It will not do to represent the Gospel scheme of salvation as not only
_leaving_, but involving, the moral character of God in difficulty;
and then to say we can still believe him holy, just, and good
notwithstanding. The atonement was designed to prove and establish
these attributes: to be the ground of our confidence in them, and of
our love to God because of them. We are not to believe in them in
spite of the plan of redemption; but, because of the plan of
redemption. The words of John, "we love him because he first loved
us," and "herein is the love of God manifested towards us, because he
sent his Son into the world that we might live through him," imply
that the believer's delight in the essential excellence of God (which
delight alone is divine love) springs out of the display of that
excellence in the cross of Christ. An atonement for all, arising out
of love to all, proves that it is indeed justice that inflicts
vengeance on the impenitent; not partial, personal hatred, not
indifference, not cruelty. A limited atonement, just because it gives
no proof that they are beloved--gives no proof that nothing else than
justice could have punished them. It gives, on the other hand, no
proof that forgiving love has been that which saved the elect, as it
is to an arbitrary distinction it teaches them to look as the ultimate
cause of their hope. I care not to be told that they acknowledge love
in their salvation notwithstanding. I repeat, the redemption is to
_prove_ the divine character, not merely to leave us the possibility
of believing it.
Finally, This scheme obliges to believe that Jesus has broken the law,
and transgression of the law is sin. This he assuredly did, if he
loved not all mankind as himself. It is an ignorant answer to say,
that for him to break the law was not sin. To break the moral law, and
to be a sinner, are not things arbitrarily put together; they are two
names for the same thing. It is worse to say he need not keep the law
because he was God. The law is the transcript of the character of God:
opposition to it is opposition to that character. Made of woman,
besides, he was made under the law. All praises of his goodness and
moral perfection are so many varied expressions for the completeness
with which he kept the law. And oh! indeed, what part of it so
peculiarly his own, as to love his neighbour as himself?
I say, therefore, again, to limit the divine love, to limit the
atonement, the grand expression of that love, is to limit the love of
Christ, and thus to make Christ a sinner. He that hath seen him hath
seen the Father. No moral difference surely is so great as that
between a breaker and a keeper of the law of love. What a moral
difference, then, between the character of a God manifested in the
one form and in the other.
APPENDIX.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account