ed men. The author proves there with the fullest evidence, that the fathers, who lived before the council of Nice, did maintain, first, that Jesus Christ subsisted before his birth; secondly, that he was of the same essence with his Father; and thirdly, that he subsisted with him from all eternity. To repeat the passages, extracted from the fathers by this author, is not the work of a sermon. We are going to take a way better proportioned to the limits of these exercises to arrive at the same end.

1. We will briefly indicate the principal precautions necessary to the understanding of the sentiments of the fathers of the three first centuries on this article.

2. We will then more particularly inform you what their sentiments were. And as these articles are a summary of many volumes, and (if I may say so,) the essence of the labors of the greatest men, they deserve your serious attention.

1. In order to answer the objections, which may be extracted from the writings of the fathers against our thesis, the same general solution must be admitted, which we oppose to objections extracted from the scriptures. Passages of scripture are opposed to us, in which Jesus Christ speaks of himself as a simple man. To this objection we reply, these passages make nothing against us. According to us, Jesus Christ is God and man. We can no more conclude, that he is not God, because the holy Spirit sometimes speaks of him as a simple man, than we can conclude, that he is not man, because he speaks of him sometimes as God.

2. It must be observed, that, though the fathers taught, that Jesus Christ was of the same essence with his Father, yet they believed, I know not what, subordination among the three persons,

who are the object of our worship. They considered the Father as the source of Deity, and pretended, that the generation of the Son, gave the Father a pre-eminence above the Son, and that the procession of the holy Ghost gave the Son a pre-eminence over the holy Ghost. "We are not "Atheists, says Justin Martyr, we religiously "adore the Creator of this universe: we put in the "second place Jesus Christ, who is the true Son "of God, and we place in the third degree the spirit of prophecy." As these first teachers of the church have sometimes been contradicted on this article, so they have advanced in the heat of the dispute, some overstrained propositions, which we cannot adopt; as this of Origen, among many others. "There have been among the multitude "of the faithful, some, who, departing from the "sentiments received by others, have rashly affirmed, that Jesus Christ was God over all creaIn truth, we who believe the word of the Son, who said, the Father is greater than I, John xiv. 28. do not believe this proposition." The advantages, which the Arians gained by this, made many of the Fathers after the Nicene council renounce the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, and explain those passages, in which Christ acknowledged himself inferior to the Father, of his humanity. This is the method of St. Athanasius, of St. Cyril of Alexandria, and of many others. It was particularly St. Augustine's way, who, to prove that these expressions ought to be understood of the humanity only of Jesus Christ, makes this remark, that they are never used of the holy Ghost, that it is no where said of the holy Ghost, that the Father is greater than he.

66

❝tures.

3. The fathers, who lived before the council of Nice, admitted a generation of the Son of God,

before the foundation of the world, and which is no other than that power, which proceeded from the Father, when he created the universe. We must take care not to be deceived by arguments taken from such passages. It cannot be concluded, that these fathers denied the existence of Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world, because they said, he then came from the bosom of the Father. Here is an example of their way of expressing this generation. "I am going, says Tatian, to explain clearly the mysteries of our religion. In the beginning was God. Now we have learnt, that this beginning is the power of the word; for the Lord of all things was then all the substance of the universe, because, having then made no creature, he existed alone. By his simple will his word proceeded from him. Now the word did not advance into the empty void but was the first work of the Spirit, and, we know, this is the principle of the world." This father calls this clearly explaining the mysteries of our religion. Perhaps he might find some gainsayers. However, it appears by this passage, and by a great number more, that the ancient doctors of the church thought, Jesus Christ was then produced after a certain manner, which they explained according to their own ideas. We do not deny their holding this opinion. We only say, that what they advanced concerning this production in time does not prove, that they did not admit the eternal generation of Jesus Christ.

4. We do not pretend, that certain expressions, which the orthodox have affected since the council of Nice, were received in the same sense before that council. We generally see, when two parties warmly controvert a point, they affect certain expressions, and use them as their livery. As we can never find terms proper to express this union,

or this ineffable distinction between Father, Son, and holy Ghost, so we must not be surprized, that the church hath varied on this article. "Necessity," says St. Austin, speaking of the terms used in disputing with the Arians, "necessity has given birth to these terms, in order to avoid the snares of heretics in long discussions." We acknowledge then, some of the fathers have advanced that the Father and the Son had two distinct essences, or two different natures. Thus, according to Photius, Pierius, priest and martyr, and Dennis of Rome, in a letter against the Sabellians, declaimed against those, who divided the divinity into three Hypostases; or three Persons. And thus also the orthodox, assembled in council at Sardis, complained, that the heretical faction wanted to establish, that Father, Son, and holy Ghost were three distinct persons: "for," add these fathers, "our ancestors have taught us, and it is the catholic and apostolic tradition, that there is but one person in the Divinity." The question is not, whether the fathers. of the first ages used the very terms, which succeeding ages have used. We do not say they did. "We would not excite odious disputes about words provided other syllables include the same opinion :" but the question is, whether they had the same ideas, whether, when they said there were three essences in the Deity and one person, they did not mean by essence what we mean by person, and by person, what we mean by essence.

5. We must take care not to lay down for a principle, that the fathers expressed themselves justly, that their words were always the most proper to convey adequate ideas of their sentiments, that they always reasoned in a close uniform manner, that their theses in some pages of their writings never contradict their theses in other pages. The sense

of a passage in Origen, or Tertullian, divides the learned. Some affirm, these fathers meant one thing, others say, they meant another thing. Each pretends to define precisely what they intended. Is there not sometimes a third part to take? May we not believe, that Origen and Tertullian, in other respects great men, had not distinct ideas of what they meant to express, and did not always rightly understand themselves.

6. In fine, the last precaution, which we must use to understand the sentiments of the first ecclesiastical writers, and which demands a very particular attention, is not to be deceived by spurious writings. We know what was the almost general weakness of christians of those times. We know, particularly, what were the secret dealings of the Arians. We know, they often substituted power for reason, and craft for and craft for power, when authority was wanting. Among spurious writings, those, which have the most certain marks of reprobation, are frequently those, which have the most venerable titles. Such, among others, is that, which bears the fine name of Apostolical constitutions. It is very surprising, that a man, who cannot be justly taxed with ignorance of the writings of the ancient fathers, should advance this unwarrantable proposition. This book is of apostolical authority.

The

doctor threatens the church with a great volume to establish his opinion, and to forward in the end the dreadful design, which he has formed, and declared, of reviving Arianism. Time will convince the learned, on what unheard of reasons this man grounds his pretensions. Who can persuade himself, that a book, the spuriousness of which has been acknowledged, even by those, who had the greatest interest in defending its authenticity, by Bellarmine, Baronius, Petavius Du Perron and many others; a book,