CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.

The question stated. It should be approached with humble and devout feelings. The theory of Mr. G. opposed to the belief of almost the whole Christian world. The question not a matter of philosophical speculation but eminently scriptural. Rules of interpretation. Mr. G.'s theory rests on two fundamental errors. One relating to the nature of the atonement, the other to a principle of interpretation.

CHAPTER I.

Page 17

Mr. G.'s first argument, viz. the incarnation itself implies suffering.Sustained by reference to John 17: 5; "Father, glorify thou me with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." And Phil. 2: 6-8; "who being in the form of God-emptied himself." Refuted by reference to 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." John 1: 18; "The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father;" also John 10: 30; and 14: 9, 10.

28

CHAPTER II.

Mr. G.'s great argnment derived from the import of the names given to the Redeemer. Christ is a person of two natures, the human and divine. It is bence inferred that if Christ suffered, 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. 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 furnishes an unanswerable argument to the Unitarians and to the Monophosites.

The

38

CHAPTER III.

Mr. G.'s argument derived from the dismay with which Christ anticipated his last 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 human nature. Difficulties in supposing they were endured in the divine Christ's omniscience. The angel sent to strengthen him.

nature.

CHAPTER IV.

6,7

Examination of certain texts of scripture relied on by Mr. G. Luke 12: 50; "I have a baptism to be baptized with." John 12: 27, 28; "Now is my soul troubled." John 13: 21; "He was troubled in spirit." Heb. 5: 7, 8; "When he had offered up prayers and supplications." The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. Isa. 63: 3; "I have trodden the wine press alone.”— Zech. 12: 10; "And they shall look on me whom they have pierced." 87

CHAPTER V.

Mr. G.'s theory of the atonement, viz. that Christ must have endured an amount of suffering equal to that deserved by all for whom he suffered. This theory shown to be inconsistent with grace in the gift of pardon; to be derogatory to the character of Christ, and subversive of the great object for which the plan of salvation was devised. The true object of the atonement is to render it consistent for God to pardon sin without giving up his law. That amount of suffering which answers this end, all that is needed. The sufferings of Christ shown to be not the sufferings of a mere man, but of HIM who is both God and man, and to derive infinite atoning value from the dignity and glory of his Person. 106

CHAPTER VI.

Direct arguments to prove that Christ suffered in his human nature only. Argument from the attributes of God, particularly his immutability and Omniscience. The transition from a state of blessedness to a state of suffering implies a change of views and of feelings. The question considered, whether the divine nature is capable of voluntary suffering. What is voluntary suffering? Not the direct, but remote result of volition. The assertion of Mr. G. examined, that if the suffering of the divine nature implies mutabil

ity, the incarnation implies the same. The objection answered, that if God cannot voluntarily suffer, he is not Almighty.

CHAPTER VII.

119

If Christ suffered in his divine nature, all the Persons of the Godhead must have suffered. This admitted by the reviewer in the Christian Review. This objection shown not to lie against the incarnation. Proof from scripture that God is infinitely blessed. 1 Tim. 1: 16; 1 Tim. 6; 15; Isa. 46: 10; Rev. 4: 11; Ps. 115: 3; Ps. 135: 6; Eph. 1: 11; Dan. 4 5. Mr. G.'s opinion that God's blessedness is progressive, examined. Meaning of Heb. 12: 2: "Who for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross."

CHAPTER VIII.

129

Proof from scripture that Christ suffered in his human nature. 1 Pet. 3: 18; "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins-being put to death in the flesh." 1 Pet. 4: 1; "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh." 1 Pet. 2: 24. Eph. 2: 15. Col. 1: 20-22. Meaning of the term flesh when applied to Christ. If Christ suffered in his divine nature, the incarnation was unnecessary. Proof from scripture that Christ became incarnate, that he might suffer. Second chapter of the Hebrews. Gal. 4 4, 5. Rom. 8: 3. Heb. 9 15. Heb. 10: 5-7. Theory of the reviewer in the Biblical Repository, that the divine nature, although impassible by itself, participated in the sufferings of the human nature. 141

CHAPTER IX.

The blood of Christ. Texts of scripture which teach that Christ by his blood made atonement for sin. It was the death and blood of the victim which constituted the typical atonement under the law. As it was with the type, so with the antitype. All Christ's sufferings were vicarious, but particular importance is attached to those which were connected with the shedding of blood. The incarnate God had blood, but it ran in human veins. According to Mr. G. the blood of Christ is to be understood, not literally, but figuratively. 161

CHAPTER X.

Death of Christ. Evidence that the death which Christ suffered, was a literal death in his human nature. It was the death of the cross. Death

inflicted by the hands of men. The life which Christ laid down, was the life which he took again at his resurrection. The death which Christ suffered was accomplished at Jerusalem. It is commemorated in the Lord's

supper. It was the death of the body. The incarnate God could die. He did die, but it was as man he died, not as God. Examination of Rev. 1: 18; "I am he that liveth and was dead." Heb. 1: 3; and Phil. 2: 5-8; The exaltation of Christ. 169

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.

CHAPTER XII.

184

The

History of opinions, in relation to the question under discussion. views of the Patripassions-of Athanasius-of Apollinaris-of Eutyches and the Monophosites. The theory of Mr. G. maintained by no respectable orthodox writer from the days of the apostles, till the nineteenth century. Alleged inconsistences of those who maintain the commonly received doctrine. Extracts from sermons, and from hymns. 197

CHAPTER XIII.

Mr. G.'s objections to the prevalent theory. Shown to be not only without foundation, but to recoil upon himself. His views of the atonement. His theory not founded on the Bible. Converts plain passages of scripture into metaphor. The objection that the prevalent theory tends to lower the eye of devotion from the godhead to the manhood of Christ, shown to be unfounded. The tendency of Mr. G's theory to strengthen the hands of Unitarians and Infidels. 213

INTRODUCTION.

The question stated. It should be approached with humble and devout feelings. The theory of Mr. G. opposed to the belief of almost the whole christian world. The question not a matter of philosophical speculation, but eminently scriptural. Rules of interpretation. Mr. G.'s theory rests on two fundamental errors. One relating to the nature of the atonementthe other to a principle of interpretation.

THE question to be discussed in these pages, is, whether the sufferings of Christ were confined to his human nature, or whether he suffered also in his divine nature. It is a question, which, to use the language of a writer in a late periodical, "ought to be approached with the most humble and devout feelings. These sufferings were endured because of the sins of a guilty race, and to each individual of that race, they are the most important fact in the history of the world. Each individual has a personal interest in all inquiries appertaining to this subject; for, from the sufferings of Christ, we receive pardon, hope, joy, or we must remain forever guilty, hopeless and miserable. This is no theme for rash speculation. It courts investigation, but it rebukes presumptuous theorizing."

That Christ suffered and died for the sins of men, is a fact believed by all evangelical christians; but in