in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (p. 12.) But I think this is by no means a proof of his doctrine. It does not say, as in Adam all died, as if we all died in him, in the day of his individual offence and fall; but as in Adam all die, in the present tense; that is, all who are found in the first Adam, the fallen nature, the out-cast from God, do actually die in that, as to the best life of the soul. And as to the last, most glorious, and comfortable part of the text, "so in Christ shall all be made alive;" this is so far from favouring his notion of our union and inclusion in Christ, from before our "apparent personal existence," and our clean and sinless state in him, that our being made alive in him is plainly expressed as something to be done; not that we were always alive in him; but "shall be made alive," that is, if we are found in him, the new man, the Lord from heaven, the quickening spirit. For as all who are in transgression in the first Adam, do certainly die; so all who are in the second Adam, "shall" certainly "be made alive."

This I take to be the deepest, and most precious sense of this sweet passage of scripture; but if any will still insist, that all the sons of Adam are included in both parts of the text, let them consider that granting even this, it will not amount to a proof of the eternal life and salvation of all men, much less, of such a union and inclusion, as I am opposing; for I readily allow, that while standing in the transgressing nature of the first Adam, we are in a state of death; and also, that the means of salvation by Christ is, universally extending a visitation of a living principle to all men. This may with great propriety be called a being made alive, as it does infallibly, more or less, at some time or other, operate upon, and quicken every man, to at least some degree of spiritual sensation: which in comparison of that dead and benumbed state, which, without this quickening, we must forever have remained in, is indeed, in a sense which demands our thankful acknowledgement, being "made alive."

But all this has nothing to do with an eternal union, which in its own nature, must forever have excluded the possibility of our spiritual death, as well as superseded the necessity of our afterwards being made alive; seeing the very union itself is said to be such, that if it had existed, we should from everlasting, as

fully have enjoyed the life of the Lamb, as he himself enjoyed and consequently as fully as he could ever afterwards impart it to, or establish it in us.

it;

I purposely pass over the author's arguments from Aaron and his garments, as having no kind of similitude to the union he would establish.

He quotes John, xv. 5, "I am the vine, ye are the branches," in support of this union; and says, "our Saviour takes on him this appellative, the vine, according to his human nature," (p. 16,) and comparing it to a tree, says, (p. 17,) "as the stem and branches make one tree; so Jesus and the people make one body, one man, one Christ, one elect, one beloved of the Father, one crucified, raised, and ever living." But how we were crucified, &c. in Christ's human nature, he has not told us; it is true, he tells us, (p. 18,)" the branches were purged in the vine; then the superfluities of the whole were cut off, and all necessary for their perpetual fruitfulness accomplished. In like manner, the church included in Christ, were purged in him, in order to their fruitfulness." But Christ gives us a quite different account of the work of purging, and shows that it is the branches themselves that undergo this operation; says he, " Every branch that beareth fruit, he (that is the Father,) purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit," John xv. 2. This is an individual purging; "every branch," is the language; and "purgeth it," now in the present tense, is very different from an imaginary purging, whilst included in Christ as the branches in the stem or stock, as Relly seems to insinuate. But it seems, by Christ's own account, that we were not so purged in him, as to have all "superfluities cut off," and all done for us, that was necessary for our" perpetual fruitfulness;" for here is in this passage a purging of the very branches themselves mentioned, and that expressly, that they "may bring forth more fruit ;" and moreover, some of the branches are here represented by our Saviour, as not bearing fruit at all; "every branch in me, that beareth not fruit, he taketh away." Query, were these as included in Christ, thoroughly purged too, and "all necessary for their perpetual fruitfulness accomplished?" why then do they not bear fruit? why are they taken away?

Page 19, &c. he urges the oneness of the "many members in one body," in illustration of said union; quoting 1 Cor. xii. 12. "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ." Upon this he says, "The complete body here spoken of, is similar to Christ, and the members which fill up this body, to the people. Take away the members and there will remain no body; take a few, yea, one only, away, and the body is not perfect.". All this he applies to Christ and the people, saying, "so also is Christ ;" and even carries it so far as to assert, that if it is possible for a member to be cut off, "then may he yet be rendered an imperfect Christ." But all this is overthrown by that one assertion of our Lord so lately recited, "Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh away." This is diametrically contrary to this author's assertion, "take a few, yea, one only, away, and the body is not perfect." Now one of these things must follow: either Christ is imperfect; or his assertion," he taketh it away," is not true; or there is no such union as above asserted. But Christ is perfect; his assertion is true therefore, no such union existeth.

Again he urges that " from the harmony of the body, the head and members have but one condition." p. 20. This he would have us believe is true of Christ, and all mankind; for he says upon it, "so also is Christ." But how is this "but one condition," consistent with his before mentioned distinction of Christ's "individual character" in a sinless state, "separate from sinners?" How does it agree with his answer to another objection, from Christ's treading "the wine press alone," having none of the people with him? In his answer, p. 41, he says, "The doctrine of union contains no such proposition as this, that the people were fellow-helpers with Christ, when he atoned for sin," &c. How then have they and he "but one condition?" His condition was that of treading "the wine press alone." Is this constantly the condition of all the people? Again, in answer to the same objection, he says, p. 42, "We were in him and with him through all, but not active; we were altogether in a state of passivity, whilst the toil and torment were wholly his." Here he allows his state and ours were very different; his VOL. II.-47

active, ours passive; his a state of toil and torment, which he just before allowed we endured no part of. Thus when this author is pinched with home objections, he is obliged to grant our condition very different from Christ's; but when pleading the cause of union he declares we have "but one condition;" are "constantly one in all things," and "not twain in any thing."

Having thus shown some of the contradictions in these answers, to the main scope of his doctrine, I shall have no occasion to reconsider said answers in course; but taking it for granted that the objections are such, (which they certainly are,) as can never be answered without a direct opposition to Relly's foundation arguments, may pass over them, and leave them. standing in full force against his system.

But let us view his doctrine of the head and members in one body, a little further. He says, p. 20, " The harmony of the body prevents all schism therein ;" and soon after asserts, that" the head is the seat of reason to the body, by which it is directed and influenced to shun all dangers, to refuse the evil and choose the good." Yet in the very next page he charges the members of wandering" into forbidden paths," of being guilty of "sacrilege, blood, and oppression." Where now is the harmony that "prevents all schism? Or where is the shunning of all dangers?" &c. He further says, p. 21, "The union and harmony of the body, renders it equitable to punish and chastise the whole body, in one member, for its offence in another." By this whole body, he plainly means Christ and the people. And yet he tells us of its offence! I confess I have not so learned Christ. I cannot suppose such a union as renders him an offender; and, unless this union does really, and without any human quibble, render him an offender, it is idle to tell of the whole body's offence, because one member offends. This may do in a natural body, because the mind equally presides over all the members, consents to, and acts in all their offences; but so does not Christ; and yet he must do so, to render Relly's inferences just, or his assertions true. I cannot conceive the propriety of Christ's suffering for sinners, merely upon a principle of union, unless that union extends to the act of sin. Relly urges his right to suffer, because of union, and not only because

he was willing; urges that union brings him "under the character which is obnoxious to punishment." Then surely, the union extends to the very act of sin; especially as the doctrine of suretyship, and the justice of punishing the innocent, (speaking of the sufferings of Christ,) are both plumply denied by this author. So that, the amount of it seems to be this: our Saviour has suffered as a guilty offender, to ransom the guilty; has partook with us in sin, that he might, by the loss of innocence, justly suffer for us; and yet has stood his ground against all temptations, overcome sin, conquered death, and led captivity captive. I am not ashamed to confess, that I could as soon turn deist, as believe in such a saviour. Indeed, I apprehend such writings have a natural tendency to make deists, if not atheists; but not at all to increase the number of true Christians.

Relly urges, p. 28. &c. that because "the matter proposed in the gospel" is true before our believing, and "not made a truth by believing," therefore, "union with Christ before faith, is true, the latter being, (as he without any reason asserts,) necessary to the truth of the former." All this, as I apprehend, is without any foundation. foundation. Do we not know that there are many real truths, which multitudes have been, and many still are entirely ignorant of, yea, which even such as now do know them, were also once ignorant of? Does it follow that because these were truths before we knew them, therefore an eternal union subsisted between us and the things concerning which we now know these truths? For instance, I cannot conceive that the truth of the gospel, before faith, infers previous union with and inclusion in Christ, any more than the truth of the Newtonian system infers union with and inclusion in the sun. And it is as reasonable to suppose we were forever included in the sun, so as to be one with it, in order to our partaking of the benefits of its light and heat, as that we were so included in Christ, in order to our now enjoying the benefits of his death and sufferings.

But it seems Relly thought this a forcible argument, for he dwells upon it through several pages, and insinuates that without previous union, our "faith creates its own object, and then embraces it. This," says he, "looks like the heathen idolatry, first making their gods, and then trusting in them." I think