from any real honour to Christ, that it greatly encourages that luke-warm, unconcerned, and libertine state, which brings real dishonour upon that worthy name.

Relly boldly affirms, p. 73. "They were taught to drop all distinctions, and no longer to consider men as clean and unclean, as chosen and rejected." This he would support by Peter's being taught not to "call any man common or unclean ;" and he denies that this language was uttered to Peter," because mankind were reformed," &c. whereas, the plain reason why he was not allowed to call Cornelius "common, or unclean," was because he was "cleansed;" and the plain sense of this passage is opened in the voice which Peter heard, saying, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." Acts x. 15. So that this passage, instead of "dropping all distinctions," as of "clean and unclea," in fact supports this very distinction, in the words "what God has cleansed." Here we see the very grounds of the prohibition. And had not Cornelius been cleansed, Peter might have called him unclean with propriety; but we read in the account, that he was 66 a devout man, and one that feared God ;"" a just man," whose prayers and alms" had gone up as a "memorial before God." Surely, this author chose a very unlikely passage whereby to overthrow "all distinctions:" seeing the very man referred to in this text is so eminently distinguished for his good fruits; and I believe we may venture to conclude they were found, before they were so particularly numbered; as also that the prohibition to Peter was absolutely founded upon this work of cleansing, this reforma, tion in the devout Gentile.

However, to show that the gospel, instead of dropping all distinctions, is full of them, and even these very ones too, of clean and unclean, chosen and rejected, let us advert to Christ's own testimony: "Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world." John xv. 19. Here is a plain distinc tion," the world," and the "chosen." Again he says, "Ye are clean, but not all." John xiii. 10. Here is the very distinction of clean and unclean. He had said just before, "He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit." Thus we see what a thorough washing will do; it does

not leave "every child of man" in a polluted state, “as an un, clean thing," according to Relly's doctrine, but it really cleanses them who are so washed; they are clean every whit:" but so are not all men, " for he knew who should betray him; therefore he said, "ye are not all clean." verse 11. Here, in two verses, the word clean is thrice used by the saviour, plainly pointing out the distinction which this author is for dropping. Again, no further on than the 18th verse, he says, "I speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen." Therefore let all solid Christians keep up, yea, and also live up to, these good old distinctions, and consider all such as would drop them, as bringing another gospel, and not the faith once delivered to the saints.

In vain is his pretence that this prohibition to Peter was owing simply to "the death and resurrection of Jesus," and that "it was there that God had cleansed them;" for that, upon his own principles, would apply equally to Simon the sorcerer, and every other vile and filthy wretch, as to devout Cornelius. Why then do we read so much in the New Testament of the uncleanness and filthiness of men, even after the resurrection?

The gospel testimony stands firm against all uncleanness, and against the unconverted as absolutely unclean, notwithstanding all the sufferings of Jesus: for there is something yet to be done in order to sanctification. There is no being disciples of Jesus, but through self-denial and the daily cross. This is his own testimony; a severe one indeed to the man of sin; which induceth such as don't love to endure this blessed cross, to shift and turn, seeking many inventions to evade it: but true it is, he that will reign with Christ must suffer with him. His sufferings, which yet remain behind, must be filled up in his body the church, and those who partake not herein are bastards, and not sons. The flimsy distinction of clean in Christ, whilst unclean in themselves, can never be reconciled to the plain simple dictates of common sense. It is no better than Adam's fig-leaf covering, though it will forever require more art to tack it together, so as to hold, than is necessary in material fig-leaves; yet I will venture to affirm, it is a broken cistern, that can hold no living water.

Christ says, "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me." John xiv. 21. Again, verse 23,

"If a man love me, he will keep my words." Now, can any rational mind believe he meant this only of himself, and not of mankind? It seems to be represented that Jesus has obeyed and kept the commandments, and that we are complete in him, through his obedience, while very disobedient ourselves. Let us read these sentences as speaking only of Christ's own obedience, and see what sense they contain: "He for whom I myself have kept my own commandments, he it is that loveth me." And, "If I for any man do love myself, I will for him keep my own words!" In another place he says, " Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you." Chap. xv. 14. Did he mean here, "ye are my friends if I for you do whatsoever I command you?" Surely he meant quite another thing; for upon Relly's plan, no if could have place here, seeing it is held that he has done this equally for all men; and yet he speaks of such as hear his sayings and do them, and of others who hear them, and do them not; and to the latter he denounces a great and dreadful downfall. See Mat. vii. 24, &c.

Relly speaks of " every child of man," as has often been mentioned, "as an unclean thing;" yet insists on it that they are all united to, and included in Christ, so as to render his condition always theirs, they and he constantly one in all things and not twain in any thing. Now let us before we dismiss this extraordinary Treatise just view these few sentiments, and seriously consider what an accumulation of sin, guilt, and all manner of uncleanness this will centre in that holy one: all the sons and daughters of Adam, as abominable unclean things, united to and included in him the spotless son of God. Does not this represent him as a cage of unclean birds; a fund of filth, and sink of sin? I think he that denies this, may be expected to deny any thing that can be advanced, if it suits not his favourite theme.

Come, my dear fellow creatures, away with all such idle imaginations, and come home to the good old primitive doctrine of Jesus, the doctrine of rewards according to our works, according to the deeds done in the body; for let men rack their inventions till death steals upon them; twist, torture, and pervert the scriptures as they will, to frame some other system; nothing else will stand the test and scrutiny of truth. And it is as much in

vain to address mankind in a religious way, upon any other principle beside the free agency of man, his power of choice, and the possibility of his obeying, and receiving a reward; or disobeying and suffering a just punishment, as it would be to tell oaks and cedars to arise, take up their beds and walk.

Therefore, I will conclude my remarks upon this system of union, which represents man as unable to obey, and as certain not to suffer in his own person, the weight of condemnation due to his crimes, with these beautiful lines of the poet:

"Blame thy conduct,-charge not heaven;

On thy head thy blood will lie;

Ev'ry help to thee is given,

Suiting man's free agency."

SOME REMARKS

UPON THE DOCTRINE of

UNIVERSAL SALVATION,

AS IT IS CALLED;

IN ORDER, IF POSSIBLE, TO DRAW SOME OUT OF, AND TO PRESERVE OTHERS FROM THE DREADFUL SNARE.

AND first, I wish my readers to view it in its baneful influence upon the affairs of human society here below. Thousands among men are naturally prone to pride, ambition, tyranny, and revenge, as well as lust and concupiscence; but the fear of future punishment has doubtless restrained multitudes from perpetrating the worst of crimes, to which their temptations and inclinations were so strong that nothing but an apprehension of future retribution would have restrained them. And now if this sin-pleasing doctrine should be generally embraced by the people, what will save us from an inundation of the most shocking barbarities, and most impious enormities? But says the advocate for this notion, Will any man do evil because he thinks God is good? But not now to insist at large that the believer in future punishments thinks, and rationally too, that God is

393

good, as fully as the universalist, I answer, What if men don't do evil merely because God is good? yet if a wicked person has a temptation to cut his own or his neighbour's throat, I maintain it, that he will be much more likely to yield to that temptation, if he is firmly persuaded that all will be for ever happy, than if he is stared in the face with the dreadful apprehensions of "everlasting punishment." And if apprehensions of this kind could be fully eradicated from the minds of all men, I have not the least doubt, as bad as their conduct now is, that it would in the general be very soon vastly altered for the worse. I believe their malignant passions would soon burst forth into dreadful acts of violence, cruelty, and revenge, into murder, suicide, &c. and their concupiscible passions, into horrid scenes of drunkenness, fornication, adultery, and all manner of wantonness and dissipation. Alas! what hopes could a man have that the beloved wife of his bosom, or his daughter, the darling of his heart, would not become either the willing partner of the most detestable libertine, or the reluctant prey of the most abandoned ravisher? What will prevent the ruling powers, if disposed to tyranny, from chastising the people with whips and scorpions? How will the poor be fleeced! How will the rulers riot in plenty and profusion, while the people pine away in poverty and want, in toil and slavery! On the other hand, supposing the rulers to be virtuous, what will prevent the subjects from frequent attempts, in some concealed manner, by poison or otherwise, to free themselves from the regulations and restraints of just authority? Moreover, how often shall we hear of persons in afflicted circumstances putting an end to their own lives, in order to enjoy eternal happiness! How many to get rid of paying their just debts, will, beside many other species of fraud and violence, watch an opportunity privately to cut the thread of life for their creditors! How many wives to get rid of their husbands, and husbands to be rid of their wives, will secretly convey the fatal poison to their vitals, or lay a deadly instrument to their throats! What bribery and theft, what robbery and assassinations will abound! &c. &c.

Some may laugh at all this, and pretend it is chimerical; but I doubt not that a few years experience would bring dismal eviVOL. II.-51