wifdom. We confider all men only in their fpiritual flate, and as they ftand related to a better world. Yea, if we have known even Chrift after the flesh,-which undoubtedly they had done, beholding and loving him as a man, with a natural affection, yet now we know him so no more. We no more know him as a man, by his face, fhape, voice, or manner of converfation. We no more think of him as a man, or love him under that character.

3. The meaning then of this ftrongly figurative expreffion, appears to be no other than this. From the time that we are created anew in Chrift Jefus, we do not think, or speak, or act, with regard to our blessed Lord, as a mere man. We do not now ufe any expreffion with relation to Chrift, which may not be applied to him not only as he is man, but as he is God over all, bleffed for ever.

4. Perhaps in order to place this in a clearer light, and at the fame time guard against dangerous errors, it may be well to inftance in fome of those, that in the most plain and palpable manner know Chrift after the flesh. We may rank among the firft of these the Socinians, those who flatly deny the Lord that bought them; who not only do not allow him to be the fupreme God, but deny him to be any God at all. I believe the most eminent of these that has appeared in England, at leaft in the prefent century, was a man of great learning and uncommon abilities, Dr. John Taylor, for many years Paftor at Norwich, afterwards Prefident at the Academy at Warrington. Yet it cannot be denied, that he treats our Lord with great civility: he gives him very good words: he terms him a very worthy perfonage," yea, "a man of confummate virtue."

5. Next to thefe are the Arians. But I would not be thought to place thefe in the fame rank with the Socinians. There is a confiderable difference between them. For, whereas the former deny Chrift to be any God at all, the latter do not: they only deny him to be the great God? They willingly allow,

nay,

nay, contend, that he is a little God. But this is attended with a peculiar inconvenience. It totally deftroys the unity of the Godhead. For, if there be a great God and a little God, there must be two Gods. But waving this, and keeping to the point before us. All who speak of Christ as inferior to the Father, though it be ever fo little, do undoubtedly know him after the flesh: not as the brightness of the Father's glory, the express image of his perfon, as upholding, bearing up all things, both in heaven and earth, by the word of his power, the fame powerful word, whereby of old time he called them all into being.

6. There are fome of thefe, who have been bold to claim that great and good man Dr. Watts, as one of their own opinion and in order to prove him fo, they have quoted that fine Soliloquy, which is published in his pofthumous works. Yet impartial men will not allow their claim, without fronger proof than has yet appeared. But if he is clear of this charge, he is not equally clear, of knowing Chrift after the flesh, in another fenfe. I was not aware of this, but read all his works' with almoft equal admiration, when a perfon of deep piety as well as judgment was occafionally remarking, "That fome of the Hymns printed in his Hora Lyrica, dedicated to Divine Love, were (as he phrased it) too amarous, and fitter to be addreft by a lover to his fellow-mortal, than by a finner to the most High God." I doubt, whether there are not some other Writers, who, though they believe the Godhead of Chrift, yet fpeak in the fame unguarded manner.

7. Can we affirm, that the Hymns published by a late great man (whofe memory I love and efteem) are free from this fault? Are they not full of expreffions, which ftrongly favour of knowing Chrift after the flesh? Yea, and in a more grofs manner, than any thing which was ever before published in the English tongue. What pity is it, that those coarse expreffions should appear in many truly fpiritual Hymns! How often in the midst of excellent verfes, are lines in ferted which difgrace thofe that precede and follow? Why 3 M 2 fhould

that fovereignty is that God has over us, the fibn ffion that we ought to pay him, and the dependence we have upon him.

But it in no wife follows, that this is inconfiftent with the contingency of events or free-will. And hence it appears what it is, that makes us apt to think fo; which is only this, that we find in ourfelves when we determine to do a thing, and are able to do what we have refolved on, that thing cannot be contingent to us: and if God's foreknowledge and predetermination were of the fame nature with ours, the same inconfiftency would be juflly inferred. But I have fhewed that they are not of the fame kind, and that they are only afcribed to him by way of analogy, as our paffions are; that they are quite of another nature, and that we have no proper notion of them, any more than a man born blind has of colours; and therefore that we ought no more to pretend to determine what is confiftent or not confiftent with them, than a blind man ought to determine, from what he hears or feels, to what objects the fenfe of feeing reaches: for this were to reafon from things that are only comparatively af cribed to God, and by way of accommodation to our capacities.

If we would fpeak the truth, thofe powers and operations, the names of which we transfer to God, are but faint fhadows, or rather emblems and parabolical figures of the Divine attributes, which they are defigned to fignify; whereas his attributes are the originals, the real things, of a nature fo infinitely fuperior to any thing we difcern in his creatures, or that can be conceived by finite underflandings, that we cannot with reafon pretend to make any other deductions from the natures of one to that of the others, than those he has allowe us to make, or extend the parallel any farther than that very inflance, which the feripture mentions.

Thus foreknowledge and predeftination, when attributed to God, are defigned to teach us the obligations which we owe to him for our falvation, and the dependence we have on his favour,

favour, and so far we may use and prefs them: but to conclude from thence, that thefe are inconfiftent with free-will, is to suppose, that they are the fame in him and us; and just as reasonable as to infer, because wisdom is compared in fcripture to a tree of life, that therefore it grows in the earth, hath its fpring and fall, is warmed by the fun, and fed by the

rain.

[To be continued.]

SER MON

LIX.

Cn 2 CORINTHIANS v. 16.

Henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we did know Chrift after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him

1.

no more.

I

Have long defired to fee fomething clearly and intelligibly wrote on these words. This is doubtless a point of no fmall importance: it enters deep into the nature of Religion and yet what treatife have we in the English language, which is written upon it? Poffibly there may be fuch; but none of them has come to my notice, no, not fo much as a fingle fermon.

manner.

2. This is here introduced by the apoftle in a very folemn The words literally tranflated run thus: He died for all, that they who live-all who live upon the earth, might not henceforth-from the moment they knew him, live unto themfelves-feek their own honour, or profit, or pleasure, but unto hin-in righteoufnefs and true holiness, ver. 15. So that we from this time-that we know him by faith, know no one, either the reft of the apoftles, or you, or any other person, after the flesh. This uncommon expreflion, on which the whole doctrine depends, feems to mean, We regard no man, according to his former flate, his country, riches, power or VOL. XIII.

3 M

wisdom,

wifdom. We confider all men only in their fpiritual state, and as they stand related to a better world. Yea, if we have known even Chrift after the flesh,—which undoubtedly they had done, beholding and loving him as a man, with a natural affection, yet now we know him so no more. We no more know him as a man, by his face, fhape, voice, or manner of conversation. We no more think of him as a man, or love him under that character.

3. The meaning then of this ftrongly figurative expreffion, appears to be no other than this. From the time that we are created anew in Chrift Jefus, we do not think, or speak, or act, with regard to our bleffed Lord, as a mere man. We do not now use any expreffion with relation to Chrift, which may not be applied to him not only as he is man, but as he is God over all, bleffed for ever.

4. Perhaps in order to place this in a clearer light, and at the fame time guard against dangerous errors, it may be well to inftance in fome of thofe, that in the moft plain and palpable manner know Chrift after the flesh. We may rank among the firft of these the Socinians, thofe who flatly deny the Lord that bought them; who not only do not allow him to be the fupreme God, but deny him to be any God at all. I believe the most eminent of thefe that has appeared in England, at leaft in the prefent century, was a man of great learning and uncommon abilities, Dr. John Taylor, for many years Paftor at Norwich, afterwards Prefident at the Academy at Warrington. Yet it cannot be denied, that he treats our Lord with great civility: he gives him very good words: he terms him "a very worthy perfonage," yea, "a man of confummate virtue."

5. Next to thefe are the Arians. But I would not be thought to place thefe in the fame rank with the Socinians. There is a confiderable difference between them. For, whereas the former deny Chrift to be any God at all, the latter do not: they only deny him to be the great God? They willingly allow,

nay,