man (viz.) an attribute of the deity; and for this reason they speak of the Father as not being a Father always, but only from the time that he made the world. "Before any thing was made," fays Theophilus*, God had the "Logos for his "council; being his vas or povnois (reason or un"derstanding) but when he proceeded to pro"duce what he had determined upon, he then "emitted the Logos, the first born of every crea

ture, not emptying himself of Logos (reafon) "but λoyou yernoas (begetting reafon) and always "converfing with his own Logos" (reason).

Justin Martyr alfo gives the fame explanation of the emiffion of the Logos from God, without depriving himself of reafon, and he illustrates it by what we observe in ourselves. For " in ut"tering any word," he fays, we beget a word (Logos) not taking any thing from ourselves, fo as to be leffened by it, but as we see one fire produced from another.

Clemens Alexandrinus calls the Father alone without beginning (avapx) and immediately after he characterizes the Son, as the beginning, and the firft fruits of things (αρχην και απαρχην των ονίων) from whom we must learn the Father of all, the most ancient and beneficent of beings . Tertullian expressly fays that "God was not always

* Ad Autolycum, Lib. ii. p. 129. † Edit. Thirlby, p. 266. Strom. Lib. vii. Opera, p. 700. "a father,

a father, or a judge, fince he could not be a "father before he had a fon, nor a judge before

fin; and there was a time when both fin and the fon (which made God to be a judge and a "father) were not*.

This language was held at the time of the council of Nice, for Lactantius fays †, "God, "before he undertook the making of the world, "produced a holy and incorruptible fpirit, which "he might call his Son; and afterwards he by

him created innumerable other fpirits, whom "he calls angels." The church, fays Hilary‡, "knows one unbegotten God, and one only

begotten Son of God. It acknowledges the "Father to be without origin, and it acknowledges the origin of the Son from eternity, not "himself without beginning, but from him who "is without beginning (ab ininitiabili)." It is not impoffible that Hilary might have an idea "of the eternal generation of the Son, though "the Fathers before the council of Nice had no fuch idea. For the Platonifts in general thought that the creation was from eternity, there never having been any time in which the divine Being did not act. But, in general, by the phrafe from eternity, and before all time, &c. the ancient chriftian writers feem to have meant any period before the creation of the world,

* Ad Hermogenem, Cap. iii. p. 234. † Inft. Lib. iv. p. 364. De Trinitate, Lib. iv.

Confiftently

Confiftently with this representation, but very inconfiftently with the modern doctrine of the Trinity, the Fathers fuppofed the son of God to have been begotten voluntarily fo that it depended upon the Father himself whether he would have a fon or not. "I will produce you "another teftimony from the fcriptures," fays Juftin Martyr," that in the beginning, before "all the creatures, God begat from himself a cer"tain reasonable power (duvav in) who by "the fpirit is fometimes called the glory of God, "fometimes God, sometimes the Lord, and Logos, "because he is fubfervient to his Father's will, " and was begotten at his Father's pleasure."

Novatius fays, "God the Father is there"fore the maker and creator of all things, who " alone hath no origin, invifible, immense, im"mortal, and eternal, the one God, to whose "greatness and majefty nothing can be com"pared, from whom, when he himself pleased, "the word (Sermo) was born." Eufebius, quoted by Dr. Clarke, fays, though light does not shine at the will of the luminous body from the neceffary property of its nature; the Son became the image of his Father from his will and choice; for God at his pleasure (689) became the Father of the Son.

Edit. Thirlby, p. 266.

De Trinitate, Cap. x. p. 31.

Ibid, p. 252.

The

The Fathers of the council of Sirmium* fay, "if any say that the Son was not begotten "at the will of the Father, let him be an ana"thema. For the Father did not beget the Son "by a phyfical neceffity of nature, without the "operation of his will, but he at once willed, "and begat the Son, and produced him from "himself, without all time, and without fuffering any diminution from himself." Hilary mentions his approbation of this fentiment, but we fhall fee that Auftin corrects him for it. A ftrong paffage in favour of the voluntary production of the fon of God may alfo be seen quoted from Gregory Nyffen, by Dr. Clarke, in the place above referred to.

• Clarke on the Trinity, p. 252.

SECTION

SECTION III.

That Supremacy was always afcribed to the Father before the Council of Nice.

WE find on all occafions the early christian writers fpeak of the Father as fuperior to the Son, and in general they give him the title of God, as distinguished from the Son; and fometimes they exprefsly call him, exclufively of the Son, the only true God; a phraseology which does not at all accord with the idea of the perfect equality of all the perfons in the Trinity. But it might well be expected, that the advances to the prefent doctrine of the Trinity fhould be gradual and flow. It was, indeed, fome centuries before it was completely formed.

It is not a little amusing to observe how the Fathers of the fecond, third, and fourth centuries were embarraffed with the heathens on the one hand, to whom they wished to recommend their religion, by exalting the person of its founder, and with the antient Jewish and Gentile converts (whose, prejudices against polytheism, they also wifhed to guard against) on the other. Willing to conciliate the one, and yet not to offend the other, they are particularly careful at

the