The sufferings of Christ, confined to His human nature : a reply to a book entitled: The sufferings of Christ, by a layman

Front matter

“ae GRA A NA by, is Pree o a ay aed eine eS erates es

CH ee

> 5 poet es

Preface

Tue book reviewed in the following pages, is anonymous; but the name of the author is pretty extensively known, A writer in the Christian Review, says, he “is understood to be a distinguished lawyer in the city of New York, retired from practice, a brother of one of the most able and eloquent preachers that ever adorned the American pulpit.” After this announcement it may be as well to tell the whole truth, especially as the author has said that “the omission is not from fear of responsibility,” and that “should any future exigency invite the disclosure of our name, it will not be withheld.” Ag it will be convenient for me, in the prosecution of my object, to be able to refer to some name, I take the liberty to state, that the reputed author of the book, is Grorege GRIFFIN, Esq., brother of the late Rev. Edward D. Griffin, D. D., that burning and shining light, whose memory will long be affectionately cherished by American christians.

The book has been favorably noticed by several religious journals, and has evidently awakened no small degree of interest in the theological world. “It is confessedly, the production of a highly gifted mind, and is written with much vigor-and eloquence; and moreover discusses a question of the greatest theoretical as well as practical importance. ”The writer, like his distinguished brother, possesses not only a strong and discriminating intellect, but a vivid imagination. Hence his style abounds vi PREFACE, in glowing imagery, and in bold, startling, and sometimes extravagant expressions. His reasoning is altogether of the rhetorical kind, and may properly be denominated “logic set on fire.’. His argument is conducted with an earnestness which shows, that whatever others may think, he has, at least, succeeded in thoroughly convincing himself. Hence his conclusions. are stated with great positiveness and assurance. It gives me pleasure to add, that the book is written with a spirit which evinces a deep interest in the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, and an ardent attachment to the cause of Christ.

But still I am compelled to believe, that the author has adopted a theory which cannot be sustained by a fair interpretation of the word of God. The reasons for this beleif, I shall state with Sissi and, as I hope, with christian candor.

Far be it from me to depreciate the account which the scriptures have given us of the sufferings of Christ. That his sufferings were exceedingly great and dreadful, Ihave no doubt. This is freely admitted by divines who maintain that they were confined to his human nature. Professor Stuart says, “In his divine nature, considered as the immutable God, we cannot conceive of his having suffered ; and indeed, the scriptures always represent him as having assumed the human nature that he might suffer. Phil. 2; 6-8. Heb. 2: 9. But still it seems to me to be impossible for us to ascertain, how great his sufferings really were. The peculiar constitution and the unspeakable dignity of the Saviour’s person; the spotless innocence of his character; the agony of the garden which forced his whole frame to sweat as it were great drops of blood; his complaint on the cross that his God

PREFACE. Vil had forsaken him; the fact that he expired sooner than those who suffered with him; the commotion of the natural world at the woes which he endured; the heavens shrouded in darkness; the luminary of the skies extinguished ; the vail of the most holy place rent, by which Jehovah’s presence was concealed ; the rocks and tombs bursting asunder; and the mouldering dust of the saints becoming reanimated with life—all, all combine to show that the scene of suffering was such as the world had never witnessed, and that it is probably not in the power of language to express, nor of our minds to conceive, the extent of the agony which Jesus endured.” Sermons on the Atonement, p. 11, 12.

President Edwards says, “ Our Lord Jesus Christ, in his original nature, was infinitely above all suffering, for he was ‘over all, God blessed forever ;? but when he became man, he was not only capable of suffering, but partook of that nature which was remarkably feeble and exposed to suffering. He began to suffer in his infancy, but his sufferings increased as he drew near to the close of life. The cloud over Christ’s head grew darker and darker as long.as he lived in the world, till it was in its greatest blackness when he hung upon the cross, and cried out ‘my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken’ me.’ His last sufferings were so dreadful that the view which he had of them before, overwhelmed and amazed him ; as it is said, ‘he began to be sore amazed’ The very sight of these last sufferings was so dreadful, as to sink his soul down into the dark shadow of death; yea so dreadful was it, that in the sore conflict which his nature had with it, he was all over in a sweat of blood—and if only the foresight of the cup was so dreadful, how dreadful was the cup itself !—how far beyond all that can vi ® PREFACE.

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, . i

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 di- | vine 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 atime, 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. Enicurus thus spoke of his imagined iron-bound civinity. ‘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

PREFACE. 1X unexpectedly find in the dominant Shania of Christendom !”

A quotation is also kattauess from Dr. Chalmers, i 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, anda sort of cold, clear, and faultless morality”—as “some physical yet tremendous energy that sitteth aloft ina 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 possessa 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 ficklex PREFACE.

ness and mutability, or the exercise of a malignant disposition, itis certain that God has not passions; for sucha 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 ?” lJ 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 “heloveth 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, isa 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 appliedtomen. 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-

PREFACE. Xi ed that God possesses a material body. Still l 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 humansympathies, — and human passions, is as “plainly figurative.” Itisas clear a dictate of common sense, that God never literally repents, thatis, 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 ifs true meaning, every divine deciaration, whether the language be literal, or figurative. And Iam far from believing that the language in question, is at all »

difficult to be understood; or thatit even seems “designed to produce” in the soul any “conceptions” which need “the correction of a scholastic explanation.”

Les a

Xl PREFACE.

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.

CONTENTS. |

FNTRODUCTION.

The question stated. It should be approached with humble and devout feelings. The theory of Mr. G. opposed to the belief of almost the whole Christian world. The question not a matter of philosophical speculation but eminently scriptural. Rules of interpretation. Mr. G.’s theory rests on two fundamental errors. One relating to the nature of the atonement, the other to a principle of interpretation. F i 4 Page 17

A/CHAPTER 1.

Mr. G.’s first argument, viz. the incarnation itself implies suffering — Sustained by reference to John 17: 5; “Father, glorify thou me with the glory:which I had with thee before the world was.’’ And Phil. 2: 6-8; “who being in the form of God—emptied himself.’ Refuted by reference to John 3: 13; “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man who, isin heaven.’ John 1: 18; “The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father ;”’ also John 10: 30; and 14: 9,10. : ‘ : she 2 28

GAP ERT:

Mr. G.’s great argnment derived from the import of the names given to the Redeemer. Christ is a person of two natures, the human and divine. It is hence inferred that if Christ suffered, he must have suffered in both natures. This argument shown toprove too much. Many things affirmed of Christ which are true only of his divine nature. Others which are true only of his human nature. Illustration from’ the person of man. Man composed of body and soul.. Manis mortal, and man is immortal. , The sufferings of Christ not the sufferings of a mere man, but: of that PERSON who is both God and man. Although endured in his human nature, as much His, as if they had been endured in his divine nature: Mfr. G.’s principle furnishes an unanswerable argument to the Unitarians and to the Monophosites. F te é Se . é 38

Ph. Oey CONTENTS.

CHAPTER AI.

Mr. G.’s argument derived from the dismay with which Christ anticipated his last sufferings, and the perturbation with which he endured them. Contrast between him in this respect and the martyrs. The capacity of the human nature to suffer limited. Gethsemane. The bloody sweat. The scene on Calvary. All the exhibitions of suffering were made in the human nature. Difficulties in supposing they were endured in the divine

‘nature. Christ’s omniscience. The angelsent to strengthen him. . 67

CHAPTERIV.

Examination of certain texts of scripture relied on by Mr. G. Luke 12: 50; “TI havea baptism to be baptized with.” John 12: 27, 28; “Now ismy soul troubled.” John 13: 21; “He was troubled in spirit.” Heb. 5: 7, 8; “When he had offered up prayers and supplications.” The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. . Isa.63: 3; “1 have trodden the wine press alone.” — Zech. 12: 10; “And they shall look on me whom they have pierced.” 87

GHA PTERY ;

Mr. G.’s theory of the atonement, viz. that Christ must have endured an amount of suffering equal to that deserved by all for whom he suffered, This theory shown to be inconsistent with grace in the gift of pardon; to be derogatory to the character of Christ, and subversive of the great object for which the plan of salvation was devised. The true object of the atonement is to render it consistent for God to pardon sin without giving up his law. That amount of suffering which answers this end, all that is needed. The sufferings of Christ shown to be not the sufferings of a mere man, but of Him who is both God and man, and to derive infinite atoning value from. the dignity and glory of his Person. : 3 : a SA0G5

CHAP TE RY, T,

Direct arguments to prove that Christ suffered in his human nature only. Argument from the attributes of God, particularly his immutability and Omniscience. The transition from a state of blessedness to a state of suffering implies a change of views and of feelings. ‘The question considered, whether the divine nature is capable of voluntary. suffering. What is voluntary suffering? Not the direct, but remote result of volition. The assertion of Mr. G. examined, that if the suffering of the divine nature implies mutabil-

CONTENTS. XV ity, the incarnation implies the same. The objection answered, that if God cannot voluntarily suffer, he is not Almighty. : : ; 119

CHAPTER VII.

lf Christ suffered in his divine nature, all the Persons of the Godhead must have suffered. This admitted by the reviewer in the Christian Review. This objection shown not to lie against the incarnation. Proof from scripture that God is infinitely blessed. 1 Tim. 1: 16; 1 Tim. 6: for isa. 46:7 10 Rev. 47 8 Ps5 15) Se Ps. 2355 63 Nphs iy 1: Dan. 4: 5. Mr. G’s opinion that God’s blessedness is progressive, examined. Meaning of Heb. 12: 2: “Who for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross.” : : 6 , ‘ : 189

CHAPTER VIII?

Proof from scripture that Christ suffered in his human nature. 1 Pet. 3: 18; “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins—being put to death in the flesh.” 1 Pet. 4: 1; “Forasmuch then as Christ -hath suffered for us in the flesh.” 1 Pet.2: 24. Eph. 2: 15. Col. 1 : 20-22, Meaning of the term flesh when applied to Christ. If Christ suffered in his divine nature, the incarnation was unnecessary. Proof from scripture that Christ became incarnate, that he might suffer. Second chapter of the Hebrews. Gal. 4: 4,5. Rom. 8: 3.. Heb.9: 15. -Heb. 10: 5-7. Theory of the reviewer in the Biblical Repository, that the divine nature, although impassible by itself, participated in 1 the sufferings of the human nature. . 141

CHAPTERIX.

The blood of Christ. Texts of scripture which teach that Christ by his blood made atonement for sin. It was the death and blood of the victim which constituted the typical atonement under the law. As it was with the type, so with the antitype. All Christ’s sufferings were vicarious, but particular importance is attached to those which were connected with the shedding

’ of blood. The incarnate God had blood, but it ran in’ human veins. According to Mr. G. the blood of Christ is to be understood, not literally, but figuratively. : Saks ; 2 ‘ : : 161

CHAPTER X. ;

Death of Christ. ‘Evidence that the death which Christ’ suffered, was a literal death in his human nature. It was the death of the cross. Death

Xvi CONTENTS.

inflicted by the hands of men. The life which Christ laid down, was the life which he took again at his resurrection. The death which Christ suffered was accomplished at Jerusalem. It is commemorated in the Lord’s supper. It was the death of the body. The incarnate God could die. He did die, but it was as man he died, not as Géd. Examination of Rev. 1: 18 ; “Iam he that liveth and was dead.”?. Heb. 1: 3; and Phil.2: 5-8; The exaltation of Christ. : : i 169

.

CHAPTER XI.

Death of Christ continued. Mr. G.’s remarks on the second chapter of Hebrews. According to Mr. G. Christ suffered two deaths perfectly distinct from each other. The term death used by Mr. G. in a sense altogether different from its ordinary import. Hence he departs from his own rule in interpreting scripture. : 5 : Ry ; : 184

CHAPTERS,

History of opinions, in relation to the question under discussion. The views of the Patripassions—of Athanasius—of Apollinaris—of Eutyches and the Monophosites. ‘The theory of Mr. G. maintained by no respectable orthodox writer from the days of the apostles, till the nineteenth century. Alleged inconsistences of those who maintain the commonly received doctrine. Extracts from sermons, and from hymns. , a: 197

CHAPTER XIII.

Mr. Gs objections to the prevalent theory: Shown to be not only without foundation, but to recoil upon himself. His views of the atonement. His theory not founded on the Bible. Converts plain passages of scripture into metaphor.. The objection that the prevalent theory tends to lower the eye of devotion from the godhead to the manhood of Christ, shown to be unfounded. ‘The tendency of Mr. fre theory to strengthen the. hands of Unitarians and Infidels. Steir . 3 2 4 Saas dak