DISSERTATION IV. 219 chreses, and too hard figures of speech, by speaking of God like a creature, and of a creature like God. These lay a found- ation for very obscure and perplexed ideas, and thereby intro- duce perpetual contests betwixt learned men, concerning the sense of the fathers. May it not be lawful therefore, to propose another method of reconciling the various, and seeming inconsistent expressions of the primitive fathers concerning the Logos ? Theproposal is as follows : If the same single subject, the same simple Logos, cannot sustain such different and contrary characters, let us en- quire, whether the Logos be not a complex subject, made up of two distinct subjects, each of which has had the apellation of Logos, or the Word, both in the Jewish and christian writings? May we not suppose the Logos, or Word, considered as something in the godhead analogous to a power or virtue, to be infinite, untreated, co- essential, and co-eternal with God the Father, as being of his very essence, and in this sense true God ? May not this sometimes be represented in a personal man- ner as distinct from the Father ? Would not this be the proper subject of the most sublime attributions given to the Logos? May we not suppose also, that in some unknown moment of the divine eternity, God, by his soverign will and power, pro. duced a glorious spirit in an immediate manner, and in a very near likeness to himself, and called him his Son, his only be- gotten Son ? Would not this be a proper subject for all the infe- rior attributions ? Might not this be that Logos of Philo, and the other ancient Jews, who was called the first born of God, the eldest archangel, the man after God's own image ? &c. and might not this be the human soul of our blessed Saviour? Supposing further this angelic spirit to be assumed into a personal union with the divine Logos, from the first moment of his existence, might he not be called the Son of God also, upon this account ? May it not be said, that true godhead is commu- nicated to the Son of God in this manner, and that by the free will of the Father ? For it pleased the Father that the fulness of the Godhead should dwell in him ; Col. i. 19. And in this sense the Father may be called the author and the cause both of his existence, hisgodhead, and all hispowers, for though thegod- head of the Logos, or divine wisdom, be essential to the nature of God, and eternally independent, yet it may be communicated, that is, united, to an inferior spirit by the will of the Father, without any diminution of its divine independency. Now by vir- tue of this personal union, or inhabitation, of the divine mind, or wisdom, in this glorious angelic being, the Son becomes more eminently the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express image of his person. Then will it not follow, that this whole complex being, viz.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=