CHAPTER XXV.

THE POOR 389

_INTRODUCTION._

"After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to

Corinth; and found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus,

lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that

Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came

unto them. And because he was of the same craft, he abode with

them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.

And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the

Jews and the Greeks. And when Silas and Timotheus were come from

Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the

Jews that Jesus was Christ. And when they opposed themselves, and

blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood

be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go

unto the Gentiles. And he departed thence, and entered into a

certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose

house joined hard to the synagogue. And Crispus, the chief ruler

of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and

many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. Then

spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid,

but speak, and hold not thy peace: for I am with thee, and no man

shall set on thee to hurt thee; for I have much people in this

city. And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the

word of God among them. And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia,

the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and

brought him to the judgment seat, saying, This fellow persuadeth

men to worship God contrary to the law. And when Paul was now

about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a

matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that

I should bear with you: but if it be a question of words and

names, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of

such matters. And he drave them from the judgment seat. Then all

the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and

beat him before the judgment seat. And Gallio cared for none of

those things. And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while,

and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into

Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head

in Cenchrea: for he had a vow."--ACTS xviii. 1-18.

I.

_INTRODUCTION._

Corinth was the first Gentile city in which Paul spent any

considerable time. It afforded him the opportunities he sought as a

preacher of Christ. Lying as it did on the famous Isthmus which

connected Northern and Southern Greece, and defended by an almost

impregnable citadel, it became a place of great political importance.

Its position gave it also commercial advantages. Many traders bringing

goods from Asia to Italy preferred to unlade at Cenchrea and carry

their bales across the narrow neck of land rather than risk the

dangers of doubling Cape Malea. So commonly was this done that

arrangements were made for carrying the smaller ships themselves

across the Isthmus on rollers; and shortly after Paul's visit Nero cut

the first turf of an intended, but never finished, canal to connect

the two seas.

Becoming by its situation and importance the head of the Achaian

League, it bore the brunt of the conqueror's onslaught and was

completely destroyed by the Roman general Mummius in the year 146 B.C.

For a hundred years it lay in ruins, peopled by few but relic-hunters,

who groped among the demolished temples for bits of sculpture or

Corinthian brass. The all-discerning eye of Julius Cæsar, however

could not overlook the excellence of the site; and accordingly he

sent a colony of Roman freedmen, the most industrious of the

metropolitan population, to rebuild and replenish the city. Hence the

names of Corinthians mentioned in the New Testament are mainly such as

betoken a Roman and servile origin, such as Gaius, Fortunatus, Justus,

Crispus, Quartus, Achaicus. Under these auspices Corinth speedily

regained something of its former beauty, all its former wealth, and

apparently more than its original size. But the old profligacy was

also to some extent revived; and in Paul's day "to live as they do at

Corinth" was the equivalent for living in luxury and licentiousness.

Sailors from all parts with a little money to spend, merchants eager

to compensate for the privations of a voyage, refugees and adventurers

of all kinds, were continually passing through the city, introducing

foreign customs and confounding moral distinctions. Too plainly are

the innate vices of the Corinthians reflected in this Epistle. On the

stage the Corinthian was usually represented drunk, and Paul found

that this characteristic vice was allowed to follow his converts even

to the communion table. In the letter there are also discernible some

reminiscences of what Paul had seen in the Isthmian and gladiatorial

contests. He had noted, too, as he walked through Corinth, how the

fire of the Roman army had consumed the meaner houses of wood, hay,

stubble, but had left standing, though charred, the precious marbles.

Nowhere do we see so clearly as in this Epistle the multifarious and

delicate work required of one on whom lay the care of all the

Churches. A host of difficult questions poured in upon him: questions

regarding conduct, questions of casuistry, questions about the

ordering of public worship and social intercourse, as well as

questions which struck to the very root of the Christian faith. Are we

to dine with our heathen relatives? May we intermarry with those who

are not yet Christian? may we marry at all? Can slaves continue in the

service of heathen masters? What relation does the Communion hold to

our ordinary meals? Is the man who speaks with tongues a superior kind

of Christian, and must the prophet who speaks with the Spirit be

allowed to interrupt other speakers? Paul in a previous letter had

instructed the Corinthians on some of these points, but they had

misunderstood him; and he now takes up their difficulties point by

point, and finally disposes of them. Had nothing been required but the

solution of practical difficulties, Paul's part had not been so

delicate to play. But even through their request for advice there

shone the ineradicable Greek vices of vanity, restless intellectualism,

litigiousness, and sensuality. They even seemed to be on the perilous

brink of glorying in a spurious liberality which could condone vices

condemned by the heathen. In these circumstances the calmness and

patience with which Paul pronounces on their entanglements are

striking. But even more striking are the boundless intellectual

vigour, the practical sagacity, the ready application to life, of the

profoundest Christian principles. In reading the Epistle, one is

amazed at the brevity and yet completeness with which intricate

practical problems are discussed, the unerring firmness with which,

through all plausible sophistry and fallacious scruples, the radical

principle is laid hold of, and the sharp finality with which it is

expressed. Nor is there any lack in the Epistle of the warm, rapid,

and stirring eloquence which is associated with the name of Paul. It

was a happy circumstance for the future of Christianity that in those

early days, when there were almost as many wild suggestions and

foolish opinions as there were converts, there should have been in the

Church this one clear, practical judgment, this pure embodiment of the

wisdom of Christianity.

It is in this Epistle we get the clearest view of the actual

difficulties encountered by Christianity in a heathen community. We

here see the religion of Christ confronted by the culture, and the

vices, and the various social arrangements of paganism; we see the

ferment and turmoil its introduction occasioned, the changes it

wrought in daily life and common customs, the difficulty men honestly

experienced in comprehending what their new principles required; we

see how the higher aims and views of Christianity sifted the social

customs of the ancient world, now allowing and now rejecting; and,

above all, we see the principles on which we ourselves must proceed in

solving the social and ecclesiastical difficulties that embarrass

ourselves. It is in this Epistle, in short, that we see the Apostle of

the Gentiles in his proper and peculiar element, exhibiting the

applicability of the religion of Christ to the Gentile world and its

power, not to satisfy merely the aspirations of devout Jews, but to

scatter the darkness and quicken the dead soul of the pagan world.

Paul's experience in Corinth is full of significance. On arriving at

Corinth, he went, as usual, to the synagogue; and when his message was

rejected by the Jews, he betook himself to the Gentiles. Next door to

the synagogue, in the house of a convert called Justus, the Christian

congregation was founded; and, to the annoyance of the Jews, one of

the rulers of the synagogue, Crispus by name, attached himself to it.

The Jewish irritation and envy smouldered until a new governor came

from Rome, and then it found vent. This new governor was one of the

most popular men of his time, the brother of Nero's tutor, the

well-known Seneca. He was himself so markedly the representative of

"sweetness and light" that he was commonly spoken of as "the sweet

Gallio." The Jews in Corinth evidently fancied that a man of this

character would be facile and would desire to make favour with all

parties in his new province. They accordingly appealed to him, but

were met with a prompt and decided rebuff. Their new governor assured

them he had no jurisdiction over such questions. As soon as he hears

it is not a matter in which the property or persons of his lieges is

implicated he bids his lictors clear the court. The rabble that always

gathers round a courthouse, seeing a Jew ignominiously dismissed, set

upon him and beat him under the very eye of the judge, the beginning

of that furious, unreasoning, brutal outrage which has pursued the

Jews in all countries of Christendom.

Gallio has become the synonym for religious indifference. We call the

easy-going, good-natured man who meets all your religious appeals with

a shrug of the shoulders or a genial, bantering answer a Gallio. This

is perhaps a little hard upon Gallio, who no doubt attended to his own

religion in much the same spirit as his friends. When the narrative

says that "he cared for none of those things," it means that he gave

no heed to what seemed a common street brawl. It is rather the

haughtiness of the Roman proconsul than the indifference of the man of

the world that appears in his conduct. These squabbles among Jews

about matters of their law were not affairs he could stoop to

investigate or was by his office required to investigate. And yet it

is not Gallio's proconsulship of Achaia nor his relationship to Roman

celebrities that has made his name familiar to the modern world, but

his connection with these wretched Jews that appeared before his small

chair that morning. In Paul's little, insignificant, worn figure it

was not to be expected he should see anything so remarkable as to

stimulate inquiry; he could not have comprehended that the chief

connection in which his name would afterwards appear would be in

connection with Paul; and yet had he but known, had he but interested

himself in what evidently so deeply interested his new subjects, how

different might his own history have become, and how different, too,

the history of Christianity. But filled with a Roman's disdain for

questions of which the sword could not cut the knot, and with a

Roman's reluctance to implicate himself with anything which was not

sufficiently of this world to be adjusted by Roman law, he cleared his

court and called the next case. The "sweet Gallio," patient and

affable to every other kind of complainant, had nothing but disdain

and undisguised repugnance for these Eastern dreamers. The Roman, who

could sympathize with almost every nationality and find room for all

men in the wide lap of the empire, made himself detested in the East

by his harsh contempt for mysticism and religion, and was met by a

disdain deeper than his own.

"The brooding East with awe beheld

Her impious younger world;

The Roman tempest swelled and swelled,

And on her head was hurled:

The East bowed low before the blast

In patient, deep disdain;

She let the legions thunder past,

And plunged in thought again."

Now in the Englishman there is much that closely resembles the Roman

character. There is the same ability for practical achievement, the

same capacity for conquest and for making much of conquered peoples,

the same reverence for law, the same faculty for dealing with the

world and the human race as it actually is! the same relish for and

mastery of the present system of things. But along with these

qualities there go in both races their natural defects: a tendency to

forget the ideal and the unseen in the seen and the actual; to measure

all things by material standards; to be more deeply impressed with the

conquests of the sword than with those of the Spirit, and with the

gains that are counted in coin rather than with those that are seen in

character; and to be far more intensely interested in whatever

concerns politics than in anything that concerns religion. So

pronounced is this materialistic, or at any rate worldly, tendency in

this country, that it has been formulated into a system for the

conduct of life, under the name of secularism. And so popular has this

system become, especially among working-men, that the chief promoter

of it believes that his adherents may be numbered by hundreds of

thousands.

The essential idea of secularism is "that precedence should be given

to the duties of this life over those which pertain to another life,"

the reason being that this life is the first in certainty, and should

therefore be the first in importance. Mr. Holyoake carefully states

his position in these words: "We do not say that every man ought to

give an _exclusive_ attention to this world, because that would be to

commit the old sin of dogmatism, and exclude the possibility of

another world and of walking by different light from that by which

alone we are able to walk. But as our _knowledge_ is confined to this

life, and testimony, and conjecture, and probability are all that can

be set forth with respect to another life, we think we are justified

in giving _precedence_ to the duties of this state and of attaching

primary importance to the morality of man to man." This statement has

the merit of being undogmatic, but it is in consequence

proportionately vague. If a man is not to give _exclusive_ attention

to this world, how much attention is he to give to another? Would Mr.

Holyoake think the amount of attention most Christians give to the

other world excessive? If so, the attention he thinks suitable must be

limited indeed.

But if this theoretical statement, framed in view of the exigencies of

controversy, be scarcely intelligible, the position of the practical

secularist is perfectly intelligible. He says to himself, I have

occupations and duties now that require all my strength; and if there

is another world, the best preparation for it I can have is to do

thoroughly and with all my strength the duties now pressing upon me.

Most of us have felt the attraction of this position. It has a sound

of candid, manly common-sense, and appeals to the English character in

us, to our esteem for what is practical. Besides, it is perfectly true

that the best preparation for any future world is to do thoroughly

well the duties of our present state. But the whole question remains,

What _are_ the duties of the present state? These can not be

determined unless we come to some decision as to the truth or untruth

of Christianity. If there is a God, it is not merely in the future,

but now, that we have duties to Him, that all our duties are tinged

with the idea of His presence and of our relation to Him. It is absurd

to defer all consideration of God to a future world; God is as much in

this world as in any: and if so, our whole life, in every part of it,

must be, not a secular, but a godly, life--a life we live well and can

only live well when we live it in fellowship with Him. The mind that

can divide life into duties of the present and duties that concern the

future entirely misapprehends the teaching of Christianity, and

misconceives what life is. If a man does not know whether there is a

God, then he cannot know what his present duties are, neither can he

do these duties as he ought. He may do them better than I can; but he

does not do them as well as he himself could were he owning the

presence and accepting the gracious, sanctifying influences of the

Divine Spirit.

To the help of secularism comes also in our case another influence,

which told with Gallio. Even the gentle and affable Gallio felt

annoyed that so squalid a case should be among the first that came

before him in Achaia. He had left Rome with the good wishes of the

Imperial Court, had made a triumphal procession of several weeks to

Corinth, had been installed there with all the pomp that Roman

officials, military and civil, could devise; he had been met and

acknowledged by the authorities, had sworn in his new officers, had

caused his tesselated pavement to be laid and his chair of state set

down: and as if in mockery of all this ceremony and display of power

came this pitiful squabble from the synagogue, a matter of which not a

man of standing in his court knew or cared anything, a matter in which

Jews and slaves alone were interested. Christianity has always found

its warmest supporters in the lower strata of society. It has not

always been quite respectable. And here again Englishmen are like

Romans: they are strongly influenced by what is respectable, by what

has position and standing in the world. If Christianity were zealously

promoted by princes, and leading officials, and distinguished

professors and writers of genius, how much easier would it be to

accept it; but its most zealous promoters are so commonly men of no

education, men with odd names, men whose grammar and pronunciation put

them beyond the pale of good society, men whose methods are rough and

whose views are unphilosophical and crude. As in Corinth, so now, not

many wise, not many mighty, not many noble, are called; and we must

beware therefore of shrinking, as Gallio did, from what is essentially

the most powerful agent for good in the world because it is so often

found with vulgar and repulsive adjuncts. The earthen vessels, as Paul

reminds us, the pots of coarsest clay, chipped and crusted with coarse

contact with the world, may yet hold treasure of priceless value.

It is always a question how far we should endeavour to become all

things to all men, to win the wise of this world by presenting

Christianity as a philosophy, and to win the well-born and cultured by

presenting it in the dress of an attractive style. Paul as he left

Athens, where he had met with so little success, was apparently

exercised with this same question. He had tried to meet the Athenians

on their own ground, showing his familiarity with their writers; but

he seems to think that at Corinth another method may be more

successful, and, as he tells them, "I determined to know nothing among

you save Jesus Christ and Him crucified." It was, he says, with much

fear and trembling he adopted this course; he was weak and dispirited

at the time, at any rate; and it is plain that his resolve to abandon

all such appeals as might tell with rhetoricians cost him an effort

and made a deep impression upon him. He himself saw so clearly the

foolishness of the Cross; he knew so well what a field for mockery was

presented to the Greek mind by the preaching of salvation through a

crucified person. He was very conscious of the poor appearance he made

as a speaker among these fluent Greeks, whose ears were as cultivated

as musicians', and whose sense of beauty, trained by seeing their

picked young men contend in the games, received a shock from "his weak

and contemptible bodily presence," as they called it. Yet, all things

considered, he made up his mind that he would trust his success to the

simple statement of facts. He would preach "Christ and Him crucified."

He would tell them what Jesus had been and done. He felt jealous of

anything which might attract men to his preaching save the Cross of

Christ. And he was more successful in Corinth than he had been

elsewhere. In that profligate city he was obliged to stay eighteen

months, because the work so grew under his hand.

And so it has ever been since. As matter of fact, it is not Christ's

teaching, but His death, which has kindled the enthusiasm and the

devotion of men. It is this which has conquered and won them, and

delivered them from the bondage of self, and set them in a larger

world. It is when we believe that this Person has loved us with a love

stronger than death that we become His. It is when we can use Paul's

words "who loved me and gave Himself for me" that we feel, as Paul

felt, the constraining power of this love. It is this that forms

between the soul and Christ that secret tie which has been the

strength and happiness of so many lives. If our own life is neither

strong nor happy, it is because we are not admitting the love of

Christ, and are striving to live independently of Him who is our Life.

Christ is the perennial fountain of love, of hopefulness, of true

spiritual life. In Him there is enough to purify, and brighten, and

sustain all human life. Brought into contact with the intellectualism

and the vice of Corinth, the love of Christ proved its reality and its

overcoming strength; and when we bring it into contact with ourselves,

burdened, and perplexed, and tempted as we are, we find that still it

is the power of God unto salvation.

_THE CHURCH IN CORINTH._

"Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will

of God, and Sosthenes our brother, unto the church of God which

is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus,

called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the

name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's: Grace be

unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus

Christ. I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of

God which is given you by Jesus Christ; that in everything ye are

enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge: even as

the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: so that ye come

behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus

Christ: who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be

blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful,

by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of His Son Jesus

Christ our Lord."--1 COR. i. 2-9.

II.

_THE CHURCH IN CORINTH._

In the year 58 A.D., when Paul wrote this Epistle, Corinth was a city

with a mixed population, and conspicuous for the turbulence and

immorality commonly found in seaports frequented by traders and seamen

from all parts of the world. Paul had received letters from some of

the Christians in Corinth which disclosed a state of matters in the

Church far from desirable. He had also more particular accounts from

some members of Chloe's household who were visiting Ephesus, and who

told him how sadly disturbed the little community of Christians was by

party spirit and scandals in life and worship.

In the letter itself the designation of the writer and of those

addressed first claims our attention.

The writer identifies himself as "Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ by

call, through the will of God." An Apostle is one sent, as Christ was

sent by the Father. "As the Father sent Me, even so send I you." It

was therefore an office no one could take to himself, nor was it the

promotion resulting from previous service. To the apostleship the sole

entrance was through the call of Christ; and in virtue of this call

Paul became, as he says, an Apostle. And it is this which explains one

of the most prominent of his characteristics: the singular

combination of humility and authority, of self-depreciation and

self-assertion. He is filled with a sense of his own unworthiness; he

is "less than the least of the Apostles," "not worthy to be called an

Apostle." On the other hand, he never hesitates to command the

Churches, to rebuke the foremost man in the Church, to assert his

claim to be listened to as the ambassador of Christ.

This extraordinary humility and equally remarkable boldness and

authority had one common root in his perception that it was through

Christ's call and by God's will he was an Apostle. The work of going

to all the busiest parts of the world and proclaiming Christ was to

his mind far too great a work for him to aspire to at his own

instance. He could never have aspired to such a position as this gave

him. But God called him to it; and, with this authority at his back,

he feared nothing, neither hardship nor defeat.

And this is for us all the true and eternal source of humility and

confidence. Let a man feel sure that he is called of God to do what he

is doing, let him be fully persuaded in his own mind that the course

he follows is God's will for him, and he will press on undauntedly,

even though opposed. It is altogether a new strength with which a man

is inspired when he is made conscious that God calls him to do this or

that, when behind conscience or the plain requirements of human

affairs and circumstances the presence of the living God makes itself

felt. Well may we exclaim, with one who had to stand alone and follow

a solitary path, conscious only of God's approval, and sustained by

that consciousness against the disapproval of all, "Oh that we could

take that simple view of things as to feel that the one thing which

lies before us is to please God! What gain is it to please the world,

to please the great, nay even to please those whom we love, compared

with this? What gain is it to be applauded, admired, courted,

followed, compared with this one aim of not being disobedient to a

heavenly vision?"

In addressing the Church at Corinth, Paul unites with himself a

Christian called Sosthenes. This was the name of the chief ruler of

the synagogue at Corinth who was beaten by the Greeks in Gallio's

court, and it is not impossible that it was he who was now with Paul

in Ephesus. If so, this would account for his being associated with

Paul in writing to Corinth. What share in the letter Sosthenes

actually had it is impossible to say. He may have written it to Paul's

dictation; he may have suggested here and there a point to be touched

upon. Certainly Paul's easy assumption of a friend as joint writer of

the letter sufficiently shows that he had no such stiff and formal

idea of inspiration as we have. Apparently he did not stay to inquire

whether Sosthenes was qualified to be the author of a canonical book;

but knowing the authoritative position he had held among the Jews of

Corinth, he naturally conjoins his name with his own in addressing the

new Christian community.

The persons to whom this letter is addressed are identified as "the

Church of God which is at Corinth." With them are joined in character,

if not as recipients of this letter, "all that in every place call

upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." And therefore we should

perhaps not be far wrong if we were to gather from this that Paul

would have defined the Church as the company of all those persons who

"call upon the name of Jesus Christ." Calling upon the name of any

one implies trust in him; and those who call upon the name of Jesus

Christ are those who look up to Christ as their supreme Lord, able to

supply all their need. It is this belief in one Lord which brings men

together as a Christian Church.

But at once we are confronted with the difficulty that many persons

who call upon the name of the Lord do so with no inward conviction of

their need, and consequently with no real dependence upon Christ or

allegiance to Him. In other words, the apparent Church is not the real

Church. Hence the distinction between the Church visible, which

consists of all who nominally or outwardly belong to the Christian

community, and the Church invisible, which consists of those who

inwardly and really are the subjects and people of Christ. Much

confusion of thought is avoided by keeping in mind this obvious

distinction. In the Epistles of Paul it is sometimes the ideal,

invisible Church which is addressed or spoken of; sometimes it is the

actual, visible Church, imperfect, stained with unsightly blots,

calling for rebuke and correction. Where the visible Church is, and of

whom composed, we can always say; its members can be counted, its

property estimated, its history written. But of the invisible Church

no man can fully write the history, or name the members, or appraise

its properties, gifts, and services.

From the earliest times it has been customary to say that the true

Church must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. That is true if the

Church invisible be meant. The true body of Christ, the company of

persons who in all countries and ages have called upon Christ and

served Him, do form one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. But it

is not true of the Church visible and disastrous consequences have at

various times followed the attempt to ascertain by the application of

these notes which actual visible Church has the best claim to be

considered the true Church.

Without concerning himself explicitly to describe the distinguishing

features of the true Church, Paul here gives us four notes which must

always be found[1]:--

[1] Comp. F. W. Robertson's _Lectures on Corinthians_.

1. Consecration. The Church is composed of "them that have been

sanctified in Christ Jesus."

2. Holiness: "called to be saints."

3. Universality: "all that in every place call on the name," etc.

4. Unity: "both their Lord and ours."

1. The true Church is, first of all, composed of consecrated people.

The word "sanctify" bears here a somewhat different meaning from that

which we commonly attach to it. It means rather that which is set

apart or destined to holy uses than that which has been made holy. It

is in this meaning the word is used by our Lord when He says, "For

your sakes I sanctify"--or set apart--"Myself." The Church by its very

existence is a body of men and women set apart for a holy use. The New

Testament word for Church, _ecclesia_, means a society "called out"

from among other men. It exists not for common purposes, but to

witness for God and for Christ, to maintain before the eyes and in all

the common ways and works of men the ideal life realized in Christ and

the presence and holiness of God. It becomes those who form the Church

to meet God's purpose in calling them out of the world and to consider

themselves as devoted and set apart to attain that purpose. Their

destination is no longer that of the world; and a spirit set upon the

attainment of the joys and advantages the world gives is wholly out of

place in them.

2. More particularly those who compose the Church are called to be

"saints." Holiness is the unmistakable characteristic of the true

Church. The glory of God, inseparable from His essence, is His

holiness, His eternally willing and doing only what is the very best.

To think of God as doing wrong is blasphemy. Were God even once to do

other than the best and right, the loving and just thing, He would

cease to be God. It is the task of the Church to exhibit in human life

and character this holiness of God's. Those whom God calls into His

Church, He calls to be, above all else, holy.

The Church of Corinth was in some danger of forgetting this. One of

its members in particular had been guilty of a scandalous breach even

of the heathen code of morals; and of him Paul uncompromisingly says,

"Put away from among yourselves that wicked person." Even with sinners

of a less flagrant sort, no communion was to be held. "If any man that

is called a brother"--that is, claiming to be a Christian--"be a

fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard,

or an extortioner, with such a one you must not even eat." No doubt

there is risk and difficulty in administering this law. The graver

hidden sin may be overlooked, the more obvious and venial

transgression be punished. But the duty of the Church to maintain its

sanctity is undeniable, and those who act for the Church must do their

best in spite of all difficulty and risk.

The prime duty, however, lies with the members, not with the rulers,

in the Church. Those whose function it is to watch over the purity of

the Church would be saved from all doubtful action were the

individual members alive to the necessity of holy living. This, they

should bear in mind, is the very object of the Church's existence and

of their being in it.

3. Thirdly, it is ever to be borne in mind that the true Church of

Christ is to be found, not in one country nor in one age, not in this

or that Church, whether it assume the title of "Catholic" or pride

itself on being national, but is composed of "all that in every place

call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." Happily the time is gone

by when with any show of reason any one Church can claim to be

catholic on the ground of its being coextensive with Christendom. It

is true that Cardinal Newman, one of the most striking figures and

probably the greatest Churchman of our own generation, attached

himself to the Church of Rome on this very ground: that it possessed

this note of catholicity. To his eye, accustomed to survey the

fortunes and growth of Christ's Church during the early and mediæval

centuries, it seemed that the Church of Rome alone had any reasonable

claim to be considered the Church catholic. But he was betrayed, as

others have been, by confounding the Church visible with the Church

invisible. No one visible Church can claim to be the Church catholic.

Catholicity is not a matter of more or less; it cannot be determined

by a majority. No Church which does not claim to contain the whole of

Christ's people without exception can claim to be catholic. Probably

there are some who accept this alternative, and do not see it to be

absurd to claim for any one existing Church that it is coextensive

with the Church of Christ.

4. The fourth note of the Church here implied is its unity. The Lord

of all the Churches is one Lord; in this allegiance they centre, and

by it are held together in a true unity. Plainly this note can belong

only to the Church invisible, and not to that multifarious collection

of incoherent fragments known as the visible Church. It is indeed

doubtful whether a visible unity is desirable. Considering what human

nature is and how liable men are to be overawed and imposed upon by

what is large, it is probably quite as conducive to the spiritual

well-being of the Church that she is broken up into parts. Outward

divisions into national Churches and Churches under different forms of

government and holding various creeds would sink into insignificance,

and be no more bewailed than the division of an army into regiments,

were there the real unity which springs from true allegiance to the

common Lord and zeal for the common cause rather than for the

interests of our own particular Church. When the generous rivalry

exhibited by some of our regiments in battle passes into envy, unity

is destroyed; and indeed the attitude sometimes assumed towards

sister-Churches is rather that of hostile armies than of rival

regiments striving which can do most honour to the common flag. One of

the hopeful signs of our times is that this is generally understood.

Christian people are beginning to see how much more important are

those points on which the whole Church is agreed than those often

obscure or trivial points which split the Church into sects. Churches

are beginning to own with some sincerity that there are Christian

gifts and graces in all Churches, and that no one Church comprises all

the excellences of Christendom. And the only outward unity that is

worth having is that which springs from inward unity, from a genuine

respect and regard for all who own the same Lord and spend themselves

in His service.

Paul, with his usual courtesy and instinctive tact, introduces what he

has to say with a hearty acknowledgment of the distinctive excellences

of the Corinthian Church: "I thank my God always on your behalf, for

the grace of God which is given you in Christ Jesus, that in

everything ye have been enriched in Him, in all utterance and in all

knowledge, even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you." Paul

was one of those large-natured men who rejoice more in the prosperity

of others than in any private good fortune. The envious soul is glad

when things go no better with others than with himself, but the

generous and unselfish are lifted out of their own woes by their

sympathy with the happy. Paul's joy--and it was no mean or shallow

joy--was to see the testimony he had borne to Christ's goodness and

power confirmed by the new energies and capacities which were

developed in those who believed his testimony. The gifts which the

Christians in Corinth exhibited made it manifest that the Divine

presence and power proclaimed by Paul were real. His testimony

regarding the risen but unseen Lord was confirmed by the fact that

those who believed this testimony and called upon the name of the Lord

received gifts not previously enjoyed by them. Further argument

regarding the actual and present power of the unseen Lord was needless

in Corinth. And in our day it is the new life of believers which most

strongly confirms the testimony regarding the risen Christ. Every one

who attaches himself to the Church either damages or aids the cause of

Christ, propagates either belief or unbelief. In the Corinthians

Paul's testimony regarding Christ was confirmed by their reception of

the rare gifts of utterance and knowledge. It is indeed somewhat

ominous that the incorruptible honesty of Paul can only acknowledge

their possession of "gifts," not of those fine Christian graces which

distinguished the Thessalonians and others of his converts. But the

grace of God must always adjust itself to the nature of the recipient;

it fulfils itself by means of the material which nature furnishes. The

Greek nature was at all times lacking in seriousness, and had attained

little moral robustness; but for many centuries it had been trained to

admire and excel in intellectual and oratorical displays. The natural

gifts of the Greek race were quickened and directed by grace. Their

intellectual inquisitiveness and apprehensiveness enabled them to

throw light on the grounds and results of the Christian facts; and

their fluent and flexible speech formed a new wealth and a more worthy

employment in their endeavours to formulate Christian truth and

exhibit Christian experience. Each race has its own contribution to

make to complete and full-grown Christian manhood. Each race has its

own gifts; and only when grace has developed all these gifts in a

Christian direction can we actually see the fitness of Christianity

for all men and the wealth of the nature and work of Christ, which can

appeal to and best develop all.

Paul thanked God for their gift of utterance. Perhaps had he lived

now, within sound of an utterance dizzying and ceaseless as the roar

of Niagara, he might have had a word to say in praise of silence.

There is more than a risk nowadays that talk take the place of thought

on the one hand and of action on the other. But it could not fail to

occur to Paul that this Greek utterance, with the instrument it had in

the Greek language, was a great gift to the Church. In no other

language could he have found such adequate, intelligible, and

beautiful expression for the new ideas to which Christianity gave

birth. And in this new gift of utterance among the Corinthians he may

have seen promise of a rapid and effective propagation of the Gospel.

For indeed there are few more valuable gifts the Church can receive

than utterance. Legitimately may we hope for the Church when she so

apprehends her own wealth in Christ as to be stirred to invite all the

world to share with her, when through all her members she feels the

pressure of thoughts that demand utterance, or when there arise in her

even one or two persons with the rare faculty of swaying large

audiences, and touching the common human heart, and lodging in the

public mind some germinant ideas. New epochs in the Church's life are

made by the men who speak, not to satisfy the expectation of an

audience, but because they are driven by an inward compelling force,

not because they are called upon to say something, but because they

have that in them which they must say.

But utterance is well backed by knowledge. Not always has it been

remembered that Paul recognises knowledge as a gift of God. Often, on

the contrary, has the determination to satisfy the intellect with

Christian truth been reprehended as idle and even wicked. To the

Corinthians the Christian revelation was new, and inquiring minds,

could not but endeavour to harmonize the various facts it conveyed.

This attempt to understand Christianity was approved. The exercise of

the human reason upon Divine things was encouraged. The faith which

accepted testimony was a gift of God, but so also was the knowledge

which sought to recommend the contents of this testimony to the human

mind.

But however rich in endowments the Corinthians were, they could not

but feel, in common with all other men, that no endowment can lift us

above the necessity of conflict with sin or put us beyond the hazard

which that conflict entails. In point of fact, richly endowed men are

often most exposed to temptation, and feel more keenly than others the

real hazard of human life. Paul therefore concludes this brief

introduction by assigning the reason of his assurance that they will

be blameless in the day of Christ; and that reason is that God is in

the matter: "God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the

fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord." God calls us with a

purpose in view, and is faithful to that purpose. He calls us to the

fellowship of Christ that we may learn of Him and become suitable

agents to carry out the whole will of Christ. To fear that,

notwithstanding our hearty desire to become of Christ's mind and

notwithstanding all our efforts to enter more deeply into His

fellowship, we shall yet fail, is to reflect upon God as either

insincere in His call or inconstant. The gifts and calling of God are

without repentance. They are not revoked on further consideration.

God's invitation comes to us, and is not withdrawn, even though it is

not met with the hearty acceptance it deserves. All our obstinacy in

sin, all our blindness to our true advantage, all our lack of anything

like generous self-devotion, all our frivolity, and folly, and

worldliness, are understood before the call is given. By calling us

into the fellowship of His Son God guarantees to us the possibility of

our entering into that fellowship and of becoming fit for it.

Let us then revive our hopes and renew our belief in the worth of life

by remembering that we are called to the fellowship of Jesus Christ.

This is satisfying; all else that calls us in life is defective and

incomplete. Without this fellowship with what is holy and eternal,

all we find in life seems trivial or is embittered to us by the fear

of loss. In worldly pursuits there is excitement; but when the fire

burns out, and the cold ashes remain, chill and blank desolation is

the portion of the man whose all has been the world. We cannot

reasonably and deliberately choose the world; we may be carried away

by greed, or carnality, or earthliness to seek its pleasures, but our

reason and our better nature cannot approve the choice. Still less

does our reason approve that what we cannot deliberately choose we

should yet allow ourselves to be governed by and actually join in

fellowship of the closest kind. Believe in God's call, listen to it,

strive to maintain yourself in the fellowship of Christ, and every

year will tell you that God, who has called you, is faithful and is

bringing you nearer and nearer to what is stable, happy, and

satisfying.

_THE FACTIONS._

"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus

Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no

divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in

the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared

unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of

Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that

every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of

Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified

for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God

that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any

should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized

also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I

baptized any other."--1 COR. i. 10-16.

III.

_THE FACTIONS._

The first section of this Epistle, extending from the tenth verse of

the first chapter to the end of the fourth chapter, is occupied with

an endeavour to quench the factious spirit which had shown itself in

the Corinthian Church. Paul, with his accustomed frankness, tells the

Corinthians from whom he had received information regarding them. Some

members of the household of Chloe who were then in Ephesus were his

informants. Chloe was evidently a woman well known in Corinth, and

probably was resident there, although it has with some reason been

remarked that it "is more in harmony with St. Paul's discretion to

suppose that she was an Ephesian known to the Corinthians, whose

people had been in Corinth and returned to Ephesus."[2] The danger of

this factious spirit, which in subsequent ages has so grievously

weakened the Church and hindered her work, seemed to Paul so urgent

that he abruptly adjured them to unity of sentiment and of confession

by that name which was at once "the bond of union and the most holy

name by which they could be entreated." Before speaking of the

important topics he wished to discuss, he must first of all give them

to understand that he does not write to a party, but seeks to win the

ear of a whole and united Church.

[2] Evans.

The parties in the Corinthian Church had not as yet outwardly

separated from one another. The members were known as belonging to

this or that party, but they worshipped together and had not as yet

renounced one another's communion. They differed in doctrine, but

their faith in one Lord held them together.

Of these parties Paul names four. There were first of all those who

held by Paul himself and the aspect of the Gospel he had presented.

They owed to him their own salvation; and having experienced the

efficacy of his gospel, they could not believe that there was any

other efficacious mode of presenting Christ to men. And gradually they

became more concerned to uphold Paul's authority than to help the

cause of Christ. They probably fell into the mistake to which all mere

partisans are liable, and became more Pauline than Paul himself,

magnifying his peculiarities and attaching importance to casual

sayings and private practices of his which were in themselves

indifferent. There was apparently some danger that they might become

more Pauline than Christian, should allow their indebtedness to Paul

to obscure their debt to Christ, and should so pride themselves in the

teacher as to neglect the thing taught.

There was a second party, grouped round Apollos. This learned and

eloquent Alexandrian had come to Corinth after Paul left, and what

Paul had planted he so successfully watered that many seemed to owe

everything to him. Until he came and fitted the Gospel into their

previous knowledge, and showed them its relations to other faiths, and

opened up to them its ethical wealth and bearing on life, they had

been unable to make full use of Paul's teaching. He had sown the seed

in their minds; they had owned the truth of his statements and

accepted them; but until they heard Apollos they could not lay hold on

the truth with sufficient definiteness, and could not boldly act upon

it. The teaching of Apollos was not opposed to Paul's, but

supplementary of it. At the end of this letter Paul tells the

Corinthians that he had asked Apollos to revisit them, but Apollos had

refused, and refused very probably because he was aware that a party

had been formed in his name, and that his presence in Corinth would

only foster and increase it. It is obvious therefore that there was no

jealousy between Paul and Apollos themselves, whatever rivalry might

exist among their followers.

The third party gloried in the name of Cephas; that is, Peter, the

Apostle of the circumcision. It is possible that Peter had been in

Corinth, but it is not necessary to suppose so. His name was used in

opposition to Paul's as representing the original group of Apostles

who had companied with the Lord in His lifetime, and who adhered to

the observance of the Jewish law. How far the party of Cephas in

Corinth indulged in disparagement of Paul's authority we cannot

exactly say. There are indications, however, in the Epistle that they

cited against him even his self-denial, arguing that he did not dare

either to ask the Church to maintain him or to marry, as Peter had

done, because he felt that his claim to be an Apostle was insecure. It

may be imagined how painful it must have been for a high-minded man

like Paul to be compelled to defend himself against such accusations,

and with what mingled indignation and shame he must have written the

words, "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as

other Apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas? Or I only

and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?" This party then

had in it more dangerous elements than the party of Apollos. Extreme

Judaizers would find among its members a soil prepared for their

apparently conservative and orthodox but really obstructive and

pernicious teaching.

Of the fourth party, which named itself "of Christ," we learn more in

the Second Epistle than in the First. From a striking and powerful

outburst in that Epistle (2 Cor. x. 7-xii. 18), it would appear that

the Christ party was formed and led by men who prided themselves on

their Hebrew descent (xi. 22), and on having learned their

Christianity, not from Paul, Apollos, or Cephas, but from Christ

Himself (1 Cor. i. 12; 2 Cor. x. 7). These men came to Corinth with

letters of commendation (2 Cor. iii. 1), probably from Palestine, as

they had known Jesus, but not from the Apostles in Jerusalem, for they

separated themselves from the Petrine party in Corinth. They claimed

to be apostles of Christ (2 Cor. xi. 13) and "ministers of

righteousness" (xi. 15); but as they taught "another Jesus," "another

spirit," "another gospel" (xi. 4), Paul does not hesitate to denounce

them as false apostles and ironically to hold them up as "out-and-out

apostles." As yet, however, at the date of the First Epistle, they had

either not so plainly shown their true colours, or Paul was not aware

of all the evil they were doing.

The Apostle hears of these four parties with dismay. What then would

he think of the state of the Church now? There was as yet in Corinth

no schism, no secession, no outward disruption of the Church; and

indeed Paul does not seem to contemplate as possible that which in

our day is the normal condition: a Church broken up into little

sections, each of which worships by itself, and looks upon the rest

with some distrust or contempt. It did not as yet appear possible that

the members of the one body of Christ should refuse to worship their

common Lord in fellowship with one another and in one place. The evils

attaching to such a condition of things may no doubt be unduly

magnified; but we are probably more inclined to overlook than to

magnify the mischief done by disunion in the Church. The Church was

intended to be the grand uniter of the race. Within its pale all kinds

of men were to be gathered. Distinctions were to be obliterated;

differences were to be forgotten; the deepest thoughts and interests

of all men were to be recognised as common; there was to be neither

Jew nor Gentile, Greek nor barbarian, bond nor free. But instead of

uniting men otherwise alienated, the Church has alienated neighbours

and friends; and men who will do business together, who will dine

together, will not worship together. Thus the Church has lost a large

part of her strength. Had the kingdom of Christ been visibly one, it

would have been supreme and without a rival in the world. Had there

been union where there has been division, the rule and influence of

Christ would have so far surpassed every other influence that peace

and truth, right and justice, godliness and mercy, would have

everywhere reigned. But instead of this the strength of the Church has

been frittered away in civil strife and party warfare, her ablest men

have spent themselves in controversy, and through division her

influence has become insignificant. The world looks on and laughs

while it sees the Church divided against itself and wrangling over

petty differences while it ought to be assailing vice, ungodliness,

and ignorance. And yet schism is thought no sin; and that which the

Reformers shuddered at and shrank from, that secession which they

feared to make even from a Church so corrupt as that of Rome then was,

every petty ecclesiastic now presumes to initiate.

Now that the Church is broken into pieces, perhaps the first step

towards a restoration of true unity is to recognise that there may be

real union without unity of external organization. In other words, it

is quite possible that Churches which have individually a separate

corporate existence--say the Presbyterian, Independent, and

Episcopalian Churches--may be one in the New Testament sense. The

human race is one; but this unity admits of numberless varieties and

diversities in appearance, in colour, in language, and of endless

subordinate divisions into races, tribes, and nations. So the Church

may be truly one, one in the sense intended by our Lord, one in the

_unity of the Spirit_ and the bond of peace, though there continue to

be various divisions and sects. It may very well be argued that,

constituted as human nature is, the Church, like every other society

or institution, will be the better of a competing, if not an opposing,

rival; that schism, divisions, sects, are necessary evils; that truth

will be more thoroughly investigated, discipline more diligently and

justly maintained, useful activities more vigorously engaged in, if

there be rival Churches than if there be one. And it is certainly true

that, so far as man can foresee, there is no possibility, not to say

prospect, of the Church of Christ becoming one vast visible

organization. Oneness in that sense is prevented by the very same

obstacles that hinder all States and governments on earth from being

merged into one great kingdom. But as amidst all diversities of

government and customs it is the duty of States to remember and

maintain their common brotherhood and abstain from tyranny,

oppression, and war, so it is the duty of Churches, however separate

in creed or form of government, to maintain and exhibit their unity.

If the sects of the Church will frankly and cordially recognise one

another as parts of the same whole, if they will exhibit their

relationship by combining in good works, by an interchange of

ecclesiastical civilities, by aiding one another when aid is needed,

this is, I conceive, real union. Certainly Churches which see it to be

their duty to maintain a separate existence ought to be equally

careful to maintain a real unity with all other Churches.

Again, it is to be borne in mind that there may be real union without

unity in creed. As Churches may be truly one though, for the sake of

convenience or of some conscientious scruple, they maintain a separate

existence, so the unity required in the New Testament is not

uniformity of belief in respect to all articles of faith. This

uniformity is desirable; it is desirable that all men know the truth.

Paul here and elsewhere entreats his readers to endeavour to agree and

be of one mind. It is quite true that the Church has gained much by

difference of opinion. It is true that were all men to be agreed there

might be a danger of truth becoming lifeless and forgotten for want of

the stimulus it derives from assault, and discussion, and

cross-questioning. It is undoubtedly the fact that doctrine has been

ascertained and developed precisely in proportion and in answer to the

errors and mistakes of heretics; and were all assault and opposition

even now to cease, there might be some danger of a lifeless treatment

of truth ensuing. And yet no one can desire that men be in error; no

one can wish heresies to multiply that the Church may be stimulated. A

visitation of cholera may result in cleanliness and carefulness, but

no one desires that cholera may come. Opposition in Parliament is an

acknowledged service to the country, yet each party desires that its

sentiments become universal. So, too, notwithstanding every good

result which may flow from diversity of opinion regarding Divine

truth, agreement and unanimity are what all should aim at. We may even

see reason to believe that men will never all think alike; we may

think that it is not in the nature of things that men of diverse

natural disposition, diverse experience and upbringing, should think

the same thing; if it is true, as a great thinker has said, that "our

system of thought is very often only the history of our heart," then

the effort to bring men to precise uniformity of thought is hopeless:

and yet this effort must be made. No man who believes he has found the

truth can forbear disseminating it to the utmost of his ability. If

his favourite views are opposed in conversation, he does what he can

to convince and make converts of his antagonists. There is truth,

there is a right and a wrong, and it is not all the same whether we

know the truth or are in error; and doctrine is simply truth

expressed: and though the whole truth may not be expressed, yet even

this partial expression of it may be much safer and nearer what we

ought to believe than some current denial of the truth. Paul wishes

people to believe certain things, not as if then they would be fully

enlightened, but because so far they will be enlightened and so far

defended against error.

But the question remains, What truths are to be made terms of

communion? Is schism or secession ever justifiable on the ground that

error is taught in the Church?

This is a question most difficult to answer. The Church of Christ is

formed of those who are trusting to Him as the power of God unto

salvation. He is in communion with all who thus trust Him, whether

their knowledge be great or small; and we cannot refuse to communicate

with those with whom He is in communion. And it may very reasonably be

questioned whether any part of the Church has a right to identify

herself with a creed which past experience proves that the whole

Church will never adopt, and which therefore necessarily makes her

schismatic and sectarian. As manifestoes or didactic summaries of

truth, confessions of faith may be very useful. Systematic knowledge

is at all times desirable; and as a backbone to which all the

knowledge we acquire may be attached a catechism or confession of

faith is part of the necessary equipment of a Church. But no doctrinal

error which does not subvert personal faith in Christ should be

allowed to separate Churches. Theology must not be made more of than

Christianity. We cannot pay too much attention to doctrine or too

earnestly contend for the faith; we cannot too anxiously seek to have

and to disseminate clear views of truth: but if we make our clear

views a reason for quarrelling with other Christians and a bar to our

fellowship with them, we forget that Christ is more than doctrine and

charity better than knowledge.

Paul certainly was contemplating Christ, and not a creed, as the

principle and centre of the Church's unity, when he exclaimed, "Is

Christ divided?" The indivisible unity of Christ Himself is in Paul's

mind the sufficient argument for the unity of the Church. If you can

divide the one Christ, and if one Church can live on one part, another

on another, then you may have several Churches; but if there be one

Christ indivisible, then is there but one Church indivisible. In all

Christians and in all Churches the one Christ is the life of each. And

it is monstrous that those who are vitally united to one Person and

quickened by one Spirit should in no way recognise their unity.

It is with something akin to horror that Paul goes on to ask, "Was

Paul crucified for you?" He implies that only on the death of Christ

can the Church be founded. If those who prided themselves on being

followers of Paul were in danger of exalting him into the place of

Christ, they were forfeiting their salvation, and had no right to be

in the Church at all. Take away the death of Christ and the personal

connection of the believer with the crucified Redeemer, and you take

away the Church.

From this casual expression of Paul we see his habitual attitude

towards Christ; and more distinctly than from any laboured exposition

do we gather that in his mind the pre-eminence of Christ was unique,

and that this pre-eminence was based upon His crucifixion. Paul

understood, and was never slow to affirm, the indebtedness of the

young Christian Churches to himself: he was their father, and without

him they would not have existed. But he was not their saviour, the

foundation on which they were built. Not for one moment did he suppose

that he could occupy towards men the position Christ occupied. That

position was unique, altogether distinct from the position he

occupied. No one could share with Christ in being the Head of the

Church and the Saviour of the body. Paul did not think of Christ as

of one among many, as of the best among many who had done well. He did

not think of Him as the best among renowned and useful teachers, as

one who had added to what previous teachers had been building. He

thought of His work as so transcending and distinct from the work of

other men that it was with a kind of horror he saw that there was even

a possibility of some confounding his own apostolic work with the work

of Christ. He fervently thanks God that he had not even baptized many

persons at Corinth, lest it should be supposed he had baptized them

into his own name, and so implied, as baptism implies, that men were

to acknowledge him as their leader and head. Had the chief part of

Christ's work been its lesson in self-sacrifice, might not Paul's life

have very well rivalled it, and might not those who had themselves

seen the life of Paul and felt the power of his goodness have been

forgiven if they felt more indebted to him than to the more remote

Jesus?

The ever-recurring disposition then to reduce the work of Christ to

the level of comparison with the work done for the race by other men

must take account of this expression which reveals to us Paul's

thought about it. Certainly Paul understands that between his work and

the work of Christ an impassable gulf is fixed. Paul was wholly

devoted to his fellow-men, had suffered and was prepared again to

suffer any hardships and outrage in their cause, but it seemed to him

monstrous that any person should confound the influence of his work

with that of Christ's. And that which gave Christ this special place

and claim was His crucifixion. We miss what Paul found in the work of

Christ so long as we look more to His life than to His death. Paul

does not say, Was Paul your teacher in religion, and did he lead your

thoughts to God? did Paul by his life show you the beauty of

self-sacrifice and holiness? but "Was Paul crucified for you?" It was

Christ's death for His people which gave Him the unique claim on their

allegiance and devotedness. The Church is founded on the Cross.

It was not, however, the mere fact of His dying which gave Christ this

place, and which claims the regard and trust of all men. Paul had

really given his life for men; he had been more than once taken up for

dead, having by the truth he taught provoked the hatred of the Jews,

even as Jesus had done. But even this did not bring him into rivalry

with the unapproachable Redeemer. Paul knew that in Christ's death

there was a significance his own could never have. It was not only

human self-sacrifice that was there manifested, but Divine

self-sacrifice. It was as God's Representative Christ died as truly as

He died as man's Representative. This Paul could not do. In Christ's

death there was what there could be in none other: a sacrifice for the

sins of men and an atonement for these sins. Through this death

sinners find a way back to God and assurance of salvation. There was a

work accomplished by it which the purest of men could not help Him in,

but must himself depend upon and receive the benefit of. Christ by His

death is marked off from all men, He being the Redeemer, they the

redeemed.

This exceptional, unique work then--what have we made of it? Paul,

probably on the whole the most richly endowed man, morally and

intellectually, the world has seen, found his true life and his true

self in the work of this other Person. It was in Christ Paul first

learned how great a thing human life is, and it was through Christ and

His work Paul first came into fellowship with the true God. This

greatest of men owed everything to Christ, and was so inwardly

convinced of this that, heart and soul, he yielded himself to Christ,

and gloried in serving Him. How is it with us? Does the work of Christ

actually yield to us those grand results it yielded to Paul? Or is the

greatest reality in this human world of ours wholly resultless so far

as we are concerned? It filled Paul's mind, his heart, his life; it

left him nothing else to desire: this man, formed on the noblest and

largest type, found room in Christ alone for the fullest development

and exercise of his powers. Is it not plain that if we neglect the

connection with Christ which Paul found so fruitful, we are doing

ourselves the greatest injustice and preferring a narrow prison-house

to liberty and life?

_THE FOOLISHNESS OF PREACHING._

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not

with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of

none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that

perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power

of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,

and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where

is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this

world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For

after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God,

it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that

believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after

wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a

stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them

which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God,

and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser

than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye

see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the

flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath

chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and

God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the

things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things

which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are

not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should

glory in His presence. But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of

God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and

sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written,

He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."

"And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of

speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For

I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ,

and Him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear,

and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not

with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the

spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the

wisdom of men, but in the power of God."--1 COR. i. 17-ii. 5.

IV.

_THE FOOLISHNESS OF PREACHING._

In the preceding section of this Epistle Paul introduced the subject

which was prominent in his thoughts as he wrote: the divided state of

the Corinthian Church. He adjured the rival parties by the name of

Christ to hold together, to discard party names and combine in one

confession. He reminded them that Christ is indivisible, and that the

Church which is founded on Christ must also be one. He shows them how

impossible it is for any one but Christ to be the Church's foundation,

and thanks God that he had given no pretext to any one to suppose that

he had sought to found a party. Had he even baptized the converts to

Christianity, there might have been persons foolish enough to whisper

that he had baptized in his own name and had intended to found a

Pauline, not a Christian, community. But providentially he had

baptized very few, and had confined himself to preaching the Gospel,

which he considered to be the proper work to which Christ had "_sent_"

him; that is to say, for which he held an Apostle's commission and

authority. But as he thus repudiates the idea that he had given any

countenance to the founding of a Pauline party, it occurs to him that

some may say, Yes, it is true enough, he did not baptize; but his

preaching may more effectually have won partisans than even baptizing

them into his own name could have done. And so Paul goes on to show

that his preaching was not that of a demagogue or party-leader, but

was a bare statement of fact, garnished and set off by absolutely

nothing which could divert attention from the fact either to the

speaker or to his style. Hence this digression on the foolishness of

preaching.

In this section of the Epistle then it is Paul's purpose to explain to

the Corinthians (1) the style of preaching he had adopted while with

them and (2) why he had adopted this style.

I. His time in Corinth, he assures them, had been spent, not in

propagating a philosophy or system of truth peculiar to himself, and

which might have been identified with his name, but in presenting the

Cross of Christ and making the plainest statements of fact regarding

Christ's death. In approaching the Corinthians, Paul had necessarily

weighed in his own mind the comparative merits of various modes of

presenting the Gospel. In common with all men who are about to address

an audience, he took into consideration the aptitudes, peculiarities,

and expectations of his audience, that he might so frame his

arguments, statements, and appeals as to be most likely to carry his

point. The Corinthians, as Paul well knew, were especially open to the

attractions of rhetoric and philosophical discussion. A new philosophy

clothed in elegant language was likely to secure a number of

disciples. And it was quite in Paul's power to present the Gospel as a

philosophy. He might have spoken to the Corinthians in large and

impressive language of the destiny of man, of the unity of the race,

and of the ideal man in Christ. He might have based all he had to

teach them on some of the accepted dicta or theories of their own

philosophers. He might have propounded some new arguments for

immortality or the existence of a personal God, and have shown how

congruous the Gospel is to these great truths. He might, like some

subsequent teachers, have emphasized some particular aspect of Divine

truth, and have so identified his teaching with this one side of

Christianity as to found a school or sect known by his name. But he

deliberately rejected this method of introducing the Gospel, and

"determined not to know anything among them save Jesus Christ and Him

crucified." He stripped his mind bare, as it were, of all his

knowledge and thinking, and came among them as an ignorant man who had

only facts to tell.

Paul then in this instance deliberately trusted to the bare statement

of facts, and not to any theory about these facts. This is a most

important distinction, and to be kept in view by all preachers,

whether they feel called by their circumstances to adopt Paul's method

or not. In preaching to audiences with whom the facts are familiar, it

is perfectly justifiable to draw inferences from them and to theorize

about them for the instruction and edification of Christian people,

Paul himself spoke "wisdom among them that were perfect." But what is

to be noted is that for doing the work proper to the Gospel, for

making men Christians, it is not theory or explanation, but fact, that

is effective. It is the presentation of Christ as He is presented in

the written Gospels, the narrative of His life and death without note

or comment, theory or inference, argument or appeal, which stands in

the first rank of efficiency as a means of evangelizing the world.

Paul, ever moderate, does not denounce other methods of presenting

the Gospel as illegitimate; but in his circumstances the bare

presentation of fact seemed the only wise method.

No doubt we may unduly press Paul's words; and probably we should do

so if we gathered that he merely told his hearers how Christ had lived

and died and gave them no inkling of the significance of His death.

Still the least we can gather from his words is that he trusted more

to facts than to any explanation of the facts, more to narration than

to inference and theory. Certainly the neglect of this distinction

renders a great proportion of modern preaching ineffective and futile.

Preachers occupy their time in explaining how the Cross of Christ

ought to influence men, whereas they ought to occupy their time in so

presenting the Cross of Christ that it does influence men. They give

laboured explanations of faith and elaborate instructions regarding

the method and results of believing, while they should be exhibiting

Christ so that faith is instinctively aroused. The actor on the stage

does not instruct his audience how they should be affected by the

play; he so presents to them this or that scene that they

instinctively smile or find their eyes fill. Those onlookers at the

Crucifixion who beat their breasts and returned to their homes with

awe and remorse were not told that they should feel compunction; it

was enough that they saw the Crucified. So it is always; it is the

direct vision of the Cross, and not anything which is said about it,

which is most effective in producing penitence and faith. And it is

the business of the preacher to set Christ and Him crucified clear

before the eyes of men; this being done, there will be little need of

explanations of faith or inculcation of penitence. Make men see

Christ, set the Crucified clear before them, and you need not tell

them to repent and believe; if that sight does not make them repent,

no telling of yours will make them.

The very fact that it was a Person, not a system of philosophy, that

Paul proclaimed was sufficient proof that he was not anxious to become

the founder of a school or the head of a party. It was to another

Person, not to himself, he directed the attention and faith of his

hearers. And that which permanently distinguishes Christianity from

all philosophies is that it presents to men, not a system of truth to

be understood, but a Person to be relied upon. Christianity is not the

bringing of new truth to us so much as the bringing of a new Person to

us. The manifestation of God in Christ is in harmony with all truth;

but we are not required to perceive and understand that harmony, but

to believe in Christ. Christianity is for all men, and not for the

select, highly educated few; and it depends therefore, not on

exceptional ability to see truth, but on the universal human emotions

of love and trust.

II. Paul justifies his rejection of philosophy or "wisdom" and his

adoption of the simpler but more difficult method of stating fact on

three grounds. The first is that God's method had changed. For a time

God had allowed the Greeks to seek Him by their own wisdom; now He

presents Himself to them in the foolishness of the Cross (vers.

17-25). The second ground is that the wise do not universally respond

to the preaching of the Cross, a fact which shows that it is not

wisdom that preaching appeals to (vers. 26-31). And his third ground

is that he feared lest, if he used "wisdom" in presenting the Gospel,

his hearers might be only superficially attracted by his

persuasiveness and not profoundly moved by the intrinsic power of the

Cross (ii. 1-5).

1. His first reason is that God had changed His method. "After that in

the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by

the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." Even the

wisest of the Greeks had attained only to inadequate and indefinite

views of God. Admirable and pathetic are the searchings of the noble

intellects that stand in the front rank of Greek philosophy; and some

of their discoveries regarding God and His ways are full of

instruction. But these thoughts, cherished by a few wise and devout

men, never penetrated to the people, and by their vagueness and

uncertainty were incapacitated from deeply influencing any one. To

pass even from Plato to the Gospel of John is really to pass from

darkness to light. Plato philosophizes, and a few souls seem for a

moment to see things more clearly; Peter preaches, and three thousand

souls spring to life. If God was to be known by men generally, it was

not through the influence of philosophy. Already philosophy had done

its utmost; and so far as any popular and sanctifying knowledge of God

went, philosophy might as well never have been. "The world by wisdom

knew not God." No safer assertion regarding the ancient world can be

made.

That which, in point of fact, has made God known is the Cross of

Christ. No doubt it must have seemed foolishness and mere lunacy to

summon the seeker after God away from the high and elevating

speculations of Plato on the good and the eternal and to point him to

the Crucified, to a human form gibbeted on a malefactor's cross, to a

man that had been hanged. None knew better than Paul the infamy

attaching to that cursed death, and none could more distinctly

measure the surprise and stupefaction with which the Greek mind would

hear the announcement that it was there God was to be seen and known.

Paul understood the offence of the Cross, but he knew also its power.

"The Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we

preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block and unto the

Greeks foolishness, but unto them which are called, both Jews and

Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God."

As proof that God was in their midst and as a revelation of God's

nature, the Jews required a sign, a demonstration of physical power.

It was one of Christ's temptations to leap from a pinnacle of the

Temple, for thus He would have won acceptance as the Christ. The

people never ceased to clamour for a sign. They wished Him to bid a

mountain be removed and cast into the sea; they wished Him to bid the

sun stand still or Jordan retire to its source. They wished Him to

make some demonstration of superhuman power, and so put it beyond a

doubt that God was present. Even at the last it would have satisfied

them had He bid the nails drop out and had He stepped down from the

Cross among them. They could not understand that to remain on the

Cross was the true proof of Divinity. The Cross seemed to them a

confession of weakness. They sought a demonstration that the power of

God was in Christ, and they were pointed to the Cross. But to them the

Cross was a stumbling-block they could not get over. And yet in it was

the whole power of God for the salvation of the world. All the power

that dwells in God to draw men out of sin to holiness and to Himself

was actually in the Cross. For the power of God that is required to

draw men to Himself is not power to alter the course of rivers or

change the site of mountains, but power to sympathize, to make men's

sorrows His own, to sacrifice self, to give all for the needs of His

creatures. To them that believe in the God there revealed, the Cross

is the power of God. It is this love of God that overpowers them and

makes it impossible for them to resist Him. To a God who makes Himself

known to them in self-sacrifice they quickly and delightedly yield

themselves.

2. As a second ground on which to rest the justification of his method

of preaching Paul appeals to the constituent elements of which the

Church of Corinth was actually composed. It is plain, he says, that it

is not by human wisdom, nor by power, nor by anything generally

esteemed among men that you hold your place in the Church. The fact is

that "not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many

noble, are called." If human wisdom or power held the gates of the

kingdom, you yourselves would not be in it. To be esteemed, and

influential, and wise is no passport to this new kingdom. It is not

men who by their wisdom find out God and by their nobility of

character commend themselves to Him; but it is God who chooses and

calls men, and the very absence of wisdom and possessions makes men

readier to listen to His call. "God hath chosen the foolish things of

the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of

the world to confound the things which are mighty, and base things of

the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and

things which are not, to bring to nought things which are; that no

flesh should glory in His presence." It is all God's doing now; it is

"Of Him are ye in Christ Jesus;" it is God that hath chosen you. Human

wisdom had its opportunity and accomplished little; God now by the

foolishness of the Cross lifts the despised, the foolish, the weak, to

a far higher position than the wise and noble can attain by their

might and their wisdom.

Paul thus justifies his method by its results. He uses as his weapon

the foolishness of the Cross, and this foolishness of God proves

itself wiser than men. It may seem a most unlikely weapon with which

to accomplish great things, but it is God who uses it, and that makes

the difference. Hence the emphasis throughout this passage on the

agency of God. "God hath chosen" you; "Of God are ye in Christ Jesus;"

"Of God He is made unto you wisdom." This method used by Paul is God's

method and means of working, and therefore it succeeds. But for this

reason also all ground of boasting is removed from those who are

within the Christian Church. It is not their wisdom or strength, but

God's work, which has given them superiority to the wise and noble of

the world. "No flesh can glory in God's presence." The wise and mighty

of earth cannot glory, for their wisdom and might availed nothing to

bring them to God; those who are in Christ Jesus can as little glory,

for it is not on account of any wisdom or might of theirs, but because

of God's call and energy, they are what they are. They were of no

account, poor, insignificant, outcasts, and slaves, friendless while

alive and when dead not missed in any household; but God called them

and gave them a new and hopeful life in Christ Jesus.

In Paul's day this argument from the general poverty and

insignificance of the members of the Christian Church was readily

drawn. Things are changed now; and the Church is filled with the

wise, the powerful, the noble. But Paul's main proposition remains:

whoever is in Christ Jesus is so, not through any wisdom or power of

his own, but because God has chosen and called him. And the practical

result remains. Let the Christian, while he rejoices in his position,

be humble. There is something wrong with the man's Christianity who is

no sooner delivered from the mire himself than he despises all who are

still entangled. The self-righteous attitude assumed by some

Christians, the "Look at me" air they carry with them, their

unsympathetic condemnation of unbelievers, the superiority with which

they frown upon amusements and gaieties, all seem to indicate that

they have forgotten it is by the grace of God they are what they are.

The sweetness and humble friendliness of Paul sprang from his constant

sense that whatever he was he was by God's grace. He was drawn with

compassion towards the most unbelieving because he was ever saying

within himself, There, but for the grace of God, goes Paul. The

Christian must say to himself, It is not because I am better or wiser

than other men that I am a Christian; it is not because I sought God

with earnestness, but because He sought me, that I am now His. The

hard suspicion and hostility with which many good people view

unbelievers and godless livers would thus be softened by a mixture of

humble self-knowledge. The unbeliever is no doubt often to be blamed,

the selfish pleasure-seeker undoubtedly lays himself open to just

condemnation, but not by the man who is conscious that but for God's

grace he himself would be unbelieving and sinful.

Lastly, Paul justifies his neglect of wisdom and rhetoric on the

ground that had he used "enticing words of man's wisdom" the hearers

might have been unduly influenced by the mere guise in which the

Gospel was presented and too little influenced by the essence of it.

He feared to adorn the simple tale or dress up the bare fact, lest the

attention of his audience might be diverted from the substance of his

message. He was resolved that their faith should not stand in the

wisdom of men, but in the power of God; that is to say, that those who

believed should do so, not because they saw in Christianity a

philosophy which might compete with current systems, but because in

the Cross of Christ they felt the whole redeeming power of God brought

to bear on their own soul.

Here again things have changed since Paul's day. The assailants of

Christianity have put it on its defence, and its apologists have been

compelled to show that it is in harmony with the soundest philosophy.

It was inevitable that this should be done. Every philosophy now has

to take account of Christianity. It has shown itself to be so true to

human nature, and it has shed so much light on the whole system of

things and so modified the action of men and the course of

civilization, that a place must be found for it in every philosophy.

But to accept Christianity because it has been a powerful influence

for good in the world, or because it harmonizes with the most approved

philosophy, or because it is friendly to the highest development of

intellect, may be legitimate indeed; but Paul considered that the only

sound and trustworthy faith was produced by direct personal contact

with the Cross. And this remains for ever true.

To approve of Christianity as a system and to adopt it as a faith are

two different things. It is quite possible to respect Christianity as

conveying to us a large amount of useful truth, while we hold

ourselves aloof from the influence of the Cross. We may approve the

morality which is involved in the religion of Christ, we may

countenance and advocate it because we are persuaded no other force is

powerful enough to diffuse a love of law and some power of

self-restraint among all classes of society, we may see quite clearly

that Christianity is the only religion an educated European can

accept, and yet we may never have felt the power of God in the Cross

of Christ. If we believe in Christianity because it approves itself to

our judgment as the best solution of the problems of life, that is

well; but still, if that be all that draws us to Christ, our faith

stands in the wisdom of men rather than in the power of God.

In what sense then are we Christians? Have we allowed the Cross of

Christ to make its peculiar impression upon us? Have we given it a

chance to influence us? Have we in all seriousness of spirit

considered what is presented to us in the Cross? Have we honestly laid

bare our hearts to the love of Christ? Have we admitted to ourselves

that it was for us He died? If so, then we must have felt the power of

God in the Cross. We must have found ourselves taken captive by this

love of God. God's law we may have found it possible to resist; its

threatenings we may have been able to put out of our mind. The natural

helps to goodness which God has given us in the family, in the world

around us, in the fortunes of life, we may have found too feeble to

lift us above temptation and bring us into a really high and pure

life. But in the Cross we at length experience what Divine power is;

we know the irresistible appeal of Divine self-sacrifice, the

overcoming, regenerating pathos of the Divine desire to save us from

sin and destruction, the upholding and quickening energy that flows

into our being from the Divine sympathy and hopefulness in our behalf.

The Cross is the actual point of contact between God and man. It is

the point at which the fulness of Divine energy is actually brought to

bear upon us men. To receive the whole benefit and blessing that God

can now give us we need only be in true contact with the Cross:

through it we become direct recipients of the holiness, the love, the

power, of God. In it Christ is made to us wisdom, and righteousness,

and sanctification, and redemption. In very truth all that God can do

for us to set us free from sin and to restore us to Himself and

happiness is done for us in the Cross; and through it we receive all

that is needful, all that God's holiness requires, all that His love

desires us to possess.

_DIVINE WISDOM._

"Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the

wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come

to nought: but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery even the

hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our

glory: which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they

known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as

it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have

entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared

for them that love Him. But God hath revealed them unto us by His

Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things

of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit

of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man,

but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of

the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the

things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we

speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth but which the

Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of

God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them,

because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual

judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who

hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we

have the mind of Christ."

"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but

as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with

milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear

it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for

whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions,

are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of

Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; we ye not carnal?"--1 COR.

ii. 6-iii. 4.

V.

_DIVINE WISDOM._

In the preceding paragraph Paul has explained why he had proclaimed

the bare facts regarding Christ and His crucifixion and trusted to the

Cross itself to impress the Corinthians and lead them to God, and why

he had resisted the temptation to appeal to the Corinthian taste for

rhetoric and philosophy by exhibiting Christianity as a philosophy. He

believed that where conversion was the object of preaching no method

could compare in efficiency with the simple presentation of the Cross.

But sometimes he found himself in circumstances in which conversion

could not be his object. He was occasionally called, as preachers in

our own day are regularly called, to preach to those who were already

Christians. And he tells us that in these circumstances, speaking

"among the perfect," or in presence of fairly mature Christians, he

made no scruple of unfolding the "wisdom" or philosophy of Christ's

truth. To expound the deeper truths revealed by Christ was useless or

even hurtful to mere "babes" in Christ or to those who as yet were not

even born again; but to the adolescent and to those who might lay

claim to have attained some firm manhood of Christian character, he

was forward to teach all he himself knew. These words, "Howbeit we

speak wisdom among them that are perfect," he makes the text of the

following paragraph, in which he proceeds to explain (1) what the

wisdom is; (2) how he speaks it; (3) to whom he speaks it.

I. First, the wisdom which he speaks among the perfect, though

eminently deserving of the name, is not on a level with human

philosophies, nor is it of a similar origin. It is not just one more

added to human searches after truth. The princes of this world, its

men of light and leading, have had their own theories of God and man,

and yet have really "come to nought." The incompetence of the men and

theories that actually control human affairs is put beyond a doubt by

the crucifixion of Christ. In the person of Christ the glory of God

was manifested as a glory in which man was to partake; had there been

diffused among men any true perception of the real nature of God, the

Crucifixion would have been an impossibility. The fact that God's

incarnate glory was crucified is a demonstration of the insufficiency

of all previous teaching regarding God. But the wisdom taught by Paul

is not just one theory more, devised by the speculative ingenuity of

man; it is a disclosure made by God of knowledge unattainable by human

endeavour. The three great sources of human knowledge--seeing,

hearing, and thought--alike fail here. "Eye hath not seen, ear hath

not heard, it has not entered into the heart of man to conceive," this

wisdom. Hitherto it has been a mystery, a thing hidden; now God has

Himself revealed it.

What the contents of this wisdom are, we can readily perceive from

such specimens of it as Paul gives us in his Epistle to the Ephesians

and elsewhere. It is a declaration of the Divine purpose towards man,

or of "the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him."

Paul delighted to expatiate on the far-reaching results of Christ's

death, the illustrations it gives of the nature of God and of

righteousness, its place as the grand moral centre, holding together

and reconciling all things. He delights to show the superiority of the

Gospel to the Law and to build up a philosophy of history which sheds

light on the entire plan of God's training of men. The purpose of God

and its fulfilment by the death of Christ he is never weary of

contemplating, nor of showing how out of destitution, and disease, and

war, and ignorance, and moral ruin, and what seemed a mere wreck of a

world there were to be brought by this one healing element the

restoration of man to God and to one another, fellowship with God and

peace on earth, in short a kingdom of God among men. He clearly saw

how through all that had previously happened on earth and through all

that men had thought preparation had been made for the fulfilment of

this gracious purpose of God. These were "the deep things of God"

which caused him to see how different was the wisdom of God from the

wisdom of men.

This "wisdom" which Paul taught has had a larger and more influential

place in men's minds than any other system of human thought.

Christendom has seen Christ through Paul's eyes. He interpreted

Christianity to the world, and made men aware of what had been and was

in their midst. Men of the largest faculty, such as Augustine and

Luther, have been unable to find a religion in Christ until they

entered His school by Paul's door. Stumbling at one or two Jewish

peculiarities which attach to Paul's theology, some modern critics

assure us that, "after having been for three hundred years"--and they

might have said for fifteen hundred years--"the Christian doctor _par

excellence_, Paul is now coming to an end of his reign." Matthew

Arnold, with truer discernment, if not on sounder grounds, predicts

that "the doctrine of Paul will arise out of the tomb where for

centuries it has lain buried. It will edify the Church of the future.

It will have the consent of happier generations, the applause of less

superstitious ages. All will be too little to pay half the debt which

the Church of God owes to this 'least of the Apostles, who was not fit

to be called an Apostle, because he persecuted the Church of God.'"

We may find in Paul's writings arguments which, however convincing to

the Jew, are not convincing to us; we may prefer his experimental and

ethical to his doctrinal teaching; some estimable people can only

accept him when they have purged him of his Calvinism; others shut

their eyes to this or that which seems to them a blot in his writings;

but the fact remains that it is to this man we owe our Christianity.

It was he who disengaged from the dying body of Judaism the new-born

religion and held it aloft in the eye of the world as the true heir to

universal empire. It was he whose piercing intellect and keen moral

discernment penetrated to the very heart of this new thing, and saw in

it a force to conquer the world and to rid men of all bondage and evil

of every kind. It was he who applied to the whole range of human life

and duty the inexhaustible ethical force which lay in Christ, and thus

lifted at one effort the heathen world to a new level of morality. He

was the first to show the superiority of love to law, and to point out

how God trusted to love, and to summon men to meet the trust God thus

reposed in them. We cannot measure Paul's greatness, because the light

he has himself shed has made it impossible for us to put ourselves

back in imagination into the darkness through which he had to find his

way. We can but dimly measure the strength that was required to grasp

as he grasped the significance of God's manifestation in the flesh.

Paul then used two methods of teaching. In addressing those who had

yet to be won to Christ, he used the foolishness of preaching, and

presented to them the Cross of Christ. In addressing those who had

already owned the power of the Cross and made some growth in Christian

knowledge and character, he enlarged upon the significance of the

Cross and the light it threw on all moral relations, on God and on

man. And even in this department of his work he disclaims any desire

to propagate a philosophy of his own. The system of truth he proclaims

to the Christian people is not of his own devising. It is not in

virtue of his own speculative ability he has discovered it. It is not

one of the wisdoms of this world, having its origin in the brain of an

ingenious theorist. On the contrary, it has its origin in God, and

partakes therefore of the truth and stability attaching to the

thoughts of God.