:

person of our Redeemer is exalted, it follows that the whole suffered. If the Divine nature is exalted, it follows that the Divine nature suffered. If the human nature is exalted, then it will follow that the human nature suffered because the suffering lays the foundation for the exaltation, and the exaltation is the reward of the suffering. The rule is a definite one, and cannot mislead us. It establishes the connection between the suffering and the exaltation, so that if any part of the complex nature of the Redeemer did not suffer, it is undeniable that that part could not be exalted as a reward of suffering. It would be altogether unreasonable and absurd to say that one part of a complex being is exalted as a reward for the suffering of another part. But allowing that the human nature alone suffered, it will follow, according to the rule, that the human nature alone is exalted, and that too to the rank and character of Deity, and as such receives the homage of every rational creature in heaven and on the earth. But no person can be so exalted as a reward for suffering but He who is essentially God; because none but God can be worshipped.

This will introduce another thought. He who suffered and died for the sins of the world is now actually worshipped by all the heavenly host, in conjunction with all them who have been redeemed from their sins, who are on the earth. Let the reader here consult the whole of the 5th chapter of the Revelation, especially the following passages:

. And I beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne, and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. And when He had taken the book, the four beasts, and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odors, which are the prayers of saints. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book and to loose the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation! And I beheld and heard the voice of many angels, &c, saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I, saying, Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.'

Let the reader observe here, first, that the worship paid to the Lamb proves Him to be God. Secondly. The Lamb, the person who received this worship, had been slain. If this is not evidence that the Deity of Jesus Christ suffered, His being slain does not imply suffering.

Having thus far advanced the Scripture evidence in support of the position that the whole complex person of our Lord suffered in redeeming a guilty world, it may not be amiss to show what our Church in her 2d article teaches on this subject:

The Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed virgin; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person,

never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile the Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.'

In this we have a plain description of our Lord's person, as 'very God and very man, two whole and distinct natures united in one person, never to be divided;' of which person it is said that He suffered, was dead and buried.' Note, that the person of Christ, not a part only, suffered and died. This is not the same as saying that the Divine, or the human nature suffered and died. Before the union of the two natures, into one, and form a complex person, which has personal identity. What each constituted a distinct person; but by the union they are brought might be affirmed of each before the union is one thing, and what after the union, another. It could not be affirmed of the Divine nature before the union of the two natures, that it suffered and died; nor can it be affirmed of the Divine nature, after the union, that it suffered and died;

be affirmed of the person composed of the two natures. suffered, is affirmed in the article. But if the human nature alone the complex person did not suffer, but only a part of it,-the identity of person is destroyed, and we have not one, but two whole and entire persons; one of which suffered, the other not. On this ground the two natures are as truly separate, as they were before the incarnation. For neither the human nor the Divine nature alone constitutes the identity of our Savior's person, but both united.

The opinion that the union of the two natures continued while only one suffered; and that the sufferings of the human nature were, therefore, the sufferings of the Divine nature, while the latter suffered nothing, has been adopted prematurely. If the identity of the complex person of Christ remained during His sufferings, He might, with propriety, speak of His blood shed for the many, and of His life which He gave for the world; for in that case the whole complex person suffered. But if the two natures were divided, and the Divine did not suffer with the human nature, then nothing can justify His claiming the merit of suffering, or calling the blood shed His blood. We must therefore admit that the whole complex person of our Lord suffered, or give up the article under consideration.

I might here also urge, as a reason why the Methodists especially ought to receive this doctrine, that it is contained in the hymns which the Church has given to assist our devotions. Many of our hymns contain the sentiment, and that unequivocally expressed, that the Divine nature participated with the human in those sufferings by which the world was redeemed. Thus the 187th hymn :

'O Love Divine, what hast thou done!
The immortal God hath died for me!
The Father's co-eternal Son

Bore all my sins upon the tree

The immortal GoD for me hath died:
My Lord, my Love, is crucify'd.'

'Lo, the powers of heaven He shakes,
Nature in convulsion lies;

Earth's profoundest centre quakes—

The great JEHOVAH dies.'

I will quote only one more, though I might many. Hymn 191:'Well might the sun in darkness hide,

And shut his glories in,

When Christ, the mighty MAKER died,' &c.

There are but two ways to account for this language of our hymns. The first is, by considering it as highly figurative, and thus resolving it into the license granted to poets. In reply it may be said that it was never conceded to poets to give false sentiment. Figures are used in poetry for illustration and embellishment, and are the garb of sentiment. But if the sentiment that the Divine nature did not suffer with the human in obtaining our redemption, be true, no license could ever make the use of this language either correct or safe.

The other way of accounting for this language is to consider it ast referring to the complex person of our Savior, the most important part of which is the Divine nature. If, however, the sentiment that the whole person of our Savior suffered, be incorrect, the voice of the Church can be no authority in the case. But while she is so clearly Scriptural in her hymns, and is allowed to be so by all her ministers, as well as other members, it becomes us to receive her instruction and defend her doctrine.

Having heard the voice of the Scriptures and that of our own Church on this sublime and important point, it may not be amiss to hear what two of the greatest divines that have lived since the Reformation have also said upon it, I mean the pious and learned Richard Baxter, and the Rev. J. Wesley.

Mr. Baxter's sentiment is to be found in his Aphorisms of Justification, Thesis vii :

• The will of the Father and Son are one: the Son was a voluntary undertaker of this task: (the satisfying for the sins of men.) It was not imposed upon Him by constraint: when He is said to come to do His Father's will it doth also include His own will. And when He is said to do it in obedience to the Father, as it is spoken of a voluntary obedience, so it is spoken of the execution of our redemption, and in regard to the human nature especially; and not by the understanding of the Divine nature alone. Not only the consent of Christ did make it lawful that He should be punished being innocent; but also that special power which, as He was God, He had over His own life more than any creature hath; "I have power," saith Christ, lay down my life," John x, 18.

"to

No mere creature was qualified for this work: even the angels that are righteous do but their duty, and therefore cannot supererogate or merit for us. Neither were they able to bear and overcome the penalty.

'It must therefore be God that must satisfy God; both for the perfection of the obedience, for dignifying of the duty and suffering, for to be capable of meriting, for the bearing of the curse, for the overcoming of it, and doing the rest of the works of the Mediatorship, which were to be done after the resurrection. Yet mere God it must not be, but man also: or else it would have been forgiveness without satisfaction, seeing (mere) God cannot be said to make satisfaction to Himself.'

I know not that any remarks or exposition here are needed, or that the sentiment can be made any plainer. The author has expressed himself clearly and guardedly; and if there be any definite meaning in words, the sentiment is, that neither the human nor Divine nature suffered alone, but both together, and the reasons are given-man could not merit-could not bear and overcome the curse; it must therefore be God for these purposes, and for doing the other works of the Mediatorship. Mere God it must not be, but man also, or God and man united.

The sentiment of Mr. Wesley is the same with the above; for he published an abridgment of the Aphorisms of Baxter, retaining this paragraph, and thereby stamping it with his approbation.

Having thus briefly considered what may be said in favor of the proposition, that all the actions and sufferings of Christ, after the union of the two natures, were the actions and sufferings of His whole complex person, I will consider what may be said in objection to it.

Objection 1. It is said in the Scriptures that Jesus Christ was put to death in the flesh;-that He shed His blood for us; and the Scriptures in many places teach that He suffered as man: what propriety is there then in involving the Divine nature in suffering? If the Scriptures teach that He suffered as man, what authority have we to say He suffered as God?'

Answer 1. The Scriptures do indeed teach that Jesus Christ suffered as man, but nowhere teach that He suffered only as man, or that He did not suffer as God and man united.

2. The Scriptures call our blessed Savior the man Christ Jesus,— the Son of man, and the man of sorrows; and therefore, if we reason like the objector, we must say with the Socinian that he was a mere man, and the account of the incarnation is all a fable. The argument in the one case is as good as in the other.

3. If the phrase, suffered in the flesh' is to be understood as excluding the Divine nature, it must exclude also his human soul; and then we have this sentiment, that the sufferings of Jesus Christ were merely corporeal, neither His soul nor the Divine nature having any share in them.

4. Whatever appellation is given to our Savior, whether man or God, Son of man, or Son of God, must be understood as designating His whole complex person; because it is previously ascertained and admitted that both the human and Divine natures are united in His person. Accordingly the sufferings of the man Christ Jesus, are the sufferings of His whole complex person; and when it is said that the Alpha and Omega died,-that He who thought it not robbery to be equal with God became obedient unto death, it is to be understood in the same way, of the whole complex person. There is then no evidence whatever that the human nature alone suffered; seeing the Scriptures refer His suffering indifferently to the Divine or human

nature.

Objection 2. There were certain conditions or states in the life of Christ, in which the inter-communication between the two natures must have been suspended, and in which the human nature alone could have been concerned; as when He is represented as 'increasing in wisdom and stature,' (which imply a state of ignorance and weakness,) as

sleeping and in death. And if in these states the Divine nature could not partake with the human, the same may have been true in other cases; especially in respect to suffering, where we should expect the inter-communication between the two natures would be suspended. There is therefore no absurdity in saying this, 'He suffered as man, that He spoke and acted as God!'

Answer. It is not pretended that the proposition defended in this Essay has no difficulties attending it; but these difficulties may not be in the doctrine of an inter-communication in suffering, but in our limited faculties, and the narrow capacity of our minds. I reason in this case as the believers in the doctrine of the trinity and the incarnation of the Son of God have always done. These doctrines we cannot explain, but we believe them, notwithstanding, on the evidence of Divine revelation. Do we act consistently then when we object to the doctrine of inter-communication in suffering in the case of our Saviour, merely because it is attended with difficulties?

The only question to be settled here is, Is this doctrine taught in the Bible? Do the Scriptures inform us that the whole person of our Lord suffered for our redemption? To my understanding they do, and that with a clearness of evidence not to be resisted. It is true we cannot tell how the whole complex person of our Savior increased in wisdom and stature; how he slept; how he died; or what was in all respects his state in death. And were we to limit the inquiry to the mere human nature, we shall find inexplicable difficulties. Who can tell how the complex creature, man, increases in wisdom and stature— sleeps and dies; or what is precisely his condition in these several states? These conditions of man, as far as they affect the body, are submitted to the observation of our senses; but who can tell how the soul is affected in them? And yet we know that the man grows, sleeps, and dies, and not merely the body. Even so the complex person of Christ increased in wisdom and stature, slept and died, though we cannot tell, precisely, what was His condition in either of these states, or how all the parts of His person were affected by them. Important reasons are assigned for his passing through every state or condition of human beings : '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,' Heb. ii, 17. Here we are taught that it was highly expedient, that our atoning High Priest should pass through all the states, passive as well as active, to which human creatures are subjected, that He might be a propitiation for their sins, and sanctify every state and condition lying in their path to heaven. Again it is said, 'We have not a High Priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need,' Heb. iv, 15, 16. In order that He might be our sympathizing High Priest, He consented to be tempted in all points like as we are; but as a great part of our temptations grow out of, and are connected with those and other states, through which we are destined to pass, He consented also, in all things, to be made like unto His brethren, by passing through them Himself. And what Christian does not con