his day, to the peculiar phraseology of the Gospel according to St. John; and as showing the design which in their judgment was entertained by that Evangelist. That they could have been under any considerable misconception on these subjects is all but incredible.

27. "Paul saith, When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son.-For he accomplishes the rich and ample will of the Father, inasmuch as he is the Saviour of such as are saved, and the Lord of those who are under the divine dominion, and the God of whatsoever exists, and the Only Begotten of the Father, and the Christ who was foretold, and the Word of God incarnate; when the fulness of the time was come in which it was necessary that the Son of God should become the son of man." (Lib. iii., c. xviii., p. 242.)

28. "For this cause is the Word man, and he who is Son of God was made son of man, that man receiving the Word, and accepting adoption, might become the son of God." (Lib. iii., c. xxi., p. 249.)

29. "Were Christ man alone, as are all others, the Scriptures would not testify these things concerning him. For since beyond all others he had in himself that geniture which is from the supreme Father, but hath also submitted to that eminent generation which was of the virgin, unto both do the divine Scriptures bear witness of him.—He therefore is the Son of God, our Lord, existing as the Word of the Father, and as he had a human generation, was made the son of man." (Lib. iii., c. xxi., pp. 249, 250.)

30. "Wherefore the Jews have departed from God, not receiving the Word of God, but imagining that they could attain unto a knowledge of God the Father without his Word, that is, without his Son; being ignorant of him who spake unto Abraham, and Aaron, and unto Moses. (Exod. iii. 7, 8.) These things the Son, who is the Word of God, effected from the beginning; the

Father not needing the ministry of angels,—since unto him in all things ministered his offspring and his image, that is, the Son and the Holy Spirit, his Word and his Wisdom, whom all angels serve, and unto whom they are subjected." (Lib. iv., c. xvii., pp. 303, 304.)

31. "If neither Moses saw God, nor Elias, nor Ezekiel, the things seen by them being but similitudes of the glory of God, it is manifest that the Father indeed is invisible; [for] no man hath seen God at any time. But his Word doth manifest the glory of the Father, as the Lord hath said, The ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]. The Word, the interpreter of the Father,—was seen assisting Ananias, Azarias, and Misael in the furnace of fire.The appearance of the fourth, it was said, is like unto the Son of God." (Lib. iv., c. xxxvii., p. 335.)

THEOPHILUS. A. D. 181.

Sixth Bishop of Antioch, succeeded Eros in the year 168. A defence of Christianity, in three books, addressed to Autolycus, a learned Heathen, is his only work now extant.

32. "The Word of the Father of the universe, by whom he made all things, came into paradise and conversed with Adam. For the divine Scripture represents Adam as saying that he heard the voice. But what else is the voice but the Word of God, who is also his Son? -The Word was God, and begotten of God." (Lib. ii., p. 100.)

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS. A. D. 194.

This eminent father belongs to the debatable ground between the second and third centuries; but, in conformity with the chronology of Cave and Lardner, is

here assigned to the former. He is said to have been a Presbyter, and succeeded Pantænus as President of the catechetical school of Alexandria, probably about the year 190. His principal remaining works are an Exhortation to the Gentiles; a treatise entitled, Pædagogus, or the Instructer; with eight books of Stromata, or miscellaneous discourses.

Some effort has recently been made to trace the introduction of the eternal filiation to the Alexandrian fathers. The preceding citations, from writers wholly unconnected with the church of Alexandria, are decisive against this theory. And, in addition to this, the statements of the doctrine, and the allusions to it by Clement, the first of the fathers of this school whose writings we possess, and in several respects the most eminent, are incidental, and by no means numerous. Though sufficient to show the identity of his opinions with those of his predecessors, they are neither in number nor in kind what would have been necessary for the establishment and illustration of a doctrine now recently introduced. In fact, if my own impression be correct, Clement more frequently distinguishes our Lord, not as the Son, but as the Logos, a title much more in harmony with the genius of the Alexandrian school.

33. “The image of God is his Word. The divine Word is the legitimate Son of [his] mind, the archetypal light of light; but man is the image of his Word. (Admonitio ad Gentes, T. i., p. 78.)

34. “The divine Word, who was truly and most manifestly God, was equal to the Governor of the universe, inasmuch as he was his Son.” (Ib., T. i., p. 86.)

35. After citing the oracle at the baptism, which he does partly in the words of Psal. ii. 7, he thus proceeds: “Let us then inquire of these wise persons whether Christ, who is to-day regenerated, is already perfect, or, which is most absurd, is in any respect deficient? If

so, he would have something to learn; but since he is God, that were irrational. There is no superior to the Word, no instructer to the only Instructer. Will they not rather acknowledge, that the perfect Word begotten of a perfect Father was, according to the pre-arrangement of the economy, perfectly regenerated?" (Pædag., lib. i., c. vi., T. i., p. 113.)

36. "The Son, who is his Word, is in the Father: he is announced as just from their mutual relation; the name which indicates power being equally declarative of love." (Ib., lib. i., c. viii., T. i., p. 140.)

37. "The Apostle John says, No man hath seen God at any time; the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]." (Stromata, lib. v., T. ii., p. 695.)

But

38. "We are not as the Lord; although indeed we desire it, yet are we not able. For no disciple is above his master. It is enough if we be as the master, not in respect to essence, for that which is only by appointment cannot be equal to that which is by nature. it is possible for us to be immortal, and to know the contemplation of things, and to be declared to be sons, and to behold the Father, from such things only as are immediately connected with him." (lb., lib. ii., T. ii., p. 469.)

39. "God indeed being inscrutable, cannot be the subject of science. But the Son is Wisdom, and Science, and Truth, and whatsoever else appertains to them; and of each of his powers there is no understanding the limit." (Ib., lib. iv., c. xxv., T. ii., p. 635.)

40. "The most perfect and the most holy nature, the most sovereign and most princely, the most royal and most beneficent, is the nature of the Son, who is most closely connected with him who alone is Almighty. This is the transcendent Excellence who orders all things according to the will of the Father, and governs the

universe in the best manner, exerting his agency on all things with unwearied and inexhaustible power, and contemplating his own hidden counsels through which he operates. For the Son of God never departs from his watch-tower, is not divided or separated, nor traverses from place to place, being every where, at all times, and never circumscribed,—all mind, all paternal light, all eye, seeing all things, hearing all things, knowing all things, and scrutinizing all powers by his power.-Unto him are subjected all the hosts of angels and of gods, [even] to the paternal Word, who is appointed to the sacred economy in behalf of him who hath subjected it [unto him].-That he is the Son of God, and that he is the Saviour and the Lord, as we have stated, the divine prophecies do evidently establish.” (Strom., lib. vii., c. ii., T. ii., p. 831.)

41. "The Power of God is the Son, who was the most princely Word of the Father, and his Wisdom before all created existences." (Ib., p. 832.)

Before we enter upon the third century, it may not be improper to quote a heathen testimony to the doctrine of the Trinity, which incidentally bears upon our present subject. It is found in a witty but profane dialogue, entitled Philopatris, and ascribed to Lucian of Samosata, who flourished towards the close of the second century. Bishop Bull thought it genuine. Other learned men have taken different views both of its author and its chronology. The presumption is against its genuineness, but the entire subject is involved in doubt.

The interlocutors in this piece are Critias, a Heathen, and Triephon, who personates a Christian. The former asks, "By whom shall I swear? Trieph. By the God that rules on high, the great, the immortal, the heavenly, the Son of the Father, the Spi.it proceeding from the Father, one in three and three in one. Regard these