I do not deny that there is difficulty in these statements; but it belongs to the general subject of reconciling the purposes of Gød with the agency of man: whereas in the other case, God is repre sented 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. In 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.

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 behoves 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 the as in the wrong.

CONVERSATION III.

ON PARTICULAR REDEMPTION

Peter. NOTWITHSTANDING What our Brother James has stated, I am far from being satisfied with his views as they affect the doctrine 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 afore-mentioned 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 you include, not only what the New Testament denominates receiving the atonement-the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ-and faith in his blood; but also the absolute intention of Christ in his death to save all those who shall be finally happy. But, notwithstanding the unauthorized latitude of meaning which, to render the position more

plausible, is here claimed for a particular term, various and cogent reasons may be urged against it. Among others it confounds the atonement itself, with its application to the sinner. Whereas, though the former completely ascertain the latter, yet, not being the same fruit of divine favour, they must not be identified. The term application always supposes the existence of whatever is applied. The atonement, therefore, must be considered as existing, either actually, or in a divine decree, before it can be applied to the sinner. The application of a thing to any person, or for any purpose, ought not to be confounded with the thing itself. Hence, in former times, hardly any distinction was more common among theological writers, than that between what they denominated the impetration and the application of redemption. To represent the intention of Christ in his death to save Paul, for instance, and not Judas, under the notion of applying the atonement to the one and not to the other, is to me, at least, a perfectly novel sense of the word application, and was, I presume, adopted to meet the necessities of this hypothesis.

James. The whole of what you have said rests upon a mistake at the outset. You say, the position in question "places the particularity of redemption IN APPLICATION." Whereas, if you recollect yourself, you will find that it places it IN THE SOVEREIGN PLEASURE OF GOD WITH REGARD TO APPLICATION. The difference between this and the other is as great as that between election and vocation. Instead of my confounding redemption or atonement, therefore, with application, I have just cause to complain of you for having confounded application with the sovereign pleasure of God respecting it, and for having loaded me with the consequences.

Peter. But have you never made use of the term application, so as to include the divine intention?

James. I am not aware of having done so; but whether I have or not, you were not animadverting on what I may have said at other times, but on the position which you yourself had stated, which position affirms the very opposite of what you allege. AIlowing you to animadvert, however, on other words than those

contained in the position, and admitting that I may have spoken or written in the manner you allege, still it has been merely to distinguish what the death of Christ is in itself sufficient for, from what it was the design of the Father and the Son actually to accomplish by it. This distinction is neither novel nor liable to the objection of confounding the impetration of redemption with its application. I have no other meaning, that I am aware of, than that of Dr. Owen in the following passage : "Sufficient, we say, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins of all and every man in the world. This sufficiency of his sacrifice hath a two-fold rise. First The dignity of the person that did offer, and was offered. Secondly: The greatness of the pain he endured, by which he was able to bear, and did undergo the whole curse of the law, and wrath of God due to sin. And this sets forth the innate, real, true worth and value of the blood-shedding of Jesus Christ. This is its own true internal perfection and sufficiency. That it should be APPLIED unto any, made a price for them, and become beneficial to them, according to the worth that is in it, is external to it, doth not arise from it, but merely depends upon the intention and will of God."

:

Christ

Peter. Intention enters into the nature of atonement. was voluntary in his sufferings, and his being so, was essential to his death as a sacrifice and an atonement. His death, detached from these considerations, would be merely that of a martyr. It was the effect of the highest degree of love, and of the kindest possible intention respecting the objects beloved; for otherwise it might well be demanded, To what purpose this waste of love?

James. Intention of some kind doubtless does enter into the essence of Christ's laying down his life a sacrifice: but that it should be beneficial to this person, rather than to that, appears to me, as Dr. Owen expresses it, "external to it, and to depend entirely on the will of God." And as to a waste of love, we might as well attribute a waste of goodness to the divine providence in its watering rocks and seas, as well as fruitful valleys, with the showers of heaven; or to our Lord for his commissioning his apostles to

preach the gospel to every creature, while he never expected any others to believe and be saved by it than those who were ordained to eternal life. It accords with the general conduct of God to impart his favours with a kind of profusion, which to the mind of man, that sees only one or two ends to be answered by them, may have the appearance of waste: but when all things are brought to their intended issue, it will be found that God has done nothing in vain.

John. Placing the particularity of redemption, as you do, in the sovereign pleasure of God with regard to the application of the atonement, or the persons to whom it shall be applied; wherein is the difference between that doctrine and the doctrine of election ?

James. I do not consider particular redemption as being so much a doctrine of itself, as a branch of the great doctrine of election, which runs through all God's works of grace. If this branch of election had not been more opposed than others, I reckon we should no more have thought of applying the term particular to it, than to vocation, justification, or glorification. The idea applies to these as well as to the other. Whom he did foreknow he did predestinate: whom he did predestinate, he called whom he called, he justified; and whom he justified, he glorified.

John. This would seem to agree with the Apostle's account of spiritual blessings in his Epistle to the Ephesians: He hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ,

ACCORDING AS HE HATH CHOSEN US IN HIM BEFORE THE FOUN DATION OF THE WORLD.

Peter. I have some questions which I wish to put to Brother James on the difference which he appears to make between atonement and redemption. If I understand him, he considers the latter as the effect of the former.

James. There are few terms, whether in the scriptures or elsewhere, that are always used in the same sense. Reconciliation sometimes means abeing actually in friendship with God, through faith in the blood of Christ: but when used synonymously with atonement it denotes the satisfaction of justice only, or the