"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."
IV
THE NEW RELATION—THE NEW MOTIVE
"What things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."—Rom. 3:19.