that person is composed; for, otherwise, the parts being separated, the identity of person is destroyed, and we have not one person, but two.

Man is a complex person, made up of spirit and matter, or soul and body; and each action and suffering is the action and suffering of the whole person. It is true that the actions and sufferings of a complex person may in various respects differ. This may have its origin in, and may immediately affect the body; that, the soul. But still the action or suffering belongs to the whole person. The action of eating, for example, is the immediate action of the body; and yet we do not say the body eats, but the man or person eats; and no other idea enters into our minds. It is true we sometimes speak of an action or suffering, as the action or suffering of the body or of the mind, to designate the nature, or some circumstance of it; but never to exclude the other component parts of the person. We also say of a man that 'he endures great pain of body, or is in agony of mind.' And this is the most common as well as the most proper way of speaking; because when one part suffers, all the parts suffer with it, on account of the union subsisting between them. And thus we speak of the death of a person. We do not say that the body died, or that the soul died, but the man died; by which we mean that the soul and body suffered together up to a certain point, when the union was dissolved, the body becoming a lifeless mass, and the soul existing in a separate state. Thenceforth we speak neither of the body nor of the soul, as the man, but of each separately and distinctly, as when we say, at death, the body returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.' The truth is, that while the soul and body remain united, neither can act or suffer alone. If the body acts or suffers, the soul acts or suffers with it; if the soul acts or suffers, the body acts or suffers with it; and thus the action or suffering is the action or suffering of the whole person.

And thus it is with our adored Mediator. He is a complete person, made up of body, and soul, and essential Divinity. These three, mystically united, constitute the one person of the Mediator; and henceforth all His actions and sufferings are the actions and sufferings of the whole person of the Mediator thus constituted. But as the present argument does not so much relate to the actions as to the sufferings of Jesus Christ, I will confine it to the latter; because if these belong to His whole person, there will be no dispute about His actions.

So far are the Scriptures from limiting the sufferings of Jesus Christ to His human nature; and so important were the sufferings of His whole complex person in order to our redemption, that they frequently refer His sufferings, and even His death, to the Divine nature. Not that unincarnate Deity can suffer, as was said before, or that the human nature was excluded from sharing in His sufferings: but so important were the sufferings of the Divine, in union with the human nature, that they are made prominent, and are chiefly, though not wholly, regarded.

Thus St. Paul ::- " Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself, likewise, took part of the same: that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil: and deliver them who through fear of death were all

their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily, He took not on Him the nature of angels, but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren; that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath suffered, being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted,' Heb. ii, 14-18.

6

Let it be remarked here, 1. That the person spoken of throughout this passage is the same who took flesh and blood,' or as St. John expresses the same sentiment, was made flesh;' by which we understand the Divine nature or Deity of Jesus Christ. 2. The personal pronoun He, throughout the whole passage, refers to the Divine nature, its antecedent. It was that which took flesh and blood-that through death (His own death) He might destroy death,' &c. At the 18th verse this is made emphatical,-For, in that He Himself hath suffered,' &c. 3. At the 9th verse death is said to have been the object for which He was made lower than the angels.' This must, therefore,

be decisive of the point. 4. The suffering of death is one of the things affirmed of Him. It follows, therefore, either that the Divine nature suffered alone, or that it suffered in union with the human nature. But as the suffering spoken of was posterior to the incarnation, and the Scriptures in many places refer his sufferings to the complex person, I have no doubt the apostle intended that here. The sentiment that the Divine nature did not suffer, stands directly opposed to the spirit and grammatical construction of the whole passage.

The same apostle has a remarkable passage in his Epistle to the Philippians, chap. ii, 6-8:- Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.' Remark, 1. The person who was in the form of God'-' who thought it not robbery to be equal with God,' was the Divine nature, or Deity of Jesus Christ. In this all sound Christians are agreed. 2. The same Divine person who took upon Him the form of a servant' became obedient unto death. This is clearly shown by the connecting particles. I say as before, the spirit and grammatical construction of the passage require this meaning to be given to it. How would it answer to read this, and many other passages, as they understand them who exclude the Divine nature from all participation in suffering? He who was equal with God, made Himself of no reputation-took upon Him the form of a servant was made in the likeness of men,' humbled Himself,' and He, the human nature, died, even the death of the cross.' There is now a palpable violation of the rules of language, and the passage becomes a new text in the Bible,

The appellation Christ, is used not only as the name of our blessed Savior, but whenever used it regards him as a complex person,-I mean that it is never used for the human nature alone, nor for the Divine nature alone, but always for the two natures united. This is evident, because it designates Him as the Savior, and the Savior is constituted by the union of the human and Divine natures in one person.

As often, therefore, as it is asserted in Scripture that Christ

suffered or died, my proposition is sustained, that not a part, but the whole person of our Savior suffered and died. Thus: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things,' Luke xxiv, 46: That Christ should suffer He hath so fulfilled,' Acts iii, 18: Opening and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered,' Acts xvii, 3: In due time Christ died for the ungodly,' Rom. v, 6: Christ died for us,' verse 8. The passages which speak of the sufferings and death of Christ are too numerous to be recited here. Now, if these passages designate the God-man, two natures in one person, then it follows that neither the human nor the Divine nature suffered alone or apart from the other, but that the whole person suffered. The reason is clear, neither the human nor the Divine nature alone is Christ, but both united in one person.

The same is to be observed of all the appellations given to our Redeemer; because they all regard him as God-man, the two natures united in one person. And whatever is affirmed of this person, whether action or suffering, is affirmed of the whole person, and not of the human or Divine nature exclusively. The appellations Jesus Christ, Messiah, Savior, Redeemer, Son of God, Son of man, Lamb of God, Man, God, &c., apply to Him as a complex person, and to His actions and sufferings as the actions and sufferings of His whole

person.

The glorious personage who appeared to St. John in the isle of Patmos, and conversed with him, is allowed, on all hands, to be the Divine Savior, the God-man Jesus Christ, though he speaks as God, or in His Divine nature. He speaks as no man or created being can speak: I am the First and the Last, the ALMIGHTY.' An inspired apostle pays him religious homage: To Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.' Yet the same apostle tells us that it was He who washed us from our sins in His own blood,' and calls Him the first begotten from the dead.' And when the apostle fell at His feet as dead,' He laid His right hand upon him' saying, 'Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am He that liveth and was dead; and behold I am alive for evermore,' Rev. chap. i. How it is possible to understand this language of the human nature alone, is to me inconceivable.

6

St. John in his Gospel, chap. x, 17, 18, records the following words of our Savior: Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself: I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.'

The character of the person who speaks here is to be known from what is spoken. And who beside the God-man Jesus Christ has 'power to lay down his life, and power to take it again?' If we allow that a man has power to lay down his life, yet no man has power to take his life again, that is, to raise himself from the dead. Beside, if to lay down, and take again the life of the mere man, was all that was required of the Son of God, He could have accomplished this without becoming incarnate. And let it be remarked, that if the mere human nature suffered, there was a separation of the two natures, and the Divinity was as truly unincarnate, as before the union took place. But that there was no separation of the two natures appears from the

use of the personal pronouns I,' and 'my :' 'I have power to lay down my life,' which could not be used by the one nature for, or of, the other. This would be such a violation of the rules of language and propriety as nothing would justify. It follows that the person who speaks and who lays down his life was the Divine Son of God.

He The

But, who has power to lay down his life? We must take the word power in this case to imply right, as well as power; for otherwise, to lay down life would be a lawless and vicious act. Who then, I ask, has the right to lay down his life? We are warranted in saying that no man, that no created being has this right. Creatures, whatever may be their rank, are dependent for their existence, and have no right to lay it down. It is true, that when God requires it, it is their duty to submit; but they have no right to be voluntary in this matter. Voluntarily to lay down life would be a violation both of the law of nature and of God. And God can only require this in the case of those who have sinned, and thereby forfeited life and every blessing. cannot require creatures who never sinned to lay down their life. supposition shocks us. Before their existence they had done nothing to deserve being created at all. Their creation rose from the goodness of God: and after their creation, if they had not transgressed, the same goodness, and even justice would forbid the infliction of punishment. Death is punishment of the most painful and terrible kind, and could not be inflicted where it was not deserved. But Jesus Christ volunteered His life for our redemption. He said, Here am I, send me! It is true, the Father is represented as sending his Son to die for sinners. But this sending is predicated of the voluntary offer of the Son. God accepted the offer, but could not require the service. He could not require it, His Son being innocent. It is contrary to all our ideas of moral justice to require the innocent to suffer for the guilty. If then God could not require this of His Son, He being infinitely innocent and pure, and if no creature has a right voluntarily to lay down his life; in what point of light are we to view the act of Christ when He says, I have power, that is, right as well as power, to lay down my life?' Clearly, we must view it as the act of an independent being, that is, as the act of God. As God He had a right which no creature has or can have, and might, if he pleased, lay down His life for the transgressors.

It was necessary that the sufferings of Christ should be voluntary, to become either meritorious or just; and to be voluntary it was neces sary that He should be God: whence it is that He adds so emphatically, No man taketh my life from me, but I lay it down of MYSELF: I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. In this language we hear the voice of one who is greater than man, we hear the voice of God.

'Our Lord's receiving this commandment of the Father is not to be considered as the ground of His power (or right) to lay down and resume His life; for this He had in Himself, and therefore He had an original right to dispose thereof, antecedent to his Father's command or commission: but this commission was the reason why He thus used His power in laying down His life.' (Coke in loc.)

I will only farther remark upon this text that it is evidently the language of one who is more than human,-it is the language of

the whole complex person of our Lord; and if so, it clearly follows that the death spoken of was also the death of the same complex person: otherwise He must be understood as saying, 'I have power to lay down the life of that part of myself which is human, and I have power to take it again.' But this would be to make a new text, and introduce a solecism where our Savior is most explicit and emphatical.

In 1 John iii, 16, we read, Hereby perceive we the love of God, because He laid down His life for us.' After all the criticisms upon this text; and though the phrase, of God, is not in it, yet,' says Dr. Clarke, it is necessarily understood.' It is only necessary to remark here that God or Christ must be in the text, and it makes no matter which. If God be in the text, the Divine nature of Christ must be understood; if Christ, we know that He is both God and man, united in one person. So that whether God or Christ be in the text, we have both God and man. It follows, then, that suffering is predicated of the Divine nature as the most important part of the complex person of our blessed Savior. Nothing less than this can preserve the text.

A similar passage is found in Acts xx, 28: Feed the flock of God which He has purchased with His own blood.' Few passages have divided critics and commentators more than this. The manuscripts and versions, says Dr. Clarke give three readings-the Church of God;'-of the Lord;' and of the Lord and God.' Mr. Wakefield, as Dr. C. observes, is for retaining the common version thus far,— feed the flock of God, but varies the following phrase thus-by His own Son. But all my readers will agree with Dr. C. in his remark here. But as the redemption of man is, throughout the New Testament, attributed to the sacrificial death of Christ, it is not likely that this very unusual meaning should apply here. At all events, we learn here that the Church was purchased by the blood of Christ; and as to His Godhead, it is sufficiently established in many other places.— When we grant that the greater evidence appears to be in favor of, Feed the Church of the Lord which He hath purchased with His own blood; we must maintain that, had not the Lord been GoD, His blood could have been no purchase for the souls of a lost world.' So that which ever reading be adopted, the conclusion will inevitably be, that the sufferings of the Divine nature of Christ were considered by the apostle of such great importance, that they seem to be referred to that alone.

The Scriptures make the sufferings of the Redeemer the ground of His exaltation, and His exaltation the reward of His sufferings. In Phil. ii, 8-11, the apostle having told us that He who 'thought it not robbery to be equal with God, humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross,' goes on to say: 'Wherefore, God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.'

Here let it be remarked, that the apostle is not speaking of the natural dignity and exaltation of the Son of God, but of an exaltation founded on His humiliation and sufferings. If the whole complex