the union of the two natures in the person of Christ, those attributes which belong to the one, are given to the other, and that it is true to say that God is man, and as true, that a man is God.' But can he not see that if Christ is both God and man in one person, it is proper to call him God, and also to call him man, and to ascribe to him the attributes of Divinity and of humanity? Can he not see, that by whatever name the person of Christ is designated, it is proper to predicate of that name all the attributes of his person? I have already shown by numerous quotations, that in the scriptures, the attributes of God, and the attributes of man, are predicated of Christ, and of the other names by which the person of the Redeemer is usually designated in the sacred volume. Now if the terms God and man are sometimes used as synonymous with the term Christ, then it is proper to predicate of them the same attributes as are predicated of Christ."

But our author proceeds, "The Bible's Great Mediator himself taught the infinite distance between his manhood and his Godhead, notwithstanding their union.' John 14: 28; My Father is greater than I.' Math. 19: 17; Why callest thou me good, there is none good but one, that is God.' Math. 20: 22; But to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.' Mark 13: 32;

6

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no not the angels, which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.' Thus it appears, from the highest

authority in the universe, that, notwithstanding the union of the two natures in the person of Christ, the man did not become God, or assume the divine attributes. Nor did the God sink into the man. Christ recognized, in his divine capacity, no inferiority to the Father, either in power, or goodness, or prescience."

Who supposes that man became God, or that God sunk into the man? But does not Mr. G. know that the Person who made the above-cited declarations, was, at the time when he made them, the incarnate God, equal with the Father, Omniscient, and infinitely good? Does he suppose that the person here speaking is a different person from the one who said, "I and my Father are one?” He certainly will not pretend this. Nothing is more plainly taught in the scriptures, than that Christ does sometimes speak of himself as man, and sometimes as God; and that he is thus spoken of by the sacred writers. If he is both God and man in one person, the language is perfectly proper. And although I would not use the precise language of bishop Pearson, I would not hesitate to affirm, that it is true to say, that He who is God, is also man; and that he who is man, is also God. This language, if I mistake not, is abundantly justified by the scriptural representations of the person of Christ.

"The manhood of Christ," says Mr. G., "was not God. The sufferings of his manhood, were not the sufferings of the Deity."

It is true that the manhood of Christ, was not the Divinity of Christ. But it was the manhood of that

Person who was God, as well as man. So the sufferings of his manhood, were not the sufferings of his Divinity; but they were the sufferings of that Person who was truly God as well as man. They were, in this sense, and in no other, the sufferings of the Deity.

Mr. G. insists upon it, that upon the prevalent theory, John could no more have been taught by inspiration to say, "Herein perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us,' * than he could have been "taught by inspiration to say, that the infinitely holy God had committed some flagrant sin for the redemption. of men. He might have declared, that the man united to the God, had laid down his life for us." But Christ, as man, is never spoken of, by the sacred writers, as a distinct person. What is affirmed of his human nature, is affirmed of Christ, as much as what is affirmed of his divine nature. They constitute one person, and whatever is true of him in either nature, is affirmed of Him, and of any name by which he is designated, whether it be Christ, or Jesus, or Son of God, or Son of man, or God or man even.

The principle of interpretation adopted by Mr. G., furnishes the Unitarian with an unanswerable argument. According to him, whatever is affirmed of Christ, must be affirmed of his whole person. "Per

* John did not say this. But if he had said what our translators have made him say, it would be manifest that the term God was used as synonymous with Christ; and we know that things are predicated of Christ, in the scriptures, without qualification, which are true only of his human

nature.

sonality," he says, "is indivisible, and every thing affirmed of it, unless there are very special words of limitation and restriction, is predicated of its entirety." The Unitarian adduces the following text, " My Father is greater than I," and says, Christ affirms this of his whole person. Consequently, he is, in his whole person, inferior to the Father. He adduces also the following passage: "Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." This, he says, is also affirmed of Christ's whole person. Consequently Christ is not Omniscient. How will Mr. G. answer this reasoning? I venture to say that he cannot answer it, without abandoning the principle of interpretation on which the main pillar of his theory rests.

Apply his principle of interpretation to another class of texts, and it will furnish an unanswerable argument to the Monophysites-that is, those who maintain that there is but one nature in Christ; and who, of course, deny his proper humanity. Take the following texts. "Before Abraham was, I am." "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day and forever." These things, says the Monophysite, are affirmed of Christ's whole person. Consequently he is, in his whole person, eternal, and unchangeable, and of course cannot possess a human nature. This conclusion is irresistible, if Mr. G.'s principle be admitted to be true.

CHAPTER III.

Mr. G.'s argument derived from the dismay with which Christ anticipated his sufferings, and the perturbation with which he endured them. Contrast between him in this respect, and the martyrs. The capacity of the human nature to suffer, limited. Gethsemane. The bloody sweat. The scene on Calvary. All the exhibitions of suffering were made in the Difficulties in supposing they were endured in the divine nature. Omniscience. The angel sent to strengthen him.

human nature.

Christ's

THAT Christ suffered in his divine nature, is argued by our author, from the dismay and perturbation of Christ before, and during his last passion. He says, "The dismay with which Christ beheld his coming sufferings, and the perturbation which their indurance caused him, can only be explained on the supposition that the sufferings were not confined to the human nature. Had the primitive christian martyrs exhibited the same dismay and perturbation at the approach of death, one of the chief arguments in favor of the truth of our holy religion would have been lost to the world." "The corporeal sufferings of many of the early martyrs were doubtless greater than the corporeal sufferings of their master." "The difference between these martyrs and their master in meeting and enduring the agonies of a violent death, is a historic fact, not to be passed over unnoticed. It is not a point of literary curiosity alone, it deeply concerns our faith. It indicates that his suffering must have differed from