1850.] Human and Divine Properties ascribed to Christ. 211 the designations of Christ's whole person are sometimes applied to one of his natures, yet not in a way to contradict the designations themselves. Divine names are not used in connection with human properties, nor human names in connection with Divine properties. Hence, when it is said that the Jews crucified "the Lord of Glory," and that the church is purchased with God's own blood, we are to conclude that the Divine nature of Christ did really participate in the sufferings of the cross. But even this objection, plausible as it may seem, will not stand the test of a critical examination. The truth is, that human properties are not unfrequently ascribed to Christ, in connection with Divine names and titles, and Divine properties in connection with human titles. For example, the phrase "Son of Man," so often applied to Christ, refers properly to his human nature. And yet it is continually used in connection with Divine properties and works. "The Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins." Matt. 9: 6. "The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." Matt. 12: 8. "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man, who is in heaven." John 3: 13. "When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered all nations, Matt. 25: 31. I may cite another example which is stronger, if possible, than either of these. By the mouth of Zechariah, the Jehovah of Israel is represented as saying: "They shall look on me whom they have pierced;" and this, we are told, was fulfilled upon Christ, when the soldiers pierced his lifeless body with a spear. (Comp. Zech. 12: 10 with John 19: 37.) In doing this, the soldiers, according as words are used in the Scriptures, pierced Jehovah. But so far from piercing the Divine nature of Christ, they did not even pierce his entire human nature, but only his dead body. As this was the veritable body, the only visible relic, of a person who, in life, was the Jehovah of Israel, so in piercing this precious body, the soldiers are said to have pierced Jehovah.1 The principle of interpretation here applied to various passages of Scripture, may help us to understand a class of uninspired men, who have been thought to teach the sufferings of the Divine nature. We occasionally meet with expressions in prose, but more frequently in sacred poetry, which import that God died, that Jehovah was crucified, that the Lord of Life expired on the cross, etc. But what do the venerable men who use such language mean by it? Not that the Divine nature of Christ literally died, but that a Divine person died: one who united in himself both Divinity and humanity, a nature which could die, as well as one which could not. And if their writings, in general, were collated, it would be found, in nearly every instance, that they exclude the sense which has been put upon them, In short, we are not Nestorians; nor do those who differ from us, profess to be Monophysites. We hold alike to two distinct natures in one Divine person. Hence, it need not surprise or perplex us, that we find frequent representations in Scripture which can belong to Christ in only one of his natures, standing in connection with names or terms which apply to his whole person. Thus, the Son of Man, while on earth, was in heaven. The Lord of Glory was crucified in the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. The Jehovah of Israel was pierced in the piercing of Christ's lifeless body. And the same Jesus, which grew in wisdom and stature, is God over all, blessed forever. Holding fast to the venerable orthodox faith, with regard to the person of our blessed Lord, without swerving to the right hand or the left, it will be easy to interpret all the representations of Scripture with regard to his passion, and yet avoid what seems to us the monstrous supposition, that his Divine nature participated directly in the sufferings of the cross. Another argument for the sufferings of the Divine nature has been drawn from the doctrine of atonement. To confine the sufferings of Christ to his human nature - to represent them as the sufferings only of a man, has been thought to detract from the greatness of the atonement, if not from its efficacy. It is but a creature-atonement, after all. The magnitude of the work is vastly heightened, when considered as accomplished by the sufferings of God. This objection would have more weight, if the Divinity of Christ were not regarded as indispensably concerned in the work of atonement; if his sufferings had been those of a mere man. But his Divinity, we have seen, was altogether indispensable in this great work. His sufferings were not those of a mere man. They were the sufferings of a man in whom "dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;" of a man in personal union with the Deity, and who was sustained by that union to endure what otherwise would have crushed him in a moment. They were sufferings, to which the connection of the Divine with the human in the person of Christ imparted an infinite dignity and efficacy-an efficacy sufficient as to the crucifixion of the Divine nature. Thus Ignatius, writing to the Romans, and exhorting them not to hinder his martyrdom, says: "Permit me to imitate the passion of my God." But in his Epistle to the Ephesians, Ignatius describes his Saviour as 66 both fleshly and spiritual, made and not made, God incarnate, true life in death, first passible then impassible, even Jesus Christ our Lord." So Bishop Pearson says: "The eternal Son of God, God of God, very God of very God, suffered under Pontius Pilate." But fortunately, Bishop Pearson explains himself, and gives the same explanation with that given above: "The person, which was begotten of the Father before all worlds, and so was really the Lord of Glory, and most truly God, took upon him the nature of man, and IN THAT NATURE, being still the same person that he was before, did suffer.", See Pearson on the Creed. 1850.] Views of Common Christians. 213 to constitute them a full expiation for the sins of the world. The Scriptures nowhere determine the precise amount of sufferings endured by our blessed Lord; but we know that they were enough — considering the infinite dignity and glory of his person, and his ineffable nearness to the Father-enough to satisfy the justice of God, and answer all those purposes in the Divine government, which could have been answered by the destruction of our race. They were enough to declare, most adequately and fully, God's "righteousness for the remission of sins that are past...... that he might be just and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus." Rom. 3: 25. As much as this all evangelical Christians believe, who hold the sufferings of Christ to have been confined, in the sense explained, to his human nature. And what more than this do others believe, who extend his sufferings to the Divine nature? What more than this need any one believe, in order to a full and complete atonement? There is a theory of the atonement, indeed, which seems to involve the necessity of the infinite sufferings of God; —that theory which supposes Christ to have endured as much, in his own person, "pang for pang, spasm for spasm, sigh for sigh, and groan for groan," as all the elect would have suffered in hell forever. On this supposition we admit, that an infinitude of suffering on the part of our Lord was necessary; and not only so, but "the infinitude must have been multiplied by the whole countless number of the redeemed." But this view of the atonement is commonly rejected by evangelical Christians, even by those who believe that the Divine nature of Christ did actually suffer and die. These, for the most part, are understood to hold the doctrine of the atonement in much the same sense as other Christians; —an atonement which, for aught that appears, may be as adequately accomplished on our theory of the sufferings of Christ, as on their own. In proof of the sufferings of the Divine nature in Christ, an appeal has also been made to the common apprehensions of Christians. When Christians read or hear of the sufferings and death of Christ, the impression on their minds is, that the whole Christ suffered, the Divine nature as well as the human; nor is it likely, until they are instructed differently, that they entertain any other thought. It cannot be expected of Christians in common life, that they should speculate very profoundly on a question such as this, or that their opinions should be regarded as of special importance. They believe that Christ suffered and died, according to the Scriptures, and that by his death he made expiation for sin; and further than this their inquiries do not ordinarily extend. Still, should even the plainest Christian be asked, whether he really thinks that God agonized in the garden, that God was crucified, that God bled and died; he would be shocked at the interrogation. He would shrink from a supposition so startling and incredible; and if inclined to pursue the subject at all, would probably adopt substantially the same views of it with those which have been here exhibited. Accordingly those writers who limit the sufferings of Christ to his human nature, appeal as confidently as any others, and perhaps with more reason, to the common apprehensions of Christians, in justification of their views. Having now examined the arguments commonly adduced to prove the sufferings of the Divine nature in Christ, and shown that they do not establish the point in question, we proceed to the proof of the opposite doctrine. We hope to be able to show, to the satisfaction of all our readers, that the Divine nature of Christ did not directly suffer in his last agonies, but that his sufferings pertained to his human nature only. We say the Divine nature of Christ did not directly suffer. We deny not that the Divine sympathized with the human, or, which is the same, that God felt for his Son, as every benevolent nature must, in the hour of his sufferings. But to sympathize with Christ in his sufferings is one thing; directly to endure those sufferings, is quite another. God sympathizes with his people in all their afflictions. "Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him." Ps. 103: 13. But God does not directly endure all the afflictions of his people, or any of them. In like manner we hold that the Divine nature of Christ did not directly endure the sufferings of the cross. On this point, two or three things should be premised, not indeed as essential to the argument, but yet as belonging to it. In the first place, if God suffered in the person of Christ, then the suffering must have been universal. God is an omnipresent spirit. In the possession of all his susceptibilities and powers, he exists everywhere. What he knows in one place, he knows in every place. What he feels here, he feels everywhere. Hence, if the Divine nature of Christ participated directly in the sufferings of the cross, the suffering must have been universal. Wherever God existed, the agony was felt. Every point of space throughout immensity, being pervaded with the presence of God, must have been also pervaded with his sufferings. Again, if the Divine nature in Christ suffered, I see not but the whole Divine nature suffered. The suffering must have extended to the entire Godhead Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Not only are the persons of the Godhead in some sense distinct, in some other sense they are one. By some mysterious vinculum they are so united, as to constitute but one God. What one knows, they all know. What one feels they all feel. What one does, they all may, in some sense, be said to do. 1850.] Christ's Sufferings were those of a Man. 215 "What things soever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." "I am in the Father, and the Father in me." "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." "I and my Father are one." No one who believes in the proper, Scriptural unity of the persons of the Godhead, in opposition to tritheism, can persuade himself, that one of these persons could have suffered infinitely could have been visited with all the agonies of the garden and the cross, and yet the other Divine persons remain unscathed. These sufferings, if they reached the Divine nature at all, must obviously have reached the whole Divine nature, and Father, Son, and Holy Ghost must have suffered together. I see not how this conclusion can be avoided, but upon the supposition of three entirely distinct intellects, sensibilities, and wills, which would constitute three separate, independent minds, or (which is the same) three Gods.1 I scarcely need remark here (what has been hinted already) that if the Divine nature of Christ suffered on the cross, his sufferings must have been almost entirely those of the Divine nature. The sufferings of the man must have been swallowed up and lost-must have been as nothing, yea, less than nothing and vanity, compared with the infinitely greater sufferings of the God. And in this view it is pertinent to ask, Why need the Saviour have been a man at all? Why must he take on him the Seed of Abraham? As his sufferings were almost entirely those of God, why could not those of the man have been spared, and the atonement have been accomplished without the incarnation? In proof that the sufferings of Christ belonged, in the sense explained, to his human nature, I remark, in the first place, that all the manifestations of suffering, on his part, were human. The hunger, the thirst, the weariness, the poverty, the fierce temptations, the agony in the garden, the bloody sweat, the fears and the pains of crucifixion, the pangs of death all this array of continued and most intense suffering was yet, so far as appears, the suffering of a man. There were no decisive indications of anything beyond this. The supposition, therefore, that the sufferings of Christ were but in the smallest degree those of a man that they were almost entirely the sufferings of God, is, to say the least, a Hence Mr. Harris, in a passage which has been quoted by the advocates of a suffering God, admits, that the sufferings of Christ must have been those also of the Father. "How does it enhance our conceptions of the Divine compassion, when we reflect, that there is a sense in which the sufferings of Christ were the sufferings of the Futher also."-GREAT TEACHER, p. 106. The objection, that our argument equally proves that the incarnation of Christ must have involved the incarnation of the Father, will be considered in another place; where I shall endeavor to show, that those who urge this objection must have imbibed very gross and unscriptural notions of the incarnation. |