T. T. Martin

JESUS THE CHRIST AS SIN-BEARER—GOD'S JUSTICE AND LOVE

"God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life."—John 3:16.

"That he might himself be just and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus."—Rom. 3:26.

"He was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."—Is. 53:5, 6.

"Christ died for our sins."—1 Cor. 15:3.

"Our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins."—Gal. 1:3, 4.

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree."—1 Peter 2:24.

"Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous."—1 Peter 3:18.

"Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister and to give His life a ransom for many."—Matt. 20:28.

"There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all."—1 Tim. 2:5, 6.

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us."—Gal. 3:13.

"Our Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity."—Titus 2:13, 14.

"By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."—Heb. 10:10.

"For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified."—Heb. 10:14.

"Nor yet by the blood of goats and bulls, but through his own blood entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption."—Heb. 9:12.

"This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many unto the remission of sins."—Matt. 26:28.

"And they sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take the book and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe and tongue and people and nation."—Rev. 5:9.

"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."—1 John 4:10.

"The Son of God who loved me, and gave himself up for me."—Gal. 2:20.

Reader, God's justice and love are both shown in the Saviour dying for our sins. Substitution is the only way of salvation when justice and love are both considered. It was God's justice that made it necessary for Christ to die for our sins. "Even so must the Son of man be lifted up,"—John 3:14;—"that he might himself be just and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus."—Rom. 3:26. And it was God's love that let Him die for our sins, "for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son."—John 3:16. What you, reader, ought to desire to know, is simply God's way. The Scriptures at the beginning of the chapter, if language can make anything plain, show clearly that the sinner's only escape from the just punishment of his sins lies in Jesus dying in his place to set him free from the just penalty due his sins; and they make it plain that this settles the full penalty for all sins.

But the objection is raised and pressed with all the force of human ingenuity and scholarship, backed by the prestige of some occupying the highest positions in literary and theological institutions, that it is morally wrong for the innocent to suffer the penalty of the guilty. With a zeal deserving a better cause, many who stand high as professed Christians and teachers join hands with the rankest, most blatant infidels, and press this, to them, unanswerable objection to Christ dying for our sins as our substitute. This friendship between infidelity and professed Christian teachers reminds one of another occasion when our Saviour was set at naught and two became friends with each other that very day (Luke 23:11, 12). Let us face this objection honestly and earnestly, for our eternal destiny turns on this one point. Is it morally wrong for the innocent to bear the sins of the guilty? In the first place it is not morally wrong, because God would not do morally wrong, and God did let the innocent suffer the penalty of the guilty. The language of Scripture teaching that Jesus suffered the penalty of our sins for us is plain and simple, and all efforts to take from the Scripture language its simple, plain, natural meaning are pitiable, and if contempt were ever justifiable, would deserve the contempt of all honest men. Let the reader turn back and read the Scriptures at the head of this chapter and decide for himself as to their obvious, intended meaning.

Now, because God's word tells us plainly that God gave His only begotten Son, that He might be just, and thus the justifier of him who believes in Jesus, that Christ died for our sins, that He gave Himself for our sins, the just for the unjust,—it is right for the innocent to suffer the penalty of the guilty. To any honest, candid man, which is the correct way to reason? This thing is wrong; God did this thing; therefore, God did wrong? or, God does right; God did let Christ, the innocent, suffer and die for our sins, to redeem from all iniquity; therefore it is right for the innocent to suffer the penalty of the guilty?

Nor is Christ suffering as our substitute the Great Exception, as some timid ones have granted. It is in line with God's Plan with Men; it is in line with the best and noblest there is in man; and the opposite teaching, that it is wrong to let the innocent bear the penalty of the guilty, is not only wrong, but horrible and the extreme of heartlessness. Two men passing along the street at night hear groaning in the gutter; striking a match, they see two men lying in the gutter with their faces all gashed and bleeding. In a drunken street fight they have almost killed each other. Who did the sinning? Those two men lying in the gutter; they deserve to suffer the penalty of their sinning. But these other two men join hands, pay for a physician, a nurse and the hospital bill. In principle that is the innocent paying the penalty of the guilty. To say that this is wrong would mean to condemn the community to pass by day after day and see those ghastly, festering wounds, those parched lips and bloodshot eyes, and to listen to those dying groans. And yet in principle that is exactly what those demand for this sinful, sin-injured human race, when they say that it is morally wrong for Jesus the Saviour to suffer the penalty of our sins. A son becomes a drunkard; his drunkenness and debauchery utterly wreck his health. Some night the father finds his drunken son down in the street, a helpless invalid. The son did the sinning; he deserves to suffer the penalty of his sins; but the father takes him to his home and cares for him and supports him. In principle that is the innocent bearing the penalty of the guilty. To say that this is morally wrong would be to condemn that father to pass by day after day and see his son suffering the just consequences of his sin, to see him slowly starving to death, to see him gasping in death, and not be allowed to come to the rescue. Yet when men object to Christ bearing the penalty of the sinner's sins they are, in principle, taking that stand; for in principle Jesus, dying for our sins, did what the father did with the son. A prominent woman in America was dying from lack of blood; back of it somewhere was violation of some law of God, some law of health. Her noble husband had the surgeon join their arteries, and every beat of his noble heart drove his well blood into the body of his dying wife, and he saved her life. These objectors praise that act; they see nothing morally wrong in it. Yet when Jesus, in principle, did the same thing for sinners in order to save them, these same men, with a haughty, scornful tone, say that it is morally wrong for the innocent to suffer in place of the guilty. "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?"—Rom. 9:20. Had the objectors said that it was wrong to force the innocent to suffer the penalty of the guilty, that would have been true, but Jesus was not forced. Listen to Him, John 10:17, 18, "Therefore doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again. No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again."

Nor is Christ dying for our sins, as taught by the Scriptures, a makeshift, but, rather, a real, full redemption, ransom. Just as a captain can honorably, honestly be given as a ransom for a number of private soldiers in an exchange of prisoners; just as a diamond can redeem a debt of many dollars; just as one man is allowed to pay another's debt; just as one man is allowed to pay another's fine in a courtroom; so our Lord and Saviour "gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity." All illustrations of Deity fall short, but just as a man could ransom all the ants that crawl upon the earth, were they under moral law and had violated it; just as a man could, on account of the vast difference in the scale of being, suffer in his own body all that all the ants upon earth could suffer; so Jesus, Immanuel, God with us, redeemed us from "all iniquity." It was not merely the nails driven through His quivering flesh, nor the physical pangs, but "the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Hence, that awful cry, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" He was in the sinner's place, suffering the sinner's penalty for sin. "He hath made him to be sin for us."—2 Cor. 6:21.

Instead of proudly cavilling and warping and trying to avoid the simple, plain meaning of God's word, should you not rather, reader, bow in reverence before such love, realize that it was for you, yes, you, and that through His suffering and in no other way, you may escape the just punishment of your sins and spend eternity in Heaven? The world weeps over the story of the noble fireman who gave his life to rescue a little girl from a burning building, but it coldly scorns and proudly rejects salvation through the redemption of Jesus the Christ. Oh, the pride and wickedness of the human heart! Be not you, reader, of those who sit in the seat of the scornful, but the rather of those who at the last day will sing, Rev. 5:9, "Worthy art thou to take the book and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood, men of every tribe and tongue and people and nation."

Let us consider carefully what it really means when we are told that "Christ died for our sins,"—1 Cor. 15:3, that He "gave himself for our sins,"—Gal. 1:4; that "his own self bare our sins in his own body upon the tree,"—1 Peter 2:24; that "Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous."—1 Peter 3:18. God's word explains it clearly: "That he might himself be just and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus."—Rom. 3:26. "That he might be just." Notice it carefully, "That he might be just." Take it in its full meaning, "That he might be just." A question: How could God be just and justify any sinner apart from the fact that "Christ died for our sins," that "the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all"? Reader, no man, however learned, will ever answer that question. He may sneer; he may cavil; he may warp; he may try to confuse; but he will never come out in the open and answer that question. He may say that it is morally wrong for the innocent to bear the penalty of the guilty, but that objection is met and answered above in this chapter.

Let us face a trilemma; three, and only three plans, were possible for God with man:—

First, To have been just with man, without any love or mercy; hence, for every sinner to have suffered the just penalty for his sins, without any redemption. That would have meant Hell for every responsible human being, without any Heaven at all.

Second, To have been all mercy and all love and no justice. That would have meant no moral laws; for why have moral laws, if there would be no penalty, no justice? That would have meant a premium on crime. That would have meant the debased, the debauched, the immoral, the drunken, the fiend, on a level with the chaste, the pure, the upright, the true. That would have meant unbridled rein to passion and lust and every other evil inclination, and no penalty following. That would have meant Hell in trying to get rid of Hell.

Third, There was left but one other possible plan, to be just and at the same time extend love to the sinners. In the nature of the case, real redemption, without any makeshift, was the only way this could be done. "Even so must the Son of man be lifted up,"—John 3:14; "that he himself might be just and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus,"—Rom. 3:26; "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son,"—John 3:16; "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."—1 John 4:10.

This leads to another question: How can God be just and not justify "him that hath faith in Jesus"? Again men may quibble and warp, and ridicule, but no one will ever answer the question. And the reason why this question will never be answered leads to another question:

From how many of his sins is the one "that hath faith in Jesus" justified? We have now gotten to the very centre of the whole problem of salvation. Let us give it most careful consideration.

In not one of the Scriptures cited at the head of this chapter is there one word that limits the number of sins for which Christ died, or from which the believer is justified. That of itself is sufficient warrant for us to conclude that Christ died for all of the sins of the believer, that when He "gave himself for our sins" (Gal. 1:4), it included all of our sins, and that the believer is justified from all of his sins. One man promises another that he will pay his debts. That of itself means all of his debts, unless the one making the promise was simply juggling with words. While this of itself would be sufficient, God in His word has made it positive and absolute as to how many of the believer's sins were laid on Christ ("the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."—Is. 53:6); for how many of our sins Christ gave Himself ("Who gave himself for our sins."—Gal. 1:4); for how many of our sins Christ died (1 Cor. 15:3); from how many of his sins the believer is justified, ("that he might himself be just and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus."—Rom. 3:26). In Lev. 16:21, 22, God gives us a picture, foreshadowing the Saviour, of laying the sins on the substitute: "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquity of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat and shall send him away by the hand of a man that is in readiness into the wilderness: And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities." "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh [or beareth] away the sins of the world."—John 1:29. But how many of our sins? Let God's word answer: Titus 2:13, 14, "Our Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity." Look at it again, reader; grasp its full meaning; let it be impressed indelibly upon your soul: "Our Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity." Then as certainly as the believer is redeemed by Him, he is redeemed from all iniquity; and as certainly as he is redeemed from all iniquity, that certainly the believer is going to Heaven, for there is nothing left that can cause him to be lost. Hence God, through Paul, has told us "By him every one that believeth is justified from all things."—Acts 13:39.

If our Saviour Jesus Christ gave Himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity (Titus 2:13, 14), how can God be just and not justify every one that believes from all things (Acts 13:39)? And if the believer is justified from all things (Acts 13:39), he is certain to go to Heaven. This is God's plan; this is God's will; "by the which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."—Heb. 10:10. "For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified."—Heb. 10:14. "Nor yet by the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption."—Heb. 9:12. Hence Jesus said, "Verily, verily I say unto you, he that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death to life."—John 5:24.

While thus is manifested God's justice, and the only way that God could be "just and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus" (Rom. 3:26), for Jesus Himself said it ("Even so must the Son of man be lifted up."—John 3:14); let the reader not forget that it equally manifests God's love, and the Saviour's love. "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."—1 John 4:10. "The Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me."—Gal. 2:20. If God's love is amazing in sending His Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10), if the Saviour's love is amazing in loving us and giving Himself for us (Gal. 2:20), how infinitely more amazing is this love when we see that it has obtained eternal redemption for us (Heb. 9:12); that it has redeemed us from all iniquity (Titus 2:14), and that every one that believes is justified from all things (Acts 13:39)?

Reader, the greatest crime that is ever committed on this earth is to reject this "so great salvation" (Heb. 2:3); this redemption from all iniquity (Titus 2:14), and to trifle with the amazing love that provided a way by which He Himself might be just and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus (Rom. 3:26). We shudder at the horrible crimes reported in the daily papers, at those recorded in history; but far greater, far blacker, more terrible, is the crime of a human being rejecting this great provision of God's love. Only intellectual pride, religious prejudice, family or race ties, love of the world, or secret sin, can be the cause of the reader taking such a fatal step; and fearful will be the consequences of letting any one of these cause the rejection of the only salvation that God's love and justice could provide. The reader cannot plead that God has not given sufficient proof that He has given us a revelation in His word (let the reader go back and read again the Introduction and the reference for further study); nor can he plead that God's word does not make the message plain (let the reader go back and study the Scriptures at the beginning of this chapter). It is a solemn and awful step, reader, one never to be retraced, to decide to reject this salvation, and to go out into the dark, unending future beyond the grave, unredeemed from iniquity, with no certain hope, when God has warned you, "Apart from shedding of blood there is no remission,"—Heb. 9:22. It is an awful, eternal crisis, when you see God's only provision for you, so complete, so perfect, so sure, and then face His warning, "I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse: therefore choose life."

FOR FURTHER STUDY.—There are those who deny God's justice in Christ dying for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3), in Christ giving Himself for our sins (Gal. 1:4), in Christ redeeming us from all iniquity (Titus 2:14). Expressions from the two most prominent rejecters will show the principal reasons given by all other rejecters of redemption through Christ:—

"Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty, even if the innocent would offer itself."—The "Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine. "The outrage offered to the moral justice of God, by supposing Him to make the innocent suffer for the guilty."—The "Age of Reason," by Thomas Paine.

"An execution is an object for gratitude; the preachers daub themselves with the blood, like a troop of assassins, and pretend to admire the brilliancy it gives them."—The "Age of Reason," by Thomas Paine.

The other is Mrs. Mary Baker G. Eddy in her "Science and Health, with Key to the Scriptures": "One sacrifice, however great, is insufficient to pay the debt of sin. The atonement requires constant self-immolation on the sinner's part." Again, "Another's suffering cannot lessen our own liability." Again, "The time is not distant when the ordinary theological views of atonement will undergo a great change,—a change as radical as that which has come over popular opinions in regard to predestination and future punishment. Does erudite theology regard the crucifixion of Jesus chiefly as providing a ready pardon for all sinners who ask for it and are willing to be forgiven? Does spiritualism find Jesus's death necessary only for the presentation, after death, of the material Jesus, as a proof that spirits can return to earth? Then we must differ from them both." It is not to be wondered at that she takes her stand with Thomas Paine in rejecting the teaching that Christ died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3), and that He redeemed us from all iniquity (Titus 2:14), when she says, "Does divine love commit a fraud on humanity by making man inclined to sin and then punishing him for it?" Again, "In common justice we must admit that God will not punish man for doing what He created man capable of doing, and knew from the outset that man would do." Again, "The destruction of sin is the divine method of pardon. Being destroyed, sin needs no other pardon." There is one vast difference between these two who reject Jesus as our sin-bearer, our Redeemer,—Thomas Paine does not masquerade under the name "Christian." Why should others who stand with him in rejecting complete redemption through Christ?

Catholics by the sacrifice of the mass, the unbloody sacrifice, the elevation of the host, teach that the wafer is changed into the real "body, blood, soul and divinity" of Jesus Christ, and that it is then offered as a sacrifice. They thereby reject the complete redemption through Christ dying for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3), redeeming us from all iniquity (Titus 2:14). They thereby deny that He "offered one sacrifice for sin forever,"—Heb. 10:12, and that "by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified."—Heb. 10:14. Having rejected Him as complete Redeemer, they have no real Saviour at all. But those who make salvation dependent on moral character, or baptism, or church membership, just as surely as the Catholics reject the completeness of the redemption.

There are some who sneer at this teaching as the "commercial view" of redemption, in the face of God's word that declares, "ye were bought with a price,"—1 Cor. 6:20; "worthy art thou to take the book and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe and tongue and people and nation."—Rev. 5:9. (R. V.)

Consider the testimony of three over against the two quoted against this teaching of God's word:—

"I saw that if Jesus suffered in my stead, I could not suffer, too; and that if He bore all my sin, I had no more sin to bear. My iniquity must be blotted out if Jesus bore it in my stead and suffered all its penalty."—C. H. Spurgeon.

"If you believe on him, I tell you you cannot go to Hell; for that were to make the sacrifice of Christ of none effect. It cannot be that a sacrifice should be accepted and yet the soul should die for whom that sacrifice had been received. If the believing soul could be condemned, then why a sacrifice? Every believer can claim that the sacrifice was actually made for him: by faith he has laid his hands on it, and made it his own, and therefore he may rest assured that he can never perish. The Lord would not receive this offering on our behalf and then condemn us to die."—C. H. Spurgeon.

"The law of God was more vindicated by the death of Christ than it would have been had all the transgressors been sent to Hell. For the Son of God to suffer for sin was a more glorious establishment of the government of God than for the whole race to suffer."—C. H. Spurgeon.

"It is the obvious implication of these words (the Righteous One for the unrighteous ones) that the death on which such stress is laid was something to which the unrighteous were liable because of their sins, and that in their interest the Righteous One took it on Himself."—Denny, in "The Death of Christ."

"This is his gospel, that a Righteous One has once for all faced and taken up and in death exhausted the responsibilities of the unrighteous, so that they no more stand between them and God."—Denny, in "The Death of Christ."

"If Christ died the death in which sin had involved us, if in His death He took the responsibility of our sins upon Himself, no word is equal to this which falls short of what is meant by calling Him our substitute."—Denny, in "The Death of Christ."

"I do not know any word that conveys the truth of this if 'vicarious' or 'substitutionary' does not; nor do I know any interpretation of Christ's death which enables us to regard it as a demonstration of love to sinners, if this vicarious or substitutionary character is denied. There is much preaching about Christ's death which fails to be a preaching of Christ's death, and therefore to be in the full sense of the term Gospel Preaching, because it ignores this. The simplest hearer feels that there is something irrational in saying that the death of Christ is a great proof of love to the sinful unless there is shown at the same time a rational connection between that death and the responsibilities which sin involves, and from which that death delivers. Perhaps one should beg pardon for using so simple an illustration, but the point is a vital one, and it is necessary to be clear. If I were sitting on the end of a pier on a summer day, enjoying the sunshine and the air, and some one came along and jumped into the water and got drowned to prove his love to me, I should find it quite unintelligible. I might be much in need of love, but an act in no relation to any of my necessities could not prove it. But if I had fallen over the pier and were drowning and some one sprang into the water and at the cost of making my peril, or what but for him would be my fate, his own, saved me from death, then I should say, 'Greater love hath no man than this.' I should say it intelligently, because there would be an intelligible relation between the sacrifice which love made and the necessity from which it redeemed."—Denny, in "The Death of Christ."

"Christ died for sins once for all, and the man who believes in Christ and in His death has his relation to God once for all determined not by sin but by the atonement."—Denny, in "The Death of Christ."

"One who knew no sin had, in obedience to the Father, to take on Him the responsibility, the doom, the curse, the death of the sinful. And if any one says that this was morally impossible, may we not ask again, What is the alternative? Is it not that the sinful should be left alone with their responsibility, doom, curse, and death?"—Denny, in "The Death of Christ."

"Redemption, it may be said, springs from love, yet love is only a word of which we do not know the meaning till it is interpreted for us by redemption."—Denny, in "The Death of Christ."

"Unless we can preach a finished work of Christ in relation to sin, a reconciliation or peace which has been achieved independently of us at infinite cost, and to which we are called in a word of ministry of reconciliation, we have no real gospel for sinful men at all."—Denny, in "The Death of Christ."

"If the evangelist has not something to preach of which he can say, 'If any man makes it his business to subvert this, let him be anathema,' he has no gospel at all."—Denny, in "The Death of Christ."

"As there is only one God, so there can be only one Gospel. If God has really done something in Christ on which the salvation of the world depends, and if He has made it known, then it is a Christian duty to be intolerant of everything which ignores, denies, or explains it away. The man who perverts it is the worst enemy of God and men."—Denny, in "The Death of Christ."

"We should remember, also, that it is not always intellectual sensitiveness, nor care for the moral interests involved, which sets the mind to criticise statements of the Atonement. There is such a thing as pride, the last form of which is unwillingness to become debtors even to Christ for forgiveness of sins."—Denny, in "The Death of Christ."

But the Saviour could not have been a Redeemer, if He had not been God manifest in the flesh, for two reasons:—

First, if He had not been Deity, God manifest in the flesh, His dying for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3) would not have been Redemption, but a mere makeshift. "It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins."—Heb. 10:4. Why not? Because in that case there would have been no real redemption, but only a makeshift. Second, had the Saviour been anything other than God manifest in the flesh, He would have won men from God and alienated them from God. On this point let the reader consider well the following from Walker, in "The Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation":—"As God was the author of the law, and as He is the only Proper Object both of supreme love and obedience; and as man could not be happy in obeying the law without loving its Author, it follows that the thing now necessary, in order that man's affections might be fixed upon the proper object of love and obedience, was, that the Supreme God should, by self-denying kindness, manifest spiritual mercy to those who felt their spiritual wants, and thus draw to Himself the love and worship of mankind. If any other being should supply the need, that being would receive the love; it was therefore necessary that God Himself should do it, in order that the affections of believers might centre upon the proper object." "Now, suppose Jesus Christ was not God, nor a true manifestation of the Godhead in human nature, but a man, or angel, authorized by God to accomplish the redemption of the human race from sin and misery. In doing this, it appears, from the nature of the thing, and from the Scriptures, that He did what was adapted to, and what does, draw the heart of every true believer, as in the case of the apostles and the early Christians, to Himself as the supreme or governing object of affection. Their will is governed by the will of Christ; and love to Him moves their heart and hands. Now, if it be true that Jesus Christ is not God, then He has devised and executed a plan by which the supreme affections of the human heart are drawn to Himself, and alienated from God, the proper object of love and worship: and God, having authorized this plan, He has devised means to make man love Christ, the creature, more than the creator, who is God over all, blessed for evermore.

"But it is said that Christ having taught and suffered by the will and authority of God, we are under obligation to love God for what Christ has done for us. It is answered, that this is impossible. We cannot love one being for what another does or suffers on our behalf. We can love no being for labors and self-denials on our behalf, but that being who valiantly labors and denies himself. It is the kindness and mercy exhibited in the self-denial that move the affections; and the affections can move to no being but the one that makes the self-denial, because it is the self-denial that draws out the love of the heart.

"It is said, that Christ was sent by God to do His will and not His own; and therefore we ought to love God, as the being to whom gratitude and love are due for what Christ said and suffered.

"Then it is answered: If God willed that Christ, as a creature of His, should come, and by His suffering and death redeem sinners, we ought not to love Christ for it, because He did it as a creature in obedience to the commands of God, and was not self-moved nor meritorious in the work; and we cannot love God for it, for the labor and self-denial were not borne by Him. And further: If one being, by an act of his authority, should cause another innocent being to suffer, in order that he might be loved who had imposed the suffering, but not borne it, it would render him unworthy of love. If God had caused Jesus Christ, being His creature, to suffer, that He might be loved Himself for Christ's sufferings, while He had no connection with them, instead of such an exhibition, on the part of God, producing love to Him, it would procure pity for Christ and aversion towards God. So that, neither God, nor Christ, nor any other being, can be loved for mercy extended by self-denials to the needy, unless those self-denials were produced by a voluntary act of mercy upon the part of the being who suffers them; and no being, but the one who made the sacrifice, could be meritorious in the case. It follows, therefore, incontrovertibly, that if Christ was a creature—no matter of how exalted worth—and not God; and if God approved of His work in saving sinners, He approved of treason against His own government; because, in that case, the work of Christ was adapted to draw, and did necessarily draw, the affections of the human soul to Himself, as its Spiritual Saviour and thus alienated them from God, their rightful object. And Jesus Christ Himself had the design of drawing men's affections to Himself in view, by His crucifixion; says He, 'And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.' This He said signifying what death He should die: thus distinctly stating that it was the self-denials and mercy exhibited in the crucifixion that would draw out the affections of the human soul, and that those affections would be drawn to Himself as the suffering Saviour. But that God would sanction a scheme which would involve treason against Himself, and that Christ should participate in it, is absurd and impossible, and therefore cannot be true. But if the Divine Nature was united with the human in the teaching and work of Christ, if God was in Christ (drawing the affections of men, or) 'reconciling the world unto himself'—if, when Christ was lifted up, as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, He drew, as He said He would, the affections of all believers unto Himself; and then, if He ascended, as the Second Person of the Trinity, into the bosom of the Eternal Godhead—He thereby, after He had engaged, by His work on earth, the affections of the human soul, bore them up to the bosom of the Father, from whence they had fallen. Thus the ruins of the Fall were rebuilt, and the affections of the human soul again restored to God, the Creator, and proper Object of Supreme love."

Finally, let the reader give most earnest thought to the inevitable conclusion drawn by the same author:

"How, then, could God manifest that mercy to sinners by which love to Himself and to His law would be produced, while His infinite holiness and justice would be maintained? We answer, in no way possible, but by some expedient by which His justice and mercy would both be exalted. If, in the wisdom of the Godhead, such a way could be devised by which God Himself could save the soul from the consequences of its guilt,—by which He Himself could, in some way, suffer and make self-denials for its good; and by His own interposition open a way for the soul to recover from its lost and condemned condition, then the result would follow inevitably, that every one of the human family who had been led to see and feel his guilty condition before God, and who believed in God thus manifesting Himself to rescue his soul from spiritual death, every one thus believing would, from the necessities of his nature, be led to love God his Saviour; and mark, the greater the self-denial and the suffering on the part of the Saviour in ransoming the soul, the stronger would be the affection felt for Him."—Walker, in "The Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation."