was supreme. When they were brought into being, they were put under him, and his title of su premacy commenced with the creation. The Jews afterwards were put under him in a peculiar sense, when he pleased to become their King, or to take upon him the kingly office. Saying that things were put under him, is not saying that another Person put him into office: he assumed the office, and put things under himself. When God takes any per sons specially under his protection, they are then specially put under him; and he assumes the office of special protector. The modesty with which the doctor writes in that place particularly, might have screened him, one should think, from the censure of this hypercritic; and is what he would do well to imitate rather than condemn: though, after all, perhaps that was the very thing that provoked him.

I have insensibly got into the method which I promised to avoid, of remarking upon this writer page by page. Few of them indeed are unexceptionable, (not one, I may venture to say, that is wholly his own,) but however some regard must be had to time and patience. Yet here his absurdities come thick upon us, and we find him espousing an opinion which was formerly reckoned so detestable, that it incurred the anathema even of an Arian or SemiArian synod: viz. that of Sirmium held against Photinus in the year 351. It would be easy to prove

Si quis unicum Filium Dei crucifixum audiens, dealitatem ejus corruptionem vel passibilitatem aut demutationem vel deminutionem vel interfectionem sustinuisse dicat: anathema sit. Hil de Synod. 1180.

For an account of this Sirmian council, see Dr. Waterland's Second Defence, p. 296, &c.

from the ancients, that the Aóyos is impassible; but I shall only here give the testimony of Origen, which is full and express to the purpose; and refer the reader to authors where he may see the suffrages of other Fathers. "But if the immortal God the Word, "assuming a mortal body and a human soul, seems "to Celsus to be changed and transformed; let him "learn that the Word, remaining the Word in sub"stance, suffered nothing which the body and soul "suffered." But our author chiefly depends upon Irenæus, taking no notice, more suo, that others have vindicated him from the imputation of holding any such opinion". The heresy, he says, with which Irenæus every where charges Cerinthus is

66

denying the (Aóyos) Word, or Christ, to be pas"sible." Then Irenæus must be charged with the same heresy himself; for his certain doctrine is, that the Aéyos as such, was impassible" and it was the constant doctrine of all Christian antiquity, as the contrary was both blasphemy and heresy. His at

* Εἰ δὲ καὶ σῶμα θνητὸν καὶ ψυχὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἀναλαβὼν ὁ ἀθάνατος Θεὸς λόγος, δοκεῖ τῷ Κέλσῳ ἀλλάττεσθαι καὶ μεταπλάττεσθαι· μανθανέτω ὅτι ὁ λόγος τῇ οὐσίᾳ μένων λόγος, οὐδὲν μὲν πάσχει ὧν πάσχει τὸ σῶμα ἢ ἡ

x. Contr. Cels. p. 170. ed. Cant. See also Ignat. Epist. ad Pol. edit. Oxon. per Smith, p. 8. and compare Dr. Waterland's Second Defence, p. 254. Justin Martyr's testimony may be seen, p. 132. of the same Defence.

"They" (the catholics in opposition to the cavils of Nestorians) "believed the divine nature to be perfectly impassible; "and when they maintained that God was born and suffered, "they only meant that he was born and suffered according to the "flesh, in that human body which was properly his own." Dr. Berriman's Historical Account, p. 281. where may be seen the testimony of St. Cyril of Alexandria.

" See Dr. Waterland's Defence, p. 414; Second Defence, p. 270, 271; Mr. Alexander's Essay, p. 103.

66

tempt to make Cerinthus's heresy the very image (as he speaks) of Dr. Waterland's is ridiculous *: Dr. Waterland does not suppose the man Jesus to be a distinct Person from the Word; but the man (the human soul and body) and the Word are one (compound) Person : one σúverov T xρñμa, as Origen2 calls him. "I defy him" (Dr. Waterland) "to shew “I any real difference." What, is there no real difference between presence and absence, between union and no union, between dividing Jesus from Christ, and asserting one Jesus Christ? But our author will say, if the union continued, it is absurd to think that the Aoyos did not suffer. It is absurd, nay, it is worse than absurdity, to think that the Logos either did or could suffer. He had assumed, and personally united to his divine, the human nature; in this, he (that one Person, the God-man) suffered; not with respect to both the parts of the compositum, but in that capacity only in which he was capable of suffering. Man is a person compounded of body and soul; and when either of these suffers, we say, in common language, that he (the man, the one person) suffers, though but one part of his person be the immediate subject of his sufferings. If, through the intimate union of soul and body, the sufferings of the one affect the other also, it is because they are both passible; but were one of them absolutely impassible,

* Concerning Cerinthus, see Second Defence, p. 475; Importance, p. 246, 247, &c.; Berriman's Historical Account, p. 32, 33He made Jesus and Christ two different Persons, neither of them properly divine.

y See Dr. Waterland's account of Person in his Second Defence p. 366-369.

7 Contra Celsum, p. 51. ed. Cant. 4to.

(as we say the Logos is,) it could not be affected at all by the sufferings of the other, how close and intimate soever the union was supposed to be. Our author therefore will never be able to prove that the Logos suffered, because the union continued at the passion of the man Jesus. As little will he be able to prove it from the force of scripture expressions, (1 Cor. ii. 8. Philipp. ii. 6, 8. Heb. ii. 10. quoted by him,) or those of Irenæus which are alleged by him to this purpose. St. John says, The Word was made flesh shall we say that the Word was changed and converted into flesh? the council of Sirmium, before mentioned, anathematizes those that say so b. The Word therefore only assumed into personal union with itself the human nature; and so, remaining one Person still, whatever either of the natures did or suffered might be attributed to that one ¢ Per

a Chap. i. 14.

b Si quis, Verbum caro factum est, audiens, Verbum in carnem translatum putet, vel demutationem sustinentem accepisse carnem dicat: anathema sit. Hil. ubi sup.

c "This union was made without any change of the pro"perties essential to each nature, so as to render those properties "convertible. For though there is a communication of names "and idioms, in consequence of the personal union between the "two natures of Christ, so that the very same Person that is "called the Son of God and the Son of man is said to have been "born, and to be from everlasting; to die, and to have life in "himself: yet this manner of speaking, which wholly arises from "the unity of Christ's person, does no more suppose any change "of the two natures, so as to render the properties of them convertible, than it supposes, that because the same man is called " tall or healthy, with respect to the state of his body; or wise " and learned, with respect to the qualities of his mind; that "therefore his soul and body have no separate or distinct pro"perties, but only such as may be reciprocally or indifferently "attributed to them both." Dr. Fiddes, Th, Spec. p. 463.

66

66

66

66

son. This is justified by the common usage of language, and the common practice of writers, both ancient and modern. I will give him the words of one, which seem and sound as much to his purpose, as any he can bring from Irenæus, and yet he will not believe that the author of them holds the Logos to be passible. "It was Jehovah that was pierced: it was God that purchased the church with his own blood; it was deonórns, the high Lord that bought us it was the Lord of glory that was "crucified"." He would triumph with such a passage as this from an ancient writer; and yet it would do him no service. For this Jehovah, this God, this high Lord, this Lord of glory is also man; and, as such, he was pierced, shed his blood, and was crucified. But all his talk upon this subject is owing to his not knowing, or not considering, what a personal union means: and he may urge the same chicane against any personal union of human soul and body. He may also be pleased to consider, whether, supposing our doctrine true, such sort of language may not and must not be used; which, therefore, can be no argument against it. He remarks at the bottom of the page, (66.) that, “in some creeds, God "the Father was peculiarly characterized as being

66

impassible." The reason is, because he was not incarnate, as Sabellians taught, was not personally united with any passible nature. Is not the Son too characterized as impassible even by Irenæus f,

d Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 53.

e See ibid. p. 56, &c.

f Invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis, et impassibilis passibilis, et Verbum homo. Irenæus, quoted by our author, p. 65.

Novatian, in answer to the objection, that if Christ be God,