time, and in virtue of the same union, human nature, i. e. all mankind, in him, did actually fulfil the law in all its parts, did die in him, did rise with him, and are now quickened by him; and therefore, in the eyes of the law and justice, are, by virtue of this union, both just and holy.

This system has all the difficulties of Calvinism, in making out the great sacrifice. For, turn it, and twist it, ever so many ways, one of two things must follow: viz. either that God did actually suffer and die; or else, that Christ did neither suffer, nor die! and without which, in what did the sacrifice consist? It may be contended, that the soul of man does not die, but that it is only separated from the body; but, admitting this to be true, (which, however, by the way, is not admitted,) it does not help the matter in the least: for it is the soul that feels the pangs of death; which is all that is generally meant by dying; and if there were no soul, there could be no pang! It is the soul that feels; it is the soul that suf fers now, if Jesus had no soul except Almighty God either God suffered; or else, there was no suffering at

all!

But this difficulty is not peculiar to this system. We meet with the same difficulty in supposing that Jesus had a human soul, like other men, if we suppose that something more was necessary to constitute him the Christ. For the moment that we admit that something essential to the Deity was equally, and in the same direct sense, essential to Christ, and was that which constituted him Christ, and without which he would not have been Christ, that moment we must admit that something essential to the Deity suffered, and, of course, died, in the sense that Christ died; or else, we must admit that Christ did neither suffer, nor die, in any sense!

But, after all-aside from its falsity-the immoral tendency of this system is my greatest objection to it. And here, perhaps, I shall draw conclusions, or make inferences, which the abettors of this system would not admit; but they are conclusions which appear to me to

be just, and evidently grow out of the system, and, therefore, it may have appeared so to others.

This system not only admits, but contends, that the full demerit of all sin that ever was, or ever will be committed, was cancelled, and the infinite debt of the whole human nature fully discharged, almost two thousand years ago, on Mount Calvary! Now, admitting this true, what is the necessary conclusion? Why, that all the guilt arising from sin now, all the compunction of conscience which sinners now feel, all shame, all remorse, &c. arise wholly from the ignorance of the sinner!-that there is no just occasion for all this, the law has had its full demand, the debt is completely cancelled, divine justice fully satisfied, not only for the sins which have been in the world, but also, for all which mankind either are, or ever shall be, capable of committing! 0, my friends! If this be Universalism, I do not wonder at all that it has not spread more rapidly. I do not wonder that there are many who believe the doctrine in the main, yet, seeing it predicated upon such principles, and, perhaps, not being able to defend it upon better principles, do not avow it publicly. I fully believe there are thousands kept back upon this very ground; who cannot believe in the doctrine of endless misery, and who would rejoice to espouse the cause of universal benevolence, if they could only see the doctrine placed upon that rational, clear, and scriptural ground, in which the believer would be happy in acknowledging, and which, at the same time, could be no excuse for sin. It is the immoral tendency, or the supposed immoral tendency, of the doctrine, that has kept back so many good men from avowing it openly. And I am very sorry to say, that, in my humble opinion, there has been too much to justify this precaution. Let any one preach up fully and clearly what appears to me to be the necessary result of the system under consideration, and I believe he would be considered, by all good men, to be either a maniac, and worthy of commiseration as such, or else, a public disturber of the peace, and therefore liable to prosecu

tion! Not, however, for his faith; but for disturbing

the public peace!

We have reason to be thankful, that, the daily expe

"The Union of Christ and his Church," says Mr. Relly, "appears to me a truth of such importance, that I can see no consistency in the doctrine of salvation by Jesus, without it." And in a note under this article, he further says, "The method of grace and salvation, according to union, is not at all contradictory to the sovereignty of God:-But when sovereignty is introduced from first to last, to the utter exclusion of equity, which is often done, (as a palliative for man's ignorance in divine things,) the consequences attending are dangerous. First, as it depreciates the sacrifice of Christ, and makes his death unnecessary: since absoluteness might have remitted the offence without shedding of blood. Or if it is hinted, that the condition took place and was accepted from mere sovereign pleasure only then, of consequence, it was not proportionable, as an atonement unto the offence; and its dignity as the blood of God denied! Nor (upon such a supposition) was it necessary that our Saviour should be more than man.'

Here, it will be seen, that this author admits the infinity of the demerits of sin, which alone made this awful sacrifice necessary: and this scheme was invented to get rid of the horrid idea of causing the innocent to suffer a punishment in the room and stead of the guilty! By means of this union, Christ, who is supposed to be God himself, (united to human nature in such a manner to be in equity chargeable with all their faults,) is supposed to be the guilty!!! (See Relley's Union, page 42.)

"And its dignity as the blood of God." This is founded on a very doubtful, and probably spurious, word, in a passage in Acts, xx. 28. "To feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." GRIESBACH has it, "Feed the church, 78 xupis, of the Lord:" which is "supported by all the most ancient and valuable MSS." (See Improved Version, and Griesbach.)

"Besides," (continues Mr. R. p. 48,) "I know not of any human laws, which admit of suretyship in capital offences; and sin is not only a debt, for which suretyship is sometimes admitted, but a transgression, a crime, capital in the highest sense, only atoned for by the shedding of blood; by the death, yea, by the eternal death, of the sinner; which justice must inflict, before it can be properly satisfied; nor can it possibly admit of a surety here; because it can only punish him, whom it first finds guilty; and that-according to divine equity; which can only declare such guilty, on whom the fault is found, and can only find the fault on such who have committed it!" If this does not involve GOD ALMIGHTY in all the sin and guilt of the world, I know of no language which could do it. It is of no use for Mr. R. to say, after what has been stated above, "We only committed the fault," and " upon us only can it be found:" for he makes the Union such, that it might be said, with the same propriety of

rience of each individual of the human race, (whether believer or unbeliever,) of every system or scheme of religion, witnesses to the contrary of what is maintained

language, He only committed the fault, and upon HIM only can it be found; which, in my humble opinion, would be blasphemous? For what does he say above? "It (i. e. justice) can only punish him whom it first finds guilty." Yet, on p. 140, he says, "the toil and torment were wholly his."-Who, then, was guilty? But, again: How is this atonement, which implied "the death, the eternal dea h, of the sinner," effected? Answer: By the death of Christ. But was his death eternal? O no! Ah! here, again, we are brought up! If it be contended, that his death would have been eternal, had not God raised him from the dead; it is equally true respecting each individual of the human race. And the same power which raised him, can raise all, (and that too, without this supposed union,) as well as it raised him:-Or, if, "as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will;" (having power over all flesh: See John, v. 21. xvii. 2:) then, after all, it may still depend on the Son of God whether the dead shall be raised or not. But, believing that the Father sent his Son into the world, not to do his own will, but the will of him that sent him; that Jesus hath no will to act contrary to the will of his Father; and that he will perform the work which he came to do; we resolve the final issue of these great events into the will of God: and there we are willing to leave

them.

That the whole object of the scheme of salvation by Mr. R. was to deliver man from the supposed guilt of Adam's sin, (which is the only sin on which this unmerciful punishment is supposed to have been predicated,) appears obvious throughout his book; particularly p. 64-67, inclusive.* These are his words: "As all died, and were lost in Adam, when he was caught in toils of sin and death, it is evident they were then in him, then united to him, so that his sin was their sin; his death, their death. As in Adam, so in Christ, united in him, in all he did and suffered; saved in him, crucified with him, risen with him, ascended and seated with him, in heavenly places,' &c. Now all this, as figurative language, is beautiful; and I have no objection to it: but when we take the figure for the substance, it makes complete confusion; and makes both the condemnation and salvation to be a mere nominal or ideal thing.

See again, on p. 140: "We were altogether in a state of passivity, whilst the toil, and torment, was wholly his." Connect with this what we find on p. 48: "Justice-can only punish him, whom it first finds guilty." Yet the toil, and torment, was wholly his! Was not the guilt, then, according to these premises, wholly HIS?

Again: If He, being God, could not suffer; and we, human nature, the church, his bride, being his body, did not suffer; was not the suffering, after all, merely ideal? Such absurdities only need to be

* I make use of the New York edition, printed, 1812.

K

by the system under consideration; and therefore the evils resulting from it cannot be very extensive.

It is but little consequence to tell the sinner who has brought misery and distress upon himself, and, perhaps, upon his family, by his sinful and foolish practices, 0, never mind it! your sins are all cancelled! Christ has paid the debt for you!--when he knows, yes, absolutely knows, let that be true or false, it does not help him now in the least. He knows that he has got to endure all the baneful consequences of his sin and folly, in this life, notwithstanding all that Christ has either done or suffered : then why must he not in the world to come? If we are not saved from the immediate consequences of sin; if all these things take place since the death of Christ, for aught we can see, just in the same manner as they did before, why should we expect to be saved from any consequences, in this way? I know of no such salvation: and therefore cannot preach such a salvation to mankind. Save a sinner from sin; i. e. from committing sin; and you save him from all the consequences, of all the sin, which he otherwise would have committed, had he not been thus saved. But I know of no salvation which will save the sinner from all, or any of the consequences, of all, or of any of the sins, which he either has committed, or shall commit. I believe it to be as impossible, in the very nature of things, for God to save a sinner from the consequences of sin, when once committed, as it would be for him to make two hills without a valley between. I admit, God can take away the hills, or he can fill up the valley; but as long as the hills remain, the valley will remain also. This brings me to the last thing proposed in this lecture; viz.

To explain the doctrine of reconciliation.

I have already stated that atonement and reconcilia

stated in their true light, to be rejected by every rational mind. It is believed, that this whole scheme is founded on false premises; which, being proved, makes out, what is admitted by this author, viz. "There was no necessity that our Saviour (meaning Christ Jesus) should be more than man." (See Relly's Union, p. 42, note.)