the only consolation of sinners, and the supreme joy of his people. Therefore the prophet adds, in the language of triumph and exultation, "To us a Child is born; to us a Son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." This Child is Jesus Christ, who is the foundation of all our comfort, the spring of all true delight. He is the Son of the Most High, yet given to be made man, to be made a sacrifice, to be made a curse, for us. So great, that the government of universal nature is upon his shoulder. The sceptre of supreme authority is in his hand: he is "Head over all things to his church." So glorious, that his name shall be called Wonderful. God and man in one matchless and marvellous person, clothed with clay, yet possessed of all the fulness of the Godhead: like Jacob's ladder; whose foot was fixed on earth, while the summit was lost in the skies. So gracious, that he is the Counsellor, to instruct ignorant creatures, and by his word and Spirit make them wise unto salvation. "The Mighty God;" to subdue our iniquities, to write his laws in our hearts, and make us partakers of a divine nature. "The Prince of Peace;" reconciling us to God by his death, and making peace by the blood of his cross; by applying these blessings to our consciences, filling us with that peace of God which passeth all understanding. "The Everlasting Father" to cherish us under the wings of his providence and grace, to make all things work together for our good, and prepare for us an everlasting inheritance; even the inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away. O may the adorable Redeemer be all this to us! The prophet repeats this expression, To us. This circumstance is of the last importance. Then only is Christ our Fountain of life, and full of delights, when he is all this, does all this, to us, even to us.

Let this Scripture be the subject of our meditatio

amidst the approaching solemnity. And may an everlasting sense of its blessings give an additional, a heavenly relish to all our other entertainment! I am your affectionate brother, &c.

LETTER CIII.

DEAR SIR,-IT is not the difficulty of answering Dr's question that makes me avoid it, but the disagreeable nature of the office; as it will oblige me to shew that he entirely mistakes both the nature of the Scriptures, and the nature of man. He would. make Dr- ―'s and Dr's sentiments of things, the touchstone of divine revelation. What is level to their apprehensions, must be right; what comports with their notions, must be true. At this rate, they are not doers of the law, but judges. On the contrary, if they do not understand the doctrine of union with Christ, or the fitness of free justification to pro-. mote holiness, it is because their understandings are darkened; it is a sign, that they want the eye-salve; a proof, that their senses are not exercised to discern between good and evil.

Dr has Roman virtue; but indeed he very much wants the eye-salve. He sees no glory and comeliness in Christ, but much in his own conformity to the commands of his Maker. While such sentiments possess the mind, people have no eyes to discern the beauty of free grace. Christ is just as insignificant, as the physician's offering to prescribe for a person in perfect health. I am sure, my poor, lame, mangled conformity to my Maker's commands, fills me with shame, and would make me hang down my head as a bulrush. But my Lord's death, my Lord's obedience, my divine Lord's, merit, encourages me, imboldens me, and enables me to say, Who shall condemn me? Be pleased, by the bye, to compare Dr's foundation for comfort and confidence with St Paul's, Rom. viii. 33, 34. Who is. in the right I leave you to determine. I will only

venture to assert, that Paul of Tarsus had as much conformity to the commands of his Maker as our amiable friend. Oh that he was less amiable in his own eyes; and knew himself to be "wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked." See Rev. iii. 17.

1st, "A persuasion of our reconciliation to God, previous to our performance of holy duties."

Dr

asks, what is the foundation of such a persuasion? To which I answer, the doctrine delivered by St Paul, Rom. v. 10. "When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son." From this passage he will see, that reconciliation to God is previous to our performance of holy duties. It is a blessing procured for enemies; and to say, that enemies have performed holy duties, is to confound the difference between rebels and subjects; is to make rebellion and allegiance the same. Nay, more, this blessing has no manner of dependence on our performance of holy duties, because it is procured, not partially, but wholly procured by the death of Christ. It is not said, when we, who were some time enemies, began to perform holy duties; but when we were enemies, while we were enemies,* and considered only as enemies. Then, even then. -Wondrous grace! grace worthy of a God! Will not such grace incline the rebels to throw down their arms?

The Doctor, having laid down some premises, makes this inference: "Hence the phrase of our reconciliation to God, when we have renounced our sins." But does this inference tally with the apostle's declaration, or is it the proper consequence of his doctrine? Let not the acute disputant, but the wayfaring man, judge.

"Our blessed Saviour," adds the Doctor, "directly asserts, that the performance of religious duties is the sole evidence of reconciliation." We are not inquiring about the evidences of reconciliation, but about the way to acquire them. To determine what

are the evidences of a cure, is easy enough; but to prescribe the expeditious and certain method of working the cure, this is the thing we want. Here, according to my poor opinion, Mr Marshall excels as much in the spiritual, as Dr in the animal

Therapeutica.

The Doctor urges our Lord's words, "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." Wandering from the point again. The question is, How we shall be animated, strengthened, and enabled to do them?

Upon this subject reason tells us, that such a discharge of religious duties can alone convince a Christian of the sincerity of his profession. It may be so: but pray, Madam Reason, do not be impertinent, we did not ask your opinion upon the point; if you would speak to the purpose, you must tell us, how we may be enabled to discharge these religious duties. Does your ladyship know, which is the first religious duty. I question it; be content therefore to receive information from Scripture: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart." This is the first religious duty: now tell Dr and me,

tell us honestly and explicitly, how we can perform this duty? Is it possible to love the Lord, to love him with all our heart, if we look upon him as incensed against us, unreconciled to us? Is it possible to love him, when we apprehend ourselves to be under his wrath, or suspect that he will prove an enemy to us at the last?

The Doctor having a higher opinion of reason than I, is a greater favourite with her; I would therefore beg to know of him, what reply she makes to this interrogatory; and I promise beforehand, that I will stand to her award, if she can point out any method of practising this duty, different from that proposed by Mr Marshall; then my favourite author and myself will submit to the charge of enthusiasm. 2dly, "A persuasion of our future enjoyment of * Reason, I mean, in her present fallen state.

the heavenly happiness, previous to our performance of holy duties."

I ask Mr Hervey, "What is the foundation of such a persuasion?" Mr Hervey answers, Our free justification through Jesus Christ, which we receive under the character of ungodly persons; consequently before the performance of good works, Rom. iv. 5. I answer again, The free promise of God: "God hath given unto us eternal life," 1 John v. 11. But is not this promise founded on our own duties and obedience? No; but on the duties and obedience of our great Mediator. "This life is in his Son."

In the first book of the sacred writings is this important interrogatory, made by God himself, "If thou dost well, shalt thou not be accepted?" Here I beg leave to ask, in my turn, Which is the person who does well? Dr, who would persuade us to reject the gift of God, 1 John v. 11. and not believe his word? or Mr Marshall, who would engage us to credit the divine declaration, and receive the divine gift? The apostle says, by not believing this record, "we make God a liar," 1 John v. 10. And shall we call this doing well? or is this the way to be accepted?

The Doctor farther urges, In the very last chapter of the same sacred volumes we are told, "Blessed are they who do his commandments, that they may have a right to the tree of life." Let me ask again, Does the Doctor remember what the commandments of the Almighty are? He may see them reduced to two particulars, and ranged in the exactest order, 1 John iii. 23. The first of these commandments is, "That we believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ." Let the Doctor only interpret this precept, tell me what is included in this injunction, and I am inclined to think, he will find each of Mr Marshall's preliminary articles contained in its import. To believe in Christ, is to live under a persuasion that he has died to reconcile me to God; that he has obeyed to obtain eternal life for me; and intercedes in heaven that