xiv. 19. 66 Being heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ." Rom. viii. 17. This is something more than a bare idea of union and inclusion before time: for in this experience, we feel that a man truly believing on Christ, though he were dead, yet shall he live." John xi. 25. He liveth in him who is "alive forevermore." Rev. i. 18. Here we witness, that if the dead rise not, then is not Christ risen. See 1 Cor. xv. 13. And, however this may refer to the general resurrection of just and unjust; one to the resurrection of life, and the other to the resurrection of damnation; it is also true in individuals. For until the soul that was dead in trespasses and sins, does really rise into life and sanctification, Christ is not arisen in that soul, tell what he will of union: for "if we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth." 1 John i. 6. And I think that doctrine, which has so little of the cross and daily self-denial, as this of previous union comes recommended and attended with, seems very unlikely to increase the number of Christ's cross-bearing disciples.'

Relly seems to ridicule the christian doctrine of heart-work and inward holiness; representing it as a common thing, (among such as he brands as antichristian opposers of the true Christ, and scandalizers of the "doctrine of salvation alone by his blood,") to inquire "upon any proposition concerning Jesus Christ, doth it tend to promote inward holiness, and true heart work? If it does, receive it; if it does not, reject it, let it be what it will." pp. 59, 60. This seems to be one of his evidences of antichristianism in such, to use his own form of words, "whose names are not in his legend."* But surely it is a much better evidence of their real veneration of Christ, than all the cries of union, inclusion, &c. which we hear among such as seem to make small account of, or rather reject with contempt, the doctrine of inward holiness.

Well, reader, what thinkest thou,-can any proposition concerning Christ Jesus which does not tend to promote this inward holiness, this heart work, be true in itself? Nay verily, the promotion of this was his aim and errand. And says the apostle,

*See his Preface, page xiv.

Gal. i. 9. "If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." And now as this author seems to me rather to allow, p. 59, and elsewhere, in substance, that his doctrine, "if it does not immediately oppose, it teaches to slight and disregard the work of the spirit upon the heart; will not suffer men to look unto that quarter for comfort; will not admit of it, as an evidence for heaven;" I think we may fairly conclude it to be a very dangerous doctrine, absolutely contradictory to that of Christ and his apostles; and in its tendency and influence, really obstructive of the greatest and best of works, that of inward holiness, and the heart work of the spirit, under a pretence of holiness in Christ, and of being, to use his own words, "complete in him, though sinners in ourselves." p. 57. If this is a better doctrine than that of inward holiness, to which he opposes it, then probably mankind will be benefitted by a doctrine absolutely contradictory in terms; for "complete in Christ," and at the same time actual "sinners in ourselves," is as downright an inconsistency, and as impossible to be true, as the old exploded Popish doctrine of transubstantiation. And to say, we remain actual sinners, and yet are sinless in Christ; or that he is in all things in the same state as the sinner is, sounds the nearest like that old notion of the bread and wine being converted into the real body of Christ, of any thing that I now recollect, ever to have read in the writings of any protestant author.

May I not again repeat that in Babel language is confounded! And what notion was ever propagated, that more resembles the tower which the ancient Babel builders intended should reach to heaven, than this union system? Perhaps the top of that structure might be hid in the clouds, and so might seem, to the dim-sighted, to reach to heaven: and this has its mists and clouds of darkness surrounding it, which such may hardly see through; and therefore think it sufficient for salvation. Now, every man who argues, against the truth, if he gains any degree of credit, must find something that will cover or hide the ends of his ideas, from such as believe him; for if they openly appeared, with all their absurdities, none would then receive him. This leads him into a round of words, in order to convey his ideas under a covering,

and though this very covering may hide the absurdities from his own eyes, as well as from many others, yet when the covering is stripped off, the confusion of language soon appears, and that which was thought to have reached to heaven, is found to be only reared a little into the earth's atmosphere, and hid in the fogs and vapours which darken man's understanding. And were it not for the extreme shortness, and dullness of human comprehension, together with a love of undue liberty, such systems of absurdity could never find patrons among mankind; and even contracted as our natural powers are, yet if we would honestly attend to the light of life, the true sun of the spiritual world, and great divine luminary of the soul, those fogs and mists would soon be dispelled, and the doctrines of truth would be as distinguishable from all the disguised schemes of error, as Jacob's spiritual ladder, which really reached to heaven, was from that miserable production of human invention, the tower of Babel. Oh! that mankind would learn wisdom, and come down from the barren mountains of empty speculation, into the green pastures of life, where the flocks of the great Shepherd, are fed with food that is really nourishing, and thereby, instead of feeding on vanity and snuffing up the wind, are daily increasing in the increase of God.

I now come to offer some remarks upon this author's supplement, which he would have us to view as "exhibiting a specimen of apostolic preaching," p. 66. But, alas! the repugnancy thereof to the apostle's doctrine is very evident, and is what induces me to take a little notice of it, hoping, as I proceed, to be enabled in brief to exhibit such a real specimen of apostolic preaching, as may in some degree serve as an antidote against. the influence of his erroneous exhibition.

In the first page of this supplement, speaking of the apostle's preaching of Jesus, the Messiah, he says, "all who believed their testimony were thereby sensible of salvation." But James tells us that "faith without works is dead," and asks, " can faith save." See chap. ii. 14, 17, 20, 26. Simon the sorcerer “believed," and yet was in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity: surely he was not then sensible of salvation.

Relly states, in page 67, that "the apostle says, it is a faithful

saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. 1 Tim. i. 15. But antichrist says, you cannot be saved except you are holy and good in yourself; nor shall the death and resurrection of Jesus profit you, except you are changed, and made fruitful in all good works, words, and thoughts." Thus he treats the true christian doctrine, which asserts the necessity of good works, &c. as antichristian; and holding them as absolutely necessary in order to salvation, he represents as a conclusion that belongs to "the very sinews of antichrist." But surely he gives antichrist credit for what belongs much more properly to the doctrine of Jesus; for salvation from our sins, and not in them, was the very errand of our Saviour in the world, and for this reason was his name "Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins." Indeed, the idea of being saved, and yet not changed, not made fruitful, however this change may be ridiculed, is an inexplicable paradox. All the salvation we need, is from sin and its effects; for sin is the only cause of separation from God, and all divine good; so that sin being really not ideally, removed and done away, the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts; and this is all our salvation, and our chiefest joy. But to tell of Christ's removing, taking away, or saving us from our sins, while yet they remain, and rule, and reign in us, rendering "every child of man," as Relly urges, "as an unclean thing," is the height of nonsense and absurdity. It is as impossible to be so, as for light to be darkness, and darkness light. I suppose all actual, moral evil, which a man is guilty of, is an act of that soul in him which Relly represents to be in union with and included in Christ, and always in his condition. Is Christ then so depraved as to be "wholly an unclean thing?" Surely it cannot be. Christ is ever holy; and those who become united with him, partake with him in real holiness. So that Christ's saving sinners, and his purifying unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works, is the same thing. Our saviour says, " Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit." John xv. 8. Such a sentence as this, uttered by a sober Christian in our days, would likely have been called a sinew of antichrist, and ridiculed for representing good men as being "fruitful in all good works,"

&c. had it not first been uttered by him who could not lie. Again he declares, verse 14, "Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you." Oh! how differently he speaks of doing from the notionists of our age, who seem to be very fearful of every thing that can be called works, and are even ascribing to antichrist that which is the very glory of the christian religion; and representing, in frightful colours, the blessed doctrine of our being changed, made fruitful, &c.

Relly represents antichrist as saying, We must love, fear, and serve God," before we can be said to be reconciled to him." p. 68. But is not this making antichrist, that was a liar from the beginning, to be a teacher of the truth? This must be acknowledged to be the case, or else reconciliation and alienation are consistent with each other; and we may be both reconciled to, and alienated from God at the same time.

But this author pretends the above sentence is contradictory to Christ's reconciling us to God when we were enemies, as the scripture asserts he did. Rom. v. 10. But where is this contradiction? Surely there is no other time in which a reconciliation can be wrought between two persons, than when they are enemies, or unreconciled. Were they not enemies, nor unreconciled, no reconciliation could take place between them; therefore, his own notions of the sinless state of mankind, previous to Christ's sufferings, seem much more to contradict the doctrine of our being reconciled when we were enemies, than the above good and wholesome doctrine of loving, fearing, and serving God, in order to a reconciliation with him, does.

In the same page he represents antichrist as saying, "We are reconciled by being reformed, changed, and made conformable in heart and practice to God." This he calls an absolute denial of "man's being reconciled by the death of Jesus." Answer. The apostle says, (2 Cor. v. 20.) "We pray you, in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." Here was something to be done, then not already done and finished. I ask, could this be done without a change? Where there is no change, things remain as they were: therefore, enemies are not made friends, nor the unreconciled fully reconciled without a real change, a substantial reformation, and conformity of heart and practice to God;