The wages of an hireling unjustly detained, cry in the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, because, as that great man, Dr. Thomas Goodwin remarks, 'God's justice is thereby provoked, and cannot be quiet till God hath avenged it: and so would Christ's satisfaction having been made for us: it would restlessly cry to God, and not suffer his justice to be quiet, unless we were pardoned. For he was truly and indeed God's hired servant in this work: and God covenanted to give him the salvation of those, he died for as his wages and reward, as Isaiah often represents it, chap. liii. and elsewhere. So that if God be just, he must give forth salvation; otherwise Christ's obedience would cry as the work of an hireling doth for wages. If any one man's sin satisfied for by Christ, should be left unforgiven, God's justice would lose so much glory.'

In opposing the advocates for general redemption, you, with other writers, contend that the impetration, and the application of redemption are of equal extent, and refer to the same persons; which appears to me, an undoubted fact.

But

To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, says the Westminster Confession, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same: and in answer to the question 'For whom did he satisfy justice? it is said, For the elect only, and not for all mankind, which is evident from the satisfaction and intercession of Christ being of equal extent, so that the one reaches no further than the other.' if (as you insist) the expiatory sufferings of Christ are sufficient for the salvation of all men, and all are not saved; impetration and application cannot be of the same extent; the inconsistency therefore with which you charge your opponents is, in this particular, equally applicable to your own theory. either allow that, had the number to be saved been greater than it will be, the sufferings of our Lord would have been greater, or, that the impetration and application of redemption are not of the same extent.

You must therefore

The Remonstrants tell us, observes Dr. John Edwards, of impetration and application, and make use of them thus: Christ hath impetrated,

that is, obtained and purchased reconciliation and pardon of sins for all men on the face of the earth; but this reconciliation and pardon are not applied and appropriated unto them all. But, adds the Doctor, this is a very weak and shallow notion; because, if Christ purchased reconciliation by his death, he certainly purchased the application of it also; he would take care that the virtue of it should be applied to all. Accordingly we may observe that the application and reconciliation go together, Isa. liii. 11. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities. There is an inseparable connection between these two, justifying, and bearing iniquities all those are actually justified, and sanctified, and shall be saved, for whom Christ suffered on the cross, and there bore their sins and iniquities. So our Saviour himself tells us that his sheep, for whom he laid down his life, shall hear his voice, that is, certainly believe in him and obey him, John xviii. 15. The apostle assures us, that Christ was not only delivered for our offences, and thereby purchased reconciliation for us, but was raised again for our

1

justification, Rom. iv. 25, that so his sufferings might be applied to us by the actual exercise of our faith, whereby we are justified in the sight of God. Thus we see that impetration and application are of the same latitude, and those that are concerned in the former partake also of the latter. And indeed it must needs be so, the application necessarily follows the impetration of pardon and remission of sins, because that is the end of this, and this is in order to that. For no other end and purpose was reconciliation obtained by Christ, than that we might share in the fruits of it. To assert the contrary is as

much as to say,

Christ died for all, but did not intend that they should have any benefit and advantage by his death. This is unworthy of God, and of his son Jesus, and therefore we have good ground to believe that the application ís to attend the reconciliation, and that there is no reason to divide these two.'

Such are the excellent observations of this eminently great man; but how to reconcile these observations with what follows in the same chapter, is no easy task. There is no doubt, he

remarks, that Christ died for all, if we respect the virtue and dignity of his death. His precious blood was the price that was paid, and it was sufficient to make expiation for the sins and transgressions of all men.' Now if his 'precious blood as the price, was sufficient to make expiation for the sins and transgressions of all men,' and all are not saved; how is impetration and application of the same latitude? For if Christ 'purchased reconciliation by his death, he certainly purchased the application of it also; and he would take care that the virtue of it should be applied to all.'

The absurdity of universal redemption, he elsewhere remarks, appears from this consideration that, if Christ died and satisfied for all, even those that shall perish, this would deservedly occasion a reflection on God's justice; for if Christ had made satisfaction for those whom he afterwards consigns to eternal punishment, then God shows himself harsh beyond measure, in exacting two punishments; one on Christ, and another of the damned for their sins. If Christ suffered on the cross for them, why must