The author, in confirmation of his doctrine, (pp. 6, 7,8,) quotes a great many texts of scripture, and says, they "are pregnant with this matter." I confess many of them hold forth a blessed union between Christ and the true church; but not one of them, in any wise points out any such thing as the union he talks of, nor even glances that way, that I can perceive; and were they not so numerous, I would recite the whole, to convince the reader; but on that account, I refer him to said pages, for satisfaction. What a stroke does this give against him, to find that among such a collection of passages, brought together from various parts of the Bible on purpose to prove his doctrine of union, and by him supposed to be "pregnant with" it; not even one of them all contains a word about it, or at all relating to it! Let him that doubts it, peruse them. Indeed, several of them speak of the reconciliation of sinners unto God and Christ, which I again maintain to be utterly inconsistent with such a union as this author supposeth. One of these texts says, "They two shall be one flesh," and that this is spoken of "Christ and the church." Ephes. v. 31, 32, Here we see they were once twain, and called "they two." With the addition that they "shall be,"--mark, " shall be," not always were "one flesh."

He attempts, (pp. 9, 10,) to prove that the church, the people, existed in Christ previous to the creation of Adam," or ever the worlds were made," from Eve's existing a rib in Adam's side; but here, again, he falls vastly short of his aim, for he says, of Adam and Eve," Thus were the twain created in one." But in aiming to point out the similarity between this and our preexistence in Christ, he tells us the apostle speaks of Christ and his church, where he says that "they twain shall be one flesh." Here, as before observed, it is said, they "shall be :" and nothing in all his reasoning, has appeared to show that they existed in one, before the "worlds were made," but his bare assertion and the existence of the rib in Adam; and that may as well be urged to prove, that the moon existed in the sun, as that all mankind existed in Christ, seeing there is no mention of our pre-existence in him, in all the apostle says upon the comparison of marriage with the union that "shall be," or does in time take place between Christ and the church; nor indeed in

all the sacred records. All that the apostle would inculcate in this comparison is, that by union with Christ, two become one. How then can this favour the doctrine of union before the "worlds were made?"

He next attempts "an explanation of this divine union," as he calls it, by the "fall of Adam, and of the world in him." p. 10, &c. And from the apostle's words, "Adam was not deceived," &c. 1 Tim. ii. 14., he infers that Adam, "knowing what Eve had done, and seeing their ruin inevitable, voluntarily put himself into her condition, by receiving the fruit at her hand," and urges that "his union unto her made it equitable for the curse and condemnation of her folly to fall upon him, and that without the consideration of his consent, and compliance with her." But how contrary is this to Gen. iii. 17. “Cursed is the ground for thy sake," not Eve's, and why?" Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife," &c. Thus clear it is that the curse was for his own doings, and that expressly "because" of, and not as Relly says, "without the consideration of his consent and compliance with her." And on this ground, and because of his so hearkening and consenting, was this sentence also pronounced upon him: "In sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life," &c. But from the union subsisting between " Adam and his offspring," he argues that "his sin was their sin, and his ruin their ruin: thus, by his offence were they made sinners whilst they included in him, were in passivity, and he the active consciousness of the whole." p. 11. Hence he pleads for a like union between Christ and the people, rendering "his condition theirs," and that, "as sin came upon all Adam's posterity by his single act, before they had any capacity of sinning after the similitude of his transgression, or of personal concurrence with him," so he supposeth "Christ's righteousness is upon all his seed, by his single act, before they had any capacity of obeying," &c. and that "this manifests such a union to him, such an inclusion of the whole seed in him, as renders his condition theirs in every state which he passes through, insomuch that his righteousness, with all the blessings and fruit thereof, is theirs, before they have known it, believed it, or ever were conscious of existence." p. 12.

If Eve was first in trans.

Now let us examine this doctrine. gression, and Adam became the "active consciousness of the whole," in regard to sin, only by voluntarily putting himself in "her condition," then to make the simile hold, must not the people have been first in obedience in order that Christ's voluntarily putting himself in their condition might render him the active consciousness of the whole, in regard to righteousness and salvation? Unless this be granted, I think the comparison is of little or no weight, and if it be granted, I think there was no need of a saviour. And indeed, according to Relly's plain assertion, there was no need of one, for he says, p. 28., “God loved mankind before Jesus died for them," and affirms that "if God loved them before, he certainly saw them in a sinless state, for it is contrary to the holiness of his nature to love the unclean." So that granting his ideas to be right, the controversy may soon be closed; for if all men were always clean and sinless, before "Jesus died for" them, his death was unnecessary, has done no good, and was of no importance to mankind. Further, if Adam was the "active consciousness of the whole," in regard to transgression, by reason of our union to and inclusion in him, then, seeing our union to and inclusion in Christ, is said to be of an earlier date, why may we not as well say he is the active consciousness of the whole, in regard to transgression; especially if Adam became so merely by voluntarily putting himself, as Relly says, in the transgressor's condition? for this he holds Christ has done too, as fully as Adam. Therefore, as neither of them became the active consciousness, on account of his own fault, but even Adam became so from a principle of "love to his wife," as is suggested, and that without regard to his compliance with her in the act of transgression, and as it is urged that Christ put himself in the transgressors' condition from a like principle of love, why may we not just as well reverse their characters, and call Adam the "active consciousness of the whole," in regard to obedience and salvation, and Christ in regard to transgression? If Adam was clean and sinless, how did we in passivity sin in him, before we were conscious of existence? Why is it not equally true that we sinned in Jesus, by our inclusion in him as " head and representative of the church," under which character Relly accounts it`

equitable to consider him as a sinner? See p. 41. But now let us consider the scriptures adduced in favour of our sinning in Adam, &c. "As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Rom. v. 19." p. 11.

The doctrine inculcated in this passage, is readily admitted, in the right sense of it; that is, as Paul a little before, in the same chapter, expresses it," By one man, sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so, death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned," ver. 12. Here it is expressly, "for that all have sinned." Indeed, it was very natural for them to sin, seeing the example was set, and sin had entered; and may we not safely conclude with Joseph Phipps, that we "all come into the world in the image of the earthly, or, void of the quickening and sensible influence of divine life." See his "Original and Present State of Man,"* p. 8. Now this "divine life," as he says in the next page, "Adam fell from." And this, it seems, his descendants "come into the world, unendued with the sensible influence of;" not that we sinned in him, before our personal existence, but as we have derived from him bodies that are prone to "gratifications of a carnal nature," we are by nature very apt to be influenced by the "animal passions," and led away into transgression; especially as this is the beaten road, very easy to be found, and with multitudes travelled in, as nature prompts and company invites; this is sailing with wind and tide. Thus truly, "by one man, sin entered into the world," and by force of example, through the propensities of nature, led the way, and strongly influenced others into evil; and in this sense," by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners;" for sin once entering, others have been enticed on till "death has passed on all." But, mark well, it is "because all have sinned." But to suppose we all sinned in Adam, before we were born, or derived actual guilt from his transgression, or are punishable therefor, without regard to our own individual offences, is too gross an idea to be admitted, and casts a dark gloom over the justice of God.

* Philadelphia edition.

I suppose all will grant it is "the soul that sinneth ;" and as I cannot suppose our souls were ever in Adam, so I conceive it impossible for them to sin in him, or to derive real guilt from his mere act. "The prophet Zechariah, speaking of the great acts of God in creation," says Joseph Phipps, p. 9, "asserts that, he formeth the spirit of man within him.'” Zech. xii. Hence, it appears to be with great propriety that the said Phipps has said, "The immortal reasonable soul of man, in every individual, appears to be the immediate production of its Creator." Again he says, "The soul, therefore, receiving its existence immediately from the perfection of unchangeable purity, can have no original impurity, or intemperature in its nature; but being immediately and intimately connected with a sensitive body, and of itself unable constantly to withstand the eagerness of the animal passions after gratifications of a carnal nature, is liable to be so influenced by them, as to partake with them in their sensual indulgencies." He admits, (p. 11,) that "in the present state of our nature, the sensitive powers take the lead of the rational in the first stage of life, as the soul brings only a capacity, without any real knowledge or potency, into the world with it." But he denies with great propriety, the doctrine of original sin, in the sense in which it seems to be held by Relly, and some others; for, as the soul "descends not with the body, from parents to children;" but is "an indivisible, immaterial substance," which "cannot be generated," he rightly says, (p. 12,) "The soul of the child never was in the parent, and therefore, could never sin in him, nor derive guilt from his transgressions. Neither can guilt accrue to it, merely from its being joined to a body descended from him, because that junction is the act of the Creator. To account a child guilty, or obnoxious to punishment, merely for an offence committed by its parents, before it could have any consciousness of being, is inconsistent both with justice and mercy; therefore, no infant can be born with guilt upon its head." Let this suffice upon the head of "original sin," in that sense which implies guilt "in us for Adam's offence," which I, with Joseph Phipps, "apprehend, has no foundation in truth." p. 23.

Another text which Relly produceth is, 1 Cor. xv. 22.,

"As