"man in the world. • hath a two-fold rise. First, The dignity of the per"Son 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

This sufficiency of his sacrifice

law, and wrath of God due to sin. And this sets "forth the innate, real, true worth and value of the "bloodshedding of Jesus Christ. This is its own true "internal pertection and sufficiency. That it should "be APPLIED unto any, made a price for them, and be“come 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."

Peter. Intention enters into the nature of atonement. Christ 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 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 ge

neral 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 hath 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 fore-know, 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 foundation 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 a being 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 opening of a way by which mercy may be exercised consistently with righteousness. In both these senses the word occurs in Rom. v. 10. "For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." On this passage Dr. GUYSE very properly remarks, "Reconciled to God by the death of "his Son, in the first clause, seems to relate to Christ's << having worked out our reconciliation, or completed "all in a way of merit by his death that was necessary "to appease the wrath of God, and make way for the "riches of his grace to be communicated to us in full "consistence with the honour of all his perfections, "and of his law and government, which the apostle "had called (ver. 6. and 8.) dying for the ungodly, and "dying for us: but being reconciled, in the last clause, ❝ seems to relate to the reconciliation's taking effect 66 upon us, or to our being brought into a state of actu"al reconciliation and peace with God, through faith "in Christ's blood, which the apostle had spoken of "in ver. 1. and 9. and which in the verse after this is "called receiving the atonement."-Thus also the term redemption is sometimes put for the price by which we are.redeemed; namely, the blood-shedding of Christ. In this sense it appears to be used by the apostle, in Rom. iii. 24. "Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ." To be justified through his redemption is the same thing, I should think, as being justified by his blood. But the term properly and ordinarily signifies not that for the sake of which we are delivered from the curse of the

law, but the deliverance itself.-Viewing reconciliation, or atonement, as a satisfaction to divine justice, and redemption as the deliverance of the sinner, the latter appears to me to be an effect of the former.

Peter I am far from being convinced that redemption is an effect of atonement, any more than that atonement is an effect of redemption: both are the immediate effects of Christ's death, viewed in different points of light.

James. I freely admit that both are effects of Christ's death; but in such order as that one is the consequence of the other. I can conceive of the deliverance of the criminal arising from the satisfaction made to the judge; but not of satisfaction to the judge arising from the deliverance of the criminal.

Peter. To view the atonement as merely a satisfaction to divine justice, or as a medium by which mercy may be exercised consistently with the divine perfections, without considering sinners as actually reconciled to God by it, is to retain little if any thing more than the name of atonement.

James. I see no grounds for calling that which was wrought for us while we were yet enemies actual reconciliation. Actual reconciliation appears to me, as it did to Dr. GUYSE, to consist in that which is accomplished through faith, or as receiving the atonement. The reconciliation which is synonymous with atone⚫ment, is expressed in 2 Cor. v. 18. "All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ." But this is not supposed by the apostle, important as it was, to have brought sinners into a state of actual friendship with God: for if so, there had been -no occasion for "the ministry of reconciliation," and for "beseeching sinners to be reconciled to him." Nor do I see how a state of actual reconciliation could con

sist with the uniform language of the New Testament concerning unbelievers, whether elect or non-elect, that they are under condemnation. I never understood that you held with justification before believing: but actual reconciliation seems to amount to this. Neither have I understood that you have ever attempted to explain away the duty of ministers to beseech sinners to be reconciled to God. On the contrary, if I mistake not, you have pleaded for it. I am surprised therefore at your speaking of them as being actually reconciled to God while they are yet enemies.

John. What are your ideas, brother James, of that reconciliation which was effected while we were yet enemies?

James. I conceive it to be that satisfaction to the divine justice by virtue of which nothing pertaining to the moral government of God hinders any sinner from returning to him; and that it is upon this ground that sinners are indefinitely invited so to do. Herein I conceive is the great difference at present between their state and that of the fallen angels. To them God is absolutely inaccessible; no invitations whatever being addressed to them, nor the gospel preached to them but it is not so with fallen men. Besides this, as "Christ gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himseif a peculiar people," I consider the actual reconciliation of the elect in the fulness of time as hereby ascertained. It was promised him as the reward of his sufferings that he should "see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied."

Peter. Is there any thing in the atonement, or promised to it, which infallibly ascertains its application to all those for whom it was made?