CHAPTER II.

Man

Mr. G.'s great argument derived from the import of the names given to the Redeemer. Christ is a person of two natures, the human and divine. It is hence inferred that if Christ sufferd, he must have suffered in both natures. This argument shown to prove too much. Many things affirmed of Christ which are true only of his divine nature-others which are true only of his human nature. Illustration from the person of man. composed of body and soul. Man is mortal, and man is immortal. sufferings of Christ, not the sufferings of a mere man, but of that PERSON who is both God and man. Although endured in his human nature, as much His as if they had been endured in his divine nature. Mr. G.'s principle of interpretation furnishes an unanswerable argument to the Unitarians and to the Monophyrites.

The

The great argument of Mr. G. is derived from the import of the names given to the Redeemer. He says, "The name, the Christ, was not an unmeaning appellative; it was at once comprehensive and descriptive; pointing significantly to its absorbing centre, the mysterious and awful union of his manhood and his godhead. To this illustrious personage other names are given in the new testament. called not only Christ, but also Jesus, Christ Jesus, Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, the Son of God, the Word, and the Lamb of God. All these appellations are identical in their meaning with the name, the Christ. They are but its synonymes."

He is there

He attempts to show, what I shall readily admit, that these names applied to the Redeemer, designate

THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST.

39

him as a person composed of two natures, the human and the divine. From this he infers, what I shall not admit, that when it is affirmed of this person that he suffered, the affirmation must imply that he suffered in both his natures. He says, "If the scriptural pasages declarative of the sufferings of Christ, are taken in the plain, obvious, and ordinary sense, they include, beyond peradventure, his divine nature as well as his humanity. The name of Christ is used by the inspired writers to indicate the length and breadth and height and depth of his sufferings, and that name, in its ordinary import, has no limits narrower than the whole compass of his united natures.”

Here a principle is assumed which constitutes the chief corner stone of Mr G.'s whole scheme-a principle, which if I mitake not, is most obviously false. The principle is this; that as the name of Christ and its synonymes, denote a person possessing both the human and divine natures, therefore, whatever is true of this person, must be true of both his natures. With the same truth it might be said, that because the word man denotes a person, possessing both a soul and a body, therefore, whatever is affirmed of man, must be affirmed of both soul and body. Mr. G. himself adduces this example to illustrate the distinction of natures in the person of Christ. He says, "God formed the first Adam of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. The creature thus formed, was compounded of body and soul. To this complex being, and to his posterity, the appellation of man was

given by his almighty creator. The name pertains not exclusively to his soul, or to his body, but to their mysterious union. It would be an unintelligible abuse of the name to a ply it separately either to his corporeal or to his spiritual nature. It belongs to the united totality of man. To the second Adam, combining in himself divinity and humanity, the distinctive appellation of Christ was imparted by the Holy Ghost, to designate not one of his united natures singly, but their glorious union. The name Christ was as exclusively appropriated to his united being, as the name man was appropriated to the united body and soul of the first Adam. The name of Christ when used without explanation, can no more be limited to his human nature, than the name of man, when used without explanation, can be limited to the human body."

To all this I fully assent. Now the question is, are all things which are truly affirmed of man, true both of his soul and body? This surely no one will pretend. We say that man is mortal. We say also that man is immortal; and both declarations are true. One is true of his body, and the other is true of his soul, but neither of them is true of both soul and body; and yet they are both with propriety affirmed of man. We say that man has flesh and bones, and arteries, and veins, and blood-we say that he has hands, and feet and eyes; but we do not affirm these things of his soul. We say also that man has reason and judgment, and will, and affections; but we do not affirm these things of his body. But we affirm them all of man

himself. And so of a thousand other things. No one ever supposed that because the name man denotes a being possessing both soul and body, therefore nothing can be truly affirmed of man, which is not true of both.

But let us bring Mr. G.'s argument directly to the test of scripture. Is it true that nothing is affirmed of Christ which is not true of both his natures? Look

at the following declarations. Heb. 13: 8 ; "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to day, and forever." Is this true of Christ in both his natures? Is he in his human nature, unchangeable? John 8: 58; "Jesus said unto them, verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am." Did Christ affirm this of both his natures. In his human nature, he was at that time but little more than thirty years old. Rev. 1: 11; “I am Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last." Did Christ affirm this of both his natures? Micah 5: 2; "But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." That this is a prediction of Christ, there can be no doubt. But is the last clause of this passage applicable to him in his human nature? Was it true of him as man, that his "goings forth were from everlasting." Heb. 1: 10; "Thou Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thine hands." That this is spoken of Christ, is evident from the context. But is it true of his hu

man nature? Coll. 1: 16, 17; "For by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him, and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Is this true of Christ in his human nature? Did Christ as man create the Universe? John 3: 13; "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man who is in heaven." Did Christ affirm this of both his natures? Was he in his human nature, at that time, in heaven? Matt. 18: 20; Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Did Christ affirm this of both his human and divine natures? Is his human nature omnipresent? Numerous other passages might be adduced in which things are affirmed of Christ that are true only of his divine nature, and which of course were not intended to be applied to his human nature.

I will now mention some texts in which things are affirmed of Christ, that are true only of his human nature. Luke 2: 52; "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man." Is this affirmed of both natures of Christ? As God did he increase in wisdom and stature? Ver. 40, 42; “And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him And when he was twelve years old they went up to Jerusalem." Chap. 3: 23; "And Jesus himself began to