1850.] Suffering irreconcilable with the Divine Nature. 221 ble of anything like a succession of views and exercises, or to be in such sense impassible, that he cannot feel for the woes of his creatures, or be displeased at their sins. But the theory we are examining goes much farther than this. It supposes the Divine Being at a certain period, some 1816 years ago, to have become, for the time, an infinite sufferer. He was tortured with fear. He was assaulted with manifold temptations. He was overwhelmed with the most distressing thoughts, and the most painful apprehensions. And not only so, he had put himself in such connection with a human body, as to suffer immensely from that source. The driving of a nail carried a pang to the very heart of Omnipotence. The pricking of a thorn, the smart of the scourge, was felt throughout immensity. And worse than all; one Person in the Godhead commenced, at this time, inflicting the most dreadful sufferings on another;-hiding his face from him- shutting out his prayerstriking, smiting, and afflicting him- bruising him, and putting him to grief; as though one of these Divine personages could so torture another, and feel nothing himself; as though the Son and the Father were no longer one. If these expressions shall seem to any of my readers irreverent and awful, I cannot help it. They are no more irreverent than the theory which I am laboring to expose. But the charge of irreverence is not that with which I have now to do. How do the above representations comport with the idea of God's unchangeableness; and not only so, but with that of his unchangeable and perfect happiness? That God is unchangeable in every sense which does not imply imperfection, is clearly taught in the Scriptures. That he is perfectly and eternally happy is as fully taught; and the same may be inferred from his very nature, and from his other perfections. He has infinite and exhaustless sources of happiness within himself. But how is it possible to reconcile with these glorious attributes the supposed suffering of the Divine nature of Christ at the time of the crucifixion? According to this theory, there certainly was a change in God at this time, a mighty change, a most painful and dreadful change. He did not merely sympathize with the sufferer on Calvary, but was himself the sufferer. The agonies of the garden, the tortures of crucifixion, he literally felt, in his own Divine nature. It would seem that his happiness, for the time, must have been, not marred, but destroyed, and the immensity of his being must have been filled with anguish. On the theory before us, there was, I repeat, a change in God at this time; a great, a most painful and dread 1 "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." If Christ is here speaking in his Divine nature, how much happiness was there left in that nature? ful change; one that never can be reconciled with the plainly revealed doctrine of his perfect, unchangeable, and eternal felicity. Will it be said here, that the incarnation implies a change in God, and perhaps as great a change as that involved in his suffering on the cross? I admit that the incarnation may be so regarded and stated as to involve a change in the Supreme Being. I fear, indeed, that it is so regarded by not a few evangelical Christians. If the second person in the Trinity literally divested himself of any of his Divine perfections and attributes, when he assumed our nature and appeared in our flesh; or if his nature became so commingled with ours as to be subject to human limitations, and in fact to constitute but one nature; or if the hypostatical union was the same in him as the union of soul and body in man; in other words, if, in humbling himself (or emptying himself), our blessed Saviour ceased to be God, as he was before; then would the incarnation imply a change in God, and perhaps as great a change as that involved in the pains of crucifixion. But such, I am persuaded, is not the true scriptural idea of the incarnation. If we cannot fully explain (as most certainly we cannot) what Paul describes as "the great mystery of godliness," we may show, to a certain extent, what it is not. And we know that it was not could not have been either all, or aught, of what has been stated above. Christ was as much God, and was as truly possessed of all his Divine attributes and perfections, subsequent to the incarnation, as he was before. The Divine nature assumed a personal union with the human, but was not converted into it, or mingled with it. It was as superior to it, and distinct from it, in this connection, as it was before. The incarnation involved no real, essential change in the second person of the Trinity, but only a different relative position, and consequently a different manifestation. The Divinity now appeared, it showed itself, in a human form. God was "manifest in the flesh." In the beautiful language of Mc Cheyne, "The almightiness of God now moved in a human arm. The infinite love of God now beat in a human heart. The compassion of God to sinners now glistened in a human eye. God was love before, but Christ was Divine love covered over with flesh; -just as you have seen the sun shining through a colored window. It is the same sun, and the same sun-light; and yet it shines with a mellowed lustre. So in Christ dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. The perfections of the Godhead shone through every pore, through every action, word, and look the same perfections; they were only shining with a mellowed brightness. As the bright light of the Shekinah often shone through the vail of the temple, so did the Godhead of Christ often force itself through the human vail through the heart and flesh of the man Christ Jesus." 1850.] History of Opinions. 223 I here close my argument against the strange and, to my apprehension, monstrous idea, that the Divine nature of Christ participated directly in the sufferings of the cross. That the subject is recondite and difficult, and in some of its aspects quite beyond the reach of the human understanding, no one can doubt. I have endeavored to treat it with that modesty, humility, and prayerfulness with that deference to the teachings of holy Scripture, and of reason only as guided by Scripture, which its nature demands. I know there are some who are averse to a critical consideration of this subject, and are full of regrets that the discussion has taken place. They believe that Christ died for sinners, and by his death made a full expiation; and that, they say, is enough. With this physiological analysis of the person of Christ—this dividing him off into two distinct natures—and the inquiry whether he suffered in both natures, or but one, and if in but one of his natures, which—with questions such as these, they have no sympathy. The very inquiry is presumptuousan intermeddling with things unrevealed. In reply to this objection, I have to say, in the first place, that the doctrine of Christ's peculiar and mysterious person is not a thing unrevealed. That he united in his own person both a divine and a human nature, or in other words, that he was both God and man, is as clearly revealed as any fact of the Bible. And so it has been understood in the church in all ages. Nor do I regard the question as to the nature in which our Lord suffered, as a thing unrevealed. It has been my endeavor, in the foregoing pages, to unfold the revelations of God on this awful subject, and not to tread a step beyond them. If I have uttered my own fancies, let them be set at nought; but if what has been said is the truth of God, let it not be despised or rejected. And as to the discussion which has come up within the last few years, certainly, those who take the commonly received view of the subject, are not responsible for that. The discussion was introduced, and has been forced upon them, from the other side. The history of opinions on this subject, in the Christian church, may be given in few words. Until the fourth century, the question seems to have excited little or no interest. The early Fathers were content to use the language of Scripture, without any labored attempts at explanation. At the period referred to, some few, we know not who, advanced the idea, that the Divine nature of Christ was passible and suffered on the cross; and the bishop of Rome wrote to Athanasius of Alexandria, requesting from him his opinion on the subject. Athanasius replied at con siderable length, sustaining the commonly received doctrine, and condemning that which had been introduced as novel and unreasonable. This decision of Athanasius, based as it was upon the Scriptures, seems to have virtually settled the question for the next fifteen hundred years. With the exception of a small portion of the Monophysites, and possibly a few others, who were regarded as heretics, the sufferings of the Divine nature were universally discarded, almost to the present time. The question was so entirely and quietly at rest, that theologians did not think it worth while to disturb it. With the exception of bishop Pearson, in his Exposition of the Creed, I do not now remember one, who has entered upon a serious consideration of it in modern times. Thus the matter rested until the year 1845, when George Griffin Esq. of New York, under the signature of "a Layman," published his treatise on "the Sufferings of Christ," controverting what he acknowledged to be the almost unanimous opinion of the Christian church in all ages, and advocating with much zeal and ability the sufferings of the Divine nature. He has since been followed up by several writers on the same side, in the different Religious Quarterlies of the country.1 I make these statements for the purpose of showing to any who may feel disquieted by this discussion, that the responsibility of it does not rest upon the advocates of the commonly received opinions. They did not commence the discussion, nor are they disposed to continue it, any farther than may be necessary for the vindication of what they and with them nearly the whole Christian church-have ever considered to be the truth. As to the results of the error which has been so recently advocated among us, a sufficient time has not yet elapsed for these prominently to appear. But if the doctrine is persisted in and prevails, its appropriate fruits will ere long be manifested, and like all the products of delusion and error, they will be bitter. Among them, I shall expect to witness, in the first place, unworthy and dishonorable views of God. As the doctrine which has been considered is manifestly inconsistent with some of the acknowledged perfections of God, those who hold it will be likely (at least, in their conceptions) to divest him of these perfections. Believing the Deity to have suffered from hunger, thirst, fatigue, fear, temptations, stripes, and other like causes; they will be led to conceive of him as liable to suffer in such ways. And this will be to conceive of him as subject to human limitations and infirmities, if not altogether such an one as themselves. It will be, I am sure, to degrade and dishonor him. 1 An able and satisfactory Reply to "a Layman," by Rev. Dr.Tyler of East Windsor, Conn., was published in 1847. 1850.] Results of the Common Theory. 225 I see not how this result is to be avoided, but by incurring others even more disastrous. Some, to escape the difficulty, may adopt the opinion (indeed, some have adopted and published it already), that in the work of our redemption, the persons of the Trinity, so called, are but acting a part. One of them seems to guard the honors of the law; while another seems to suffer, and to make expiation and intercession ; and the third seems to carry on and consummate the work. But it is all an appearance, to which there is no corresponding reality a moving, affecting tragedy, designed to melt the hard hearts of men, and bring them into a state of reconciliation with God. Now where this scheme is adopted, it will be not only natural but important to represent the second person of the tragic Trinity as suffering and dying in the sinner's stead; because the greater the suffering and the sufferer, the more moving and impressive will be the scene. And the Absolute, the Infinite, is not in the least affected by it. He sits complacent behind the curtain, and sees the moving farce go on, and rejoices in the blessed results of so blessed a contrivance. Others may think to run clear of difficulties, by adopting pantheistic notions. God is everything, and everything is God. The multiform objects around us in the world, are but so many manifestations of the Supreme. Since God is to be seen flying in the clouds, and roaring in the storm, and crawling in the worm, and singing in the bird of spring, and groaning in all the agonies of a suffering world; why should it be thought incredible that he should himself suffer, in the sufferings of Jesus Christ? How could there have been any suffering in the garden, or on Calvary, in which the Universal Mind did not participate? I have here hinted at some of the probable, and more than probable results of the error which has been examined, in its bearing upon God. Other effects will be likely to flow from it in other directions. It can hardly fail to result in erroneous conceptions of the person of Christ. Instead of the good old orthodox statement -"two distinct natures in one person forever," there will be a revival, in some form, of the Monophysite heresies. The two natures will be regarded as so commingled and incorporated, as to constitute, in fact, but one nature. Christ, we hear it said already, is to be conceived of as a whole, a unit, so that what he thinks, or feels, or says, or does, or suffers in one nature, he suffers in his whole nature. There are no such distinctions between the Divine nature and the human, as theologians have insisted on. I only add, that the views I have controverted, should they extensively prevail, will be likely to drive many into simple Unitarianism, The doctrine of a suffering Deity, of a crucified God, is too revolting to obtain currency with thinking minds; and if this shall come to be |