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 prosecution! Not, however, for his faith, but for disturbing the public peace!*

* "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 Relly'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, Txupis, 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

We have reason to be thankful, that, the daily experience of each individual of the human race, (whether believer or unbeliever,) of every system or scheme of religion, witness to the contrary of what

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 lar guage, 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 death, 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 can raise 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

*

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

is maintained 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, O, 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 sal

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 un 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 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.)

vation 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 reconciliation are synonymous; yea, they are one and the same thing, in the New Testament. This will lead to an easy explanation of the subject.

Reconciliation, or satisfaction, presupposes the existence of unreconciliation, or dissatisfaction. And it is obvious that the reconciliation or satisfaction must take place, where the unreconciliation or dissatisfaction previously existed.

The subject, therefore, supposes two parties; yea, we may admit a third, as mediator, or medium, through which the reconciliation is made.

For the sake of distinction, therefore, and to make the matter perfectly plain, I shall call these parties the Major, the Minor, and the Medium, or Mediator.

By these parties I mean to represent God, human nature, i. e. man, and the mediator between God and

men.

There is an unreconciliation existing between the two first of these parties: and the object of the gos

pel is to produce a reconciliation. Now the first thing to be done is, to find out where the unreconciliation exists. This is as necessary as it is for a good physician to find out the disease of his patient, before he attempts a cure.

Unreconciliation always presupposes some fault, some blame, either in one or both of the parties: and the parties always stand, as they must in this case, in one of the three following predicaments: viz.

Either the blame is wholly in the major, and none in the minor; or wholly in the minor, and none in the major: or else, it lies in the major and minor both. It is impossible to conceive of a fourth predicament. Now, as it respects the unreconciliation between God and man, where is the blame?—where is the dissatisfaction? Is it in God? or is it in man? or is it in both? No one will admit, for a moment, that there can be any blame in the Deity! But yet it may be supposed that God is dissatisfied with, and unreconciled to, man, because man is a sinner. But is man a greater sinner now, than what God knew he would be, when he made him?-and if not-admitting that he is dissatisfied with him now, on that account, was he not just as much dissatisfied with him then, on the same account?-and whenever this satisfaction takes place, admitting it ever should, will there be no change in the deity? O, in what a labyrinth it involves us, the moment we admit even the possibility of there being any dissatisfaction, any unreconciliation, in the mind of God! If God ever was dissatisfied with any of the works of his hands, he is dissatisfied still, and will be to all eternity! i.e. unless he should cease to be what he is, the Being who changeth not. We must take care, or we shall be brought up against that mountain again, which infinity itself could not remove!

Now all this difficulty is removed at once, by supposing that man, and man only, is the dissatisfied