ON
Afrostasiastºr,

w
Ş. *
ExTRACTED FROM THE UTICA CHRISTIAN REPOSITORY.
PHILADELPHIA:
PUBLISHED BY JOHN GRIGG, No. 9 NORTH FOURTH STREET.
I. Ashmead & Co. Printers,
1825.
%r
73//-. * A. p*.cº-3 f & wo
3 - 1 % -/7 3 2.
DIALOGUES
ON ATONEMENT,

º
*º-
DIALOGUE I.
Paulinus. I understand that you think it improper to say that.
Christ died for all men; Is it so P
Aspasio. I do think it improper. I think he died for the elect
only. .. * ,
P. Will you be so kind as to state the arguments on which you
rely, to prove that Christ died for the elect only P
.A.. I will. My first argument is this: “ The motive which in-
duced the Father to send the Son, and which induced the Son to
undertake to die, was special love to the elect. Those therefore who
were not elected were not properly the objects of the death of
Christ.” How can you elude the force of this argument?
P. I shall say, it takes for granted that which ought to be proved,
namely, that it was special love to the elect which induced Christ to
lay down his life. I avoid your conclusion by denying your pre-
YſA1S6S.
..?. If you say it was not special love to the elect, which induced
Christ to lay down his life, “you will contradict the whole word of
God, which represents the death of Christ as the effect of the great-
est love ever exhibited.”
P. I grant that the scriptures represent the death of Christ as an
expression of the greatest love ever exhibited. But what then P
Love for whom P. That is the question. -
.#. Love for the elect undoubtedly.
P. Love for the elect, you say ; but what saith the scripture?
“God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life.” John, iii. 16. I know that some who advocate your opinion,
put in the word elect before world, in this text, and make it read
* God so loved the elect world,” &c. and then bring it forward to
confirm your opinion ; but I think you will not venture to make
such an interpolation.
..?. But what kind of love could God feel for the non-elect P
P. What kind of love could God feel for the elect, before their
regeneration, while they were yet enemies? I know of but two kinds
of love which God can feel towards his creatures. One is, a love of
4
esteem or complacency, which he feels for those who are already
holy, and cannot feel for any others; for he cannot look with com-
placency upon those who are totally unlike himself; he cannot
esteem those who are totally destitute of any moral goodness; he
cannot delight in those who do nothing but sin; he hates all the
workers of iniquity. Before regeneration, the elect are the same,
in their moral character, as the non-elect. They are by nature,
children of wrath, even as others. -
•ff. I grant that God cannot feel this kind of love for the elect, ber
fore regeneration, any more than for the non-elect. But what is
the other kind of love, of which you speak? *
P. It is the love of benevolence or good will. This has for its
object all creatures capable of enjoyment or suffering ; and regards
the happiness of each one according to its real worth. Now the
happiness of an individual is not, in itself, any more valuable, if
he is elected, than if he is not elected. But God regards things ac-
cording to their real worth. His regard for the happiness of the
. . non-elect, therefore, is the same as for that of the elect.—When
this kind of love is exercised towards the guilty, it is called com-
passion. It is this which is expressed in the invitations of mercy
which are addressed to sinners, in the commands to choose life, in
the warnings, expostulations, and entreaties with which God calls
upon the wicked to forsake their wickedness and turn to him. It
is this compassion for sinners which is expressed in the oath of God.
“As I live, saith the Lord God; I have no pleasure in the death of
the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” It
was this compassion for sinners which led the Saviour to weep over
Jerusalem, and to say, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest
the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often
would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gather-
eth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” Finally, it
is this compassion for sinners, which is expressed by the Father,
in giving his Son to die, and by the Son in laying down his life.
And this is the plain import of the text before mentioned, “God so
loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son.”
Jł. But why should the non-elect be considered as the objects
of this love P Had they not “forfeited all regard from their Cre-
atop 22% -
P. And had not the elect also forfeited all regard from their
Creator P What was there in the elect, before regeneration, to
entitle them to this regard from him, any more than the non-elect!
I see no force in your question, unless the reason why some are
elected rather than others, is, that they are not so guilty; a notion
very acceptable to the human heart, because well adapted to flatter
its selfishness and pride. *
.4. But if God really felt such love for all men as to give his Son
to die for them, why does he not save them all P -
P. Because they reject offered mercy, and refuse to accept the
Saviour that is provided ; our Lord says, “ye will not come to me,
that ye might have life.”
5.
J. But if he loved them enough to give his Son to die for them, did
he not also love them enough to change their hearts, and make them
willing to accept the offered mercy P
P. If their happiness were the only thing he regarded, he would
doubtless change their hearts, and make them all happy. Can you
tell me why God chooses to save a part rather than the whole of
mankind P
A. I suppose he loved a part, more than he did the rest, and so
gave his Son to die for them and not for the rest.
P. But why should he love the elect before regeneration, more
than the non-elect? No reason appears. They are no better by
nature, nor is their happiness in itself any more valuable. That
he does love them any more, is a mere assumption of your own,
and has no countenance from the word of God.
Jł. What reason then can you give, why he saves a part rather
than the whole of mankind ;
P. If their happiness was the only thing to be regarded, he would
save them all. Why does not the humane and compassionaté judge
acquit the murderer, and set him at liberty, instead of pronouncing
upon him the sentence of the law P Is it because he has no compas-
sion for him? -
.á. No ; that cannot be the reason. He cannot be humane and
compassionate, if he does not feel strongly for the miserable cul-
prit. I have never heard a good judge pronounce sentence of death
upon a criminal without seeing him, at the same time, deeply mov-
ed and affected even to tears.-But while he feels strongly for the
culprit, and is moved with the tenderest compassion for him, his re-
gard for the public good predominates, over his regard for the hap-
piness of the criminal, and he gives him up to suffer the punishment
he deserves. ł
P. You have given the true reason why God saves a part, rather
than the whole of mankind. He feels as strong and lively a com:
passion for the non-elect, as for the elect. But while he is moved
with the tenderest compassion for them, his regard for the public .
good predominates over his regard for their happiness, and he gives
them up to suffer the punishment they deserve.
It is evident, therefore, that God felt no special love for the elect,
no love of a different kind, or of a different degree, from that which
he felt for the non-elect. He loved one as much as he did the
; and in the exercise of that love for all, he gave his Son to die
for all.
DIALOGUE II.
P. What is your second argument, to prove that Christ died for
the elect only; - & .
.#. My second argument is this: “Christ in undertaking the office
of mediator, had a certain number given to him of the Father,
6
whose salvation he undertook to accomplish, by dying for them,
and preparing them for heaven.”. Now, “If only a part of the
human family were given to Christ, in the eternal counsels of peace,
how can it be supposed that he should, for no important purpose, die
for others P”
P. If I rightly understand your argument, it is this: The great
object of Christ in laying down his life, was the salvation of those
for whom he died : But as he did not intend to save any but the
elect, he could not have died for any others. Do I understand
0Ul.
ºff. You do... “Christ has died on the cross. The question is
for whom did he die? Certainly if we can ascertain his own de-
sign in this awful transaction, we have an answer to the question.
But the death of Christ is a means of salvation. Properly then he
may be said to have died for all whom he designed to bring to sal-
vation, and for none else.” $
P.. I grant freely, that only a part of mankind were given to the
Son in the covenant of Redemption, and that the salvation of these
was one important object he had in view, in laying down his life.
But I see not how it follows, that this was his only object, or even
his principal object.
Jä. But if you hold that “he died for those whom he had no in-
tention to save, it is incumbent on” you “to point out for what
end. No wise agent performs an important work without having
an important end in view.” Tell, me, then, if you can, “What
was the end of Christ in dying for those whom he had no intention
of saving?” -
P. The great end of God, in all that he has done, is to promote
his own glory. For this he has created angels and men, and for this
he has formed, and will carry into effect the whole plan of his ad-
ministration.—This is an end worthy of himself. To make any
thing less than this his ultimate end, would beinfinitely unworthy of
him. Do you admit this? #
A. Certainly. I believe that “For his own glory he hath fore-
ordained whatsoever comes to pass.” - --
P. The great end of God then, being his own glory, whatever he
has done is to be considered as intended to promote this. What-
ever comes to pass was foreordained by infinite wisdom and good-
ness, in order to promote this great end. Did God determine to
create angels P. It was to promote his own glory. Did he deter-
mine that some of them should persevere in holiness, and be forever
happy P. It was to promote his own glory. Did he determine that
some of them should fall into sin, and be for ever miserable P It was
to promote his own glory. Did he determine to make man P. It
was to promote his own glory. Did he determine that man should
fall into sin, and come under the condemnation of his law P It was
to promote his own glory. Did he determine to save a part of man-
kind from sin and misery, through a Redeemer? It was to promote
his own glory. Did he determine that a part of mankind should be
left to perish in their sins P It was to promote his own glory.
7.
..?. But because God makes his own glory his chief end, does it
follow that he has no regard to the good of creatures P
P. By no means. He regards the happiness of every creature,
according to its real worth. But the happiness of all creatures,
taken together, is not worth so much as the glory of God. For,
what comparison can there be between finite and infinite P To
represent God as disregarding the happiness of any of his creatures,
would be to represent him as a cruel, unfeeling, and odious tyrant.
But to represent him as regarding the good of creatures more than
his own glory, would be to represent him as valuing a less good
more than a greater good, which would be inconsistent with infinite
goodness. While, therefore, he makes his own glory his primary
object, he makes the good of creatures a secondary object. If you
ask, then, what was the motive which induced the Father to give
his Son to die for the elect P I answer, regard for his own glory,
was his chief inducement, and regard for their happiness was a
secondary inducement. Each of these had influence with him in
proportion to its intrinsic importance. -
.A. Very well. But what was the motive which induced the
Father to give his Son to die for the non-elect P
P. The same answer may be given. Regard for his own glory
was his chief inducement, and regard for their happiness was a
secondary inducement.
4. How is the glory of God promoted by his giving his Son to die
for the non-elect : & +
P. His mercy is glºrified in the offer of forgiveness, which is made
to them for Christ’s sake; his truth and sincerity are glorified, in
his inviting them to turn and live; his patience and long sufferin
are glorified, in his bearing so long will all their ingratitude .#
contempt of offered mercy; and finally, his justice is glorified, in
their aggravated condemnation for having rejected the Saviour that
was provided for them.
4. But why could not his mercy be glorified in the offer of for-
giveness to them, if Christ had not died for them P
P. Could mercy have been glorified in the pardon of sinners, if
no atonement had been made P
.#. By no means. “Without the shedding of blood, there is no remis-
sion.”—If sinners had been forgiven without an atonement, it would
not have been a manifestation of the glorious attribute of mercy, but
of a weak and inglorious partiality for the wicked. *
P. If, then, where no atonement is made, no forgiveness can be
granted, it follows, that where no atonement is made, no forgive-
ness can be offered ; at least, there is no manifestation of mercy in
such an offer. For, if the offer should be accepted, the forgiveness
could not be granted. What will the non-elect think, in the great
day, if they find, that forgiveness was offered them on the part of
God, with the greatest appearance of compassion for them, and at
the same time #. that if they had accepted the offer, forgive-
ness would have been refused P Will their mouths be stopped P
Will they not rather be opened wide P Will they not consider it,
§
and justly too, as so far from being a manifestation of mercy, that
it was altogether insincere, and no better than mocking their mis-
ery P. . * s
%. But you suppose a case that never can happen. “If you sup-
pose a non-elect man may believe, you should suppose, at the same
time, that both the decree of election and of redemption, correspond
with this event; and then all difficulty will be removed.”
P. The non-elect are either able or unable to accept the offer.
If they are able, then the case can happen; and the appearance of
mercy, expressed in the offer, should be judged of accordingly. If
they are unable, then the difficulty is greatly increased; for they
are not only tantalized with the offer of forgiveness which cannot
be granted, but they are mocked with proposals which they cannot
comply with. It is like calling upon a drowning man to take hold of
a rope, and save himself, when there is not only no rope within his
reach, but he has no hands to take hold of one if there were.
, But if Christ has died for all men, they can all be forgiven, if
they will repent and believe. And so the offer of forgiveness can be
consistently made to them, on the part of God, and be a real ex-
pression of his mercy. And since they are all moral agents, and
able to accept the offer, their salvation is, by this means, put entirely
at their own option. Should an earthly government offer pardon
to a criminal, upon the easy condition of his own voluntary accept-
ance, and should it appear that every obstacle was removed, so
that he might be pardoned if he would, there would be no doubt of
the merciful disposition of that government# Even the criminal
himself would say, with his dying breath, “The government was
merciful, but I would not receive pardon at their hands.”
*sº cº-
DIALOGUE III.
G ..?. What have you to say respecting the truth and sincerity of
od P
P. If Christ has died for all, then, the truth and sincerity of God
are glorified, in his inviting all to turn and live. If Christ has died
for all, then he has made ample provision for the salvation of all,
provided they will comply with the prescribed conditions. When
a man makes a feast, and invites twenty persons to come and par-
take of it, what does the invitation say to all and each of them?
Come, for there is provision made to entertain you ? or, Come, for
there is no provision made for you ? Certainly, the invitation
amounts to a declaration that there is provision made for every one
who is invited ; and it is so understood by those who are invited.
And if it were not so understood, it would not be considered a sin-
cere invitation, but a gross insult. If the master of the feast should
say, I invite twenty when there is only provision made for five :
You are all invited to come, but if you come, only five can be re-
ceived, and the rest must go empty away: What would be thought
9
of such a man? But the invitations of the gospel are not attended
with any such declaration. They say, “Come, for all things are
ready.” No minister of the gospel is sent to say to the non-elect,
Come for there is no provision made for you ; come, for if you do,
you will be shut out.
A. But the ministers of the gospel do not know who the elect are,
and therefore, they cannot do otherwise than invite all indis-
criminately.—When they address a company of sinners, they do not
know but that they are all elected ; and therefore, they can sincere-
ly invite them all.'
P. But the ministers of the gospel are only servants, sent in their
master’s name, to proclaim his invitation. The invitation is his,
not theirs. And he knows for how many he has made provision.
The question is, how he can sincerely invite all to come. The in-
vitation to any one, certainly holds out the idea that there is pro-
vision made for him. He so understands it; and it is intended that
he should so understand it. He must so understand it, not to feel
himself insulted by the invitation. If he understands that he is
invited, while, at the same time, there is no provision made for him,
he will feel it as a gross imposition. Or, if he should not discover
it till long afterwards; if he should at the time, suppose the invita.
tion to be sincere; but should afterwards discover, that no provision
was made for him, and that if he had come, he would have been
excluded, he cannot look back upon the transaction, and consider
it in any other light.
.4. But the invitations of the gospel are not in fact, made to all
the lºan race. A great part of the world have never heard the
gospel. - -
P. The ministers of the gospel are commanded to preach it to
every creature. That they have not done so, is a fault of theirs,
for which they will have to answer to their master, in the great day.
The invitations of the gospel are, therefore, in fact, directed to
every creature. But, Aspasio, do you think that all are elected,
who hear the gospel preached P *
Jä. No. I have no reason to think that.
P. Then the fact, that the gospel has not been actually preached
to every creature, will avail you nothing. It looks like a mere sub-
terfuge, intended to evade coming to the point, and meeting the
difficulty fairly. -
.7. But I think the invitation may be given to all men, as sin-
cerely, upon my plan, as upon yours.
P. How can that be P -
.4. I will tell you. Suppose a thousand captives are confined in
prison—suppose a person wishes to redeem one hundred of them,
and, for that purpose, pays to the authority which holds them in
prison, a pearl of great value, “sufficient to redeem all the captives
in prison ; but the person paying it has in view only to redeem his
own friends ; this intention in the redeemer, and the acceptance of
the price by the authority which holds them in bondage, constitutes
the pearl a ransom, and confines it to the number for whom it was
10
designed. But the pearl itself is sufficient to ransom all the rest
of the captives, if it had been applied to their advantage. To carry
on the allusion, suppose that the person undertaking to redeem his
friends should say, ‘I will have proclamation made in the prison,
that every one who will acknowledge me as his deliverer, and will
submit himself to my authority, may immediately come forth, on
the footing of the ransom which I have paid ; for none but my
friends will accept these terms: the remainder will prefer their
prison to liberty, which can only be had by submission to me, whom
they inveterately, hate.” Now the person commissioned to carry
these tidings to the prison, would feel himself authorised to pro-
claim deliverance to every one who was willing to accept the terms,
and to use arguments and motives to induce them to submit; but
the event would be, that none would accept the offer but the real
friends of the redeemer. This he knew from the beginning, and
therefore he paid the ransom for no others. Is there any thing
insincere in this whole transaction ?” -
P. Was the pearl paid for the whole, or only for a part?
.4. It was paid only for the hundred who were intended to be
redeemed.—There was nothing paid for the rest.
P. Then its value makes no difference. If the whole price was
aid for the hundred, there was nothing paid for the nine hundred.
hey are in just the same situation as to the possibility of their de-
liverance, as if no ransom had been paid for any. The great value
of the pearl, seems to me to be only a blind, to prevent the true
state of the case from being seen. What if some of the nine hun-
dred had accepted the offer, and attempted to come out, would they
not have been stopped at the door, by the keepers of the prison P
Would they not have been told there is no ransom paid for you ;
you cannot be released ?
.# You ought not to ask such a question; for it was foreseen that
none of them would accept the offer. -
P. But there is a wide difference between their being hindered
only by their own voluntary refusal of the offer, and their being
hindered also by the want of a ransom being paid for them. In the
one case they could come out if they would ; in the other they
could not come out if they would. In the one case, their liberation
is possible, and depends on their own voluntary choice ; in the
other, their liberation is impossible, for if they should choose to
come out, and make the attempt, they would find the doors locked
and barred against them. If the ransom had been paid for the
whole, and their liberation had been rendered possible, and had
been made to depend entirely upon their own voluntary choice,
then they could all be sincerely invited to come out; but if the
ransom was paid only for the hundred, and nothing was paid for
the rest, their liberation was impossible ; it did not depend upon
their own voluntary choice; they could not come out, if they would;
and therefore to make the offer to them, and call upon them to
come out, is just as if one should go to the doors of a prison, and
looking through the grates, should call upon the prisoners to rise
11
and come out, when they are fast bound in chains, and the doors
are locked and barred against them ; which would be but mocking
their misery.
+s
DIALOGUE IV.
Jł. I think the patience and forbearance of God, towards the non-
elect, appears as great upon my plan as upon yours.
P. How so P *
Jä. Because “those who are not elected, are, nevertheless, under
the government of God, and bound by his laws: if, therefore, they
live where the gospel is preached, they cannot but be required to
believe in Christ, for it is a reasonable duty. It is required by the
moral obligation which they are under; for the law of God certain-
ly binds all men to the performance of every holy act.” When,
therefore, they refuse to obey his laws, and provoke him by their
transgressions, his patience and forbearance are manifested, in not
cutting them off at once, and sending them to the regions of des-
pair, as they deserve. *
P. I grant, that the non-elect are under the government of God,
and bound by his laws; and that they are required to love God
with all their hearts, and to express that love by all those holy acts
which are suited to their condition and circumstances. So are the
devils. They are under the government of God too, and bound b
his laws; and they are required to love God with all their hearts,
and to express that love by all those holy acts which are suited to
their condition and circumstances. But will you say, that the de-
vils are bound to receive Christ as their Saviour P -
ºff. No. “Devils are confined in chains of darkness. They have
no offers of mercy. They receive no benefits; and their salvation
is, in the nature of things, impossible; for though Christ’s merit is
of infinite value in relation to the object he had in view, yet we
have no right to assert, that obedience to a human law, and suffer-
ing the penalty of that law, would be a sufficient atonement for be.
ings of an infinitely different species, of whose sin we have no par-
ticular information.” &
P. But the devils “are, nevertheless, under the government of
God, and bound by his laws:” and “the law of God certainly binds
all to the performance of every holy act.” Why should they not
“be required to believe in Christ, for it is a reasonable duty P’’
.#. I have given the reason already. It is not a reasonable duty
for them, because their condition and circumstances are different.
P. Very well. And for the same reason, upon your plan, the
non-elect are not bound to believe in Christ.—He did not die for
them. There is no atonement for them. “ Their salvation, is, in
the nature of things, impossible; for though Christ’s merit is of in-
finite value in relation to the object he had in view,” it was not his
object to die for the non-elect. His death is of no value in relation
I 2
to them. If they appear to have any offers of mercy, it is only in
appearance, and not in reality. It is only because the elect are so
mingled with them, that the ministers of the gospel cannot distin-
guish, and so are compelled to make an indiscriminate offer; it is not
because there is any mercy for them, which they can have, for where
no atonement is made, no mercy can be exercised. If they receive
any benefit now, it is only for the elect’s sake, and because they are so
mingled with them, that they cannot but partake of common favours,
as the barren rock shares in the rain from heaven, which falls on
the fruitful field. It is not because they enjoy any of those privi-
leges of a state of probation, which constitutes a fair opportunity
for securing their salvation. They have no such opportunity. There
is no atonement for them. It is a reasonable duty for all those for
whom Christ died, to believe in him, to receive him as their Saviour;
but it is not a reasonable duty for devils, because Christ did not
die for them ; and, for the same reason, it cannot be the duty of the
non-elect, upon your plan. They cannot have Christ for their Sa-
viour, for he did not die for them. -
.A. How then do the patience and forbearance of God appear
greater upon your plan than upon mine * - t
P. The patience and forbearance of God, in sparing the guilty,
is great, in proportion to the number and magnitude of their of
fences. The non-elect are guilty of all those offences against God,
upon my plan, which they are upon yours, and others besides, great,
and numerous, and aggravated. -
.4. What are they? # ! .
P. On my plan, the non-elect are guilty of rejecting a Saviour
that is provided for them; of hating, and persecuting, and crucify-
ing the Son of God, who loved them, and wept over them, and pour-
ed out his life’s blood for their souls. They are guilty of despising
the mercy of the Father, who calls upon them in the most affect-
ing terms, and expostulates with them, and warns them, and entreats
them to repent and be saved, declaring with all the solemnity of
an oath, “As I live, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked,
but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” They are guilty
of resisting and grieving the Holy Spirit, who strives with them,
and reproves them, and calls upon them to embrace the Saviour
who died for them. They are guilty of wasting their period of
probation, and sinning away their day of grace ; of refusing to se-
cure the salvation of their souls, when it is put in their own power,
and of wantonly and wickedly throwing themselves away, when
eternal life is brought within their reach. With these sins they
are not chargeable, upon your plan; for no salvation is provided,
no Saviour has died for them, no mercy can be had, no opportunity
for securing eternal life is afforded. Since, therefore, the non-elect,
on my plan, are guilty of these great, and aggravated sins, with
which, on your plan, they cannot be chargeable, the patience and
forbearance of God, in sparing them from day to day, is, on my
plan, far more gloriously displayed, than they can be upon yours.
* |
13
DIALOGUE v.
.A. You will, at least, acknowledge, that the justice of God is
glorified in the condemnation of the non-elect, even though no Sa-
viour died for them. |
P. Yes: but in a degree far less. ;
.A. How so P |
P. The non-elect, as well as others, are bound to love God with
all their hearts, and to keep his commandments perfectly ; and for
refusing to do this, they are justly condemned. For this th
would be justly condemned, though no Saviour had been provided.
So far, the justice of God would be glorified in their condemná-
tion, whether Christ died for them or not. But if Christ has not
died for them, the justice of God cannot be glorified in condemn-
ing them for rejecting a Saviour. There is no Saviour for them,
that they can reject. The justice of God cannot be glorified in
condemning them for refusing to secure the salvation of their souls.
There is no salvation brought within their reach which they can re-
fuse. The justice of God cannot be glorified in condemning them
for despising his offered mercy. There is no mercy for them which
they can despise. If, therefore, on your plan, the wicked are in-
excusable for not loving and serving God, on mine they are doubly
inexcusable. If on your plan they are justly condemned for re-
fusing to love and serve God, on mine, they are justly condemned
for the same thing, and besides this, they are justly condemned for
rejecting a Saviour that was provided for them, for throwing awa
their souls, when their salvation was put within their power, an
for despising the mercy which they might have enjoyed.
.A. You also mentioned God’s regard for the happiness of the
non-elect, as a secondary inducement with him to give his Son to
die for them. How does it show any regard for their happiness,
when, according to your own representation, their condemnation
becomes only more aggravated in consequence P
P. It must be remembered that it becomes so through their
own fault. They neglect to improve the privileges put into their
hands. They might be saved, if they would, but they will not.
Jä. But this was known to God, from the beginning; and there-
fore, it seems to me, that a regard for their happiness would have
dictated that no such privileges should be given them, which they
might abuse. How can it be any privilege for a man to be put in-
to a situation to increase his guilt, and consequently his misery 8
P. Do you believe, then, that the non-elect enjoy no privileges
or blessings in this life P
.#. I would not say that. I admit that they “are placed here in
a condition of comfort, or, at least, in a mixed state, where many
blessings and privileges are enjoyed ; and this occurs in conse-
quence of the mediation of Christ.” And in this, their situation
differs from that of the devils. “Devils are confined in chains of
darkness. They receive no benefits.”
P. How can the common blessings of life, which they enjoy, be
14
considered any blessings to them, since they abuse them also, to
intrease their guilt, and aggravate their final condemnation P. And
how is it any kindness to bestow such blessings upon them, when it
was known, from the beginning, that they would so abuse them P
...!?. That which is, in its own nature, a good, and capable of being
improved by us to our advantage, is a blessing, and must be so
considered, whether we improve it or not.
P. Then you have answered your own question. That which is,
in its own nature, a good, and capable of being improved by us to
our advantage, is a blessing ; and it is a privilege to have it
bestowed upon us, and a kindness in the bestower, whether we
improve it to our advantage or not. By Christ’s dying for
thé non-elect, they are placed in a situation very different from
that in which they would have been, if he had not died for them.
If he had not died for them, they would have been in a situation, at
leist, substantially the same as that of the devils. They could
have had no privileges. No blessings could have been bestowed
upon them. They could receive no benefits. For where there is
no atonement, no mercy can be shown. But since Christ has died
for all, all “are placed in a condition of comfort, or, at least, in a
mixed state, where many blessings and privileges are enjoyed.”
But besides this, those who live where the gospel is preached, non-
elect, as well as others, are placed in a situation in which they en-
joy the means of grace, and have an opportunity to secure the sal-
vation of their souls. A Saviour is provided, an atonement is
offered them, pardon and peace are proclaimed in their ears, the
Făther invites, the Saviour entreats, the Holy Spirit strives. Eter-
|l life is brought within their reach, and urged upon them. The
welfare of their immortal souls is put into their own hands, and
they may secure it, if they will. Are these no privileges P Are
they not, in themselves, a great good, and capable of being im-
proved by them to their own unspeakable advantage 2 In this way,
therefore, God shows his regard for their happiness; and manifests
the strongest solicitude for their welfare. And if they perish, af-
tër all, this, they will be without excuse, and their blood will be
upon their own heads. ' ' . - \
Thus, then, Aspasio, I have pointed out “for what end” God
gave his Son to die for those “whom he had no intention of saving.”
It was to glorify himself, and to manifest his regard for their hap-
piness. It was to put them into a state in which they might be
saved, if they would, and to make it depend entirely upon their
own choice whether they were saved or not; that thus, in throwing
away their souls, they might be rendered doubly inexcusable, and
their blood might be upon their own heads. Till, therefore, you
can show, that these things are of no importance, you ought not to
conclude that Christ died for the elect only, because he could have
“no important purpose” in dying for others.
15
DIALOGUE VI.
P. What is your third argument to prove that Christ died for
the elect only P - -. - -
4. My third argument is this: “The death of Christ was a réal
atonement, a ransom price, an expiation, and a propitiation for si
a full satisfaction to law and justice; and must therefore be effi
cious in behalf of those for whom he died. If he died for all, then
all must be saved. Consequently, if only a part of the human i
e
2
shall certainly be saved, Christ died only for that part.”
P. This argument depends entirely upon the nature of
atonement. From your views of its nature, you conclude that it
made for the elect only. My views of its nature are probably dif-
ferent from your’s. From my views of the nature of the atoiſe-
ment, I conclude that it was made for all men. Will you .
€.
e
S
your views of its nature P -
.A.. I will. “The word atonement, though often used in the Qld
Testament, is not found in the New Testament, except in one in-
stance, Rom. v. 11, where it ought to have been reconciliation. In
the view, however, of our translators, there was but little difference
between these two words, for he whose sins are atoned, is recon-
ciled. Of such an atonement, as leaves the person for whom it
was made, forever under the guilt of his sins, they had no idea.”
“The Hebrew word for atonement signifies to cover; and when
sins in the Old Testament are spoken of as atoned, the meaning
always is, that they were covered, removed, never to be charged up-
on the person who committed them.” “When, in common lan-
guage a man is said to have atoned for his fault by any means, what
do we mean by the word * Why, that the punishment which he
had incurred, is actually removed, or ought to be removed.”
“Another word used in the New Testament is propitiation.” “A
propitiation is that which propitiates, which expiates, which prº-
cures exemption from punishment, which renders favourable the per-
son to whom it is offered.” *
“Another set of words, by which the death of Christ is fre-
quently expressed, signify the price paid for the redemption of cap-
tives.” “The life of Christ is called the ransom.” “Now this
ransom being paid and accepted, was considered a sufficient price
to obtain the liberation of all those for whom it was offered. When
a sufficient price is paid for the redemption of a captive, he cannot
with propriety be detained in slavery.” “Those, then, for whom
Christ has paid a ransom, will surely be actually redeemed.”
“Another word which has formerly been in more constant use
with orthodox Christians than any other, is satisfaction.” “Justice
is considered as offended, and insists upon the condign punish-
ment of the sinner. A surety offers to make satisfaction for the
offence, by obeying the law, and suffering its penalty. The offer is
accepted. The satisfaction is made, and acknowledged to be suffi-
cient. Now, the question is, can they for whom this satisfaction
has been made, be punished for the same sins, for which justice is

16
declared to be satisfied ? How can the same crimes be punished
twice over in a just government P”
P.. If I understand your argument, it is this: The satisfaction
which Christ has made, consisted partly of his obedience, and
partly of his sufferings, and is of such a nature, that those for
whom it was made, cannot be justly punished. And, therefore, all
º must be saved, for whom it was made. Do I understand
OU! -
ºff. You do. For, “how can the same crimes be punished twice
over, in a just government P’’ But, will you give me your views
of the nature of the atonement, that I may see how you avoid the
same conclusion ?
P. I will. But let us first inquire for what purpose an atone-
ent was necessary. If we can get clear ideas of the purpose for
ich an atonement was necessary, it will help us to judge of its
nature. If we can find out what end the atonement was intended
to answer, we can better understand the nature of the atonement
ich infinite wisdom contrived to answer that end.
fl. Very well. Proceed.
P. First, then, I ask, whether an atonement was necessary to re-
store man his moral agency P. Some think, that, by the fall, man
had lost his moral agency, and that an atonement was necessary to
be made, that it might be restored. I think it could not be neces-
såry for any such purpose, because man had not lost his moral
agency by the fall. A moral agent is one that performs moral ac-
tions. Moral actions are those which have moral qualities, that is,
are either holy or sinful. If man, by the fall, had lost his moral
agency, he had become incapable of moral action, that is, he had
become incapable of doing any thing either holy or sinful. But, to
suppose that man, by the fall, had become incapable of sinning, is
absurd. An atonement, therefore, was not necessary to restore to
man his moral agency, for he had not lost it.
2. I ask, whether an atonement was necessary to be made, in or-
der to excite the compassion of God? This, I think, no one will
affirm ; though some things which you said respecting propitiation,
seem to look like it. You said; “A propitiation is that which pro-
pitiates, which renders favourable the person to whom it is offered.”
If you mean that a propitiation is that which renders it consistent
for the person to whom it is offered, to show favour, I have no ob-
jection to the idea. But if you mean that a propitiation is that
which renders the person to whom it is offered disposed to show fa-
vour; if you mean, it is intended to move him to show favour,
when, without it, he would have no such inclination, it cannot be
correct, as applied to God. He is compassionate in his very nature.
“God is love.” He who feels no compassion for the miserable, can-
not be a good being. To say that an atonement was necessary in
order to move God to compassion, and dispose him to show mercy,
represents him as a being destitute of goodness. . It represents
him as a hard, unfeeling, and cruel tyrant. Instead of represent-
ing him as he is, a being of boundless mercy and goodness, every

17
way worthy to be loved, it represents him as a most odious and im”
placable being, whom every one ought to hate. And further, to say
that an atonement was necessary to excite the compassion of God,
would be the same as to say, that the plan of saving sinners did
not originate with him. He had no disposition to save them; he
felt no compassion for them ; he was hard, and unfeeling, and im-
placable, º the Lord Jesus, who was a more benevolent being, and
pitied their miserable condition, undertook for them, and by his
sufferings and death, moved the Father to compassion. But such
a representation would be very different from that given in the
Scriptures. The Scriptures say, “God so loved the world, that he
gave his only begotten Son.” It was his compassion for sinners,
which moved him to provide a Saviour. It was not necessary,
therefore, that an atonement should be made to move him to com-
passion. - *
3. I ask, whether an atonement was necessary, to pay God for
favours to be bestowed upon us? Such an opinion, I think, cannot
be consistent with the representations of Scripture. The Scrip-
tures every where speak of the favours we receive from God, as
grace alone. Grace is favour bestowed upon the ill-deserving.
The favours we receive from God, are not only grace to us, who do
not deserve them, but it is grace in God to bestow them ; and the be-
stowment of them is spoken of, as a manifestation of the “riches
of his grace.” Where any good bestowed is paid for, there is no
room for grace, in the bestower. It is frequently thought that
Christ º in the room of sinners; and that his obedience -
created a claim upon God for the blessings he bestows. And that,
as this obedience was rendered by Christ in the room of sinners,
‘the merit of it is transferred to them, and they consequently have
a just claim to those good things for which it paid. This seems
to me to bear too close a resemblance to the old popish notion, up-
on which the sale of indulgences was founded ; which was, that
Christ had, by his obedience, created a large fund of merit, which
was put at the disposal of the pope, as his representative, and
might by him be sold out to those that had need. But the blessings
God bestows upon men are entirely of grace, and of course, they
were not paid for, by any thing which Christ did. And conse-
quently, an atonement was not necessary to pay God for favours to
be bestowed upon us. -
DIALOGUE VII.
A. You were inquiring why an atonement was necessary. Have
you any further inquiries to make P *
P. Yes. I ask, fourthly, whether an atonement was necessary to
satisfy commutative justice P You speak of the atonement as a
satisfaction to justice. So do I. But what kind of justice? There
are three kinds of justice, differing from each other as they have
C -
18
relation to different things. These are, commutative justice, which
relates to commercial transactions; distributive justice, which re-
lates to moral character; and public justice, which relates to the
public good. , Was an atonement necessary to satisfy commutative
justice P It is plain that it was not. For atonement “has relation
to sins committed.” There is nothing here of a commercial na-
ture. . I know that some represent the atonement as a payment
of a debt. They represent the sinner as owing a debt to God, and
being shut up in prison because he has nothing to pay. They re-
present Christ as taking upon himself the payment of that debt,
and thus purchasing his release. If this were literally true, I grant,
that the atonement would be necessarily limited ; for all those
must be discharged whose debt is paid. And not only so, but jus-
tice would demand their discharge. The creditor could not hold
them any longer, without the greatest injustice and oppression.
There could be no grace in their discharge; for where a debt is
º: there is no grâce in releasing the debtor. You will say, per-
aps, that the grace of the Gospel consists in the gift of a Saviour,
and not in the sinner’s discharge, after his debt is paid. I grant
that it would be grace in the creditor to provide for the debtor the
means of º debt; but is that all the grace of the Gospel?
Is there, indeed, no grace in the sinner’s discharge P. When Chris-
tians go to a throne of grace in prayer, do they go to demand their
right? Do they go to claim justice at the hands of God P Do they
not go, rather, to sue for favour, as suppliants : Do they not go to
ask for grace P And do not the Scriptures uniformly speak of the
sinner’s discharge as an act of grace P Do they not say, “We are
justified freely by his grace,” “We have the forgiveness of sins,
according to the riches of his grace.” It is evident, then, that anº
atonement was not necessary to satisfy commutative justice.
I acknowledge that some of “the words by which the death of
Christ is frequently expressed, signify the price paid for the re-
demption of captives, and that the life of Christ is called a ran-
som.” But this language is evidently figurative. The blood of
Christ was not gold, nor silver, nor any other commercial medium.
To take figurative language, and draw conclusions from it, as if it
were literal, will certainly lead us into mistakes. If this language
were to be understood literally, it would indeed follow, as you say,
that, “When a sufficient price is paid for the redemption of a cap-
tive, he cannot with propriety be detained in slavery.” It would
indeed follow, that those for whom the ransom price was paid, will
surely be actually redeemed. And it would likewise follow, that
they are actually redeemed, from eternity, and are not under con-
demnation at all ; since, from the moment Christ undertook to pay
their debt, it was considered as virtually paid. He is considered
as the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” At any
rate, after their ransom was actually paid, by his death, “they could
not with propriety be detained in slavery.” But the Scriptures re-
present M. who are not actually in Christ by faith, as under con-
demnation. “He that believeth not is condemned already, and the
t
19
wrath of God abideth on him.” . But all such literal conclusions,
drawn from figurative language as if it were literal, are drawu
without any foundation, and are a most unwarrantable perversion
of the word of God. The atonement, therefore, was not a commer-
cial transaction, and it was not necessary that an atonement should
be made to satisfy commutative justice. 3.
5. I ask, whether an atonement was necessary to take away our
ill desert? This, I think, cannot be said, with propriety, although
some things which you have said seem to lº y it. Speaking of
the translators of the Bible, you say, “Of such an atonement as
leaves the person for whom it was made forever under the guilt of
his sins, they had no idea.” Guilt means ill desert. He who has
committed a crime is guilty. And after he is pardoned, he is still
guilty; for it is still true that he has done wrong, and nothing can
render it untrue. If he has been pardoned, it is still true that he
has done wrong; and as long as it remains true that he has done
wrong, so long it will remain true that he is guilty, and deserves
punishment. His pardon exempts him from suffering the punish-
ment he deserves, but does not take away his ill desert. The sin-
ner has broken the law of God, and therefore is guilty; and the
fact that Christ has died to procure his pardon, cannot alter the fact
that he has transgressed, and therefore cannot alter the truth that
he deserves to be punished. . And if he is penitent, he feels guilty;
he feels that he deserves the displeasure of God. And if he is
assured that God has forgiven him, that assurance does not diminish
his sense of his own unworthinegs and ill desert, but rather serves
to increase it. The real penitent loathes and abhors himself, as
much after he is forgiven, as he does before. He feels just as guilty,
after all apprehension of punishment is removed, as he does before.
The greatest saint in Heaven must still feel disposed to abase him-
self before God, for the sins he committed while on earth; and
will have the sense of his ill desert continually increasing, as long
as he continues, in the light of eternity, to see more and more of
the evil and odious nature of sin. An atonement, therefore, was
not necessary to take away our ill desert. No atonement could
take it away. And no real penitent can ever feel disposed to pal-
liate or diminish his ill desert, or to wish others to think it less than
it really is. He feels that he is a monument of grace, and is will-
ing that others should think so too.
6. I ask, whether an atonement was necessary to satisfy distri-
butive justice. Distributive justice has relation to moral charac.
ter. It demands that every person should be treated according to
his moral character. It demands that the guilty should be punish-
ed, and the innocent set free. The demands of distributive justice,
are the same as the demands of the moral law. The moral law re-
quires perfect obedience, upon pain of eternal death. It requires
that those who have disobeyed should be punished. Do you think
that the atonement satisfied distributive justice P
J?. Yes. I think that the atonement “was a full satisfaction to
ſaw and justice.” “Justice is considered as offended, and insists
20
on the condigm punishment of the sinner. A surety offers to make
satisfaction for the offence, by obeying the law and suffering its pe-
malty. The offer is accepted. †. satisfaction is made and ac-
knowledged to be sufficient.” This is the atonement.
P. But the law demands, that the soul that sinneth should die.
How can the death of another answer that demand P.
.#. By the transfer of the sinner's guilt to the person of the
Surety. “It deserves to be noticed that in the sacrifices which
were typical of the great atonement, the idea of the transfer of the
sinner’s guilt to the expiatory animal is carefully kept up.”
P. The law demands that the soul that sinneth should die. It
does not demand that another should die in his place. The law
says nothing of the substitution of another, in the place of the of
fender. No such substitution, therefore, can answer the demands
of the law. *
..?. But if the sins of an offender can be transferred to the surety,
so as to become truly and properly his own, then by his death the
demands of the law can be answered, and distributive justice
satisfied. - t - -
P. If the sins of the offender can be transferred to the surety, so as
to become truly and properly his own—but that cannot be º
What I have done, is my own act, and cannot, by any process, be-
come the act of another.
.#. But if another person, of his own accord, offers to bear the
punishment of your offences, may he not do it?
P. If another person, of his own accord, offers to bear the Suf-
fering, which was due to me, for my offences, he may do it. But it
cannot be punishment to him. Punishment supposes guilt. He
cannot take my actions upon himself, so that they shall become
his own actions, and cease to be mine. He cannot become guilly,
without his own personal transgression. If he suffers in my place,
therefore, his sufferings are not punishment to him.
I have other objections, however, to the notion of a transfer of
our sins to Christ. .
1. If our sins are so transferred to Christ, as to become his sins,
they are no longer ours. We are spotless and holy, in our own per-
sons, as God himself. And how inconsistent this is, with the feel-
ings of all real Christians, and with the representations of Scrip-
ture respecting them, I need not take time to show. - *
2. If our sins are so transferred to Christ as to become his sins,
we have no need of repentance, for we have no sins of which to re-
pent. It is perfectly idle to talk of our repenting of sins which are
not our own.
3. If our sins are so transferred to Christ, as to become his sins,
we cannot be the subjects of grace. Grace is favour shown to the
guilty. If our guilt is transferred to Christ, we have none left;
and it is as improper to talk of our being treated with grace, as it
would be to say it of the holy angels who never sinned.
4. If our sins are so transferred to Christ, as to become his sins,
and we have none left, we cannot receive pardon at the hands of
21
God. There is no pardon where there is no guilt. Pardon exempts
a criminal from the punishment he deserves. There is no pårdon
in excusing an innocent person from suffering. He does not deserve
to suffer. But the scripture says, “We have the forgiveness of
sins, according to the riches of his grace.”
5. If our sins are so transferred to Christ, as to become his sins,
then he suffered justly, as an evil doer, and one that deserved not
only to die on the cross, but also deserved eternal damnation, as
the greatest sinner in the universe. But the scripture says he died,
“ the just for the unjust.” ... " -
*Dº Gº-
*
DIALOGUE VIII.
Jł. If the demands of the law are not answered by the death of
Christ, if distributive justice is not satisfied, then, when sinners
are exempted from punishment, why is not the law dishonoured,
and injustice done; and that too, by the authority of God himself?
But the scripture teaches, that Christ magnified the law and made
it honourable; and it speaks of the death of Christ as taking place,
that God might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in
Jesus. 3.
P. The reason why the law is not dishonoured, when sinners are
exempted from suffering the punishment it demands, is, that Christ
has magnified the law and made it honourable, and it is for his
sake that they are exempted from punishment. The reason why
no injustice is done, when sinners are exempted from suffering the
punishment which distributive justice demands, I will give, after I
shall have given my view of the nature of the atonement. And
before I do that, I will ask once more, why an atonement was ne-
cessary * }
.4. I have given the reason. The scripture says, it was, “that
God might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in
Jesus.” -
P. Very well. But just to whom P Just to the sinner P No.; for, if
he treats the sinner according to justice, he will punish him for-
ever. It is, that God might be just to himself, just to his own
character, as the righteous Governor of the universe, just to the
great interests of the universe, which it belongs to him, as the Su-
preme Ruler, to promote. \
.#. How could the atonement accomplish that end, without satis-
fying distributive justice P
P. By satisfying public justice. Public justice has relation to
the great interests of the universe, and demands that they should
be secured. It demands that the greatest good of the universe
should be hº that the greatest possible sum of happiness
among intelligent beings, should be brought into existence. The
greatest good of the universe comprises the glory of God, and the
happiness of all holy creatures. The glory of God forms, by far,
22
the greatest part. To glorify God, is to display his perfections, to
letthe universe see what God is. That all God’s perfections should
be seen to the best advantage, a system must be contrived which
would give opportunity for the exercise of them all. That his
mercy might be seen, it was necessary that there should be sinners,
and that sinners should be pardoned, and raised to a throne of glo-
ry in heaven. But how could this be done? Höw could the sinner
be forgiven, and be raised to a throne of glory in heaven? The law
had threatened eternal death as the just demerit of sin. By giving
a law, with this penalty annexed, God had declared that he was in-
finitely opposed to sin, and hated it with all his heart. The object
of the penalty annexed to the law, was, to show the evil nature of
sin, and how the Lawgiver felt towards it. For God to exempt the
sinner from punishment, without an atonement, and to exalt him
at his own right hand, would be to say, in the strongest language,
that sin was not an evil, but a good, and that he did not abſor it,
but regarded it with approbation, and was disposed to confer upon
it the i. rewards. And for God to do any thing which could
be so construed, would be infinitely dishonourable to himself, and
subversive of the highest interests of the universe. It would be a
violation of public justice. Unless, therefore, something could be
done to prevent these consequences, we must conclude that sin
could never be forgiven, and that the law must take its course, and
be executed upon transgressors. -
.#. Yes. “If we form honourable ideas of the perfections of
God, we must suppose that his treatment of sinners will be uni-
form, and therefore, that all will suffer exactly in proportion to their
demerit, unless some scheme be devised, by which the ends of pun-
ishment can be completely answered, and yet the sinner spared.”
P. You have brought to view the true reason why an atonement
was necessary, and what purpose it was intended to answer. The
atonement was a “scheme devised” by infinite wisdom, “ by which
the ends of punishment can be completely answered, and yet the sin-
ner spared.” The great end of punishment was to manifest God’s
hatred of sin. If any expedient could be found out, which would
answer that end as well as the actual infliction of the threatened
penalty upon transgressors, then that penalty could be dispensed
with, and mercy might be exercised in the pardon of sinners. Such
an expedient infinite wisdom has devised. The Lord Jesus Christ
has laid down his life, “the just for the unjust.” By his death, the
evil of sin has been made to appear, in a light infinitely stronger
than it ever could have appeared in the condemnation of a world.
By doing this, he has magnified the law and made it honourable, al-
though the execution of its threatening of death to the sinner is
dispensed with. By his death, public justice is satisfied. The
evils which would have followed from the º of the sinner
without an atonement, are effectually guarded against. And now,
God can be just, just to himself, just to his own character as the
righteous Governor of the universe, and yet forgive sinners for
Christ’s sake.
23
J. And yet I should say that the demands of the law are an-
swered by what Christ has done. ſº - -
P. No. The law did not demand the death of Christ. It de-
manded the death of the sinner. The death of Christ, therefore,
has not met its demand. But by the death of Christ, that has been
done, which magnifies the law, and renders it consistent with its
honour, that its demands should be dispensed with, as respects all
those who will accept of Christ as their Saviour. - -
ºff. But if distributive justice is not satisfied in behalf of sin-
ners, then, when they are exempted from punishment, why is not
injustice done P You promised to answer this question.
P. I will answer it. Distributive justice demands that the soul
that sinneth should die. It demanded that Christ should be honour-
ed, and the sinner punished. By Christ’s dying, while the sinner
lives, therefore, its demands are not met. No injustice is done,
however. Injustice consists in treating persons worse than they
deserve. No one is treated worse than he deserves. When per-
sons are treated better than they deserve, that is not injustice, but
grace. Grace has respect to distributive justice, and suspends its
exercise towards the guilty. If you insist that distributive justice
must be satisfied in all cases, you shut out the possibility of gracc
altogether. There can be no grace, unless the guilty are exempted
from the punishment which distributive justice demands. Perhaps
.." will ask, why then was not injustice done to Christ, since
e suffered what he did not deserve. To this, I answer, his suffer-
ings were perfectly voluntary. He took them upon himself. If
those sufferings had been inflicted upon him, without his consent,
he would have been treated with injustice. But distributive just
tice was not exercised in the infliction of those sufferings upon
him, for he was not a sinner. º -
4. How does it follow, from this view of the nature of the atone-
ment, that it was made for all men P
P. It was a satisfaction to public justice, by which the ends of
punishment are answered; and the exercise of mercy, in the par-
don of sinners, is rendered consistent with the honour of the É.
and the character of God as a righteous governor. In consequence
of it, God can be “just, and the justifier of him that believeth in
Jesus.” It is, from its very nature, as sufficient for one man as for
another, and for all men as for one man. And as all men receive
some benefits from this atonement, according to your own conces-
sions, for you say, that “in consequence of the mediation of Christ,
men are placed here in a condition of comfort, or at least, in a
mixed state, where many blessings and privileges are enjoyed;”
and as this atonement lays a foundation for the offer of mercy to
be sincerely made to all indiscriminately, as you also grant, I see
not how you can possibly avoid the conclusion, which I draw from
it, that it was actually made for all men.”
..?. But the atonement was a cover for sin. “ The Hebrew word
for atonement signifies to cover.” When, therefore, sins are spoken
24
of as atomed, the meaning is, that they were covered, removed, never
to be charged upon the person who committed them.”
P. Do you believe that the elect are under condemnation till the
moment they believe in Christ P
..?. Yes. The scripture says, “He that believeth not is condemn-
ed already, and the wrath of God abideth on him.”
, P. The atonement was made eighteen hundred years ago, and
those of the elect who have not yet believed, are still under con-
demnation. . But their sins were atoned for, as soon as Christ had
laid down his life. According to you, therefore, their sins were ac-
tually “covered, removed, never to be charged upon” them; and
yet they are not covered, nor removed, but are charged upon them;
and for them they are condemned already, and the wrath of God
abideth on them. This looks very much like a contradiction.
.A. How then do you consider the atonement a cover for sin P
P. There is a difference between a cover for and a cover of
That is a cover for, which is prepared and adapted to be a cover of:
The atonement is a cover for sin, because it is adapted to be a
cover of sin; but it does not become a cover of sin, to any indivi-
dual, till he puts it on, that is, till he actually believes in Christ,
and receives his pardon. " - . . . -
A. But atonement means the same as reconciliation. “For he
whose sins are atoned is reconciled.” * *
P. Reconciled, and yet under condemnation Reconciled, and
yet in his sins! Reconciled to God, and yet hating him with all
his heart | No ; it is impossible ! The apostle prays sinners to
be reconciled to God. He does not pray them to make atonement.
Sinners never make atºnement; that was the work of Christ. Sin-
ners become reconciled, by accepting the atonement which Christ
has made. Atonement and reconciliation are therefore very diffe-
rent things. . . * t
.A. But “the end actually accomplished by the death of Christ,
must be learned from the sacred scriptures, and not from the theo-
ries of man.” Men may theorize very speciously; “But this is a
point of too much magnitude to be decided by mere reasoning.
Let us hear what God hath spoken : “To the law and the testimo-
ny,’ we make an appeal, and by them we are willing it should be
decided.” - . *
P. I cordially agree with you in this, and beg you will bear it in
mind, when we come, by and by, to see “what God hath spoken,”
as to the extent of the atonement. For the present, I wish merely
to consider your arguments. º
DIALOGUE IX. *
P. What is your fourth argument to prove that Christ died for
the elect only :
4. It is this: “ Christ offered himself a sacrifice to satisfy di-
25
vine justice in the office of a priest.” Now, “his priestly office
is not performed for any by the halves.” Therefore, “for whom
Christ offered himself a sacrifice, for the same does he intercede.
But he intercedes, it is agreed, for none but his own people; there-
fore, he died for none but his own people.” * *
P. I grant that Christ is the priest of his people, and that he
does not perform his priestly office for any “by the halves.” But
to conclude from this, that he will intercede for the salvation of all
those for whom he died, is to take it for granted that he could not
possibly die for any but his own people. It is to take it for grant-
ed, that he could not have any object in dying for any, unless he
intended to save them. To assume this, is to assume the very
point of dispute. To assume the point in dispute, is what logicians
call begging the question. It is usually considered an indication
of a weak cause, and that the supporter of it feels it to be so.
J. Do you grant, then, that Christ intercedes for none but his
own people? - - -
P. No. I grant that he does not intercede for the salvation of
any but his own people; for he did not intend to save any others.
But he intended to secure the enjoyment of “many blessings and
É. to the non-elect, as you grant. Now, if he intended by
is death to obtain for the non-elect these blessings, I see not why
it should be thought incredible that he should ask the Father to be-
stow them. He intended by his death, to procure for the non-elect
a period of probation and the offer of mercy : and I see not why it
should be thought incredible, that after having died to procure for
them these blessings, he should ask the Father to bestow them.
.A. But does not Christ say, expressly, “I pray for them : I pray
not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me?”
P. In that particular prayer, he prayed for his disciples, and for
none others. And he prayed for such blessings for them as are never
bestowed upon any but his disciples. But this does not prove that
when God bestows other blessings upon other men, he does not do
it in answer to the requests of his Son. You beg the question,
therefore, in both points of your argument. And besides that, you
contradict what you had before granted, that “many blessings and
privileges” are bestowed upon the non-elect, “in consequence of
the mediation of Christ.” Mediation includes intercession, as well
as atonement. According to your own concession, therefore, he
does, in some respects, intercede for the non-elect. What is your
fifth argument? -
4. It is this: “The death of Christ is the cause of all spiritual
blessings; it is therefore the cause of the gift of faith. Those,
therefore, for whom Christ died, will be made partakers of faith.
But none receive the gift of faith but the elect; therefore Christ
died for none else.”
P. This argument is a mere sophism. It has all the formality
of a regular syllogism, but nothing more. I will give you one or
two like it. 1. God is the giver of all good things; he is there-
fore the giver of faith. But "i,gives faith to none but the elect;
26-
therefore he gives no good things to any but the elect. 2. The
combined influence of the rain and the sun is the cause of vegeta-
tion. But there is no vegetation upon the barren rock; therefore,
the rain never descends, and the sun never shines upon the barren
rock. But these conclusions are evidently false, and so is the one
you draw. To make your argument correct, it ought to be this:
The death of Christ secures the enjoyment of all spiritual bless-
ings to those for whom he died; it therefore secures to them the
gift of faith. But faith is given to none but the elect; therefore
Christ died for none else. This would be a correct syllogism, and
the conclusion would follow, if it were true, that the death of
Christ does actually secure the enjoyment of all spiritual blessings,
to all those for whom he died. To assume that it does, is to as-
sume the very point in dispute. It is begging the question again.
This argument, however, is good on the other side, and proves that
Christ died for all men. .*
Jä. How so P -
P. Thus: the death of Christ is the cause of all the blessings
bestowed upon sinful men. No blessings can be bestowed upon
sinners without an atonement. Therefore, no blessings can be be-
stowed upon any of our sinful race for whom Christ did not die.
But many blessings are bestowed upon all men; therefore, Christ
died for all men. What is your sixth argumént?
4. It is this: “If Christ actually died for all men, then he died
for many whose salvation had become impossible, and to whom the
offer of mercy never could be made ;” for they were already in
hell. Did he die for those already in hell ?
P. “If Christ actually died for all” the elect, “ then he died for
many whose salvation” was already accomplished, “and to whom
the offer of mercy never could be made;” for they were already in
heaven. Did he die for those already in heaven P
4. Yes. For those already in heaven, had gone there by faith in
the Saviour that was to come.
P. And those already in hell, had gone there for want of faith
in the Saviour that was to come. The truth is, the Saviour was re-
vealed immediately after the fall, and men were saved by faith in
him, or condemned for their unbelief, just as they are now. *
A. But, “ of what avail is it to the soul in torment, that Christ
is dying for him on earth, seeing his misery is not the least miti-
gated thereby ?” :- - • . . .
P. That is, what good could it do him P This, again, is assuming
that Christ could not have any object in dying for any, unless he
intended to save them. It is begging the question again.
..?. But, “if Christ died for all, then justice was, at the same
moment, exacting punishment from the offender himself, and from
the Redeemer.” And “how can the same crimes be punished
twice over in a just government P. •
P. They cannot be punished twice over. Christ was not punish-
ed at all. And the satisfaction he made, was not a satisfaction to
the ſaw, nor to distributive justice. It follows from your princi-
27
ples, and not from mine, that the law is satisfied twice over, or
rather, as I should think, three times over. {
fl. How so * y - -
P. You believe that Christ obeyed the law for his people, do you
not ? & - l
.A. Yes. He made satisfaction “by obeying the law,” as well as
“by suffering its penalty.” º,
P. Was not Christ’s obedience perfect? -
.A. Yes. The scripture says, he was “holy, harmless, unde-
filed, separate from sinners.” * -
P. Does not perfect obedience satisfy the law P
J. Yes. Where there is perfect obedience, the law has no fur-
ther demand. - t
P. If Christ obeyed the law perfectly, and did that for his neo-
ple, that was satisfying the law once. Then, if he suffered the
penalty of the law, and bore the punishments of their sins, that
was satisfying the law twice. And after that, they are forgiven ;
that is, after àe demands of the law have been satisfied twice over,
they are dispensed with by forgiveness; which is equal to satisfy-
ing it the third time. - - i
./1. But, “if Christ died for all men, then he atomed for sins
which are never pardoned. But what sort of an atonement is that
for a sin, which does not render it possible for the punishment of
it to be removed P. The sin against the Holy Ghost, and final im-
penitence and unbelief, never can be pardoned, and to suppose
them atoned for, is absurd.” -
P. On the same principle, I should say, while the elect are with-
out repentance their sin cannot be pardoned. But to suppose a
sin atoned for, which cannot be pardoned, is absurd. Therefore, to
suppose the sin of the elect atoned for, while they are without re-
pentance, is absurd. The truth is, that the reason why the sin
against the Holy Ghost, and final impenitence and unbelief are not
pardoned, is because they are not repented of, not because the
atonement is not as sufficient for them as for any other sins. What
is your seventh argument? -
ºff. It is this: “the death of Christ is of no avail to those who
have never heard of this event; for how can they believe in him of
whom they have not heard P” Now, if Christ died for all men,
would he permit so many millions of them to remain in total igno-
rance of an event in which they are so deeply interested P”
P. That is, again, what good could it do them? This is assuming
that Christ could not die for any, unless he intended to save them,
which is begging the question again. And you have answered this
argument yourself as often as you have conceded, that “in conse-
quence of the mediation of Christ,” all men do enjoy “ many bless-
ings and privileges.” . But if you still ask, why God does not ac-
tually send the gospel to all men, I will answer it when you have
answered a few questions, like these: Why does he not actually
save all men? Why does he not, at least, save all those who enjoy
the light of the gospel ; "Why does he not place all the elect in the
28.
same favourable circumstances for knowing and serving him?
Why does he not create them all with the same natural powers of
body and mind, and give them all the same opportunities for im-
provement, that they may all be prepared for the same degree of
happiness in heaven? Why does he convert one in the morning of
life, and another not till the close of it? Why does he favour one
with the clearest knowledge of divine truth, and leave another to
embrace many errors, which greatly retard his growth in grace,
and consequently lessen his religious enjoyment and usefulness P
If Christ loved them well enough to die for them, and save them,
why did he not love them enough to make them as wise and as holy
as Gabriel P - -
*~~~~95% cº-
f
DIALOGUE X.
P. What is your eighth argument, to prove that Christ died for
the elect only - -
..?. It is this: “It is derogatory to the honour of the Redeemer,
that so great a portion of those for whom he died, should ultimately
perish. It is an unworthy thought of the Almighty Saviour, that he
should permit Satan to triumph over millions of those whom he
purchased with his own blood.” -
P. This argument begs the question again : it supposes that
Christ did not die for any but those he intended to save. It would,
indeed, be “derogatory to the honour of the Redeemer,” that a
great portion of those whom he intended to save “should ulti-
mately perish.” It would, indeed, be “an unworthy thought of the
Almighty Saviour, that he should permit Satan to triumph over
millions of those whom he” intended to save. But that is not the
case. He saves all he intended to save. And he accomplishes the
objects he had in view in dying for others. What these objects are,
has been already shown. What is your ninth argument?
Jł. It is this: “This doctrine of the general atonement takes
away from the true believer one of the most interesting and edify-
ing views of this event which can be presented to him. When he
contemplates the death of Christ, he beholds the most striking and
affecting manifestation of the special love of God to him; but if
the atonement is as much for reprobates as for him, how is it an
evidence of any great and special love P It is no ground of con-
solation to know that Christ loved me, and gave himself for me,
because a reprobate may know the same.”
P. How can it be any satisfaction to me, to enjoy the common
blessings of Providence, unless I have them all to myself? How
can it be any gratification to me, to sit down to a table load-
ed with all the dainties in nature, if other persons are invited as
well as I? How can it be any consolation to me, to know that I
am going to heaven, to enjoy the presence of my God and Saviour,
, if millions of the human race are to enjoy them as well as myself?
29
My enjoyments of them will surely be diminished, in exact pro-
portion to the number of those who shall with me be partakers of
them. Are these Christian feelings? Are they agreeable to the
common feelings of humanity? what is it but naked selfishness?
What is your tenth argument? ſº -
..?. It is this: “The sacred scriptures in many places restrict the
death of Christ to his people.” -
P. Will you favour me with some of these “many places *
.A. Yes. Christ says, “I lay down my life for the sheep.” Again
it is said, “The church which he purchased with his own blood.”
P. But where is the restriction ? I confess I do not see it. He
laid down his life “for the sheep.” Who disputes that * If it was
the will of God “ that he should taste death for every man,” he
must of course have laid down his life for the sheep.” -
.A.. I acknowledge “that these and such like passages, do not in
so many words, declare that he died for no others. Yet they have
no force or apparent propriety, unless thus understood.”
P. You acknowledge, then, that the passages you mention, do
not expressly “restrict the death of Christ to his people.” The
whole force of your argument, then, comes to this: these passages
do not appear to you to have any force or propriety, unless you un-
derstand them agreeably to your own scheme. But if we form our
opinions first, and then interpret the scriptures in such a manner
as to make them accord with our opinions, I am afraid we shall
never come to any certainty respecting any of the doctrines of the
bible. - g
.A. But, “if Christ laid down his life for his sheep, as such,
whether yet called or not, then he lays not down his life for the
goats, or for those who are not of his fold. If he, as shepherd, lays
down his life, then certainly for none but his sheep.” *
P. I feel no difficulty in admitting, that there is a sense, in whic
Christ laid down his life for the sheep, in which he did not for
others. But I contend, also, that there is a sense in which he laid
down his life for all alike. As far as his object, in laying down his
life, was to secure the salvation of those for whom he died, he laid
down his life for the sheep only ; for he never intended to secure
the salvation of any others. But as far as his object, in laying
down his life, was to place men in a state of probation, in a state
in which they might be saved if they would ; in a state in which
their salvation or their perdition should depend entirely upon their
own voluntary choice, so far he laid down his life for all alike. If
you understand these, and such like passages, in the first sense, I
have no objection; for on that point we have no dispute. But to
infer from that, that he could have no object in laying down his life
for others, is to take for granted the very point in dispute. The
passages you mention are totally silent on that subject; and there-
fore are nothing to the #. Have you any other argument to
prove that Christ died for the elect only P - -
4. Yes. It is inconsistent with the doctrine of particular elec-
tion, to suppose that Christ died for all men. W
P. How So P
30
.#. The doctrine of election is, that God gave a certain number
of our fallen race to the Son, and the salvation of these he under.
took to accomplish by laying down his life. To suppose, therefore,
that all men were given to him, and that he undertook to save all
by laying down his life, is inconsistent with the doctrine of elec-
tion. ---
P. This is not my view of the doctrine of election. You put the
doctrine of election in the wrong place, and confound the decree
of election with the covenant of redemption. My view of the sub-
ject is this ; all men sinned—Christ laid down his life for all—the
offer of mercy is authorized to be made to all—all, with one con-
sent, refuse the offer. Here then comes in the purpose of election;
God determined that he would make some willing to accept the
offer. And in pursuance of this determination, he sends his Spirit
to make them willing in the day of his power.
Jł. “To this theory I object, that there is no succession in the
divine decrees, but God wills all things, by one most comprehen-
sive and perfect purpose.” -
P. I grant that there is no succession in the divine decrees, as
to the order of time. They have all existed from eternity. But
there is a succession in the order of nature ; and you yourself sup-
pose it, as much as I do. . You suppose that it was determined that
man should fall, and need a Saviour; and that in consequence of
this, God determined to provide a Saviour for a part of mankind.
..?. “Admitting an order in the divine decrees,” the order, you
suppose, “is preposterous; because it supposes God to determine
upon a most important and costly means, before he had purposed any
particular end to be accomplished by it.”
P. Not at all. The particular end God had in view to accom-
plish was his own glory. As means to accomplish this great end, In-
finite Wisdom has devised, Infinite Goodness adopted, and Infinite
Power is carrying into execution the whole plan of the divine admi-
nistration. This great plan includes all events. All events, there-
fore, are to be considered as means, which infinite wisdom has
contrived, to operate in different ways, for the accomplishment of
this great end. The fall of man, the death of Christ for all, the
offer of mercy to all, the rejection of the offer by all, the making
of some willing to accept it, the salvation of those who do accept
it, the aggravated condemnation and final perdition of those who
persist in their refusal—these are all means, and “most important
and costly means” too, for the accomplishment of that great end.
And I see not why the order in which I have mentioned them is not
their natural order. - *
ºff. But I have another objection: your scheme “furnishes no
sufficient motive to produce such a grand event,” as Christ’s dy-
ing for all men. *
P. No sufficient motive Is the glory of God no sufficient mo-
tive * Where will you find one of greater magnitude P But the
ends accomplished by Christ’s dying for all men have been already
pointed out. I need not repeat them here. Have you any other
argument to prove that Christ died for the elect only P.
31
4. I have mentioned the principal; but I will suggest one more,
the identity of fltonement and Redemption. As they signify the
same thing, all who are atoned for, are redeemed. But the elect
only are redeemed ; therefore the atonement was made for none else.
. Atonement and redemption are not the same thing. Atone-
ºment is satisfaction for sin; redemption is deliverance from sin.
The atonement was finished when Christ rose from the dead ; but
the redemption of any individual is not finished, till he is freed
from sin, by complete sanctification, and received to heaven.
Christ is said to have “obtained eternal redemption for us;” not
eternal atonement, surely. The apostle exhorts Christians, “Grieve
not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of
redemptions” not the day of atonement, for that was past already.
And when the Son of Man shall be seen coming in the clouds of
heaven, his people are exhorted, “Then look up and lift up your
heads: for your redemption draweth nigh;” not your atonement
draweth nigh, for that was accomplished long since. If atonement
and redemption were the same thing, it would be as improperto
pray for redemption as for atonement. To pray for atonement would
be to pray that Christ might die again. No Christian prays for
atonement. But Christians may pray for redemption. They may
pray with the scripture saints, “Draw nigh unto my soul and re-
deem it.” “Redeem me, and be merciful unto me.” Atonement
and redemption, therefore, are different things: and the argument
which is built upon their identity, is built upon the sand.
*º ºne
DIALOGUE XI.
ºff. Will you state your arguments, to prove that Christ died for
all men P * .
P. Most of them have been brought into view, in the course of
the preceding discussion ; but I will briefly repeat them :
1. All who hear the gospel are invited to partake of its blessings.
But if Christ has not died for them all, they cannot be sincerely
invited. The invitation amounts to a declaration that there is sal-
vation for them, which they may have if they will. If Christ has
not died for them all, this declaration is untrue, and the invitation
a mere mockery. .*
2. It is made the duty of all who hear the gospel, to accept of
Christ as their Saviour. But it cannot be their duty, if Christ has
not died for them. It cannot be the duty of devils to accept of
Christ as their Saviour, for he did not die for devils.
3. Those who refuse to accept of Christ as their Saviour, are con-
demned and punished for their unbelief. But how can they be
justly º: for not accepting a Saviour, who was never pro-
vided for them.
4. The atonement was a satisfaction to public justice, designed
to render it consistent for God to show mercy; and from its very
nature, must be general, *
32
5. All men do receive many blessings at the hand of God, as you
have granted. And “this occurs in consequence of the mediation
of Christ,” as you have also granted; for where there is no atone-
ment, no mercy can be shown. Since many mercies, therefore, are
actually bestowed upon all men, on account of Christ’s death, it
follows, that Christ died for all.
6. All men are placed here in a state of probation. A state of
probation for etermity, necessarily supposes, that those who enjoy
it, have an opportunity to secure their eternal salvation. But those
for whom Christ did not die, have no such opportunity. No exer-
tions of theirs could ever render it possible for them to be saved.
7. The testimony of scripture is express and full upon this sub-
ject. Let me remind you of what you have said yourself. “This
is a point of too much magnitude to be decided by mere reasoning.
Let us hear what God hath spoken. ‘To the law and the testimony,’
we make an appeal.” What, then, do the scriptures say upon this
subject P .
I John 2. 2. “And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not
for ours only, but also, for the sins of the whole world.”
Heb. 2.9. “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than
the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and hon-
our; that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every
man.” .
1 Tim. 2.6. “Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified
in due time.” * .
2 Cor. 5. 14, 15. “For the love of Christ constraineth us, because
we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead. , And
that he died for all, that they which live, should not henceforth live
unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.”
John 1. 29. “The next day, John seeth Jesus coming unto him,
and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of
the world!” t
John 3. 16. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have everlasting life.” -
That Christ died for some who actually perish, see 2 Pet. 2, 1.
“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as
there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in
damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and .
bring upon themselves swift destruction.” -
A. But you must admit that the words world and all, are some-
times used in a limited sense; and therefore they may be so used
in these passages. “The word world is used in the sacred scrip-
tures for the whole fabric of heaven and earth, sometimes for the
heavens distinguished from the earth, for the men in the world,
either the whole or a part, sometimes for the Roman empire, for God’s
people, for the wicked, and for a worldly condition or state.” “It
is evident,” then, “that no great stress should, in this argument,
be laid on a word so vague and ambiguous in its meaning.” “The
word all is in the same predicament.”
33
P. I am willing to grant, for the sake of giving your objection all
possible force, that these words are used in the various senses you .
mention. Not, however, that I believe the word world is ever used
for God’s people as distinguished from others. What, then, is the
force of your objection ? It is plainly this, that because these words
are sometimes used in a limited sense, they may be so used in the
texts I have quoted, and that you are at liberty to put this con-
struction upon them, if you please. But, where will this principle
lead us? Let us apply it to a few cases. The word God is some-
times used to signify a civil ruler; therefore, according to this
principle of interpretation, it may be so understood in any given
text. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,”
may mean, In the beginning a civil ruler created the heavens and
the earth. The word everlasting is sometimes used to signify a
limited duration; therefore, it may be so understood in any given
text: and, “These shall go away into everlasting punishment,” may
mean, “These shall go away into a punishment of limited duration.”
And when the 'saints are promised everlasting life it may mean, a
life of limited duration. And when Christ is styled the “Mighty
God, the Everlasting Father,” it may mean, the mighty civil ruler,
the Father of a limited duration. The word salvation is sometimes
used to signify deliverance from a temporal calamity; therefore,
it may be so understood in any given text, and there may be no
salvation but deliverance from temporal calamities. The word re-
surrection is sometimes used to signify regeneration ; therefore it
may be so understood in any given text, and there may be no re-
surrection foretold in the scriptures but regeneration. The word
baptism is sometimes used to signify sufferings; therefore, it may
be so understood in any given text; and the command to the apos-
tles to go and baptize all nations, may mean, that they should go
and inflict sufferings upon all nations. A principle of interpreta-
tion which leads into such absurdities, cannot be admitted as a cor-
rect rule of interpreting the word of God. Under the operation of
such a rule, the Bible would become, as some pretend it is, a book
-by which any thing can be supported, and nothing proved." Every
part of it would become “vague and ambiguous in its meaning.”
ºff. How can we know, then, when to understand these universal
terms in their limited, and when in their unlimited sense P 3.
P. When a universal term is to be understood in a restricted or
limited sense, that restriction or limitation is made manifest, by the
manner in which it is used, or by something which accompanies it.
And this is a general rule for the interpretation of scripture: the
scripture means as it says ; that is, every word is to be understood
in its plainest and most obvious sense, unless the manner in which
it is used, or something which accompanies it, makes it manifest
that it is used in that instance, in a different sense. If this is not
the way in which scripture is to be understood, how shall we ever
$now what the scripture teaches on any subject? And more espe-
cially, how shall plain, unlearned people know any thing about the
doctrines of the Bible P The Bible was intended for a Revelation.
It was intended for the use of the ignorant, and for children. It is
E
34
declared to be so plain that he that runneth may read, and the
way-faring man, though a fool, need not err. But if the Holy
Ghost has made a mistake on this subject, and used words so
“vague and ambiguous in their meaning,” that no dependance can
be placed upon them, “it fails of being” a Revelation, “whatever
may have been intended.” -
.A. But the º you mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
* that he should taste death for every man,” is not translated right.
The original is, “huper pantos, for all. Man is not in the text. And
the question is, to whom this all refers.” ---
P. I must beg leave to differ from you there. And I think such
an objection comes with a very bad grace, from one who claims that
the translators of the Bible were of the same opinion with himself,
on the subject of the atonement. Pantos is an adjective, in the
masculine gender, singular number, and must agree with some
noun, understood, of the same gender and number. The word
'man, therefore, is undoubtedly the word understood, and was pro-
perly supplied by our translators. But if you object to the word
man, I am willing to leave it out; and then the literal rendering of
huper pantos would be “for every one;” and the most natural and ob-
vious meaning would be, that Christ tasted death for every man,
woman and child, of our race. If it had been for all, the original
would have been huper panton, in the plural. But even that would
have been no better for your cause.
... .ſ.. I wish also to make an observation upon the passage from the
Epistle to Timothy, “Who gave himself a ransom for all.” “The
whole stress of the argument here is upon the word all; but our
brethren who oppose us here must qualify the word all, as used in
the fourth verse, ‘Who will have all men to be saved,” and there-
fore, they should allow us to do the same in the sixth.”
P. Not at all. We do not “qualify the word all as used in the
fourth verse.” We believe it means all, in both verses. There is
no manifest restriction accompanying it, in either case; and there-
fore, we protest against any such restriction being put upon it, by
any human authority. - - " . -
.A. Then you must believe that all men will actually be saved :
P. By no means. We believe that God does, in itself consider-
ed, sincerely desire the salvation of all; because it is, in itself, very
desirable that all should be saved. But he does not, on the whole,
all things considered, determine to save all ; because it is not, on
the whole, best that all should be saved.
Since, therefore, the scriptures plainly declare, that “ God so
loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,” and that “He
is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for
the sins of the whole world,” and that Christ “gave himself a ran-
som for all,” “that he, by the grace of God, should taste death
for every man,” that he “died for all,” and is “the Lamb of God
which taketh away the sin of the world,” and that some who perish
“bring upon themselves swift destruction,” by “denying the Lord
that bought them;” you must allow me to believe that Christ did
not die for the elect only, but for all men.