appoints him? So far from it, that whoever does this, ought to be excluded from a Christian society.

10. "But is it possible to supply all the poor in our society with the necessaries of life?" It was possible once to do this, in a larger society than this. In the first church at Jerusalem, "there was not any among them that lacked; but distribution was made to every one, according as he had need." And we have full proof that it may be so still. It is so among the people called Quakers. Yea, and among the Moravians, so called. And why should it not be so with us? "Because they are ten times richer than we." Perhaps fifty times. enough, if we be equally willing, to do this.

And yet we are able

A gentleman (a Methodist) told me some years since, " I shall leave forty thousand pounds among my children." Now suppose he had left them but twenty thousand, and given the other twenty thousand to God and the poor, would God have said to him, "Thou fool?" And this would have set all the society far above want.

11. But I will not talk of giving to God, or leaving half of your fortune. You iníght think this to be too high a price for heaven. I will come to lower terms. Are there not a few among you that could give a hundred pounds, perhaps some that could give a thousand, and yet leave your children as much as would help them to work out their own salvation? With two thousand pounds, and not much less, we could supply the present wants of all our poor, and put them in a way of supplying their own wants for the time to come. Now suppose this could be done, are we clear before God, while it is not done? Is not the neglect of it one cause why so many are still sick and weak among you? And that both in soul and in body? That they still grieve the Holy Spirit, by preferring the fashions of the world to the commands of God? And I many times doubt, whether we preachers are not in some measure partakers of their sin. I am in doubt whether it is not a kind of partiality. I doubt, whether it is not a great sin to keep them in our society. May it not hurt their souls, by encouraging them to persevere in walking contrary to the Bible? And may it not, in some measure, intercept the salutary influences of the blessed Spirit upon the whole community?

12. I am distressed. I know not what to do. I see what I might have done once. I might have said peremptorily and expressly, "Here I am I and my Bible. I will not, I dare not vary from this book, either in great things or small. I have no power to dispense with one jot or tittle of what is contained therein. I am determined to be a Bible Christian, not almost, but altogether. Who will meet me on this ground? Join me on this, or not at all." With regard to dress, in particular, I might have been as firm (and I now see it would have been far better,) as either the people called Quakers, or the Moravian brethren;-I might have said, "This is our manner of dress, which we know is both scriptural and rational. If you join with us, you are to dress as we do; but you need not join us unless you please." But, alas! the time is now past; and what I can do now, I cannot tell.

13. But to return to the main question. Why has Christianity done so little good, even among us? Among the Methodists? Among them that hear and receive the whole Christian doctrine, and that have Christian discipline added thereto, in the most essential parts of it? Plainly,

because we have forgot, or, at least, not duly attended to, those solemn words of our Lord; "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." It was the remark of a holy man several years ago, "Never was there before a people in the Christian church, who had so much of the power of God among them, with so little self denial." Indeed the work of God does go on, and in a surprising manner, notwithstanding this capital defect; but it cannot go on in the same degree as it otherwise would: neither can the word of God have its full effect, unless the hearers of it "deny themselves, and take up their cross daily."

14. It would be easy to show in how many respects the Methodists, in general, are deplorably wanting in the practice of Christian self denial from which, indeed, they have been continually frighted by the silly outcries of the Antinomians. To instance only in one: While we were at Oxford, the rule of every Methodist was (unless in case of sickness,) to fast every Wednesday and Friday in the year, in imitation of the primitive church; for which they had the highest reverence. Now this practice of the primitive church is universally allowed. "Who does not know," says Epiphanius, an ancient writer, "that the fasts of the fourth and sixth days of the week (Wednesday and Friday) are observed by the Christians throughout the whole world?" So they were by the Methodists for several years; by them all, without any exception; but afterwards, some in London carried this to excess, and fasted so as to impair their health. It was not long before others made this a pretence for not fasting at all. And I fear there are now thousands of Methodists, so called, both in England and Ireland, who, following the same bad example, have entirely left off fasting; who are so far from fasting twice in the week, (as all the stricter Pharisees did,) that they do not fast twice in the month. Yea, are there not some of you who do not fast one day from the beginning of the year to the end? But what excuse can there be for this? I do not say for those that call themselves members of the church of England; but for any who profess to believe the Scripture to be the word of God? Since, according to this, the man that never fasts, is no more in the way to heaven, than the man that never prays.

15. But can any one deny that the members of the church of Scotland fast constantly: particularly on their sacramental occasions. In some parishes they return only once a year; but in others, suppose in large cities, they occur twice, or even thrice a year. Now it is well known there is always a fast day in the week preceding the administration of the Lord's supper. But occasionally looking into a book of accounts in one of their vestries, I observed so much set down, "for the dinners of the ministers, on the fast day!" And I am informed there is the same article in them all. And is there any doubt, but the people fast just as their ministers do? But what a farce is this! What a miserable burlesque upon a plain Christian duty! Oh that the general assembly would have regard to the honour of their nation! Let them roll away from it this shameful reproach, by either enforcing the duty, or removing that article from their books. Let it never appear there any more! Let it vanish away for ever!

16. But why is self denial in general so little practised at present among the Methodists? Why is so exceedingly little of it to be found

even in the oldest and largest societies? The more I observe and consider things, the more clearly it appears, what is the cause of this in London, in Bristol, in Birmingham, in Manchester, in Leeds, in Dublin, in Cork. The Methodists grow more and more self indulgent, because they grow rich. Although many of them are still deplorably poor; (“tell it not in Gath; publish it not in the streets of Askelon!") yet many others, in the space of twenty, thirty, or forty years, are twenty, thirty, yea, a hundred times richer than they were when they first entered the society. And it is an observation which admits of few exceptions, that nine in ten of these decreased in grace, in the same proportion as they increased in wealth. Indeed, according to the natural tendency of riches, we cannot expect it to be otherwise.

17. But how astonishing a thing is this! How can we understand it? Does it not seem (and yet this cannot be) that Christianity, true, scriptural Christianity, has a tendency, in process of time, to undermine and destroy itself? For, wherever true Christianity spreads, it must cause diligence and frugality, which, in the natural course of things, must beget riches. And riches naturally beget pride, love of the world, and every temper that is destructive of Christianity Now, if there be no way to prevent this, Christianity is inconsistent with itself, and of consequence cannot stand, cannot continue long among any people; since, wherever it generally prevails, it saps its own foundation.

18. But is there no way to prevent this? To continue Christianity among a people? Allowing that diligence and frugality must produce riches, is there no means to hinder riches from destroying the religion of those that possess them? I can see only one possible way: find out another who can. Do you gain all you can, and save all you can? Then you must in the nature of things grow rich. Then if you have any desire to escape the damnation of hell, give all you can; otherwise I can have no more hope of your salvation, than of that of Judas Iscariot.

19. I call God to record upon my soul, that I advise no more than I practise. I do, blessed be God, gain, and save, and give, all I can. And so, I trust in God, I shall do, while the breath of God is in my nostrils. But what then? I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus my Lord! Still,

"I give up every plea beside,

Lord, I am damn'd! but thou hast died!"

Dublin, July 2, 1789

SERMON CXXI.-On knowing Christ after the flesh. "Henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we did know Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more," 2 Cor. v, 16.

1. I HAVE long desired to see something clearly and intelligibly written on these words. This is doubtless a point of no small importance; it enters deeply into the nature of religion; and yet what treatise have we in the English language, which is written upon it? Possibly there may be such: but none of them has come to my notice; no, not so much as a single sermon.

2. This is here introduced by the apostle in a very solemn manner. The words literally translated, 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 themselves,"-seek their own honour, or profit, or pleasure,- but unto him,”-in righteousness and true holiness, verse 15. "So that we from this time,"- -we that know him by faith,- "know no one,"-either the rest of the apostles, or you, or any other person,- "after the flesh." This uncommon expression, on which the whole doctrine depends, seems to mean, we regard no man, according to his former state, his country, riches, power, or wisdom. We consider all men only in their spiritual state, and as they stand related to a better world. "Yea, if we have known even Christ 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, shape, 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 strongly figurative expression, appears to be no other than this. From the time that we are created anew in Christ Jesus, we do not think, or speak, or act, with regard to our blessed Lord, as a mere man. We do not now use any expression with relation to Christ, which may not be applied to him not only as he is man, but as he is "God over all, blessed for ever.

4. Perhaps, in order to place this in a clearer light, and at the same time to guard against dangerous errors, it may be well to instance in some of those, that in the most plain and palpable manner "know Christ after the flesh." We may rank among the first of these, the Socinians; those that flatly "deny the Lord that bought them :" who not only do not allow him to be the supreme God, but deny him to be any God at all. I believe the most eminent of these that has appeared in England, at least in the present century, was a man of great learning and uncommon abilities, Dr. John Taylor, for many years pastor at Norwich, afterwards president 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 personage;" yea, " a man of consummate virtue."

5. Next to these are the Arians. But I would not be thought to place these in the same rank with the Socinians. There is a considerable difference between them. For whereas the former deny Christ to be any God at all, the latter do not: they only deny him to be the great God. They willingly allow, nay, contend, that he is a little God. But this is attended with a peculiar inconvenience. It totally destroys the unity of the Godhead. For, if there be a great God, and a little God, there must be two Gods. But waiving this, and keeping to the point before us. All who speak of Christ as inferior to the Father, though it be ever so little, do undoubtedly "know him after the flesh:" not as the brightness of the Father's glory, the express image of his person, as upholding," bearing up, "all things," both in heaven and earth, "by the word of his power;" the same powerful word, whereby of old time he called them all into being.

(

6. There are some of these 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 so, they have quoted that fine soliloquy, which is published in his posthumous works. Yet impartial men will not allow their claim, without stronger proof than has yet appeared. But if he is clear of this charge, he is not equally clear of "knowing Christ after the flesh," in another sense. I was not aware of this, but read all his works with almost equal admiration, when a person of deep piety as well as judgment, was occasionally remarking, "that some of the hymns printed in his Hora Lyrica, dedicated to divine love, were (as he phrased it) too amorous; and fitter to be addressed by a lover to his fellow mortal, than by a sinner to the most high God." I doubt, whether there are not some other writers, who, though they believe the Godhead of Christ, yet speak in the same unguarded manner.

7. Can we affirm, that the hymns published by a late great man, (whose memory I love and esteem,) are free from this fault? Are they not full of expressions, which strongly savour of "knowing Christ after the flesh?" Yea, and in a more gross manner, than any thing which was ever before published in the English tongue? What pity is it, that those coarse expressions, should appear in many truly spiritual hymns! How often, in the midst of excellent verses, are lines inserted which disgrace those that precede and follow! Why should not all the compositions in that book, be not only as poetical, but likewise as rational and as scriptural as many of them are acknowledged to be?

8. It was between fifty and sixty years ago, that by the gracious providence of God, my brother and I, in our voyage to America, became acquainted with the (so called) Moravian brethren. We quickly took knowledge what spirit they were of; six and twenty of them being in the same ship with us. We not only contracted much esteem, but a strong affection for them. Every day we conversed with them, and consulted them on all occasions. I translated many of their hymns, for the use of our own congregations. Indeed, as I durst not implicitly follow any man, I did not take all that lay before mé; but selected those which I judged to be most scriptural, and most suitable to sound experience. Yet I am not sure, that I have taken sufficient care, to pare off every improper word or expression, every one that may seem to border on a familiarity, which does not so well suit the mouth of a worm of the earth, when addressing himself to the God of heaven. I have indeed particularly endeavoured, in all the hymns which are addressed to our blessed Lord, to avoid every fondling expression, and to speak as to the most high God; to him that is "in glory equal with the Father, in majesty co-eternal."

9. Some will probably think, that I have been over scrupulous, with regard to one particular word, which I never use myself either in verse or prose, in praying or preaching, though it is very frequently used by modern divines, both of the Romish and reformed churches. It is the word dear. Many of these frequently say, both in preaching, in prayer, and in giving thanks, "Dear Lord," or "Dear Saviour ;" and my brother used the same in many of his hymns, even as long as he lived. But may I not ask, is not this using too much familiarity with the great Lord of heaven and earth? Is there any Scripture, any passage, either in the Old or New Testament, which justifies this manner of speaking? Does any of the inspired writers make use of it, even in the poetical Scriptures? Perhaps some would answer, "Yes; the apostle Paul uses it.