326 THE ARIAN INVITED TO ORTHODOX FAITH. course of the. descent of the man Christ Jesus, giveshis testi- mony also, that Origen was Of this opinion And perhaps this might be the occasion why that ancient writer sometimes exalts the Logos to such sublime characters of divinity, as represent him to beays000TEa, &c. the very wisdom, the very truth of God himself, and makes him co-eternal with the Father, and at other times calls him evos SEUIEPOÇ, BEGS yevr,1oç, AE49rowµEr , &c a second God, a made God, &c. I have also the concurring suffrage of Mr. Baxter, in his Methodus Theologize, page 06. he seems to be of this opinion concerning some of the fathers, by what observations he had made in reading the ancients. For when he had there recited several of the expressions of the primitive fathers, viz. Justin, Tatian, Theophilus, Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Dionysius Alexandrinus, &c. he adds et xidentur quidem eorum'. seculorum nonnulli putasse duplicem in Christy nondum incar- nato naturam fuisse ; prirnuna divinam, qua sapientia Dei sell 7,014, ceternuJuit, 8C secundara, quam solam Arius agnovit, creataraa super- angelicam, creaturarum primogenitam & admi- nistram. Some of the writers of those ages seem to think there were two natures in Christ before his incarnation : 'T'he first divine, whereby he was the wisdom of God, or his eternal , Word : The second a super-angelic, created nature, first born of creatures, ministering to God, &c. which is the only nature the Arians allow." And the author adds, that" Gregory Thau- Inaturgus seems to have believed this double nature." I confess I was surprized, when I had almost finished this dissertation, to find such a sentence in thislearned author. And it is evident that nothing but the various expressions of the fathers themselves could have constrained him to have spoken thus, since Mr. Bax ter himself did not approve of this opinion ; but it is plain that he could hardly interpret some of the fathers into any other sense. Il. Yet I readily grant, and believe, that the greatest part, ofthemdo not seem to have any distinct idea of a complex Logos, or a double nature in Christ before the incarnation ; for they fre- quently seem to apply both increated and created characters to the same single being. But the : question is, whether a reader can have any clear and distinct ideas under this language of theirs ? Whether they can be made to talk very consistently with them- selves in this strange phraseology ? Are we not forced to correct the philosophyof those"ancients, who apply rationality and vege- tation to man as one simple animal substance ? Do we not plain- ly find, that though their ideas are right in general, when they ascribeboth these to man, yet they mistook a complex for a simple being? And might not the primitive fathers fall into such an in- nocent mistake in theology, when they determined too hastily,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=