not redeemed; seem equally indefensible and
absurd.

While cheerfully admitting the sufficiency of True Immanuel's death to have redeemed all mankind, had all the sins of the whole human species been equally imputed to him; and had he, as the Universal Representative, sustained that Curse of the law which was due to all mankind; yet we cannot perceive any solid reason to con

They

clude that his propitiatory sufferings are sufficent

but not

not efficient in

of the

cient for the expiation of sins which he did not
bear, or for the redemption of sinners whom he ha
did not represent, as a sponsor, when he ex-
pired on the cross. For the substitution of impetend
Christ, and the imputation of sin to him, are
essential to the scriptural doctrine of redemption
by our adorable Jesus. We may, therefore,
safely conclude, that our Lord's voluntary sub-
stitution, and redemption by his vicarious death
are both of them limited to those for whom he
was made sin for whom he was made a curse-
and for whose deliverance from final ruin, he
actually paid the price of his own blood. Con-

C. There, suck was his purpose, but it was alschir with what covenant lelipings should be offered to al

sequently, redemption is particular, and peculiar

to the chosen of God.'

asked, is the redundancy
speak to arise? For, if

But how, it may be of merit of which you what the learned Witsius says be true, 'That Christ, according to the will of God the Father, and his own purpose, did neither engage nor satisfy, and consequently in no manner die, but Incorral only for those, and those alone, whom the Father gave him, and who are actually saved;' from whence are we to look for this superabundance of merit?

So far from there being a redundancy of merit connected with the atonement of Christ, sufficient for the redemption of all men; that, in the opinion of the famous Zanchius, the want of it renders the condemnation of the non-elect indispensably requisite. How, he asks, can it possibly be subversive of the justice of God to condemn, and resolve to condemn, the non-elect for their sins; when those very sins were not

atoned for by Christ, as the sins of the elect

was

+ of the impenitent had learn all included in the covenant of redemption, not to have saved them would have b just. Busy the sacrifice was intended for them intended to lie infinite, &f theirdestruction was des to be consequent upon their rejection of it, justice

clear in tries condemnation.

desti

is

61

were? His justice, in this case, is so far from hindering the condemnation of the reprobate; that it renders it necessary and indispensable.'

is for

From an exceeding desire to exclude all consideration of the satisfaction of Christ entirely, in the matter of inflicting punishment for sins, Socinus stumbled, says Dr. Owen, against this stone: for God most certainly will finally punish the impenitent to all eternity, because he is just, to all eternity, because and because there is no sacrifice for their sins nor is it less true, that God casts out and de stroys many who are strangers to the covenant of grace, not waiting for their repentance; but that he effectually leads others to repentance; not because he exerciseth a two-fold justice, but because his justice hath been satisfied for the sins of the latter by Christ, whereas it is not so with regard to the former.' + Nuh bas aus e repent, is the

But I would again ask, How is this redundancy of merit to arise? If to be interested in

the death of Christ, I must be

member of his mystical body the

F

constituted a

Church; and

they are

he become my covenant head-my surety-my
substitute. If my sins must be imputed to him,
and his righteousness imputed to me for my jus-
tification before God; others, to be interested
in the same blessing, must surely stand in the
same relation! Because whatever is necessary for
the salvation of one man, is undoubtedly neces
sary for the salvation of every other man in the
same circumstances. What the benevolent Jesus
graciously underwent for me in the character of
a Saviour, can never be available for the salvation
of those persons for whom he never sustained
that character-who were never members of his
mystical body-for whom he never became a
surety-whose sins he never bore, and whom he
never intended to save.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, says Mr. Boston, 'died not for, nor took upon him the sins of all and every individual man; but he died for and took upon him the sins of all the elect, the Father laid on Christ the iniquities of all the spiritual Israel of God, of all nations, ranks, and conditions: for no iniquities could be laid on him but

have in time refinedance & peth by eternelly justified to no others are • other that they cannohlar saved is the hers. Xhas not dridh for them is t from his googel commit.com to impact the sixcerity of proffend ming.

theirs in whose room and place he sisted himself
to receive the burden, according to the eternal
and mutual agreement!'

It has been said, That it detracts from the re-d demption of Christ thus to limit its extent. If fedt is this remark have any force, it is equally applica-mirig

ble to the mercy of God, of which thousandsels never heard, and of which, in a way of pardon, s they will never participate. But will any man

be hardy enough to assert that it detracts from poly falling this mercy to suppose that it is not alike con

individual of our

apostate race? refer

ferred on every
Is it not lawful for God to do what he will

with his own?-Who hath first given to him, and
it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of
him, and through him, and to him, are all things:
to whom be glory for ever, Amen.

A moment's consideration will, it is presumed, evince the fallacy of the above trite objection. Can it detract from any mean to say, That it completely answers the end for which it was appointed? The detraction will rest with him who shall assert, That provision is made

# The sacrifice may have heer office for all in wachs case that they hirish, not by aufort in it & ayat soh the a views that spieval & saving grac conquer their

talls, so as to conquer