There is a remarkable passage in Justin Martyr, which may be quoted in this place. Like the rest of the Fathers he refers Gen. xlix. 11. to Christ, which in the Septuagint version is thus: πλυνεῖ ἐν οἴνῳ τὴν στολὴν αὑτοῦ, καὶ ἐν αἵματι σταφυλῆς τὴν περιβολὴν αὑτοῦ· upon which Justin observes, “ The words "blood of the grape are used purposely to express, "that Christ has blood, not from the seed of man, "but from the power of God. For in the same manner that man does not produce the blood of “ the vine, but God; so also this passage foretold, "that the blood of Christ was not to be of human 66 66 66 66 origin, but from the power of God: and this prophecy shews, that Christ is not a man, begotten of men according to the common law of menr.” Eusebius, speaking of the same text, says, that men "are redeemed by the blood of the grape, which "has God dwelling in it, and is spiritual "." Clement of Alexandria speaks of "the power of “ God the Father and the blood of God the Son t.” Tertullian says; “I well know, we are not our own, but bought with a price: and what sort of price? the blood of God"." It is this passage, 66 66 μένου ἐν ὑστέρῳ ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβίδ· καὶ πόμα Θεοῦ θέλω τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ. It might be said however that αὐτοῦ refers to Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. c. 7. p. 29. · Τὸ δὲ αἷμα τῆς σταφυλῆς εἰ πεῖν τὸν λόγον, διὰ τῆς τέχνης δεδή λωκεν, ὅτι αἷμα μὲν ἔχει ὁ Χριστὸς οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρώπου σπέρματος, ἀλλ ̓ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ δυνάμεως. Ὃν γὰρ τρόπον τὸ τῆς ἀμπέλου αἷμα οὐκ ἄνθρωπος ἐγέννησεν, ἀλλὰ Θεὸς, οὕτως καὶ τὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ αἷμα οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρωπείου γένους ἔσεσθαι, ἀλλ ̓ ἐκ 66 66 66 which has caused Tertullian to be named as reading the church of God in Acts xx. 28. but his words bear such a direct reference to another text, 1 Cor. vi. 19, 20, that we cannot say, whether he had the words of St. Paul to the Ephesians also in his mind. Origen upon those words of Psalm lxxi. 19. " Thy righteousness also, O God, is very high, who hast "done great things," &c. remarks, “having given peace by His blood to the things in heaven and "in earth.” The pronoun His can only refer to God, who had done great things: but we may observe, that Origen's commentary is a manifest allusion to Col. i. 20. " having made peace through the "blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things "unto himself: by him, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven:" in which passage it is difficult to decide the person to whom εἰρηνοποιήσας having made peace, and airo his are to be re 66 ferred. 66 Origen, like other commentators, considered the Song of Solomon to refer to the union of Christ and his church; and upon those words, v. 10. “ My be"loved is white and ruddy," he says, referring them to Christ; " white, because he was very God: and 66 ruddy, on account of the blood which was shed. "for the churchy." This passage might seem particularly to contain an allusion to Acts xx. 28. on account of the church being mentioned in connexion with the blood of God. Dionysius of Alexandria says, "The holy blood of "our God Jesus Christ is not corruptible, nor the * εἰρηνοποιήσας διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ τὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ γῆς. γ λευκός, ἐπειδὴ ὁ Θεὸς ἀληθινός πυῤῥὸς δὲ διὰ τὸ αἷμα τὸ ὑπὲρ τῆς "blood of a mortal man like ourselves, but of very "God"." Epiphanius (if the treatise be genuine) speaks of the church, οὐκέτι αἵματι δουλικῷ φυρωμένη, ἀλλὰ αἵματι θεϊκῷ σφραγιζομένη. Serm. in Fest. Palm. vol. II. p. 254. Having already mentioned the assertion of the Unitarian translators, that “the blood of God is not "quoted by the earliest ecclesiastical writers,” I leave the reader to draw his inference as to the accuracy of the remark; and I only observe, that these passages alone might seem sufficient to prove, that the Ante-Nicene Fathers believed in the divinity of Christ. That they believed him, who shed his blood on the cross, to be God in some sense or other, cannot be denied: it is for our opponents to prove, that they did not believe him to be verily and essentially God. 12. Ignatii Epist. ad Eph. c. 7. p. 13. In the same Epistle, having warned the Ephesians to beware of those who taught false doctrines, and whom he considered almost incurable, he says, "There is one Physician, fleshly and spiritual, made "and not made, God born in the flesh, true life in "death, both of Mary and of God, first capable of suffering, and then incapable a." There is little to 66 2 οὐ φθαρτὸν τὸ αἷμα τὸ ἅγιον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, οὔτε ἀνθρώπου καθ ̓ ἡμᾶς θνητοῦ, ἀλλὰ Deaũ àλnio. c. Paul. Samos. Quæst. IV. p. 237. a · Εἷς ἰατρός ἐστιν σαρκικός τε καὶ πνευματικός, γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος, ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος Θεὸς, ἐν θανάτῳ ζωὴ ἀληθινὴ, καὶ ἐκ Μαρίας καὶ ἐκ Θεοῦ, πρῶτον παθητὸς καὶ τότε ἀπαθής. The commentators are in doubt whether to read yeròs and ἀγένητος or γεννητὸς and ἀγέννητος in this place. There is no doubt, that after the council of Nice the difference between these two expressions was carefully observed; but earlier writers sometimes confounded them. The difference seems to have been that γεννητὸς and ἀγέννητος meant begotten and not begotten, γενητὸς and ἀγένητος meant made or created, and not made or not observe upon these words, which expressly assert the two natures of Christ, except that they may remind us of the passage in John i. 14. "The Word " was made flesh, and dwelt among us :" and they may also seem to support the received reading in 1 Tim. iii. 16. God was manifest in the flesh, which I shall have occasion to notice more at length in a future page. created. See Damascen. I. 9. Epiphan. Hær. LXIV. 8. vol. Í. P. 532. We should therefore say of the Son, that he was yevνητὸς not γενητός, i. e. he was begotten of the Father, not made or created: and that he was ἀγένητος but not ἀγέννητος. Iu classical writers we meet with no such distinction. We might notice eyes and Ontoyens in two consecutive lines of Sophocles, (Antig. 834-5,) where the metre evidently decides the omission or insertion of the v. Cicero also in translating a passage from the Phædrus of Plato, åpxù dè åyévytov, renders it, principii autem nulla est origo, and ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἀγένητόν ἐστι, quod si nunquam oritur. (Tusc. Disp. I. 23.) In the same manner ecclesiastical writers sometimes confounded the terms: thus the Son was said to be àyévTos, by which it was not meant that he was not begotten, but that he was not created: and Origen was greatly censured for calling the Son Yentos eos though he certainly did not mean, that he was a created God; for in one of his works (c. Cels. VI. 17. p. 643.) he created. The fact is, that Origen, like the writers before and after him, used the terms without reflection, and it is probable that Ignatius did so in this place, where he wished to mark the antithesis of the two natures in Christ, according to one of which he might be said to be made, like any other man, but according to his divine nature, he was, like God, uncreated. Athanasius asserts that the Arians first insisted upon the exclusive application of ȧyévntos to God the Father, meaning thereby to include the Son among yetá. If this be true, it would account for the confusion of terms in the writers who went before him. De Decret. Syn. Nic. §. 28. vol. I. p. 233. cf. Orat. I. contra Arianos, 31. p. 435. 32. p. 437De Synodis 46. p. 760. See Bull, Defens. Fid. Nic. II. 2. 6. and 9. 9. Huet. Origeniana, II. Quæst. 2. §. 23. Suicer in voc. ἀγένητος and γενητός. Waterland, IV. p. 239, 260. and particularly Petavius de Trin. 1. V. c. I. Instead of ev σαρκὶ γενόμενος Θεός in the above quotation, Athanasius, Theodoret, and Gelasius read ȧy 13. Ignatii Epist. ad Eph. c. 18. p. 15. After quoting from St. Paul, (1 Cor. i. 20.) " Where "is the wise, where is the disputer? where is the boasting of those who are called intelligent?" he 66 adds, "for our God Jesus Christ was conceived by 66 Mary, according to the dispensation of God, of the "seed indeed of David, but of the Holy Ghost b." 14. Ignatii Epist. ad Eph. c. 19. p. 16. In the next chapter he alludes to the star, which guided the wise men to Bethlehem, and mentions some extraordinary circumstances, which he conceived either figuratively or literally to have attended its appearance: "Then," he says, "all magic "art was destroyed, and every bond of iniquity was "abolished; ignorance was put away, the old king"dom was destroyed, when God was manifested humanly for the newness of eternal life c." 66 15. Ignatii Epist. ad Magnes. c. 6. p. 19. The preexistence of Christ in union with the Father is asserted in the following passage, where, speaking of Christ, Ignatius adds, "who was with "the Father before the worlds, and appeared at the "end d. 16. Ignatii Epist. ad Trall. c. 7. p. 23. Having warned the people of Tralles to beware of heretics, Ignatius has these words, " Keep yourselves "then from such men and you will do this, if ye "are not puffed up, and if ye do not separate from "God Jesus Christ "." d » Ο γὰρ Θεὸς ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς ὁ μένου εἰς καινότητα ἀϊδίου ζωῆς. Χριστὸς ἐκυοφορήθη ὑπὸ Μαρίας κατ' οἰκονομίαν Θεοῦ, ἐκ σπέρματος μὲν Δαβίδ, πνεύματος δὲ ἁγίου. ὃς πρὸ αἰώνων παρὰ πατρὶ ἦν, καὶ ἐν τέλει ἐφάνη. e καὶ οὖσιν ἀχωρίστοις Θεοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. I have tried to |