be charged with denying it. I could | merely referring to what it is in not have imagined, that any per- itself sufficient for, and declared in son whose hope of acceptance with the Gospel to be adapted to, I God rests not on any goodness in himself, but entirely on the righteousness of Christ, would have been accounted to disown his substitution. But perhaps Mr. B. considers "a real and proper imputation of our sins to Christ," by which he seems to mean their being literally transferred to him, as essential to this doctrine; and if so, I acknowledge I do not at present believe it.

For Christ to die as a substitute, if I understand the term, is the same thing as his dying for us, or in our stead, or that we should not die.

The only question on which I ought to have been interrogated, is, "The persons for whom Christ was a substitute; whether the elect only, or mankind in general?" On this question I will be as explicit as I am able.

should think that I answered the question in a scriptural way by saying, It was for sinners as sinners: but if I have respect to the purpose of the Father in giving his Son to die, and to the design of Christ in laying down his life, I should answer, It was for the elect only.

*

In the first of these views, I find the apostles and primitive ministers (leaving the consideration of God's secret purposes, as a matter belonging to Himself, not to them) addressing themselves to sinners without distinction, and holding forth the death of Christ, as a ground of faith to all men. On this principle, the servants sent forth to bid guests to the marriagesupper were directed to invite them, saying, "Come, FOR all things are ready." On this principle the ambassadors of Christ besought sinners to be reconciled to God, "FOR" (said they) "he hath made Him to be sin for us,

The distinction between what the atone

Were I asked concerning the Gospel when it is first introduced into a country, For whom was it sent? I should answer, if I had respect only to the revealed will of God, and so, perhaps, would Mr. B., It is sent for men, not as elect, ment of Christ is in itself sufficient for, and or as non-elect, but as sinners. It will of God, is made by Dr. Owen, as well what it is as applied, under the sovereign is written and preached, "that as many others. Speaking of "the digthey might believe that Jesus is the nity, worth, or infinite value of the death of Christ, the Son of God; and that Christ," he ascribes it partly to "the digbelieving, they might have life nity of his person, and partly to the greatness of his sufferings. And this," he adds, through his name." But if I had sets out the innate, real, true worth and respect to the secret will, or ap-value of the blood-shedding of Jesus Christ : pointment of God as to its application, I should say, If the divine conduct in this instance accord with what it has been in other instances, he hath visited that country, "to take out of them a people for his name."

this is its own true interual perfection and sufficiency. That it should be applied unto beneficial to them, according to the worth any, made a price for them, and become that is in it, is external to it, doth not arise from it, but merely depends upon the intention and will of God." And it is on this ground that Dr. O. accounts for the propitiation of Christ being set forth in general and indefinite expressions and for "the general proffers, promises, and exhortations

In like manner concerning the death of Christ. If I speak of it irrespective of the purpose of the made for the embracing of the fruits of the death of Christ, even to them who do never Father and the Son, as to the ob-actually perform it." - Death of Death, &c. jects who should be saved by it, Book iv. Ch. 1.

who knew no sin, that we might be | quired to be by the same all-permade the righteousness of God in fect sacrifice. So, I am certain, Him."

In the last view, I find the apostles ascribing to the purpose and discriminating grace of God all their success; and teaching believers to ascribe every thing that they were, or hoped to be, to the same cause; addressing them as having been before the foundation of the world, the objects of his love and choice; the children or sons, whom it was the design of Christ, in becoming incarnate, to bring to glory; the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood, and for which he gave himself, that he might sanctify, and cleanse it, and present it to himself. If it be a proper definition of the substitution of Christ, that he died for, or in the place of others, that they should not die, this as comprehending the designed end to be answered by his death, is strictly applicable to none but the elect: for whatever ground there is for sinners, as sinners, to believe and be saved, it never was the design of Christ to impart faith to any others, than those who were given him of the Father. He therefore did not die with the intent that any others should not die.

I understood him. Now, if it be acknowledged that the obedience and death of Christ was a substitution of such a kind as to be equally required for the salvation of one sinner, as for many — is not this the same thing as acknowledging that atonement required to be made for sin, as sin; and being made, was applicable to sinners, as sinners? In other words, is it not acknowledging, that God redeemed his elect by an atonement in its own nature adapted to all, just as he calls his elect by a Gospel addressed to all?

If the speciality of redemption be placed in the atonement itself, and not in the sovereign will of God, or in the design of the Father and the Son, with respect to the persons to whom it shall be applied, it must, as far as I am able to perceive, have proceeded on the principle of pecuniary satisfactions. In them the payment is proportioned to the amount of the debt; and being so, it is not of sufficient value for more than those who are actually liberated by it: nor is it true in these cases, that the same satisfaction is required for one as for many. But if such was the satisfaction of Christ, that nothing less was necessary for the salvation of one, nothing more could be necessary for the salvation of the whole world, and the whole world might have been saved by it, if it had accorded with sovereign wisdom so to apply it. It will also follow, that if the satisfaction of Christ was in itself sufficient for the whole world, there is no further propriety in such questions as these

Whether I can perfectly reconcile these statements with each other, or not, I believe they are both taught in the Scriptures: but I acknowledge that I do not at present perceive their inconsistency. The latter Mr. B. will admit; and as to the former, I am quite at a loss what to make of his concessions, if they do not include it. According to the best of my recollection, he acknowledged to me that he believed the atone- "Whose sins were imputed to ment of Christ to be sufficient for Christ? For whom did he die as a the whole world, as well as I; and substitute?" Than as they go to that if one sinner only were saved inquire who were the persons deconsistently with justice, it re-signed to be saved by him? That

It has been objected, though not by Mr. B., "how does the sufficiency of Christ's death afford ample ground for general invitations, if the design was confined to the elect people? If the benefits of his death were never intended for the non-elect, is it not just as inconsistent to invite them to partake of them, as if there were a want of sufficiency? This explanation seems to be no other than shifting the difficulty."

To this I answer:

(1.) It is a fact, that the Scriptures rest the general invitation of the Gospel upon the atonement of Christ. 2 Cor. v. 19-21. Matt. xxii. 4. John iii. 16.

which is equally necessary for one | sovereign application of the atoneas for many, must, in its own ment. nature, be equally sufficient for many as for one; and could not proceed upon the principle, of the sins of some being laid upon Christ, rather than others, any otherwise than as it was the design of the Father and the Son, through one all-sufficient medium, ultimately to pardon the sins of the elect, rather than those of the non-elect. It seems to me as consonant with truth, to say, a certain number of Christ's acts of obedience are literally transferred to us, as that a certain number of our sins are literally transferred to him. In the former case, his own undivided obedience, stamped as it is with divinity, affords a ground of justification to any number of believers: in the latter, his own atonement, stamped also as it is with divinity, is sufficient to pardon any number of sins, or sinners. Yet as Christ did not lay down his life but by covenant; as the elect were given to him, to be as the travail of his soul, the purchase of his blood; he had respect in all that he did and suffered, to this recompence of reward. It was for the covering of their transgressions, that he became obedient unto death. To them his substitution was the same in effect, as if their sins had by number been literally transferred to him. I am not aware that any principle that I hold is inconsistent with Christ's laying down his life by covenant, or with his being the surety of that covenant, pledging himself for the certain accomplish-not to save him, is only a resolument of whatever he undertook; as, that all that were given him should come to him, should not be lost, but raised up at the last day, and be presented without spot and blameless. All this I suppose to be included in the design of the Father and the Son; or, in the

(2.) If there were not a sufficiency in the atonement for the salvation of sinners, and yet they were invited to be reconciled to God, they must be invited to what is naturally impossible. The message of the Gospel would in this case be as if the servants who went forth to bid the guests, had said, "Come," though in fact nothing was ready, if many of them had come.

(3.) If there be an objective fulness in the atonement of Christ sufficient for any number of sinners, were they to believe in Him, there is no other impossibility in the way of any man's salvation, to whom the Gospel comes, than what arises from the state of his own mind. The intention of God not to remove the impossibility, and so

tion to withhold, not only that which he was not obliged to give, but that which is never represented as necessary to the consistency of exhortations and invitations to a compliance. I do not deny that there is a difficulty; but it belongs to the general subject of recon

ciling the purposes of God and the agency of man: whereas in the other case, God is represented as inviting sinners to partake of that which does not exist, and which therefore is naturally impossible. The one, while it ascribes the salvation of the believer, in every stage of it, to mere grace, renders the unbeliever inexcusable, which the other, I conceive, does not.

Such, as well as I am able to explain them, are my views of these important subjects. I may be mistaken in some particulars: and if so, I should be happy to receive further light from any one. But till I do, I shall not think the worse of what I have written, for the names by which it may be stigmatized. I am, affectionately A. F.

yours,

LETTER IV, On Change of Sentiment.

Jan. 8, 1803.

above particulars, to reprint it as it is. I fully own that my views of particular redemption were altered by my engaging in that controversy; but what alteration there was, was before I published my reply. The truth is, I tried to answer my opponent without considering the sufficiency of the atonement in itself considered, and of its being the ground of Gospel invitations; but I could not.

I found not merely his reasonings, but the Scriptures themselves standing in my way. After some serious thought upon the subject, therefore, I formed my judgment: and it was some relief to find all the old Calvinists defending the doctrine upon the same ground.

I conceded to my opponent, that the death of Christ in itself considered, i. e. irrespective of the design of the Father and Son as to its application, was sufficient for all mankind; that a way was opened by which God consistently MY DEAR BROther, with his justice could forgive any Mr. B. in his letter to you of Dec. 6. sinner whatever, that returns to expresses his persuasion that " I him by Jesus Christ; that if the could not now oppose Philan- whole world were to believe in thropos as I formerly did; we being Him, none need be sent away for more nearly agreed, than we were want of a sufficiency in his death, twelve or fifteen years ago." to render his pardon and acceptWhen I wrote my reply to Philan-ance consistent with the rights of thropos, I acknowledged that I justice (pp. 64, 65.); and this is had read and thought but little on all that I should consider now. the subject, and therefore engaged This is the whole of what I meant in that controversy with consider- in the second edition of The Gospel able reluctance. Were I to write worthy of all Acceptation, by "the it over again, there would, doubt-peculiarity of redemption, consistless, be several alterations. I might understand some passages of Scripture differently, might demur upon a few of the arguments used to establish my leading principles, and upon some few of the answers to Philanthropos; but the leading principles themselves I do still approve.

If a new edition were wanted, I should have no other objection than what arises from the

ing not in its insufficiency to save more than are saved, but in the sovereignty of its application." If more be conveyed by this sentence than the above, it conveys what I never intended; but I am not able to perceive that it does.

That for which I then contended was, that Christ had an absolute and determinate design in his death to save some of the human race,

and not others; and were I engaged government, and so comporting with the spirit of the law, though not required, or admitted by the letter of it?

in a controversy with Philanthropos now, I should contend for the same thing. I then placed the peculiarity of redemption wholly In answering the objection of the in the appointment or design of the infidel against the atonement, that Father and the Son, which, if I it represented divine justice as understand my own words, is the proceeding on the same principle same thing as placing it in "the in criminal cases as in cases of sovereignty of its application." debt and credit, indifferent to the As my views of particular redemp- object, so that the punishment was tion were somewhat changed be- but inflicted, I must either actween my writing the first edition quiesce, or endeavour to repel it. of The Gospel worthy of all Accep- Had I acquiesced, and maintained tation, and my Reply to Philan- with Dr. Crisp, "that justice as a thropos, it was right when pub- blood-hound follows the scent of lishing a second edition of the blood, and seizes wherever it finds former work, to render it con-blood;"* in other words, that it is sistent with the latter, as well as indifferent to justice who it with my then present sentiments. punishes, provided it does but In the course of twelve or fifteen punish; whether it be the transyears, there are few if any think-gressor, or one who condescends ing men, but what see reason to to have his transgressions imputed change their sentiments in some to him; had I acquiesced, I say, particulars. What I have here in this, how could I have disproved stated on Imputation, may not be his calumny, that "what is called the ideas which I entertained at justice is not justice, but indiscrithat distance of time, though I do minate revenge?" These subjects not recollect to have written any were seriously examined, with no thing upon it; yet, to the best of my other design than to obtain just remembrance, I thought that in views of evangelical truth, and to God's charging our sin on Christ, vindicate it against its adversaries. and placing His righteousness to If in any instance I have betrayed our account, he reckoned of things it, I hope I should, on discovering as they were; as Dr. Crisp pleads it, be very sorry. The grounds on (Sermons, p. 280.) though how it which I have attempted to vindiwas I could form no idea. I did cate the atonement, do not appear not perceive at that time, that im- to me to bear injuriously upon any putation and transfer were not the other doctrine of the Gospel, nor same thing. In short, I had never upon the leading principles in my closely considered the subject. The former publications. So far from same might be said of some things considering what I wrote of late as which I have written in The Gospel subversive of them, I always supits own Witness, P. ii. ch. iv. as posed it went to confirm them. whether the satisfaction of Christ They operate, I admit, against that proceeded on the principle of com- notion of particular redemption, mercial or of moral justice? And which places it not in the design of whether it was an event admissible the Father in giving his Son, nor of in course of ordinary distributive the Son in laying down his life; justice, or an extraordinary expe- but in the number of sins and dient, devised by Infinite Wisdom,

answering all the ends of moral

Serm. p. 274.