-Terror, and grief, and anxiety, are affec"tions of the foul; labour, and fleep, and "wounds are of the body, the weakness of "the flesh *." Epiphanius alfo, in the fame controverfy, alledges, but with much less propriety, 1 Cor. ii. 6. We have the mind of Chrift. Fulgentius argues, that if Chrift had had only a body, and not a foul, he could not have saved more than the bodies of men; but having recovered the whole of the loft sheep, and not a part of it only, he infers that he was able to fave both. He alfo cbferves that, if Chrift

* Πως δε αν λεγοι τις, αψυχον και ανοήτον, το σωμα το χρισ Ταραχη γαρ και λύπη, και αδημονια, ψυχης νοσημαία· κοπος δε και υπνος, και τρωσις σωμαίος, σαρκός ασθενημαία. Anathemas, af cribed to Gregory Thaumaturgus, Opera, p. 6.

Ancoratus, fect. 76. Opera, vol. 2. p. 81.

Quapropter cum error ifte animæ fimul intelligatur, et corporis, fi dei filius abfque anima rationali folam accepit hominis carnem, inferiorem partem illius ovis domum retulit, meliorem vero (quod abfit) errori perpetuo dereliquit: nam manifeftum eft, quoniam hoc revocavit, quod propriis humeris reportavit: fi autem ipfe totam fe profitetur ovem propriis humeris impofitam reportaffe, totus homo cognofcatur in Chrifto: quoniam tunc eft hominis credenda redemptio: fi in filio dei fufcept onis humanæ, id

eft,

had not had a human foul, there would have been nothing extraordinary in his being without fin, as the divinity cannot poffibly fin *. That all the orthodox Fathers held that Christ had a proper human foul, as well as a human body, I have produced abundant evidence. Vol. 2. p. 198.

66

Laftly, Athanafius urges the Arians with the conformity of their principles to those of the Gnoftics, on the idea that, according to them, Chrift was a being of the fame nature with the angels. If," fays he, "the Son be not of the things that are "made, but of the Father's effence, the "reasoning of the Arians concerning the "word made is foolish; and if they impudently affert that it is ufed only by 66 way of comparison, and that things com

eft, ovis illius reportatæ, non defuit plenitudo. Ad Trafimundum, lib. 1. cap. 10. p. 451.

* Nam fi dei filius animam humanam in carnis fufcep. tione non habuit, et hoc beatus Petrus de ejus creditur divinitate dixiffe, quid eft, quod pro magno in laudem dicitur Chrifti? Quia divinitas ejus immunis effe potuit a labe peccati, cum dei fit proprium, non folum non peccare, fed etiam a peccato falvare. Ibid. cap. 11. p. 452.

Q3

"pared

pared must be fimilar, fo that the Son "must be of the fame nature with the an

66

gels, they ought to be the more afhamed, 6 as adopting the opinions of Valentinus, Carpocrates, and other heretics; of whom "the former faid, that the angels were of " the fame nature with Chrift, and the "latter, that angels were the makers of " the world. For they muft have learned "of them to compare the logos of God "with the angels. But they who ima

Igine fuch things are put to shame by "the Pfalmift, who fays, Who among the "Sons of God is like unto the Lord; who among the gods is like unto thee, O σε Lord * ?”

66

Ουκέν ει των μεν γενητων αλλος εσι, της δε τε παῖρος εσίας μονὸς ίδιον γέννημα ο υιος, μεμαλαιωναι τοις Αρειανοις η περί τα γενομενος προφασις . και γας εν τέλοις αισχυνθενίες βιαζωνται παλιν λέγειν συγκ κριτικως ειρησθαι τα ξήλα • και δια τέλο είναι το συγκρινόμενα ομογενή, ωσε τον υιον της των αγελων είναι φύσεως, αισχυνθήσονται μεν προηγε μένως ως τα Ουαλενλινε και Καρποκραίς και των άλλων αιρείικων ζήλον Ἴες, και φθεῖγομενοι . ων ο μεν της αίγελος ομογενεις είρηκε τω χρίσω. ο δε Καρποκράτης αίγελος το κόσμο δημιυργός είναι φησι. παρ' αυλων γαρ ισως μαθονίες και είοι, συγκρίνεσι τον τ8 Θες λογον τοις αίγελοις · ἀλλ' ἐντραπησονται τοιαύτα φανταζόμενοι παρα μεν το υμνωδες λεγοντος, τις ομοιωθησεται τω κυρίω εν υιοις θες, και τις όμοιος σοι εν θεοις κύριε. Con. Ar. Or. 2. p. 363.

SE C

SECTION

V.

General Obfervations on the Arian Con

troversy.

HUS have I given the best view that

THU

I have been able to collect of the principles on which the Arian controversy was conducted in early times; and the following circumftances clearly prove, that, notwithstanding the advantage which the Arians derived from the conceffions and abfurdities of their antagonists, their doctrine was really a novel one. All the orthodox Fathers before the age of Arius confidered the logos which made the world, and which was the medium of all the divine communications to the patriarchs, as having been the proper attribute of the Father, and therefore uncreated. They also all supposed that Chrift had a human foul, as well as a human body, and that the logos was united to the man, and not to the body only.

The Arian doctrine, therefore, that Christ, or the logos, was a created fuper-angelic fpirit, the creator of the world, and the medium of the divine communications to the patriarchs, &c. (which all the Arians of that age believed; for, as I have more than once observed, they all transferred to their created logos, whatever had been fupposed to have been the office of the uncreated one) and that this great spirit animated the body of Jefus in the place of a human foul, was altogether a novel doctrine, and not older than the age of Arius himself.

As to the doctrine of Christ being a preexistent fuper-angelic fpirit, and not the creator of the world, or not the medium of the divine communications to the patriarchs, it is much more novel; probably not older than a fingle century. In the fame predicament alfo is the notion that the great powers of this fuper-angelic fpirit were in a state of fufpenfion, so that while upon earth he was reduced to the condition. of a mere human foul; a ftrange notion, which nothing but the most infuperable difficulties