be uttered or conceived! Many of the martyrs have endured extreme tortures; but there is reason to think that they were mere nothing to the last sufferings of Christ on the Cross. And what has been said, affords a convincing argument that the sufferings which Christ endured in his body on the cross, though they were very dreadful, were yet the least part of his last sufferings; and that besides these, he endured sufferings in his soul which were vastly greater." Edwards' Works, Vol. 8, pp. 157, 158.

These quotations are introduced as a specimen of the views which have been generally taken of this subject by evangelical divines, and they may serve to correct the impression, if such an impression should exist on any minds, that the advocates of the prevalent theory must necessarily think lightly of the sufferings of Christ.

A fear has been expressed that by denying that the divine nature is capable of suffering, we shall be in danger of contemplating the Deity, as if he were like the God of Epicurus, destitute of all feelings or emotions, and reposing in endless indifference. Thus our author says, "The position so confidently maintained by the advocates of the prevalent theory, that if a Person of the "Trinity were to suffer for a time, he must, to preserve his unchangeableness, suffer from everlasting to everlasting, has less affinity with the philosophy of the Bible, than with that of the classic voluptuary of heathen Athens. Epicurus thus spoke of his imagined iron-bound divinity. 'The Deity could neither be influenced by favor nor resentment, because such a being must be weak and frail; and all fear of the power and anger of God should be banished, because anger and affection are inconsistent with his immutable nature.' What an ally did the Epicurean faith

unexpectedly find in the dominant theory of Christen

dom!"

A quotation is also introduced from Dr. Chalmers, in which a fear is expressed that many are in the habit of contemplating the Supreme Being "as a sort of cheerless and abstract Divinity"-" devoid of all emotion"-possessing "power and wisdom, and a sort of cold, clear, and faultless morality"-as "some physical yet tremendous energy that sitteth aloft in a kind of gainly and unsocial remoteness from all the felt and familiar humanities of our species”—and "as made up of little more than understanding and of power"

If it be alleged that those who believe in the infinite and immutable blessedness of the Deity, must necessarily entertain such views of his character, I feel it my duty to repel the allegation. I can see no tendency in the commonly received doctrine to lead to such infidel and atheistic views; nor do I believe that any man was ever led, by an intelligent belief of this doctrine, to adopt such views of the character of God.

The question is often asked, has the Divine Being passions? This question, as it seems to me, is easily answered. If by passions he meant affections, or emotions, there can be no doubt on the part of those who believe the Divine Being to possess a moral character. All who worship him as a Being of holiness, goodness, justice and mercy, believe that he loves holiness and hates iniquity. It is impossible to conceive of him as possessing moral perfections, without moral emotions. "What better than blind fatalism can that power be, which exerts its energies without any rational inducement, or desirable end to be accomplished by its exertions." If by passions he meant such feelings as imply weakness and dependance, or fickle

ness and mutability, or the exercise of a malignant disposition, it is certain that God has not passions; for such a supposition would conflict with the clearest dictates of both natural and revealed religion.

The question is asked by our author, "If the suffering God of to-day, must suffer forever, or become mutable, why must not the angry God of to-day, remain angry forever, or forfeit his perfection of unchangeableness ?" I answer, he must. Consequently it is written, "God is angry with the wicked every day" that is, constantly and perpetually. If they continue to be wicked forever, his anger against them will burn forever. But if they repent and become righteous, he will not be angry with them; for "he loveth the righteous." But this will result, not from any change in his feelings, but from a change in their character. The anger which is ascribed to God in the scriptures, is a holy displeasure at sin, which is an unchangeable trait of the divine character.

When repentance, grief, wrath, fury, vengeance, and fiery indignation are ascribed to the Divine Being in the scriptures, this language, is not to be understood in the same sense as when applied to men. If it should be asked why, then, have the sacred writers used this language? It might with equal propriety be asked, why have they made use of figurative language at all? If it be insisted on, that this language shall be understood literally, why not interpret all the language of the Bible literally? Why not maintain that God has literal hands, and eyes, and mouth, and feet? "No other reply to this," we are told, "is needed than that which is furnished by common sense. No one is, or ever has been, in danger of mistaking such plainly figurative language." Yet it has been. mistaken, and there have been those who have maintain

ed that God possesses a material body. Still I admit that the language of scripture which ascribes to the Supreme Being bodily organs, is "plainly figurative." So also the language which attributes to God human sympathies, and human passions, is as "plainly figurative." It is as clear a dictate of common sense, that God never literally repents, that is, changes his mind; or literally exercises wrath, fury, vengeance, and fiery indignation, that is, in the sense in which men exercise these passions, as that the Supreme Being is not clothed in a body of clay like ourselves. The use of this figurative language was doubtless intended to impress strongly upon our minds. the great unchangeable principles of God's moral character. And it answers this end. It teaches in the most forcible manner, that God is the eternal friend of holiness and enemy of sin, and that he will reward and punish his creatures according to their character.

It has been asked, "when we read of the burning wrath, or 'heat of his great anger,' or of the overflowing loving kindness and tender mercy, must we ever be on our guard against their literal effect on the soul, until we have applied the corrective of some scholastic explanation? Or will God most assuredly forgive us, if we do mingle with these terms such human conceptions of passion as they seem so naturally designed to produce in the soul." How much error God will forgive, it belongs not to mortals to decide. But it is obviously our duty to aim at receiving, in its true meaning, every divine declaration, whether the language be literal, or figurative. And I am far from believing that the language in question, is at all difficult to be understood; or that it even seems "designed to produce" in the soul any "conceptions" which need. "the correction of a scholastic explanation."

There surely can be no necessity, in order to avoid the views of Epicurus and modern infidels in regard to the indifference of the Divine Being to the affairs of the universe, that we should run into the opposite extreme, and suppose that Jehovah is altogether such an one as ourselves, subject to sympathies, sufferings, and passions, utterly inconsistent with the essential attributes of his

nature.