Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-06-29

and hourly, and wholesale, and easy par
don, we would be farther than ever from
that needful realization. 1t would be the
granting of universal indulgence. without
even the necessity of doing penance.
Secondhand do you not see, too, that this
further result would follow. That If any
realization remained of the sinfulness of the
sin which God had forgiven, we would be
utterly and miserably ashamed in His
gracious presencel We would be pardoned
culprits. Suppose a man owes a large sum
of money, and his creditor, pitying such a
poor bankrupt, tears up his notes, throws
them in the fire and lets him 90, would the
debtor be at ease in that presence alter
ward? Or, suppose a man had been a
traitor to his country and then been simply
pardoned, would he not feel himself a
branded criminal? Imagine Benedict
Arnold forgiven, and living in the court of
Washington and Jefferson! But God would
draw us near to Him-not repel u.s. He
wants us to be full of joy, not of shame,
before Him; and to that effect something
more than pardon, something more than
simple, unconditional, unearned forgiveness
is necessary. So we add still another mega
tive. Still the way of salvation is undis-
covered. What saves men is not yet an
swered.
THE BEST PLAN.
Fourth-How then? How can we be de-
livered from the guilt of sin? Suppose that
God himself should say: ''I will take
upon me the burden of my children's s sin.
myself will bear the penalty in their
stead. want them to know what dread
full thing sin is, and want them to realize
how 1 love them, even infinitely. I will
teach them and save them by being mani
tested among them, and taking their sins
upon me. will be lifted up, for my chill
dren's sin, upon the cross. So will draw
them away from sin, and save themP'
Would not that meet the needs of men?
There would be no denial of the sinfulness
of sin-rather an emphasis of it. There
would be no separation set between God and
the forgiven sinner, rather closer union
made.
That was what happened. Here the ques-
tion of questions finds its answer. There is
still difficulty, there is still mystery, that
we would expect when we try to understand
the plans and deeds of God. But the main
truth is perfectly plain. "God was in
Christ, reconciling the world unto Him.
self..' Set aside all theories" off the Atone
ment and take this. This is enough.
Christ "died for our SINS" He was ''cruci-
fed for u.s." He was "made sin for u.s."
He 'put away sin" by the sacrifice of Him
self He ''bore our sins in His own body on
the tree" He "hath washed us from our
sins in His own blood" He "gave His life
ransom for many" He .'hath reconciled
us to God by His own blood" He sis the
propitiation for our sins, and not for ours
only, but for the SINS of the whole world"
SUFFERING FOR OTHERS.
"God was in Christ reconciling the world
unto Himself" That throws light into
some dark places Shall the innocent suffer
for the guilty we ask, and there is an in
stinctive negative. And if the question
means sin the place OF" then it is hard not
to answer "No" and be done with it. One
sins and another is punished for it. That is
strange justleel But it the question means
"ior the sake Of" shall the innocent suffer
for the sake of the guilty? why, inno-
cence is suffering for guilt, in that sense, all
the time. Every noble soul who treads the
way of sel-sacrifce that his brethren may
be upli ted is an instance of it. Indeed,
there is no way yet known among men by
which there can be any saving OF the guilty
except by the voluntary suffering in some
manner OF the innocent. Down comes some
Greatheart out of his home of comfort
and sets his dwelling among the poor,
denies himself almost everything that men
account worth having, and gives his lie
for his brethren. That is the noblest sight
which the sun looks down upon the wide
world over. But it is only faint refec-
tion and dim echo of the Incarnation and
1t is not, as some think, that the Father
gives over the Son to death, compelling the
endurance of that shame and pain. Still
less is it, as others hold, that the loving Son,
by the offering of this fearful sacrifice, either
purchases the Fathers love or appeases the
Fathers wrath. We distinguish between
the Father and the Son too widely. There
are not two Gods. We may set that down
emphaticalIy. It may be too much to say
that the Father the "Son," and the
'Holy Ghost"
ARE BUT NAMES
describing God in His different relations to
u.s. Such statement would need some
qualification. 1t would be very much nearer
the truth, however, than the duation or
tritheron which colors our popular theology.
1t is not true that one God-the Father |
compelled the sacrifice of another God-the |
Son-before He would forgive the sins of |
men. God was in Christ, reconcilinp the |
world unto himself" 1t was God himself
manifested among men, who for love of us
endured the cross.
think we can see here why it is that the
leath OF Christ, rather than the life OF Christ
S set forth as the act which won salvation,
All that the lie meant, and more also, is
included in the meaning OF that death. Here
$ set forth pre-eminently the love which
Iod has for us, and the hatred which God
las for sin.
Explain it as we may, here is the fact.
ha nf Nhrfcf j. |
'ossible for every child of man. The cross
las bridged the gulf which seemed impassa-
lie between sin and pardon. Fortunately,
is not the doctrine" of the Atonement
which saves men. Salvation does not de-
'end upon our understanding of the atone
nent, or our views" about it, or our belief
n any particular Interpretation of it. We
re saved, whatever We may think about it
by the fact of the Atonement. We are
aved by the fact that "'Christ died for our
ins." GEORGE Boncrs