their sins! What a pity that the poor Calvinist and Hopkinsian cannot so much as find one solitary testimony in the whole Scriptures, that Christ died for the elect, and for them only! No wonder, then, that the Inspired writers and their productions, are in so poor repute with these pious sectarians; and that Calvin's Institutes, and Hopkins's System of Doctrines, are held by them in such

veneration.

It appears that God's love for men, while they are dead in sins, and Christ's dying for these dead sinners, constitutes the doctrine of Paul; or these truths, are the foundation of Paul's doctrine.

What argument has Paul urged, as a legitimate inference from this doctrine?

Ans.-That "He (Christ) died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which [who] died for them, and rose again." This is the immediate connexion of our text; and the inference that Paul deduced from his premises. This, which Paul states, is the effect, which he argues as the necessary, or legitimate result of the truths he affirmed. Reader, we do not find Paul straining his imagination to cull pretty phrases, to dress up a moral doll, and then see him exhibiting his bantling, and begging his auditors to confess that it is amazing pretty. No. Paul preached Christ. He never preached any substitute, whether a Hell, or Devils, or Morality. Our text and its connexion, furnishes a fair sample of Paul's preaching. He first presents the Doctrine of Christ's Gospel. Then he brings forward hisargument. Let us examine his argument on the present

occasion.

Paul's argument has been fairly stated-It is, that "they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again." Why should they do thus? What motive exists, or what reason can there be assigned, for the conduct of those designated, as those which live? I answer-Because, (this is the reason) that Jesus Christ, their Divine Head and Redeemer, died for them, and for all men, and rose again, for their justification; and for the justification of man universally. Therefore, Jesus Christ emphatically died for all, and has risen from the dead for all, as Paul has expressed it. It is that those who live, instead of living for themselves, and to themselves, should live to Christ their Head. Live in reference to

Christ's purpose. What motive more powerful, can be presented to men, than is contained in the doctrine Paul preached? Will this preaching be effectual? Really it appears to me, that if these motives fail to produce the desired effect, there is an end to expectation. No mere moral considerations, though they should be enforced with a seraph's tongue, or an angel's eloquence, would weigh a feather in the scale. Let us follow Paul, and learn from him, whether such preaching of Christ, and him crucified, is effectual, and on whom?

Paul continues-" Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. What can Paul mean? Are we to understand Paul that he knew Christ previously to his crucifixion and death, while he was a living man in the flesh ?* This cannot be Paul's meaning. For Paul unquestionably knew, or considered things as they are, in a certain sense, that corresponded with facts. A man is termed visionary, when he is a victim to some deception, or trick of his own invention, or that of others; and who, instead of judging according to facts, is bewildered in a maze of conjecture. Paul was the last man that could be duped by appearances. He had condemned the gospel of Christ previously to his miraculous conversion, as false and visionary. And the evidence he rested on, at his conversion, was absolutely overwhelming. Under such cir cumstances, Paul would know things as they are in reality, and not otherwise.

The original of this passage conveys a different sense. Instead of anthropos, man, it is oudena, no one, no body— and oidamen kata sarka, signifies oidamen to know or appoint-kata according to, sarka the flesh. The translators have, I believe, uniformly construed kata with krima, against-making kata qualify krima, judgment, to sig nify condemnation or damnation. Here they have rendered kata after. This term, after, has, strictly, but two significations, viz:-after, posterior in order of time-or like, as after the similitude of a man, etc. The sense of the original, therefore, is neither correctly nor fully expressed by the translation. Paul speaks of man under

* Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians, have been considered in point of time, when they were written, as subsequent to the crucifixion of Christ, at least 24 years. Paul was a young man at that time, and probably saw Jesus, at some time, during his ministry.

two different conditions, viz:-First, as dead in sins, in the flesh. Second, as the recipient in the present, or in the future tense, according to God's purpose of mercy, of the blessings which are secured to man in Christ, by or through his death and resurrection. And Paul's declaration in reference to Christ in the flesh, imports, that Paul knew Christ, in the present tense, as he is, the risen Lord; and his resurrection, the justification of the oudena, the all of the patient without any exception or limitation, in the sense that no one is excluded, all men are the subjects of God's purposed blessings in Christ.

new."

In confirmation of my criticism on the text, Paul affirms (immediately in connexion, verse 17,) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: [ktisis!] old things are passed away; behold, all things are become The reader is requested to bear in mind the fact, that the division of the Scriptures into chapter and verse, is a modern improvement. Paul's Epistles were originally arranged by Paul like other epistles. Therefore, this portion set apart from the rest, and designated verse 17th, is part and parcel of the previous verse, etc. Paul's doctrine is, as we have seen, that if one (Christ) died for all, there was a reason for it; and the reason is, that all men, in their condition, are dead in- sins. And Christ died for all, for the express purpose, that they who live, should not, in the future tense, live unto themselves, but unto their Divine Head. And Paul, in consequence of these glorious truths, is determined to know no one in his old condition in the flesh, viz: as though Christ had not died for all, and all were dead in sins, and no hope existed, etc. "Therefore," says Paul, (verse 17,) "if any man be in Christ he is a new creature," &c. Paul affirms this as certain, without any qualification. But the legitimate term for man, anthropos, is not in the original. Paul's affirmation is brief and positive, viz: Oste ei tis en Christo, kaine ktisis. There is no if about it, nor hiatuses.* Paul's affirmation is to the purport, that, certainly,

* That is, no if, expressing any condition whatsoever. For si, is a conditional conjunction, (if) expressing a condition which is merely hypothetical, etc.; a mere subjective possibility. Paul uses this mode of expression for the purpose of exhibiting the consequences of the truth he taught. For instance, I affirm the existence of any fact, say, The yellow fever prevails in a certain Hospital; and explain the nature, or consequence of the disease to the patient who is afflicted by being subjected to it, by the declaration, If any man is sick of this fever, he has no

the any man, or the patient, that he speaks of as in Christ, is a new creation. And we now learn Paul's meaning, when he said "henceforth know we no one after the flesh."

Why not? For what cause, is this new view of man's condition expressed?

Ans. Because, it is the express purpose of God, that those who live shall live unto God. Therefore, Paul views man in Christ, as alive unto God. Paul sees man, looking through the celestial medium of the faith of Christ, a new creation, so completely so, that all the old things that Paul knew in the flesh, are passed away, and all things, no excep ́tion, have become new. No honest man, of any religious sect, will deny my declaration, that it is impossible for this to be true of any man's condition in the flesh, in this world, in the full import of Paul's affirmation. No. But in Christ, not out of Christ, is the new creation affirmed by Paul. And Paul, because this is true, is determined to know no man, or no one, or no body, in any other sense, than as in Christ; and known as in Christ, they can be known in no other sense, according to Paul's doctrine, than a new creation!* I am aware that this, Paul's doctrine, is a damnable heresy in the opinion of hypocrites, sectarians, and bigots. And for an excellent reason, too, because the true one: They differ from Paul. They are determined to know all men according to their own notions of things, and without any regard for Paul's doctrine, or Christ's gospel, when either shall contradict their wicked dogmas. Let us see how Paul continues his argument:

Paul proceeds, verse 18, "And all things are of God,

chance of recovery. Who would be so stupid as to imagine, that my sole design was to express an absurdity? Viz: Unless a man shall take this fever, he shall not die. The condition in Paul's declaration would therefore be, Unless a man shall contrive a way to be in Christ, he shall not be a new creature. How rank is the absurdity of Arminianism!

* Who will dispute this? Surely Paul's declaration, "Wherefore, henceforth know we no one [kata] according to the flesh," cannot be construed, de facto, to signify that Paul was determined to know millions of the human race as dead in sins, reprobated by God's decree, and irrevocably consigned to an endless perdition, or to an endless Hell of torment, and condemned as out of Christ, and not included in God's purpose of mercy in Christ! Men may talk and prate of their Calvinism, and other isms, and only know their fellows "according to the flesh," but Paul, and all men who like him have the precious faith of Christ, know things very differently.

who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ; and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation." &c. I wish the reader to notice the tense. It is not that God, to whom Paul ascribes the whole scheme of man's salvation, will, in the future tense, pardon sinners, provided that sinners shall, or will, in the future tense, repent and believe the gospel, on their part, preliminary to God's acting effectually in Christ for man's salvation. This, I am aware, is the bastard theology of modern times; and passes current under the banner of Arminianism, as opposed to the doctrine of decrees, of eternal election and reprobation by Calvin and Hopkins. But Paul is about to reaffirm his doctrine, by stating in express terms, what the ministry of reconciliation is, that God, not Calvin and Co., gave him, Paul, to preach to the Gentiles, or nations. Hear Paul, who affirms that it is,

"To wit, [this is what I mean] that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." Please to observe,

First-Paul is true to the tense. He does not, like modern pretended embassadors, contradict himself. It is in the past tense, that Paul affirms God's agency, in Christ, for man's, or the world's salvation, operated to effect the desired end.

Second-That God, in Christ, operated only to produce a certain reconciliation, that has a sole reference to man universally, or the sentient kosmos, the world, as the patient. No ingenuity can twist the text to signify, that God the agent or the actor, in the world's reconciliation to himself, God, the agent or actor, operated on himself, to reconcile himself unto the world; and not the world unto himself.

Third-Neither can man's skill at subterfuge, prove that Paul's language means that God will impute to men their trespasses, contrary to Paul's express affirmation to the contrary! The fact as it stares us in the face, is one of singular obstinacy or stubbornness. For the reason, that the fact affirmed by Paul, has not been exhibited by him in the ordinary parlance of dogmatism, unsupported by correlative testimony, and merely affirmed, and left to stand alone like an isolated thing. Paul declares in language and terms that cannot be mistaken, a certain facthe states that which is necessarily comprehended in a certain relation that his previous premises established,