the redeeming man. The expiatory sufferings of the redeeming God, included too, under the awful name of the king of terrors, and constituting the infinite portion of the redeeming sacrifice, were viewless, unseen by mortals, perhaps seen only by the sacred three."

On this statement I wish to make two or three remarks.

1. Our author admits that the death of the cross, that which was endured by Christ in his human nature, was that only which was visible to mortals. The sufferings of Christ in his divine nature, were viewless, unseen by mortals." There can, of course, be no evidence, that such sufferings existed, unless it is communicated by revelation.

2. We look in vain for any inspired declaration, that Christ suffered and died in his divine nature. Not one such declaration can be found. On the contrary, when the scriptures speak of the death of Christ, they point us to the visible "expiration." "Christ suffered for us in the flesh," was "put to death in the flesh," "became obedient unto the death of the cross," was "killed," was "crucified and slain," and shed his blood for the remission of sins.

3. If the visible death on the cross was but the "shadow," and the "viewless, unseen" sufferings were the substance; it is strange that the scriptures should say so much about the shadow, and nothing at all about the substance. Away with all conjecture. Let us have inspired testimony that Christ died in "his ethereal essence."

CHAPTER XI.

Death of Christ continued. Mr. G.'s remarks on the second chapter of Hebrews. According to Mr. G. Christ suffered two deaths perfectly distinct from each other. The term death used by Mr. G. in a sense altogether different from its ordinary import. Hence he departs from his own rule in interpreting scripture.

IN a former chapter, I quoted several passages from the second chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews, to show that the object for which Christ became incarnate, was, that he might suffer and die for the sins of men. Mr. G. was aware that these passages present strong objections to his theory. Hence he labors hard to obviate them. He says, "The second chapter of Hebrews contains the declaration that the incarnate

God tasted death for every man. Was the tasting of death the act of his mere humanity, or the concurrent act of both his united natures? The question is vital to our discussion." The question is not stated exactly as it should be. It was Christ, the incarnate God, that tasted death. The act was his. But did he taste death in his divine nature; or in his human nature only? Mr. G. says, "it was not the taste of physical death that was intended." That Christ did taste physical death in his human nature, cannot be denied. He was "put to death in the flesh." "He was crucified and slain." He "bowed his head and

THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST.

185

gave up the Ghost." If it was not this death that was intended, what death was intended?

Besides it must be remembered that he "was made a little lower than the angels," that he might "taste death for every man ;" that is, that he might be capable of suffering death for the sins of men. If it was not the taste of physical death that was intended," why was it necessary that he should be made a little lower than the angels in order that he might taste it? But says Mr. G., "the taster of death in the ninth verse, is, in the tenth verse, styled the captain of our salvation. The taster of death, and the captain of our salvation, are, therefore, identically one and the same. 'Who then, was the captain of our salvation? Certainly the Second Person of the Trinity clothed in flesh. The human son of the virgin, was not the captain. He was but the subaltern in the work of redemption." Does Mr. G. mean to intimate that the human son of the virgin, and the captain of our salvation, are two distinct persons? Does he not know that the captain of our salvation is both God and man-one person in two distinct natures? That he tasted death in his human nature, on the cross, cannot admit of a question. But where is the proof that he tasted another death in his divine nature? That any such death was ever witnessed, except by the "Sacred Three," our author does not pretend. If they have given us an account of it, let us be referred to that account.

Here, let it be remarked, according to our author's theory, Christ suffered two deaths, perfectly distinct

from each other. There was the "physical death" which took place, in his human nature, on the cross, and which was visible to men; and there was another death, experienced, in his divine nature, and which was "viewless, unseen by mortals." They must have been distinct, because the former was only the death of the body. Even the human soul of Christ did not die when he expired on the cross. If then, Christ, in his divine nature, did suffer death, it must have been altogether a different death from that which he experienced on the cross. Consequently he must have suffered two deaths. Mr. G. says, indeed, that Christ "had two lives, the human and the divine." If then he suffered death in his divine, as well as in his human nature, he must have died two deaths. But where is there a particle of evidence from the scriptures that Christ suffered more than one death. We often read of the death of Christ, but where do we read of the deaths of Christ? Christ is repeatedly said to have laid down his life; but where is he said to have laid down his lives?

Besides-How long did Christ remain under the power of death ? Christ said to his disciples, Mark 10: 33, 34; "The son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles; and they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him, and the third day he shall rise again." Agreeably to this prediction, we know that he died, and was buried, and

rose again the third day. From the time of his crucifixion, therefore, to the third day, he was dead. Does Mr. G. suppose that during this whole period, Christ in his divine nature, in "his ethereal essence," was under the power of death? If not, then he certainly does maintain, that the death which Christ experienced in "his ethereal essence," was entirely distinct from that which took place on Calvary, and of which the scriptures speak so frequently.

Again-Christ said, "I lay down my life, that I may take it again." The life which he laid down when he expired on the cross, we know that he did take again when he rose from the dead, on the third day. If he laid down his divine life, when did he take it again? Did he take it again on the third day? By the death of Christ, in his divine nature, Mr. G. supposes was meant that cup of suffering which was "filled to the very brim with the wrath of Almighty God against sin." Does he suppose that Christ, in his divine nature, was drinking this cup during the whole period that his body lay in the tomb? The scriptures seem to intimate that Christ's sufferings ceased when he said "it is finished," and "bowed his head and gave up the ghost." The truth is, there is not the least evidence, that Christ suffered any other death than that respecting which he conversed with Moses and Elias on the Mount of Transfiguration, and "which he should accomplish at Jerusalem."

“To suffer and die," says Mr. G. "was the object for which the living God became the incarnate captain