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.

DIALOGUE IV.

A. I think the patience and forbearance of God, towards the nonelect, appears as great upon my plan as upon yours.

P. How so?

A. 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 certainly 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 despair, 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 by 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 devils are bound to receive Christ as their Saviour?

A. 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 suffering the penalty of that law, would be a sufficient atonement for be ings of an infinitely different species, of whose sin we have no particular 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 ?"

A. 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 infinite 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

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 distinguish, 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 privileges 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 Saviour, 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?

P. The patience and forbearance of God, in sparing the guilty, is great, in proportion to the number and magnitude of their offences. 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.

A. 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 crucifying the Son of God, who loved them, and wept over them, and poured 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 affecting 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 secure 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.

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 Saviour died for them.

P. Yes: but in a degree far less.

A. How so?

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 they would be justly condemned, though no Saviour had been provided. So far, the justice of God would be glorified in their condemnation, whether Christ died for them or not. But if Christ has not died for them, the justice of God cannot be glorified in condemning 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 refuse. 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 inexcusable for not loving and serving God, on mine they are doubly inexcusable. If on your plan they are justly condemned for refusing 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 away their souls, when their salvation was put within their power, and 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. 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.

A. But this was known to God, from the beginning; and therefore, 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 into a situation to increase his guilt, and consequently his misery? P. Do you believe, then, that the non-elect enjoy no privileges or blessings in this life?

A. 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 consequence 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

considered any blessings to them, since they abuse them also, to increase their guilt, and aggravate their final condemnation? 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?

A. 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 the 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 least, 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, nonelect, as well as others, are placed in a situation in which they enjoy the means of grace, and have an opportunity to secure the salvation of their souls. A Saviour is provided, an atonement is offered them, pardon and peace are proclaimed in their ears, the Father invites, the Saviour entreats, the Holy Spirit strives. Eternal 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? Are they not, in themselves, a great good, and capable of being improved by them to their own unspeakable advantage? In this way, therefore, God shows his regard for their happiness; and manifests the strongest solicitude for their welfare. And if they perish, after 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 happiness. 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.

DIALOGUE VI.

P. What is your third argument to prove that Christ died for the elect only?

A. My third argument is this: "The death of Christ was a real atonement, a ransom price, an expiation, and a propitiation for sin; a full satisfaction to law and justice; and must therefore be efficacious 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 race shall certainly be saved, Christ died only for that part."

P. This argument depends entirely upon the nature of the atonement. From your views of its nature, you conclude that it was made for the elect only. My views of its nature are probably different from your's. From my views of the nature of the atonement, I conclude that it was made for all men. Will you state your views of its nature?

A. I will. "The word atonement, though often used in the Old Testament, is not found in the New Testament, except in one instance, 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 reconciled. 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 upon the person who committed them." "When, in common language 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 procures exemption from punishment, which renders favourable the person to whom it is offered."

"Another set of words, by which the death of Christ is frequently expressed, signify the price paid for the redemption of сарtives." 99 "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 punishment 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