Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

LECTURE IX.

THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST.

JOHN V. 23.

THAT ALL MEN SHOULD HONOR THE SON, EVEN AS THEY HONOR THE FATHER. HE THAT HONORETH NOT THE SON, HONORETH NOT THE FATHER WHICH SENT HIM.

THE whole Trinitarian system depends upon a supposition which is, that Christ had two natures, one human and the other divine. I say it is a supposition, because there is not a text in the New Testament in which this doctrine is asserted. If it were positively ascertained that he had but one nature, the whole doctrine of the Trinity, and all the doctrines connected with it, would fall to the ground. It is my purpose in this lecture to examine this doctrine, what it is, and what support it finds in the Scriptures.

The doctrine of the two natures is, that Christ was a complex being, the constituent elements of which were, a human body and a human soul, and the second Person of the Trinity, the Son, equal in all respects to the Father, and possessing all divine attributes. While sustaining this theory, the Trinitarian is furnished with an answer to every objection which can be brought against his hypothesis. For the conditions of this union.

between the divine and human natures are such, that it leaves Christ the liberty of speaking and acting in either of these natures as he chooses. He may say things in his human nature, which are not true of his divine nature, so that the strongest disclaimer he can make of possessing divine attributes, or being God, is no proof that he was not God, but only a proof that he had a human nature, and sometimes spoke in that human nature, to the exclusion of the divine. It is evident, that, according to this supposition, the language of Christ in the New Testament is altogether anomalous. The pronouns "I" and "me," when used by Christ, mean something entirely different from the same words when used by other persons. Sometimes they include and represent a human being, and sometimes an Infinite person, the second Person of the Trinity. If we ask on what principle we are to discriminate between those passages in which he speaks as God, and those in which he means to be understood in his human nature, no criterion is given us, but he is made to speak in one or the other, just as the exigencies of the doctrine of the Trinity require. Christ himself never gave us any such principle of discrimination, nor did he ever give us a hint of his double nature. The two natures of Christ is not not a doctrine of Christ, or of the Scriptures, but it is an hypothesis, which has been invented to explain certain passages of the Scriptures, that were thought plainly to imply it. I make no reflections on those who started this hypothesis. They, I believe, were honest in it. They thought it the easiest way of accounting for certain language which they found in the

New Testament. The proofs of Christ's human nature they thought to be conclusive and overwhelming, but then there were certain things attributed to him, certain acts represented to be done by him, which they could not ascribe to humanity. Therefore they resorted to the supposition of another and higher nature making a part of him, which from its attributes they thought to be God, or at least a Person of a Trinity.

The most natural way, in which this discussion can be conducted, will be this: First, to examine the evidence of the humanity of Christ, and consider those passages, which assert, or imply, that he was a man ; and in the second, those passages which are thought to prove that he had another nature. The proofs of Christ's humanity are too many and too plain to be resisted. He had a human body and a human soul. He was born, increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

His conception has nothing to do

with this question, for that began to exist. whether the body into which it is put begins to exist by God's immediate power, or by the ordinary agency he employs. He suffered pain, and weariness, and thirst, and finally died upon the cross. His soul was subject to human emotions. He felt grief at the grave of Lazarus, indignation at the hypocrisy of his countrymen, distress at the treason of Judas Iscariot, horror at the approach of death, and agony in the struggles of expiring nature, and commended his soul to God when it was about to leave his body. He ate and drank with his disciples, after his resurrection, and recognized with

that affects only the body, how The soul must come from God,

them the same common relation to God at his ascension. "Behold, I ascend to my Father and your Father, to

my God and your God."

"Ye seek to kill me, a

He calls his disci-

He called himself a man. man that hath told you the truth." ples his brethren. "Go tell my brethren," says he,. after his resurrection, "Behold, I ascend to my Father." "Whosoever will do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my mother, and sister, and brother."

The Apostles call him a man, and reason from his humanity. Peter, in his first sermon to the Jews after the ascension of Christ, says, "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you." Paul says, "As by man came death, so by man came the resurrection of the dead." In another place, "For if through the offence of one, many be dead, much more the grace of God and the gift of grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." He told the Athenians, that "God would judge the world in righteousness, by that man, whom he had ordained, whereof he had given assurance unto all men, in that he had raised him from the dead."

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews has not only asserted that Christ was a man, but gives the reason "We why it was necessary that he should be a man. see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he, by the grace of God, should taste of death for

[ocr errors]

every man." It was necessary that he should be a man, that he might die. It may be objected that the phrase, was made a little lower than the angels, intimates that he was originally above them, but the same would be proved of man in general, for the very same word is applied to him. "Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels.' Not only was it necessary for him to be a man, in order to die for the benefit of mankind, but that he might rise again, and become their leader into immortality. For it became him," that is, God, "for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings," perfect as a leader, or a perfect leader, by death. Had he not been a man, his resurrection would have been no proof of ours. "For both he that sanctifieth, and they that are sanctified, are all of one," that is, one nature, SO that he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church I will sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold, I, and the children which God hath given me. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he himself 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 lives subject to bondage." It might here be supposed, that the phrase, "took part of the same," is intended to mean that he took flesh, by becoming incarnate, but the same would be proved of the children, with whom he is associated; for it is said of them that they partook

66

« ÎnapoiContinuă »