"ftance *." Athanafius represents this generation as a neceffary confequence from the nature of deity. "If God," he says, is a fountain, and light, and a father, it "cannot be that a fountain should be dry, "that light fhould be without beams, or "God without logos; left he should be "without wifdom, without reafon, and "without light +."

Cyril of Alexandria also compares the

relation of the Son to the Father to that of fplendor to the fun, and heat to the fire, both being infeparable, and alfo coeval. And though the fun, he fays, emits fplendor, and the fire heat, yet the fun cannot be without its fplendor, nor the fire without its heat. But this did not apply to

* Ει εν εκ ην ο υιος, πανίως δε ο πατηρ ην . ει 8κ ην το απαυγασμα, εδε το απαυγαζον ην· ει εκ ην ο χαρακτηρ, πανίως εδε η υποςασις ην. Opera, vol. 2. p. 900.

+ Ει πηγη και φως καὶ πατηρ εσιν ο θεός, ο θεμις ειπειν ελε την πηγήν ξηραν, ελε το φως χωρις ακλιν, ελε τον θεον χωρις λόγε, ίνα μη άσοφος sej aroyos nj afelyns no Jeos. Epift. ad Serapionem, Opera, vol. I. p. 167.

Nihil enim aliud nomen fontis nobis fignificat, quam ut ex quo: filius vero in patre et ex patre eft non profluens

foras,

the Son, or the fpirit, for the Father only was confidered as the fountain of deity.

It was a queftion even among the Arians, whether God could be called a Father before the creation of Chrift *.

Farther, it was confidered as reproachful to the Father, not to be able to generate a fon. "The heretics," fays Novatian, "reproach "the Father, when they fay he could not ge"nerate a son, who should be God.” Epi

foras, fed aut quafi a fole fplendor, aut quafi ab igne infita fibi caliditas. In his enim exemplis unum ab una produci, et ambo confempiterna fic effe confpicimus, ut aliud abfque alio nec effe poffit, nec naturæ fuæ rationem retinere. Quomodo enim erit fol, fplendore privatus? vel quomodo erit fplendor, nifi fol fit a quo defluat? ignis vero quomodo erit calore carens? vel calor unde manabit, nifi ab igne, aut ab alio forfan non procul a fubftantiali qualitate ignis disjecto? Sicut igitur quæ ab iftis profluunt, fimul cum illis funt unde profluunt, ac femper unde fluant oftendunt: fic in unigenito intelligendum eft. In Joan. lib. 1. cap. I. Opera, vol. 1. p. 600.

I.

* Γιγνονται δε και εν Αρειανοις διαιρέσεις, δι αίλιαν τοιαύτην - επει γαρ εν τη εκκλησία πεπιςείλαι ο θεος Πατηρ είναι υις τε λόγο, ζήτημα ενέπεσεν εις αύλες, ει δυναται και προ το υποσηναι τον υιον, ο θεος καλει Sa Пamp. Socrat. Hift. lib. 5. cap 23. p. 3'00. + Hæc enim contumelia hæreticorum ad ipfum qucque Deum patrem redundabit, fi Deus Pater Filium Deum nerare non potuit. Cap. 4. P: 32.

ge

phanius

phanius thought it reproachful to the unitarians, that they should say that the Father was ayov, i. e. unable to generate a son*. The orthodox, it must be allowed, took pains enough to do away this reproach; but it was at the rifque of expofing their scheme to ridicule, as must have been perceived already. They themselves even proceeded fo far as to speak of the labours of the Father in generating the Son. For mention is actually made of this circumftance in a serious hymn of Synefius on this subject; the Son being called xpadiasov 78 200 Xevμa, a great birth; Hymn 2. Opera, p. 317. and in Hymn 4. p. 336, there occurs the phrafe ωδινα πατρώ.

Ambrose speaks of the womb of the Father. What could the heretics, alluded

* OG δε 8 λεγει μονον θεον, δια το πηγήν είναι τον πατερα, αλλά μόνον θεον, αναιρών όσον το και αυλον την τε υιε θεοίητα και υποςασιν, καὶ το αγιο πνευματι- · εχων δε αυτον τον πατερα ένα θεον, αγονον υιε, ως ειναι τα δυο άίελη πατερα και υιον· τον μεν πατέρα αγονον uιs, κ) ακαρτον τον λόγον θες ζωντος και σοφίας αληθινης. Hær. 65. Opera, vol. 1. p. 609.

+ Sicut enim finus patris fpiritalis intelligitur intimum quoddam paternæ charitatis naturæque fecretum, in quo femper eft filius, ita etiam patris fpiritalis et vulva inte

to in the following paffage of Cyril of Alexandria, have said more? "Those who "do not approve of the doctrine, when they "hear of the Father generating from his "womb, understand a real womb, and a "real child-birth *."

At length the orthodox learned to be lefs confident, and more modeft on this subject; representing it as a myfterious thing, and incapable of any explanation. Indeed, Irenæus expreffed his fenfe of the difficulty of this fubject at an early period; but it was in oppofition to the Gnostics, who made no difficulty at all of the prolation of one incorporeal being from another. " If

66

any perfon," fays he, "afk how is the "Son produced from the Father, we fay "that this production, whether it be called "generation, or nuncupation, or adaper

rioris arcanum, de quo tanquam ex genetali alio proceffit filus. Denique diverfe legimus nunc vulvam patris, nunc cór ejus, quo verbum eructavit. De Benedictionibus

Patriarcharum, Opera, vol. 1. p. 412.

* Hæc qui recte dici negant, quum generare patrem ex utero audiant, uterum, et dolores partus intelligunt. In John, cap. 4 Opera, vol. 1. p. 608,

"tion, or by whatever other name this "ineffable generation be called, no one "knows; neither Valentinus, nor Marcion, nor Saturninus, nor angels, nor archangels, nor principalities, nor powers; "but the Father only who generated, and "the Son who was generated *."

However, in general, those who followed him complained of no difficulty in this bufinefs, as we have feen. Conftantine intimates that "the generation of the Son may

*

Quandoquidem et Dominus, ipfe filius Dei, ipsum judicii diem et horam conceffit fcire folum patrem, manifefte dicens: De die autum illa, et hora nemo fcit, neque filius, nifi pater folus. Si igitur fcientiam dici illius filius non erubuit referre ad patrem, fed dixit quod verum eft; neque nos erubefcimus, quæ funt in quæftionibus majora fecundum nos, refervare Deo. Nemo enim fuper magiftrum eft. Si quis itaque nobis dixerit: quomodo ergo filius prolatus a patre eft? dicimus ei, quia prolationem iftam, five generationem, five nuncupationem five adapertionem, aut quolibit quis nomine vocaverit generationem ejus inenarrabilem exiftentem, nemo novit ; non Valentinus, non Marcion, neque Saturninus, neque Bafilides, neque angeli, neque archangeli, neque principatus, neque poteftates, nifi folus qui generavit pater, et qui natus eft filius. Lib. 2. cap. 48. p. 176.

"be