; and as clearly declares, that he was Son from eternity.* He unequivocally rejects all similies, drawn from human generation or production ;† and takes a decided stand against any application of the emanation-philosophy or the doctrine of emanation, prolation, or emission from God, to the explanation of this subject. The immuta

* Vide apud Athanas. decret. Synod. Nicaen. § 27. Tom. I. p. 233, edit. Montfaucon. Also a quotation from Origen by Marcellus, (in Eusebius contra Marcell. I. c. 4. p. 22. edit. Paris. 1628,) in which passage he thus argues. "If God was always perfect, and had power to be a father, and it was good that he should be the father of such a Son; why did he put off and deprive himself of this good, and, as one may say, after that he could be the father of a Son, did not become so?" See also Comm. in Johann. pp. 49 and 50, also 33; and IIɛqı agzwv Lib. I. c. 2. 3. IV. 28.

† Пεqı αozov, Lib. IV. 28, and I. c. 2. 4.

Ibid. I. c. 2. 6.

bility of the divine nature was a truth which he regarded with strong approbation; and every thing which seemed to interfere with it, he rejected. So great a change as the Deity must suffer, by the generation of a Son in time, appeared therefore irreconcilable with his views of the divine nature. And on the same general ground of reasoning, he maintained the eternity of the world. "As there cannot be," says he, "a Creator without a creation—those things made by God must necessarily have existed always, and there was no time when these things were not; for if there ever was a time when these things were not, then there was a time when there was no Maker, &c."*

The gross material ideas conveyed by some words, which were used respecting the generation of the Son of God, and were common in the time of Origen, were very offensive to his ear. "Begotten of the being of the Father," was a phrase, which he could not tolerate at all. "Some," says he, understand the phrase, (John 8: 42,) Εξηλθον απο του Θεου, of the generation of the Son; from which, they say, it follows that the Son was begotten from the being of the Father.It follows, that they must describe the Father and Son as corporeal, and that the Father is divided. These are the dogmas of men, who never even dreamed of an invisible and incorporeal nature."†

Origen himself, however, adopted a tenuious speculation, on the subject of the generation of the Son. He borrowed an intellectual or metaphysical similitude, to designate his view of it. "Sicut voluntas procedit e

* Apud Methodium, in Photii Biblioth. cod. CCXXXV. p. 933. ed. Schott.

† Comm. in Johann. P. 306.

mente, (says he,)-so is the Son begotten of the Father."* So he compares the generation or rather the eternity of the generation of the Son, with the splendour that is coetaneous with light. †

In another place, he guards against any interference with the immutability of the Father, by representing the generation of the Son as always continuing. "The Father," says he, "did not beget the Son, and dismiss (anελvoer) him after his birth; but he always is begetting him."‡

It was Origen's philosophy, therefore, which led him to embrace the doctrine of eternal generation; the same philosophy which led him to maintain the eternity of the world, or of the creation.

To defend the immutability of God he took the strange position, that a change in his relation in respect to dependent beings, necessarily implied a change in the creator and governor of them; or that all the relations implied by the names of God, which are found in the Bible, must have been eternal. That he embraced the doctrine of eternal generation, in consequence of being guided by such philosophy, will not serve much to recommend this doctrine to considerate inquirers of the present day.

DIONYSIUS,

Bishop of Alexandria a little after the middle of the 2nd Century, from his learning and fame was surnamed the Great. He has been claimed by both parties, the

* Περι αρχών, Lib. I. c. 2. 6.

Ibid. lib. IV. 28. Lib. I. c. 2. 4.

Comm. in Jerem. Homil. IX. Oberthür. Opp. Pat. T. XV. p. 478.

orthodox, and the heterodox. Two quotations from him, as his sentiments are recorded by Athanasius, will suffice to exhibit his views.

"The Son of God is created and made-and as he is a created being, he existed not before he was made."*

Again: "God was not always Father; the Son was not always but the supreme God was once without the Logos, and the Son was not, before he was begotten; for he is not eternal, but came into being afterwards.Ӡ

I pass by this Father, without further remark; as his authority will not probably have much weight with sober inquirers; because his opinions are not very perfectly developed, nor his real character well ascertained..

μασιος και

Of Theognostus, a man of distinguished character at Alexandria, whom Athanasius calls ανηρ λογιος ο θαυ pais na daos; of Pierius, a presbyter at Alexandria; of Gregory Thaumaturgus bishop of New Casarea in Pontus; all disciples of Origen, and all living in the latter part of the third century; I have been unable to trace any certain information, which would show what they held relative to the point under examination. In regard to Gregory Thaumaturgus, however, it should be mentioned, that if the Creed attributed to him by Gregory of Nyssa be genuine, there can be no doubt but that his belief comported altogether with the Athanasian Symbol. But there are strong reasons for believing that this creed is not the work of the bishop of Nova

* Apud Athanas. Expos. Fidei. p. 246.

† Apud Athanas. Expos. Fid. § 14, p. 253. Athanasius says that the Arians asserted these were the sentiments of Dionysius; but as he does not deny the truth of their allegation, it may be presumed to be correct.

Cæsarea; although Bishop Bull has, without any hesitation, received it as genuine. I cannot stop here to repeat the reasons for my opinion on this point; they may be found at large, in Martini's Geschichte der Gotheit Christi, pp. 232, 233.

LUCIAN,

A presbyter of Antioch, flourished at the close of the third Century. A creed is still extant, ascribed to him by a council assembled at Antioch in A. D. 341, in which be very fully ascribes divine attributes to Christ; but in respect to the generation of the Son, he only asserts that he was γεννηθεντα προ πάντων των αιωνων begotten before all ages, [or worlds,] and that he was gotоtоxоv αons the first born of every creature, [or of all crea

κτίσεως,

tion.]*

After this follows a formula of baptism; and the whole closes with an anathema against those who maintain, that "there was a time, when the Son was not begotten; or that the Son was a created being, like other created beings."

Both Arians and Athanasians have claimed the creed of Lucian, as favouring their sentiments. There is nothing in the expression begotten before the ages, or the first born of every creature, which Justin or Tatian, or Tertullian would have rejected; and if the anathema be the work of Lucian, (more probably it belongs to the Council of Antioch, A. D. 341) still it may mean nothing more, than that the Son could not have been begotten

*Soc. Hist. Eccles. Lib. II. c. 10. In Sozomen Ecc. Hist. Lib. III. c. V, it is said that the Council of Antioch ascribed this creed to Lucian, and declared that they found it in his hand-writing.