kiah they were offered not only for Judah, but for those that remained of the ten tribes: for so the king commanded, that the burnt-offering and the sin-offering should be made for all Israel."* But the sacrifices themselves were the same for both as they would have been for one, and required to be the same for one as they were for both. It was their designation only that made the difference.

Thus I conceive it is in respect of the sacrifice of Christ. If fewer had been saved than are, to be consistent with justice, it required to be by the same perfect atonement; and if more had been saved than are, even the whole human race, there needed no other. But if the satisfaction of Christ was in itself sufficient for the whole world, there is no further propriety in asking, "Whose sins were imputed to Christ? or, For whom did he die as a substitute?" Than as it is thereby inquired, Who were the persons whom he intended finally to save?

That which is equally necessary for few as for many, must, in its own nature, be equally sufficient for many as for few; and could not proceed upon the principle of the sins of some being laid on Christ rather than others, any otherwise than as it was the design of the Father and the Son, through one all-sufficient medium, to pardon the elect, while the rest are left to perish, notwithstanding, in their sins.

It seems to be as consonant with truth to say, a cer tain number of Christ's acts of obedience become ours, as that a certain number of our sins become his. In the former case his one undivided obedience, stamped as it is with divinity, affords a ground of justification to any number of believers: in the latter, his one

12 Chron. xxix. 24.

atonement, stamped also as it is with divinity, is sufficient for the pardon of any number of sins, or sinners. Yet as Christ laid not his life down but by covenant; as the elect were given him to be the purchase of his blood, or the fruit of the travail of his soul, he had respect, in all he did and suffered, to this recompense of reward. Their salvation was the joy that was set before him. It was for the covering of their transgressions that he became obedient unto death. To them his substitution was the same in effect as if their sins had by number and measure been literally imparted to him.

I am not aware that any principle which I imbibe is inconsistent with Christ's laying down his life by covenant, or with his being the Surety of that covenant, pledging himself for the certain accomplishment of whatever he undertook: as that all that were given him should come to him, should not be lost, but raised up at the last day, and be presented without spot and blameless. All this I consider as included in the design of the Father and the Son, with respect to the ap plication of the atonement.

John. I have heard it objected to your views of the sufficiency of the atonement, to this effect" How does this principle afford a ground for general invitations, if the design was confined to his elect people? If the benefits of his death were never intended for the non-elect, is it not just as inconsistent to invite them to partake of them, as if there were a want of sufficiency? This explanation therefore seems only to be shifting the difficulty."

James. Pharaoh was exhorted to let Israel go; and had he complied, he had saved his own life, and that of a great number of his people: yet, all things considered, it was not God's intention to save Pharaoh's life,

nor that of the Egyptians. And is there no difference between this, and his being exhorted under a promise in which the object promised had no existence?

It is a fact that the scriptures rest the general invitations of the gospel upon the atonement of Christ.* But if there were not a sufficiency in the atonement for the salvation of sinners without distinction, how could the ambassadors of Christ beseech them to be reconciled to God, and that from the consideration of his having been made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him? What would you think of the fallen angels being invited to be reconciled to God, from the consideration of an atonement having been made for fallen men ?You would say, It is inviting them to partake of a benefit which has no existence, the obtaining of which, therefore, is naturally impossible. Upon the suppo sition of the atonement being insufficient for the salvation of any more than are actually saved by it, the non-elect, however, are in the same state, with respect to a being reconciled to God through it, as the fallen angels; that is, the thing is not only morally, but naturally impossible. But if there be an objective fulness in the atonement of Christ, sufficient for any number of sinners, were they to believe in him, there is no other impossibility in the way of any man's salvation, to whom the gospel comes at least, than what arises from the state of his own mind. The intention of God not to remove this impossibility, and so not to save him, is a purpose to withhold not only that which he was not obliged to bestow, but that which is never represented in the scriptures as necessary to the con sistency of exhortations or invitations.

2 Cor. v. 19-21. Matt. xxii. 4. John iii. 16.

I do not deny that there is difficulty in these statements; but it belongs to the general subject of reconciling the purposes of God with the agency of man: whereas, in the other case, God is represented as inviting sinners to partake of what has no existence, and which therefore is physically impossible. The one, while it ascribes the salvation of the believer in every stage of it to mere,grace, renders the unbeliever inexcusable, which the other, I conceive, does not. short, we must either acknowledge an objective fulness in Christ's atonement, sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, were the whole world to believe in him; or, in opposition to scripture and common sense, confine our invitations to believe, to such persons as have believed already.

In

John. May I ask you, brother Peter, whether, on a review of what has passed, you consider brother James as denying the doctrines of imputation, and substitution, or either of them?

Peter. Though I consider brother James's statements as containing various mistakes; and though I am exceedingly averse from the necessary consequences of certain tenets, which, if I rightly understand him, are avowed in them; yet I am now convinced that respecting those doctrines, he did not intend what I supposed he did. It behooves me therefore frankly to acknowledge, that I have unintentionally misrepresented his sentiments respecting them, for which I am truly sorry.

John. I hope, brother James, you are satisfied with this acknowledgment.

James. Perfectly so; and shall be happy to hear brother Peter's remarks on those particulars in which he may still consider me as in the wrong.

A a

CONVERSATION THE THIRD..

ON PARTICULAR REDEMPTION.

PETER. Notwithstanding what our brother James has stated, I am far from being satisfied with his views as they affect the docrine of Particular Redemption, If I understand him, his sentiment may be expressed in this position: The particularity of the atonement consists in the sovereign pleasure of God with regard to its application.

James. I should rather say, The particularity of redemption consists in the sovereign pleasure of God with regard to the application of the atonement; that is, with regard to the persons to whom it shall be applied.

John. It is to be understood then, I presume, that you both believe the doctrine of particular redemption, and that the only question between you is, wherein it consists ?

James. So I understand it.

Peter. I consider the aforementioned position as merely a reconciling expedient, or compromise between principles which can never be reconciled.

James. I am not conscious of embracing it for any such purpose-but let me hear your objections against it.

Peter. It places the particularity of redemption in application. I understand indeed, that by application include not only what the New Testament denominates receiving the atonement-the sprinkling of the

you