Mr. Groves having so strongly expressed his condemnation of Mr. Erskine’s view of Divine Truth, in pages 102, 103, and 104 of his Journal, the Editor, who believes Mr. Groves to be in error regarding the extent of the Atonement, has felt it to be a duty not to allow his statements to pass unaccompanied with a plain declaration of the truth. The following Notes on some of the principal points touched upon by Mr. Groves, have been contributed by a brother who bears him much love, the Rev. A. J. Scott, of Woolwich, not so much with any view of detailed discussions of Mr. Groves’s positions, as simply to exhibit truth, as the best antidote to error.

NOTE A, page 102.

Mr. Groves has referred to the effects of system. One of the most important of these is, that opposite systems lead men to take such opposite views of the evidence itself by which the truth of the conflicting opinions must be tried. Of this he here furnishes an instance, in saying so strongly that the “sovereignty of God’s government, and the individuality of God’s election,” are “represented by the Apostles as the most overwhelming reasons for unlimited devotion to his service, who has thus chosen us.” Many of the very passages, doubtless, to which he would turn for the establishment of this assertion, would be enjoyed by others, as proofs how available is the general “kindness of God our Saviour towards man,” as an argument for loving and serving him. When Paul persuades the Ephesians to “walk in love as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us;”[44] when Peter recommends to his brethren patient meekness in suffering, by the consideration that “Christ also suffered for us, the just for the unjust,”[45] the power of this over the mind of one man depends on his understanding by “us” the fallen world; and of another, on its reminding him only of distinguishing personal obligations to sovereign election. Now, suasives to holiness, or what are felt as such, as they continually recur in Scripture, produce on a devout mind a much deeper conviction of the truth of the doctrines from which they are derived, than a formal assertion can. When, by the same expressions, one man is habitually carried to this, another to that, view of the Divine character, and each experiences, that in what he sees, there is a practical tendency towards the state of the heart and form of life at which he aims as good: this becomes to each, as instances accumulate, a far stronger reason than bare propositions, could be for growing in confidence, that the belief which thus impresses him is indeed the truth of God.

And one accustomed to observe the effects of system will not wonder that expressions like those above cited, still less that those in which Christ is spoken of as having “loved the church and given himself for it,” should thus come to be regarded as containing an argument for a selective atonement. It is by such a doctrine being perceived in them, that they practically impress the feelings of many. And yet, in truth, how are they inconsistent with the universal love of God and propitiation of Christ? Of course, where a common benefit is received, its efficacy, as a motive to grateful returns, is limited to those who recognize and value it. A patriot has delivered millions of ignorant, suspicious, ungrateful countrymen. His services are to be used as an argument for joining in some effort for his honour; and those who acknowledge and bless his exertions are especially addressed, and reminded that “he loved you, laboured for you, achieved happiness for you.” Would this contain even an insinuation, that they were the exclusive objects of his disinterested ardour? In such an address not only would the common benefit be mentioned peculiarly as a good bestowed on themselves; but their acknowledgment of it, and their distinguishing susceptibility to the feeling of its worth, would be referred and appealed to, as reasons why that was looked for and demanded of them, which from others might be as justly asked, but not so naturally expected. Such appeals are the apostolic epistles to the churches, as contrasted with their proclamation of Christ to the world.

NOTE B, page 103.

The moral condition of man, his seeing no desirableness in the object presented to him by the Gospel, Mr. Erskine shews, at great length, to be the grand obstacle to his enjoying it. The capacity to know and believe, he indeed conceives to bring with it the capacity to enjoy. But if a change in the moral state is necessary in receiving the truth, this surely obviates the objection that such truth would be unpalatable and uninfluential to those whose moral state is unchanged.

Our business, however, is not with Mr. E. but with the truth of the matter. Mr. Groves’ remarks refer to the nature of regeneration, and to the necessity of a change in the affections, in order to man’s appreciating the object presented to him in the Gospel: these he considers as objections to the doctrine that the simple knowledge and belief of that object are “the cause of spiritual life in the unregenerate;” and he uses the analogy of food, which he says, is not the cause of life, although it be the support of it. Certainly the contemplation of Jesus is not the cause, but it is the commencement and exercise of spiritual life, which needs no commencement of a distinct kind from its subsequent functions. As to the analogy of food, it will be seen whether the language of Scripture bears us out in making the same distinction between the source and the sustenance of spiritual, as of natural life.

What, indeed, is meant to be asserted? Is it, that men have life in them first, to capacitate them to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man? This seems to be said: but Himself hath said, “Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you.” Not life then without the food, or before the food, but by the food. This banquet is to be spread before the dead. Thus only shall any live. Is spirit and life in men first from another source, and then do they take and profit by his words? But “the entrance of his words giveth light,” and that light is life. “The words that I speak unto you,” says the Lord, “they are spirit, and they are life”: and that spirit, the spirit of his words, he tells us it is that “quickeneth” or produceth life. Is there, then, no need for regeneration? Surely there is: but it does not follow that the principle of regeneration is one, and that of faith another to be superadded to it. “We are born,” says Peter, “not of corruptible seed, but of the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever;” adding, in very remarkable language, “This is the word which by the Gospel is preached unto you.” An explanation which removes all doubt as to the meaning of James, when he says, “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth,” that is, according to Peter, with the Gospel preached. John, in like manner, tells us, that “whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world,” and if we ask, what is born of God? Is it a principle antecedent and necessary to faith? He answers, It is faith itself. “This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.”

NOTE C, page 104.

The question is not whether the scheme of salvation is merely reconcilable with divine love and justice, but how it constitutes the grand proof and manifestation of these attributes, and in general, of the perfections of God. In it he undertakes to shew himself worthy of love, and thus to win our love to himself. Any other means to that end than such as should prove his own worthiness, He could not use. One may confer a benefit on an individual from a thousand various motives, of which one only may be morally right. In event of any of the others having prompted the action, the benefactor may be regarded with gratitude, but then it is either because the motive is mistaken for the nobler one, or the gratitude is a mere reflected selfishness. As an example of the latter sort, the Jews, in the days of the Son of Man upon earth, had a love to God, a zeal for God, founded on their conviction of his partiality for their people. They regarded him as the God of the Jews only, and not also of the Gentiles. Its fruits were, their carrying the Lord to the brow of the hill to destroy him, because he reminded them of Naaman and the widow of Sarepta, as preferred to objects of bounty among their own people; and their endeavouring to tear Paul in pieces when he spake of a commission given him by Jesus to the Gentiles. They were indeed zealous, the apostle bears them witness in the Holy Ghost, and fully believed in God’s sovereign election of their nation. There is yet a zeal like their’s—let us beware of it.

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.