the Father, and subject to him. This was certainly unnatural, and a real inconsistency; for, admitting the Son to have been what they represented him, he was, to say the least, fully equal to every thing that could constitute the Father. Indeed, taking from the Father all that they say had constituted the Son, there was nothing of any value left to belong to himself.

Admitting their absurd notion, that, after the generation of such a Son, (to constitute whom, all his own essential attributes, in their fullest extent, contributed,) the Father was not really diminished, but left in all respects the same as if no such communication of his powers had been made; yet as he could not be greater, or more excellent than he had been, and the Son had all the perfections that the Father had ever been possessed of, these writers would naturally have been led to maintain the perfect equality of the Son to the Father, as they actually did some time afterwards. Their not doing this, therefore, for some centuries, clearly discovers that these philosophizing Christians were in very different situations at the two different times, with respect to their fellow-christians, and the opinions that were generally entertained by them.

This remarkable fact cannot, I think, be accounted for, but upon the supposition, that, while they hesitated to pursue their principle to its proper extent, they were restrained by the fear of popular prejudices, which would not have borne the doctrine of the equality of the Son to the Father; or, notwithstanding the tendency of the new doctrine, the force of habit was such, that they could not bring themselves at once to change the language, and the ideas to which they and their ancestors had been long accustomed. Now the circumstance which so long restrained the natural operation of this new doctrine of the generation of the Son from the substance of the Father, and of his very being consisting of the essential attributes of the Father, could be nothing else but the established doctrine of one God, of unrivalled majesty and power, whose servant Christ, as well as all the preceding prophets, had always been considered. It is evident, from numberless passages in their writings, that they were afraid lest the new doctrines of the preexistence and divinity of Christ should give offence to the common people, who were for a long time, generally Unitarians. This hypothesis only can well account for these writers so fully and so frequently expressing their belief of the inferiority of the Son to the Father.

As, in this view, the language they hold on this subject is an article of considerable importance, shewing us their real situation and feelings, I shall produce a considerable number of passages from the ante-nicene fathers, in which their opinion of the inferiority of the Son to the Father is clearly expressed, and it would have been very easy to have doubled the number.

I lay but little stress on any passage in the writings of those who are called apostolical fathers, or the epistles of Ignatius, for reasons that have been given in my Introduction; but as the composition of them, or the interpolations in them, were made in a pretty early age, I shall select a few of them. They shew that the idea of the inferiority of the Son to the Father was not given up when those works were composed.

Hermas, speaking of a vineyard let out by its owner, who had many servants, to his son, when he took a journey, says, "The owner of the estate represents the Father, the creator of all things; his servant, the son of God; and the vineyard which he keeps, the people." And, giving a reason why the son is placed in a servile condition, he says, "It is not a service, but a place of great power; for that he is the Lord of the people, having received all power from the Father." This is not the manner in which an orthodox Christian would have expressed himself on the subject.

Ignatius commends the Ephesians for their harmony; saying, that "they were so joined, as the church to Christ, and as Christ to the Father; that every thing might be in perfect harmony."† "Be subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ was to the Father (according to the flesh), and the apostles to Christ, the Father, and the Spirit."+ "Be ye imitators of Christ, as he is of the Father."§ "As our Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to him; neither by himself, nor by his apostles,

"Dominus autem fundi demonstratur esse is qui creavit cuncta et consummavit, et virtutem illis dedit, servus vero illi filius Dei est. Vinea autem populus est, quem servat ipse. In servili conditione non ponitur filius Dei, sed in magna potestate et imperio. Vides igitur esse dominum populi, accepta à Patre suo omni potestate." L. iii. C. v. vi. p. 105. (P.)

† Ποσῳ μαλλον ὑμας μακαρίζω τις εγκεκραμενες έξως, ὡς εκκλησία Ιησε Χρισῳ, καὶ ὁ Ιησες Χρις ( τῳ παίρι, ἵνα πανία εν ἑνολη η. Ad Eph. Sect. v. p. 13. (Ρ.)

Η Υποταγηλε τον επισκοπῳ και αλληλοις, ὡς Ιησες Χριςος τῷ παίρι κατα σαρκα, και δι απόςολοι τῷ Χρισῳ και τῳ παίρι και τῷ πνευματι, ἵνα ένωσις η σαρκίκη τε και πνευματική. Ad Mag. Sect. xiii. p. 21. (P.)

§ Μιμηται γινεσθε Ιησε Χρισε, ὡς και αυτος το παίρος αυτ8. Ad Philad. Sect. vii. p. 32. (P.)

VOL. VI.

2 G

so do you nothing without the bishop and the elders." * This language savours of primitive antiquity, and makes me inclined to think that the epistles are not altogether forged, but rather interpolated. At least they must have been forged in an early age.

Justin Martyr, who insists so much on the pre-existence and divinity of Christ, speaking of the logos, says, "Than whom we know no prince more kingly, and more righteous, after the God who generated him."† Speaking of the God in heaven, and the God upon earth, who conversed with Abraham, he says, "The former is the Lord of that Lord who was upon earth, as his Father and God, the cause of his existence, and of his being powerful, and Lord and God.”‡ "Neither Abraham, Isaac, nor Jacob," he says, man, ever saw the Father and ineffable Lord of all, and of Christ himself; but he who by his will was God, his Son, and an angel, from his being subservient to his will, who at his pleasure was made a man from the virgin, who also in the form of fire appeared to Moses in the bush."§

"nor any

"I will endeavour to convince you who know the Scriptures, that there is another who is called God and Lord, besides him that made all things, who is also called an angel, on account of his delivering to man whatever he who is the maker of all things, and above whom there is no other God, wills that he should deliver." ||

Though Christ was supposed by this writer to have made all things, yet there was a sense in which the phrase maker of all things (WOINTYS TWY WAYTOWY), was thought to be applicable to the Father only. "I will endeavour," says he, "to shew that he who appeared to Abraham, Jacob and Moses, and who is called God, is different from the God that made all things, &c.-I say that he never did any thing

Ώσπερ εν ὁ κύριος ανευ το παίρος εδεν εποίησε, ηνωμενος ων, ετε δι' αυτέ, ετε δια των αποςόλων· ὅλως μηδε ύμεις ανευ το επίσκοπο, και των πρεσβυτερων μηδεν πρασσείε. Ad Mag. Sect. vii. p. 19. (P.)

† Ου βασιλικωλαίον και δικαιολαῖον αρχοντα, μετα τον γεννησαντα Θεον, εδένα οίδαμεν Ovτa. Apol. i. p. 17. (P.)

† Ὁς και το επι γης κυριε κυριος εςιν, ὡς παίηρ και Θεος, αίτιος τε αυτῷ το ειναι, και δυνατῳ, και κυριῳ, και Θεῷ. Dial. p. 413. (Ρ.)

§ Ούτε εν Αβρααμ, ετε Ισαακ, ετε Ιακωβ, ετε αλλος ανθρωπων είδε τον πατέρα και αρρητον κύριον των παντων απλως, και αυτό του Χρισε, αλλ' εκείνον τον κατα βελην την εκείνο και Θεον οντα, υιον αυτό, και αίγελον εκ τ8 υπηρετειν τη γνώμη αυτέ, όν και ανθρωπον γεννηθεται δια της παρθενε βεβούληται, ὃς και πυρ ποτε γεγονε τη προς Μωσέα ομιλια τη AUTO TYS Barov. Ibid. p. 411. (P.)

Η Α λέγω πειρασομαι ὑμας πεισαι, νοήσαντας τας γραφας, ότι εςι και λέγεται Θεος και Κυρια ἑτερο (ὑπερ) τον ποιητην των όλων, ὃς και αγγελΘ, καλείται, δια το αγγέλλειν τοις ανθρωποις όσαπερ βέλεται αυτοις α/γειλαι ὁ των ὅλων ποιητης, υπερ ἐν αλλά Θεός ουκ ες.. It is acknowledged that this ὑπερ should be παρα, or ύπο. Ibid. i. p. 249. (Ρ.)

but what that God who made all things, and above whom there is no God, willed that he should do or say.' With a view to this, Origen calls Christ the immediate maker of the world. †

Athenagoras did not consider Christ as the one God, but one who was employed by the one God. "Our doctrine,' he says, "teaches us, that there is one God, the maker of all things-who made all things by his own logos.”

Clemens Alexandrinus calls the logos "the image of God, the legitimate son of his mind; a light, the copy of the light, and man the image of the logos."§ He calls the Father the only true God. Alluding to the Heathen mysteries, he says, "Be thou initiated, and join the chorus with the angels about him who is the unbegotten and immortal, the only true God, God the logos joining with us, he being always the one Jesus, the great high-priest of the one God, and his Father; he prays for men, and gives laws to men.” || He speaks of Christ as "subservient to his Father's will, and only called God by way of figure."¶ "The mediator,' he says, "performs the will of the Father. The logos is the mediator, being common to both, the Son of God and the Saviour of men. Of the one he is the servant, but our instructor." ** "There is one unbegotten almighty Father, and one first-begotten, by whom all things were, and without whom nothing was made. For one is truly God, who made the αρχη (the origin) of all things, meaning his first-begotten Son." And yet this writer had represented the logos as equal to God. ++

Πειρασομαι πεισαι ὑμας ὅτι ἔτος ὁ τε τῳ Αβρααμ και τῳ Ιακωβ και τῳ Μωσει ωφθαι λεγομενα και γεγραμμενος Θεος, έτερος εςι του τα παντα ποιησαντος Θεου αριθμῷ λόγω αλλ' ου τη γνωμη. Ουδεν γαρ φημι αυτόν πεπραχέναι πότε η άπερ αυτος ὁ τον κόσμον ποιησας, ὑπερ ὃν αλλος ουκ εςι Θεος, βεβούληται, και πράξαι και ὁμιλησαι. Dial. i. p. 252.

(Ρ.)

+ Τον προσεχως δημιουργον. Contra Celsum, L. vi. p. 317. (Ρ.)

† Επει δε ὁ λόγος ήμων ένα Θεον αγει τον τούδε του παντος ποιηίην, αυτον μεν ου γενομενον (ότι το ον ε γίνεται, αλλα το μη ον) παντα δε δια του παρ' αυτου λόγου πεποιηκοτα. Apol. p. 40. (P.)

§ Η μεν γαρ του Θεου είκων, ὁ λογος αυτού. Και υιος του νου γνησιος, ὁ θεῖος λόγος, φωτος αρχετυπον φως. Εικων δε του λόγου, ὁ ανθρωπος. Ad Gentes, p. 62. (Ρ.)

|| Ει βουλει, και συ μυου, και χορεύσεις μετ' αγγελων αμφι τον αγεννητον και ανώλεθρον και μονον οντως θεον, συνυμνοῦντο ἡμιν του Θεου λόγου. Αίδιος έτος, Ιησους εις, ὁ μέγας αρχιερευς Θεου τε ένος του αυτού και παίρος, ὑπερ ανθρωπων ευχεται, και ανθρωποις εγκε λεύεται. Ibid. p. 74. (Ρ.)

Ο Θεος εν ανθρωπου σχηματι, αχραντος, πατρικῷ θεληματι διακονος, λογος, Θεός, ὁ εν τῷ παῖρι, ὁ εκ δεξίων του παίρος, συν και τῳ σχηματι Θεου. Ibid. p. 80. (Ρ.)

* Και το θέλημα του παῖρος ὁ μεσιλης εκτελεί, μεσίτης γαρ ὁ λογο, ὁ κοινος αμφοίν, Θεου μεν ύιος, σωτηρ δε ανθρωπων. Και του μεν διακονος, ήμων δε, παιδαγωγός. Paedag. L. iii. C. i. p. 215. (Ρ.)

++ Επει δε εν μεν το αγεννητον, παντοκρατωρ Θεος· ἐν δε και το προγεννηθεν, δι' ἡ τα παντα εγενετο, και χωρις αυτού εγενετο ουδέ ἐν· εις γαρ τῷ οντι εςιν ὁ Θεός, ὃς αρχήν των ἁπάντων εποίησεν, μηνύων τον προτογονον υιον. Strom. L. vi. p. 644. (Ρ.)

++ Soo sunra

ΟΛΟ

Tertullian considers "the monarchy of God, as not infringed by being committed to the Son, especially as it is not infringed by being committed to innumerable angels, who are said to be subservient to the commands of God."* "How," says he, "do I destroy the monarchy, who suppose the Son derived from the substance of the Father, who receives all power from the Father, and does nothing without the Father's will; he being a servant to his Father?"† He says, that "Paul is speaking of the Father only, when he speaks of him whom no man has seen, or can see, and as the king eternal, immortal, and invisible, the only God."‡ According to the economy of the gospel, the Father chose that the Son should be on earth, and himself in heaven; wherefore the Son himself, looking upwards, prayed to the Father, and teaches us to pray, saying, Our Father, who art in heaven." §

Origen says, that " God is the agxn (the origin) to Christ, as Christ is the agn to those things which were made in the image of God." || "Both the Father and the Son," he says, "are fountains: the Father, of divinity; the Son, of logos."¶ "The Father only is the good, and the Saviour, as he is the image of the invisible God, so he is the image of his goodness." "The logos did whatever the Father ordered."†† "The Saviour, and the Holy Spirit," he says,

"Atqui nullam dico dominationem ita unius sui esse, ita singularem, ita monarchiam, ut non etiam per alias proximas personas administretur, quas ipsa prospexerit officiales sibi. Si vero et Filius fuerit ei, cujus monarchia sit, non statim dividi eam, et monarchiam esse desiuere, si particeps ejus adsumatur et Filius; sed proinde illius esse principaliter à quo communicatur in Filium; et dum illius est, proinde monarchiam esse, quæ à duobus tam unicis continetur. Igitur si et monarchia divina per tot legiones et exercitus angelorum administratur, sicut scriptum est, milies millia adsistebant ei, et millies centena millia apparebant ei: nec ideo unius esse desiit, ut desinat monarchia esse, quia per tanta millia virtutum procuratur." Ad Praxeam, Sect. iii. p. 502. (P.)

"Ceterum, qui Filium non aliunde deduco, sed de substantia Patris, nihil facientem sine Patris voluntate, omnem à Patre consecutum potestatem, quomodo possum de fide destruere monarchiam, quam à Patre filio traditam in filio servo." Ibid. (P.)

"De Patre autem ad Timotheum, quem nemo vidit hominum, sed nec videre potest. Exaggerans amplius, qui solus habet immortalitatem; et lucem habitat inaccessibilem. De quo et supra dixerat, regi autem seculorum, immortali, invisibili, soli Deo." Ibid. Sect. xv. p. 509. (P.)

§"Tamen in ipsa œconomia, Pater voluit Filium in terris haberi, se vero in cœlis; quo et ipse Filius suspiciens, et orabat et postulabat à Patre, quo et nos erectos docebat orare: Pater uoster, qui es in cœlis." Ibid. Sect. xxiii. p. 514. (P.) || Αρχη αυτου ὁ Πατηρ εςιν· ὁμοίως δε και Χριςος αρχη των κατα εικονα γενομένων θεον. Comment. II. p. 18. (P.) Ibid. p.

Η Αμφότερα γαρ πηγης έχει χωραν, ὁ μεν πατηρ, θεοτητος, ὁ δε υιος, λόγου. 47. (P.)

** Και ὁ σωτηρ δε, ώς εςιν είκων του θεου του αορατου, έτως και της αγαθότητα αυτού είκων. I. p. 977. (Ρ.)

+ Προσαχθέντα δε τον λόγον πεποιηκεναι παντα όσα ὁ πατηρ αυτῷ ενετείλατο, Ad Celsum, L. ii. v. 63. (P.)