{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_42354/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_42354","id":"gutenberg_42354","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42354","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Corinthians, 1st -- Commentaries","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Transcriber's note:\n\nText enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).\n\nSmall capital text has been replaced with all capitals.\n\nVariations in spelling, punctuation and hyphenation have been retained\nexcept in obvious cases of typographical error.\n\nThe cover for the eBook version of this book was created by the\ntranscriber and is placed in the public domain.\n\n * * * * *\n\n THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE\n\n EDITED BY THE REV.\n W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.\n\n _Editor of \"The Expositor,\" etc._\n\n THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS\n\n BY\n MARCUS DODS, D.D.\n\n London\n HODDER AND STOUGHTON\n 27, PATERNOSTER ROW\n MCM\n\n\n\n\nTHE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE. _Crown 8vo, cloth, price 7s. 6d. each vol._\n\n\nFIRST SERIES, 1887-8.\n\n Colossians.\n\n By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D.\n\n St. Mark.\n\n By the Right Rev. the Bishop of Derry.\n\n Genesis.\n\n By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.\n\n 1 Samuel.\n\n By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.\n\n 2 Samuel.\n\n By the same Author.\n\n Hebrews.\n\n By Principal T. C. EDWARDS, D.D.\n\n\nSECOND SERIES, 1888-9.\n\n Galatians.\n\n By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A.\n\n The Pastoral Epistles.\n\n By the Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.\n\n Isaiah I.-XXXIX.\n\n By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n The Book of Revelation.\n\n By Prof. W. MILLIGAN, D.D.\n\n 1 Corinthians.\n\n By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.\n\n The Epistles of St. John.\n\n By the Most Rev. the Archbishop of Armagh.\n\n\nTHIRD SERIES, 1889-90.\n\n Judges and Ruth.\n\n By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.\n\n Jeremiah.\n\n By the Rev. C. J. BALL, M.A.\n\n Isaiah XI.-LXVI.\n\n By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n St. Matthew.\n\n By the Rev. J. MONRO GIBSON, D.D.\n\n Exodus.\n\n By the Right Rev. the Bishop of Derry.\n\n St. Luke.\n\n By the Rev. H. BURTON, M.A.\n\n\nFOURTH SERIES, 1890-91.\n\n Ecclesiastes.\n\n By the Rev. SAMUEL COX, D.D.\n\n St. James and St. Jude.\n\n By the Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.\n\n Proverbs.\n\n By the Rev. R. F. HORTON, D.D.\n\n Leviticus.\n\n By the Rev. S. H. KELLOGG, D.D.\n\n The Gospel of St. John.\n\n By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n The Acts of the Apostles.\n\n By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n\nFIFTH SERIES, 1891-2.\n\n The Psalms.\n\n By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n 1 and 2 Thessalonians.\n\n By Prof. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.\n\n The Book of Job.\n\n By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.\n\n Ephesians.\n\n By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A.\n\n The Gospel of St. John.\n\n By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n The Acts of the Apostles.\n\n By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n\nSIXTH SERIES, 1892-3.\n\n 1 Kings.\n\n By the Very Rev. the Dean of Canterbury.\n\n Philippians.\n\n By Principal RAINY, D.D.\n\n Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.\n\n By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.\n\n Joshua.\n\n By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.\n\n The Psalms.\n\n By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n The Epistles of St. Peter.\n\n By Prof. RAWSON LUMBY, D.D.\n\n\nSEVENTH SERIES, 1893-4.\n\n 2 Kings.\n\n By the Very Rev. the Dean of Canterbury.\n\n Romans.\n\n By Prof. H. C. G. MOULE, M.A., D.D.\n\n The Books of Chronicles.\n\n By Prof. W. H. BENNETT, M.A.\n\n 2 Corinthians.\n\n By Prof. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.\n\n Numbers.\n\n By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.\n\n The Psalms.\n\n By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. III.\n\n\nEIGHTH SERIES, 1895-6.\n\n Daniel.\n\n By the Very Rev. the Dean of Canterbury.\n\n The Book of Jeremiah.\n\n By Prof. W. H. BENNETT, M.A.\n\n Deuteronomy.\n\n By Prof. ANDREW HARPER, B.D.\n\n The Song of Solomon and\n\n Lamentations.\n\n By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.\n\n Ezekiel.\n\n By Prof. JOHN SKINNER, M.A.\n\n The Book of the Twelve Prophets.\n\n By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Two Vols.\n\n\n\n\n THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE\n CORINTHIANS\n\n BY\n MARCUS DODS, D.D.\n\n _SIXTH EDITION_\n\n London\n HODDER AND STOUGHTON\n 27, PATERNOSTER ROW\n\n MCM\n\n\n\n\n_Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury._\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n CHAPTER I.\n\n PAGE\n INTRODUCTION 3\n\n CHAPTER II.\n THE CHURCH IN CORINTH 17\n\n CHAPTER III.\n THE FACTIONS 33\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n THE FOOLISHNESS OF PREACHING 49\n\n CHAPTER V.\n DIVINE WISDOM 65\n\n CHAPTER VI.\n GOD'S HUSBANDRY AND BUILDING 83\n\n CHAPTER VII.\n THE MINISTRY 99\n\n CHAPTER VIII.\n EXCOMMUNICATION; OR PURGING OUT THE OLD LEAVEN 115\n\n CHAPTER IX.\n ON GOING TO LAW 131\n\n CHAPTER X.\n FORNICATION 147\n\n CHAPTER XI.\n MARRIAGE 165\n\n CHAPTER XII.\n LIBERTY AND LOVE 179\n\n CHAPTER XIII.\n MAINTENANCE OF THE MINISTRY 197\n\n CHAPTER XIV.\n NOT ALL WHO RUN WIN 213\n\n CHAPTER XV.\n FALLACIOUS PRESUMPTIONS 229\n\n CHAPTER XVI.\n THE VEIL 243\n\n CHAPTER XVII.\n ABUSE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER 261\n\n CHAPTER XVIII.\n CONCERNING SPIRITUAL GIFTS 277\n\n CHAPTER XIX.\n NO GIFT LIKE LOVE 295\n\n CHAPTER XX.\n SPIRITUAL GIFTS AND PUBLIC WORSHIP 313\n\n CHAPTER XXI.\n THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST 327\n\n CHAPTER XXII.\n THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST (_continued_) 341\n\n CHAPTER XXIII.\n CONSEQUENCES OF DENYING RESURRECTION 357\n\n CHAPTER XXIV.\n THE SPIRITUAL BODY 373\n\n CHAPTER XXV.\n THE POOR 389\n\n\n\n\n_INTRODUCTION._\n\n \"After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to\n Corinth; and found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus,\n lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that\n Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came\n unto them. And because he was of the same craft, he abode with\n them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.\n And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the\n Jews and the Greeks. And when Silas and Timotheus were come from\n Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the\n Jews that Jesus was Christ. And when they opposed themselves, and\n blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood\n be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go\n unto the Gentiles. And he departed thence, and entered into a\n certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose\n house joined hard to the synagogue. And Crispus, the chief ruler\n of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and\n many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. Then\n spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid,\n but speak, and hold not thy peace: for I am with thee, and no man\n shall set on thee to hurt thee; for I have much people in this\n city. And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the\n word of God among them. And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia,\n the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and\n brought him to the judgment seat, saying, This fellow persuadeth\n men to worship God contrary to the law. And when Paul was now\n about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a\n matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that\n I should bear with you: but if it be a question of words and\n names, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of\n such matters. And he drave them from the judgment seat. Then all\n the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and\n beat him before the judgment seat. And Gallio cared for none of\n those things. And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while,\n and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into\n Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head\n in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.\"--ACTS xviii. 1-18.\n\n\n\n\nI.\n\n_INTRODUCTION._\n\n\nCorinth was the first Gentile city in which Paul spent any\nconsiderable time. It afforded him the opportunities he sought as a\npreacher of Christ. Lying as it did on the famous Isthmus which\nconnected Northern and Southern Greece, and defended by an almost\nimpregnable citadel, it became a place of great political importance.\nIts position gave it also commercial advantages. Many traders bringing\ngoods from Asia to Italy preferred to unlade at Cenchrea and carry\ntheir bales across the narrow neck of land rather than risk the\ndangers of doubling Cape Malea. So commonly was this done that\narrangements were made for carrying the smaller ships themselves\nacross the Isthmus on rollers; and shortly after Paul's visit Nero cut\nthe first turf of an intended, but never finished, canal to connect\nthe two seas.\n\nBecoming by its situation and importance the head of the Achaian\nLeague, it bore the brunt of the conqueror's onslaught and was\ncompletely destroyed by the Roman general Mummius in the year 146 B.C.\nFor a hundred years it lay in ruins, peopled by few but relic-hunters,\nwho groped among the demolished temples for bits of sculpture or\nCorinthian brass. The all-discerning eye of Julius C\u00e6sar, however\ncould not overlook the excellence of the site; and accordingly he\nsent a colony of Roman freedmen, the most industrious of the\nmetropolitan population, to rebuild and replenish the city. Hence the\nnames of Corinthians mentioned in the New Testament are mainly such as\nbetoken a Roman and servile origin, such as Gaius, Fortunatus, Justus,\nCrispus, Quartus, Achaicus. Under these auspices Corinth speedily\nregained something of its former beauty, all its former wealth, and\napparently more than its original size. But the old profligacy was\nalso to some extent revived; and in Paul's day \"to live as they do at\nCorinth\" was the equivalent for living in luxury and licentiousness.\nSailors from all parts with a little money to spend, merchants eager\nto compensate for the privations of a voyage, refugees and adventurers\nof all kinds, were continually passing through the city, introducing\nforeign customs and confounding moral distinctions. Too plainly are\nthe innate vices of the Corinthians reflected in this Epistle. On the\nstage the Corinthian was usually represented drunk, and Paul found\nthat this characteristic vice was allowed to follow his converts even\nto the communion table. In the letter there are also discernible some\nreminiscences of what Paul had seen in the Isthmian and gladiatorial\ncontests. He had noted, too, as he walked through Corinth, how the\nfire of the Roman army had consumed the meaner houses of wood, hay,\nstubble, but had left standing, though charred, the precious marbles.\n\nNowhere do we see so clearly as in this Epistle the multifarious and\ndelicate work required of one on whom lay the care of all the\nChurches. A host of difficult questions poured in upon him: questions\nregarding conduct, questions of casuistry, questions about the\nordering of public worship and social intercourse, as well as\nquestions which struck to the very root of the Christian faith. Are we\nto dine with our heathen relatives? May we intermarry with those who\nare not yet Christian? may we marry at all? Can slaves continue in the\nservice of heathen masters? What relation does the Communion hold to\nour ordinary meals? Is the man who speaks with tongues a superior kind\nof Christian, and must the prophet who speaks with the Spirit be\nallowed to interrupt other speakers? Paul in a previous letter had\ninstructed the Corinthians on some of these points, but they had\nmisunderstood him; and he now takes up their difficulties point by\npoint, and finally disposes of them. Had nothing been required but the\nsolution of practical difficulties, Paul's part had not been so\ndelicate to play. But even through their request for advice there\nshone the ineradicable Greek vices of vanity, restless intellectualism,\nlitigiousness, and sensuality. They even seemed to be on the perilous\nbrink of glorying in a spurious liberality which could condone vices\ncondemned by the heathen. In these circumstances the calmness and\npatience with which Paul pronounces on their entanglements are\nstriking. But even more striking are the boundless intellectual\nvigour, the practical sagacity, the ready application to life, of the\nprofoundest Christian principles. In reading the Epistle, one is\namazed at the brevity and yet completeness with which intricate\npractical problems are discussed, the unerring firmness with which,\nthrough all plausible sophistry and fallacious scruples, the radical\nprinciple is laid hold of, and the sharp finality with which it is\nexpressed. Nor is there any lack in the Epistle of the warm, rapid,\nand stirring eloquence which is associated with the name of Paul. It\nwas a happy circumstance for the future of Christianity that in those\nearly days, when there were almost as many wild suggestions and\nfoolish opinions as there were converts, there should have been in the\nChurch this one clear, practical judgment, this pure embodiment of the\nwisdom of Christianity.\n\nIt is in this Epistle we get the clearest view of the actual\ndifficulties encountered by Christianity in a heathen community. We\nhere see the religion of Christ confronted by the culture, and the\nvices, and the various social arrangements of paganism; we see the\nferment and turmoil its introduction occasioned, the changes it\nwrought in daily life and common customs, the difficulty men honestly\nexperienced in comprehending what their new principles required; we\nsee how the higher aims and views of Christianity sifted the social\ncustoms of the ancient world, now allowing and now rejecting; and,\nabove all, we see the principles on which we ourselves must proceed in\nsolving the social and ecclesiastical difficulties that embarrass\nourselves. It is in this Epistle, in short, that we see the Apostle of\nthe Gentiles in his proper and peculiar element, exhibiting the\napplicability of the religion of Christ to the Gentile world and its\npower, not to satisfy merely the aspirations of devout Jews, but to\nscatter the darkness and quicken the dead soul of the pagan world.\n\nPaul's experience in Corinth is full of significance. On arriving at\nCorinth, he went, as usual, to the synagogue; and when his message was\nrejected by the Jews, he betook himself to the Gentiles. Next door to\nthe synagogue, in the house of a convert called Justus, the Christian\ncongregation was founded; and, to the annoyance of the Jews, one of\nthe rulers of the synagogue, Crispus by name, attached himself to it.\nThe Jewish irritation and envy smouldered until a new governor came\nfrom Rome, and then it found vent. This new governor was one of the\nmost popular men of his time, the brother of Nero's tutor, the\nwell-known Seneca. He was himself so markedly the representative of\n\"sweetness and light\" that he was commonly spoken of as \"the sweet\nGallio.\" The Jews in Corinth evidently fancied that a man of this\ncharacter would be facile and would desire to make favour with all\nparties in his new province. They accordingly appealed to him, but\nwere met with a prompt and decided rebuff. Their new governor assured\nthem he had no jurisdiction over such questions. As soon as he hears\nit is not a matter in which the property or persons of his lieges is\nimplicated he bids his lictors clear the court. The rabble that always\ngathers round a courthouse, seeing a Jew ignominiously dismissed, set\nupon him and beat him under the very eye of the judge, the beginning\nof that furious, unreasoning, brutal outrage which has pursued the\nJews in all countries of Christendom.\n\nGallio has become the synonym for religious indifference. We call the\neasy-going, good-natured man who meets all your religious appeals with\na shrug of the shoulders or a genial, bantering answer a Gallio. This\nis perhaps a little hard upon Gallio, who no doubt attended to his own\nreligion in much the same spirit as his friends. When the narrative\nsays that \"he cared for none of those things,\" it means that he gave\nno heed to what seemed a common street brawl. It is rather the\nhaughtiness of the Roman proconsul than the indifference of the man of\nthe world that appears in his conduct. These squabbles among Jews\nabout matters of their law were not affairs he could stoop to\ninvestigate or was by his office required to investigate. And yet it\nis not Gallio's proconsulship of Achaia nor his relationship to Roman\ncelebrities that has made his name familiar to the modern world, but\nhis connection with these wretched Jews that appeared before his small\nchair that morning. In Paul's little, insignificant, worn figure it\nwas not to be expected he should see anything so remarkable as to\nstimulate inquiry; he could not have comprehended that the chief\nconnection in which his name would afterwards appear would be in\nconnection with Paul; and yet had he but known, had he but interested\nhimself in what evidently so deeply interested his new subjects, how\ndifferent might his own history have become, and how different, too,\nthe history of Christianity. But filled with a Roman's disdain for\nquestions of which the sword could not cut the knot, and with a\nRoman's reluctance to implicate himself with anything which was not\nsufficiently of this world to be adjusted by Roman law, he cleared his\ncourt and called the next case. The \"sweet Gallio,\" patient and\naffable to every other kind of complainant, had nothing but disdain\nand undisguised repugnance for these Eastern dreamers. The Roman, who\ncould sympathize with almost every nationality and find room for all\nmen in the wide lap of the empire, made himself detested in the East\nby his harsh contempt for mysticism and religion, and was met by a\ndisdain deeper than his own.\n\n \"The brooding East with awe beheld\n Her impious younger world;\n The Roman tempest swelled and swelled,\n And on her head was hurled:\n\n The East bowed low before the blast\n In patient, deep disdain;\n She let the legions thunder past,\n And plunged in thought again.\"\n\nNow in the Englishman there is much that closely resembles the Roman\ncharacter. There is the same ability for practical achievement, the\nsame capacity for conquest and for making much of conquered peoples,\nthe same reverence for law, the same faculty for dealing with the\nworld and the human race as it actually is! the same relish for and\nmastery of the present system of things. But along with these\nqualities there go in both races their natural defects: a tendency to\nforget the ideal and the unseen in the seen and the actual; to measure\nall things by material standards; to be more deeply impressed with the\nconquests of the sword than with those of the Spirit, and with the\ngains that are counted in coin rather than with those that are seen in\ncharacter; and to be far more intensely interested in whatever\nconcerns politics than in anything that concerns religion. So\npronounced is this materialistic, or at any rate worldly, tendency in\nthis country, that it has been formulated into a system for the\nconduct of life, under the name of secularism. And so popular has this\nsystem become, especially among working-men, that the chief promoter\nof it believes that his adherents may be numbered by hundreds of\nthousands.\n\nThe essential idea of secularism is \"that precedence should be given\nto the duties of this life over those which pertain to another life,\"\nthe reason being that this life is the first in certainty, and should\ntherefore be the first in importance. Mr. Holyoake carefully states\nhis position in these words: \"We do not say that every man ought to\ngive an _exclusive_ attention to this world, because that would be to\ncommit the old sin of dogmatism, and exclude the possibility of\nanother world and of walking by different light from that by which\nalone we are able to walk. But as our _knowledge_ is confined to this\nlife, and testimony, and conjecture, and probability are all that can\nbe set forth with respect to another life, we think we are justified\nin giving _precedence_ to the duties of this state and of attaching\nprimary importance to the morality of man to man.\" This statement has\nthe merit of being undogmatic, but it is in consequence\nproportionately vague. If a man is not to give _exclusive_ attention\nto this world, how much attention is he to give to another? Would Mr.\nHolyoake think the amount of attention most Christians give to the\nother world excessive? If so, the attention he thinks suitable must be\nlimited indeed.\n\nBut if this theoretical statement, framed in view of the exigencies of\ncontroversy, be scarcely intelligible, the position of the practical\nsecularist is perfectly intelligible. He says to himself, I have\noccupations and duties now that require all my strength; and if there\nis another world, the best preparation for it I can have is to do\nthoroughly and with all my strength the duties now pressing upon me.\nMost of us have felt the attraction of this position. It has a sound\nof candid, manly common-sense, and appeals to the English character in\nus, to our esteem for what is practical. Besides, it is perfectly true\nthat the best preparation for any future world is to do thoroughly\nwell the duties of our present state. But the whole question remains,\nWhat _are_ the duties of the present state? These can not be\ndetermined unless we come to some decision as to the truth or untruth\nof Christianity. If there is a God, it is not merely in the future,\nbut now, that we have duties to Him, that all our duties are tinged\nwith the idea of His presence and of our relation to Him. It is absurd\nto defer all consideration of God to a future world; God is as much in\nthis world as in any: and if so, our whole life, in every part of it,\nmust be, not a secular, but a godly, life--a life we live well and can\nonly live well when we live it in fellowship with Him. The mind that\ncan divide life into duties of the present and duties that concern the\nfuture entirely misapprehends the teaching of Christianity, and\nmisconceives what life is. If a man does not know whether there is a\nGod, then he cannot know what his present duties are, neither can he\ndo these duties as he ought. He may do them better than I can; but he\ndoes not do them as well as he himself could were he owning the\npresence and accepting the gracious, sanctifying influences of the\nDivine Spirit.\n\nTo the help of secularism comes also in our case another influence,\nwhich told with Gallio. Even the gentle and affable Gallio felt\nannoyed that so squalid a case should be among the first that came\nbefore him in Achaia. He had left Rome with the good wishes of the\nImperial Court, had made a triumphal procession of several weeks to\nCorinth, had been installed there with all the pomp that Roman\nofficials, military and civil, could devise; he had been met and\nacknowledged by the authorities, had sworn in his new officers, had\ncaused his tesselated pavement to be laid and his chair of state set\ndown: and as if in mockery of all this ceremony and display of power\ncame this pitiful squabble from the synagogue, a matter of which not a\nman of standing in his court knew or cared anything, a matter in which\nJews and slaves alone were interested. Christianity has always found\nits warmest supporters in the lower strata of society. It has not\nalways been quite respectable. And here again Englishmen are like\nRomans: they are strongly influenced by what is respectable, by what\nhas position and standing in the world. If Christianity were zealously\npromoted by princes, and leading officials, and distinguished\nprofessors and writers of genius, how much easier would it be to\naccept it; but its most zealous promoters are so commonly men of no\neducation, men with odd names, men whose grammar and pronunciation put\nthem beyond the pale of good society, men whose methods are rough and\nwhose views are unphilosophical and crude. As in Corinth, so now, not\nmany wise, not many mighty, not many noble, are called; and we must\nbeware therefore of shrinking, as Gallio did, from what is essentially\nthe most powerful agent for good in the world because it is so often\nfound with vulgar and repulsive adjuncts. The earthen vessels, as Paul\nreminds us, the pots of coarsest clay, chipped and crusted with coarse\ncontact with the world, may yet hold treasure of priceless value.\n\nIt is always a question how far we should endeavour to become all\nthings to all men, to win the wise of this world by presenting\nChristianity as a philosophy, and to win the well-born and cultured by\npresenting it in the dress of an attractive style. Paul as he left\nAthens, where he had met with so little success, was apparently\nexercised with this same question. He had tried to meet the Athenians\non their own ground, showing his familiarity with their writers; but\nhe seems to think that at Corinth another method may be more\nsuccessful, and, as he tells them, \"I determined to know nothing among\nyou save Jesus Christ and Him crucified.\" It was, he says, with much\nfear and trembling he adopted this course; he was weak and dispirited\nat the time, at any rate; and it is plain that his resolve to abandon\nall such appeals as might tell with rhetoricians cost him an effort\nand made a deep impression upon him. He himself saw so clearly the\nfoolishness of the Cross; he knew so well what a field for mockery was\npresented to the Greek mind by the preaching of salvation through a\ncrucified person. He was very conscious of the poor appearance he made\nas a speaker among these fluent Greeks, whose ears were as cultivated\nas musicians', and whose sense of beauty, trained by seeing their\npicked young men contend in the games, received a shock from \"his weak\nand contemptible bodily presence,\" as they called it. Yet, all things\nconsidered, he made up his mind that he would trust his success to the\nsimple statement of facts. He would preach \"Christ and Him crucified.\"\nHe would tell them what Jesus had been and done. He felt jealous of\nanything which might attract men to his preaching save the Cross of\nChrist. And he was more successful in Corinth than he had been\nelsewhere. In that profligate city he was obliged to stay eighteen\nmonths, because the work so grew under his hand.\n\nAnd so it has ever been since. As matter of fact, it is not Christ's\nteaching, but His death, which has kindled the enthusiasm and the\ndevotion of men. It is this which has conquered and won them, and\ndelivered them from the bondage of self, and set them in a larger\nworld. It is when we believe that this Person has loved us with a love\nstronger than death that we become His. It is when we can use Paul's\nwords \"who loved me and gave Himself for me\" that we feel, as Paul\nfelt, the constraining power of this love. It is this that forms\nbetween the soul and Christ that secret tie which has been the\nstrength and happiness of so many lives. If our own life is neither\nstrong nor happy, it is because we are not admitting the love of\nChrist, and are striving to live independently of Him who is our Life.\nChrist is the perennial fountain of love, of hopefulness, of true\nspiritual life. In Him there is enough to purify, and brighten, and\nsustain all human life. Brought into contact with the intellectualism\nand the vice of Corinth, the love of Christ proved its reality and its\novercoming strength; and when we bring it into contact with ourselves,\nburdened, and perplexed, and tempted as we are, we find that still it\nis the power of God unto salvation.\n\n_THE CHURCH IN CORINTH._\n\n \"Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will\n of God, and Sosthenes our brother, unto the church of God which\n is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus,\n called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the\n name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's: Grace be\n unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus\n Christ. I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of\n God which is given you by Jesus Christ; that in everything ye are\n enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge: even as\n the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: so that ye come\n behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus\n Christ: who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be\n blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful,\n by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of His Son Jesus\n Christ our Lord.\"--1 COR. i. 2-9.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\n_THE CHURCH IN CORINTH._\n\n\nIn the year 58 A.D., when Paul wrote this Epistle, Corinth was a city\nwith a mixed population, and conspicuous for the turbulence and\nimmorality commonly found in seaports frequented by traders and seamen\nfrom all parts of the world. Paul had received letters from some of\nthe Christians in Corinth which disclosed a state of matters in the\nChurch far from desirable. He had also more particular accounts from\nsome members of Chloe's household who were visiting Ephesus, and who\ntold him how sadly disturbed the little community of Christians was by\nparty spirit and scandals in life and worship.\n\nIn the letter itself the designation of the writer and of those\naddressed first claims our attention.\n\nThe writer identifies himself as \"Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ by\ncall, through the will of God.\" An Apostle is one sent, as Christ was\nsent by the Father. \"As the Father sent Me, even so send I you.\" It\nwas therefore an office no one could take to himself, nor was it the\npromotion resulting from previous service. To the apostleship the sole\nentrance was through the call of Christ; and in virtue of this call\nPaul became, as he says, an Apostle. And it is this which explains one\nof the most prominent of his characteristics: the singular\ncombination of humility and authority, of self-depreciation and\nself-assertion. He is filled with a sense of his own unworthiness; he\nis \"less than the least of the Apostles,\" \"not worthy to be called an\nApostle.\" On the other hand, he never hesitates to command the\nChurches, to rebuke the foremost man in the Church, to assert his\nclaim to be listened to as the ambassador of Christ.\n\nThis extraordinary humility and equally remarkable boldness and\nauthority had one common root in his perception that it was through\nChrist's call and by God's will he was an Apostle. The work of going\nto all the busiest parts of the world and proclaiming Christ was to\nhis mind far too great a work for him to aspire to at his own\ninstance. He could never have aspired to such a position as this gave\nhim. But God called him to it; and, with this authority at his back,\nhe feared nothing, neither hardship nor defeat.\n\nAnd this is for us all the true and eternal source of humility and\nconfidence. Let a man feel sure that he is called of God to do what he\nis doing, let him be fully persuaded in his own mind that the course\nhe follows is God's will for him, and he will press on undauntedly,\neven though opposed. It is altogether a new strength with which a man\nis inspired when he is made conscious that God calls him to do this or\nthat, when behind conscience or the plain requirements of human\naffairs and circumstances the presence of the living God makes itself\nfelt. Well may we exclaim, with one who had to stand alone and follow\na solitary path, conscious only of God's approval, and sustained by\nthat consciousness against the disapproval of all, \"Oh that we could\ntake that simple view of things as to feel that the one thing which\nlies before us is to please God! What gain is it to please the world,\nto please the great, nay even to please those whom we love, compared\nwith this? What gain is it to be applauded, admired, courted,\nfollowed, compared with this one aim of not being disobedient to a\nheavenly vision?\"\n\nIn addressing the Church at Corinth, Paul unites with himself a\nChristian called Sosthenes. This was the name of the chief ruler of\nthe synagogue at Corinth who was beaten by the Greeks in Gallio's\ncourt, and it is not impossible that it was he who was now with Paul\nin Ephesus. If so, this would account for his being associated with\nPaul in writing to Corinth. What share in the letter Sosthenes\nactually had it is impossible to say. He may have written it to Paul's\ndictation; he may have suggested here and there a point to be touched\nupon. Certainly Paul's easy assumption of a friend as joint writer of\nthe letter sufficiently shows that he had no such stiff and formal\nidea of inspiration as we have. Apparently he did not stay to inquire\nwhether Sosthenes was qualified to be the author of a canonical book;\nbut knowing the authoritative position he had held among the Jews of\nCorinth, he naturally conjoins his name with his own in addressing the\nnew Christian community.\n\nThe persons to whom this letter is addressed are identified as \"the\nChurch of God which is at Corinth.\" With them are joined in character,\nif not as recipients of this letter, \"all that in every place call\nupon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.\" And therefore we should\nperhaps not be far wrong if we were to gather from this that Paul\nwould have defined the Church as the company of all those persons who\n\"call upon the name of Jesus Christ.\" Calling upon the name of any\none implies trust in him; and those who call upon the name of Jesus\nChrist are those who look up to Christ as their supreme Lord, able to\nsupply all their need. It is this belief in one Lord which brings men\ntogether as a Christian Church.\n\nBut at once we are confronted with the difficulty that many persons\nwho call upon the name of the Lord do so with no inward conviction of\ntheir need, and consequently with no real dependence upon Christ or\nallegiance to Him. In other words, the apparent Church is not the real\nChurch. Hence the distinction between the Church visible, which\nconsists of all who nominally or outwardly belong to the Christian\ncommunity, and the Church invisible, which consists of those who\ninwardly and really are the subjects and people of Christ. Much\nconfusion of thought is avoided by keeping in mind this obvious\ndistinction. In the Epistles of Paul it is sometimes the ideal,\ninvisible Church which is addressed or spoken of; sometimes it is the\nactual, visible Church, imperfect, stained with unsightly blots,\ncalling for rebuke and correction. Where the visible Church is, and of\nwhom composed, we can always say; its members can be counted, its\nproperty estimated, its history written. But of the invisible Church\nno man can fully write the history, or name the members, or appraise\nits properties, gifts, and services.\n\nFrom the earliest times it has been customary to say that the true\nChurch must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. That is true if the\nChurch invisible be meant. The true body of Christ, the company of\npersons who in all countries and ages have called upon Christ and\nserved Him, do form one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. But it\nis not true of the Church visible and disastrous consequences have at\nvarious times followed the attempt to ascertain by the application of\nthese notes which actual visible Church has the best claim to be\nconsidered the true Church.\n\nWithout concerning himself explicitly to describe the distinguishing\nfeatures of the true Church, Paul here gives us four notes which must\nalways be found[1]:--\n\n [1] Comp. F. W. Robertson's _Lectures on Corinthians_.\n\n1. Consecration. The Church is composed of \"them that have been\nsanctified in Christ Jesus.\"\n\n2. Holiness: \"called to be saints.\"\n\n3. Universality: \"all that in every place call on the name,\" etc.\n\n4. Unity: \"both their Lord and ours.\"\n\n1. The true Church is, first of all, composed of consecrated people.\nThe word \"sanctify\" bears here a somewhat different meaning from that\nwhich we commonly attach to it. It means rather that which is set\napart or destined to holy uses than that which has been made holy. It\nis in this meaning the word is used by our Lord when He says, \"For\nyour sakes I sanctify\"--or set apart--\"Myself.\" The Church by its very\nexistence is a body of men and women set apart for a holy use. The New\nTestament word for Church, _ecclesia_, means a society \"called out\"\nfrom among other men. It exists not for common purposes, but to\nwitness for God and for Christ, to maintain before the eyes and in all\nthe common ways and works of men the ideal life realized in Christ and\nthe presence and holiness of God. It becomes those who form the Church\nto meet God's purpose in calling them out of the world and to consider\nthemselves as devoted and set apart to attain that purpose. Their\ndestination is no longer that of the world; and a spirit set upon the\nattainment of the joys and advantages the world gives is wholly out of\nplace in them.\n\n2. More particularly those who compose the Church are called to be\n\"saints.\" Holiness is the unmistakable characteristic of the true\nChurch. The glory of God, inseparable from His essence, is His\nholiness, His eternally willing and doing only what is the very best.\nTo think of God as doing wrong is blasphemy. Were God even once to do\nother than the best and right, the loving and just thing, He would\ncease to be God. It is the task of the Church to exhibit in human life\nand character this holiness of God's. Those whom God calls into His\nChurch, He calls to be, above all else, holy.\n\nThe Church of Corinth was in some danger of forgetting this. One of\nits members in particular had been guilty of a scandalous breach even\nof the heathen code of morals; and of him Paul uncompromisingly says,\n\"Put away from among yourselves that wicked person.\" Even with sinners\nof a less flagrant sort, no communion was to be held. \"If any man that\nis called a brother\"--that is, claiming to be a Christian--\"be a\nfornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard,\nor an extortioner, with such a one you must not even eat.\" No doubt\nthere is risk and difficulty in administering this law. The graver\nhidden sin may be overlooked, the more obvious and venial\ntransgression be punished. But the duty of the Church to maintain its\nsanctity is undeniable, and those who act for the Church must do their\nbest in spite of all difficulty and risk.\n\nThe prime duty, however, lies with the members, not with the rulers,\nin the Church. Those whose function it is to watch over the purity of\nthe Church would be saved from all doubtful action were the\nindividual members alive to the necessity of holy living. This, they\nshould bear in mind, is the very object of the Church's existence and\nof their being in it.\n\n3. Thirdly, it is ever to be borne in mind that the true Church of\nChrist is to be found, not in one country nor in one age, not in this\nor that Church, whether it assume the title of \"Catholic\" or pride\nitself on being national, but is composed of \"all that in every place\ncall upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.\" Happily the time is gone\nby when with any show of reason any one Church can claim to be\ncatholic on the ground of its being coextensive with Christendom. It\nis true that Cardinal Newman, one of the most striking figures and\nprobably the greatest Churchman of our own generation, attached\nhimself to the Church of Rome on this very ground: that it possessed\nthis note of catholicity. To his eye, accustomed to survey the\nfortunes and growth of Christ's Church during the early and medi\u00e6val\ncenturies, it seemed that the Church of Rome alone had any reasonable\nclaim to be considered the Church catholic. But he was betrayed, as\nothers have been, by confounding the Church visible with the Church\ninvisible. No one visible Church can claim to be the Church catholic.\nCatholicity is not a matter of more or less; it cannot be determined\nby a majority. No Church which does not claim to contain the whole of\nChrist's people without exception can claim to be catholic. Probably\nthere are some who accept this alternative, and do not see it to be\nabsurd to claim for any one existing Church that it is coextensive\nwith the Church of Christ.\n\n4. The fourth note of the Church here implied is its unity. The Lord\nof all the Churches is one Lord; in this allegiance they centre, and\nby it are held together in a true unity. Plainly this note can belong\nonly to the Church invisible, and not to that multifarious collection\nof incoherent fragments known as the visible Church. It is indeed\ndoubtful whether a visible unity is desirable. Considering what human\nnature is and how liable men are to be overawed and imposed upon by\nwhat is large, it is probably quite as conducive to the spiritual\nwell-being of the Church that she is broken up into parts. Outward\ndivisions into national Churches and Churches under different forms of\ngovernment and holding various creeds would sink into insignificance,\nand be no more bewailed than the division of an army into regiments,\nwere there the real unity which springs from true allegiance to the\ncommon Lord and zeal for the common cause rather than for the\ninterests of our own particular Church. When the generous rivalry\nexhibited by some of our regiments in battle passes into envy, unity\nis destroyed; and indeed the attitude sometimes assumed towards\nsister-Churches is rather that of hostile armies than of rival\nregiments striving which can do most honour to the common flag. One of\nthe hopeful signs of our times is that this is generally understood.\nChristian people are beginning to see how much more important are\nthose points on which the whole Church is agreed than those often\nobscure or trivial points which split the Church into sects. Churches\nare beginning to own with some sincerity that there are Christian\ngifts and graces in all Churches, and that no one Church comprises all\nthe excellences of Christendom. And the only outward unity that is\nworth having is that which springs from inward unity, from a genuine\nrespect and regard for all who own the same Lord and spend themselves\nin His service.\n\nPaul, with his usual courtesy and instinctive tact, introduces what he\nhas to say with a hearty acknowledgment of the distinctive excellences\nof the Corinthian Church: \"I thank my God always on your behalf, for\nthe grace of God which is given you in Christ Jesus, that in\neverything ye have been enriched in Him, in all utterance and in all\nknowledge, even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you.\" Paul\nwas one of those large-natured men who rejoice more in the prosperity\nof others than in any private good fortune. The envious soul is glad\nwhen things go no better with others than with himself, but the\ngenerous and unselfish are lifted out of their own woes by their\nsympathy with the happy. Paul's joy--and it was no mean or shallow\njoy--was to see the testimony he had borne to Christ's goodness and\npower confirmed by the new energies and capacities which were\ndeveloped in those who believed his testimony. The gifts which the\nChristians in Corinth exhibited made it manifest that the Divine\npresence and power proclaimed by Paul were real. His testimony\nregarding the risen but unseen Lord was confirmed by the fact that\nthose who believed this testimony and called upon the name of the Lord\nreceived gifts not previously enjoyed by them. Further argument\nregarding the actual and present power of the unseen Lord was needless\nin Corinth. And in our day it is the new life of believers which most\nstrongly confirms the testimony regarding the risen Christ. Every one\nwho attaches himself to the Church either damages or aids the cause of\nChrist, propagates either belief or unbelief. In the Corinthians\nPaul's testimony regarding Christ was confirmed by their reception of\nthe rare gifts of utterance and knowledge. It is indeed somewhat\nominous that the incorruptible honesty of Paul can only acknowledge\ntheir possession of \"gifts,\" not of those fine Christian graces which\ndistinguished the Thessalonians and others of his converts. But the\ngrace of God must always adjust itself to the nature of the recipient;\nit fulfils itself by means of the material which nature furnishes. The\nGreek nature was at all times lacking in seriousness, and had attained\nlittle moral robustness; but for many centuries it had been trained to\nadmire and excel in intellectual and oratorical displays. The natural\ngifts of the Greek race were quickened and directed by grace. Their\nintellectual inquisitiveness and apprehensiveness enabled them to\nthrow light on the grounds and results of the Christian facts; and\ntheir fluent and flexible speech formed a new wealth and a more worthy\nemployment in their endeavours to formulate Christian truth and\nexhibit Christian experience. Each race has its own contribution to\nmake to complete and full-grown Christian manhood. Each race has its\nown gifts; and only when grace has developed all these gifts in a\nChristian direction can we actually see the fitness of Christianity\nfor all men and the wealth of the nature and work of Christ, which can\nappeal to and best develop all.\n\nPaul thanked God for their gift of utterance. Perhaps had he lived\nnow, within sound of an utterance dizzying and ceaseless as the roar\nof Niagara, he might have had a word to say in praise of silence.\nThere is more than a risk nowadays that talk take the place of thought\non the one hand and of action on the other. But it could not fail to\noccur to Paul that this Greek utterance, with the instrument it had in\nthe Greek language, was a great gift to the Church. In no other\nlanguage could he have found such adequate, intelligible, and\nbeautiful expression for the new ideas to which Christianity gave\nbirth. And in this new gift of utterance among the Corinthians he may\nhave seen promise of a rapid and effective propagation of the Gospel.\nFor indeed there are few more valuable gifts the Church can receive\nthan utterance. Legitimately may we hope for the Church when she so\napprehends her own wealth in Christ as to be stirred to invite all the\nworld to share with her, when through all her members she feels the\npressure of thoughts that demand utterance, or when there arise in her\neven one or two persons with the rare faculty of swaying large\naudiences, and touching the common human heart, and lodging in the\npublic mind some germinant ideas. New epochs in the Church's life are\nmade by the men who speak, not to satisfy the expectation of an\naudience, but because they are driven by an inward compelling force,\nnot because they are called upon to say something, but because they\nhave that in them which they must say.\n\nBut utterance is well backed by knowledge. Not always has it been\nremembered that Paul recognises knowledge as a gift of God. Often, on\nthe contrary, has the determination to satisfy the intellect with\nChristian truth been reprehended as idle and even wicked. To the\nCorinthians the Christian revelation was new, and inquiring minds,\ncould not but endeavour to harmonize the various facts it conveyed.\nThis attempt to understand Christianity was approved. The exercise of\nthe human reason upon Divine things was encouraged. The faith which\naccepted testimony was a gift of God, but so also was the knowledge\nwhich sought to recommend the contents of this testimony to the human\nmind.\n\nBut however rich in endowments the Corinthians were, they could not\nbut feel, in common with all other men, that no endowment can lift us\nabove the necessity of conflict with sin or put us beyond the hazard\nwhich that conflict entails. In point of fact, richly endowed men are\noften most exposed to temptation, and feel more keenly than others the\nreal hazard of human life. Paul therefore concludes this brief\nintroduction by assigning the reason of his assurance that they will\nbe blameless in the day of Christ; and that reason is that God is in\nthe matter: \"God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the\nfellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord.\" God calls us with a\npurpose in view, and is faithful to that purpose. He calls us to the\nfellowship of Christ that we may learn of Him and become suitable\nagents to carry out the whole will of Christ. To fear that,\nnotwithstanding our hearty desire to become of Christ's mind and\nnotwithstanding all our efforts to enter more deeply into His\nfellowship, we shall yet fail, is to reflect upon God as either\ninsincere in His call or inconstant. The gifts and calling of God are\nwithout repentance. They are not revoked on further consideration.\nGod's invitation comes to us, and is not withdrawn, even though it is\nnot met with the hearty acceptance it deserves. All our obstinacy in\nsin, all our blindness to our true advantage, all our lack of anything\nlike generous self-devotion, all our frivolity, and folly, and\nworldliness, are understood before the call is given. By calling us\ninto the fellowship of His Son God guarantees to us the possibility of\nour entering into that fellowship and of becoming fit for it.\n\nLet us then revive our hopes and renew our belief in the worth of life\nby remembering that we are called to the fellowship of Jesus Christ.\nThis is satisfying; all else that calls us in life is defective and\nincomplete. Without this fellowship with what is holy and eternal,\nall we find in life seems trivial or is embittered to us by the fear\nof loss. In worldly pursuits there is excitement; but when the fire\nburns out, and the cold ashes remain, chill and blank desolation is\nthe portion of the man whose all has been the world. We cannot\nreasonably and deliberately choose the world; we may be carried away\nby greed, or carnality, or earthliness to seek its pleasures, but our\nreason and our better nature cannot approve the choice. Still less\ndoes our reason approve that what we cannot deliberately choose we\nshould yet allow ourselves to be governed by and actually join in\nfellowship of the closest kind. Believe in God's call, listen to it,\nstrive to maintain yourself in the fellowship of Christ, and every\nyear will tell you that God, who has called you, is faithful and is\nbringing you nearer and nearer to what is stable, happy, and\nsatisfying.\n\n_THE FACTIONS._\n\n \"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus\n Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no\n divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in\n the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared\n unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of\n Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that\n every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of\n Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified\n for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God\n that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any\n should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized\n also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I\n baptized any other.\"--1 COR. i. 10-16.\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\n_THE FACTIONS._\n\n\nThe first section of this Epistle, extending from the tenth verse of\nthe first chapter to the end of the fourth chapter, is occupied with\nan endeavour to quench the factious spirit which had shown itself in\nthe Corinthian Church. Paul, with his accustomed frankness, tells the\nCorinthians from whom he had received information regarding them. Some\nmembers of the household of Chloe who were then in Ephesus were his\ninformants. Chloe was evidently a woman well known in Corinth, and\nprobably was resident there, although it has with some reason been\nremarked that it \"is more in harmony with St. Paul's discretion to\nsuppose that she was an Ephesian known to the Corinthians, whose\npeople had been in Corinth and returned to Ephesus.\"[2] The danger of\nthis factious spirit, which in subsequent ages has so grievously\nweakened the Church and hindered her work, seemed to Paul so urgent\nthat he abruptly adjured them to unity of sentiment and of confession\nby that name which was at once \"the bond of union and the most holy\nname by which they could be entreated.\" Before speaking of the\nimportant topics he wished to discuss, he must first of all give them\nto understand that he does not write to a party, but seeks to win the\near of a whole and united Church.\n\n [2] Evans.\n\nThe parties in the Corinthian Church had not as yet outwardly\nseparated from one another. The members were known as belonging to\nthis or that party, but they worshipped together and had not as yet\nrenounced one another's communion. They differed in doctrine, but\ntheir faith in one Lord held them together.\n\nOf these parties Paul names four. There were first of all those who\nheld by Paul himself and the aspect of the Gospel he had presented.\nThey owed to him their own salvation; and having experienced the\nefficacy of his gospel, they could not believe that there was any\nother efficacious mode of presenting Christ to men. And gradually they\nbecame more concerned to uphold Paul's authority than to help the\ncause of Christ. They probably fell into the mistake to which all mere\npartisans are liable, and became more Pauline than Paul himself,\nmagnifying his peculiarities and attaching importance to casual\nsayings and private practices of his which were in themselves\nindifferent. There was apparently some danger that they might become\nmore Pauline than Christian, should allow their indebtedness to Paul\nto obscure their debt to Christ, and should so pride themselves in the\nteacher as to neglect the thing taught.\n\nThere was a second party, grouped round Apollos. This learned and\neloquent Alexandrian had come to Corinth after Paul left, and what\nPaul had planted he so successfully watered that many seemed to owe\neverything to him. Until he came and fitted the Gospel into their\nprevious knowledge, and showed them its relations to other faiths, and\nopened up to them its ethical wealth and bearing on life, they had\nbeen unable to make full use of Paul's teaching. He had sown the seed\nin their minds; they had owned the truth of his statements and\naccepted them; but until they heard Apollos they could not lay hold on\nthe truth with sufficient definiteness, and could not boldly act upon\nit. The teaching of Apollos was not opposed to Paul's, but\nsupplementary of it. At the end of this letter Paul tells the\nCorinthians that he had asked Apollos to revisit them, but Apollos had\nrefused, and refused very probably because he was aware that a party\nhad been formed in his name, and that his presence in Corinth would\nonly foster and increase it. It is obvious therefore that there was no\njealousy between Paul and Apollos themselves, whatever rivalry might\nexist among their followers.\n\nThe third party gloried in the name of Cephas; that is, Peter, the\nApostle of the circumcision. It is possible that Peter had been in\nCorinth, but it is not necessary to suppose so. His name was used in\nopposition to Paul's as representing the original group of Apostles\nwho had companied with the Lord in His lifetime, and who adhered to\nthe observance of the Jewish law. How far the party of Cephas in\nCorinth indulged in disparagement of Paul's authority we cannot\nexactly say. There are indications, however, in the Epistle that they\ncited against him even his self-denial, arguing that he did not dare\neither to ask the Church to maintain him or to marry, as Peter had\ndone, because he felt that his claim to be an Apostle was insecure. It\nmay be imagined how painful it must have been for a high-minded man\nlike Paul to be compelled to defend himself against such accusations,\nand with what mingled indignation and shame he must have written the\nwords, \"Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as\nother Apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas? Or I only\nand Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?\" This party then\nhad in it more dangerous elements than the party of Apollos. Extreme\nJudaizers would find among its members a soil prepared for their\napparently conservative and orthodox but really obstructive and\npernicious teaching.\n\nOf the fourth party, which named itself \"of Christ,\" we learn more in\nthe Second Epistle than in the First. From a striking and powerful\noutburst in that Epistle (2 Cor. x. 7-xii. 18), it would appear that\nthe Christ party was formed and led by men who prided themselves on\ntheir Hebrew descent (xi. 22), and on having learned their\nChristianity, not from Paul, Apollos, or Cephas, but from Christ\nHimself (1 Cor. i. 12; 2 Cor. x. 7). These men came to Corinth with\nletters of commendation (2 Cor. iii. 1), probably from Palestine, as\nthey had known Jesus, but not from the Apostles in Jerusalem, for they\nseparated themselves from the Petrine party in Corinth. They claimed\nto be apostles of Christ (2 Cor. xi. 13) and \"ministers of\nrighteousness\" (xi. 15); but as they taught \"another Jesus,\" \"another\nspirit,\" \"another gospel\" (xi. 4), Paul does not hesitate to denounce\nthem as false apostles and ironically to hold them up as \"out-and-out\napostles.\" As yet, however, at the date of the First Epistle, they had\neither not so plainly shown their true colours, or Paul was not aware\nof all the evil they were doing.\n\nThe Apostle hears of these four parties with dismay. What then would\nhe think of the state of the Church now? There was as yet in Corinth\nno schism, no secession, no outward disruption of the Church; and\nindeed Paul does not seem to contemplate as possible that which in\nour day is the normal condition: a Church broken up into little\nsections, each of which worships by itself, and looks upon the rest\nwith some distrust or contempt. It did not as yet appear possible that\nthe members of the one body of Christ should refuse to worship their\ncommon Lord in fellowship with one another and in one place. The evils\nattaching to such a condition of things may no doubt be unduly\nmagnified; but we are probably more inclined to overlook than to\nmagnify the mischief done by disunion in the Church. The Church was\nintended to be the grand uniter of the race. Within its pale all kinds\nof men were to be gathered. Distinctions were to be obliterated;\ndifferences were to be forgotten; the deepest thoughts and interests\nof all men were to be recognised as common; there was to be neither\nJew nor Gentile, Greek nor barbarian, bond nor free. But instead of\nuniting men otherwise alienated, the Church has alienated neighbours\nand friends; and men who will do business together, who will dine\ntogether, will not worship together. Thus the Church has lost a large\npart of her strength. Had the kingdom of Christ been visibly one, it\nwould have been supreme and without a rival in the world. Had there\nbeen union where there has been division, the rule and influence of\nChrist would have so far surpassed every other influence that peace\nand truth, right and justice, godliness and mercy, would have\neverywhere reigned. But instead of this the strength of the Church has\nbeen frittered away in civil strife and party warfare, her ablest men\nhave spent themselves in controversy, and through division her\ninfluence has become insignificant. The world looks on and laughs\nwhile it sees the Church divided against itself and wrangling over\npetty differences while it ought to be assailing vice, ungodliness,\nand ignorance. And yet schism is thought no sin; and that which the\nReformers shuddered at and shrank from, that secession which they\nfeared to make even from a Church so corrupt as that of Rome then was,\nevery petty ecclesiastic now presumes to initiate.\n\nNow that the Church is broken into pieces, perhaps the first step\ntowards a restoration of true unity is to recognise that there may be\nreal union without unity of external organization. In other words, it\nis quite possible that Churches which have individually a separate\ncorporate existence--say the Presbyterian, Independent, and\nEpiscopalian Churches--may be one in the New Testament sense. The\nhuman race is one; but this unity admits of numberless varieties and\ndiversities in appearance, in colour, in language, and of endless\nsubordinate divisions into races, tribes, and nations. So the Church\nmay be truly one, one in the sense intended by our Lord, one in the\n_unity of the Spirit_ and the bond of peace, though there continue to\nbe various divisions and sects. It may very well be argued that,\nconstituted as human nature is, the Church, like every other society\nor institution, will be the better of a competing, if not an opposing,\nrival; that schism, divisions, sects, are necessary evils; that truth\nwill be more thoroughly investigated, discipline more diligently and\njustly maintained, useful activities more vigorously engaged in, if\nthere be rival Churches than if there be one. And it is certainly true\nthat, so far as man can foresee, there is no possibility, not to say\nprospect, of the Church of Christ becoming one vast visible\norganization. Oneness in that sense is prevented by the very same\nobstacles that hinder all States and governments on earth from being\nmerged into one great kingdom. But as amidst all diversities of\ngovernment and customs it is the duty of States to remember and\nmaintain their common brotherhood and abstain from tyranny,\noppression, and war, so it is the duty of Churches, however separate\nin creed or form of government, to maintain and exhibit their unity.\nIf the sects of the Church will frankly and cordially recognise one\nanother as parts of the same whole, if they will exhibit their\nrelationship by combining in good works, by an interchange of\necclesiastical civilities, by aiding one another when aid is needed,\nthis is, I conceive, real union. Certainly Churches which see it to be\ntheir duty to maintain a separate existence ought to be equally\ncareful to maintain a real unity with all other Churches.\n\nAgain, it is to be borne in mind that there may be real union without\nunity in creed. As Churches may be truly one though, for the sake of\nconvenience or of some conscientious scruple, they maintain a separate\nexistence, so the unity required in the New Testament is not\nuniformity of belief in respect to all articles of faith. This\nuniformity is desirable; it is desirable that all men know the truth.\nPaul here and elsewhere entreats his readers to endeavour to agree and\nbe of one mind. It is quite true that the Church has gained much by\ndifference of opinion. It is true that were all men to be agreed there\nmight be a danger of truth becoming lifeless and forgotten for want of\nthe stimulus it derives from assault, and discussion, and\ncross-questioning. It is undoubtedly the fact that doctrine has been\nascertained and developed precisely in proportion and in answer to the\nerrors and mistakes of heretics; and were all assault and opposition\neven now to cease, there might be some danger of a lifeless treatment\nof truth ensuing. And yet no one can desire that men be in error; no\none can wish heresies to multiply that the Church may be stimulated. A\nvisitation of cholera may result in cleanliness and carefulness, but\nno one desires that cholera may come. Opposition in Parliament is an\nacknowledged service to the country, yet each party desires that its\nsentiments become universal. So, too, notwithstanding every good\nresult which may flow from diversity of opinion regarding Divine\ntruth, agreement and unanimity are what all should aim at. We may even\nsee reason to believe that men will never all think alike; we may\nthink that it is not in the nature of things that men of diverse\nnatural disposition, diverse experience and upbringing, should think\nthe same thing; if it is true, as a great thinker has said, that \"our\nsystem of thought is very often only the history of our heart,\" then\nthe effort to bring men to precise uniformity of thought is hopeless:\nand yet this effort must be made. No man who believes he has found the\ntruth can forbear disseminating it to the utmost of his ability. If\nhis favourite views are opposed in conversation, he does what he can\nto convince and make converts of his antagonists. There is truth,\nthere is a right and a wrong, and it is not all the same whether we\nknow the truth or are in error; and doctrine is simply truth\nexpressed: and though the whole truth may not be expressed, yet even\nthis partial expression of it may be much safer and nearer what we\nought to believe than some current denial of the truth. Paul wishes\npeople to believe certain things, not as if then they would be fully\nenlightened, but because so far they will be enlightened and so far\ndefended against error.\n\nBut the question remains, What truths are to be made terms of\ncommunion? Is schism or secession ever justifiable on the ground that\nerror is taught in the Church?\n\nThis is a question most difficult to answer. The Church of Christ is\nformed of those who are trusting to Him as the power of God unto\nsalvation. He is in communion with all who thus trust Him, whether\ntheir knowledge be great or small; and we cannot refuse to communicate\nwith those with whom He is in communion. And it may very reasonably be\nquestioned whether any part of the Church has a right to identify\nherself with a creed which past experience proves that the whole\nChurch will never adopt, and which therefore necessarily makes her\nschismatic and sectarian. As manifestoes or didactic summaries of\ntruth, confessions of faith may be very useful. Systematic knowledge\nis at all times desirable; and as a backbone to which all the\nknowledge we acquire may be attached a catechism or confession of\nfaith is part of the necessary equipment of a Church. But no doctrinal\nerror which does not subvert personal faith in Christ should be\nallowed to separate Churches. Theology must not be made more of than\nChristianity. We cannot pay too much attention to doctrine or too\nearnestly contend for the faith; we cannot too anxiously seek to have\nand to disseminate clear views of truth: but if we make our clear\nviews a reason for quarrelling with other Christians and a bar to our\nfellowship with them, we forget that Christ is more than doctrine and\ncharity better than knowledge.\n\nPaul certainly was contemplating Christ, and not a creed, as the\nprinciple and centre of the Church's unity, when he exclaimed, \"Is\nChrist divided?\" The indivisible unity of Christ Himself is in Paul's\nmind the sufficient argument for the unity of the Church. If you can\ndivide the one Christ, and if one Church can live on one part, another\non another, then you may have several Churches; but if there be one\nChrist indivisible, then is there but one Church indivisible. In all\nChristians and in all Churches the one Christ is the life of each. And\nit is monstrous that those who are vitally united to one Person and\nquickened by one Spirit should in no way recognise their unity.\n\nIt is with something akin to horror that Paul goes on to ask, \"Was\nPaul crucified for you?\" He implies that only on the death of Christ\ncan the Church be founded. If those who prided themselves on being\nfollowers of Paul were in danger of exalting him into the place of\nChrist, they were forfeiting their salvation, and had no right to be\nin the Church at all. Take away the death of Christ and the personal\nconnection of the believer with the crucified Redeemer, and you take\naway the Church.\n\nFrom this casual expression of Paul we see his habitual attitude\ntowards Christ; and more distinctly than from any laboured exposition\ndo we gather that in his mind the pre-eminence of Christ was unique,\nand that this pre-eminence was based upon His crucifixion. Paul\nunderstood, and was never slow to affirm, the indebtedness of the\nyoung Christian Churches to himself: he was their father, and without\nhim they would not have existed. But he was not their saviour, the\nfoundation on which they were built. Not for one moment did he suppose\nthat he could occupy towards men the position Christ occupied. That\nposition was unique, altogether distinct from the position he\noccupied. No one could share with Christ in being the Head of the\nChurch and the Saviour of the body. Paul did not think of Christ as\nof one among many, as of the best among many who had done well. He did\nnot think of Him as the best among renowned and useful teachers, as\none who had added to what previous teachers had been building. He\nthought of His work as so transcending and distinct from the work of\nother men that it was with a kind of horror he saw that there was even\na possibility of some confounding his own apostolic work with the work\nof Christ. He fervently thanks God that he had not even baptized many\npersons at Corinth, lest it should be supposed he had baptized them\ninto his own name, and so implied, as baptism implies, that men were\nto acknowledge him as their leader and head. Had the chief part of\nChrist's work been its lesson in self-sacrifice, might not Paul's life\nhave very well rivalled it, and might not those who had themselves\nseen the life of Paul and felt the power of his goodness have been\nforgiven if they felt more indebted to him than to the more remote\nJesus?\n\nThe ever-recurring disposition then to reduce the work of Christ to\nthe level of comparison with the work done for the race by other men\nmust take account of this expression which reveals to us Paul's\nthought about it. Certainly Paul understands that between his work and\nthe work of Christ an impassable gulf is fixed. Paul was wholly\ndevoted to his fellow-men, had suffered and was prepared again to\nsuffer any hardships and outrage in their cause, but it seemed to him\nmonstrous that any person should confound the influence of his work\nwith that of Christ's. And that which gave Christ this special place\nand claim was His crucifixion. We miss what Paul found in the work of\nChrist so long as we look more to His life than to His death. Paul\ndoes not say, Was Paul your teacher in religion, and did he lead your\nthoughts to God? did Paul by his life show you the beauty of\nself-sacrifice and holiness? but \"Was Paul crucified for you?\" It was\nChrist's death for His people which gave Him the unique claim on their\nallegiance and devotedness. The Church is founded on the Cross.\n\nIt was not, however, the mere fact of His dying which gave Christ this\nplace, and which claims the regard and trust of all men. Paul had\nreally given his life for men; he had been more than once taken up for\ndead, having by the truth he taught provoked the hatred of the Jews,\neven as Jesus had done. But even this did not bring him into rivalry\nwith the unapproachable Redeemer. Paul knew that in Christ's death\nthere was a significance his own could never have. It was not only\nhuman self-sacrifice that was there manifested, but Divine\nself-sacrifice. It was as God's Representative Christ died as truly as\nHe died as man's Representative. This Paul could not do. In Christ's\ndeath there was what there could be in none other: a sacrifice for the\nsins of men and an atonement for these sins. Through this death\nsinners find a way back to God and assurance of salvation. There was a\nwork accomplished by it which the purest of men could not help Him in,\nbut must himself depend upon and receive the benefit of. Christ by His\ndeath is marked off from all men, He being the Redeemer, they the\nredeemed.\n\nThis exceptional, unique work then--what have we made of it? Paul,\nprobably on the whole the most richly endowed man, morally and\nintellectually, the world has seen, found his true life and his true\nself in the work of this other Person. It was in Christ Paul first\nlearned how great a thing human life is, and it was through Christ and\nHis work Paul first came into fellowship with the true God. This\ngreatest of men owed everything to Christ, and was so inwardly\nconvinced of this that, heart and soul, he yielded himself to Christ,\nand gloried in serving Him. How is it with us? Does the work of Christ\nactually yield to us those grand results it yielded to Paul? Or is the\ngreatest reality in this human world of ours wholly resultless so far\nas we are concerned? It filled Paul's mind, his heart, his life; it\nleft him nothing else to desire: this man, formed on the noblest and\nlargest type, found room in Christ alone for the fullest development\nand exercise of his powers. Is it not plain that if we neglect the\nconnection with Christ which Paul found so fruitful, we are doing\nourselves the greatest injustice and preferring a narrow prison-house\nto liberty and life?\n\n_THE FOOLISHNESS OF PREACHING._\n\n \"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not\n with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of\n none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that\n perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power\n of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,\n and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where\n is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this\n world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For\n after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God,\n it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that\n believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after\n wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a\n stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them\n which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God,\n and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser\n than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye\n see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the\n flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath\n chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and\n God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the\n things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things\n which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are\n not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should\n glory in His presence. But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of\n God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and\n sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written,\n He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.\"\n\n \"And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of\n speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For\n I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ,\n and Him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear,\n and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not\n with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the\n spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the\n wisdom of men, but in the power of God.\"--1 COR. i. 17-ii. 5.\n\n\n\n\nIV.\n\n_THE FOOLISHNESS OF PREACHING._\n\n\nIn the preceding section of this Epistle Paul introduced the subject\nwhich was prominent in his thoughts as he wrote: the divided state of\nthe Corinthian Church. He adjured the rival parties by the name of\nChrist to hold together, to discard party names and combine in one\nconfession. He reminded them that Christ is indivisible, and that the\nChurch which is founded on Christ must also be one. He shows them how\nimpossible it is for any one but Christ to be the Church's foundation,\nand thanks God that he had given no pretext to any one to suppose that\nhe had sought to found a party. Had he even baptized the converts to\nChristianity, there might have been persons foolish enough to whisper\nthat he had baptized in his own name and had intended to found a\nPauline, not a Christian, community. But providentially he had\nbaptized very few, and had confined himself to preaching the Gospel,\nwhich he considered to be the proper work to which Christ had \"_sent_\"\nhim; that is to say, for which he held an Apostle's commission and\nauthority. But as he thus repudiates the idea that he had given any\ncountenance to the founding of a Pauline party, it occurs to him that\nsome may say, Yes, it is true enough, he did not baptize; but his\npreaching may more effectually have won partisans than even baptizing\nthem into his own name could have done. And so Paul goes on to show\nthat his preaching was not that of a demagogue or party-leader, but\nwas a bare statement of fact, garnished and set off by absolutely\nnothing which could divert attention from the fact either to the\nspeaker or to his style. Hence this digression on the foolishness of\npreaching.\n\nIn this section of the Epistle then it is Paul's purpose to explain to\nthe Corinthians (1) the style of preaching he had adopted while with\nthem and (2) why he had adopted this style.\n\nI. His time in Corinth, he assures them, had been spent, not in\npropagating a philosophy or system of truth peculiar to himself, and\nwhich might have been identified with his name, but in presenting the\nCross of Christ and making the plainest statements of fact regarding\nChrist's death. In approaching the Corinthians, Paul had necessarily\nweighed in his own mind the comparative merits of various modes of\npresenting the Gospel. In common with all men who are about to address\nan audience, he took into consideration the aptitudes, peculiarities,\nand expectations of his audience, that he might so frame his\narguments, statements, and appeals as to be most likely to carry his\npoint. The Corinthians, as Paul well knew, were especially open to the\nattractions of rhetoric and philosophical discussion. A new philosophy\nclothed in elegant language was likely to secure a number of\ndisciples. And it was quite in Paul's power to present the Gospel as a\nphilosophy. He might have spoken to the Corinthians in large and\nimpressive language of the destiny of man, of the unity of the race,\nand of the ideal man in Christ. He might have based all he had to\nteach them on some of the accepted dicta or theories of their own\nphilosophers. He might have propounded some new arguments for\nimmortality or the existence of a personal God, and have shown how\ncongruous the Gospel is to these great truths. He might, like some\nsubsequent teachers, have emphasized some particular aspect of Divine\ntruth, and have so identified his teaching with this one side of\nChristianity as to found a school or sect known by his name. But he\ndeliberately rejected this method of introducing the Gospel, and\n\"determined not to know anything among them save Jesus Christ and Him\ncrucified.\" He stripped his mind bare, as it were, of all his\nknowledge and thinking, and came among them as an ignorant man who had\nonly facts to tell.\n\nPaul then in this instance deliberately trusted to the bare statement\nof facts, and not to any theory about these facts. This is a most\nimportant distinction, and to be kept in view by all preachers,\nwhether they feel called by their circumstances to adopt Paul's method\nor not. In preaching to audiences with whom the facts are familiar, it\nis perfectly justifiable to draw inferences from them and to theorize\nabout them for the instruction and edification of Christian people,\nPaul himself spoke \"wisdom among them that were perfect.\" But what is\nto be noted is that for doing the work proper to the Gospel, for\nmaking men Christians, it is not theory or explanation, but fact, that\nis effective. It is the presentation of Christ as He is presented in\nthe written Gospels, the narrative of His life and death without note\nor comment, theory or inference, argument or appeal, which stands in\nthe first rank of efficiency as a means of evangelizing the world.\nPaul, ever moderate, does not denounce other methods of presenting\nthe Gospel as illegitimate; but in his circumstances the bare\npresentation of fact seemed the only wise method.\n\nNo doubt we may unduly press Paul's words; and probably we should do\nso if we gathered that he merely told his hearers how Christ had lived\nand died and gave them no inkling of the significance of His death.\nStill the least we can gather from his words is that he trusted more\nto facts than to any explanation of the facts, more to narration than\nto inference and theory. Certainly the neglect of this distinction\nrenders a great proportion of modern preaching ineffective and futile.\nPreachers occupy their time in explaining how the Cross of Christ\nought to influence men, whereas they ought to occupy their time in so\npresenting the Cross of Christ that it does influence men. They give\nlaboured explanations of faith and elaborate instructions regarding\nthe method and results of believing, while they should be exhibiting\nChrist so that faith is instinctively aroused. The actor on the stage\ndoes not instruct his audience how they should be affected by the\nplay; he so presents to them this or that scene that they\ninstinctively smile or find their eyes fill. Those onlookers at the\nCrucifixion who beat their breasts and returned to their homes with\nawe and remorse were not told that they should feel compunction; it\nwas enough that they saw the Crucified. So it is always; it is the\ndirect vision of the Cross, and not anything which is said about it,\nwhich is most effective in producing penitence and faith. And it is\nthe business of the preacher to set Christ and Him crucified clear\nbefore the eyes of men; this being done, there will be little need of\nexplanations of faith or inculcation of penitence. Make men see\nChrist, set the Crucified clear before them, and you need not tell\nthem to repent and believe; if that sight does not make them repent,\nno telling of yours will make them.\n\nThe very fact that it was a Person, not a system of philosophy, that\nPaul proclaimed was sufficient proof that he was not anxious to become\nthe founder of a school or the head of a party. It was to another\nPerson, not to himself, he directed the attention and faith of his\nhearers. And that which permanently distinguishes Christianity from\nall philosophies is that it presents to men, not a system of truth to\nbe understood, but a Person to be relied upon. Christianity is not the\nbringing of new truth to us so much as the bringing of a new Person to\nus. The manifestation of God in Christ is in harmony with all truth;\nbut we are not required to perceive and understand that harmony, but\nto believe in Christ. Christianity is for all men, and not for the\nselect, highly educated few; and it depends therefore, not on\nexceptional ability to see truth, but on the universal human emotions\nof love and trust.\n\nII. Paul justifies his rejection of philosophy or \"wisdom\" and his\nadoption of the simpler but more difficult method of stating fact on\nthree grounds. The first is that God's method had changed. For a time\nGod had allowed the Greeks to seek Him by their own wisdom; now He\npresents Himself to them in the foolishness of the Cross (vers.\n17-25). The second ground is that the wise do not universally respond\nto the preaching of the Cross, a fact which shows that it is not\nwisdom that preaching appeals to (vers. 26-31). And his third ground\nis that he feared lest, if he used \"wisdom\" in presenting the Gospel,\nhis hearers might be only superficially attracted by his\npersuasiveness and not profoundly moved by the intrinsic power of the\nCross (ii. 1-5).\n\n1. His first reason is that God had changed His method. \"After that in\nthe wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by\nthe foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.\" Even the\nwisest of the Greeks had attained only to inadequate and indefinite\nviews of God. Admirable and pathetic are the searchings of the noble\nintellects that stand in the front rank of Greek philosophy; and some\nof their discoveries regarding God and His ways are full of\ninstruction. But these thoughts, cherished by a few wise and devout\nmen, never penetrated to the people, and by their vagueness and\nuncertainty were incapacitated from deeply influencing any one. To\npass even from Plato to the Gospel of John is really to pass from\ndarkness to light. Plato philosophizes, and a few souls seem for a\nmoment to see things more clearly; Peter preaches, and three thousand\nsouls spring to life. If God was to be known by men generally, it was\nnot through the influence of philosophy. Already philosophy had done\nits utmost; and so far as any popular and sanctifying knowledge of God\nwent, philosophy might as well never have been. \"The world by wisdom\nknew not God.\" No safer assertion regarding the ancient world can be\nmade.\n\nThat which, in point of fact, has made God known is the Cross of\nChrist. No doubt it must have seemed foolishness and mere lunacy to\nsummon the seeker after God away from the high and elevating\nspeculations of Plato on the good and the eternal and to point him to\nthe Crucified, to a human form gibbeted on a malefactor's cross, to a\nman that had been hanged. None knew better than Paul the infamy\nattaching to that cursed death, and none could more distinctly\nmeasure the surprise and stupefaction with which the Greek mind would\nhear the announcement that it was there God was to be seen and known.\nPaul understood the offence of the Cross, but he knew also its power.\n\"The Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we\npreach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block and unto the\nGreeks foolishness, but unto them which are called, both Jews and\nGreeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.\"\n\nAs proof that God was in their midst and as a revelation of God's\nnature, the Jews required a sign, a demonstration of physical power.\nIt was one of Christ's temptations to leap from a pinnacle of the\nTemple, for thus He would have won acceptance as the Christ. The\npeople never ceased to clamour for a sign. They wished Him to bid a\nmountain be removed and cast into the sea; they wished Him to bid the\nsun stand still or Jordan retire to its source. They wished Him to\nmake some demonstration of superhuman power, and so put it beyond a\ndoubt that God was present. Even at the last it would have satisfied\nthem had He bid the nails drop out and had He stepped down from the\nCross among them. They could not understand that to remain on the\nCross was the true proof of Divinity. The Cross seemed to them a\nconfession of weakness. They sought a demonstration that the power of\nGod was in Christ, and they were pointed to the Cross. But to them the\nCross was a stumbling-block they could not get over. And yet in it was\nthe whole power of God for the salvation of the world. All the power\nthat dwells in God to draw men out of sin to holiness and to Himself\nwas actually in the Cross. For the power of God that is required to\ndraw men to Himself is not power to alter the course of rivers or\nchange the site of mountains, but power to sympathize, to make men's\nsorrows His own, to sacrifice self, to give all for the needs of His\ncreatures. To them that believe in the God there revealed, the Cross\nis the power of God. It is this love of God that overpowers them and\nmakes it impossible for them to resist Him. To a God who makes Himself\nknown to them in self-sacrifice they quickly and delightedly yield\nthemselves.\n\n2. As a second ground on which to rest the justification of his method\nof preaching Paul appeals to the constituent elements of which the\nChurch of Corinth was actually composed. It is plain, he says, that it\nis not by human wisdom, nor by power, nor by anything generally\nesteemed among men that you hold your place in the Church. The fact is\nthat \"not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many\nnoble, are called.\" If human wisdom or power held the gates of the\nkingdom, you yourselves would not be in it. To be esteemed, and\ninfluential, and wise is no passport to this new kingdom. It is not\nmen who by their wisdom find out God and by their nobility of\ncharacter commend themselves to Him; but it is God who chooses and\ncalls men, and the very absence of wisdom and possessions makes men\nreadier to listen to His call. \"God hath chosen the foolish things of\nthe world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of\nthe world to confound the things which are mighty, and base things of\nthe world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and\nthings which are not, to bring to nought things which are; that no\nflesh should glory in His presence.\" It is all God's doing now; it is\n\"Of Him are ye in Christ Jesus;\" it is God that hath chosen you. Human\nwisdom had its opportunity and accomplished little; God now by the\nfoolishness of the Cross lifts the despised, the foolish, the weak, to\na far higher position than the wise and noble can attain by their\nmight and their wisdom.\n\nPaul thus justifies his method by its results. He uses as his weapon\nthe foolishness of the Cross, and this foolishness of God proves\nitself wiser than men. It may seem a most unlikely weapon with which\nto accomplish great things, but it is God who uses it, and that makes\nthe difference. Hence the emphasis throughout this passage on the\nagency of God. \"God hath chosen\" you; \"Of God are ye in Christ Jesus;\"\n\"Of God He is made unto you wisdom.\" This method used by Paul is God's\nmethod and means of working, and therefore it succeeds. But for this\nreason also all ground of boasting is removed from those who are\nwithin the Christian Church. It is not their wisdom or strength, but\nGod's work, which has given them superiority to the wise and noble of\nthe world. \"No flesh can glory in God's presence.\" The wise and mighty\nof earth cannot glory, for their wisdom and might availed nothing to\nbring them to God; those who are in Christ Jesus can as little glory,\nfor it is not on account of any wisdom or might of theirs, but because\nof God's call and energy, they are what they are. They were of no\naccount, poor, insignificant, outcasts, and slaves, friendless while\nalive and when dead not missed in any household; but God called them\nand gave them a new and hopeful life in Christ Jesus.\n\nIn Paul's day this argument from the general poverty and\ninsignificance of the members of the Christian Church was readily\ndrawn. Things are changed now; and the Church is filled with the\nwise, the powerful, the noble. But Paul's main proposition remains:\nwhoever is in Christ Jesus is so, not through any wisdom or power of\nhis own, but because God has chosen and called him. And the practical\nresult remains. Let the Christian, while he rejoices in his position,\nbe humble. There is something wrong with the man's Christianity who is\nno sooner delivered from the mire himself than he despises all who are\nstill entangled. The self-righteous attitude assumed by some\nChristians, the \"Look at me\" air they carry with them, their\nunsympathetic condemnation of unbelievers, the superiority with which\nthey frown upon amusements and gaieties, all seem to indicate that\nthey have forgotten it is by the grace of God they are what they are.\nThe sweetness and humble friendliness of Paul sprang from his constant\nsense that whatever he was he was by God's grace. He was drawn with\ncompassion towards the most unbelieving because he was ever saying\nwithin himself, There, but for the grace of God, goes Paul. The\nChristian must say to himself, It is not because I am better or wiser\nthan other men that I am a Christian; it is not because I sought God\nwith earnestness, but because He sought me, that I am now His. The\nhard suspicion and hostility with which many good people view\nunbelievers and godless livers would thus be softened by a mixture of\nhumble self-knowledge. The unbeliever is no doubt often to be blamed,\nthe selfish pleasure-seeker undoubtedly lays himself open to just\ncondemnation, but not by the man who is conscious that but for God's\ngrace he himself would be unbelieving and sinful.\n\nLastly, Paul justifies his neglect of wisdom and rhetoric on the\nground that had he used \"enticing words of man's wisdom\" the hearers\nmight have been unduly influenced by the mere guise in which the\nGospel was presented and too little influenced by the essence of it.\nHe feared to adorn the simple tale or dress up the bare fact, lest the\nattention of his audience might be diverted from the substance of his\nmessage. He was resolved that their faith should not stand in the\nwisdom of men, but in the power of God; that is to say, that those who\nbelieved should do so, not because they saw in Christianity a\nphilosophy which might compete with current systems, but because in\nthe Cross of Christ they felt the whole redeeming power of God brought\nto bear on their own soul.\n\nHere again things have changed since Paul's day. The assailants of\nChristianity have put it on its defence, and its apologists have been\ncompelled to show that it is in harmony with the soundest philosophy.\nIt was inevitable that this should be done. Every philosophy now has\nto take account of Christianity. It has shown itself to be so true to\nhuman nature, and it has shed so much light on the whole system of\nthings and so modified the action of men and the course of\ncivilization, that a place must be found for it in every philosophy.\nBut to accept Christianity because it has been a powerful influence\nfor good in the world, or because it harmonizes with the most approved\nphilosophy, or because it is friendly to the highest development of\nintellect, may be legitimate indeed; but Paul considered that the only\nsound and trustworthy faith was produced by direct personal contact\nwith the Cross. And this remains for ever true.\n\nTo approve of Christianity as a system and to adopt it as a faith are\ntwo different things. It is quite possible to respect Christianity as\nconveying to us a large amount of useful truth, while we hold\nourselves aloof from the influence of the Cross. We may approve the\nmorality which is involved in the religion of Christ, we may\ncountenance and advocate it because we are persuaded no other force is\npowerful enough to diffuse a love of law and some power of\nself-restraint among all classes of society, we may see quite clearly\nthat Christianity is the only religion an educated European can\naccept, and yet we may never have felt the power of God in the Cross\nof Christ. If we believe in Christianity because it approves itself to\nour judgment as the best solution of the problems of life, that is\nwell; but still, if that be all that draws us to Christ, our faith\nstands in the wisdom of men rather than in the power of God.\n\nIn what sense then are we Christians? Have we allowed the Cross of\nChrist to make its peculiar impression upon us? Have we given it a\nchance to influence us? Have we in all seriousness of spirit\nconsidered what is presented to us in the Cross? Have we honestly laid\nbare our hearts to the love of Christ? Have we admitted to ourselves\nthat it was for us He died? If so, then we must have felt the power of\nGod in the Cross. We must have found ourselves taken captive by this\nlove of God. God's law we may have found it possible to resist; its\nthreatenings we may have been able to put out of our mind. The natural\nhelps to goodness which God has given us in the family, in the world\naround us, in the fortunes of life, we may have found too feeble to\nlift us above temptation and bring us into a really high and pure\nlife. But in the Cross we at length experience what Divine power is;\nwe know the irresistible appeal of Divine self-sacrifice, the\novercoming, regenerating pathos of the Divine desire to save us from\nsin and destruction, the upholding and quickening energy that flows\ninto our being from the Divine sympathy and hopefulness in our behalf.\nThe Cross is the actual point of contact between God and man. It is\nthe point at which the fulness of Divine energy is actually brought to\nbear upon us men. To receive the whole benefit and blessing that God\ncan now give us we need only be in true contact with the Cross:\nthrough it we become direct recipients of the holiness, the love, the\npower, of God. In it Christ is made to us wisdom, and righteousness,\nand sanctification, and redemption. In very truth all that God can do\nfor us to set us free from sin and to restore us to Himself and\nhappiness is done for us in the Cross; and through it we receive all\nthat is needful, all that God's holiness requires, all that His love\ndesires us to possess.\n\n_DIVINE WISDOM._\n\n \"Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the\n wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come\n to nought: but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery even the\n hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our\n glory: which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they\n known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as\n it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have\n entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared\n for them that love Him. But God hath revealed them unto us by His\n Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things\n of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit\n of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man,\n but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of\n the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the\n things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we\n speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth but which the\n Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.\n But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of\n God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them,\n because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual\n judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who\n hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we\n have the mind of Christ.\"\n\n \"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but\n as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with\n milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear\n it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for\n whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions,\n are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of\n Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; we ye not carnal?\"--1 COR.\n ii. 6-iii. 4.\n\n\n\n\nV.\n\n_DIVINE WISDOM._\n\n\nIn the preceding paragraph Paul has explained why he had proclaimed\nthe bare facts regarding Christ and His crucifixion and trusted to the\nCross itself to impress the Corinthians and lead them to God, and why\nhe had resisted the temptation to appeal to the Corinthian taste for\nrhetoric and philosophy by exhibiting Christianity as a philosophy. He\nbelieved that where conversion was the object of preaching no method\ncould compare in efficiency with the simple presentation of the Cross.\nBut sometimes he found himself in circumstances in which conversion\ncould not be his object. He was occasionally called, as preachers in\nour own day are regularly called, to preach to those who were already\nChristians. And he tells us that in these circumstances, speaking\n\"among the perfect,\" or in presence of fairly mature Christians, he\nmade no scruple of unfolding the \"wisdom\" or philosophy of Christ's\ntruth. To expound the deeper truths revealed by Christ was useless or\neven hurtful to mere \"babes\" in Christ or to those who as yet were not\neven born again; but to the adolescent and to those who might lay\nclaim to have attained some firm manhood of Christian character, he\nwas forward to teach all he himself knew. These words, \"Howbeit we\nspeak wisdom among them that are perfect,\" he makes the text of the\nfollowing paragraph, in which he proceeds to explain (1) what the\nwisdom is; (2) how he speaks it; (3) to whom he speaks it.\n\nI. First, the wisdom which he speaks among the perfect, though\neminently deserving of the name, is not on a level with human\nphilosophies, nor is it of a similar origin. It is not just one more\nadded to human searches after truth. The princes of this world, its\nmen of light and leading, have had their own theories of God and man,\nand yet have really \"come to nought.\" The incompetence of the men and\ntheories that actually control human affairs is put beyond a doubt by\nthe crucifixion of Christ. In the person of Christ the glory of God\nwas manifested as a glory in which man was to partake; had there been\ndiffused among men any true perception of the real nature of God, the\nCrucifixion would have been an impossibility. The fact that God's\nincarnate glory was crucified is a demonstration of the insufficiency\nof all previous teaching regarding God. But the wisdom taught by Paul\nis not just one theory more, devised by the speculative ingenuity of\nman; it is a disclosure made by God of knowledge unattainable by human\nendeavour. The three great sources of human knowledge--seeing,\nhearing, and thought--alike fail here. \"Eye hath not seen, ear hath\nnot heard, it has not entered into the heart of man to conceive,\" this\nwisdom. Hitherto it has been a mystery, a thing hidden; now God has\nHimself revealed it.\n\nWhat the contents of this wisdom are, we can readily perceive from\nsuch specimens of it as Paul gives us in his Epistle to the Ephesians\nand elsewhere. It is a declaration of the Divine purpose towards man,\nor of \"the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him.\"\nPaul delighted to expatiate on the far-reaching results of Christ's\ndeath, the illustrations it gives of the nature of God and of\nrighteousness, its place as the grand moral centre, holding together\nand reconciling all things. He delights to show the superiority of the\nGospel to the Law and to build up a philosophy of history which sheds\nlight on the entire plan of God's training of men. The purpose of God\nand its fulfilment by the death of Christ he is never weary of\ncontemplating, nor of showing how out of destitution, and disease, and\nwar, and ignorance, and moral ruin, and what seemed a mere wreck of a\nworld there were to be brought by this one healing element the\nrestoration of man to God and to one another, fellowship with God and\npeace on earth, in short a kingdom of God among men. He clearly saw\nhow through all that had previously happened on earth and through all\nthat men had thought preparation had been made for the fulfilment of\nthis gracious purpose of God. These were \"the deep things of God\"\nwhich caused him to see how different was the wisdom of God from the\nwisdom of men.\n\nThis \"wisdom\" which Paul taught has had a larger and more influential\nplace in men's minds than any other system of human thought.\nChristendom has seen Christ through Paul's eyes. He interpreted\nChristianity to the world, and made men aware of what had been and was\nin their midst. Men of the largest faculty, such as Augustine and\nLuther, have been unable to find a religion in Christ until they\nentered His school by Paul's door. Stumbling at one or two Jewish\npeculiarities which attach to Paul's theology, some modern critics\nassure us that, \"after having been for three hundred years\"--and they\nmight have said for fifteen hundred years--\"the Christian doctor _par\nexcellence_, Paul is now coming to an end of his reign.\" Matthew\nArnold, with truer discernment, if not on sounder grounds, predicts\nthat \"the doctrine of Paul will arise out of the tomb where for\ncenturies it has lain buried. It will edify the Church of the future.\nIt will have the consent of happier generations, the applause of less\nsuperstitious ages. All will be too little to pay half the debt which\nthe Church of God owes to this 'least of the Apostles, who was not fit\nto be called an Apostle, because he persecuted the Church of God.'\"\n\nWe may find in Paul's writings arguments which, however convincing to\nthe Jew, are not convincing to us; we may prefer his experimental and\nethical to his doctrinal teaching; some estimable people can only\naccept him when they have purged him of his Calvinism; others shut\ntheir eyes to this or that which seems to them a blot in his writings;\nbut the fact remains that it is to this man we owe our Christianity.\nIt was he who disengaged from the dying body of Judaism the new-born\nreligion and held it aloft in the eye of the world as the true heir to\nuniversal empire. It was he whose piercing intellect and keen moral\ndiscernment penetrated to the very heart of this new thing, and saw in\nit a force to conquer the world and to rid men of all bondage and evil\nof every kind. It was he who applied to the whole range of human life\nand duty the inexhaustible ethical force which lay in Christ, and thus\nlifted at one effort the heathen world to a new level of morality. He\nwas the first to show the superiority of love to law, and to point out\nhow God trusted to love, and to summon men to meet the trust God thus\nreposed in them. We cannot measure Paul's greatness, because the light\nhe has himself shed has made it impossible for us to put ourselves\nback in imagination into the darkness through which he had to find his\nway. We can but dimly measure the strength that was required to grasp\nas he grasped the significance of God's manifestation in the flesh.\n\nPaul then used two methods of teaching. In addressing those who had\nyet to be won to Christ, he used the foolishness of preaching, and\npresented to them the Cross of Christ. In addressing those who had\nalready owned the power of the Cross and made some growth in Christian\nknowledge and character, he enlarged upon the significance of the\nCross and the light it threw on all moral relations, on God and on\nman. And even in this department of his work he disclaims any desire\nto propagate a philosophy of his own. The system of truth he proclaims\nto the Christian people is not of his own devising. It is not in\nvirtue of his own speculative ability he has discovered it. It is not\none of the wisdoms of this world, having its origin in the brain of an\ningenious theorist. On the contrary, it has its origin in God, and\npartakes therefore of the truth and stability attaching to the\nthoughts of God.\n\nII. But if it be undiscoverable by man, how does Paul come to know it?\nTo the Corinthian intelligence there seemed but these three ways of\nlearning anything: seeing, hearing, or thinking; and if God's wisdom\nwas attainable by none of these, how was it reached? Paul proceeds to\nshow how he was enabled to \"speak\" this wisdom. He does this in vers.\n10-13, in which his chief affirmations are that the Spirit of God\nalone knows the mind of God, that this Spirit has been given to him\nto reveal to him God's mind and to enable him to divulge that mind to\nothers in suitable words.\n\n1. The Spirit of God alone knows the mind of God and searches its deep\nthings, just as none but the spirit of man which is in him knows the\nthings of man. \"There is in every man a life hidden from all eyes, a\nworld of impressions, anxieties, aspirations, and struggles, of which\nhe alone, in so far as he is a spirit--that is to say, a conscious and\npersonal being--gives account to himself. This inner world is unknown\nto others, except in so far as he reveals it to them by speech.\"[3]\nAnd if we are baffled often and deceived regarding human character and\nfind ourselves unable to penetrate to the \"deep things\" of man, to his\ninmost thoughts and motives, much more is it true that \"the deep\nthings\" of God are wholly beyond our ken and are only known by the\nSpirit of God which is in Him. A vague and uncertain guess, possibly\nnot altogether wrong, probably altogether wrong, is all we can attain\nto.\n\n [3] Godet.\n\nAnd still more certainly true is this of God's _purposes_. Even though\nyou flatter yourself you know a man's nature, you cannot certainly\npredict his intentions. You cannot anticipate the thoughts of an able\nman whom you see designing a machine, or planning a building, or\nconceiving a literary work; you cannot say in what form a vindictive\nman will wreak his vengeance; nor can you penetrate through the\nabstracted look of the charitable and read the precise form his bounty\nwill take. Every great work even of man comes upon us by surprise; the\nvarious inventions that facilitate business, the new poems, the new\nbooks, the new works of art, have never been conceived before. They\nwere hidden mysteries until the originating mind disclosed them. And\nmuch more were God's intentions and His method of accomplishing\ninconceivable by any but Himself. What God's purpose was in creating\nman, what He designed to accomplish through the death of Christ, what\nwas to be the outcome of all human life, and temptation, and\nstruggle--these things were God's secret, known only to the Spirit of\nGod that was in Him.\n\n2. This Spirit, Paul declares, was given to him, and revealed to him\nGod's purposes, \"the things which are freely given to us of God.\" He\nhad received \"not the spirit of the world,\" which would have enabled\nhim only to theorize, and speculate, and create another \"wisdom of\nthis world;\" but he had received \"the Spirit which is of God,\" and\nthis Spirit had revealed to him \"the things which God hath prepared\nfor them that love Him.\"\n\nWe may think of revelation either as the act of God or as it is\nreceived by man. God reveals Himself in all He does, as man discloses\nhis character in all he does. With God's first act therefore in the\nremotest past revelation began. As yet there was none to receive the\nknowledge of God, but God showed His nature and His purpose as soon as\nHe began to do anything. And this revelation of Himself has continued\never since. In the world around us and the earth on which we live God\nreveals Himself; \"the things which are made,\" as Paul says, \"give us\nclearly to see and understand the invisible things of God, His unseen\nnature, from the creation of the world.\" Still more fully is God's\nnature revealed in man: in conscience, distinguishing between right\nand wrong; in the spirit craving fellowship with the Eternal. In the\nhistory of nations, and especially in the history of that nation\nwhich founded itself upon its idea of God, He revealed Himself. By\nguiding it, by delivering it from Egypt, by punishing it, God made\nHimself known to Israel. And at length in Jesus Christ God gave the\nfullest possible manifestation of Himself. The veil was entirely\nlifted, and God came as much as possible into free intercourse with\nHis creatures. He put Himself within reach of our knowledge.\n\nBut it was not enough that God be revealed objectively in Christ;\nthere must also be a subjective revelation within the soul of the\nbeholder. It was not enough that God be manifested in the flesh and\nmen be allowed to draw such inferences as they could from that\nmanifestation; but, in addition to this, God gave His Spirit to Paul\nand others that they might see the full significance of that\nmanifestation. It was quite possible for men to be witnesses of the\nobjective revelation without understanding it. The open eye is needed\nas well as outward light. And Paul everywhere insists upon this: that\nhe had received his knowledge of Divine truth _by revelation_, not by\nthe mere exercise of his own unaided thought, but by a spiritual\nenlightenment through the gift of God's Spirit.\n\nThe presence of God's Spirit in any man can of course only be verified\nby the results. God's Spirit working in and by means of man's nature\ncannot be known in separation from the man's spirit and the work done\nin that spirit. This inward revelation which Paul refers to is\naccomplished by the action of the Divine Spirit on the human\nfaculties, quickening and elevating these faculties. The revelation or\nnew knowledge acquired by Paul was given by God, but at the same time\nwas acquired by Paul's own faculties, so that it remained with him\nalways, just as the knowledge we naturally acquire remains with us and\ncan be freely used by us. An inward revelation can come to a man only\nin the form of impressions, convictions, thoughts arising in his own\nmind. Paul knew that his knowledge was a revelation of God, not by the\nsuddenness with which it was imparted, not by supernatural appearances\naccompanying it, not by any sense or consciousness of another Spirit\nworking with his own, but by the results. It is always the substance\nor contents of any revelation which proves its origin. Paul knew he\nhad the mind of Christ because he found that he could understand\nChrist's words and work, could perfectly sympathize with His aims and\nlook at things from Christ's point of view.\n\nIn their humility, many persons shrink from making this affirmation\nhere made by Paul; they cannot ever unhesitatingly affirm that the\nSpirit of God is given them or that they have the mind of Christ. Such\npersons should recognise that it was the very humility of Paul which\nenabled him so confidently to affirm these things of himself. He knew\nthat the knowledge of Christ's purposes he had and the sympathy with\nthem were the evidence of God's Spirit working in him. He knew that\nwithout God's Spirit he himself could never have had these thoughts.\nAnd it is when we recognise our own insufficiency most that we are\nreadiest to confess the presence of God's Spirit.\n\n3. But Paul makes a further affirmation. Not only is the knowledge he\nhas of Divine things a revelation made by God's Spirit to him, but the\nwords in which he declares this revelation to others are taught him by\nthe same Spirit: \"which things we also speak, not in the words which\nman's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing\nspiritual things with spiritual.\" The meaning of these last words is\ndoubtful. They either mean \"fitting spiritual words to spiritual\ntruths,\" or \"applying spiritual truths to spiritual people.\" The sense\nof the passage is not materially altered whichever meaning is adopted.\nPaul distinctly affirms that as his knowledge is gained by God's\nrevealing it to him, so his utterance of this knowledge is by the\ninspiration of God. The spirit of the world produces its philosophies\nand clothes them in appropriate language. The philosophies with which\nthe Corinthians were familiar taught how the world was made and what\nman's nature is, and they did so in language full of technicalities\nand adorned with rhetorical devices. Paul disclaimed this; both his\nknowledge and the form in which he taught it were dictated, not by the\nspirit of this world, but by the Spirit of God. The same truths which\nPaul declared might have been declared in better Greek than he used,\nand they might have been embellished with illustrative matter and\nreferences to their own authors. This style of presenting Divine truth\nmay have been urged upon Paul by some of his Corinthian hearers as far\nmore likely to find entrance into the Greek mind. But Paul refused to\nallow his style to be formed by human wisdom and the literary methods\nof secular authors, and thought it more suitable to proclaim spiritual\ntruth in spiritual language and in words which were taught him by the\nHoly Ghost.\n\nThis statement of Paul may be construed into a guarantee of the\ngeneral accuracy of his teaching; but it was not intended to be that.\nPaul did not express himself in this way in order to convince men of\nhis accuracy, still less to convince them that every word he uttered\nwas infallibly correct; what he intended was to justify his use of a\ncertain _kind_ of language and a certain _style_ of teaching. The\nspirit of this world adopts one method of insinuating knowledge into\nthe mind; the Spirit of God uses another method. It is the latter Paul\nadopts. That is what he means to say, and it is obvious that from this\nstatement of his we can gather nothing regarding verbal inspiration or\nthe infallibility of every word he spoke.\n\nIt might indeed seem a very simple and sound argument were we to say\nthat Paul affirms that the words in which he embodies his teaching are\ntaught him by the Holy Ghost, and that therefore there can be no error\nin them. But to interpret the words of any writer with no regard to\nhis intention in writing them is voluntarily to blind ourselves to\ntheir true meaning. And Paul's intention in this passage is to\ncontrast two methods of teaching, two styles of language, the worldly\nor secular and the spiritual, and to affirm that the style he adopted\nwas that which the Holy Ghost taught him. An artist whose work was\ncriticised might defend himself by saying, \"I have been trained in the\nImpressionist school,\" or \"I use the principles taught me by Ruskin,\"\nor \"I am a pupil of this or the other great teacher;\" but these\nreplies, while quite relevant as a defence and explanation of the\nparticular style of painting he has adopted, are not intended to\nidentify the work of the scholar with that of the master, or to\ninsinuate that the master is responsible for all the pupil does.\nSimilarly Paul's reply is relevant as an explanation of his reason for\nrefusing to use the methods of professional rhetoricians in teaching\nhis spiritual truths. \"Spiritual modes of presenting truth and an\navoidance of rhetorical artifice and embellishment accord better with\nwhat I have to say.\" Whoever gathers from this that every individual\nword Paul spoke or wrote is absolutely the best does so at his own\nrisk and without Paul's authority. Certainly it was not Paul's\nintention to make any such statement. And it is quite as dangerous to\nput too much into Paul's words as to put too little.\n\nIII. Having shown that the wisdom he teaches is spiritual, and that\nhis method of teaching it is spiritual, he proceeds finally to show\nthat it can be taught only to spiritual persons. \"The spiritual man\njudgeth all things;\" he can discern whether he is \"among the perfect\"\nor among the carnal, whether he may speak wisdom or must confine\nhimself to elementary truth. But, on the other hand, he himself cannot\nbe judged by the carnal man. It is in vain that rudimentary believers\nfind fault with Paul's method of teaching; they cannot judge him,\nbecause they cannot understand the mind of the Lord which guides him.\nIt would have served no purpose to teach spiritual wisdom in Corinth,\nfor the members of that Church were as yet only babes in Christ,\ncarnal, and not spiritual. Their carnality was proved by their\nfactiousness. They were still governed by the passions which rule the\nnatural man. And therefore Paul fed them with milk, and not with\nstrong meat; with the simple and affecting Gospel of the Cross, and\nnot with those high and far-reaching deductions from it which he\ndivulged among prepared and sympathetic spirits.\n\nIn the distinctions of men into natural, carnal, and spiritual Paul\nhere shows how untrammelled he was by theological technicalities, and\nhow straight he looked at facts. He does not divide men summarily into\nbelievers and unbelievers, classing all believers as spiritual, all\nunbelievers as carnal. He does not unchurch all who are not spiritual.\nHe may be disappointed that certain members of the Church are carnal\nand are very slow in growing up to the maturity of Christian manhood,\nbut he does not deny such carnal persons a place in the Church. He\ngives them time. He does not flatter them or deceive them as to their\ncondition. He neither counts them as perfect nor repudiates them as\nunregenerate. He allows they are born again; but as the babe is\napparently a mere animal, exhibiting no qualities of mind or heart,\nbut only animal instincts, and yet by care and suitable nourishment\ndevelops into adult man, so the Christian babe may as yet be carnal,\nwith very little to differentiate him from the natural man, yet the\ngerm of the spiritual Christian may be there, and with care and\nsuitable nourishment will grow.\n\nThe confidence which Paul here expresses regarding his superiority to\nthe judgment of carnal men is a superiority inseparable from knowledge\nin any department. Truth carries with it always a self-evidencing\npower, and whoever attains a clear perception of truth in any branch\nof knowledge is aware that it is the truth he has attained. When the\nmind has been long puzzling over a difficulty and at last sees the\nsolution, it is as if the sun had risen. The mind is at once\nconvinced.\n\nNo one had ever greater right than Paul to say, \"I have the mind of\nChrist.\" Every day of his life said the same thing. He at once entered\ninto Christ's mind and more than any other man carried it out. It was\nby his moral sympathy with Christ's aims that he entered so completely\ninto the knowledge of His person and work. He lived his way into the\ntruth. And all our best knowledge is reached in the same way. The\ntruths we see most clearly and have deepest assurance of are those\nwhich our own experience has taught us. Spiritual truth is of a kind\nwhich only spiritual men can understand.\n\nSpiritual men are those who can say, with Paul, \"We have received, not\nthe spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we might\nknow the things that are freely given to us of God.\" What men's eyes\nneed especially to be opened to is the bounty of God and the\nconsequent wealth and hopefulness of human life. Paul's wondering\ndelight in God's grace and loving adaptation of Himself to human needs\ncontinually finds utterance in his writings. His own sense of\nunworthiness magnified the forgiving mercy of God. He rejoiced in a\nDivine love which was passing knowledge, but which he knew could be\nrelied upon to the utmost. The vision of this love opened to his hope\na vista of happiness. There is a natural joy in living that all men\ncan understand. This life in many ways appeals to our thirst for\nhappiness, and often it seems as if we needed nothing more. But, in\none way or other, most of us learn that what is naturally presented to\nus in this world is not enough, indeed only brings in the long run\nanxiety and grief. And then it is that, by God's grace, men come to\nfind that this life is but a small lagoon leading to, and fed by, the\nboundless ocean of God's love beyond. They learn that there is a hope\nthat cannot be blighted, a joy that is uninterrupted, a fulness of\nlife that meets and satisfies every instinct, and affection, and\npurpose. They begin to see the things which God hath prepared for them\nthat love Him, the things that are freely given to us of God--\"freely\ngiven,\" given without desert of ours, given to make us happy, given\nby a love that must find expression.\n\nBut to know and appreciate the things which are freely given to us of\nGod a man must have the Spirit of God. For God's gifts are spiritual;\nthey attach to character, to what is eternally ours. They cannot be\nreceived by those who refuse the severity of God's training and are\nnot alive to the reality of spiritual growth, of passing from a carnal\nto a spiritual manhood. The path to these eternal, all-satisfying joys\nmay be hard; Christ's path was not easy, and they who follow Him must\nin one form or other have their faith in the unseen tested. They must\nreally, and not only in word, pass from dependence on this present\nworld to dependence on God; they must somehow come to believe that\nunderneath and in all we here see and experience lies God's\nunalterable, unmingled love, that ultimately it is this they have to\ndo with, this that explains all.\n\nHow soon do men think they have exhausted the one inexhaustible, the\nlove and resources of God; how quickly do men weary of life, and think\nthey have seen all and known all; how ready are men to conclude that\nfor them existence is a failure and can yield no perfect joy, while as\nyet they know as little of the things God has prepared for them that\nlove Him as the new-born babe knows of the life and experiences that\nlie before it. You have but touched the hem of His garment; what must\nit be to be clasped to His heart? Happy they to whom the darkness of\nthis world reveals the boundless distances of the starry heaven, and\nwho find that the blows which have shattered their earthly happiness\nhave merely broken the shell which confined their true life and have\ngiven them entrance into a world infinite and eternal.\n\n_GOD'S HUSBANDRY AND BUILDING._\n\n \"Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye\n believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted,\n Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he\n that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that\n giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth\n are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to\n his own labour. For we are labourers together with God: ye are\n God's husbandry, ye are God's building. According to the grace of\n God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid\n the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man\n take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no\n man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man\n build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood,\n hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest: for the\n day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and\n the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any\n man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive\n a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer\n loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. Know ye\n not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God\n dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall\n God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.\n Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be\n wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.\n For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is\n written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again,\n The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.\n Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are your's:\n whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or\n death, or things present, or things to come; all are your's; and\n ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.\"--1 COR. iii. 5-23.\n\n\n\n\nVI.\n\n_GOD'S HUSBANDRY AND BUILDING._\n\n\nPaul, having abundantly justified his method of preaching to the\nCorinthians, and having shown why he contented himself with the simple\npresentation of the Cross, resumes his direct rebuke of their party\nspirit. He has told them that they were as yet unfit to hear the\n\"wisdom\" which he taught in some Churches, and the very proof of their\nimmaturity is to be found in their partisanship. \"While one saith, I\nam of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos, are ye not carnal? Who then\nis Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed?\" The\nteachers by whose names they were proud to be known were not founders\nof schools nor heads of parties, who sought recognition and supremacy;\nthey were \"ministers,\" servants who were used by a common Lord to\nrouse faith, not in themselves, but in Him. Each had his own gifts and\nhis own task. \"I have planted.\" To me it was given to found the Church\nat Corinth. Apollos came after me, and helped my plant to grow. But it\nwas God Himself who gave the vital influence requisite to make our\nwork efficacious. Apollos and I are but one instrument in God's hand,\nas the man who sets the sails and he who holds the helm are one\ninstrument used by the master of the ship, or as the mason who hews\nand the builder who sets the stones in their places are one\ninstrument for the carrying out of the masterbuilder's design. \"We are\nfellow-labourers used by God; ye are _God's_ husbandry, _God's_\nbuilding.\"\n\nThroughout this paragraph it is this thought that Paul dwells upon:\nthat the Church is originated and maintained, not by men, but by God.\nTeachers are but God's instruments; and yet, being human instruments,\nthey have each his own responsibility, as each has his own part of the\none work.\n\nFrom this truth that God alone is the Giver of spiritual life and that\nthe Church is His building several inferences may be drawn.\n\n1. Our praise for any good we have received of a spiritual kind should\nbe given, not solely to men, but mainly to God. The Corinthians were\nconscious that in receiving Christianity they had received a very\ngreat boon. They felt that gratitude was due somewhere. The new\nthoughts they had of God, the consciousness of Christ's eternal love,\nthe hope of immortality, the sustaining influence of the friendship of\nChrist, the new world they seemed to live in--all this made them think\nof those who had brought them this new happiness. But Paul was afraid\nlest their acknowledgment of himself and Apollos should eclipse their\ngratitude to God. People sometimes congratulate themselves on having\nadopted a good style of religion, not too sentimental, not sensational\nand spasmodic, not childishly external, not coldly doctrinal; they are\nthankful they lit upon the books they read at a critical time of their\nspiritual and mental growth; they can clearly trace to certain persons\nan influence which they know strengthened their character; and they\nthink with gratitude and sometimes with excessive admiration of such\nbooks and persons. Paul would say to them, It is not culpable to think\nwith gratitude of those who have been instrumental in furthering your\nknowledge of the truth or your Christian life; but always remember\nthat you are God's husbandry and God's building, and that it is to Him\nall your praise must ultimately go.\n\n2. It is to God we must look for all further growth. We must use the\nbest books; we must put ourselves under influences which we know are\ngood for us, whatever they are for others; we must conscientiously\nemploy such means of grace as our circumstances permit; but, above\nall, we must ask God to give the increase. No doubt the use of the\nmeans God uses to increase our life is a silent but constant prayer;\nstill we are not mere trees planted to wait for such influences as\ncome to us, but have wills to choose the life these influences bring\nand to open our being to the living God who imparts Himself to us in\nand through them.\n\n3. If we are God's husbandry and building, let us reverence God's work\nin ourselves. It may seem a very ricketty and insecure structure that\nis rising within us, a very sickly and unpromising plant; and we are\ntempted to mock the beginnings of good in ourselves and be\ndisappointed at the slow progress the new man makes in us. Vexed at\nour small attainment, at the poor show among Christians our character\nmakes, at the stunted appearance the plant of grace in us presents, we\nare tempted to trample it once for all out of sight. Grace sometimes\nseems to do so little for us in emergencies, and the transformation of\nour character seems so unutterably slow and shallow, that we are\ndisposed to think the radical change we need can never be\naccomplished. But different thoughts possess us when we remember that\nthis transformation of character is not a thing to be accomplished\nonly by ourselves through a judicious choice and a persevering use of\nfit means, but is God's work. There may be little appearance or\npromise of good in you; but underneath the little there is lies what\nis infinitely great, even the purpose and love of God Himself. \"Ye are\nGod's husbandry;\" therefore hope becomes you. The deliverance of the\nhuman soul from evil, its redemption to purity and nobility--this is\nwhat engages all God's care and energy.\n\n4. For the same reason we must hope for others as for ourselves. It is\nthe foundation of all hope to know that God has always been inclining\nmen to righteousness and will always do so. So often we look sadly at\nthe godlessness, and frivolity, and deep degradation and misery that\nabound, and feel as if the burden of lifting men to a higher condition\nlay all upon us; the ceaseless flow of human life into and out of the\nworld, the hopeless conditions in which many are born, the frightful\ninfluences to which they are exposed, the extreme difficulty of\nwinning even one man to good, the possibility that no more may be won\nand that the Christian stock may die out--these considerations oppress\nthe spirit, and cause men to despair of ever seeing a kingdom of God\non earth. But Paul could never despair, because he was at all times\nconvinced that the whole energy that ceaselessly goes forth from God\ngoes forth to accomplish good, and nothing but good, and that among\nthe good ends God is accomplishing there is nothing for which He has\nsacrificed so much and at which He so determinedly aims as the\nrestoration of men to purity, love, and goodness.\n\n5. But the chief inference Paul draws from the truth that the Church\nis God's building is the grave responsibility of those who labour for\nGod in this work. As for Paul's own part in the work, the laying of\nthe foundation, he says that was comparatively easy. There was no\nchance of his making a mistake there. \"Other foundation can no man lay\nthan that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.\" Any teacher who professes\nto lay another foundation thereby gives up his claim to be a Christian\nteacher. If any one proceeds to lay another foundation than Christ, it\nis not a Christian Church he is meaning to build. He who does not\nproceed upon the facts of Christ's life and death, he whose\ninstruction does not presuppose Christ as its foundation, may be\nuseful for some purposes of life, but not as a builder of the\nChristian temple. He who teaches morality without ever hinting that\napart from Christ it cannot be attained in its highest form may have\nhis use, but not as a Christian teacher. He who uses the Christian\npulpit for the propagation of political or socialist ideas may be a\nsound and useful teacher; but his proper place is the platform or the\nHouse of Commons or some such institution, and not the Christian\nChurch. And the question at present, says Paul, is not what other\ninstitutions you may profitably found in the world, but how this\ninstitution of the Church, already founded, is to be completed. Other\n_foundation_ no Christian teacher is proposing to lay; but on this\nfoundation very various and questionable material is being built, in\nsome instances gold, silver, and stones of value, in others wood, hay,\nstubble.\n\nWhen Corinth rose from its ruins, it was no uncommon sight to see a\nmiserable hovel reared against the marble wall of a temple or the\nsplendid portico of some deserted palace rendered habitable by a\npatchwork of mud and straw. What a recent visitor saw at Luxor may be\naccepted as to some extent true of Corinth: \"Mud hovels, mud\npigeon-towers, mud yards, and a mud mosque cluster like wasps' nests\nin and about the ruins. Architraves sculptured with royal titles\nsupport the roofs of squalid cabins. Stately capitals peep out from\nthe midst of sheds in which buffaloes, camels, donkeys, dogs, and\nhuman beings herd together in unsavoury fellowship.\" So in Corinth the\nhuge slabs of costly and carefully chiselled stone lay stable as the\nrock on which they rested, but now the glory of such foundations was\ndishonoured by squalid superstructures. And the picture in Paul's\nmind's eye of the Corinthian Church vividly suggested what he had seen\nwhile walking among those heterogeneous buildings. He sees the Church\nrising with a strange mixture of design and material. The foundation,\nhe knows, is the same; but on the solid marble is reared a crazy\nstructure of second-hand and ill-adapted material, here a wall propped\nup with rotten planking, there a hole stopped with straw, on one side\na richly decorated gateway, with gold and silver profusely wrought\ninto its design, on the other side a clay partition or loose boarding.\nIt grieves him to see the incongruous structure. He sees the teachers\nbringing, with great appearance of diligence, the merest rubbish,\nwood, hay, stubble, apparently unconscious of the incongruity of their\nmaterial with the foundation they build upon. He sees them taken with\nevery passing fancy--the lifeless stubble that has lost its living\nseed of truth, the mud of the common highway, the readiest thoughts\nthat come to hand--and setting these in the temple wall.\n\nWhat would Paul say did he now see the super-structure which eighteen\nhundred years have raised on the one foundation? Is any more\nheterogeneous structure anywhere to be seen than the Church of Christ?\nHow obviously unworthy of the foundation is much that has been built\nupon it; how many teachers have laboured all their days at erecting\nwhat has already been proved a mere house of cards; and how many\npersons have been built into the living temple who have brought no\nstability or beauty to the building. How careless often have the\nbuilders been, anxious only to have quantity to show, regardless of\nquality, ambitious to be credited with largely extending the size of\nthe Church apart from any consideration of the worth or worthlessness\nof the material added. As in any building, so in the Church,\nadditional size is additional danger if the material be not sound.\n\nThe soundness of the material which has been built upon the foundation\nof Christ will, like all things else, be tested. \"The day shall\ndeclare it;\" that light of Christ's presence and dominance over all\nthings, that light which shall penetrate all human things when our\ntrue life is entered on--_that_ shall declare it. \"The fire shall try\nevery man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, he\nshall receive a reward. If any man's work be burned, he shall suffer\nloss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.\" The\nCorinthians knew what a trial by fire meant. They knew how the flames\nhad travelled over their own city, consuming all that fire could\nkindle on, and leaving of the slightly built houses nothing but a\ncharred and useless timber here and there, while the massive marbles\nstood erect among the ruins; and the precious metals, even though\nmolten, were prized by the conqueror. Against the fire no prayer, no\nappeal, prevailed. Its judgment and decisions were irreversible;\nwood, hay, stubble, disappeared: only what was solid and valuable\nremained. By such irreversible judgment are we and our work to be\njudged. We are to enter into a life in which the nature and character\nof the work we have done in this world shall bring upon it utter\ndestruction or a rewarding and growing utility. Fire simply burns up\nall that will burn and leaves what will not. So shall the new life we\nare to pass into absolutely annihilate what is not in keeping with it,\nand leave only what is useful and congruous. There is no question here\nof admitting explanations, of adducing extenuating circumstances, of\nappealing to compassion, and so forth. It is a judgment, and a\njudgment of absolute truth, which takes things as they actually are.\nThe work that has been well and wisely done will stand; foolish, vain,\nand selfish work will go. We are to pass through the fire.\n\nPaul, with his unfailing discernment, accepts it as a very possible\ncontingency that a Christian man may do poor work. In that case, Paul\nsays, the man will be saved as by fire; his work shall be burned, but\nhimself be scatheless. He shall be in the position of a man whose\nhouse has been burnt; the man is saved, but his property, all that he\nhas slowly gathered round him and valued as the fruit of his labour,\nis gone. He may have received no bodily injury, but he is so stripped\nthat he scarcely knows himself, and the whole thought and toil of his\nlife seem to have gone for nothing. So, says Paul, shall this and that\nman pass into the heavenly state, hearing behind him as he barely\nenters the crash of all he has been building up as it falls and leaves\nfor the result of a laborious life a ghastly, charred ruin and a cloud\nof dust. To have been useless, to have advanced Christ's kingdom not\nat all, to have spent our life building up a pretentious erection\nwhich at last falls about our ears, to come to the end and find that\nnot one solid brick in the whole fabric is of our laying, and that the\nworld would have been quite as well without us--this must be\nhumiliating indeed; but it is a humiliation which all selfish,\nworldly, and foolishly fussy Christians are preparing for themselves.\nTo many Christians it seems enough that they be doing _something_. If\nonly they are decently active, it concerns them little that their work\nis really effecting no good, as if they were active rather for the\nsake of keeping themselves warm in a chilling atmosphere than to\naccomplish any good purpose. Work done for this world must be such as\nwill stand inspection and actually do the thing required. Christian\nwork should not be less, but more, thorough.\n\nThere is a degree of carelessness or malignity sometimes to be found\nin those who profess to be Christian teachers which Paul does not\nhesitate unconditionally to doom. \"If any man destroy the temple of\nGod, him shall God destroy.\" A teacher may in various ways incur this\ndoom. He may in guiding some one to Christ fit him obliquely to the\nfoundation, so that firm rest in Christ is never attained; but the man\nremains like a loose stone in a wall, unsettled himself and unsettling\nall around him. Any doctrine which turns the grace of God into licence\nincurs this doom. To lift stones from the mire they have been lying in\nand fit them into the temple is good and right, but to leave them\nuncleansed and unpolished is to disfigure the temple. Any teaching\nthat does not recognise in Christianity the means of becoming holy,\nand encourages men to believe themselves Christians though they\nneither have nor wish to have the Spirit of Christ, destroys the\ntemple.\n\nBut we are responsible as well as our teachers for the appearance we\npresent in God's temple. The stone that is to occupy a permanent place\nin a building is carefully squared and beaten into its place, and its\nlevel adjusted with the utmost nicety. Would it not make a very\nobvious change in the appearance and in the strength of the Church if\nevery member of it were at pains to set himself absolutely true to\nChrist? There is no doubt a good deal of anxiety about our relation to\nChrist, frequent examining and measuring of our actual position; but\ndoes not this too often merely reveal that conscience is uneasy? Some\npersons are prevented from resting satisfactorily on Christ because of\nsome erroneous opinion about faith or about the manner in which the\nconnection is formed, or some pet theory or crotchet has possessed the\nmind and keeps them unsettled. Some will not rest on Christ until they\nhave such repentance as they judge sufficient; others so rest on Him\nthat they have no repentance. Strange that men will so complicate the\nsimplicity of Christ, who is the hand of our heavenly Father,\nstretched out to lift us out of our sin and draw us to Himself! If you\nwish God's love, accept it; if you long for holiness, take Christ as\nyour Friend; if you see no greater joy than to serve in His great\ncause, do His will and follow Him.\n\nBut, alas! with some it is no misunderstanding that prevents a close\nconnection between the soul and Christ, but some worldly purpose or\nsome entangling and deeply cherished sin. The foundation stone is as a\npolished slab of marble, having its upper surface smooth as a mirror,\nwhereas we are like stones that have been lying on the seashore,\nencrusted with shells and lichens, drilled with holes, grown all round\nand round with unsightly inequalities; and if we are to rest with\nentire stability on the foundation, these excrescences must be\nremoved. Even a small one at one point is enough to prevent close\nadhesion. One sin consciously retained, one command or expression of\nChrist's will unresponded to, makes our whole connection with Him\nunsettled and insecure, our confessions and repentances untrue and\nhardening, our prayers hesitating and insincere, our love for Christ\nhollow, our life inconsistent, vacillating, and unprofitable.\n\nAnd more must be done even after we are securely fitted into our\nplace. Stones often look well enough when first built in, but soon\nlose their colour; and their surface and fine edges crumble and shale\noff, so that they need to be constantly looked to. So do the stones in\nGod's temple get tarnished and discoloured by exposure. One sin after\nanother is allowed to stain the conscience; one little corruption\nafter another settles on the character, and eats out its fineness, and\nwhen once the fair, clean stone is no longer unsullied, we think it of\nlittle consequence to be scrupulous. Then the weather tells upon us:\nthe ordinary atmosphere of this life, with its constant damp of\nworldly care and its occasional storms of loss, and disappointment,\nand social collisions, and domestic embroilment, eats out the heavenly\ntemper from our character, and leaves its edges ragged; and the man\nbecomes soured and irritable, and the surface of him, all that meets\nthe casual eye, is rough and broken.\n\nAbove all, do not many Christian persons seem to think it enough to\nhave attained a place in the building, and, after spending a little\nthought and trouble on entering the Christian life, take no step\nonwards during the whole remainder of their lives? But it is in God's\nbuilding as in highly ornamented buildings generally. The stones are\nnot all sculptured before they are fitted into their places; but they\nare built in rough-hewn, so that the building may proceed: and then at\nleisure the device proper to each is carved upon it. This is the\nmanner of God's building. Long after a man has been set in the Church\nof Christ, God hews and carves him to the shape He designs; but we,\nbeing not dead, but living, stones, have it in our power to mar the\nbeauty of God's design, and indeed so distort it that the result is a\ngrotesque and hideous monster, belonging to no world, neither of God\nnor of man. If we let a thousand other influences mould and fashion\nus, God's design must necessarily be spoiled.\n\nThe folly of partisanship and sectarianism is finally exhibited in the\nwords \"Let no man glory in men. For all things are yours, whether\nPaul, or Apollos, or Cephas.\" The man who held to Paul and would learn\nnothing from Apollos or Peter was defrauding himself of his rights. It\nhas been the weakness of Christians in all ages, and never more than\nin our own, to see good in only one aspect of truth and listen to no\nform of teaching but one. The Broad Churchman despises the\ntraditionalist; the Evangelical gathers up his skirts at the approach\nof a Broad Churchman. Calvinist and Arminian stand at daggers drawn.\nEach limits himself to his own fortress, which he thinks he can\ndefend, and starves himself on siege rations while the fields wave\nwhite with grain outside. The eye is constructed to sweep round a wide\nrange of vision; but men put on blinkers, and decline even to look at\nanything which does not lie directly in the line of sight. We know\nthat to confine ourselves to one form of food induces poverty of blood\nand disease, and yet we fancy a healthy spiritual life can be\nmaintained only by confining ourselves to one form of doctrine and one\nway of looking at universal truth. To the Evangelical who shrinks with\nhorror from liberal teaching, and to the advanced thinker who turns\nwith contempt from the Evangelical, Paul would say, Ye do yourselves a\nwrong by listening to one form of the truth only; every teacher who\ndeclares what he himself lives on has something to teach you; to\ndespise or neglect any form of Christian teaching is so far to\nimpoverish yourselves. \"All things are yours,\" not this teacher or\nthat, in whom you glory, but all teachers of Christ.\n\nHis own expression, \"all things are yours,\" suggests to Paul the whole\nwealth of the Christian, for whom exist not only all those who have\nstriven to unfold the significance of the Christian revelation, but\nall things else, whether \"the world, or life, or death, or things\npresent, or things to come.\" As it is true of all teachers, of however\ncommanding genius, that the Church does not exist for them that they\nmay have a field for their genius, and followers to applaud and\nrepresent them, but that they exist for the Church, their genius being\nused for the advancement of the spiritual life of this and that\nunknown and hidden soul; so is it true of all things,--of life and all\nits laws, of death and all it leads to,--that these are ordained of\nGod to minister to the growth of His children. This was the regal\nattitude which Paul himself assumed and maintained towards all events\nand the whole world of created things. He was incapable of defeat. The\noutrages and deaths he endured, he bore as proofs of the truth of his\ngospel. The storms of ill-will and persecution he everywhere\nencountered, he knew were only bringing him and his gospel more\nrapidly to all the world. And when he looked at last on the sword of\nthe Roman executioner, he recognised it with joy as the instrument\nwhich by one sharp blow was to burst his fetters and set him free to\nboundless life and the full knowledge of his Lord. The same\ninheritance belongs to every one who has faith to take it. \"All things\nare yours.\" The whole course of this world and all its particular\nincidents, the complete range of human experience from first to last,\nincluding all we shrink from and fear,--all are for the good of\nChrist's people. What thoughts flash from this man's mind. How his\nwords still entrance and lift and animate the soul. \"All things are\nours.\" The catastrophes of life that seem finally to blot out hope,\nthe wild elemental forces in whose presence frail man is as the moth,\nthe unknown future of the physical world, the certain death that\nawaits every man and listens to no appeal, all things that naturally\ndiscourage and compel us to feel our weakness,--yes, says Paul, all\nthese things are yours, serving your highest good, bringing you on\ntowards your eternal joy, more certainly than the things you select\nand buy, or win, and cherish as your own. You are free men, supreme\nover all created things, for \"ye are Christ's,\" you belong to Him who\nrules all, and loves you as His own; and above Christ and His rule\nthere is no adverse will that can rob you of any good, for as ye are\nChrist's, cherished by Him, so is Christ God's, and the supreme will\nthat governs all, governs all in the interests of Christ.\n\n_THE MINISTRY._\n\n \"Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and\n stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in\n stewards, that a man be found faithful. But with me it is a very\n small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment:\n yea, I judge not mine own self. For I know nothing by myself; yet\n am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.\n Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who\n both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will\n make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every\n man have praise of God. And these things, brethren, I have in a\n figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that\n ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is\n written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.\n For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou\n that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why\n dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it? Now ye are\n full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I\n would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you. For\n I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were\n appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world,\n and to angels, and to men. We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye\n are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are\n honourable, but we are despised. Even unto this present hour we\n both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and\n have no certain dwellingplace: and labour, working with our own\n hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:\n being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the earth,\n and are the offscouring of all things unto this day. I write not\n these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For\n though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye\n not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through\n the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.\"--1\n COR. iv. 1-16.\n\n\n\n\nVII.\n\n_THE MINISTRY._\n\n\nSo keenly alive is Paul to the danger and folly of party-spirit in the\nChurch, that he has still one more word of rebuke to utter. He has\nshown the Corinthians that to give their faith to one teacher, and\nshut their ears to every other form of truth than that which he\ndelivers, is to impoverish and defraud themselves. All teachers are\ntheirs, and are sent, not to win disciples to themselves, who may\nspread their fame and reflect credit on their talents, but to serve\nthe people, and be merged in self-obliterating toil. The preachers,\nPaul tells them, exist for the Church: not the Church for the\npreachers. The people are the primary consideration, the main end to\nwhich the preachers are subordinate. The mistake often made in things\ncivil, that the people exist for the king, not the king for the\npeople, is made also in things ecclesiastical, and has, in some\ninstances, attained such dimensions that the \"Church\" means the\nclergy, not the laity, and that when a man enters the ministry he is\nsaid to enter the Church,--as if already he were not in it as a\nlayman.\n\nPaul now proceeds to demonstrate the futility of the judgment passed\nupon their teachers by the Corinthians. Paul and the rest were\nservants of Christ, stewards sent by Him to dispense to others what he\nhad entrusted to them. The question therefore was, were they faithful,\ndid they dispense what they had received in conformity with Christ's\npurpose? The question was not, were they eloquent, were they\nphilosophical, were they learned? Criticism no preacher need expect to\nescape. Sometimes one might suppose sermons were of no other use than\nto furnish material for a little discussion and pleasant exercise of\nthe critical faculty. Every one considers himself capable of this form\nof criticism, and once a sermon has been sorted and labelled as of\nthis, that, or the other quality, it is too often put permanently\naside. In such criticism, Paul reminds us, it is a great matter to\nbear in mind that what has no great attraction for us may yet serve\nsome good purpose. The gifts dispensed by Christ are various. The\ninfluence of some ministers is most felt in private, while others are\nshy and stiff, and can only utter themselves freely in the pulpit. In\nthe pulpit again various gifts appear, some having good nerve and a\nready and felicitous address which reaches the multitude; while others\nhave more power of thought, and a finer literary gift, or a\nsympathetic manner of handling peculiarities of spiritual experience.\nWho shall say which of these styles is most edifying to the Church?\nAnd who shall say which teacher is most faithfully serving his Master?\nWho shall determine whether this preacher or that is the better\nsteward, most truly seeking his Lord's glory, and careless of his own?\nMay it not be expected that when the things at present hidden in\ndarkness, the motives and thoughts of the heart, are brought to light\nin Christ's judgment, many that are first shall be last, and the last\nfirst?\n\nHe who is conscious that he is the servant of Christ and must give\naccount to Him, can always say with Paul, \"It is a very small thing\nthat I should be judged of man's judgment,\" whether for acquittal and\napplause or condemnation and abuse. He who utters what is peculiar to\nhimself must expect to be misjudged by those who do not look at things\nfrom his point of view. A teacher who thinks for himself and is not a\nmere echo of other men, finds himself compelled to utter truths which\nhe knows will be misunderstood by many; but so long as he is conscious\nthat he is faithfully delivering what has been made known to himself,\nthe condemnation of the many can trouble him very little or not at\nall. It is to his own Master he stands or falls; and if he feels sure\nthat he is doing his Master's will, he may regret the opposition of\nmen, but he can neither be greatly astonished nor greatly perturbed by\nit. And, on the other hand, the approval and applause of men come to\nhim only as a reminder that there is no finality in man's judgment,\nand that it is only Christ's approval which avails to give permanent\nsatisfaction. A sympathetic audience every teacher needs, but general\napproval will be his in the inverse ratio of the individuality of his\nteaching.\n\nIn his whole discussion of this subject Paul has named only himself\nand Apollos, but he means that what he has said of them should be\napplied to all. \"These things I have in a figure transferred to myself\nand to Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to think\nof men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up\nfor one against another.\" But great difficulty has always been\nexperienced in tracing the similarities and distinctions which exist\nbetween the Apostles and the ordinary ministry of the Church, and had\nPaul been writing this epistle in our own day he would have felt\nhimself compelled to speak more definitely on these points. For what\nmakes union hopeless in Christendom at present is not that parties are\nformed round individual leaders, but that Churches are based on\ndiametrically opposed opinions regarding the ministry itself. The\nChurch of Rome unchurches all the rest, and defends her action by the\nsimplest process of reasoning. There can be no true Church, she says,\nwhere there is no forgiveness of sins and no sacraments, and there can\nbe no forgiveness and no sacraments where there are no true ministers\nto administer them, and there are no true ministers save those who can\ntrace their orders to the Apostles. This theory of the ministry\nproceeds on the idea that the Apostles received from Christ a\ncommission to exercise the apostolic office, and along with it a\ndeposit of grace, with powers to communicate this to those who should\nsucceed them. This deposit of grace derived from Christ Himself has\nbeen handed down from generation to generation, through a line of\nconsecrated persons, each member of the series receiving at his\nordination, and irrespective of his moral character, both the\ncommission and the powers which belonged to his predecessor in office.\n\nThis theory of the efficacy of ministration in the Church, with its\nentirely external account of its transmission, is but one\nmanifestation of the old superstition that confounds the outward\nsymbol of Christian grace with that grace itself. It is a survival\nfrom a time in which religion was treated as a kind of magic, in which\nit was only needful to observe the right words of incantation and the\nright outward order. Even supposing that any priest now alive could\ntrace his orders back to the Apostles, which no priest can, is it\ncredible that the mere observance of an outward form should secure the\ntransmission of the highest spiritual functions to those who may or\nmay not have any spirituality of mind? However much grace the\nordaining bishop may himself possess, however many of the\nqualifications of a good minister of Christ he may have, he can\ntransmit none of these by the laying on of his hands. He can confer\nthe external authority in the Church which belongs to the office to\nwhich he ordains, but he cannot communicate that which fits a man to\nuse this authority. The laying on of hands is the outward symbol of\nthe bestowal of the Holy Spirit, but it does not confer that Spirit,\nwhich is given, not by man, but by Christ alone. The laying on of\nhands is a fit symbol to use at ordination when those who use it have\nsatisfied themselves that the ordained person is in possession of the\nSpirit. It is the expression of their reasonable belief that the\nSpirit is given.\n\nIn some Churches reaction against the theory of apostolical succession\nhas led men to distrust and repudiate ordination altogether, and to\nmaintain that any man may preach who can get people to listen to him,\nand may administer the sacraments to any who apply for them. No\noutward recognition by the Church is deemed necessary. The middle\ncourse is safer, which acknowledges not only the supreme necessity of\nan inward call, but also the expediency of an outward call by the\nChurch. By an inward call it is meant that it is the inward and\nspiritual fitness of any person which constitutes his main right of\nentrance to the ministry. There are certain mental and moral\nendowments, certain circumstances, and educational advantages,\npersonal inclinations and leanings, which, when they meet in a boy or\nyoung man, point him out as suited for the work of the ministry. The\nevidence that Christ means that any one should take office in His\nChurch,--in other words, calls him to office,--is the fact that He\nbestows on that person the gifts which fit him for it.\n\nBut besides this inward persuasion wrought in the mind of the\nindividual, and which constitutes the inward call, there must be an\noutward call also by the Church's recognition of fitness and\ncommunication of authority. Any man who at his own instance and on his\nown authority gathers a congregation and dispenses the sacraments is\nguilty of schism. Even Barnabas and Paul were ordained by the Church.\nAs in the State a prince though legitimate does not succeed to the\nthrone without formal consecration and coronation, so in the Church\nthere is needed a formal recognition of the title which any one claims\nto office. It is not the consecration which constitutes the prince's\nright; that he already possesses by birth: so, neither is it the\nChurch's ordination which qualifies and entitles the minister to his\noffice; this he already has by the gift of Christ; but recognition by\nthe Church is needed to give him due authority to exercise the\nfunctions of his office. It is a matter of expediency and of order. It\nis calculated to maintain the unity of the Church. Admission to the\nministry being regulated by those already in office, schisms are less\nlikely to occur. Ordination has been a bulwark against fanaticism,\nagainst foolish private opinions and doctrines, against divisive\ncourses in worship and in organization. If the Church was to be kept\ntogether and to grow as a consistent whole, it was necessary that\nthose already in office should be allowed to scrutinize the claims of\naspirants to office, and should not have their order invaded, their\nwork thwarted and obstructed, their doctrine denied and contradicted\nby every one who might profess to have an inward call to the ministry.\n\nIt would therefore seem to be every one's duty to inquire, before he\ngives himself to another profession or business, whether Christ is not\nclaiming him to serve in His Church. The qualifications which\nconstitute a call to the ministry are such as these: an interest in\nmen, in their ways, and habits, and character; a social disposition,\ninclining you to mix with other people, to take pleasure in their\nthoughts and feelings, to be of service to them, to talk frankly with\nthem; a liking for reading, if not for hard study; some capacity for\nthinking and arranging your thoughts and expressing them, which,\nhowever, is to so great an extent the result of study and practice\nthat you may find it impossible to say whether you have it or not.\nThere are negative qualifications equally important, such as an\nindifference to money-making, a shrinking from the eager competition\nand hurry of a business life. And, above all, there are the deeper and\nessential qualifications which are the fruit of the Spirit's\nsanctifying energy: some genuine sense of your indebtedness to Christ;\na strong desire to serve Him; an ambition to preach Him, to proclaim\nHis worth, to invite men to appreciate and love Him. If you have these\ndesires, and if you would fain be of use in things spiritual to your\nfellow-men, then it would seem that you are called by Christ to the\nministry. I do not say that all ministers are so qualified, but only\nthat any one who is so qualified should be careful how he chooses\nsome other calling in preference to the ministry.\n\nPaul concludes this portion of his Epistle with a pathetic comparison\nof his condition as an Apostle with the condition of those in Corinth\nwho were glorying in this or that teacher. They spoke as if they\nneeded his instructions no more, and as if already they had attained\nthe highest Christian advantages. \"Already ye are full; already ye are\nrich: ye have reigned as kings without us.\" They behave as if all the\ntrial of the Christian life were over. With the frothy spirit of young\nconverts, they are full of a triumph which they despise Paul for not\ninculcating. By one leap they had attained, or thought they had\nattained, a superiority to all disturbance, and to all trial, and to\nall need of teaching, which, in fact, as Paul's own experience taught\nhim, could only be attained in another life. While they thus\ntriumphed, he who had begotten them in Christ was being treated as the\noffscouring and filth of the world.\n\nPaul can only compare himself and the other Apostles to those\ngladiators who were condemned to die, and who came into the arena\nlast, after the spectators had been sated with other exhibitions and\nbloodless performances. \"I think that God hath set forth us the\nApostles last, as it were appointed to death. For we are made a\nspectacle unto the world, and to angels and to men.\" They came into\nthe arena knowing they should never leave it alive, that they were\nthere for the purpose of enduring the worst their enemies could do to\nthem. It was no fight with buttoned foils Paul and the rest were\nengaged in. While others sat comfortably looking on, with curtains to\nshade them from the heat and refreshments to save them from\nexhaustion or from faintness at the sight of blood, they were in the\narena, exposed to wounds, ill-usage, and death. They had as little\nhope of retiring to live a quiet life as the gladiators who had said\nfarewell to their friends and saluted the Emperor as those about to\ndie. Life became no easier, the world no kinder, to Paul as time went\non. \"Even unto this present hour of writing,\" he says, \"we both hunger\nand thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain\ndwelling-place.\" Here is the finest mind, the noblest spirit, on\nearth; and this is how he is treated: driven from place to place,\nthrust aside as interrupting the proper work of men, passed by with a\nsneer at his rags, refused the commonest charity, paid for his loving\nwords in blows and insolence. And yet he goes on with his work, and\nlets nothing interrupt that. \"Being reviled, we bless; being\npersecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat.\" Nay, it is a\nlife which he is so far from giving up himself, that he will call to\nit the easy-going Christians of Corinth. \"I beseech you,\" he says, \"be\nye followers of me.\"\n\nAnd if the contrast between Paul's precarious and self-sacrificing\nlife and the luxurious and self-complacent life of the Corinthians\nmight be expected to shame them into some vigorous Christian service,\na similar contrast candidly considered may accomplish some good\nresults in us. Already the Corinthians were accepting that pernicious\nconception of Christianity which looks upon it as merely a new luxury,\nthat they who are already comfortable in all outward respects may be\ncomforted in spirit as well and purge their minds from all anxieties,\nquestionings, and strivings. They recognised how happy a thing it is\nto be forgiven, to be at peace with God, to have a sure hope of life\neverlasting. For them the battle was over, the conquest won, the\nthrone ascended. As yet they had not caught a glimpse of what is\ninvolved in becoming holy as Christ is holy, nor had steadily\nconceived in their minds the profound inward change which must pass\nupon them. As yet it was enough for them that they were called to be\nGod's children, provided for by a heavenly Father; and Christ's own\nview of life and of men had not yet possessed or even dawned upon\ntheir soul, causing them to feel that until they could live for others\nthey had no true life.\n\nAre there none still who listen to Christianity rather as a voice\nsoothing their fears than as a bugle summoning them to conflict, who\nare satisfied if through the Gospel they are enabled to comfort their\nown soul, and who do not yet respond to Christ's call to live under\nthe power of that Spirit of His which prompted Him to all sacrifice?\nPaul does not summon the whole Church to be homeless, destitute,\ncomfortless, outcast from all joy; and yet there is meaning in his\nwords when he says, \"Be ye followers of me.\" He means that there is\nnot one standard of duty for him and another for us. All is wrong with\nus until we be made somehow to recognise, and make room in our life\nfor the recognition, that we have no right to be lapping ourselves\nround with all manner of selfish aggrandizement while Paul is driven\nthrough life with scarcely one day's bread provided, that in some way\nintelligible to our own conscience we must approve ourselves to be his\nfollowers, and that no right is secured to any class of Christians to\nstand selfishly aloof from the common Christian cause. If we be\nChrist's, as Paul was, it must inevitably come to this with us: that\nwe cordially yield to Him all we are and have; our very selves, with\nall our tastes and aptitudes and with all we have made by our toil;\nour life, with all its fruits, we gladly yield to Him. If our hearts\nbe His, this is inevitable and delightful; unless they be so, it is\nimpossible, and seems extravagant. It is vain to say to a man, Serve\nonly yourself in life, seek only to make a reputation for yourself and\ngather comforts round yourself, and make it the aim of your life to be\ncomfortable and respectable--it is vain to bid a man thus limit and\nimpoverish his life if at the same time you show him a person so\nattracting human allegiance as Christ does, and so opening to men\nwider and eternal aims as He does, and if you show him a cause so\nkindling every right ambition as Christ's cause does.\n\nIt was Christ's own self-sacrifice that threw such a spell over the\nApostles and gave them so new a feeling towards their fellow-men and\nso new an estimate of their deepest needs. After seeing how Christ\nlived, they could never again justify themselves in living for self.\nAfter seeing His regardlessness of bodily comfort, His superiority to\ntraditional necessities and customary luxuries, after witnessing how\nveritably He was but passing through this world, and used it as the\nstage on which He might serve God and men, and counted His life best\nspent in giving it for others, they could not settle down into the old\nlife and aim only at passing comfortably, reputably, and religiously\nthrough it. That view of life was made for ever impossible to them.\nThe life of Christ had made a new way for itself into a new region,\nand the horizon rent by the passage never again closed to them. That\nlife became the only spiritual reality to them. And it is because we\nare so sunk in self-seeking and worldliness, and so blinded by the\ncustoms and traditional ideas about spending life, about acquitting\nourselves well and making a name, about earning a competence, about\neverything which turns the regard in upon self instead of outwards\nupon objects worthy of our exertion--it is therefore that we continue\nso unapostolic, so unprofitable, so unchanged.\n\nIt might encourage us to bring our life more nearly into the line of\nPaul's were we to see clearly that the cause he served is really\ninclusive of all that is worth working for. We can scarcely apprehend\nthis with any clearness without feeling some enthusiasm for it. The\n_kind_ of devotedness expected of the Christian is illustrated in the\nlives of all men of any force of character; the Christian's\ndevotedness is only given to a larger and more reasonable object.\nThere have been statesmen and patriots, and there still are such, who,\nthough possibly not absolutely devoid of some taint of selfish\nambition, are yet in the main devoted to their country; its interests\nare continually on their mind and heart, their time is given wholly to\nit, and their own personal tastes and pursuits are held in abeyance\nand abandoned to make room for more important labour. You have seen\nmen become so enamoured of a cause that they will literally sell all\nthey have to forward it, and who obviously have it on their hearts by\nnight and by day, who live for that and for nothing else; you can\ndetect as often as you meet them that the real aim and object of their\nlife is to promote that cause. Some new movement, political or\necclesiastical, some literary scheme, some fresh enterprise of\nbenevolence, some new commercial idea, or no matter what it is, you\nhave seen again and again that men throw themselves so thoroughly\ninto such causes that they cannot be said to be living for themselves.\nThey will part with time, with property, with other important objects,\nwith health, even with life itself, for the sake of their cherished,\nchosen cause. And when such a cause is worthy, such as the reformation\nof prison discipline, or the emancipation of slaves, or the liberating\nof an oppressed nation, the men who adopt it seem to lead the only\nlives which have some semblance of glory in them; and the sacrifices\nthey make, the obloquy they incur, the toils they endure, make the\nheart burn and swell as we hear of them. Every one instinctively\nacknowledges that such self-forgetful and heroic lives are the right\nand model lives for all. What a man does for himself is jealously\nexamined, criticised, and passed at the most with an exclamation of\nwonder; but what he does for others is welcomed with acclamation as an\nhonour to our common humanity. So long as a man labours merely for\nhimself, to win himself a name, to get for himself a possession, he\nmakes no valuable contribution to the world's good, and only by\naccident effects anything for which other men are thankful; but let a\nman even with small means at his command have the interests of others\nat his heart, and he sets in motion endless agencies and influences\nthat bless whatever they touch.\n\nIt is this then that our Lord does for us by claiming our service; He\ngives us the opportunity of sinking our selfishness, which is in the\nlast analysis our sin, and of living for a worthier object than our\nown pleasure or our own careful preservation. When He tells us to live\nfor Him and to seek the things that are His, He but tells us in other\nwords and in a more attractive and practical form to seek the common\ngood. We seek the things that are Christ's when we act as Christ\nwould act were He in our place, when we let Christ live through us,\nwhen we, by considering what He would have us do, let His influence\nstill tell on the world and His will still be done in the world. This\nshould be so done by each and every Christian that the result would be\nthe same as if Christ had personally at command all the resources for\ngood that are possessed by His people, as if He were Himself expending\nall the money, energy, and time that are being expended by His people,\nso that at every point where there is a Christian Christ's purposes\nmight be being forwarded. This is the devotedness we are called to;\nthis is the devotedness we must cultivate until we do make some\nconsiderable attainment in it.\n\n_EXCOMMUNICATION; OR, PURGING OUT THE OLD LEAVEN._\n\n \"For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved\n son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into\n remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where\n in every church. Now some are puffed up, as though I would not\n come to you. But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will,\n and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but\n the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.\n What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and\n in the spirit of meekness?\"\n\n \"It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and\n such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles,\n that one should have his father's wife. And ye are puffed up, and\n have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might\n be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body,\n but present in spirit, have judged already as though I were\n present, concerning him that hath so done this deed. In the name\n of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my\n spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such\n an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the\n spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your glorying\n is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole\n lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new\n lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is\n sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast, not with old\n leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but\n with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote unto\n you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: yet not\n altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the\n covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye\n needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to\n keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a\n fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a\n drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For\n what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye\n judge them that are within? But them that are without God\n judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked\n person.\"--1 COR. iv. 17-v. 13.\n\n\n\n\nVIII.\n\n_EXCOMMUNICATION; OR, PURGING OUT THE OLD LEAVEN._\n\n\nFrom the subject of the factions in the Corinthian Church, which has\nso long detained Paul, he now passes to the second division of his\nEpistle, in which he speaks of the relation the Christians should hold\nto the heathen population around them. The transition is easy and such\nas befits a letter. Paul had thought it advisable to send Timothy, who\nperfectly understood his mind, and could represent his views more\nfully than a letter; but it now occurred to him that this might be\nconstrued by some of the vain popular leaders in the Church into a\ntimorous reluctance on his part to appear in Corinth and a sign that\nthey were no longer to be held in check by the strong hand of the\nApostle. \"Some are puffed up, as though _I_ would not come to you.\" He\nassures them therefore that he himself will come to Corinth, and also\nthat the leaders of the Church have little reason to be puffed up,\nseeing that they have allowed in the Church an immorality so gross\nthat even the lower standard of pagan ethics regards it as an\nunnameable abomination; and if once it is named, it is only to say\nthat not all the waters of ocean can wash away such guilt. Instead of\nbeing puffed up, Paul tells them, they should rather be ashamed and\nat once take steps to put away from them so great a scandal. If not,\nhe must come, not in meekness and love, but with a rod.\n\nThe Corinthian Church had fallen into a common snare. Churches have\nalways been tempted to pique themselves on their rich foundations and\ninstitutions, on producing champions of the faith, able writers,\neloquent preachers, on their cultured ministry, on their rich and\n\u00e6sthetic services, and not on that very thing for which the Church\nexists: the cleansing of the morals of the people and their elevation\nto a truly spiritual and godly life. And it is the individuals who\ngive character to any Church. \"A little leaven leaveneth the whole\nlump.\" Each member of a Church in each day's conduct in business and\nat home stakes, not only his own reputation, but the credit of the\nChurch to which he belongs. Involuntarily and unconsciously men lower\ntheir opinion of the Church and cease to expect to find in her a\nfountain of spiritual life, because they find her members selfish and\ngreedy in business, ready to avail themselves of doubtful methods;\nharsh, self-indulgent, and despotic at home, tainted with vices\ncondemned by the least educated conscience. Let us remember that our\nlittle leaven leavens what is in contact with us; that our worldliness\nand unchristian conduct tend to lower the tone of our circle,\nencourage others to live down to our level, and help to demoralize the\ncommunity.\n\nIn the judgment Paul pronounces on the Corinthian culprit two points\nare important. First, it is noteworthy that Paul, Apostle though he\nwas, did not take the case out of the hands of the congregation. His\nown judgment on the case was explicit and decided, and this judgment\nhe does not hesitate to declare; but, at the same time, it is the\ncongregation which must deal with the case and pronounce judgment in\nit. The excommunication he enjoined was to be their act. \"Put away\nfrom among yourselves,\" he says (v. 13), \"that wicked person.\" The\ngovernment of the Church was in Paul's idea thoroughly democratic; and\nwhere the power to excommunicate has been lodged in a priesthood, the\nresults have been deplorable. Either, on the one hand, the people have\nbecome craven and have lived in terror, or, on the other hand, the\npriest has been afraid to measure his strength with powerful\noffenders. In our own country and in others this power of\nexcommunication has been abused for the most unworthy purposes,\npolitical, social, and private; and only when it is lodged in the\ncongregation can you secure a fair judgment and moral right to enforce\nit. There is little fear that this power will nowadays be abused. Men\nthemselves conscious of strong propensities to evil and of many sins\nare more likely to be lax in administering discipline than forward to\nuse their power; and so far from ecclesiastical discipline producing\nin its administrators harsh, tyrannical, and self-righteous feelings,\nit rather works an opposite effect, and evokes charity, a sense of\nsolemn responsibility, and the longing for the welfare of others which\nlies latent in Christian minds.\n\nBut, second, the precise punishment intended by Paul is couched in\nlanguage which the present generation cannot readily understand. The\nculprit is not only to be excluded from Christian communion, but \"to\nbe delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the\nspirit may be saved.\" Many meanings have been put upon these words;\nbut after all has been said, the natural and obvious meaning of the\nwords asserts itself. Paul believed that certain sins were more likely\nto be cured by bodily suffering than by any other agency. Naturally\nsins of the flesh belonged to this class. Bodily suffering of some\nkinds he believed to be the infliction of Satan. Even his own thorn in\nthe flesh he spoke of as a messenger of Satan sent to buffet him. He\nexpected also that the judgment pronounced by himself and the\ncongregation on this offender would be given effect to in God's\nprovidence; and accordingly he bids the congregation hand the man over\nto this disciplinary suffering, not as a final doom, but as the only\nlikely means of saving his soul.[4] If the offender mentioned in the\nSecond Epistle is the same man, then we have evidence that the\ndiscipline was effectual, that the sinner did repent and was\noverwhelmed with shame and sorrow. Certainly such an experience of\npunishment, though not invariably or even commonly effectual, is in\nitself calculated to penetrate to the very depth of a man's spirit and\ngive him new thoughts about his sin. If when suffering he can\nacknowledge his own wrong-doing as the cause of his misery and accept\nall the bitter and grievous penalties his sin has incurred, if he can\ntruly humble himself before God in the matter and own that all he\nsuffers is right and good, then he is nearer the kingdom of heaven\nthan ever he was before. Substantially the same idea as Paul's is put\nin the mouth of the Pope by the most modern of poets:--\n\n [4] Some account of the Jewish and other forms of\n excommunication is given in the _Encycl. Brit._, art.\n Excommunication. Milman's _History of the Jews_, Book XIX.,\n should also be consulted, and the _Pontificale Romanum_.\n\n \"For the main criminal I have no hope\n Except in such a suddenness of fate.\n I stood at Naples once, a night so dark,\n I could have scarce conjectured there was earth\n Anywhere, sky, or sea, or world at all,\n But the night's black was burst through by a blaze;\n Thunder struck blow on blow; Earth groaned and bore,\n Through her whole length of mountain visible:\n There lay the city thick and plain with spires,\n And, like a ghost disshrouded, white the sea.\n So may the truth be flashed out by one blow,\n And Guido see one instant and be saved.\"\n\nThe necessity for keeping their communion pure, for being a society\nwith no leaven of wickedness among them, Paul proceeds to urge and\nillustrate in the words, \"For even Christ our passover is sacrificed\nfor us; therefore let us purge out the old leaven.\" The allusion was,\nof course, much more telling to Jews than it can possibly be to us;\nstill, if we call to mind the outstanding ideas of the Passover, we\ncannot fail to feel the force of the admonition. That must be the\nsimplest explanation of the Passover which Jewish parents were\nenjoined to give to their children, in the words, \"By strength of hand\nthe Lord brought us out of Egypt, from the house of bondage. And it\ncame to pass when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the Lord slew\nall the firstborn in the land of Egypt, with the firstborn of man and\nthe firstborn of beast. Therefore I sacrifice to the Lord all the\nfirstborn being males, but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.\"\nThat is to say, all the firstborn of animals they sacrificed to God,\nslaying them on His altar, but instead of slaying the human firstborns\nthey redeemed them by sacrificing a lamb in their stead. The whole\ntransaction of the night of the first Passover stood thus: God\nclaimed the Israelites as His people; the Egyptians also claimed them\nas theirs. And as no warning would persuade the Egyptians to let them\naway to serve God, God at last forcibly delivered them, slaying the\nflower of the Egyptian people, and so crippling and dismaying them as\nto give Israel opportunity of escape. Being thus rescued that they\nmight be God's people, they felt bound to continue to own this; and in\naccordance with the custom of their time they expressed their sense of\nit by sacrificing their firstborn, by presenting them to God as\nbelonging to Him. By this outward sacrificial act engaged in by every\nfamily it was acknowledged that the whole nation belonged to God.\n\nChrist, then, is our Passover or Paschal Lamb, in the first place,\nbecause through Him there is made the acknowledgment that we belong to\nGod. He is in very truth the prime and flower, the best representative\nof our race, the firstborn of every creature. He is the one who can\nmake for all others this acknowledgment that we are God's people. And\nHe does so by perfectly giving Himself up to God. This fact that we\nbelong to God, that we men are His creatures and subjects, has never\nbeen perfectly acknowledged save by Christ. No individual or society\nof people has ever lived entirely for God. No man has ever fully\nrecognised this apparently simple truth, that we are not our own, but\nGod's. The Israelites made the acknowledgment in form, by sacrifice,\nbut Christ alone made it in deed by giving Himself up wholly to do\nGod's will. The Israelites made the acknowledgment from time to time,\nand with probably more or less truthfulness and sincerity, but\nChrist's whole spirit and habitual temper of mind was that of perfect\nobedience and dedication.\n\nOnly those of us, then, who see that we ought to live for God can\nclaim Christ as our representative. His dedication to God is unmeaning\nto us if we do not desire to belong entirely to God. If He is our\nPassover, the meaning of this is that He gives us liberty to serve\nGod; if we do not mean to be God's people, if we do not resolutely\npurpose to put ourselves at God's disposal, then it is idle and false\nof us to talk of Him as our Passover. Christ comes to bring us back to\nGod, to redeem us from all that hinders our serving Him; but if we\nreally prefer being our own masters, then manifestly He is useless to\nus. It is no matter what we say, nor what rites and forms we go\nthrough; the one question is, Do we at heart wish to give ourselves up\nto God? Does Christ really represent us,--represent, by His devoted\nunworldly life, our earnest and hearty desire and intention? Do we\nfind in His life and death, in His submission to God and meek\nacceptance of all God appointed, the truest representation of what we\nourselves would fain be and do, but cannot?\n\nIt is through this _self-sacrifice_ of Christ that we can become God's\npeople, and enjoy all the liberties and advantages of His people.\nChrist becomes the representative of all whose state of mind His\nsacrifice represents. If we would fain be of one mind and will with\nGod as Christ was, if we feel the degradation and bitterness of\nfailing God and disappointing the trust He has confided in us His\nchildren, if our life is wholly spoiled by the latent feeling that all\nis wrong because we are not in harmony with the wise and holy and\nloving Father, if we feel with more and more distinctness, as life\ngoes on, that there is a God, and that the foundation of all happiness\nand soundness of life must be laid in union with Him, then Christ's\nperfect surrender of Himself to the will of the Father represents what\nwe would but cannot ourselves achieve. When the Israelite came with\nhis lamb, feeling the attractiveness and majesty of God, and desiring\nto pour his whole life out in fellowship with God and service of Him,\nas entirely as the life of the lamb was poured out at the altar, God\naccepted this symbolic utterance of the worshipper's heart. As the\nworshipping Israelite saw in the animal yielding its whole life the\nvery utterance of his own desire, and said, Would God I could as\nfreely and entirely devote myself with all my powers and energies to\nmy Father above; so we, looking at the free, and loving, and eager\nsacrifice of our Lord, say in our hearts, Would God I could thus live\nin God and for God, and so become one with perfect purity and justice,\nwith infinite love and power.\n\nThe Paschal Lamb then was in the first place the acknowledgment by the\nIsraelites that they belonged to God. The lamb was offered to God, not\nas being itself anything worthy of God's acceptance, but merely as a\nway of saying to God that the family who offered it gave themselves up\nas entirely to Him. But by thus becoming a kind of substitute for the\nfamily, it saved the firstborn from death. God did not wish to smite\nIsrael, but to save them. He did not wish to confound them with the\nEgyptians, and make an indiscriminate slaughter. But God did not\nsimply omit the Israelite houses, and pick out the Egyptian ones\nthroughout the land. He left it to the choice of the people whether\nthey would accept His deliverance and belong to Him or not. He told\nthem that every home would be safe, on the door-posts of which there\nwas visible the blood of the lamb. The blood of the lamb thus\nprovided a refuge for the people, a shelter from death which otherwise\nwould have fallen upon them. The angel of judgment was to recognise no\ndistinction between Israelite and Egyptian save this of the sprinkled,\nstained door-posts. Death was to enter every house where the blood was\nnot visible; mercy was to rest on every family that dwelt under this\nsign. God's judgment was out that night all over the land, and no\ndifference of race was made anything of. They who had disregarded the\nuse of the blood would have no time to object, We be Abraham's seed.\nGod meant that they should all be rescued, but He knew that it was\nquite possible that some had become so entangled with Egypt that they\nwould be unwilling to leave it, and He would not force any--we may say\nHe _could_ not force any--to yield themselves to Him. This rendering\nof ourselves to God must be a free act on our part; it must be the\ndeliberate and true act of a soul that feels convinced of the poverty\nand wretchedness of all life that is not serving God. And God left it\nin the choice of each family--they might or might not use the blood,\nas they pleased. But wherever it was used, safety and deliverance were\nthereby secured. Wherever the lamb was slain in acknowledgment that\nthe family belonged to God, God dealt with them as with His own.\nWherever there was no such acknowledgment, they were dealt with as\nthose who preferred to be God's enemies.\n\nAnd now Christ our Passover is slain, and we are asked to determine\nthe application of Christ's sacrifice, to say whether we will use it\nor no. We are not asked to add anything to the efficacy of that\nsacrifice, but only to avail ourselves of it. Passing through the\nstreets of the Egyptian cities on the night of the Passover, you could\nhave told who trusted God and who did not. Wherever there was faith\nthere was a man in the twilight with his bason of blood and bunch of\nhyssop, sprinkling his lintel and then going in and shutting his door,\nresolved that no solicitation should tempt him from behind the blood\ntill the angel was by. He took God at His word; he believed God meant\nto deliver him, and he did what he was told was his part. The result\nwas that he was rescued from Egyptian bondage. God now desires that we\nbe separated from everything which prevents us from gladly serving\nHim, from every evil bias in us which prevents us from delighting in\nGod, from all that makes us feel guilty and unhappy, from all sin that\nenchains us and makes our future hopeless and dark. God calls us to\nHimself, meaning that we shall one day get for ever past all that has\nmade us unfaithful to Him and all that has made it impossible for us\nto find deep and lasting pleasure in serving Him. To us He throws open\na way out from all bondage, and from all that gives us the spirit of\nslaves; He gives us the opportunity of following Him into real and\nfree life, into glad fellowship with Him and joyful partnership in His\never beneficent and progressive work. What response are we making? In\nthe face of the varied difficulties and deluding appearances of this\nlife, in the face of the complexity and inveterate hold of sin, can\nyou believe that God seeks to deliver you and even now designs for you\na life that is worthy of His greatness and love, a life which shall\nperfectly satisfy you and give play to all your worthy desires and\nenergies?\n\nSacrifices were in old times accompanied by feasts in which the\nreconciled God and His worshippers ate together. In the feast of\nPassover the lamb which had been used as a sacrifice was consumed as\nfood to strengthen the Israelites for their exodus. This idea Paul\nhere adapts to his present purpose. \"Christ our passover is sacrificed\nfor us,\" he says; \"let us therefore keep the feast.\" The whole life of\nthe Christian is a festal celebration; his strength is maintained by\nthat which has given him peace with God. By Christ's death God\nreconciles us to Himself; out of Christ we continually receive what\nfits us to serve God as His free people. Every Christian should aim at\nmaking his life a celebration of the true deliverance Christ has\naccomplished for us. We should see that our life is a true exodus, and\nbeing so it will bear marks of triumph and of freedom. To feed upon\nChrist, joyfully to assimilate all that is in Him to our own\ncharacter, it is this which makes life festal, which turns faintness\ninto abounding strength, and brings zest and appetite into monotonous\nlabour.\n\nBut Paul's purpose in introducing the idea of the Passover is rather\nto enforce his injunction to the Corinthians to purge their communion\nof all defilement. \"Let us keep the feast, not with old leaven,\nneither with the leaven of malice and wickedness!\" Leaven was judged\nunclean, because fermentation is one form of corruption. This impurity\nwas not to be touched by the holy people during their festival week.\nThis was secured at the first keeping of the Passover by the\nsuddenness of the exodus when the people fled with their kneading\nboards on their shoulders and had no time to take leaven, and had\ntherefore no choice but to keep God's command and eat unleavened\nbread. And so scrupulously did the people at all times observe this\nthat before the day of the feast they used to sweep their houses and\nsearch the dark corners with candles, lest a morsel of leaven should\nbe found among them. Thus would Paul have all Christians be separate\nfrom the rotting, fermenting results of the old life. So suddenly\nwould he have us issue from it and so clean would He have us leave it\nall behind us. A _little_ leaven leaveneth the whole lump; therefore\nmust we be careful, if we would keep this precept and be clean, to\nsearch into even unlikely corners in our hearts and lives, and as with\nthe candle of the Lord make diligent search for the tainting remnant.\n\nIt is the purpose to keep the feast faithfully, and live as those who\nare delivered from bondage, which reveals in our consciousness how\nmuch we have to put away, and how much of the old life is following on\ninto the new. Habits, feelings, likings and dislikings, all go with\nus. The unleavened bread of holiness and of a life bound to and ruled\nby the earnest and godly life of Christ, seems flat and insipid, and\nwe crave something more stimulating to the appetite. The old\nintolerance of regular, intelligent, continuous prayer, the old\nwillingness to find a rest in this world, must be purged out as leaven\nwhich will alter the whole character of our life. Are our holy days\nholidays, or do we endure holiness of thought and feeling mainly on\nthe consideration that holiness is but for a season? Patiently and\nbelievingly resist the stirrings of the old nature. Measure all that\nrises in you and all that quickens your blood and stirs your appetite\nby the death and spirit of Christ. Sever yourself determinedly from\nall that alienates you from Him. The old life and the new should not\nrun parallel with one another so that you can pass from the one to the\nother. They are not side by side, but end to end; the one all\npreceding the other, the one ceasing and terminating where the other\nbegins.\n\nThe old leaven is to be put away: \"the leaven of malice and\nwickedness,\" the bad-heartedness that is not seen to be bad till\nbrought into the light of Christ's spirit; the spiteful, vindictive,\nand selfish feelings that are almost expected in society, these are to\nbe put away; and in their stead \"the unleavened bread of sincerity and\ntruth\" is to be introduced. Above all things, Paul would say, let us\nbe sincere. The word \"sincere\" sets before the mind the natural image\nfrom which the moral quality takes its name, the honey free from the\nsmallest particle of wax, pure and pellucid. The word which Paul\nhimself, using his own language, here sets down, conveys a similar\nidea. It is a word derived from the custom of judging the purity of\nliquids or the texture of cloths by holding them between the eye and\nthe sun. What Paul desiderates in the Christian character is a quality\nwhich can stand this extreme test, and does not need to be seen only\nin an artificial light. He wants a pure transparent sincerity; he\nwants what is to its finest thread genuine; an acceptance of Christ\nwhich is real, and which is rich in eternal results.\n\nAre we living a genuine and true life? Are we living up to what we\nknow to be the truth about life? Christ has given us the true estimate\nof this world and all that is in it, He has measured for us God's\nrequirements, He has shown us what is the truth about God's love;--are\nwe living in this truth? Do we not find that in our best intentions\nthere is some mixture of foreign elements, and in our most assured\nchoice of Christ some remaining elements which will lead us back from\nour choice? Even while we own Christ as our Saviour from sin, we are\nbut half-inclined to go out from its bondage. We pray God for\ndeliverance, and when He throws wide open before us the gate that\nleads away from temptation, we refuse to see it, or hesitate until\nagain it is closed. We know how we may become holy, and yet will not\nuse our knowledge.\n\nLet us, whatever else, be genuine. Let us not trifle with the purpose\nand requirements of Christ. In our deepest and clearest consciousness\nwe see that Christ does open the way to the true life of man; that it\nis our part to make room for this self-sacrificing life in our own day\nand in our own circumstances; that until we do so we can only by\ncourtesy be called Christians. The convictions and beliefs which\nChrist inspires are convictions and beliefs about what we should be,\nand what Christ means all human life to be, and until these\nconvictions and beliefs are embodied in our actual living selves, and\nin our conduct and life, we feel that we are not genuine. Time will\nbring us no relief from this humiliating position, unless time brings\nus at length to yield ourselves freely to Christ's Spirit, and unless,\ninstead of looking at the kingdom He seeks to establish as a quite\nimpossible Utopia, we set ourselves resolutely and wholly to aid in\nthe annexing to His rule our own little world of business and of all\nthe relations of life. To have convictions is well, but if these\nconvictions are not embodied in our life, then we lose our life, and\nour house is built on sand.\n\n_ON GOING TO LAW._\n\n \"Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law\n before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that\n the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be\n judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?\n Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that\n pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things\n pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed\n in the Church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not\n a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge\n between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and\n that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a\n fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye\n not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to\n be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your\n brethren. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the\n kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor\n idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of\n themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor\n drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the\n kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but\n ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord\n Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.\"--1 COR. vi. 1-11.\n\n\n\n\nIX.\n\n_ON GOING TO LAW._\n\n\nSt. Paul here gives his judgment on the litigiousness of the\nCorinthians. The Greeks, in general, were fond of going to law. They\nwere not only quarrelsome, but they seemed to derive an excitement\npleasant to their frivolous nature in the suspense and uncertainty of\ncases before the courts. The converts to Christianity seemed not to\nhave discarded this taste, and as a habit of going to law not merely\ninvolved great loss of time, but was also dangerous to the feeling of\nbrotherhood which should exist among Christians, St. Paul takes the\nopportunity to throw in some advice on the subject. He has been\ntelling them they have nothing to do with judging the heathen; he now\nproceeds to remind them that they ought not to go to law before the\nheathen. He feared that an unseemly wrangling among Christians might\nconvey to the heathen quite an erroneous impression of the nature of\ntheir religion. There was, to his mind, something incongruous,\nsomething monstrous, in brother going to law with brother. What was\nthat brotherhood worth that could not bear a little wrong? How could\nhe continue to speak of Christian love, if Christians were to bite and\ndevour one another? How could he preach the superiority of\nChristianity to heathenism if Christians had so little common sense,\nso little _esprit de corps_, so little mutual forbearance, that they\nmust call in a heathen to settle their disputes for them? It seemed to\nPaul to be a losing of caste for Christians to proclaim their\ninsufficiency to carry on their own affairs without the aid of\nheathen. It seemed to him a public profession that Christianity was\nnot sufficient for the needs of its adherents.\n\nThe reasons which St. Paul adduces to give weight to his rebuke are\nimportant.\n\nI. The saints are destined to judge the world, to judge angels; that\nis to say, to judge persons in separation from earthly interests, to\njudge unclothed detached spirits, to ascertain what is spiritually\ngood and spiritually evil. Shall they not then be considered fit to\njudge little worldly matters, matters of \u00a3. _s. d._, matters of\nproperty and of bargain? This statement that the saints shall judge\nthe world is one of those broad widely-suggestive statements with\nwhich St. Paul from time to time surprises us, making them casually,\nas if he had many more equally astounding facts in his knowledge which\nhe might also reveal if he had leisure. It is difficult to grasp the\nstatements which he makes in this style; it is also difficult to link\na truth so revealed to the truths amid which we are now living; it is\ndifficult even to ascertain with precision the bearing and\nsignificance of it.\n\nIt seems plain, however, that whatever else may be implied in this\nstatement, and in whatever way it is to be fulfilled, St. Paul meant\nthat ultimately, in that final state of things towards which all\npresent things are growing and travelling, the men who are holy shall\nbe at the head of affairs, acknowledged as the fittest to discern\nbetween right and wrong; and also that the germ and first principles\nof this final state of things are already implanted in the world by\nthe Christian religion--two very important truths, certainly, to those\nwho believe them. The precise form of the final judgment and future\ngovernment of the world we cannot predict; but from this statement a\nbright ray of light shoots into the darkness, and shows us that the\nsaints, _i.e._, the servants of Christ, are to have the responsibility\nof pronouncing judgment on character, and of allotting destiny, reward\nor punishment. We shrink from such a thought; not, indeed, that we are\nslow to pronounce judgment upon our fellow-men, but to do so\nofficially, and in connection with definite results, seems a\nresponsibility too heavy for merely human judges to sustain. But why\nmen should not judge men hereafter as they do judge them now, we do\nnot see. If we, in this present world, submit ourselves to those who\nhave knowledge of law and ordinary justice, we may well be content to\nbe judged in the world to come by those whose holiness has been\nmatured by personal strife against evil, by sustained efforts to\ncleanse their souls from bias, from envy, from haste, from harshness,\nfrom all that hinders them from seeing and loving the truth. Holiness,\nor likeness to God, assimilation to His mind, formed by the constant\ndesire to judge of things in this world as He judges, and to love\ntruly all that He loves, this quality is surely worthy to be at the\nhead. In that future kingdom of God in which all things are to have\ntheir proper place, and are to be ranked according to their real\nworth, holiness must come to the supremacy.\n\nBut equally worthy of remark is St. Paul's _inference_ from the fact\nthat holiness shall eventually be supreme. His inference is that it\nought _now_ to be regarded as competent to settle the petty disputes\nwhich arise among us. \"If we are to judge angels, much more the things\nthat pertain to this life.\" We can only arrive at any dignity by\nperseveringly seeking it. If the future kingdom of God is to be a\nperfect kingdom, it can only be as its subjects carry into it\ncharacters which have been strongly tending towards perfection. It is\nnot the future that is to make us, but we who are to make the future.\nThe kingdom of God is within us; if not there, in our own dispositions\nand likings, it is nowhere. Heaven will be what its inhabitants make\nit. Earth is not heaven only because men decline to make it so. We do\nnot know the forms which society will assume in the world to come,\nwhen men will be grouped, not by families and blood-relationships, and\nthe necessary requirements of physical life, but according to their\ncharacter and moral value, their spiritual affinities and capacities\nfor usefulness. But though we cannot say exactly how men will be\ngrouped, nor how they will find expression for all that intense\nemotion and eager activity which in this life creates adventure, war,\npolitics, speculation, inventions of all kinds, we do know that\nwherever there are men there must be society; there must be men not\nisolated and solitary, but working together and depending one on the\nother; and that there will therefore be difficult complications of\ninterest and obscure relations of man to man very similar to those\nwhich arise in this world; but that those difficulties will be removed\nwithout passion and wrangling and the interference of force. A heaven\nand an earth there will be; but \"a new heaven and a new earth.\" The\nouter framework will be very much the same, but the inner spirit and\nlife very different. But it is not the altered place or time that is\nto produce in us this change of spirit; we are to find it there only\nif we carry it with us. St. Paul takes for granted that the principles\nwhich are to be perfectly and exclusively manifested in the world to\ncome, are now cherished by Christians. And as there will be no\ndifferences in heaven which cannot be adjusted without appeal to an\nauthority which can silence and reconcile the disputants, so there\nought to be, among the heirs of heaven, no going to law now.\n\nSt. Paul, therefore, while he contrasts the subjects in which a\nlawyer-like mind will find employment in this world and the next,\nreminds us that those who are here trained to understand character,\nand to discern where right and justice lie, will be in no want of\nemployment in the world to come. The matters which come before our\ncourts, or which are referred privately to lawyers, may often be in\nthemselves very paltry. A vast proportion of legal business is created\nby changes from which the future life is exempt, changes consequent on\ndeath, on marriage, on pecuniary disasters. But underneath such suits\nas these the keenest of human feelings are at work, and it is often in\nthe power of a lawyer to give a man advice which will save his\nconscience from a life-long stain, or which will bring comfort into a\nfamily instead of heart-burning, and plenty in place of penury. The\nphysician keeps us in life; the minister of Christ tells us on what\nprinciples we ought to live; but the lawyer takes our hand at every\ngreat practical step in life, and it is his function (and surely there\nis none higher) to insist on a conscientious use of money, to point\nout the just claims which others have upon us, to show us the right\nand the wrong in all our ordinary affairs, and thus to bring justice\nand mercy down from heaven and make them familiar to the market-place.\nAnd therefore many of the finest characters and best intellects have\ndevoted themselves, and always will devote themselves, to this\nprofession. It may attract many from less lofty motives; but it always\nwill attract those who are concerned to save men from practical folly,\nand who wish to see the highest principles brought into direct contact\nwith human affairs. If the legal mind degenerates into a mere memory\nfor technicalities and acuteness in applying forms, nothing can be\nmore contemptible or dangerous to the character; but if it takes to do\nwith real things, and not with forms only, and tries to see what\nequity requires, and not merely what the letter of the law enjoins,\nand seeks to forward the well-being of men, then surely there is no\nprofession in which there is such abundant opportunity of earning the\nbeatitude which says, \"Blessed are the peacemakers,\" none in which the\nsenses can better be exercised to discern between good and evil, none\nin which men may better be prepared for the higher requirements of a\nheavenly society in which some are made rulers over ten cities.\n\nII. The second confirmation of his rebuke St. Paul brings forward in\nthe fifth verse: \"Is there not a wise man among yourselves?\" \"A wise\nman\" was the technical term for a judge in the Hebrew courts.\n\nTo understand Paul's position we must bear in mind that among the Jews\nthere was no distinction between Church and State. The courts\nappointed for the determination of the minor causes in each locality\nwere composed of the same persons who constituted the eldership of the\nsynagogue. In the synagogue and by the eldership offenders were both\ntried and punished. The rabbis said, \"He who brings lawsuits of\nIsrael before a heathen tribunal profanes the Name, and does homage to\nidolatry; for when _our enemies_ are _judges_ (Deut. xxxii. 31) it is\na testimony to the superiority of their religion.\" This idea passed\nover from Judaism to Christianity; and Paul considers it a scandal\nthat \"brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the\nunbelievers.\" And even a century after Paul's time the rule of the\nChristian Church was \"Let not those who have disputes go to law before\nthe civil powers, but let them by all means be reconciled by the\nelders of the Church, and let them readily yield to their decision.\"\nAnd as late as our own day we find an Arab sheikh complaining that\nChristian Copts come to him, a Mohammedan, to settle their disputes\nand \"won't go and be settled by the priest out of the Gospels.\"\n\nDid Paul then mean that such legal cases as are now tried in our civil\ncourts should be settled by non-professional men? Did he mean that\necclesiastical courts should take out of the hands of the civil\nmagistrate all pleas regarding property, all disputes about commercial\ntransactions? Did he foresee none of the great evils that have arisen\nwherever Church or State has not respected the province of the other,\nand was he prepared to put the power of the sword into the hand of\necclesiastics? We think no one can read either his life or his\nwritings without seeing that this was not his meaning. He taught men\nto submit themselves to the powers that then were--_i.e._, to the\nheathen magistrates of Rome--and he himself appealed to C\u00e6sar. He had\nno notion of subverting the ordinary legal procedure and civil courts,\nbut he would fain have deprived them of much of their practice. He\nthought it might be expected that Christians would never be so\ndeterminedly rancorous or so blindly covetous but that their disputes\nmight be settled by private and friendly advice. He gives no orders\nabout constituting new courts and appointing new statutes and forms of\nprocedure; he has no idea of transferring into the Church all the\nparaphernalia of civil courts: but he maintains that if a Christian\ncommunity be in a healthy state, few quarrels will be referred for\nsettlement to a court of law. Courts of law are necessary evils, which\nwill be less and less patronized in proportion as Christian feeling\nand principle prevail.\n\nThis rebuke is applicable even to a community like our own, in which\nthe courts of law are not heathen, but Christian; and the principle on\nwhich the rebuke is based is one that has gradually worked its way\ninto the heart of the community. It is felt, felt now even by nations\nas well as by individuals, that if a dispute can be settled by\narbitration, this is not only cheaper, quicker, and equally\nsatisfactory, but that it is a more generous and Christian way of\ngetting justice done. Those who hold office in the Church may not\nalways happen to be suitable arbitrators; they may not have the\ntechnical and special knowledge requisite: but Paul's counsel is acted\non if disputes among Christians be somehow adjusted in a friendly way,\nand without the interference of an external authority. Christian\npeople may need legal advice; they may not know what the right and\nwrong of a complicated case are; they may be truly at a loss to\nunderstand how much is justly theirs and how much their neighbour's;\nthey may often need professional aid to shed light on a transaction:\nbut when two Christians go to law in a spirit of rancour, resolved to\nmake good their own just claims, and to enforce by the authority of\nlaw what they cannot compass by right feeling, this only proves that\ntheir worldliness is stronger than their Christianity. St. Paul thinks\nit a scandal and a degradation when Christians need to appeal to law\nagainst one another. It is a confession that Christian principle is in\ntheir case insufficient by itself to carry them through the practical\ndifficulties of life.\n\nBut some one will say to this, as to every unworldly, truly Christian,\nand therefore novel and difficult counsel, \"It savours of theory and\nof romance; a man cannot act it out unless he is prepared to be duped,\nand cheated, and imposed upon. It is a theory that if carried out must\nend in beggary.\" Just as if the world could be regenerated by anything\nthat is not apparently romantic! If a greater good is to be reached,\nit must be by some way that men have not tried before. The kingdoms of\nthis world will not become the kingdom of Christ by the admission into\nour conduct of only that which men have tried and found to be\npracticable, and void of all risk, and requiring no devotion or\nsacrifice. If then, any one says, \"But if there is to be no going to\nlaw, if we are not to force a man to give us our own, we must\ncontinually be losers,\" the reply of a well-known Kincardineshire\nlawyer might suffice, \"Don't go to law if yielding does not cost you\nmore than forty shillings in the pound.\" And from a different point of\nview St. Paul replies, \"Well, and what though you be losers? The\nkingdom you belong to is not meat and drink, but righteousness.\" If a\nman says, \"We must have some redress, some authority to extort the\ndues that are not freely given; we must strike when we are struck;\nwhen a man takes our coat, we must summon him, or he will take our\ncloak next,\" St. Paul replies, \"Well, if this _be_ the alternative,\nif you must either push your own claims and insist upon your rights,\nor suffer by assuming the meekness and gentleness of your Master, why\ndo you not rather take wrong? why do you not rather suffer yourselves\nto be defrauded? It may be quite true that if you turn the other\ncheek, it also will be smitten. It may be very likely that a greedy\ncompetitor will be so little abashed by your meekness, and so little\nstruck by your magnanimity in giving way to some of his demands, that\nhe will even be encouraged to greater extortions. It is quite probable\nthat if you act as your Master did, you will be as ill off in this\nworld as He was. But is that any reason why you should at once call\nHim your Master and refuse to obey His precepts and follow His\nexample?\" One thing is certain: that so long as men honestly accepted\nChrist's words in their plain meaning, and followed Him in His own\nway, making light of worldly loss, Christianity was believed in and\nrapidly extended. It was seen to be a new moral power among men, and\nwas welcomed as such, until a large part of the world received it; but\nits victory was its defeat. Once it became the fashion, once it became\npopular, the heart of it was eaten out. As soon as it became a\nreligion without hardship, it became a religion without vitality.\n\nSt. Paul then shows no hesitation about pushing his doctrine to its\nconsequences. He sees that the real cure of wrangling, and of fraud,\nand of war is not litigation, nor any outward restraint that can be\nlaid on the wrong-doer, but meekness, and unselfishness, and\nunworldliness on the part of those who suffer wrong. The world has\nlaughed at this theory of social regeneration all along; a few men in\neach generation have believed in it, and have been ridiculed for\ntheir belief. At the same time, the world itself is aware, or should\nbe aware, that its own remedies have utterly failed. Has war taught\nnations moderation in their ambition? Has it saved the world from the\ncalamities which it is said would ensue were any one nation to prefer\nsubmitting to injustice rather than going to war? Have the outward\nrestraints of law made men more just or less avaricious? There has\nbeen time to test the power of law to repress crime, and to compel men\nto honesty and justice. Can any one say it has been so successful that\nit must be looked to as the great means of regenerating society, of\nbringing society into that healthy and ideal state which statesmen\nwork for, and for which the people inarticulately sigh? Does not St.\nJames come nearer the mark when he says, \"Whence come wars and\nfightings? Come they not hence, even of the lusts that war in your\nmembers?\"--_i.e._, from the restless ambitions, and appetites, and\nlongings of men who seek their all in this world? And if that is their\nsource, it is to that we must apply the remedy. Law is necessary for\nrestraining the expressions of a vicious nature, but law is\ninsufficient to remove the possibility of these expressions by healing\nthe nature. This can only be done by the diffusion of unworldliness\nand unselfishness. And it is Christians who are responsible for\ndiffusing this unworldly spirit, and who must diffuse it, not by talk\nand advice, but by practice and example, by themselves showing what\nunselfishness is, rebuking covetousness by yielding to its demands,\nshaming all wrong-doing by refusing to retaliate while they expose its\nguilt.\n\nWhile therefore it is a mistake to suppose that all the laws which are\nto rule in the perfected kingdom of God can find immediate and\nunmodified expression in this present world, it is our part to find\nfor them an introduction into the world in every case in which it is\npossible to apply them. Those laws which are to be our sole rule when\nwe are perfect cannot always be immediately applied now. For example,\nwe all believe that ultimately love will be the only motive, that all\nservice of God and of one another will eventually spring solely from\nour desire to serve because we love. And because this is so, some\npersons have thought that love should be the only motive now, and that\nobedience which is procured by fear is useless; that preachers ought\nto appeal only to the highest parts of man's nature, and not at all to\nthose which are lower, and that parents should never threaten\npunishment nor enforce obedience. But the testimony of one of the most\ngenial and successful of preachers is that \"of all the persons to whom\nhis ministry had been efficacious _only one_ had received the first\neffectual impressions from the gentle and attractive aspects of\nreligion, all the rest from the awful and alarming ones--the appeals\nto fear.\" Take, again, the testimony of one of the wisest and most\nsuccessful of our schoolmasters. \"I can't rule my boys,\" he says, \"by\nthe law of love. If they were angels or professors, I might; but as\nthey are only boys, I find it necessary to make them fear me first,\nand then take my chance of their love afterwards. By this plan I find\nthat I generally get both; by reversing the process I should in most\ncases get neither.\" And God, though slow to anger and not easily\nprovoked, scourgeth every son whom He receiveth, not dealing with us\nnow as He will deal with us when perfect love has cast out its\npreparative fear. So, in regard to the matter before us, there must be\nan aiming and striving towards the perfect state in which there shall\nbe no going to law, no settling of matters by appeal to anything\noutside the heart of the persons interested. But while we aim at this,\nand seek to give it prevalence, we shall also be occasionally forced\nback upon the severer and more external means of self-defence. The\nmembers of Christ's Church are those on whom the burden falls of\ngiving prevalence to these Christian principles. It is incumbent upon\nthem to show, even at cost to themselves, that there are higher,\nbetter, and more enduring principles than law, and the customs of\ntrade, and the ways of the world. And however difficult it may be\n_theoretically_ to hold the balance between justice and mercy, between\nworldly sharpness and Christian meekness, we all know that there are\nsome who practically exhibit a large measure of this Christian temper,\nwho prefer to take wrong and to suffer quietly rather than to expose\nthe wickedness of others, or to resent their unjust claims, or to\ncomplain of their unfair usage. And whatever the most worldly of us\nmay think of such conduct, however we may smile at it as weak, there\nis no one of us but also pays his tribute of respect to those who\nsuffer wrong, loss, detraction, with a meek and cheerful patience; and\nwhatever be the lot of such sufferers in a world where men are too\nbusy in pushing their worldly prospects to understand those who are\nnot of this world, we have no doubt in what esteem they will be held\nand what reward they will receive in a world where the Lamb is on the\nthrone, and meek self-sacrifice is honestly worshipped as the highest\nquality whether in God or in man.\n\nPaul knows that the Christian conscience is with him when he declares\nthat men should rather suffer wrong than bring reproach on the\nChristian name: \"Know ye not that wrong-doers shall not inherit the\nkingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither covetous, nor drunkards, nor\nrevilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God.\" And yet\nhow little do men seem to take to heart the great fact that they are\ntravelling forward to a state in which nothing uncongenial to the\nSpirit of Christ can possibly find place. Do they think of the future\nat all? Do they believe that a state of things ruled by the Spirit of\nChrist is to follow this? And what preparation do they make? Is it not\nthe height of folly to suppose that the selfishness and greed, the\nindolence and frivolity, the dreamy unreality and worldliness, which\nwe suffer to grow upon us here, will give us entrance into the kingdom\nof God? The seaman who means to winter in the Arctic circle might as\nreasonably go with a single month's provisions and clothes suited to\nthe tropics. There is a reason and a law in things; and if we are not\nassimilated to the Spirit of Christ now, we can have no part in His\nkingdom. If now our interest, and pursuits, and pleasures are all\nfound in what gratifies selfishness and worldliness, it is impossible\nwe can find a place in that kingdom which is all unselfishness and\nunworldliness. \"Be not deceived.\" The spiritual world is a reality,\nand the godliness and Christlikeness that compose it must also be\nrealities. Put away from you the fatuous idea that things will somehow\ncome all right, and that your character will adapt itself to changed\nsurroundings. It is not so; nothing that defiles can find entrance\ninto the kingdom of God, but only those who are \"sanctified in the\nname of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.\"\n\n_FORNICATION._\n\n \"All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient:\n all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the\n power of any. Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but\n God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for\n fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. And God\n hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by His\n own power. Know ye not that your bodies are the members of\n Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them\n the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he\n which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he,\n shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one\n spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without\n the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his\n own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the\n Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not\n your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God\n in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.\"--1 COR. vi.\n 12-20.\n\n\n\n\nX.\n\n_FORNICATION._\n\n\nIn remonstrating with the Corinthians for their litigiousness, Paul\nwas forcibly reminded how imperfectly his converts understood the\nmoral requirements of the kingdom of God. Apparently, too, he had\nreason to believe that they were not only content to remain on a low\nmoral plane, but actually quoted some of his own favourite sayings in\ndefence of immoral practices. After warning them therefore that only\nthose who were sanctified could belong to the kingdom of God and\nspecifying certain common kinds of wrong-doing which must for ever be\nexcluded from that kingdom, he goes on to explain how they had\nmisapprehended him if they thought that any principle of his could\ngive colour to immorality. The Corinthians had apparently learned to\nargue that if, as Paul had so often and emphatically told them, all\nthings were lawful to them, then this commonest of Greek indulgences\nwas lawful; if abstaining from the meat which had been killed in a\nheathen temple was a matter of moral indifference which Christians\nmight or might not practise, as they pleased, then this other common\naccompaniment of idolatry was also a matter of indifference and not in\nitself wrong.\n\nTo understand this Corinthian obliquity of moral vision it must be\nborne in mind that licentious rites were a common accompaniment of\npagan worship, and especially in Corinth idolatry might have been\nbriefly described as the performance of Balaam's instructions to the\nIsraelites: the eating of things sacrificed to idols and the\ncommitting of fornication. The temples were often scenes of revelry\nand debauchery such as happily have become incredible to a modern\nmind. But not at once could men emerging from a religion so slenderly\nconnected with morality apprehend what Christianity required of them.\nWhen they abandoned the temple-worship, were they also to abstain from\neating the flesh offered for sale in the open market, and which had\nfirst been sacrificed to an idol? Might they not by partaking of such\nflesh become partakers in the sin of idolatry? To this Paul replied,\nDo not too scrupulously inquire into the previous history of your\ndinner; the meat has no moral taint; all things are lawful for you.\nThis was reasonable; but then how about the other accompaniment of\nidolatry? Was it also a thing of indifference? Can we apply the same\nreasoning to it? It was this insinuation which called forth the\nemphatic condemnation which Paul utters in this paragraph.\n\nThe great principle of Christian liberty, \"All things are lawful for\nme,\" Paul now sees he must guard against abuse by adding, \"But all\nthings are not expedient.\" The law and its modification are fully\nexplained in a subsequent passage of the Epistle (viii.; x. 23, etc.).\nHere it may be enough to say that Paul seeks to impress on his readers\nthat the question of duty is not answered by simply ascertaining what\nis lawful; we must also ask whether the practice or act contemplated\nis expedient. Though it may be impossible to prove that this or that\npractice is wrong in every case, we have still to ask, Does it advance\nwhat is good in us; is its bearing on society good or evil; will it in\npresent circumstances and in the instance we contemplate give rise to\nmisunderstandings and evil thoughts? The Christian is a law to\nhimself; he has an internal guide that sets him above external rules.\nVery true; but that guide leads all those who possess it to a higher\nlife than the law leads to, and proves its presence by teaching a man\nto consider, not how much indulgence he may enjoy without\ntransgressing the letter of the law, but how he can most\nadvantageously use his time and best forward what is highest in\nhimself and in others.\n\nAgain, \"all things are lawful for me;\" all things are in my power.\nYes, but for that very reason \"I will not be brought under the power\nof any.\" \"The reasonable use of my liberty cannot go the length of\ninvolving my own loss of it.\"[5] I am free from the law; I will not on\nthat account become the slave of indulgence. As Carlyle puts it,\n\"enjoying things which are pleasant--that is not the evil; it is the\nreducing of our moral self to slavery by them that is. Let a man\nassert withal that he is king over his habitudes; that he could and\nwould shake them off on cause shown: this is an excellent law.\" There\nare several practices and habits which no one would call immoral or\nsinful, but which enslave a man quite as much as worse habits. He is\nno longer a free man; he is uneasy and restless, and cannot settle to\nhis work until he obeys the craving he has created. And it is the very\nlawfulness of these indulgences which has ensnared him. Had they been\nsinful, the Christian man would not have indulged in them; but being\nin his power, they have now assumed power over him. They have power to\ncompel him to waste his time, his money, sometimes even his health. He\nalone attains the true dignity and freedom of the Christian man who\ncan say, with Paul, \"I know both how to be full and to be hungry, both\nto abound and to suffer need;\" \"All things are in my power, but I will\nnot be brought under the power of any.\"\n\n [5] Godet.\n\nPaul then proceeds more explicitly to apply these principles to the\nmatter in hand. The Corinthians argued that if meats were morally\nindifferent, a man being morally neither the better nor the worse for\neating food which had been offered in an idol's temple, so also a man\nwas neither better nor worse for fornication. To expose the error of\nthis reasoning Paul draws a remarkable distinction between the\ndigestive, nutritive organs of the body and the body as a whole. Paul\nbelieved that the body was an essential part of human nature, and that\nin the future life the natural body would give place to the spiritual\nbody. He believed also that the spiritual body was connected with, and\nhad its birthplace in, the natural body, so that the body we now wear\nis to be represented by that finer and more spiritual organism we are\nhereafter to be clothed in. The connection of that future body with\nthe physical world and its dependence on material things we cannot\nunderstand; but in some way inconceivable by us it is to carry on the\nidentity of our present body, and thereby it reflects a sacredness and\nsignificance on this body. The body of the full-grown man or of the\nwhite-bearded patriarch is very different from that of the babe in its\nmother's arms, but there is a continuity that links them together and\ngives them identity. So the future body may be very different from\nand yet the same as the present. At the same time, the organs which\nmerely serve for the maintenance of our present natural body will be\nunnecessary and out of place in the future body, which is spiritual in\nits origin and in its maintenance. Paul therefore distinguishes\nbetween the organs of nutrition and that body which is part of our\npermanent individuality, and which by some unimaginable process is to\nflower into an everlasting body. The digestive organs of the body have\ntheir use and their destiny, and the body as a whole has its use and\ndestiny. These two differ from one another; and if you are to argue\nfrom the one to the other, you must keep in view this distinction.\n\"Meats for the belly and the belly for meats; and God shall destroy\nboth it and them: but the body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the\nbody, and God shall raise up the one as He has raised up the other.\"\nThe organs of nutrition have a present use; they are made for meats,\nand have a natural correspondence with meats. Any meat which the\ndigestive organs approve is allowable. The conscience has to do with\nmeat only through these organs. It must listen to their\nrepresentations; and if they approve of certain qualities and\nquantities of food, the conscience confirms this decision: approves\nwhen the man uses the food best for these organs; disapproves when he\nuses consciously and self-indulgently what is bad for them. \"Meats for\nthe belly and the belly for meats\"--they claim each other as their\nmutual, God-appointed counterparts. By eating you are not perverting\nyour bodily organs to a use not intended for them; you are putting\nthem to the use God meant them to serve.\n\nBesides, these organs form no part of the future spiritual body. They\npass away with the meats for which they were made. God shall destroy\nboth the meats that are requisite for life in this world, and the\norgans needful for deriving sustenance from them. They serve a\ntemporary purpose, like the houses we live in and the clothes we wear;\nand as we are not morally better because we live in a stone house, and\nnot in a brick one, or because we wear woollens, and not cotton--so\nlong as we do what is best to keep us in life--so neither is there any\nmoral difference in meats--a remarkable conclusion for a Jew to come\nto, whose religion had taught him to hold so many forms of food in\nabhorrence.\n\nBut the body as a whole--for what is it made? These organs of\nnutrition fulfil their function when they lead you to eat such meat as\nsustains you in life; when does the body fulfil its function? What is\nits object and end? For what purpose have we a body? Paul is never\nafraid to suggest the largest questions, neither is he afraid to give\nhis answer. \"The body,\" he says, \"is for the Lord, and the Lord for\nthe body.\" Here also there is a mutual correspondence and fitness.\n\n\"The body is for the Lord.\" Paul was addressing Christians, and this\nno Christian would be disposed to deny. Every Christian is conscious\nthat the body would not fulfil its end and purpose unless it were\nconsecrated to the Lord and informed by His Spirit. The organism by\nwhich we come into contact with the world outside ourselves is not the\nunwieldy, hindering, irredeemable partner of the spirit, but is\ndesigned to be the vehicle of spiritual faculties and the efficient\nagent of our Lord's purposes. It must not be looked upon with\nresentment, pity, or contempt, but rather as essential to our human\nnature and to the fulfilment of the Lord's design as the Saviour of\nthe world and the Head of humanity. It was through the body of the\nLord that the great facts of our redemption were accomplished. It was\nthe instrument of the incarnation and of the manifestation of God\namong men, of the death and the resurrection by which we are saved.\nAnd as in His own body Christ was incarnate among men, so now it is by\nmeans of the bodily existence and energies of His people on earth that\nHe extends His influence.\n\nThe body then is for the Lord. He finds in it His needed instrument;\nwithout it He cannot accomplish His will. And the Lord is for the\nbody. Without Him the body cannot develop into all it is intended to\nbe. It has a great future as well as the soul. Our adoption as God's\nchildren is, in Paul's view, incomplete until the body also is\nredeemed and has fought its way through sickness, base uses, death,\nand dissolution into likeness to the glorified body of Christ. This\nbody which we now identify with ourselves, and apart from which it is\ndifficult to conceive of ourselves, is not the mere temporary lodging\nof the soul, which in a few years must be abandoned; but it is\ndestined to preserve its identity through all coming changes, so that\nit will be recognisable still as our body. But this cannot be\nbelieved, far less accomplished, save by faith in the fact that God\nhas raised up the Lord Jesus and will with Him raise us also.\nOtherwise the future of the body seems brief and calamitous. Death\nseems plainly to say, There is an end of all that is physical. Yes,\nreplies the resurrection of the Lord, in death there is an end of this\nnatural body; but death disengages the spiritual body from the\nnatural, and clothes the spirit in a more fitting garb. Understand\nthis we cannot, any more than we understand why a large mass draws to\nitself smaller masses; but believe it we can in presence of Christ's\nresurrection.\n\nThe Lord then is for the body, because in the Lord the body has a\nfuture opened to it and present connections and uses which prepare it\nfor that future. It is the Spirit of Christ who is, within us, the\nearnest of that future, and who forms us for it, inclining us while in\nthe body and by means of it to sow to the Spirit and thus to reap life\neverlasting. Without Christ we cannot have this Spirit, nor the\nspiritual body He forms. The only future of the body we dare to look\nat without a shudder is the future it has in the Lord. God has sent\nChrist to secure for the body redemption from the fate which naturally\nawaits it, and apart from Christ it has no outlook but the worst. The\nLord is for the body, and as well might we try to sustain the body now\nwithout food as to have any endurable future for it without the Lord.\n\nBut if the body is thus closely united to Christ in its present use\nand in its destiny, if its proper function and fit development can\nonly be realized by a true fellowship with Christ, then the inference\nis self-evident that it must be carefully guarded from such uses and\nimpurities as involve rupture with Christ. \"Know ye not that your\nbodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of\nChrist and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.\" The\nChristian is one spirit with Christ. There is a real community of\nspiritual life between them. It is the spirit which possessed Christ\nwhich now possesses the Christian. He has the same aims, the same\nmotives, the same view of life, the same hope, as his Lord. It is in\nChrist he seeks to live, and he has no stronger desire than to be\nused for His purposes. That Christ would use him as He used the\nmembers of His own body while on earth, that there might be the same\ndirect influence and moving power of the Lord's Spirit, the same ready\nand instinctive response to the Lord's will, the same solidarity\nbetween himself and the Lord as between Christ's body and Christ's\nSpirit--this is the Christian's desire. To have his body a member of\nChrist--this is his happiness. To be one in will with Him who has\nbrought by His own goodness the light of heaven into the darkness of\nearth, to learn to know Him and to love Him by serving Him and by\nmeasuring His love with all the needs of earth--this is his life. To\nbe so united to Christ in all that is deepest in his nature that he\nknows he can never be separated from Him, but must go forward to the\nhappy destiny which his Lord already enjoys--this is the Christian's\njoy; and it is made possible to every man.\n\nPossible to every man is this personal union to Christ, but to be\nunited thus in one Spirit to Christ and at the same time to be united\nto impurity is for ever impossible. To be one with Christ in spirit\nand at the same time to be one in body with what is spiritually\ndefiled is impossible, and the very idea is monstrous. Devotedness to\nChrist is possible, but it is incompatible with any act which means\nthat we become one in body with what is morally polluted. If the\nChristian is as truly a member of Christ's body as were the hands and\neyes of the body He wore on earth, then the mind shrinks, as from\nblasphemy, from following out the thought of Paul. And if any\nfrivolous Corinthian still objected that such acts went no deeper than\nthe eating of food ceremonially unclean, that they belonged to the\nbody that was to be destroyed, Paul says, It is not so; these acts are\nfull of the deepest moral significance: they were intended by God to\nbe _the expression of inward union_, and they have that significance\nwhether you shut your eyes to it or not.\n\nAnd this is what Paul means when he goes on to say, \"Every sin that a\nman doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication\nsinneth against his own body.\" He does not mean that this is the only\nsin committed by the body, for of many other sins the body is the\nagent, as in murder, lying, blasphemy, robbery, and thieving. Neither\ndoes he mean that this is the only sin to which bodily appetite\ninstigates, for gluttony and drunkenness equally take their rise in\nbodily appetite. But he means that this is the only sin in which the\npresent connection of the body with Christ and its future destiny in\nHim are directly sinned against. This is the only sin, he means, which\nby its very nature alienates the body from Christ, its proper Partner.\nOther sins indirectly involve separation from Christ; this explicitly\nand directly transfers allegiance, and sunders our union with Him. By\nthis sin a man detaches himself from Christ; he professes to be united\nto what is incompatible with Christ.\n\nThese weighty reasonings and warm admonitions, into which Paul throws\nhis whole energy, are concluded by the statement of a twofold truth\nwhich is of much wider application than to the matter in hand: \"Ye are\nbought with a price to be the temple of the Holy Ghost.\" We are bought\nwith a price, and are no longer our own. The realities underlying\nthese words are gladly owned in every Christian consciousness. God has\ncaused us to recognise how truly we are His by showing us that He has\ngrudged nothing which can restore us fully to Him. He has bought us,\nnot with any of those prices the wealthy can pay without sacrifice and\nwithout profound interest and feeling, but with that price which is\ncoined and issued by love, which carries in it the token and pledge of\nlove, and which therefore wins us wholly. In our relations with God we\nhave never to do with any merely formal transaction performed for the\nsake of keeping up appearances, saving the proprieties or satisfying\nthe letter of law, but always with what is necessary in the nature of\nthings, with what is real, with the very God of truth, the centre and\nsource of all reality. God has made us His own, has won our hearts and\nwills to Himself, by manifesting His love in ways that touch and move\nus, and for purposes absolutely needful. God means that our attachment\nto Him should be real and permanent, and He has based it on the most\nreasonable grounds. He means that we should be His, not only because\nwe are His creatures or because He has an indefeasible right to our\nservice as the source of our life; but He means that our hearts should\nbe His, and that we should be drawn to live and labour for His ends,\nconvinced in our reason that this is our happiness and attracted by\nHis love to serve Him. He means this; and accordingly He has bought\nus, has given us reason to become His, has made such advances as ought\nto win us has not grudged to show His earnest desire for our love by\nHimself making sacrifices and declaring that He loves us. It is a\nthought the humble heart can scarcely endure that it is loved by God,\nthat it has been counted so precious in God's sight that Divine love\nand sacrifice should have been spent on its restoration. It is a\nthought that overwhelms the believing heart, but, believed in, it wins\nthe soul eternally to God.\n\nWe are not our own; we belong to Him who has loved us most; and His\nlove will be satisfied when we suffer Him to dwell in us, so that we\nshall be His temples, and shall glorify Him in body and in spirit. God\nclaims our body as well as our spirit; He has a purpose for our body\nas well as for our spirit. Our body is to glorify Him in the future\nand now: in the future, by exhibiting how the Divine wisdom has\ntriumphed over all that threatens the body, and has used all the\npresent bodily experiences for preparing a permanent spiritual\nembodiment of all human faculties and joys; and now, by putting itself\nat the disposal of God for the accomplishment of His will. We glorify\nGod by allowing Him to fulfil His purpose of love in creating us. What\nthat purpose is we cannot wholly know; but trusting ourselves to His\nlove, we can, by obeying Him, have it more and more accomplished in\nus. And it is the consciousness that we are God's temples which\nconstantly incites us to live worthily of Him. To say that we are\ntemples of God is not to use a figure of speech. It is the temple of\nstone that is the figure; the true dwelling-place of God is man. In\nnothing can God reveal Himself as He can in man. Through nothing else\ncan He express so much of what is truly Divine. It is not a building\nof stone which forms a fit temple for God; it is not even the heaven\nof heavens. In material nature only a small part of God can be seen\nand known. It is in man, able to choose what is morally good, able to\nresist temptation, to make sacrifices for worthy ends, to determine\nhis own character; it is in man, whose own will is his law, and who is\nnot the mere mechanical agent of another's will, that God finds a\nworthy temple for Himself. Through you God can express and reveal what\nis best in Himself. Your love is sustained by His, and reveals His.\nYour approval of what is pure and hatred of impurity has its source in\nHis holiness, and by transforming you into His own image He discloses\nHimself as truly dwelling and living within you. Where is God to be\nfound and to be known if not in men? Where can His presence and Divine\ngoodness and reality be more distinctly manifest than in Christ and\nthose who are in any degree like Him? It is in men that the unseen\nDivine Spirit manifests His nature and His work. But if so, what a\nprofanation is it when we take this body, which is built to be His\ntemple, and put it to uses which it were blasphemous to associate with\nGod! Let us rather find our joy in realizing the ideal set before us\nby Paul, in keeping ourselves pure as God's temples and in glorifying\nHim in our body and in our spirit.\n\n_MARRIAGE._\n\n \"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good\n for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid\n fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman\n have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due\n benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The\n wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband, and\n likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the\n wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for\n a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and\n come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your\n incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of\n commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But\n every man hath his proper gift of God one after this manner, and\n another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows,\n It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot\n contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.\n And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not\n the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her\n remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not\n the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak I, not the\n Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be\n pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the\n woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be\n pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the\n unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the\n unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your\n children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving\n depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under\n bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what\n knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how\n knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? But as God\n hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one,\n so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. Is any man\n called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is\n any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.\n Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the\n keeping of the commandments of God. Let every man abide in the\n same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a\n servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it\n rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is\n the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free,\n is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the\n servants of men. Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called,\n therein abide with God. Now concerning virgins I have no\n commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath\n obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore\n that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is\n good for a man so to be. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to\n be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and\n if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she\n hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the\n flesh: but I spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time is\n short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though\n they had none; and they that weep, as though they wept not; and\n they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that\n buy, as though they possessed not; and they that use this world,\n as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.\n But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried\n careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please\n the Lord: but he that is married careth for the things that are\n of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference\n also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for\n the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in\n spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the\n world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your\n own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that\n which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without\n distraction. But if any man think that he behaveth himself\n uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age,\n and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let\n them marry. Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart,\n having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath\n so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.\n So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that\n giveth her not in marriage doeth better. The wife is bound by the\n law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead,\n she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the\n Lord. But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and\n I think also that I have the Spirit of God.\"--1 COR. vii. 1-40.\n\n\n\n\nXI.\n\n_MARRIAGE._\n\n\nThere are two preliminary considerations which throw some light on\nthis much-contested passage. First, Paul had to speak about marriage\nas he found it, as it existed among those to whom he wished to be of\nservice. Hence he makes no allusion to that which among ourselves is\nthe main argument for, or at least the one only justifying motive to,\nmarriage, viz., love. Marriage is treated here from a lower point of\nview than it would have been had this letter been originally written\nfor Englishmen. The Church to which it was addressed was composite.\nJews, Greeks, and Romans, in what proportions it is not easy to say,\nbrought their peculiar and national usages into it. In the marriages\nof the Jews and Greeks, love had, as a rule, little to do. The\nmarriage was arranged by the parents of the contracting parties.\n\n \"Faces strange and tongues unknown\n Make us by a bid their own,\"\n\nis the remonstrance of the Greek maiden against the unnatural custom\nwhich prevailed of allowing no intimacy, and scarcely any real\nacquaintance, prior to marriage. The lack of warmth and personal\ninterest which characterizes the Greek plays arises mainly from the\ncircumstance that among the Greeks there was absolutely no such thing\nas that love prior to marriage on which even our best works of fiction\nuniformly depend for their interest. Among the Romans there was none\nof this Eastern seclusion of women, and but for other causes marriage\namong this section of the Corinthian population might have served as\nan example to the rest.\n\nSecondly, it is to be considered that not only had Paul to speak of\nmarriage as he found it, but also that he was here only giving answers\nto some special questions, and not discussing the whole subject in all\nits bearings. There might be other points which to his mind seemed\nequally important; but his advice not having been asked about these,\nhe passes them by. He introduces the subject in a manner fitted to\nremind us that he has no intention of propounding his views on\nmarriage in a complete and systematic form: \"Now concerning the things\nwhereof ye wrote unto me.\" There had arisen in the Corinthian Church\ncertain scruples about marriage; and as the Church was composed of\npersons who would naturally take very different views on the subject,\nthese scruples might not be easily removed. Among the Jews it was\nbelieved that marriage was a duty, \"so much so that he who at the age\nof twenty had not married was considered to have sinned.\" Among the\nGentiles the tendency to celibacy was so strong that it was considered\nnecessary to counteract it by legal enactment. In a community\npreviously disposed to take such opposite views of marriage\ndifficulties were sure to arise. Those who were predisposed to\ndisparage the married state would throw contempt upon it as a mere\nconcession to the flesh; they apparently even urged that, Christians\nbeing new creatures, their whole previous relationships were\ndissolved. To Paul therefore appeal is made.\n\nThe questions referred to Paul resolve themselves into two: whether\nthe unmarried are to marry, and whether the married are to continue to\nlive together.\n\nIn reply to the former question, whether the unmarried are to marry,\nhe first states the duty of unmarried persons themselves (in vers. 2,\n7-9); and afterwards (in vers. 25-39) he explains the duty of parents\nto their unmarried daughters.\n\nI. First then we have Paul's counsel to the unmarried. This is summed\nup in the words, \"I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is\ngood for them if they abide even as I;\" that is to say, if they remain\nunmarried, Paul being probably the only unmarried Apostle. But if any\nman's temperament be such that he cannot settle undistractedly to his\nwork without marrying; if he is restless and ill at ease, and full of\nnatural cravings which make him think much of marriage, and make him\nfeel sure he would be less distracted in married life--then, says\nPaul, let such an one by all means marry. But do not misunderstand me,\nhe says; this is permission I am giving you, not commandment. I do not\nsay you _must_ or ought to marry; I say you _may_, and in certain\ncircumstances _ought_. Those among you who say a man sins if he do not\nmarry, talk nonsense. Those among you who feel a quiet superiority\nbecause you are married, and think of unmarried people as\nundergraduates who have not attained a degree equal to yours, are much\nmistaken if you suppose that I am of your mind. When I say, \"Let every\nman have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband,\" I do\nnot mean that every man who wishes to come as near perfection as\npossible must go and marry, but what I speak I speak by way of\npermission; I permit every man to marry who deliberately believes he\nwill be the better of marrying. So far from thinking that every man\nought to marry, or that married men have somehow the advantage over\nsingle men, I think the very opposite, and would that _all_ men were\neven as I myself, only I know that to many men it is not so easy as it\nis to me to live unmarried; and therefore I do not advise them to a\nsingle life.\n\nBut this advice of Paul's proceeds, not from any ascetic tendency, but\nfrom the practical bias of his mind. He had no idea that marriage was\na morally inferior condition; on the contrary, he saw in it the most\nperfect symbol of the union of Christ and the Church. But he thought\nthat unmarried men were likely to be most available for the work of\nChrist; and therefore he could not but wish it possible, though he\nknew it was not possible, that all unmarried men should remain\nunmarried.\n\nHis reason for thinking that unmarried men would be more efficient in\nthe service of Christ is given in the thirty-second and thirty-third\nverses: \"He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the\nLord, how he may please the Lord; but he that is married careth for\nthe things that are of the world, how he may please his wife,\" an\nopinion quite similar to that which Lord Bacon pronounced when he\nsaid, \"Certainly the best works, and of greatest merit for the public,\nhave proceeded from the unmarried or childless men, who both in\naffection and means have married and endowed the public.\" Given two\nmen with equal desire to serve Christ, but the one married and the\nother unmarried, it is obvious that the unmarried man has more means\nand opportunities of service than he who has a large family to\nsupport. No doubt a good wife may stimulate a man to liberality, and\nmay greatly increase his tenderness towards deserving objects of\ncharity; but the fact remains that he who has seven or ten mouths to\nfill cannot have so much to give away as if he had but himself to\nsupport. Then, again, however alike in sentiment husband and wife may\nbe, there are sacrifices which a married man may not make. With the\nunmarried man there need be no other consideration than this: How can\nI best serve Christ? With the married man there must always be other\nconsiderations. He cannot ignore or forswear the ties with which he\nhas bound himself; he cannot act as if he had only himself to\nconsider. The unmarried man has life and the world before him, and may\nchoose the most ideal and perfect style of life he pleases. He may\nseek to realize, as many in recent times have realized, the exact\napostolic idea of how it is best to spend a human life. He may choose\nto devote himself to the elevation of some one class of the community,\nor he is free to go to the ends of the earth to preach the Gospel. He\nhas no one thing to consider but how he may please the Lord. But the\nmarried man has limited his range of choice, and has cut himself off\nfrom some at least of the most influential ways of doing good in the\nworld. It is therefore to the unmarried that the State looks for the\nmanning of the army and navy; it is to the unmarried that society\nlooks for the nursing of the sick and for the filling of posts of\ndanger; and it is on the unmarried that the Church depends for a large\npart of her work, from teaching in Sunday-schools to occupying\nunhealthy and precarious outposts in the mission field.\n\nBut while Paul makes no scruple of saying that for many purposes the\nunmarried man is the more available, he says also, Beware how _you_\nindividually think yourself a hero, and able to forego marriage.\nBeware lest, by choosing a part which you are not fit for, you give\nSatan an advantage over you, and expose yourself to constant\ntemptation, and pass through life distracted by needless deprivation.\n\"Far be it from me,\" says Paul, \"to cast a snare upon you,\" to invite\nor encourage you into a position against which your nature would\nunceasingly rebel, to prompt you to attempt that for which you are\nconstitutionally unfit, and thereby to make your life a chronic\ntemptation. \"Every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this\nmanner, another after that.\" And if any man fancies that, because\nthere are advantages in being unmarried, therefore that is the best\nstate for him, or if, on the other hand, any man fancies that, because\nmost men seem to find great happiness in marriage, he also needs\nmarriage to complete his happiness, both of these men leave out of\naccount that which is chiefly to be taken into account, viz., the\nspecial temperament, calling, and opportunities of each.\n\nThe common-sense and wise counsel of this chapter are sometimes half\njestingly put aside by the idle remark that Paul, being himself\nunmarried, takes a biassed view of the subject. But the chief merit of\nthe whole passage is that Paul positively and expressly declines to\njudge others by himself, or himself by others. What is good for one\nman in this respect is not good, he says, for another; every man must\nascertain for himself what is best for him. And this is precisely what\nis lacking in popular feeling and talk about marriage. People start in\nlife, and are encouraged to start in life, on the understanding that\ntheir happiness cannot be complete till they are married; that they\nare in some sense incomplete and unsatisfactory members of society\nuntil they marry. Now, on the contrary, people should be taught not to\nfollow one another like sheep, nor to suppose that they will\ninfallibly find happiness where others have found it. They should be\ntaught to consider their own make and bent, and not to take for\ngranted that the cravings they feel for an indefinite addition to\ntheir happiness will be satisfied by marriage. They should be taught\nthat marriage is but one out of many paths to happiness, that it is\npossible celibacy may be the straightest path to happiness for them,\nand that many persons are so constituted that they are likely to be\nmuch more useful unmarried than married. They should, above all, be\ntaught that human life is very wide and multifarious, and that, to\neffect His ends, God needs persons of all kinds and conditions, so\nthat to prejudge the direction in which our usefulness and happiness\nare to run is to shut God out of our life. There can be no doubt that\nthe opposite way of speaking of marriage as the great settlement in\nlife has introduced much misery and uselessness into the lives of\nthousands.\n\nIt is this then which not only signally illustrates the judicial\nbalance of the Apostle's mind, but at the same time gives us the key\nto the whole chapter. The capacity for celibacy is a gift of God to\nhim who possesses it, a gift which may be of eminent service, but to\nwhich no moral value can be attached. There are many such diversities\nof gifts among men, gifts of immense value, but which may belong to\nbad as well as to good men. For example, two men travel together; the\none can go without food for twelve hours, the other cannot, but if\nyou repair his strength every five hours, he can go through as much\nfatigue as the other. This power of abstinence is a valuable gift, and\nhas frequently enabled men in certain circumstances to save life or\nperform other important service. But no one would dream of arguing\nthat because a man possessed this gift, he was therefore a _better_\nman than his less enduring friend. Unfortunately, so simple a\ndistinction has not been kept in view. In the most powerful Church in\nthe world celibacy is regarded as a virtue in itself, so that men with\nno natural gift for it have been encouraged to aim at it, with what\nresults we need not say.\n\nBut while there is no virtue in remaining unmarried, there is virtue\nin remaining unmarried for the sake of serving Christ better. Some\npersons are kept single by mere selfishness; having been accustomed to\norderly and quiet ways, they shrink from having their personal peace\nbroken in upon by the claims of children. Some shrink from being tied\ndown to any definite settlement in life; they like to feel\nunencumbered, and free to shift their tent at short notice. Some dread\nresponsibility and the little and great anxieties of family life. A\nfew have the feeling of the miser, and prefer the possibility of many\nconceivable marriages to the actuality of one. For such persons to\nmake a virtue of their celibacy is absurd. But all honour to those who\nrecognise that they are called to some duty they could not discharge\nif married! All honour to that eldest son of an orphaned family who\nsees that it is not for him to please himself, but to work for those\nwho have none to look to but him! There are here and there persons who\nfrom the highest motives decline marriage: persons conscious of some\nhereditary weakness, physical or mental; persons who, on a deliberate\nsurvey of human life, have seemed to themselves to recognise that they\nare called to a kind of service with which marriage is incompatible.\nWe may be thankful that in our own country and time there are men and\nwomen of sufficiently heroic mould to exemplify the wisdom of the\nApostle's counsel. Such devotion is not for every one. There are\npersons of a soft and domestic temperament who need the supports and\ncomforts of home-life, and nothing can be more cruel and ill-advised\nthan to encourage such persons to turn their life into a channel in\nwhich it was never intended to run. But it is equally to be lamented\nthat, where there are women quite capable of a life of self-devotion\nto some noble work, they should be discouraged from such a life by the\nfalse, and foolish, and petty notions of society, and should be taught\nto believe that the only way in which they can serve their Lord is by\ncaring for the affairs of a single household. No calling is nobler or\nmore worthy of a Christian woman than marriage; but it is not the only\ncalling. There are other callings as noble, and there are callings in\nwhich many women will find a much wider field for doing good.\n\nII. St. Paul's counsel to the married. Some of the Corinthians seem to\nhave thought that, because they were new creatures in Christ, their\nold relations should be abandoned; and they put to Paul the question\nwhether a believing man who had an unbelieving wife ought not to\nforsake her. Paul had shrewdness enough to see that if a Christian\nmight separate from an unbelieving wife on the sole ground that he was\na Christian, this easy mode of divorce might lead to a large and most\nunwelcome influx of pretended Christians into the Church. He therefore\nlays down the law that the power of separation is to rest with the\nunbelieving, and not with the believing, partner. If the unbelieving\nwife wishes to separate from her Christian husband, let her do so; but\nthe change from heathenism to Christianity was no reason for sundering\nthe marriage union. It frequently happened in the early ages of the\nChurch that when a man was converted to the Christian faith in middle\nlife, and judged he could serve God better without the encumbrance of\na family, he forsook his wife and children and betook himself to a\nmonastery. This directly contravened the law here laid down to abide\nin the vocation wherein God's call had found him.\n\nThe principle, \"Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was\ncalled,\" is of wide application. The slave who heard God's call to him\nto become His child was not to think he must resent being a slave and\nassert his Christian liberty by requiring emancipation from earthly\nservitude. On the contrary, he must be content with the inward\npossession of the freedom Christ had given him, and must show his\nliberty by the willingness and spontaneity of his submission to all\nhis outward conditions. It is not externals that make a Christian; and\nif God's grace has found a man in unlikely circumstances, that is the\nbest evidence he can have that he will find opportunity of serving God\nin those circumstances, if there be no sin in them. It throws great\nlight on the relation which we as Christians hold to the institutions\nof our country, and generally to outward things, when we understand\nthat Christianity does not begin by making external changes, but\nbegins within and gradually finds its way outwards, modifying and\nrectifying all it meets.\n\nBut the principle to which Paul chiefly trusts, he enounces in the\ntwenty-ninth verse: \"This I say, brethren, the time is short: it\nremaineth that both they that have wives be as though they had none,\nand they that weep as though they wept not; ... for the fashion of\nthis world passeth away.\" The forms in which human life is now\nmoulded, the kind of business we are now engaged in, the pleasures we\nenjoy, even the relationships we hold to one another, pass away. There\nare no doubt relationships which time cannot dissolve, marriages so\nfit and uniting spirits so essentially kindred that no change can\ndissolve them, affections so pure and clinging that if the future does\nnot renew them, it loses a large part of its charm for us. But\nwhatever is temporary in our relation to the present world it is\nfoolish so to set our heart on, that death may seem to end all our joy\nand all our usefulness. We may resent being asked to be moderate and\nself-restrained in our devotedness to this or that pursuit, but the\nfact is that the time is short and that the fashion of this world\npasseth away; and it is surely the part of wisdom to accommodate one's\nself to fact. In this life we now lead, and underneath all its\nactivities, and forms, and relationships, we have opportunity of\nlaying hold on what is permanent; and if, instead of penetrating\nthrough the outward things to the eternal significance and relations\nthey bear, we give ourselves wholly to them, we abuse the world, and\npervert it to an end for which it was not intended. The man who is\nsent abroad for five years would consider it folly to accumulate a\nlarge collection of the luxuries of life, furniture, and paintings,\nand encumbrances; how many times five years do we expect to live, that\nwe should be much concerned to amass goods which we cannot remove to\nanother world? This world is a means, and not an end; and those use\nit best who use it in relation to what is to be. They use it not less\nvigorously, but more wisely, not despising the mould which fashions\nthem to their eternal form, but ever bearing in mind that the mould is\nto be broken and that what is fashioned by it alone remains. It is the\nthought of our great future which alone gives us sufficient courage\nand wisdom to deal with present things intensely and in earnest. For,\nas a heathen long ago saw and said, \"if God make so much of creatures\nin whom there is nothing permanent, He is like women who sow the seeds\nof plants within the soil enclosed in an oyster-shell.\" The very\nintensity of our interests and affections reminds us that we cannot\nroot ourselves in this present life, but need a larger room.\n\n_LIBERTY AND LOVE._\n\n \"Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all\n have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And\n if any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet\n as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known\n of him. As concerning therefore the eating of those things that\n are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is\n nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.\n For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in\n earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there\n is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in\n Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by\n Him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some\n with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing\n offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.\n But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we\n the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take\n heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a\n stumbling-block to them that are weak. For if any man see thee\n which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not\n the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those\n things which are offered to idols; and through thy knowledge\n shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye\n sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye\n sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend,\n I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my\n brother to offend.\"--1 COR. viii. 1-13.\n\n \"All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient:\n all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no\n man seek his own, but every man another's wealth. Whatsoever is\n sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for\n conscience' sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness\n thereof. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and\n ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking\n no question for conscience' sake. But if any man say unto you,\n This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake\n that showed it, and for conscience' sake: for the earth is the\n Lord's, and the fulness thereof: conscience, I say, not thine\n own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another\n man's conscience? For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil\n spoken of for that for which I give thanks? Whether therefore ye\n eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.\n Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor\n to the Church of God: even as I please all men in all things, not\n seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be\n saved. Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.\"--1\n COR. x. 23-xi. 1.\n\n\n\n\nXII.\n\n_LIBERTY AND LOVE._\n\n\nThe next question which had been put to Paul by the Corinthian Church,\nand to which he now replies, is \"touching things offered unto idols,\"\nwhether a Christian had liberty to eat such things or not. This\nquestion necessarily arose in a society partly heathen and partly\nChristian. Every meal was in a manner dedicated to the household gods\nby laying some portion of it on the family altar. Where one member of\na heathen family had become a Christian, he would at once be\nconfronted with the question, rising in his own conscience, whether by\npartaking of such food he might not be countenancing idolatry. On the\noccasion of a birthday, or a marriage, or a safe return from sea, or\nany circumstance that seemed to call for celebration, it was customary\nto sacrifice in some public temple. And after the legs of the victim,\nenclosed in fat, and the entrails had been burnt on the altar, the\nworshipper received the remainder, and invited his friends and guests\nto partake of it either in the temple itself, or in the surrounding\ngrove, or at his own home. Here again a young convert might very\nnaturally ask himself whether he was justified in attending such a\nfeast and actually sitting down to meat in the idol's presence. Nor\nwas it only personal friendships and the harmony of family life that\nwere threatened; but on public occasions and national celebrations\nthe Christian was in a strait betwixt two; fearful, on the one hand,\nof branding himself as no good citizen by abstaining from\nparticipation in the feast, fearful, on the other hand, lest by\ncompliance he should be found unfaithful to his new religion. And even\nthough his own family was entirely Christian, the difficulty was not\nremoved, for much of the meat offered in worship found its way into\nthe common market, so that at every meal the Christian ran the risk of\neating things sacrificed to idols.\n\nAmong the Jews it had always been considered pollution to eat such\nfood. Instances are on record of men dying cheerfully rather than\nsuffer such contamination. Few Jewish Christians could rise to the\nheight of our Lord's maxim, \"Not that which goeth into a man defileth\nhim.\" The Gentile converts also felt the difficulty of at once\nthrowing off all the old associations. When they entered the temple\nwhere but a few months ago they had worshipped, the atmosphere of the\nplace intoxicated them; and the long-accustomed sights quickened their\npulse and exposed them to serious temptation. Others, less sensitive,\ncould use the temple as they would an ordinary eating-house, without\nthe slightest stirring of idolatrous feeling. Some went to the houses\nof heathen friends as often as they were invited, and partook of what\nwas set before them, making no minute inquiries as to how the meat had\nbeen provided, asking no questions for conscience' sake, but believing\nthat the earth and its fulness were the Lord's, and that what they ate\nthey received from God, and not from an idol. Others, again, could not\nshake off the feeling that they were countenancing idolatry when they\npartook of such feasts. Thus there arose a diversity of judgment and a\nvariance in practice which must have given rise to much annoyance,\nand which did not appear to be approaching any nearer to a final and\nsatisfactory settlement.\n\nIn answer to the appeal made to him on this subject, it might seem\nthat Paul had nothing to do but quote the deliverance of the Council\nof Jerusalem, which determined that Gentile converts should be\ncommanded to abstain from meats offered to idols. Paul himself had\nobtained that deliverance, and was satisfied with it; but now he makes\nno reference to it, and treats the question afresh. In the epistles of\nthe Lord to the Churches, embodied in the Book of Revelation, the\neating of things sacrificed to idols is spoken of in strongly\ncondemnatory language; and in one of the very earliest non-canonical\ndocuments of the primitive Church we find the precept, \"Abstain\ncarefully from things offered to idols, for that is worship of dead\ngods.\" Paul's disregard of the decision of the Council is probably due\nto his belief that that decision was merely provisional and temporary.\nHe had founded Churches which could scarcely be expected to go past\nhimself for guidance; and as the situation in the Corinthian Church\nwas different from what it had been in Antioch, he felt justified in\ntreating the matter afresh. And while in the early Church the\npartaking of sacrificial food which Paul allowed was sometimes\nvehemently condemned, this was due to the circumstance that it was\nsometimes used as a test of a man's abandonment of idolatry. Of course\nwhere this was the case no Christian could possibly be in doubt\nregarding the proper course to follow. What a man may freely do in\nordinary circumstances, he may not do if he is warned that certain\ninferences will be drawn from his action.\n\nThe case laid before Paul then belongs to the class known as matters\nmorally indifferent. These are matters upon which conscience does not\nuniformly give the same verdict even among persons brought up under\nthe same moral law. On mingling with society, every one finds that\nthere are many points of conduct regarding which there is not an\nunanimous consent of judgment among the most delicately conscientious\npeople, and upon which it is difficult to decide even when we are\nanxious to do right. Such points are the lawfulness of attending\ncertain places of public amusement, the propriety of allowing one's\nself to be implicated in certain kinds of private amusements or\nentertainments, the way of spending Sunday, and the amount of\npleasure, refinement, and luxury one may admit into his life.\n\nThe state of feeling produced in Corinth by the discussion of such\ntopics is apparent from Paul's mode of treating the question put to\nhim. His answer is addressed to the party who claimed superior\nknowledge, who wished to be known as the party which stood for liberty\nof conscience, and probably for the Pauline axiom, \"All things are\nlawful for me.\" Paul does not directly address those who had scruples\nabout eating, but those who had none. He does not speak to, but only\nof, the \"weak\" brethren who had still conscience of the idol. And\napparently a good deal of ill-feeling had been engendered in the\nCorinthian Church by the different views taken. This is always the\ntrouble in connection with morally indifferent matters. They do little\nharm if each holds his own opinion genially and endeavours to\ninfluence others by a friendly statement of his own practice and the\ngrounds of it. But in most instances it happens as in Corinth: those\nwho saw that they could eat without contamination scorned those who\nhad scruples; while, on their side, the scrupulous judged the eaters\nto be worldly time-servers, in a perilous state, less godly and\nconsistent than themselves.\n\nAs a first step towards the settlement of this matter, Paul makes the\nlargest concession to the party of liberty. Their clear perception\nthat an idol was nothing in the world, a mere bit of timber, and of no\nmore significance to a Christian than a pillar or a doorpost--this\nknowledge is sound and commendable. At the same time, they need not\nmake quite so much of it as they were doing. In their letter of\ninquiry they must have emphasized the fact that they were the party of\nenlightenment, who saw things as they really were, and had freed\nthemselves from fantastic superstitions and antiquated ideas. Quite\ntrue, says Paul, \"we all have knowledge;\" but you need not remind me\nat every turn of your superior discernment of the Christian's true\nposition nor of your wonderfully sagacious discovery that an idol is\nnothing in the world. Any Jewish schoolboy could have told you this. I\nknow that you understand the principles which should regulate your\nintercourse with the heathen much better than the scrupulous do, and\nthat your views of liberty are my own. Let us then hear no more of\nthis. Do not always be returning upon this, as if this settled the\nwhole matter. You are in the right so far as regards knowledge, and\nyour brethren are weak; let that be conceded: but do not suppose you\nsettle the question or impress me more strongly with the righteousness\nof your conduct by reiterating that you, whom your brethren call lax\nand misguided, are better instructed in the principle of Christian\nconduct than they. Once for all, I know this.\n\nDoes this then not settle the question? If--the party of liberty might\nsay--if we are right, if the idol is nothing, and an idol's temple no\nmore than an ordinary dining-room, does this not settle the whole\nmatter? By no means, says Paul. \"Knowledge puffeth up, but charity\nedifieth.\" You have as yet grasped only one end, and that the weaker\nend, of the Christian rule. You must add love, consideration of your\nneighbour to your knowledge. Without this, knowledge is unwholesome\nand as likely to do harm as to do good. In very similar terms the\nfounder of the Positive philosophy speaks of the evil results of\nloveless knowledge. \"I am free to confess,\" he says, \"that hitherto\nthe Positive spirit has been tainted with the two moral evils which\npeculiarly wait on knowledge. It puffs up, and it dries the heart, by\ngiving free scope to pride and by turning it from love.\" It is indeed\nmatter of everyday observation that men of ready insight into moral\nand spiritual truth are prone to despise the less enlightened spirits\nthat stumble among the scruples which, like the bats of the moral\ntwilight, fly in their faces. The knowledge which is not tempered by\nhumility and love does harm both to its possessor and to other\nChristians; it puffs up its possessor with scorn, and it alienates and\nembitters the less enlightened. Knowledge without love, knowledge\nwhich does not take into consideration the difficulties and scruples\nof brethren, cannot be admired or commended, for though in itself a\ngood thing and capable of being used for the advancement of the\nChurch, knowledge dissociated from charity can do good neither to him\nwho possesses it nor to the Christian community. However the\npossessors of such knowledge vaunt themselves as the men of progress\nand the hope of the Church, it is not by knowledge alone the Church\ncan ever solidly grow. Knowledge does produce an appearance of growth,\na puffing up, an unhealthy, morbid growth, a mushroom, fungous growth;\nbut that which builds up the Church stone by stone, a strong, enduring\nedifice, is love. It is a good thing to have clear views of Christian\nliberty, to have definite, firmly held ideas of Christian conduct, to\ndiscard fretting scruples and idle superstitions; add love to this\nknowledge, exercise it in a tender, patient, self-denying,\nconsiderate, loving way, and you edify both yourself and the Church:\nbut exercise it without love, and you become a poor inflated creature,\npuffed up with a noxious gas destructive of all higher life in\nyourself and in others.\n\nPaul's law then is that liberty must be tempered by love; that the\nindividual must consider the society of which he forms a part; and\nthat, after his own conscience is satisfied regarding the legitimacy\nof certain actions, he must further consider how the conscience of his\nneighbour will be affected if he uses his liberty and does these\nactions. He must endeavour to keep step with the Christian community\nof which he forms a part, and must beware of giving offence to less\nenlightened persons by his freer conduct. He must consider not only\nwhether he himself can do this or that with a good conscience, but\nalso how the conscience of those who know what he does will be\naffected by it.\n\nApplying this law to the matter in hand, Paul declares that, for his\nown part, he has no scruples at all about meat. \"Meat commendeth us\nnot to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we\neat not, are we the worse.\" If therefore I had to consult only my own\nconscience, the matter would admit of prompt and easy solution. I\nwould as soon eat in an idol's temple as anywhere else. But all have\nnot the conviction we have that an idol is nothing in the world. Some\nare unable to rid themselves of the feeling that in eating sacrificial\nmeat they are paying an act of homage to the idol. \"Some with\nconscience of the idol,\" with the feeling that the idol is present and\naccepting the worship, \"eat the sacrificial meat as a thing offered\nunto an idol, and their conscience being weak is defiled.\" Their\nconscience is weak, not fully enlightened, not purged of old\nsuperstition; but their conscience is their conscience: and if they\nfeel they are doing a wrong thing and yet do it, they do a wrong\nthing, and defile their conscience. Therefore we must consider them as\nwell as ourselves, for as often as we use our liberty and eat\nsacrificial meat we tempt them to do the same, and so to defile their\nconscience. They know that you are men of sound and clear spiritual\ndiscernment; they look up to you as guides: and if they see you who\nhave knowledge sitting at meat in the idol's temple, must not they be\nemboldened to do the same, and so to stain and harden their own\nconscience?\n\nIt is easy to imagine how this would be exemplified at a Corinthian\ntable. Three Christians are invited, with other guests, to a party in\nthe house of a heathen friend. One of these invited Christians is\nweakly scrupulous, unable to disentangle himself from the old\nidolatrous associations connected with sacrificial meat. The other two\nChristians are men of ampler view and more enlightened conscience, and\nhave the deepest conviction that scruples about eating at a heathen\ntable are baseless. All three recline at the table; but, as the meal\ngoes on, the anxious, scrutinizing eye of the weak brother discerns\nsome mark which identifies the meat as sacrificial, or, fearing it may\nbe so, he inquires of the servant, and finds it has been offered in\nthe temple: and at once he draws the attention of his Christian\nfriends to this, saying, \"This has been offered in sacrifice to\nidols.\" One of his friends, knowing that heathen eyes are watching,\nand wishing to show how superior to all such scruples the enlightened\nChristian is and how genial and free a religion is the religion of\nChrist, smiles at his friend's scruples, and accepts the meat. The\nother, quite as clear-sighted and free from superstition, but more\ngenerous and more truly courageous, accommodates himself to the\nscruple of the weak brother, and declines the dish, lest by eating and\nleaving the scrupulous man without support he should tempt him to\nfollow their example, contrary to his own conviction, and so lead him\ninto sin. It need not be said which of these men acts the friendly\npart and comes nearest to the Christian principle of Paul.\n\nIn our own society similar cases necessarily arise. I, as a Christian\nman, and knowing that the earth and its fulness are the Lord's, may\nfeel at perfect liberty to drink wine. Had I only myself to consider,\nand knowing that my temptation does not lie that way, I might use wine\nregularly or as often as I felt disposed to enjoy a needed stimulant.\nI may feel quite convinced in my own mind that morally I am not one\nwhit the worse of doing so. But I cannot determine whether I am to\nindulge myself or not without considering the effect my conduct will\nhave on others. There may be among my friends some who know that their\ntemptation does lie that way, and whose conscience bids them\naltogether refrain. If by my example such persons are encouraged to\nsilence the voice of their own conscience, then I incur the\nincalculable guilt of helping to destroy a brother for whom Christ\ndied.\n\nOr again, a lad has had the great good fortune to be brought up in a\nPuritanic household, and has imbibed stringent moral principles, with\nperhaps somewhat narrow ideas. He has been taught, together with much\nelse of the same character, that the influence of the theatre is in\nour country demoralizing, that one day in the week is little enough to\ngive to the claims of spiritual education, and so forth. But on\nentering the life of a great city he is soon brought in contact with\nmen whose uprightness, and sagacity, and Christian spirit he cannot\nbut respect, but who yet read their weekly paper, or any book they are\ninterested in, as freely on Sunday as on Saturday, and who visit the\ntheatre without the slightest twinge of conscience. Now either of two\nthings will probably happen in such a case. The young man's ideas of\nChristian liberty may become clearer. He may attain the standpoint of\nPaul, and may see that fellowship with Christ can be maintained in\nconditions of life he once absolutely condemned. Or the young man may\nnot grow in Christian perception, but being daunted by overpowering\nexample, and chafing under the raillery of his companions, may do as\nothers do, though still uneasy in his own conscience.\n\nWhat is to be observed about this process, which is ceaselessly going\non in society, is that the emboldening of conscience is one thing, its\nenlightenment quite another. And were it possible to get statistics of\nthe proportion of cases in which the one process goes on without the\nother, these statistics might be salutary. But we need no statistics\nto assure us that Christian people by selfishly using their own\nliberty do continually lead less enlightened persons to trample on\ntheir scruples and disregard their own conscience. Constantly it\nhappens in every department of human life that men who once shrank\nfrom certain practices as wrong now freely engage in them, although\nthey are not in their own mind any more clearly convinced of their\nlegitimacy than they were before, but are merely emboldened by the\nexample of others. Such persons, if possessed of any self-observation\nand candour, will tell you that at first they felt as if they were\nstealing the indulgence or the gain the practice brings, and that they\nhad to drown the voice of conscience by the louder voice of example.\n\nThe results of this are disastrous. Conscience is dethroned. The ship\nno longer obeys her helm, and lies in the trough of the sea swept by\nevery wave and driven by every wind. It may indeed be said, What harm\ncan come of persons less enlightened being emboldened to do as we do\nif what we do is right? Is not that, most strictly speaking,\nedification? It is not as if we emboldened any one to transgress the\nmoral law; we are merely bringing our weak brother's conduct up to the\nlevel of our own. Do we not act wisely and well in so doing? Again it\nmust be answered, No, because, while yielding themselves to the\ninfluence of your example, these persons abandon the guidance of their\nown conscience, which may be a less enlightened, but is certainly a\nmore authoritative, guide than you. If the weak brother does a right\nthing while his conscience tells him it is a wrong thing, to him it is\na wrong thing. \"Whatsoever is not of faith is sin;\" that is to say,\nwhatsoever is not dictated by a thorough conviction that it is right\nis sin. It is sin which in some respects is more dangerous than a sin\nof passion or impulse. By a sin of passion the conscience is not\ndirectly injured, and may remain comparatively tender and healthy; but\nwhen you refuse to acknowledge conscience as your guide and accept\nsome other person's conduct as that which may dictate to you what you\nmay or may not do, you dethrone conscience, and sap your moral nature.\nYou shut your own eyes, and prefer to be led by the hand of another\nperson, which may indeed serve you on this occasion; but the end will\nbe a dog and a string.\n\nTwo permanent lessons are preserved in this exposition which Paul\ngives of the matter laid before him. The first is the sacredness or\nsupremacy of conscience. \"Let every man be fully persuaded in his own\nmind;\" that is the one legitimate source of conduct. A man may\npossibly do a wrong thing when he obeys conscience; he is certainly\nwrong when he acts contrary to conscience. He may be helped to a\ndecision by the advice of others, but it is his own decision by which\nhe must abide. He must act, not on the conviction of others, but on\nhis own. It is what he himself sees that must guide him. He is bound\nto use every means to enlighten his conscience and to learn with\naccuracy what is right and allowable, but he is also bound always to\nact upon his own present perception of what is right. His conscience\nmay not be as enlightened as it ought to be. Still his duty is to\nenlighten, not to violate, it. It is the guide God has given us, and\nwe must not choose another.\n\nThe second lesson is that we must ever use our Christian liberty with\nChristian consideration of others. Love must mingle with all we do.\nThere are many things which are lawful for a Christian, but which are\nnot compulsory or obligatory, and which he may refrain from doing on\ncause shown. Duties he must of course discharge, regardless of the\neffect his conduct may have on others. He may be quite sure he will be\nmisunderstood; he may be sure evil motives will be imputed to him; he\nmay be sure disastrous consequences will be the first result of his\naction; but if conscience says this or that _must_ be done, then all\nthought of consequences must be thrown to the winds. But where\nconscience says, not \"You must,\" but only \"You may,\" then we must\nconsider the effect our using our liberty will have on others. We lie\nas Christians under an obligation to consider others, to lay aside all\npride of advanced ideas, and this not merely that we may submit\nourselves to those who know better than we, but that we may not offend\nthose who are bound by prejudices of which we are rid. We must limit\nour liberty by the scrupulosity of prejudiced, narrow-minded, weak\npeople. We must forego our liberty to do this or that if by doing it\nwe should shock or disturb a weak brother or encourage him to overstep\nhis conscience. As the Arctic voyager who has been frozen up all\nwinter does not seize the first opportunity to escape, but waits till\nhis weaker companions gain strength enough to accompany him, so must\nthe Christian accommodate himself to the weaknesses of others, lest by\nusing his liberty he should injure him for whom Christ died. Never was\nthere a man who more fully understood the freedom of the Christian\nposition than Paul; no man was ever more entirely lifted out of the\nmist of superstition and formalism into the clear light of free,\neternal life: but with this freedom he carried a sympathy with weak\nand entangled beginners which prompted him to exclaim, \"If meat make\nmy brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth,\nlest I make my brother to offend.\"\n\nOur conduct must be limited and to a certain extent regulated by the\nnarrow-mindedness, the scruples, the prejudices, the weakness in\nshort, of others. We cannot say, I see my way to do so-and-so, let my\nfriend think what he pleases; I am not to be trammelled by his\nsuperstition or ignorance; let my conduct have what effect it will on\nhim; I am not responsible for that; if he does not see it to be right,\nI do, and I will act accordingly. We cannot speak thus if the matter\nbe indifferent; if it be a matter we can lawfully abstain from, then\nabstain we must if we would follow the Apostle who followed Christ.\nThis is the practical law which stands in the forefront of Christ's\nteaching and was sealed by every day of His life. It is enounced not\nonly by St. Paul: \"Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ\ndied;\" \"Through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom\nChrist died,\" but also in our Lord's still more emphatic words, \"Whoso\nshall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were\nbetter for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that\nhe were drowned in the depth of the sea.\" Paul could not look on his\nweak brethren as narrow-minded bigots, could not call them hard names\nand ride rough-shod over their scruples; and to this delicate\nconsideration he was aided by the remembrance that these were the\npersons for whom Christ died. For them Christ sacrificed, not merely a\nlittle feeling or a little of His own way, but His own will and self\nentirely. And the spirit of Christ is still manifested in all in whom\nHe dwells, specially in a humility and yieldingness of disposition\nwhich is not led by self-interest or self-complacency, but seeks the\nweal of other men. Nothing shows us more distinctly the thorough\nmanner in which St. Paul partook of the spirit of Christ than his\nability to say, \"I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own\nprofit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Be ye\nfollowers of me, even as I also am of Christ.\"\n\n_MAINTENANCE OF THE MINISTRY._\n\n \"Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ\n our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? If I be not an apostle\n unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine\n apostleship are ye in the Lord. Mine answer to them that do\n examine me is this, Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have\n we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other\n Apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Or I only\n and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? Who goeth a\n warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and\n eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and\n eateth not of the milk of the flock? Say I these things as a man?\n or saith not the Law the same also? For it is written in the law\n of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth\n out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith He it\n altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is\n written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he\n that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have\n sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall\n reap your carnal things? If others be partakers of this power\n over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this\n power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the Gospel of\n Christ. Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things\n live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the\n altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord\n ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the\n Gospel. But I have used none of these things: neither have I\n written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it\n were better for me to die, than that any man should make my\n glorying void. For though I preach the Gospel, I have nothing to\n glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if\n I preach not the Gospel! For if I do this thing willingly, I have\n a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the Gospel is\n committed unto me. What is my reward then? Verily that, when I\n preach the Gospel, I may make the Gospel of Christ without\n charge, that I abuse not my power in the Gospel. For though I be\n free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that\n I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that\n I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the Law, as under\n the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law; to them\n that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to\n God, but under the Law to Christ,) that I might gain them that\n are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain\n the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all\n means save some.\"--1 COR. ix. 1-22.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\n_MAINTENANCE OF THE MINISTRY._\n\n\nIn the preceding chapter Paul has disposed of the question put to him\nregarding meats offered in sacrifice to idols. He has taken occasion\nto point out that in matters morally indifferent Christian men will\nconsider the scruples of weak, and prejudiced, and superstitious\npeople. He has inculcated the duty of accommodating ourselves to the\nconsciences of less enlightened persons, if we can do so without\nviolating our own. For his own part, he is prepared, while the world\nstandeth, to abridge his Christian liberty, if by his using that\nliberty he may imperil the conscience of any weak brother. But keeping\npace, as Paul always does, with the thought of those he writes to, he\nno sooner makes this emphatic statement than it occurs to him that\nthose in Corinth who are ill-affected towards him will make a handle\neven of his self-denial, and will whisper or boldly declare that it is\nall very fine for Paul to use this language, but that, in point of\nfact, the precarious position he holds in the Church makes it\nincumbent on him to deny himself and become all things to all men. His\napostleship stands on so insecure a basis that he has no option in the\nmatter, but must curry favour with all parties. He is not on the same\nplatform as the original Apostles, who may reasonably stand upon their\napostleship, and claim exemption from manual labour, and demand\nmaintenance both for themselves and their wives. Paul remains\nunmarried, and works with his hands to support himself, and makes\nhimself weak among the weak, because he has no claim to maintenance\nand is aware that his apostleship is doubtful. He proceeds therefore,\nwith some pardonable warmth and righteous indignation, to assert his\nfreedom and apostleship (vers. 1, 2), and to prove his right to the\nsame privileges and maintenance as the other Apostles (3-14); and then\nfrom the fifteenth to the eighteenth verse he gives the true reason\nfor his foregoing his rightful claim; and in vers. 19-22 he reaffirms\nthe principle on which he uniformly acted, becoming \"all things to all\nmen,\" suiting himself to the innocent prejudices and weaknesses of\nall, \"that he might by all means save some.\"\n\nPaul then had certain rights which he was resolved should be\nacknowledged, although he waived them. He maintains that if he saw\nfit, he might require the Church to maintain him, and to maintain him\nnot merely in the bare way in which he was content to live, but to\nfurnish him with the ordinary comforts of life. He might, for example,\nhe says, require the Church to enable him to keep a wife and to pay\nnot only his own, but her, travelling expenses. The other Apostles\napparently took their wives with them on their apostolic journeys, and\nmay have found them useful in gaining access for the Gospel to the\nsecluded women of Eastern and Greek cities. He might also, he says,\n\"forbear working;\" might cease, that is to say, from his tent-making\nand look to his converts for support. He is indignant at the sordid,\nor malicious, or mistaken spirit which could deny him such support.\n\nThis claim to support and privilege Paul rests on several grounds. 1.\nHe is an apostle, and the other Apostles enjoyed these privileges.\n\"Have we not power to take with us a Christian woman as a wife, as\nwell as other Apostles?... Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power\nto forbear working?\" His proof of his apostleship is summary: \"Have I\nnot seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?\" No\none could be an apostle who had not seen Jesus Christ after His\nresurrection. The Apostles were to be witnesses to the Resurrection,\nand were qualified to be so by seeing the Lord alive after death. But\nit seems to have been commonly urged against Paul that he had not been\namong those to whom Christ showed Himself after He rose from the dead.\nPaul therefore both in his reported speeches and in his letters\ninsists upon the fact that on the way to Damascus he had seen the\nrisen Lord.\n\nBut not every one who had seen the Lord after His resurrection was an\napostle, but those only who by Him were commissioned to witness to it;\nand that Paul had been thus commissioned he thinks the Corinthians may\nconclude from the results among themselves of his preaching. The\nChurch at Corinth was the seal of his apostleship. What was the use of\nquibbling about the time and manner of his ordination, when the\nreality and success of his apostolic work were so apparent? The Lord\nhad acknowledged his work. In presence of the finished structure that\ndraws the world to gaze, it is too late to ask if he who built it is\nan architect. Would that every minister could so prove the validity of\nhis orders!\n\n2. Paul maintains his right to support on the principle of\nremuneration everywhere observed in human affairs. The soldier does\nnot go to war at his own expense, but expects to be equipped and\nmaintained in efficiency by those for whom he fights. The vinedresser,\nthe shepherd, every labourer, expects, and is certainly warranted in\nexpecting, that the toil he expends will at least have the result of\nkeeping him comfortably in life. However difficult it is to lay down\nan absolute law of wages, this may at least be affirmed as a natural\nprinciple: that labour of all kinds must be so paid as to maintain the\nlabourer in life and efficiency; and it may be added that there are\ncertain inalienable human rights, such as the right to bring up a\nfamily the members of which shall be useful and not burdensome to\nsociety, the right to some reserve of leisure and of strength which\nthe labourer may use for his own enjoyment and advantage, which rights\nwill be admitted and provided for when out of the confused war of\ntheories, and strikes, and competition a just law of wages has been\nwon. Happily no one now needs to be told that one of the most striking\nresults of our modern civilisation is that the nineteenth century\nlabourer has less of the joy of life than the ancient slave, and that\nwe have forgotten the fundamental law that the husbandman that\nlaboureth must be first partaker of the fruits.\n\nAnd lest any one should sanctimoniously or ignorantly say, \"These\nsecular principles have no application to sacred things,\" Paul\nanticipates the objection, and dismisses it: \"Say I these things as a\nman? or saith not the Law the same also?\" I am not introducing into a\nsacred region principles which rule only in secular matters. Does not\nthe Law say, \"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the\ncorn\"? It must be allowed to live by its labour. As it threshes out\nthe wheat, it must be allowed to feed itself, mouthful by mouthful,\nas it goes on with its work. And this was not said in the Law because\nGod had any special care for oxen, but in order to give expression to\nthe law which must regulate the connection between all labourers and\ntheir work that he that plougheth may plough in hope, may have a\npersonal interest in his work, and may give himself ungrudgingly to\nit, assured that he himself will be the first to benefit by it.\n\nThis law that a man shall live by his labour is a two-edged law. If a\nman produce what the community needs, he should himself profit by the\nproduction; but, on the other hand, if a man will not work, neither\nshould he eat. Only the man who produces what other men need, only the\nman who by his industry or capability contributes to the good of the\ncommunity, has any right to profits. Quick and easy manipulations of\nmoney, shrewd and risky dexterities which yield no real benefit to the\ncommunity, deserve no remuneration. It is a blind, sordid, and\ncontemptible spirit that hastes to be rich by one or two successful\ntransactions that profit no one. A man should be content to live on\nwhat he is worth to the community. Here also our minds are often\nconfused by the complexities of business; but on that account it is\nall the more necessary that we firmly adhere to the few essential\ncanons, such as that \"trading ceases to be just when it ceases to\nbenefit both parties,\" or that a man's wealth should truly represent\nhis value to society. Conscience enlightened by allegiance to the\nSpirit of Christ is a much more satisfactory guide for the individual\nin trade, speculation, and investment than any trade customs or\neconomic theories.\n\n3. A third ground on which Paul rests his claim to be supported by the\nChurch is ordinary gratitude: \"If we have sown unto you spiritual\nthings, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?\" Some\nof the Churches founded by Paul spontaneously acknowledged this claim,\nand wished to free him from the necessity of labouring for his own\nsupport. They felt that the benefit they had derived from him could\nnot be stated in terms of money; but prompted by irrepressible\ngratitude, they could not but seek to relieve him from manual labour\nand set him free for higher work. This method of gauging the amount of\nspiritual benefit absorbed, by its overflow in material aid given to\nthe propagation of the Gospel would, I daresay, scarcely be relished\nby that monstrous development the niggardly Christian.\n\n4. Lastly, Paul argues from the Levitical usage to the Christian. Both\nin heathen countries and among the Jews it was customary that they who\nministered in holy things should live by the offerings of the people\nto the temple. Levites and priests alike had been thus maintained\namong the Jews. \"Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach\nthe Gospel should live of the Gospel.\" Were there no recorded command\nof the Lord to this effect, we might suppose Paul merely argued that\nthis was the Lord's will; but among the original instructions given to\nthe seventy who were first sent to preach the kingdom of heaven, we\nfind this: \"Into whatsoever house ye enter, there remain, eating and\ndrinking such things as they give, for the labourer is worthy of his\nhire.\"\n\nThat evils may result from the existence of a paid ministry no one\nwill be disposed to deny. Some of the most disastrous abuses in the\nChurch of Christ, as well as some of the gravest political troubles,\ncould never have arisen had there been no desirable benefices.\nLucrative ecclesiastical posts and offices have necessarily excited\nthe avarice of unworthy aspirants, and have weakened instead of\nstrengthening the Church's influence. Many wealthy ecclesiastics have\ndone nothing for the benefit of the people, whereas many laymen by\ntheir unpaid devotedness have done much. In view of these and other\nevils, it cannot surprise us to find that again and again it has\noccurred to good men to suppose that on the whole Christianity might\nbe more effectively propagated were there no separate class of men set\napart to this work as their sole occupation. But this idea is\nreactionary and extreme, and is condemned both by common-sense and by\nthe express declarations of our Lord and His Apostles. If the work of\nthe ministry is to be thoroughly done, men must give their whole time\nto it. Like every other professional work, it will often be done\ninadequately; and I daresay there is much in our methods which is\nunwise and susceptible of improvement: but the ministry keeps pace\nwith the general intelligence of the country, and may be trusted to\nadapt its methods, even though too tardily for some ardent spirits, to\nthe actual necessities. And if men give their whole time to the work,\nthey must be paid for it, a circumstance which is not likely to lead\nto much evil in our own country so long as the great mass of ministers\nare paid as they presently are. It is hardly the profession which is\nlikely to be chosen by any one who is anxious to coin his life into\nmoney. If the laity consider that covetousness is more unseemly in a\nChristian minister than in a Christian man, they have taken an\neffectual means of barring out that vice.\n\nPaul felt himself the more free to urge these claims because his\ncustom was to forego them all in his own case. \"I have used none of\nthese things: neither have I written these things, that it should be\nso done unto me; for it were better for me to die, than that any man\nshould make my glorying void.\" Here again we come upon the sound\njudgment and honest heart that are never biassed by his own personal\ncircumstances or insist that what is fit for him is fit for every one.\nHow apt are self-denying men to spoil their self-denial by dropping a\nsneer at the weaker souls that cannot follow their heroic example. How\nready are men who can live on little and accomplish much to leave the\nless robust Christians to justify on their own account their need of\nhuman comforts. Not so Paul. He first fights the battle of the weak\nfor them, and then disclaims all participation in the spoils. What a\nnobility and sagacity in the man who himself would accept no\nremuneration for his work, and who yet, so far from thinking\nslightingly of those who did or even being indifferent to them, argues\ntheir case for them with an authoritative force they did not\nthemselves possess!\n\nNor does he consider that his self-denial is at all meritorious. He\nhas no desire to signalize himself as more disinterested than other\nmen. On the contrary, he strives to make it appear as if this course\nwere compulsory and as if no choice were left to him. His fear was\nthat if he took remuneration, he \"should hinder the Gospel of Christ.\"\nSome of the best incomes in Greece in Paul's day were made by clever\nlecturers and talkers, who attracted disciples, and initiated them\ninto their doctrines and methods. Paul was resolved he should never be\nmistaken for one of these. And no doubt his success was partly due to\nthe fact that men recognised that his teaching was a labour of love,\nand that he was impelled by the truth and importance of his message.\nEvery man finds an audience who is inwardly impelled to speak; who\nspeaks, not because he is paid for doing so, but because there is that\nin him which must find utterance.\n\nThis, says Paul, was his case. \"Though I preach the Gospel, I have\nnothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto\nme, if I preach not the Gospel!\" His call to the ministry had been so\nexceptional, and had so distinctly and emphatically declared the grace\nand purpose of Christ, that he felt bound by all that can constrain a\nman to the devotedness of a lifetime. Paul felt what we now so clearly\nsee: that on him lay the gravest responsibilities. Had he declined to\npreach, had he complained of bad usage, and stipulated for higher\nterms, and withdrawn from the active propagation of Christianity, who\nwould or could have taken up the task he laid down? But while Paul\ncould not but be conscious of his importance to the cause of Christ,\nhe would arrogate to himself no credit on account of his arduous toil,\nfor from this, he says, he could not escape; necessity was laid upon\nhim. Whether he does his work willingly or unwillingly, still he must\ndo it. He dare not flinch. If he does it willingly, he has a reward;\nif he does it unwillingly, still he is entrusted with a stewardship he\ndare not neglect. What then is the reward he has, giving himself, as\nhe certainly does, _willingly_ to the work? His reward is that \"when\nhe preaches the Gospel he makes the Gospel of Christ without charge.\"\nThe deep satisfaction he felt in dissociating the Gospel of\nself-sacrifice from every thought of money or remuneration and in\noffering it freely to the poorest as his Master's fit representative\nwas sufficient reward for him and incalculably greater than any other\nhe ever got or could conceive.\n\nIn other words, Paul saw that however it might be with other men, with\nhim there was no alternative but to preach the Gospel; the only\nalternative was--was he to do it as a slave entrusted with a\nstewardship, and who was compelled, however reluctant he might be, to\nbe faithful, or was he to do it as a free man, with his whole will and\nheart? The reluctant slave could expect no reward; he was but\nfulfilling an obligatory, inevitable duty. The free man might,\nhowever, expect a reward; and the reward Paul chose was that he should\nhave none--none in the ordinary sense, but really the deepest and most\nabiding of all: the satisfaction of knowing that, having freely\nreceived, he had freely given, and had lifted the Gospel into a region\nquite undimmed by the suspicion of self-seeking or any mists of\nworldliness.\n\nIn declining pecuniary remuneration, Paul was acting on his general\nprinciple of making himself the servant of all and of living entirely\nand exclusively for the good of others. \"Though I be free from all\nmen, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the\nmore.\" It was from Paul that Luther derived his two propositions which\nhe uttered as the keynote of the resonant blast \"on Christian Liberty\"\nwith which he stirred all Europe into new life: \"A Christian man is\nthe most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the\nmost dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one.\" So Paul's\nindependence of all men was assumed and maintained for the very\npurpose of making himself the more effectually the servant of all. To\nthe Jew and to those under the Law he became as a Jew, observing the\nseventh day, circumcising Timothy, abstaining from blood,\naccommodating himself to all their scruples. To those who were without\nthe Law, and who had been brought up in Greece, he also conformed\nhimself, freely entering into their innocent customs, calling no meats\nunclean, appealing, not to the law of Moses, but to conscience, to\ncommon-sense, to their own poets. \"I am made all things to all men,\nthat I might by all means save some\"--a course which none but a man of\nwide sympathy and charity, clear intellect, and thorough integrity can\nadopt.\n\nFor Paul was no mere latitudinarian. While accommodating himself to\nthe practice of those around him in all matters of mere outward\nobservance, and which did not touch the essentials of morality and\nfaith, he at the same time held very definite opinions on the chief\narticles of the Christian creed. No amount of liberality of sentiment\ncan ever induce a thoughtful man to discourage the formation of\nopinion on all matters of importance. On the contrary, the only escape\nfrom mere traditionalism or the tyranny of authority in matters of\nreligion is in individual inquiry and ascertainment of the truth. Free\ninquiry is the one instrument we possess for the discovery of truth;\nand by pursuing such inquiry men may be expected to come to some\nagreement in religious belief, as in other things. No doubt\nrighteousness of life is better than soundness of creed. But is it not\npossible to have both? It is better to live in the Spirit, to be meek,\nchaste, temperate, just, loving, than to understand the relation of\nthe Spirit to God and to ourselves; but the human mind can never cease\nto seek satisfaction: and truth, the more clearly it is seen, will the\nmore effectually nourish righteousness.\n\nAgain, Paul had an end in view which preserved his liberality from\ndegenerating. He sought to recommend himself to men, not for his sake,\nbut for theirs. He saw that conscientious scruples were not to be\nconfounded with malignant hatred of truth, and that if we are to be\nhelpful to others, we must begin by appreciating the good they already\npossess. Hostile criticism or argument for the sake of victory\nproduces no results worth having. Vain exultation in the victors,\nobstinacy and bitterness in the vanquished--these are worse than\nuseless, the retrograde results of unsympathetic argument. In order to\nremove a man's difficulties, you must look at them from his point of\nview and feel the pressure he feels. \"The greatest orator save one of\nantiquity has left it on record that he always studied his adversary's\ncase with as great, if not still greater, intensity than even his\nown;\"[6] and certainly those who have not entered into the point of\nview of those who differ from them are not likely to have anything of\nimportance to say to them. In order to \"gain\" men, you must credit\nthem with some desire to see the truth, and you must have sympathy\nenough to see with their eyes. Parents sometimes weaken their\ninfluence with their children by inability to look at things with the\neyes of youth, and by an insistence upon the outward expressions of\nreligion which are distasteful to children and suitable only for\nadults. Children have a high esteem for justice and courage, and can\nrespond to exhibitions of self-sacrifice, and truth, and purity; that\nis to say, they have a capacity for admiring and adopting the\nessentials of the Christian character, but if we insist upon them\nexhibiting feelings which are alien to their nature and practices\nnecessarily distasteful and futile, we are more likely to drive them\nfrom religion than to attract them to it. Let us beware of insisting\non alterations in conduct where these are not absolutely necessary.\nLet us beware of identifying religion in the minds of the young with a\nrigid conformity in outward things, and not with an inward spirit of\nlove and goodness. Are you striving to gain some? Then let these words\nof the Apostle warn you not to seek for the wrong thing, not to begin\nat the wrong end, not to measure the hold which truth has over those\nyou seek to win, by the exactness with which all your ideas are\ncarried out and all your customs observed. Human nature is an\ninfinitely various thing, and often there is the truest regard for\nwhat is holy and Divine disguised under a violent departure from all\nordinary ways of manifesting reverence and piety. Put yourself in the\nplace of the inquiring, perplexed, embittered soul, find out the good\nthat is in it, patiently accommodate yourself to its ways so far as\nyou legitimately may, and you will be rewarded by \"gaining some.\"\n\n [6] See Mill's _Liberty_, p. 21.\n\n_NOT ALL WHO RUN WIN._\n\n \"And this I do for the Gospel's sake, that I might be partaker\n thereof with you. Know ye not that they which run in a race run\n all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And\n every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all\n things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an\n incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight\n I, not as one that beateth the air: but I keep under my body, and\n bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have\n preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.\"--1 COR. ix.\n 23-27.\n\n\n\n\nXIV.\n\n_NOT ALL WHO RUN WIN._\n\n\nIn the preceding part of this chapter Paul has proved his right to\nclaim remuneration from those to whom he preached the Gospel, and he\nhas also given his reasons for declining to urge this claim. He was\nresolved that no one should have any ground for misapprehending his\nmotive in preaching the Gospel. He was quite content to live a bare,\npoor life, not merely that he might keep himself above suspicion, but\nthat those who heard the Gospel might see it simply as the Gospel and\nnot be hindered from accepting it by any thought of the preacher's\nmotives. This was his main reason for supporting himself by his own\nlabour. But he had another reason, namely, \"that he might be himself a\npartaker of the benefits he preached\" (ver. 23). Apostle though he\nwas, he had his own salvation to work out. He was not himself saved by\nproclaiming salvation to others, no more than the baker is fed by\nmaking bread for others or the physician kept in health by prescribing\nfor others. Paul had a life of his own to lead, a duty of his own to\ndischarge, a soul of his own to save; and he recognised that what was\nlaid before him as the path to salvation was to make himself entirely\nthe servant of others. This he was resolved persistently to do, \"lest\nthat by any means, when he had preached to others, he himself should\nbe a castaway.\"\n\nPaul had evidently felt this danger to be a serious one. He had found\nhimself tempted from time to time to rest in the name and calling of\nan apostle, to take for granted that his salvation was a thing past\ndoubt and on which no more thought or effort need be expended. And he\nsaw that in a slightly altered form this temptation was common to all\nChristians. All have the name, not all the reality. And the very\npossession of the name is a temptation to forget the reality. It might\nalmost seem to be in the proportion of runners to winners in a race:\n\"All run, but one receiveth the prize.\"\n\nIn endeavouring to warn Christians against resting in a mere\nprofession of faith in Christ, he cites two great classes of instances\nwhich prove that there is often ultimate failure even where there has\nbeen considerable promise of success. First, he cites their own\nworld-renowned Isthmian games, in which contests, as they all well\nknew, not every one who entered for the prizes was successful: \"All\nrun, but one receiveth the prize.\" Paul does not mean that salvation\ngoes by competition; but he means that as in a race not all who run\nrun so as to obtain the prize for which they run, so in the Christian\nlife not all who enter it put out sufficient energy to bring them to a\nhappy issue. The mere fact of recognising that the prize is worth\nwinning and even of entering for it is not enough. And then he cites\nanother class of instances with which the Jews in the Corinthian\nChurch were familiar. \"_All_ our fathers,\" he says, \"were under the\ncloud, and _all_ passed through the sea, and _all_ were baptized unto\nMoses in the cloud and in the sea.\" All of them without exception\nenjoyed the outward privileges of God's people, and seemed to be in a\nfair way of entering the promised land; and yet the majority of them\nfell under God's displeasure, and were overthrown in the wilderness.\nTherefore \"let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.\"\n\nThe Isthmian games, then, one of the most ancient glories of Corinth,\nfurnished Paul with the readiest illustration of his theme. These\ngames, celebrated every second year, had in ancient times been one of\nthe chief means of fostering the feeling of brotherhood in the\nHellenic race. None but Greeks of pure blood who had done nothing to\nforfeit their citizenship were allowed to contend in them. They were\nthe greatest of national gatherings; and even when one State was at\nwar with another, hostilities were suspended during the celebration of\nthe games. And scarcely any greater distinction could be earned by a\nGreek citizen than victory in these games. When Paul says that the\ncontending athletes endured their severe training and underwent all\nthe privations necessary \"to obtain a corruptible crown,\" we must\nremember that while it is quite true that the wreath of pine given to\nthe victor might fade before the year was out, he was welcomed home\nwith all the honours of a victorious general, the wall of his town\nbeing thrown down that he might pass in as a conqueror, and his statue\nbeing set up by his fellow-citizens. In point of fact, the names and\ndeeds of many of the victors may yet be read in the verses of one of\nthe greatest of Greek poets, who devoted himself, as laureate of the\ngames, to the celebration of the annual victories.\n\nBut however highly we raise the value of the Greek crown, the force of\nPaul's comparison remains. The wreath of the victor in the games was\nat the best corruptible, liable to decay. No permanent, eternal\nsatisfaction could result from being victorious in a contest of\nphysical strength, activity, or skill. But for every man it is\npossible to win an incorruptible crown, that which shall always and\nfor ever be to him a joy as thrilling and a distinction as honourable\nas at the moment he received it. There is that which is worthy of the\ndetermined and sustained effort of a lifetime. Put into the one scale\nall perishable distinctions, and honours, and prizes, all that has\nstimulated men to the most strenuous endeavours, all that a grateful\nnation bestows on its heroes and benefactors, all for which men \"scorn\ndelights and live laborious days;\" and all these kick the beam when\nyou put in the other scale the incorruptible crown. The two are not\nnecessarily opposed or incompatible; but to choose the less in\npreference to the greater is to repudiate our birthright. As victory\nin the games was the actual incentive which stimulated the youth of\nGreece to attain the perfection of physical strength, beauty, and\ndevelopment, so there is laid before us an incentive which, when\nclearly apprehended, is sufficient to carry us forward to perfect\nmoral attainment. The brightest jewel in the incorruptible crown is\nthe joy of having become all God made us to become, of perfectly\nfulfilling the end of our creation, of being able to find happiness in\ngoodness, in closest fellowship with God, in promoting what Christ\nlived and died to promote. Must we say that there are men who have no\nambition to experience perfect rectitude and purity? Are we to\nconclude that there are men of so grovelling, besotted, and blind a\nspirit that when opportunity is given them to win true glory, perfect\nexpansion and growth of spirit, and perfect joy they turn away to\nsalaries and profits, to meat and drink, to frivolity and the world's\nroutine? The incorruptible crown is held over their head; but so\nintent are they on the muck-rake, they do not even see it.\n\nTo those who would win it Paul gives these directions:--\n\n1. Be temperate. \"Every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate\nin all things.\" Contentedly and without a murmur he submits himself to\nthe rules and restrictions of his ten months' training, without which\nhe may as well not compete. The little indulgences which other men\nallow themselves he must forego. Not once will he break the trainer's\nrules, for he knows that some competitors will refrain even from that\nonce and gain strength while he is losing it. He is proud of his\nlittle hardships, and fatigues, and privations, and counts it a point\nof honour scrupulously to abstain from anything which might in the\nslightest degree diminish his chance of success. He sees other men\ngiving way to appetite, resting while he is panting with exertion,\nluxuriating in the bath, enjoying life at pleasure; but he has scarce\na passing thought of envy, because his heart is set on the prize, and\nsevere training is indispensable. He knows that his chances are gone\nif in any point or on any occasion he relaxes the rigour of the\ndiscipline.\n\nThe contest in which Christians are engaged is not less, but more,\nsevere. The temperance maintained by the athlete must be outdone by\nthe Christian if he is to be successful. There are many things in\nwhich men who have no thought of the incorruptible prize may engage,\nbut from which the Christian must refrain. All that lowers the tone\nand slackens the energies must be abandoned. If the Christian indulges\nin the pleasures of life as freely as other men, if he is unconscious\nof any severity of self-restraint, if he denies himself nothing which\nothers enjoy, he proves that he has no higher aim than they and can of\ncourse win no higher prize. The temperance here enjoined, and which\nthe Christian practises, not because it is enjoined, but because a\nhigher aim truly cherished compels him to practise it, is a habitual\nsober-mindedness and detachment from what is worldly in the world. It\nis that temper of spirit and that sustained attitude towards life\nwhich enable a man to rule his own desires, to endure hardness and\nfind pleasure in so doing. No spasmodic, occasional efforts and\npartial abstinences will ever bring a man victorious to the goal. Many\na man denies himself in one direction and indulges himself in another.\nHe macerates the flesh, but pampers the spirit by vanity, ambition, or\nself-righteousness. Or he denies himself some of the pleasures of\nlife, but is more besotted by its gains than other men. Temperance to\nbe effectual must be complete. The athlete who drinks more than is\ngood for him may save himself the trouble of observing the trainer's\nrules as to what he eats. It is lost labour to develop some of his\nmuscles if he do not develop all of them. If he offends in one point,\nhe breaks the whole law.\n\nTemperance must be continuous as well as complete. One day's debauch\nwas enough to undo the result of weeks during which the athlete had\ncarefully attended to the rules prescribed. And we find that one lapse\ninto worldliness undoes what years of self-restraint have won. Always\nthe work of growth is very slow, the work of destruction very quick.\nOne indiscretion on the part of the convalescent will undo what the\ncare of months has slowly achieved. One fraud spoils the character\nfor honesty which years of upright living have earned. And this also\nis one of the great dangers of the spiritual life: that a little\ncarelessness, a brief infidelity to our high calling, or a passing\nindulgence suddenly demolishes what long and patient toil has been\nbuilding up. It is like the taking out of a pin or a ratchet that lets\nall we have gained run down to its old condition.\n\nBeware then of giving place to the world or the flesh at any point. Be\nreasonable and true. Recognise that if you are to succeed in winning\neternal life, all the spiritual energy you can command will be\nrequired. So set your heart on the attainment of things eternal that\nyou will not grudge missing much that other men enjoy and possess.\nMeasure the invitations of life by their fitness or unfitness to\ndevelop within you true spiritual energy.\n\n2. Be decided. \"I run,\" says Paul, \"not as uncertainly,\" not as a man\nwho does not know where he is going or has not made up his mind to go\nthere. To be among those who win as well as among those who run, we\nmust know where we are going, and be quite sure we mean to be there.\nWe have all some kind of idea about what God offers and calls us to.\nBut this idea must be clear if we are to make for it straight. No man\ncan run straight to a mere will-o'-the-wisp, and no man can run\nstraight who first means to go to one house or station and then\nchanges his mind and thinks he should go to another. We must count the\ncost and see clearly what we are to gain and what we must lose by\nmaking for the incorruptible prize. We must be resolved to win and\nhave no thought of defeat, of failure, of doing something better. It\nis the absence of deliberate choice and reasonable decision which\ncauses such \"uncertain\" running on the part of many who profess to be\nin the race. Their faces are as often turned from the goal as towards\nit. They are evidently not clear in their own minds that all strength\nspent in any other direction than towards the goal is wasted. They do\nnot distinctly know what they mean to be at, what they wish to make of\nlife. Paul did know. He had made up his mind not to pursue comfort,\nlearning, money, respect, position, but to seek first the kingdom of\nGod. He judged that to spread the knowledge of Christ was the best use\nto which he could put his life. He knew where he was going and to what\nall his efforts tended. Every life is unsatisfactory until its owner\nhas made up his mind what he means to do with it, until it is governed\nby a clearly conceived and firmly held aim. Then it flies like the\narrow to its mark.\n\nWhat then do the traces of our past life show? Do we see the straight\ntrack of a well-steered ship, which has deviated not a yard from its\ncourse nor wasted an ounce of power? Has every footfall been in direct\nadvance of the last, and has all expenditure of energy brought us\nnearer the ultimate goal? Or are the traces we look back on like\nground trodden by dancers, a confused medley all in one spot, or like\nthe footsteps of saunterers in a garden backwards and forwards,\naccording as this or that has attracted them? Has not the course of\nmany of us been like that of persons lost, uncertain which direction\nto pursue, eagerly starting off, but after a little slackening their\npace, stopping, looking round, and then going off in another\ndirection? For some weeks a great deal of ardour has been apparent,\nthe whole man girt up, every nerve strained, the whole attention\ndirected towards spiritual victory, arrangements made to facilitate\ncommunion with God, new methods devised for subordinating all our work\nto the one great aim, everything gone about as if now at last we had\nfound the secret of living; and then in a surprisingly short time all\nthis eagerness cools down, doubt takes the place of decision,\ndiscouragement and failure breed distrust of our methods, and we lapse\ninto contentment with easier attainments and more worldly aims. And at\nlength, after many false starts, we are ashamed to begin any arduous\nspiritual task for fear of ceasing it next week. We think that the\nsurest way to make fools of ourselves is to adopt a thorough-going\nChristian practice, so much do we count upon ourselves flagging,\nwearying, altering our course. How many times have we been rekindled\nto some true zeal, how often have we gathered up our scattered\nenergies and concentrated our efforts on the Christian life, and yet\nas often have we gone back to a dreamy, listless sauntering, as if we\nhad nothing to secure, no end to reach, no work to accomplish.\n\nAre we likely ever to reach the goal thus? Will the goal come to us,\nor how are we ever to reach it? Are we nearer to it to-day than ever\nbefore? Are not our minds yet made up that it is worth reaching, and\nthat whatever does not help us towards it must be abandoned? Let us be\nclear in our own minds as to the matters which tempt us aside from the\nstraight path to the goal and are incompatible with progress; and let\nus determine whether these things are to prevail with us or not.\n\n3. Be in earnest. \"So fight I, not as one that beateth the air,\" not\nas one amusing himself with idle flourishes, but as one who has a\nreal enemy to encounter. What a blush does this raise on the cheek of\nevery Christian who knows himself! How much of this mere parade and\nsham-fighting is there in the Christian army! We learn the art of war\nand the use of our weapons as if we were forthwith to use them in the\nfield; we act over and learn many varieties of offensive and defensive\nmovements, and know the rules by which spiritual foes may be subdued;\nwe read books which direct us about personal religion, and delight in\nthose which most skilfully lay open our weaknesses and show us how we\nmay overcome them. But all this is mere fencing-school work; it kills\nno enemy. It is but a species of accomplishment like that of those who\nlearn the use of the sword, not because they mean to use it in battle,\nbut that they may have a more elegant carriage. A great part of our\nspiritual strength is spent in mere parade. It is not meant to have\nany serious effect. It is not directed against anything in particular.\nWe seem to be doing everything that a good soldier of Jesus Christ\nneed do save the one thing: we slay no enemy. We leave no foe\nstone-dead on the field. We are well trained: no one can deny it; we\ncould instruct others how to conquer sin; we spend much time, and\nthought, and feeling on exercises which are calculated to make an\nimpression on sin; and yet is it not almost entirely a beating the\nair? Where are our slain foes? This apparent eagerness to be holy,\nthis professed devotedness to the cause of Christ--are they not mere\nflourish? We do not mean to strike our enemies; we for the most part\nonly wish to make ourselves believe we are striking them and are\nzealous and faithful soldiers of Christ.\n\nEven where there is some reality in the contest we may still be\nbeating the air. We may be able to say that we have apprehended the\nreality of the moral warfare to which every man is called in this\nlife. We may be able honestly to say that if our sins are not slain,\nit is neither because we have not recognised them, nor because we have\naimed no blows at them. We have made serious and honest efforts to\ndestroy sin, and yet our blows seem to fall short; and sin stands\nbefore us vigorous and lively, and as ready as ever to give us a fall.\nMany persons who level blows at their sins do not after all strike\nthem. Spiritual energy is put forth; but it is not brought fully,\nfairly, and firmly into contact with the sin to be destroyed. In most\nChristian people there is a great expenditure of thought and of\nfeeling about sin; their spirit is probably more exercised about their\nsins than about anything else: and a great deal of spiritual life is\nexpended in the shape of shame, compunction, penitence, resolve,\nself-restraint, watchfulness, prayer. All this, were it brought\ndirectly to bear on some definite object, would produce great effect;\nbut in many cases no good whatever seems to result.\n\nPaul's language suggests that possibly the reason may be that there\nremains in the heart some reluctance quite to kill and put an end to\nsin, to beat all the life out of it. It is like a father fighting with\nhis son: he wishes to defend himself and disarm his son, but not to\nkill him. We may be willing or even intensely anxious to escape the\nblows sin aims at us; we may be desirous to wound, hamper, and limit\nour sin, and keep it under control; we may wish to tame the wild\nanimal and domesticate it, so as to make it yield some pleasure and\nprofit, and yet be reluctant to slay it outright. The soul and life of\nevery sin is some lust of our own; and while quite anxious to put an\nend to some of the evils this lust produces in our life, we may not be\nprepared to extinguish the lust itself. We pray God, for example, to\npreserve us from the evils of praise or of success; and yet we\ncontinue to court praise and success. We are unable to sacrifice the\npleasure for the sake of the safety. Therefore our warfare against sin\nbecomes unreal. Our blows are not delivered home, but beat the air.\nUnconsciously we cherish the evil desire within us which is the soul\nof the sin, and seek to destroy only some of its manifestations.\n\nThe result of such unreal contest is detrimental. Sin is like\nsomething floating in the air or the water: the very effort we make to\ngrasp and crush it displaces it, and it floats mockingly before us\nuntouched. Or it is like an agile antagonist who springs back from our\nblow, so that the force we have expended merely racks and strains our\nown sinews and does him no injury. So when we spend much effort in\nconquering sin and find it as lively as ever, the spirit is strained\nand hurt by putting out force on nothing. It is less able than before\nto resist sin, less believing, less hopeful, inwardly ill at ease and\ndistracted. It becomes confused and disheartened, disbelieves in\nitself, and scoffs at fresh resolves and endeavours.\n\nFinally, Paul tells us what that enemy was against which he directed\nhis well-aimed, firmly planted blows. It was his own body. Every man's\nbody is his enemy when, instead of being his servant, it becomes his\nmaster. The proper function of the body is to serve the will, to bring\nthe inner man into contact with the outer world and enable him to\ninfluence it. When the body mutinies and refuses to obey the will,\nwhen it usurps authority and compels the man to do its bidding, it\nbecomes his most dangerous enemy. When Paul's body presumed to dictate\nto his spirit, and demanded comforts and indulgences, and shrank from\nhardship, he beat it down. The word he uses is an exceptionally strong\none: \"I keep under;\" it is a technical term of the games, and means to\nstrike full in the face. It was the word used of the most damaging\nblow one boxer could give another. This unmerciful, overpowering blow\nPaul dealt to his body, resisting its assaults and making it helpless\nto tempt him. He thus brought it into subjection, made it his slave,\nas the winner in some of the games had a right to carry the vanquished\ninto slavery.\n\nIt was probably by sheer strength of will and by the grace of Christ\nthat Paul subdued his body. Many in all ages have striven to subdue it\nby fasting, by scourging, by wakefulness; and of these practices we\nhave no right to speak scornfully until we can say that by other means\nwe have reduced the body to its proper position as the servant of the\nspirit. Can we say that our body is brought into subjection; that it\ndare not curtail our devotions on the plea of weariness; that it dare\nnot demand a dispensation from duty on the score of some slight bodily\ndisturbance; that it never persuades us to neglect any duty on the\nscore of its unpleasantness to the flesh; that it never prompts us to\nundue anxiety either about what we shall eat or drink or wherewithal\nwe shall be clothed; that it never quite treads the spirit under foot\nand defiles it with wicked imaginings? There is a fair and reasonable\ndegree in which a man may and ought to cherish his own flesh, but\nthere is also needful a disregard to many of its claims and a\nhardhearted obduracy to its complaints. In an age when Spartan\nsimplicity of life is almost unknown, it is very easy to sow to the\nflesh almost without knowing it until we find ourselves reaping\ncorruption.\n\nProbably nothing more effectually slackens our efforts in the\nspiritual life than the sense of unreality which haunts us as we deal\nwith God and the unseen. With the boxer in the games it was grim\nearnest. He did not need any one to tell him that his life depended on\nhis ability to defend himself against his trained antagonist. Every\nfaculty must be on the alert. No dreamer has here a chance. What we\nneed is something of the same sense of reality, that it is a\nlife-and-death contest we are engaged in, and that he that treats sin\nas a weak or pretended antagonist will shortly be dragged a mangled\ndisgrace out of the arena.\n\n_FALLACIOUS PRESUMPTIONS._\n\n \"Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how\n that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through\n the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the\n sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink\n the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock\n that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of\n them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the\n wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we\n should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither\n be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written. The\n people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither\n let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in\n one day three-and-twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ,\n as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.\n Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were\n destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto\n them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon\n whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that\n thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. There hath no\n temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is\n faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are\n able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape,\n that ye may be able to bear it. Wherefore, my dearly beloved,\n flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.\n The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of\n the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the\n communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread,\n and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold\n Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices\n partakers of the altar? What say I then? that the idol is\n anything, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is\n anything? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles\n sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would\n not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink\n the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be\n partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. Do we\n provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than He?\"--1 COR.\n x. 1-22.\n\n\n\n\nXV.\n\n_FALLACIOUS PRESUMPTIONS._\n\n\nIn discussing the question regarding \"things offered unto idols,\" Paul\nis led to treat at large of Christian liberty, a subject to which he\nwas always drawn. And partly to encourage the Christians of Corinth to\nconsider their weak and prejudiced brethren, partly for other reasons,\nhe reminds them how he himself abridged his liberty and departed from\nhis just claims in order that the Gospel he preached might find\nreadier acceptance. Besides, not only for the sake of the Gospel and\nof other men, but for his own sake also, he must practise self-denial.\nIt would profit him nothing to have been an apostle unless he\npractised what he preached. He had felt that in considering the\nspiritual condition of other men and trying to advance it he was apt\nto forget his own; and he saw that all men were more or less liable to\nthe same temptation, and were apt to rest in the fact that they were\nChristians and to shrink from the arduous life which gives that name\nits meaning. By means of two illustrations Paul fixes this idea in\ntheir minds, first pointing them to their own games, in which they saw\nthat not all who entered for the race obtained the prize, and then\npointing them to the history of Israel, in which they might plainly\nread that not all who began the journey to the promised land found\nentrance into it.\n\nThe Israelites of the Exodus are here introduced as exemplifying a\ncommon experience. They accepted the position of God's people, but\nfailed in its duties. They perceived the advantages of being God's\nsubjects, but shrank from much which this implied. They were willing\nto be delivered from bondage, but found themselves overweighted by the\nresponsibilities and risks of a free life. They were in contact with\nthe highest advantages men need possess, and yet failed to use them.\n\nThe amount of conviction which prompts us to form a connection with\nChrist may be insufficient to stimulate us to do and endure all that\nresults from that connection. The children of Israel were all baptized\nunto Moses, but they did not implement their baptism by a persistent\nand faithful adherence to him. They were baptized unto Moses by their\nacceptance of his leadership in the Exodus. By passing through the Red\nSea at his command they definitely renounced Pharaoh and abandoned\ntheir old life, and as definitely pledged and committed themselves to\nthrow in their lot with Moses. By passing the Egyptian frontier and\nfollowing the guidance of the pillar of cloud they professed their\nwillingness to exchange a life of bondage, with its security and\noccasional luxuries, for a life of freedom, with its hazards and\nhardships; and by that passage of the Red Sea they were as certainly\nsworn to support and obey Moses as ever was Roman soldier who took the\noath to serve his emperor. When, at Brederode's invitation, the\npatriots of Holland put on the beggar's wallet and tasted wine from\nthe beggar's bowl, they were baptized unto William of Orange and their\ncountry's cause. When the sailors on board the _Swan_ weighed anchor\nand beat out of Plymouth they were baptized unto Drake and pledged to\nfollow him and fight for him to the death. Baptism means much; but if\nit means anything, it means that we commit and pledge ourselves to the\nlife we are called to by Him in whose name we are baptized. It draws a\nline across the life, and proclaims that to whomsoever in time past we\nhave been bound, and for whatsoever we have lived, we now are pledged\nto this new Lord, and are to live in His service. Such a pledge was\ngiven by every Israelite who turned his back on Egypt and passed\nthrough that sea which was the defence of Israel and destruction to\nthe enemy. The crossing was at once actual deliverance from the old\nlife and irrevocable committal to the new. They died to Pharaoh, and\nwere born again to Moses. They were baptized unto Moses.\n\nAnd as the Israelites had thus a baptism analogous to the one\nChristian sacrament, so had they a spiritual food and drink in the\nwilderness which formed a sacrament analogous to the Christian\ncommunion. They were not shut out of Egypt, and imprisoned in the\ndesert, and left to do the best they could on their own resources. If\nthey failed to march steadily forward and fulfil their destiny as the\nemancipated people of God, this failure was not due to any neglect on\nGod's part. The fare might be somewhat Spartan, but a sufficiency was\nalways provided. He who had encouraged them to enter on this new life\nwas prepared to uphold them in it and carry them through.\n\nOne of the expressions used by Paul in describing the sustenance of\nthe Israelites has given rise to some discussion. \"They did all\ndrink,\" he says, \"the same spiritual drink, for they drank of that\nspiritual Rock that followed them; and that Rock was Christ.\" Now\nthere happened to be a Jewish tradition which gave out that the rock\nsmitten by Moses was a detached block or boulder, \"globular, like a\nbeehive,\" which rolled after the camp in its line of march, and was\nalways at hand, with its unfailing water-supply. This is altogether\ntoo grotesque an idea. The fact is that the Israelites did not die of\nthirst in the wilderness. It was quite likely they should; and but for\nthe providential supply of water, so large a company could not have\nbeen sustained. And no doubt not only in the rock at Rephidim at the\nbeginning of their journey and the rock of Kadesh at its close, but in\nmany most unlikely places during the intervening years, water was\nfound. So that in looking back on the entire journey it might very\nnaturally be said that the rock had followed them, not meaning that\nwherever they went they had the same source to draw from, but that\nthroughout their journeyings they were supplied with water in places\nand ways as unexpected and unlikely.\n\nPaul's point is that in the wilderness the food and drink of the\nIsraelites were \"spiritual,\" or, as we should more naturally say,\nsacramental; that is to say, their sustenance continually spoke to\nthem of God's nearness and reminded them that they were His people.\nAnd as Christ Himself, when He lifted the bread at the Last Supper,\nsaid, \"This is My body,\" so does Paul use analogous language and say,\n\"That Rock was Christ,\" an expression which gives us considerable\ninsight into the significance of the Israelitish types of Christ, and\nhelps to rid our minds of some erroneous impressions we are apt to\ncherish regarding them.\n\nThe manna and the water from the rock were given to sustain the\nIsraelites and carry them towards their promised land, but they were\nso given as to quicken faith in God. To every Israelite his daily\nnourishment might reasonably be called spiritual, because it reminded\nhim that God was with him in the wilderness, and prompted him to think\nof that purpose and destiny for the sake of which God was sustaining\nthe people. To the devout among them their daily food became a means\nof grace, deepening their faith in the unseen God and rooting their\nlife in a true dependence upon Him. The manna and the water from the\nrock were sacramental, because they were continuous signs and seals of\nGod's favour and redeeming efficiency and promise. They were types of\nChrist, serving for Israel in the wilderness the purpose which Christ\nserves for us, enabling them to believe in a heavenly Father who cared\nfor them and accomplishing the same spiritual union with the unseen\nGod which Christ accomplishes for us.\n\nIt was in this sense that Paul could say that the rock was Christ. The\nIsraelites in the wilderness did not know that the rock was a type of\nChrist. They did not, as they drank of the water, think of One who was\nto come and satisfy the whole thirst of men. The types of Christ in\nthe old times did not enable men to forecast the future; it was not\nthrough the future they exercised an influence for good on the mind.\nThey worked by exciting there and then in the Jewish mind the same\nfaith in God which Christ excites in our mind. It was not knowledge\nthat saved the Jew, but faith, attachment to the living God. It was\nnot the fragmentary and disjointed picture of a Redeemer thrown on the\nscreen of his hopes by the types, nor was it any thought of a future\nDeliverer, which saved him, but his belief in God as his Redeemer\nthere and then. This belief was quickened by the various institutions,\nprovidences, and objects by which God convinced the Jews that He was\ntheir Friend and Lord. Sacrifice they accepted as an institution of\nGod's appointment intended to encourage them to believe in the\nforgiveness of sin and in God's favour; and without any thought of the\nrealized ideal of sacrifice in Christ, the believing and devout\nIsraelite entered through sacrifice into fellowship with God. Every\nsacrifice was a type of Christ; it did foreshadow that which was to\nbe: but it was a type, not because it revealed Christ to those who saw\nor offered it, but because for the time being it served the same\npurpose as Christ now serves, enabling men to believe in the\nforgiveness of sins.\n\nBut while in the mind of the Israelite there was no connection of the\ntype with the Christ that was to come, there was in reality a\nconnection between them. The redemption of men is one whether\naccomplished in the days of the Exodus or in our own time. The idea or\nplan of salvation is one, resting always on the same reasons and\nprinciples. The Israelites were pardoned in view of the incarnation\nand atonement of Christ just as we are. If it was needful for our\nsalvation that Christ should come and live and suffer in human nature,\nit was also needful for their salvation. The Lamb was slain \"from the\nfoundation of the world,\" and the virtue of the sacrifice of Calvary\nwas efficacious for those who lived before as well as for those who\nlived after it. To the mind of God it was present, and in His purpose\nit was determined, from the beginning; and it is in view of Christ's\nincarnation and work that sinners early or late have been restored to\nGod. So that everything by which God instructed men and taught them\nto believe in His mercy and holiness was connected with Christ. It was\nto Christ it owed its existence, and really it was a shadow of the\ncoming substance. And as the shadow is named from the substance, it\nmay truly be said, \"That Rock was Christ.\"\n\nThese outward blessings then of which St. Paul here speaks had very\nmuch the same nature as the Christian sacraments to which he tacitly\ncompares them. They were intended to convey greater gifts and be the\nchannels of a grace more valuable than themselves. But to most of the\nIsraelites they remained mere manna and water, and brought no firmer\nassurance of God's presence, no more fruitful acceptance of God's\npurpose. The majority took the husk and threw away the kernel; were so\ndelayed by the wrappings that they forgot to examine the gift they\nenclosed; accepted the physical nourishment, but rejected the\nspiritual strength it contained. Instead of learning from their\nwilderness experience the sufficiency of Jehovah and gathering courage\nto fulfil His purpose with them, they began to murmur and lust after\nevil things, and were destroyed by the destroyer. They had been\nbaptized unto Moses, pledging themselves to his leadership and\ncommitting themselves to the new life he opened to them; they had been\nsustained by manna and water from the rock, which plainly told them\nthat all nature would work for them if they pressed forward to their\nGod-appointed destiny: but the most of them shrank from the hardships\nand hazards of the way, and could not lift their heart to the glory of\nbeing led by God and used to fulfil His greatest purposes.\n\nAnd so, says Paul, it may be with you. It is possible that you may\nhave been baptized and may have professedly committed yourself to the\nChristian career, it is possible you may have partaken of that bread\nand wine which convey undying life and energy to believing recipients,\nand may yet have failed to use these as spiritual food, enabling you\nto fulfil all the duties of the life you are pledged to. Had it been\nenough merely to show a readiness to enter on the more arduous life,\nthen all Israel would have been saved, for \"all\" without exception\npassed through the Red Sea and committed themselves to life under\nGod's leadership. Had it been enough outwardly to participate in that\nwhich actually links men to God, then all Israel would have been\ninspired by God's Spirit and strength, for \"all\" without exception\npartook of the spiritual food and the spiritual drink. But the\ndisastrous and undeniable result was that the great mass of the people\nwere overthrown in the wilderness and did never set foot in the land\nof promise. And men have not yet outlived this same danger of\ncommitting themselves to a life they find too hard and full of risk.\nThey see the advantages of a Christian career, and connect themselves\nwith the Christian Church; they instinctively perceive that it is\nthere God is most fully known, and that the purposes of God are there\nconcentrated and running on to direct and perfect results; they are\ndrawn by their better self to throw in their lot with the Church, to\nforget competing advantages, and spend themselves wholly on what is\nbest: and yet the difficulty of standing alone and acting on\nindividual conviction rather than on current understandings, the\nwearing depression of personal failure and insufficiency for high and\nspiritual attainment, the distraction of the haunting doubt that after\nall they are making sacrifices and suffering privations which are\nfruitless, unwise, unnecessary, gradually betray the spirit into\nvirtual renunciation of all Christian hopes and into a practical\nwillingness to return to the old life. And thus as the wilderness came\nto be spotted all over with the burial-places of those who had left\nthe Red Sea behind them with shouts of triumph and with hopes that\nbroke out in song and dancing, as the route of that once jubilant host\nmight at last have been traced, as the great slave-routes of Africa\nare traceable, by the bones of men and the skeletons of children, so,\nalas! might the Church's march through the centuries be recognised by\nthe far more horrifying remains of those who once, with liveliest hope\nand unbroken sense of security, joined themselves to the people of\nChrist, but silently lost hold of the hope that once drew them on and\neither stole away on private enterprises of their own and were\ndestroyed of the destroyer, or withered in helpless imbecility,\nmurmuring at their lot and stone-blind to its glory. As the retreat of\nNapoleon's \"grand army\" from Moscow was marked by corpses wearing the\nFrench uniform, but bringing neither strength nor lustre to their\ncause, so must shame be reflected on the Church by the countless\nnumbers of those who can be identified with Christ's cause only by the\nuniform they wear, and not by any victories they have won. There were\nin the wilderness districts through which no Israelite would willingly\npass, districts in which many thousands had fallen, and which were\nbranded as vast \"graves of lust,\" places whose very name stirred a\ndeeper horror and raised a quicker blush on the Israelite's cheek than\nis raised on the Englishman's by the mention of Majuba Hill or\nBraddon's defeat. And the Church's territory also is spotted with\nthose vast charnel-houses and places of defeat where even her mighty\nhave fallen, where the earth refuses to cover the disgrace and blot\nout the stain. These are not things of the past. While women and\nchildren are starved though they toil all day and half the night, with\neagerest energy and the skill necessity gives; while life is to so\nmany thousands in our land a joyless and hopeless misery; while trade\nnot only panders to covetousness and selfishness, but directly\ncontributes to what is immoral and destructive, we can scarcely speak\nof the \"glorious marching\" of the Church of Christ. We have our places\nof horror, which no right-hearted Christian can think of without a\nshudder.\n\nBut while the distinction between the life we naturally seek and that\nto which God calls us is felt by all from age to age, the forms in\nwhich this distinction makes itself felt vary as the world grows\nolder. To all men living in a world of sense it is difficult to live\nby faith in the unseen. To every man it is the ultimate, severest test\nof character to determine for what ends he will live and to carry out\nthis determination; but the temptations which avail to draw men aside\nfrom their reasonable decision are various as the men themselves. Paul\nnames the temptations to which the Corinthians, in common with the\nIsraelites, were exposed: idolatry, fornication, murmuring, tempting\nChrist. He saw clearly how difficult it was for the Corinthians to\ndiscard all heathen customs, how much of what had been brightest in\ntheir life they must sacrifice if they were to renounce absolutely the\nreligion of their parents and friends and all the joyous, if\nlicentious, customs associated with that religion. Apparently some of\nthem thought they might pass from the Christian communion to the\nheathen temple, and after partaking of Christ's sacrament eat and\ndrink in the idolatrous festival, entering into the entire service.\nThey seemed to think that they might be both Christians and pagans.\n\nAgainst this vain attempt to combine the incompatible Paul warns them.\nDo not tempt Christ, he says, by experimenting how far He will bear\nwith your conformity to idolatry. Some of the Israelites did so, and\nwere destroyed by serpents. Do not murmur that you are hereby severed\nfrom all the enjoyments of life, dissociated from your heathen\nfriends, blackballed in society and in business, excluded from all\nnational festivals and from many private entertainments; do not count\nup your losses, but your gains. Your temptations are severe, but\n\"there hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man.\"\nEvery man must make up his mind to a certain kind of life and go\nthrough with it. No man can unite in his own life all advantages. He\nmust deliberate and choose; and having made his choice, he must not\nlament what he loses or be tempted from striving to gain what he\njudges best by weakly and greedily craving for the second-best also.\nHe may win the first prize; he may win the second: he cannot win both,\nand if he tries, he will win neither.\n\nThe practical outcome of all that Paul has thus rapidly passed in\nreview he utters in the haunting words, \"Let him that thinketh he\nstandeth take heed lest he fall.\" In this life we are never beyond the\nreach of temptation. And these temptations to which all of us are\nexposed are real; they do sufficiently test character and show what it\nactually is. Our suppositions regarding ourselves are often untrue.\nThere is no reality corresponding. Our state is actually not such as\nwe conceive it to be. We are at ease and complacent when we ought not\nto be at ease. We think we stand secure when we are on the point of\nfalling. We live as if we had reached the goal when the whole journey\nis yet before us. Our future may be very different from what we wish\nor expect. Mere satisfaction with our present condition is a very\ninsecure foundation on which to build our hope for the future. Mere\nreliance on a profession we have made, or on the fact that we are\nwithin reach of means of grace, tends only to slacken our energies.\nHeedlessness, taking things for granted, failure to sift matters\nthoroughly out, an indolent unwillingness to probe our spiritual\ncondition to the quick--this is what has betrayed multitudes of\nChristians. \"Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed\nlest he fall.\"\n\nIf determined wickedness has slain its thousands, heedlessness has\nslain its tens of thousands. Through lack of watchfulness men fall\ninto sin which entangles them for life and thwarts their best\npurposes. Through want of watchfulness men go on in sin which\nexceedingly provokes God, till at last His hand falls heavily upon\nthem. Every man is apt to lay too much stress on the circumstance that\nhe has joined himself to the number of those who own the leadership of\nChrist. The question remains, How far has he gone with his Leader?\nMany an Israelite compassionated the poor heathen whom he left behind\nin the land of Egypt, and yet found that, with all his own apparent\nnearness to God, his heart was heathen still. Whoever takes it for\ngranted that things are well with him, whoever \"thinketh he\nstandeth\"--he is the man who has especial and urgent need to \"take\nheed lest he fall.\"\n\n_THE VEIL._\n\n \"Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise\n you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the\n ordinances, as I delivered them to you. But I would have you\n know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the\n woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man\n praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his\n head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head\n uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if\n she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be\n shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven,\n let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head,\n forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is\n the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the\n woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but\n the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have\n power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is\n the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in\n the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also\n by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it\n comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature\n itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame\n unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her:\n for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to\n be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of\n God.\"--1 COR. xi. 1-16.\n\n\n\n\nXVI.\n\n_THE VEIL._\n\n\nAt this point of the Epistle Paul passes from the topics regarding\nwhich the Corinthians had requested him to inform them, to make some\nremarks on the manner in which, as he had heard, they were conducting\ntheir meetings for public worship. The next four chapters are occupied\nwith instructions as to what constitutes seemliness and propriety in\nsuch meetings. He desires to express in general his satisfaction that\non the whole they had adhered to the instructions he had already given\nthem and the arrangements he had himself made while in Corinth. \"I\npraise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the\nordinances, as I delivered them to you.\" Yet there are one or two\nmatters which cannot be spoken of in terms of commendation. He heard,\nin the first place, with surprise and vexation, that not only were\nwomen presuming to pray in public and address the assembled\nChristians, but even laid aside while they did so the characteristic\ndress of their sex, and spoke, to the scandal of all sober-minded\nOrientals and Greeks, unveiled. To reform this abuse he at once\naddresses himself. It is a singular specimen of the strange matters\nthat must have come before Paul for decision when the care of all the\nChurches lay upon him. And his settlement of it is an admirable\nillustration of his manner of resolving all practical difficulties by\nmeans of principles which are as true and as useful for us to-day as\nthey were for those primitive Christians who had heard his own voice\nadmonishing them. In treating ethical or practical subjects, Paul is\nnever superficial, never content with a mere rule.\n\nIn order to see the import and importance of this matter of dress, we\nmust first of all know how it came to pass that the Christian women\nshould have thought of making a demonstration so unfeminine as to\nshock the very heathen around them. What was their intention or\nmeaning in doing so? What idea was possessing their minds? Throughout\nthis long and interesting letter, Paul is doing little else than\nendeavouring to correct the hasty impressions which these new\nbelievers were receiving regarding their position as Christians. A\ngreat flood of new and vast ideas was suddenly poured in upon their\nminds; they were taught to look differently on themselves, differently\non their neighbours, differently on God, differently on all things.\nOld things had in their case passed away with a will, and all things\nhad become new. They were made alive from the dead, they were born\nagain, and did not know how far this affected the relationships with\nthis world into which their natural birth had brought them. The facts\nof the second birth and the new life took such hold upon them, that\nthey could not for a time understand how they were yet connected with\nthe old life. So that for some of them Paul had to solve the simplest\nproblems, as, for example, we find that the believing husband was in\ndoubt whether he should live with his wife who remained an unbeliever,\nfor was it not abhorrent to nature that he, the living, should be\nbound to the dead, that a child of God should remain in the most\nintimate connection with one who was yet a child of wrath? Was this\nnot a monstrous anomaly, for which prompt divorce was the fit remedy?\nThat such questions as these should be put shows us how difficult\nthese early Christians found it to adjust themselves as children of\nGod to their position in a corrupt condemned world.\n\nNow one of the ideas in Christianity which was newest to them was the\nequality of all before God, an idea well calculated to take powerful\nand absorbing hold of a world half slaves, half masters. The emperor\nand the slave must equally give account to God. C\u00e6sar is not above\nresponsibility; the barbarian who swells his triumph and is afterwards\nslaughtered in his dungeon or his theatre is not beneath it. Each man\nand each woman must stand alone before God, and for himself and\nherself give account of the life received from God. Alongside of this\nidea came that of the one Saviour for all alike, the common salvation\naccessible to all on equal terms, and partaking of which all became\nbrethren and on a level, one with Christ and one therefore with each\nother. There was neither Greek nor barbarian, male nor female, bond\nnor free, now. These three mighty distinctions that had tyrannized\nover the ancient world were abolished, for all were one in Christ\nJesus. It dawned on the barbarian that though there was no Roman\ncitizenship for him nor any entrance into the mighty commonwealth of\nGreek literature, he had a citizenship in heaven, was the heir of God,\nand could command even with his barbaric speech the ear of the Most\nHigh. It dawned on the slave as his fetter galled him, or as his soul\nsank under the sad hopelessness of his life, that he was God's\nredeemed, rescued from the bondage of his own evil heart, and\nsuperior to all curse, being God's friend. And it dawned on the woman\nthat she was neither man's toy nor man's slave, a mere luxury or\nappendage to his establishment, but that she also had herself a soul,\na responsibility equally momentous with the man's, and therefore a\nlife to frame for herself. The astonishment with which such ideas must\nhave been received, so subversive of the principles on which heathen\nsociety was proceeding, it is impossible now to realize; but we cannot\nwonder that they should by their fresh power and absorbing novelty\nhave carried the Christians to quite the opposite extremes from those\nat which they had been living.\n\nIn the case before us the women who had been awakened to a sense of\ntheir own personal, individual responsibility and their equal right to\nthe highest privileges of men began to think that in all things they\nshould be recognised as the equals of the other sex. They were one\nwith Christ; men could have no higher honour: was it not obvious that\nthey were on an equality with those who had held them so cheap? They\nhad the Holy Ghost dwelling in them; might not they, as well as the\nmen, edify Christian assemblies by uttering the inspirations of the\nSpirit? They were not dependent on men for their Christian privileges;\nought not they to show this by laying aside the veil, which was the\nacknowledged badge of dependence? This laying aside of the veil was\nnot a mere change of fashion in dress, of which, of course, Paul would\nhave had nothing to say; it was not a feminine device for showing\nthemselves to better advantage among their fellow-worshippers; it was\nnot even, though this also, also! falls within the range of possible\nsupposition, the immodest boldness and forwardness which are\nsometimes seen to accompany in both sexes the profession of\nChristianity; but it was the outward expression and easily read symbol\nof a great movement on the part of women in assertion of their rights\nand independence.\n\nThe exact meaning of the laying aside of the veil thus becomes plain.\nIt was the part of female attire which could most readily be made the\nsymbol of a change in the views of women regarding their own position.\nIt was the most significant part of the woman's dress. Among the\nGreeks it was the universal custom for the women to appear in public\nwith the head covered, commonly with the corner of their shawl drawn\nover their head like a hood. Accordingly Paul does not insist on the\nface being covered, as in Eastern countries, but only the head. This\ncovering of the head could be dispensed with only in places where they\nwere secluded from public view. It was therefore the recognised badge\nof seclusion; it was the badge which proclaimed that she who wore it\nwas a private, not a public, person, finding her duties at home, not\nabroad, in one household, not in the city. And a woman's whole life\nand duties ought to lie so much apart from the public eye, that both\nsexes looked upon the veil as the truest and most treasured emblem of\nwoman's position. In this seclusion there was of course implied a\nlimitation of woman's sphere of action and a subordination to one\nman's interests instead of to the public. It was the man's place to\nserve the State or the public, the woman's place to serve the man. And\nso thoroughly was it recognised that the veil was a badge setting\nforth this private and subordinate position of the woman, that it was\nthe one significant rite in marriage that she assumed the veil in\ntoken that now her husband was her head, to whom she was prepared to\nhold herself subordinate. The laying aside the veil was therefore an\nexpression on the part of the Christian women that their being assumed\nas members of Christ's body raised them out of this position of\ndependence and subordination.\n\nThis movement of the Corinthian women towards independence, on the\nground that all are one in Christ Jesus, Paul meets by reminding them\nthat personal equality is perfectly consistent with social\nsubordination. It was quite true, as Paul himself had taught them,\nthat, so far as their connection with Christ went, there was no\ndistinction of sex. To the woman, as to the man, the offer of\nsalvation was made directly. It was not through her father or her\nhusband that the woman had to deal with Christ. She came into contact\nwith the living God and united herself to Christ independently of any\nmale representative and on the same footing as her male relatives.\nThere is but one Christ for all, rich and poor, high and low, male and\nfemale; and all are received by Him on the same footing, no\ndistinction being made. While then in things civil and social the\nhusband represents the wife, he cannot do so in matters of religion.\nHere each person must act for himself or herself. And the woman must\nnot confound these two spheres in which she moves, or argue that\nbecause she is independent of her husband in the greater, she must\nalso be independent of him in the less. Equality in the one sphere is\nnot inconsistent with subordination in the other. \"I would have you\nknow, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman\nis the man; and the head of Christ is God.\"\n\nThe principle enounced in these words is of incalculable importance\nand very wide and constant application. Whatever is meant by the\nnatural equality of men, it cannot mean that all are to be in every\nrespect on the same level, and that none are to have authority over\nothers. The application of Paul's principle to the matter in hand\nalone here concerns us. The woman must recognise that as Christ,\nthough equal with the Father, is subordinate to Him, so is she herself\nsubordinate to her husband or her father. In her private worship she\ndeals with Christ independently; but when she appears in public and\nsocial worship, she appears as a woman with certain social relations.\nHer relation to Christ does not dissolve her relations to society.\nRather does it intensify them. The inward change that has passed upon\nher and the new relation which she has formed independently of her\nhusband only strengthen the bond by which she is tied to him. When a\nboy becomes a Christian, that confirms, and in no degree relaxes, his\nsubordination to his parents. He holds a relation to Christ which they\ncould not form for him, and which they cannot dissolve; but this\nindependence in one matter does not make him independent in\neverything. A commissioned officer in the army holds his commission\nfrom the Crown; but this does not interfere with, but only confirms,\nhis subordination to officers who, like himself, are servants of the\nCrown, but above him in rank. In order to the harmony of society,\nthere is a gradation of ranks; and social grievances result, not from\nthe existence of social distinctions, but from their abuse.\n\nThis gradation then involves Paul's inference that \"every man praying\nor prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But\nevery woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered\ndishonoureth her head.\" The veil being the recognised badge of\nsubordination, when a man appears veiled he would seem to acknowledge\nsome one present and visible as his head, and would thus dishonour\nChrist, his true Head. A woman, on the other hand, appearing unveiled\nwould seem to say that she acknowledges no visible human head, and\nthereby dishonours her head--that is, her husband--and so doing,\ndishonours herself. For a woman to appear unveiled on the streets of\nCorinth was to proclaim her shame. And so, says Paul, a woman who in\npublic worship discards her veil might as well be shaven. She puts\nherself on the level of the woman with a shaven head, which both among\nJews and Greeks was a brand of disgrace. In the eye of the angels,\nwho, according to the Jewish belief, were present in meetings for\nworship, the woman is disgraced who does not appear with \"power on her\nhead;\" that is to say, with the veil by which she silently\nacknowledges the authority of her husband.\n\nThis subordination of the woman to the man belongs not merely to the\norder of the Christian Church, but has its roots in nature. \"Man is\nthe image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.\"\nPaul's idea is that man was created to represent God and so to glorify\nHim, to be a visible embodiment of the goodness, and wisdom, and power\nof the unseen God. Nowhere so clearly or fully as in man can God be\nseen. Man is the glory of God because he is His image and is fitted to\nexhibit in actual life the excellencies which make God worthy of our\nlove and worship. Looking at man as he actually and broadly is, we may\nthink it a bold saying of Paul when he says, \"Man is the glory of\nGod;\" and yet on consideration we see that this is no more than the\ntruth. We should not scruple to say of the Man Christ Jesus that He\nis the glory of God, that in the whole universe of God nothing can\nmore fully reveal the infinite Divine goodness. In Him we see how\ntruly man is God's image, and how fit a medium human nature is for\nexpressing the Divine. We know of nothing higher than what Christ\nsaid, did, and was during the few months He went about among men. He\nis the glory of God; and every man in his degree, and according to his\nfidelity to Christ, is also the glory of God.\n\nThis is of course true of woman as well as of man. It is true that\nwoman can exhibit the nature of God and be His glory as well as man.\nBut Paul is placing himself at the point of view of the writer of\nGenesis and speaking broadly of God's purpose in creation. And he\nmeans that God's purpose was to express Himself fully and crown all\nHis works by bringing into being a creature made in His image, able to\nsubdue, and rule, and develop all that is in the world. This creature\nwas man, a masculine, resolved, capable creature. And just as it\nappeals to our sense of fitness that when God became incarnate He\nshould appear as man, and not as woman, so does it appeal to our sense\nof fitness that it is man, and not woman, who should be thought of as\ncreated to be God's representative on earth. But while man directly,\nwoman indirectly, fulfils this purpose of God. She is God's glory by\nbeing man's glory. She serves God by serving man. She exhibits God's\nexcellencies by creating and cherishing excellence in man. Without\nwoman man cannot accomplish aught. The woman is created for the man,\nbecause without her he is helpless. \"For as the woman is of the man,\neven so is the man also by the woman.\"\n\nBut as man becomes actually the glory of God when he perfectly\nsubordinates himself to God with the absolute devotedness of love, so\ndoes woman become the glory of man when she upholds and serves man\nwith that perfect devotedness of which woman so constantly shows\nherself to be capable. It is in winning the self-sacrificing love of\nman and his entire devotion that God's glory appears, and man's glory\nappears in his power to kindle and maintain the devotion of woman. Not\nin independence of God does man find either his own glory or God's,\nand not in independence of man does woman find either her own glory or\nman's. The desire of woman shall be to her husband; in the honourable\ndevotedness to man which love prompts, woman fulfils the law of her\ncreation; and it is only the imperfect and ignoble woman who has any\nsense of humiliation, degradation, or limitation of her sphere in\nfollowing the lead of love for the individual. It is through this\nhonourable service of man she serves God and fulfils the purpose of\nher existence. The woman who is most womanly will most readily\nrecognise that her function is to be the glory of man, to mould, and\nelevate, and sustain the individual, to find her joy and her life in\nthe private life, in which the affections are developed, principles\nformed, and all personal wants provided for. And man, on his part,\nmust say,\n\n \"If aught of goodness or of grace\n Be mine, hers be the glory.\"\n\nFor, as a French writer says, \"her influence embraces the whole of\nlife. A wife, a mother--two magical words, comprising the sweetest\nsources of man's felicity! Theirs is the reign of beauty, of love, of\nreason, always a reign. A man takes counsel with his wife; he obeys\nhis mother: he obeys her long after she has ceased to live, and the\nideas he has received from her become principles even stronger than\nhis passions.\"[7]\n\n [7] See Landels' _True Glory of Woman_.\n\nThe position assigned to woman as the glory of man is therefore far\nremoved from the view which cynically proclaims her man's mere\nconvenience, whose function it is \"to fatten household sinners,\" \"to\nsuckle fools and chronicle small beer.\" Paul's view, though adopted\nand exhibited in individual instances, is far as yet from commanding\nuniversal consent. But certainly nothing so distinguishes, elevates,\npurifies, and balances a man in life as a high esteem for woman. A man\nshows his manliness chiefly by a true reverence for all women, by a\nclear recognition of the high service appointed to them by God, and by\na tender sympathy with them in all the various endurance their nature\nand their position demand.\n\nThat this is woman's normal sphere is indicated even by her\nunalterable physical characteristics. \"Doth not even nature itself\nteach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But\nif a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given\nher for a covering.\" By nature woman is endowed with a symbol of\nmodesty and retirement. The veil, which signifies her devotement to\nhome duties, is merely the artificial continuation of her natural gift\nof hair. The long hair of the Greek fop or of the English cavalier was\naccepted by the people as an indication of effeminate and luxurious\nliving. Suitable for women, it is unsuitable for men; such is the\ninstinctive judgment. And nature, speaking through this visible sign\nof the woman's hair, tells her that her place is in private, not in\npublic, in the home, not in the city or the camp, in the attitude of\nfree and loving subordination, not in the seat of authority and rule.\nIn other respects also the physical constitution of woman points to a\nsimilar conclusion. Her shorter stature and slighter frame, her higher\npitch of voice, her more graceful form and movement, indicate that she\nis intended for the gentler ministries of home life rather than for\nthe rough work of the world. And similar indications are found in her\nmental peculiarities. She has the gifts which fit her for influencing\nindividuals; man has those qualities which enable him to deal with\nthings, with abstract thought, or with persons in the mass. Quicker in\nperception and trusting more to her intuitions, woman sees at a glance\nwhat man is sure of only after a process of reasoning.\n\nThese arguments and conclusions introduced by Paul of course apply\nonly to the broad and normal distinction between man and woman. He\ndoes not argue that women are inferior to men, nor that they may not\nhave equal spiritual endowments; but he maintains that, whatever be\ntheir endowments, there is a womanly mode of exercising them and a\nsphere for woman which she ought not to transgress. Not all women are\nof the distinctively womanly type. A Britomarte may arm herself and\noverthrow the strongest knights. A Joan of Arc may infuse into a\nnation her own warlike and patriotic ardour. In art, in literature, in\nscience, feminine names may occupy some of the highest places. In our\nown day many careers have been opened to women from which they had\nhitherto been debarred. They are now found in Government offices, in\nSchool Boards, in the medical profession. Again and again in the\nhistory of the Church attempts have been made to institute a female\norder in the ministry, but as yet both the clerical and the legal\nprofessions are closed to women.[8] And we may reasonably conclude\nthat as the army and navy will always be manned by the physically\nstronger sex, so there are other employments in which women would be\nentirely out of place.\n\n [8] The experience of the Society of Friends throws light on\n this matter.\n\nBut it will be asked, Why was Paul so exact in describing how a woman\nshould comport herself while praying or prophesying in public, when he\nmeant very shortly in this same Epistle to write, \"Let your women keep\nsilence in the Churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak;\nbut they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the Law.\nAnd if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home;\nfor it is a shame for women to speak in the Church\"? It has been\nsuggested that although it was the standing order that women should\nnot speak, there might be occasions when the Spirit urged them to\naddress an assemblage of Christians; and the regulation here given is\nintended for these exceptional cases. This may be so, but the\nconnection in which the absolute prohibition is given rather militates\nagainst this view, and I think it more likely that in his own mind\nPaul held the two matters quite distinct and felt that a mere\nprohibition preventing women from addressing public meetings would not\ntouch the more serious transgression of female modesty involved in the\ndiscarding of the veil. He could not pass over this violent assertion\nof independence without separate treatment; and while he is treating\nit, it is not the speaking in public which is before his mind, but the\nunfeminine assertion of independence and the principle underlying\nthis manifestation.\n\nBesides the direct teaching of this passage on the position of woman,\nthere are inferences to be drawn from it of some importance. First,\nPaul recognises that the God of nature is the God of grace, and that\nwe may safely argue from the one sphere to the other. \"All things are\nof God.\" It is profitable to be recalled to the teaching of nature. It\nsaves us from becoming fantastic in our beliefs, from cherishing\nfallacious expectations, from false, pharisaic, extravagant conduct.\n\nAgain, we are here reminded that every man and woman has to do\ndirectly with God, who has no respect of persons. Each soul is\nindependent of all others in its relation to God. Each soul has the\ncapacity of direct connection with God and of thus being raised above\nall oppression, not only of his fellows, but of all outward things. It\nis here man finds his true glory. His soul is his own to give it to\nGod. He is dependent on nothing but on God only. Admitting God into\nhis spirit, and believing in the love and rectitude of God, he is\narmed against all the ills of life, however little he may relish them.\nTo all of us God offers Himself as Friend, Father, Saviour, Life. No\nman need remain in his sin; none need be content with a poor eternity;\nno man need go through life trembling or defeated: for God declares\nHimself on our side, and offers His love to all without respect of\npersons. We are all on the same footing before Him. God does not admit\nsome freely, while He shrinks from the touch of others. It is as full\nand rich an inheritance that He puts within the reach of the poorest\nand most wretched of earth's inhabitants as He offers to him on whom\nthe eyes of men rest in admiration or in envy. To disbelieve or\nrepudiate this privilege of uniting ourselves to God is in the truest\nsense to commit spiritual suicide. It is in God we live now; He is\nwith us and in us: and to shut Him out from that inmost consciousness\nto which none else is admitted is to cut ourselves off, not only from\nthe deepest joy and truest support, but from all in which we can find\nspiritual life.\n\nLastly, although there is in Christ an absolute levelling of\ndistinctions, no one being more acceptable to God or nearer to Him\nbecause he belongs to a certain race, or rank, or class, yet these\ndistinctions remain and are valid in society. A woman is a woman still\nthough she become a Christian; a subject must honour his king although\nby becoming a Christian he is himself in one aspect above all\nauthority; a servant will show his Christianity, not by assuming an\ninsolent familiarity with his Christian master, but by treating him\nwith respectful fidelity. The Christian, above all men, needs\nsober-mindedness to hold the balance level and not allow his Christian\nrank entirely to outweigh his social position. It forms a great part\nof our duty to accept our own place without envying others and to do\nhonour to those to whom honour is due.\n\n_ABUSE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER._\n\n \"Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye\n come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of\n all, when ye come together in the Church, I hear that there be\n divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be\n also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made\n manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one\n place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every\n one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and\n another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink\n in? or despise ye the Church of God, and shame them that have\n not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I\n praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I\n delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which\n He was betrayed took bread: and when He had given thanks, He\n brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is My body which is broken\n for you: this do in remembrance of Me. After the same manner also\n He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the new\n testament in My blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in\n remembrance of Me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink\n this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come. Wherefore\n whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord,\n unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.\n But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread,\n and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh\n unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not\n discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and\n sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge\n ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we\n are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with\n the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat,\n tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at\n home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest\n will I set in order when I come.\"--1 COR. xi. 17-34.\n\n\n\n\nXVII.\n\n_ABUSE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER._\n\n\nIn this paragraph of his letter Paul speaks of an abuse which can\nscarcely be credited, still less tolerated, in our times. The most\nsacred of all Christian ordinances had been allowed to degenerate into\na bacchanalian revel, not easily to be distinguished from a Greek\ndrinking party. A respectable citizen would hardly have permitted at\nhis own table the licence and excess visible at the Table of the Lord.\nHow such disorders in worship should have arisen calls for\nexplanation.\n\nIt was common in Corinth and the other cities of Greece for various\nsections of the community to form themselves into associations, clubs,\nor guilds; and it was customary for such societies to share a common\nmeal once a week, or once a month, or even when convenient daily. Some\nof these associations were formed of persons very variously provided\nwith this world's goods, and one of the objects of some of the clubs\nwas to make provision for the poorer members in such a manner as to\nsubject them to none of the shame which is apt to attend the\nacceptance of promiscuous charity. All members had an equal right to\npresent themselves at the table; and the property held by the society\nwas equally distributed to all.\n\nThis custom, not unknown in Palestine itself, had been spontaneously\nadopted by the primitive Church of Jerusalem. The Christians of those\nearly days felt themselves to be more closely related than the members\nof any trade guild or political club. If it was convenient and suitable\nthat persons of similar political opinions or belonging to the same\ntrade should to some extent have common property and should exhibit\ntheir community by sharing a common meal, it was certainly suitable\namong Christians. Speedily it became a prevalent custom for Christians\nto eat together. These meals were called _agap\u00e6_--love-feasts--and\nbecame a marked feature of the early Church. On a fixed day, generally\nthe first day of the week, the Christians assembled, each bringing\nwhat he could as a contribution to the feast: fish, poultry, joints of\nmeat, cheese, milk, honey, fruit, wine, and bread. In some places the\nproceedings began by partaking of the consecrated bread and wine; but\nin other places physical appetite was first appeased by partaking of\nthe meal provided, and after that the bread and wine were handed\nround.\n\nThis mode of celebrating the Lord's Supper was recommended by its\nclose resemblance to its original celebration by the Lord and His\ndisciples. It was at the close of the Paschal Supper, which was meant\nto satisfy hunger as well as to commemorate the Exodus, that our Lord\ntook bread and brake it. He sat with His disciples as one family, and\nthe meal they partook of was social as well as religious. But when the\nfirst solemnity passed away, and Christ's presence was no longer felt\nat the common table, the Christian love-feast was liable to many\ncorruptions. The wealthy took the best seats, kept hold of their own\ndelicacies, and, without waiting for any common distribution, each\nlooked after himself, and went on with his own supper, regardless of\nthe fact that others at the table had none. \"Every one taketh before\nother his own supper,\" so that, while one is hungry and has received\nnothing, another at this so-called common love-feast has already taken\ntoo much and is intoxicated. Those who had no need to use the common\nstock, but had houses of their own to eat and to drink in, yet, for\nthe sake of appearances, brought their contribution to the meal, but\nconsumed it themselves. The consequence was that from being truly\nlove-feasts, exhibiting Christian charity and Christian temperance,\nthese meetings became scandalous as scenes of greedy selfishness, and\nprofane conduct, and besotted excess. \"What shall I say to you? shall\nI praise you in this? I praise you not.\" In this Paul anticipates the\ncondemnation of these occasions of revelry and discord which the\nChurch was obliged to pronounce after no great lapse of time.[9]\n\n [9] For a highly coloured description of the love-feasts see\n Renan's _St. Paul_, pp. 261-270.\n\nThus then arose these disorders in the celebration of the Lord's\nSupper. By the conjunction of this rite with the social meal of the\nChristians it degenerated into an occasion of much that was unseemly\nand scandalous. To the reform of this abuse Paul now addresses\nhimself; and it is worth our while to observe what remedies he does\nnot propose as well as those he recommends.\n\nFirst, he does not propose to disjoin absolutely and in all cases the\nreligious rite from the ordinary meal. In the case of the richer\nmembers of the Church this disjunction is enjoined. They are directed\nto take their meals at home. \"Have ye not houses to eat and to drink\nin? or despise ye the Church of God, and shame them that have not?...\nIf any man hunger, let him eat at home.\" But with the destitute or\nthose who had no well-provided homes another rule must be adopted. It\nwould shame the Christian community, and quite undo its quickly won\nreputation for brotherly love and charity, were its members observed\nbegging their daily bread on the streets. It was equally unseemly for\nthe rich to accept and for the poor to be denied the meal furnished at\nthe expense of the Church. And therefore Paul's recommendation is that\nthose who can conveniently eat at home should do so. But as no quality\nof the Christian Church is more strictly her own than charity and no\nduty more incumbent or more lovely than to feed the hungry, it could\nnot dishonour the Church to spread in it a meal for whosoever should\nbe in need of it.\n\nAgain, although the wine of Holy Communion had been so sadly abused,\nPaul does not prohibit its use in the ordinance. His moderation and\nwisdom have not in this respect been universally followed. On\ninfinitely less occasion alterations have been introduced into the\nadministration of the ordinance with a view to preventing its abuse by\nreclaimed drunkards, and on still slighter pretext a more sweeping\nalteration was introduced many centuries ago by the Church of Rome. In\nthat Church the custom still prevails of receiving communion only\nunder one kind; that is to say, the communicant partakes of the bread,\nbut not of the wine. The reason for this is given by one of their most\nauthoritative writers as follows: \"It is well known that this custom\nwas not first established by any ecclesiastical law; but, on the\ncontrary, it was in consequence of the general prevalence of the usage\nthat this law was passed in approval of it. It is a matter of no less\nnotoriety that the monasteries in whose centre this observance had its\nrise, and thence spread in ever wider circles, were led by a very nice\nsense of delicacy to impose on themselves this privation. A pious\ndread of desecrating, by spilling and the like, even in the most\nconscientious ministration, the form of the sublimest and the holiest\nwhereof the participation can be vouchsafed to man, was the feeling\nwhich swayed their minds.... However, we should rejoice if it were\nleft free to each one to drink or not out of the consecrated chalice;\nand this permission would be granted if with the same love and concord\na universal desire were expressed for the use of the cup as from the\ntwelfth century the contrary wish has been enounced.\"[10] One cannot\nbut regret that this reverence for the ordinance did not take the form\nof a humble acceptance of it, in accordance with its original\ninstitution; and one cannot but think that the \"pious dread of\ndesecrating\" the ordinance would have sufficiently prevented any\nspilling of the wine or other abuse, or have sufficiently atoned for\nany little accident which might occur. And certainly, in contrast to\nall such contrivances, the sanity of Paul's judgment comes out in\nstrong relief; and we more clearly recognise the sagacity which\ndirected that the ordinance should not be tampered with to suit the\navoidable weaknesses of men, but that men should learn to live up to\nthe requirements of the ordinance.\n\n [10] M\u00f6hler's _Symbolism_, i., 351.\n\nAgain, Paul does not insist that because frequent communion had been\nabused this must give place to monthly or yearly communion. In\nafter-times, partly from the abuses attending frequent communion and\npartly from the condition of the cities into which Christianity found\nits way, a change to rarer celebration was found advisable; and, for\nreasons that need not here be detailed, the Church catholic, both in\nthe East and in the West, settled down to the custom of celebrating\nthe Lord's Supper weekly: and for some centuries it was expected that\nall members of the Church should partake weekly. Paul's reluctance to\nlay down any law on the subject suggests that the abuse of this or any\nother ordinance does not arise simply from the frequency of its\nadministration. It is quite natural to suppose that the inevitable\nresult of frequent communion is an undue familiarity with holy things\nand a profane carelessness in handling what should only be approached\nwith the deepest reverence. That familiarity breeds contempt, or at\nany rate heedlessness, is certainly a rule that ordinarily holds good.\nAs Nelson said of his sailors, hardened by familiarity with danger,\nthey cared no more for round-shot than for peas. The medical student\nwho faints or sickens at his first visit to the operating theatre soon\nlooks with unblenching face on wounds and blood. And by the same law\nit is feared, and not without reason, that if we observed frequent\ncommunion, we should cease to cherish that proper awe, and cease to\nfeel that flutter of hesitation, and cease to be subdued by that\nsacredness of the ordinance which yet are the very feelings through\nwhich in great measure the rite influences us for good. We think it\nwould be impossible to pass every week through those trying moments in\nwhich the soul trembles before God's majesty and love as exhibited in\nthe Lord's Supper; and we fear that the heart would instinctively\nshrink from the reality, and protect itself against the emotion, and\nfind a way of observing the ordinance with ease to itself, and that\nthus the life would die out from the celebration, and the mere husk or\nform be left.\n\nIt is, however, obvious that these fears need not be verified, and\nthat an effort on our part would prevent the consequences dreaded. Our\nmethod of procedure in all such cases is first to find out what it is\nright to do, and then, though it cost us an effort, to do it. If our\nreverence for the ordinance in question depends on its rare\ncelebration, every one must see that such reverence is very\nprecarious. May it not be a merely superstitious or sentimental\nreverence? Is it not produced by some false idea of the rite and its\nsignification, or does it not spring from the solemnity of the\nparaphernalia and human surroundings of it? Paul seeks to restore\nreverence in the Corinthians not by prohibiting frequent communion,\nbut by setting more clearly before them the solemn facts which\nunderlie the rite. In presence of these facts every worthy communicant\nis at all times living; and if it be merely the outward equipment and\npresentation of these facts which solemnize us and quicken our\nreverence, then this itself is rather an argument for a more frequent\ncelebration of the rite, that so this false reverence at least might\nbe dissipated.\n\nThe instincts of men are, however, in many cases a safer guide than\ntheir judgments; and there is a feeling prevalent that very frequent\ncommunion is not advisable, and that if it be advisable it should be\nreached not at a bound, but step by step. The main point on which the\nindividual should insist on coming to some clear understanding with\nhimself is whether his own reluctance to frequent communion does not\narise from his fear of the ordinance being too profitable rather than\nfrom any fear of its ceasing to profit. Does not our shrinking from it\noften mean that we shrink from being more distinctly confronted with\nthe love and holiness of Christ and with His purpose in dying for us?\nDoes it not mean that we are not quite reconciled to be always living\non the holiest motives, always under the most subduing and purifying\ninfluences, always living as the children of God, whose citizenship is\nin heaven? Do we shrink from the additional restraint and the fresh\nand effectual summons to a life, not higher and purer than we ought to\nbe living--for there is no such life--but higher and purer than we are\nquite prepared to live? Putting to ourselves these questions, we use\nthis rite as the thermometer, which shows us whether we are cold,\nlukewarm, or hot, or as the lead heaved from time to time, which shows\nus the depth of water we have and the kind of bottom over which we are\nholding our course.\n\nThe two most instructive writers on the sacraments are Calvin and\nWaterland. The latter, in his very elaborate treatment of the\nEucharist, offers some remarks upon the point before us. \"There can,\"\nhe says, \"be no just bar to frequency of communion but the want of\npreparation, which is only such a bar as men may themselves remove if\nthey please; and therefore it concerns them highly to take off the\nimpediment as soon as possible, and not to trust to vain hopes of\nalleviating one fault by another.... The danger of misperforming any\nreligious duty is an argument for fear and caution, but no excuse for\nneglect; God insists upon the doing it, and the doing it well also....\nIt was no sufficient plea for the slothful servant under the Gospel\nthat he thought his master hard to please, and thereupon neglected his\nbounden duty, for the use he ought to have made of that thought was\nto have been so much the more wakeful and diligent in his master's\nservice. Therefore in the case of the Holy Communion it is to very\nlittle purpose to plead the strictness of the self-examination or\npreparation by way of excuse either for a total, or for a frequent, or\nfor a long neglect of it. A man may say that he comes not to the Table\nbecause he is not prepared, and so far he assigns a good reason; but\nif he should be further asked why he is not prepared when he may, then\nhe can only make some trifling, insufficient excuse or remain\nspeechless.\"[11]\n\n [11] Waterland, _Works_, iv., p. 781.\n\nThe positive counsel Paul gives regarding suitable preparation for\nparticipation in this Sacrament is very simple. He offers no elaborate\nscheme of self-examination which might fill the mind with scruples and\ninduce introspective habits and spiritual hypochondria. He would have\nevery man answer the plain question, Do you discern the Lord's body in\nthe Sacrament? This is the one cardinal point on which all revolves,\nadmitting or excluding each applicant. He who clearly understands that\nthis is no common meal, but the outward symbol by means of which God\noffers to us Jesus Christ, is not likely to desecrate the Sacrament.\n\"This is My body,\" says the Lord, meaning that this bread will ever\nremind the communicant that his Lord freely gave His own body for the\nlife of the world. And whoever accepts the bread and the wine because\nthey remind him of this and bring him into a renewed attitude of faith\nis a worthy communicant. The Corinthians were chastened by sickness\nand apparently by death that they might see and repent of the\nenormity of using these symbols as common food; and in order that\nthey might escape this chastening, they had but to recall the\ninstitution of the Sacrament by our Lord Himself.\n\nThe brief narrative of this first institution which Paul here inserts\ngives prominence to the truth that the Sacrament was intended\nprimarily as a memorial or remembrance of the Saviour. Nothing could\nbe simpler or more human than our Lord's appointment of this\nSacrament. Lifting the material of the Supper before Him, He bids His\ndisciples make the simple act of eating and drinking the occasion of\nremembering Him. As the friend who is setting out on a long absence or\nis passing for ever from earth puts into our hands his portrait or\nsomething he has used, or worn, or prized, and is pleased to think\nthat we shall treasure it for his sake, so did Christ on the eve of\nHis death secure this one thing: that His disciples should have a\nmemento by which to remember Him. And as the dying gift of a friend\nbecomes sacred to us as his own person, and we cannot bear to see it\nhanded about by unsympathetic hands and remarked upon by those who\nhave not the same loving reverence as ourselves, and as when we gaze\nat his portrait, or when we use the very pen or pencil worn smooth by\nhis fingers, we recall the many happy times we spent together and the\nbright and inspiring words that fell from his lips, so does this\nSacrament seem sacred to us as Christ's own person, and by means of it\ngrateful memories of all He was and did throng into the mind.\n\nAgain, the form of this memorial is fitted to recall the actual life\nand death of the Lord. It is His body and blood we are invited by the\nsymbols to remember. By them we are brought into the presence of an\nactual living Person. Our religion is not a theory; it is not a\nspeculation, a system of philosophy putting us in possession of a true\nscheme of the universe and guiding us to a sound code of morals; it\nis, above all, a personal matter. We are saved by being brought into\nright personal relations. And in this Sacrament we are reminded of\nthis and are helped to recognise Christ as an actual living Person,\nwho by His body and blood, by His actual humanity, saved us. The body\nand blood of Christ remind us that His humanity was as substantial as\nour own, and His life as real. He redeemed us by the actual human life\nHe led and by the death He died, by His use of the body and soul we\nmake other uses of. And we are saved by remembering Him and by\nassimilating the spirit of His life and death.\n\nBut especially, when Christ said, \"Do this in remembrance of Me,\" did\nHe mean that His people to all time should remember that He had given\nHimself wholly to them and for them. The symbols of His body and blood\nwere intended to keep us in mind that all that gave Him a place among\nmen He devoted to us. By giving His flesh and blood He means that He\ngives us His all, Himself wholly; and by inviting us to partake of His\nflesh and blood He means that we must receive Him into the most real\nconnection possible, must admit His self-sacrificing love into our\nheart as our most cherished possession. He bade His disciples remember\nHim, knowing that the death He was about to die would \"draw all men\nunto Him,\" would fill the despairing with hopes of purity and\nhappiness, would cause countless sinners to say to themselves with\nsoul-subduing rapture, \"He loved me, and gave Himself for me.\" He knew\nthat the love shown in His death and the hopes it creates would be\nprized as the world's redemption, and that to all time men would be\nfound turning to Him and saying, \"If I forget Thee, let my right hand\nforget her cunning; if I do not remember Thee, let my tongue cleave to\nthe roof of my mouth, if I do not prefer Thee above my chief joy.\" And\ntherefore He presents Himself to us as He died: as One whose love for\nus actually brought Him to the deepest abasement and sorest suffering,\nand whose death opens for us a way to the Father.\n\nBut these symbols were appointed to be for a remembrance of Christ in\norder that, remembering Him, we might renew our fellowship with Him.\nIn the Sacrament there is not a mere representation of Christ or a\nbare commemoration of events in which we are interested; but there is\nalso an actual, present communion between Christ and the soul.\nEncouraged and stimulated by the outward signs, we, in our own soul\nand for ourselves, accept Christ and the blessings He brings. There is\nin the bread and wine themselves nothing that can profit us, but we\nare by their means to \"discern the Lord's body.\" When Christ is said\nto be present in the bread and the wine, nothing mysterious or magical\nis meant. It is meant that He is spiritually present to those who\nbelieve. He is present in the Sacrament as He is present to faith at\nany time and in any place; only, these signs which God puts into our\nhands to assure us of His gift of Christ to us help us to believe that\nChrist is given, and make it easier for us to rest in Him.\n\n_CONCERNING SPIRITUAL GIFTS._\n\n \"Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you\n ignorant. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these\n dumb idols, even as ye were led. Wherefore I give you to\n understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth\n Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord,\n but by the Holy Ghost. Now there are diversities of gifts, but\n the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations,\n but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but\n it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the\n manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit\n withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to\n another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another\n faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the\n same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another\n prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers\n kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: but\n all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to\n every man severally as He will. For as the body is one, and hath\n many members, and all the members of that one body, being many,\n are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all\n baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether\n we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one\n Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot\n shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it\n therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am\n not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the\n body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If\n the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God\n set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased\n Him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But\n now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot\n say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to\n the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of\n the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: and those\n members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon\n these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have\n more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but\n God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant\n honour to that part which lacked: that there should be no schism\n in the body; but that the members should have the same care one\n for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members\n suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members\n rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in\n particular. And God hath set some in the Church, first apostles,\n secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then\n gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.\n Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all\n workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak\n with tongues? do all interpret?\"--1 COR. xii. 1-30.\n\n\n\n\nXVIII.\n\n_CONCERNING SPIRITUAL GIFTS._\n\n\nThis Epistle is well fitted to disabuse our minds of the idea that the\nprimitive Church was in all respects superior to the Church of our own\nday. We turn page after page, and find little but contention,\njealousies, errors, immorality, fantastic ideas, immodesty,\nirreverence, profanity. At this point in the Epistle we do come upon a\nstate of things which differentiates the primitive Church from our\nown; but here too the superior advantages of those early Christians\nwere sadly abused by ignorance and envy. The members of the Corinthian\nChurch were possessed of \"spiritual gifts.\" They were endowed at their\nconversion or at baptism with certain powers which they had not\npreviously possessed, and which were due to the influence of the Holy\nSpirit. It would have been surprising had so entire a revolution in\nhuman feelings and prospects as Christianity introduced not been\naccompanied by some extraordinary and abnormal manifestation. The new\nDivine life which was suddenly poured into human nature stirred it to\nunusual power. Men and women who yesterday could only sit and condole\nwith their sick friends found themselves to-day in so elevated a state\nof mind that they could impart to the sick vital energy. Young men who\nhad been brought up in idolatry and ignorance suddenly found their\nminds filled with new and stimulating ideas which they felt impelled\nto impart to those who would listen. These and the like extraordinary\ngifts, which were very helpful in calling attention to the young\nChristian community, speedily passed away when the Christian Church\ntook its place as an established institution.\n\nIf we are disposed to question the genuineness of those manifestations\nbecause in our own day the Spirit of Christ does not produce them,\nthere are two considerations which should weigh with us. First, that\nwhich Browning urges: that miracles which were once needed are now no\nlonger required, because they served the purpose for which they were\ngiven. As when you sow a plot in a garden you stick twigs round it,\nthat no careless person may tread down and destroy the young and yet\nunseen plant, but when the plants have themselves become as tall and\nvisible as the twigs, then these are useless, so if the miracles\nactually served to help the young Church's growth, she by their means\nhas now become sufficiently visible and sufficiently understood to\nneed them no more.[12]\n\n [12]\n\n \"You stick a garden-plot with ordered twigs\n To show inside lie germs of herbs unborn,\n And check the careless step would spoil their birth;\n But when herbs wave, the guardian twigs may go,\n Since should ye doubt of virtues, question kinds.\n It is no longer for old twigs ye look,\n Which proved once underneath lay store of seed,\n But to the herb's self, by what light ye boast,\n For what fruit's signs are. This book's fruit is plain,\n Nor miracles need prove it any more.\n Doth the fruit show? Then miracles bade 'ware\n At first of root and stem, saved both till now\n From trampling ox, rough boar, and wanton goat.\"\n\nAnd, secondly, it was to be expected that the first impact of\nthese new Christian forces on the spirit of man should produce\ndisturbance and violent emotions, such as could not be expected\nto continue as the normal condition of things. New political or\nsocial ideas suddenly possessing a people, as at the French\nRevolution, carry them to many actions and inspire them with an\nenergy which cannot be normal. And gentle and without observation\nas were the Spirit and the kingdom of Christ, yet it was impossible\nbut that, under the pressure of the most influential and inspiring\nideas which ever possessed our race, there should be some\nextraordinary manifestations.\n\nNothing could be more natural than that these gifts should be\noverrated and should almost be considered as the most substantial\nand advantageous blessings Christianity had to offer. First being\naccepted as evidence of the real indwelling of the Holy Spirit, they\ncame to be prized for their own sake. Originally designed as signs of\nthe reality of the communication between the risen Lord and His\nChurch, and therefore as assurances that the holiness and blessedness\npromised by Christ were not unattainable, they came to be regarded as\nthemselves more precious than the holiness they promised. Given to\nthis individual and to that in order that each might have some gift by\nwhich he could profit the community, they came to be looked upon as\ndistinctions of which the individual was proud, and therefore\nintroduced vanity, envy, and separation, instead of mutual esteem and\nhelpfulness. One gift was measured with another and rated above or\nbelow it; and, as usual, what was useful could not compete with what\nwas surprising. The gift of speaking for the spiritual profit of the\nhearers was little thought of in comparison with the gift of speaking\nin unknown tongues. Throughout this and the two following chapters\nPaul explains the object of these gifts and the principle of their\ndistribution and employment; he enounces the supremacy of love, and\nlays down certain rules for the guidance of meetings in which these\ngifts were displayed.\n\nPaul introduces his remarks by reminding them that their previous\nhistory sufficiently explained their need of instruction. \"In your\nformer heathen state you had no experience whatever similar to that\nwhich you now have in the Church. The dumb idols to the worship of\nwhich you let yourselves be carried did not communicate powers similar\nto those which the Spirit now communicates to you. Consequently,\nnovices as you are in this domain, you need a guiding thread to\nprevent you from going astray. This is why I instruct you.\"[13] And\nthe first thing you need to guide you is a criterion by which you can\njudge whether so-called manifestations of the Spirit are genuine or\nspurious. The test is a simple one. Every one whose words or actions\ndisparage Jesus proclaims himself to be under some other influence\nthan that of the Spirit; every one who owns Jesus as Lord, serving Him\nand promoting His cause, is animated by the Spirit.\n\n [13] Godet.\n\n\"No man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed.\" But was\nthere any possibility of such an utterance being heard in a Christian\nChurch? It seems there was. It seems that very early in the history of\nChristianity men were found in the Church who could not reconcile\nthemselves to the accursed death of Christ. They believed in the\nGospel He proclaimed, the miracles He wrought, the kingdom He founded;\nbut the Crucifixion was still a stumbling-block to them. And so they\nframed a theory to suit their own prejudices, and held that the Divine\nLogos descended upon Jesus at His baptism and spoke and acted through\nHim, but abandoned Him before the Crucifixion. It was Jesus, a mere\nman, who died on the Cross the accursed death. This degradation of\nJesus was not to be tolerated in the Christian Church, and was\ndecisive as to a man's possession of true spiritual gifts. To own the\nlordship of Jesus was the test of a man's Christianity. Did he\nacknowledge as supreme that Person who had lived and died under the\nname of Jesus? Did he employ his spiritual gifts for the furtherance\nof His kingdom and as one who was really endeavouring to serve this\nunseen Master? Then no hesitation need be shown in admitting his claim\nto be animated by the Spirit of God.\n\nIn other words, Paul wishes them to understand that, after all, the\nonly sure test of a man's Christianity is his actual submission to\nChrist. No wonderful works he may accomplish in the Church or in the\nworld prove his possession of Christ's Spirit. \"Many will say to Me in\nthat day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name, and in Thy\nname have cast out devils, and in Thy name done many wonderful works?\nAnd then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from Me,\nye that work iniquity.\" A man may gather and edify a large\ncongregation, he may write ably in defence of Christianity, he may be\nrecognised as a benefactor of his age, or he may be considered the\nmost successful of missionaries, but the only test of a man's claim to\nbe listened to by the Church is his actual submission to Christ. He\nwill seek not his own glory, but the good of men. And as to the gifts\nthemselves, they should be no cause of discord, for they have\neverything in common: they have their source in God; they are for\nChrist's service; they are forms of the same Spirit. \"There are\ndiversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences\nof administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of\noperations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.\"\n\nThe new life then introduced by Christ into the individual and society\nwas found to assume various forms and to suffice for all the needs of\nhuman nature in this world. Paul delighted to survey the variety of\nendowment and faculty which appeared in the Church. Wisdom, knowledge,\nfaith, power to work miracles, extraordinary gifts of exhortation or\nprophecy and also of speaking in unknown tongues, capacity for\nmanaging affairs and general helpfulness--these and other gifts were\nthe efflorescence of the new life. As the sun in spring develops each\nseed according to its own special kind and character, so this new\nspiritual force develops in each man his most intimate and special\ncharacter. Christian influence is not an external appliance that clips\nall men after one pattern as trees in an avenue are clipped into one\nshape; but it is an inward and vital power which causes each to grow\naccording to his own individuality, one with the rugged irregularity\nof the oak, another with the orderly richness of the plane. Variety in\nharmony is said to be the principle of all beauty, and it is this\nwhich the Divine Spirit in man produces. Individual distinctions are\nnot obliterated, but developed and directed for the service of the\ncommunity. At one in their allegiance to Christ, bound into one body\nby common affections, beliefs, and hopes, and aiming at the\nadvancement of one cause, Christians are yet as different as other men\nin faculty, in temperament, in attainment.\n\nThere is no truth coming more determinedly to the front in our own day\nthan this: that society is an organism similar to the human body. This\nindeed is no new idea, nor is it an exclusively Christian idea. That\nman was made for society and that it was each man's business to labour\nfor the good of the whole was common Stoic doctrine. It was taught\nthat every man should believe himself to be born, not for himself, but\nfor the whole world. Take one out of many expressions of this truth:\n\"You have seen a hand cut off, or a foot, or a head, lying apart from\nthe rest of the body; that is what a man makes himself when he\nseparates himself from others or does anything unsocial. You were made\nby nature a part; and it is due to the benevolence of God that, if you\nhave become detached from the whole, you can be reunited to it.\" And\nin the very earliest days, when the populace of Rome became\ndisaffected and seditious and retired outside the city walls to a camp\nof their own, Menenius Agrippa went out to them and uttered his fable\nwhich Shakespeare has helped to make famous. He related how the\nvarious members of the body--the hand, the eye, the ear--mutinied and\nrefused to work any longer because it seemed to them that all the food\nand enjoyment for which they toiled went to another member, and not to\nthem. It was of course easy for the accused member to clear itself of\nthe charge of inactivity and show that the food it received was not\nretained for its own exclusive use, but was distributed through the\nrivers of the blood, and how \"the strongest nerves and small inferior\nveins\" from it received the natural competency whereby they lived.\n\nBut although this comparison of society to the body is not new, it is\nnow being more seriously and scientifically examined and pushed to\nits legitimate conclusions and applications. The \"real meaning of the\ndoctrine that society is an organism is that an individual has no life\nexcept that which is social, and that he cannot realize his own\npurposes except in realizing the larger purposes of society.\" All the\norgans of the body by which we do our work in the world and earn our\nbread are themselves maintained in life and fulfil the end of their\nown existence by working for and maintaining the whole body; and\nexcept in the common life of the body they cannot be maintained at\nall. It is the same with the other organs of the body. The heart, the\nlungs, the digestive organs, have hard and constant work to do; but\nonly by doing it can they fulfil the very purpose of their existence\nand maintain themselves in life by contributing to the life of the\nbody in which alone they can live at all. The same principle holds\ngood in society. It is obvious in trade and commerce; a man can only\nmaintain himself in life by helping to maintain other people. And the\nideal society is one in which each man should not only yield\nreluctantly to the compulsion of this natural law, but should clearly\nsee the great ends for which mankind exists and labour zealously to\npromote these ends, should as eagerly seek what contributes to the\ngood of the whole as the hand is stretched out for food or as the\npalate relishes what stays the appetite and nourishes the whole body.\n\nIllustrating the relation of Christians to one another by the figure\nof the members of a body, Paul suggests several ideas.\n\n1. The unity of Christians is a vital unity. The members of the body\nof Christ form one whole because they partake of one common life. \"By\none Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or\nGentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink\ninto one Spirit.\" The unity of those who together form the body of\nChrist is not a mechanical unity, as of a pound of shot in a bag; nor\nis it a unity imposed by external force, as of caged wild beasts in a\nmenagerie; nor is it a unity of mere accidental juxtaposition, as of\npassengers in a train or of the inhabitants of a town. But as the life\nof the human body maintains all the various members and nourishes them\nto a well-proportioned and harmonious growth, so is it in the body of\nChrist. Remove from the human body the life that supports it, and all\nthe members fall away from connection with one another; but so long as\nthe life is retained it assimilates in the most surprising way all\nnutriment to its own precise type and form. The lion and the tiger may\neat precisely the same food, but that food nourishes in each a\ndifferent form. The life that animates the human body assimilates\nnutriment to its own uses, imparting to each member its due proportion\nand maintaining all the members in their relation to one another.\n\nThe unity of Christians is a unity of this kind, a vital unity. The\nsame spiritual life exists in all Christians, derived from the same\nsource, supplying them with similar energy, and prompting them to the\nsame habits and aims. They accept the Spirit of Christ, and so are\nformed into one body, being no more isolated, self-seeking, and each\nman fighting for his own hand, but banded together for the promotion\nof one common cause. There is no clashing between the interests of the\nindividual and the interests of the society or kingdom to which he\nbelongs. The member finds its only life and function in the body. It\nis by the freest and most deliberate exercise of his reason and his\nwill that a man attaches himself to Christ, seeing that by so doing he\nenters the only path to real happiness and attainment. The individual\ncan only utter and fulfil his best self by doing his possible for\nsociety. His devotement to public interests is no self-destroying\ngenerosity, but the dictate of duty and of reason. To quote a writer\nwho deals with this matter from the philosophical point of view, \"he\nwho has made the welfare of the race his aim has done so, not from a\ngenerous choice, but because he regards the pursuit of this welfare as\nhis imperative duty. The welfare of the race is his own ideal, what he\nmust realize in order to be what he _ought_ to be. The welfare of the\nrace is his own welfare, which he must seek because he must be\n_himself_. Cromwell, Luther, Mahomet, were heroes, not because they\ndid something over and above what they _ought_ to have done, but\nbecause their _ideal self_ was coextensive with the larger life of\ntheir world. 'I can no other' was the voice of each.... Their large\npurposes were what they owed to themselves just as much as to their\nworld.\"[14]\n\n [14] Professor Jones in _Essays in Philosophical Criticism_.\n\nThose who cannot philosophically reconcile the claims of society and\nthe claims of the individual are yet enabled by their attachment to\nChrist and by their acceptance of His Spirit to merge self in the\nlarger whole of Christ's body and find their truest life in seeking\nthe good of others. It is by their acceptance of Christ's Spirit as\nthe source and Guide of their own life that they enter into fellowship\nwith the community of men.\n\n2. Paul is careful to show that the very efficiency of the body\ndepends upon the multiplicity and variety of the members of which it\nis composed: \"If they were all one member, where were the body?\" \"If\nthe whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were\nhearing, where were the smelling?\" The lowest forms of life have\neither no distinct organs or very few; but the higher we ascend in the\nscale of life the more numerous and more distinctly differentiated are\nthe organs. In the lower forms one member discharges several\nfunctions, and the animal uses the same organ for locomotion as it\nuses for eating and digesting; in the higher forms each department of\nlife and activity is presided over by its own sense or organ. The same\nlaw holds good of society. Among tribes low down in the scale of\ncivilisation each man is his own farmer, or shepherd, or huntsman, and\nhis own priest, and butcher, and cook, and clothier. Each man does\neverything for himself. But as men become civilised the various wants\nof society are supplied by different individuals, and every function\nis specialized. The same law necessarily holds true of the body of\nChrist. It is highly organized, and no one organ can do the whole work\nof the body. Therefore one has this gift, another that. And the more\nnearly this body approaches perfection, the more various and distinct\nwill these gifts be.\n\nOne important function of the Church therefore is to elicit and\nutilize every faculty for good which its members possess. In a society\nin which Christianity is but beginning to take root, it may fall to\none man to do the work of the whole Christian body--to be eye, tongue,\nfoot, hand, and heart. He must evangelise, he must teach, he must\nlegislate, he must enforce law; he must preach, he must pray, he must\nlead the singing; he must plan the church and help to build it;\ntranslate the Scriptures and help to print them; teach the savages to\nwear a little clothing and help to make it; dissuade them from war and\ninstruct them in the arts of peace, instilling a taste for agriculture\nand commerce. But when the Christian society has left this rudimentary\nstage behind, those various functions are discharged by different\nindividuals; and as it advances towards a perfect condition its\nfunctions and organs become as multifarious and as distinctly\ndifferentiated as the organs of the human body. Every member of the\nChurch is different from every other, and has a gift of his own. Some\nare fitted to nourish the Church herself and maintain the body of\nChrist in health and efficiency; some are fitted to act on the world\noutside: they are eyes to perceive, feet to pursue, hands to lay hold\nof those who are straying from the light.\n\nEvery one therefore who is drawn into the fellowship of the body of\nChrist has something to contribute to its good and to the work it\ndoes. He is in connection with that body because the Spirit of Christ\nhas possessed and assimilated him to it; and that Spirit energizes in\nhim. He may not see that anything the Church is presently engaged in\nis work he can undertake. He may feel out of place and awkward when he\nattempts to do what others are doing. He feels himself like a\ngreyhound, compelled to run by scent and not by sight, and expected to\ndo the work of a pointer, and not seize his quarry, or as if set to do\nthe work of an eye with the hand. He can do it only in a groping,\nfumbling, imperfect manner. But this is only a hint that he is meant\nfor other work, not for none. And it is for him to discover what his\nChristian instincts lead him to. The eye does not need to be told it\nis for seeing, or the hand that it is for grasping. The eye and the\nhand of the child instinctively do their office. And where there is\ntrue Christian life, it matters not what the member of Christ's body\nbe, it will find its function, even though that function is new in the\nChurch's experience.\n\nThe fact then that you are very different from the ordinary members of\nthe Church is no reason for supposing you do not belong to Christ's\nbody. The ear is very different from the eye; it can detect neither\nform nor colour; it cannot enjoy a landscape or welcome a friend: but\n\"if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body;\nis it therefore not of the body?\" Is it not, on the contrary, its very\ndiversity from the eye that makes it a welcome addition to the body,\nenriching its capabilities and enlarging its usefulness? It is not by\ncomparison with other people that we can tell whether we belong to the\nbody of Christ, nor is our function in that body determined by\nanything which some other member is doing. The very difficulty we find\nin adjusting ourselves to others and in finding any already existing\nChristian work to which we can give ourselves is a hint that we have\nthe opportunity of adding to the Church's efficiency. The Church can\nclaim to be perfect only when she embraces the most diversely gifted\nindividuals and allows the tastes, instincts, and aptitudes of all to\nbe used in her work.\n\n3. As there is to be no slothful self-disparagement in the body of\nChrist, so must there be no depreciation of other people. \"The eye\ncannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head\nto the feet, I have no need of you.\" When zealous people discover new\nmethods, they forthwith despise the normal ecclesiastical system that\nhas stood the test and is stamped with the approval of centuries. One\nmethod cannot regenerate and Christianize the world, any more than one\nmember can do the whole work of the body. Paul goes even further, and\nreminds us that the \"feeble\" parts of the body are \"the more\nnecessary;\" the heart, the brain, the lungs, and all those delicate\nmembers of the body that do its essential work entirely hidden from\nview are more necessary than the hand or the foot, the loss of which\nno doubt cripples, but does not kill. So in the Church of Christ it is\nthe hidden souls who by their prayers and domestic godliness maintain\nthe whole body in health and enable more conspicuously gifted members\nto do their part. Contempt for any member of the body of Christ is\nmost unseemly and sinful. Yet men seem unable ever to learn how many\nmembers, and how various, it takes to complete a body, and how needful\nare those functions they themselves are wholly unable to discharge.\n\n4. Lastly, Paul is careful to teach that \"the manifestation of the\nSpirit is given to every man _to profit withal_.\" It is not for the\nglorification of the individual that the new spiritual life manifests\nitself in this or that remarkable form, but for the edification of the\nbody of Christ. However beautiful any feature of a face may be, it is\nhideous apart from its position among the rest and lying by itself.\nMorally hideous and no longer admirable is the Christian who attracts\nattention to himself and does not subordinate his gift to the\nadvantage of the whole body of Christ. If in the human body any member\nasserts itself and is not subservient to the one central will, that is\nrecognised as disease: St. Vitus' dance. If any member ceases to obey\nthe central will, paralysis is indicated. And equally so is disease\nindicated wherever a Christian seeks his own ends or his own\nglorification, and not the advantage of the whole body. Simon Magus\nsought to make a reputation and a competence for himself by spiritual\ngifts. What in his case was mainly stupidity is in ours sin if we use\nsuch powers and opportunities as we have for our own purposes, and not\nwith a view to the profit of others.\n\nLet us then endeavour to recognise our position as members of Christ's\nbody. Let us with seriousness accept Him as appointed by God to be our\ntrue spiritual Life and Head; let us consider what we have it in our\npower to do for the good of the whole body; and let us put aside all\njealousy, envy, and selfishness, and with meekness honour the work\ndone by others while humbly and hopefully doing our own.\n\n_NO GIFT LIKE LOVE_\n\n \"But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet show I unto you a\n more excellent way. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of\n angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a\n tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and\n understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have\n all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not\n charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed\n the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not\n charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity suffereth long, and is\n kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not\n puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own,\n is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in\n iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things,\n believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.\n Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they\n shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether\n there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part,\n and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come,\n then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a\n child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as\n a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For\n now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I\n know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And\n now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest\n of these is charity.\"--1 COR. xii. 31-xiii. 13.\n\n\n\n\nXIX.\n\n_NO GIFT LIKE LOVE._\n\n\nThis is one of the passages of Scripture which an expositor scruples\nto touch. Some of the bloom and delicacy of surface passes from the\nflower in the very handling which is meant to exhibit its fineness of\ntexture. But although this eulogium of love is its own best\ninterpreter, there are points in it which require both explanation and\nenforcement.\n\nIn the preceding chapter (xii.) Paul has striven to suppress the envy,\nvanity, and discord which had resulted from the abuse of the spiritual\ngifts with which the Corinthian Church was endowed. He has explained\nthat these gifts were bestowed for the edification of the Church, and\nnot for the glorification of the individual; and that therefore the\nindividual should covet, not the most surprising, but the most\nprofitable, of these manifestations of the Spirit. \"Covet the best\ngifts,\" he says: Desire the gifts which edify, the gift of\nexhortation, or, as it was then called, prophecy. And yet there is a\nmore excellent way to edify the Church than even to exercise apostolic\ngifts; this is the way of love, which he proceeds to celebrate.\n\n1. Love is the ligament which binds together the several members of\nthe body of Christ, the cement which keeps the stones of the temple\ntogether. Without love there can be no body, no temple, only isolated\nstones or disconnected, and therefore useless, members. The\nextraordinary gifts of which the Corinthians were so proud cannot\ncompete with love. They may profit the Church, but without love they\nare no evidence of the ripe Christian manhood of their possessor.\nSuppose I speak all possible languages--languages of angels, if you\nplease, as well as languages of men--and have not love, I am but a\nmere instrument played upon by another, no better than a bit of\nsounding brass, a trumpet or a cymbal, not enjoying, nor moved by, nor\nswayed by the music I make, but insensible. As Bunyan says, \"Is it so\nmuch to be a fiddle?\" If no man understands the language I am impelled\nto use, then I am but as a clanging cymbal, making a noise without\nsignificance. And even though I speak a tongue which some stranger\nrecognises as his own, it is not I who am coming into contact with his\nsoul through a living influence; I am but used as an instrument of\nbrass is used by the player.\n\nOr take even the higher gift of prophecy. Suppose I am enlightened by\nthe Spirit so that I can explain things hitherto misunderstood;\nsuppose I can make revelations of important truths which have been\naccessible to none besides; suppose even that I have all faith, faith,\nas the rabbis say, to remove mountains; suppose I can work miracles,\nheal the sick, raise the dead, set the whole world agape with\nastonishment, all this without love, however it may profit others,\nprofits myself not at all, and neither brings me into closer\nconnection with Christ nor gives assurance of my sound spiritual\ncondition, I may be among the number of those who, after doing\nwonderful works in Christ's name, are repudiated by Him. For as among\nourselves there are many gifts, such as learning, eloquence, sagacity,\nmusical, and poetical, and artistic genius, which may greatly\ncontribute to the edification of the Church, and yet reside in persons\nwho can make little claim to sanctity, so in the early Church these\nextraordinary spiritual gifts seem to have carried with them no\nevidence of their possessors' personal religion. They had certainly\nbegun a Christian career, but they might be deteriorating in character\ninstead of developing and maturing.\n\nThere were, however, two Christian actions which might seem to be\nbeyond question as evidence of a sound spiritual condition: almsgiving\nand martyrdom. The young man who sought guidance from Christ lacked\nbut one thing: to sell his property and give to the poor. But, says\nPaul, \"though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and have not\nlove, it profiteth me nothing.\" It is only too possible to do great\nacts of charity from a love of display, or from an uneasy sense of\nduty which parts reluctantly and grudgingly with what it bestows. That\nis understood. Common-sense tells every one but the abjectly\nsuperstitious man himself that it is as impossible to buy spiritual\nhealth on a bed of death as it is to buy the cure of his mortal\ndisease.\n\nBut martyrdom? Can a man give any stronger proof of his faith than to\ngive his body to be burned? Certainly one would with great reluctance\ndisparage the integrity of those courageous persons who in many ages\nof the Church's history have gone without flinching to the stake. But,\nin point of fact, a willingness to suffer for one's opinion or one's\nfaith is not in every case a guarantee of the existence of a heart\ntransformed from selfishness to love. At one period martyrdom became\nfashionable, and Christian teachers were compelled to remonstrate with\nthose who fanatically rushed to the stake and the arena, just as\nsuicide once became fashionable at Rome and evoked prohibitory\nlegislation.\n\nNot without reason then does Paul so emphatically warn men against\nlooking upon such exceptional actions or such extraordinary endowments\nas undoubted evidence of a healthy spiritual state. Gifts and conduct\nwhich bring men prominently before the eye of the Church or the world\nare often no index to the character; and if they be not rooted in and\nguided by love, their possessor has little reason to congratulate\nhimself. Too often it is a man's snare to judge himself by what he\ndoes rather than by what he is. It is so easy comparatively to do\ngreat things supposing certain gifts be present; it is at least always\npossible to human nature to make sacrifices and engage in arduous\nduties. The impossible thing is love. No eye to advantageous\nconsequences or to public opinion can enable a man to love; no desire\nto maintain a character for piety can produce that grace. Love must be\nspontaneous, from the soul's self, not produced by considerations of\nthe requirements of a position we wish to reach or to maintain. It\nmust be the unconstrained, natural outcome of the real man. Not even\nthe consideration of Christ's love will produce love in us if there be\nnot a real sympathy with Christ. A sense of benefit received will not\nproduce love where there is no similarity of sentiment. Love cannot be\ngot up. It is the result of God entering and possessing the soul. \"He\nthat loveth is born of God.\" That is the only account to be given of\nthe matter. And therefore it is that where love is absent all is\nabsent.\n\nAnd yet how the mistake of the Corinthians is perpetuated from age to\nage. The Church is smitten with a genuine admiration of talent, of the\nfaculties which make the body of Christ bulk larger in the eye of the\nworld, while too often love is neglected. After all that the Church\nhas learned of the dangers which accompany theological controversy,\nand of the hollowness of much that passes for growth, intellectual\ngifts are frequently prized more highly than love. Do we not ourselves\noften become aware that the absence of this one thing needful is\nwriting vanity and failure on all we do and on all we are? If we are\nnot yet in the real fellowship of the body of Christ, possessed by a\nlove that prompts us to serve the whole, with what complacency can we\nlook on other acquirements? Do parents sufficiently impress on their\nchildren that all successes at school and in early life are as nothing\ncompared to the more obscure but much more substantial acquisition of\na thoroughly unselfish, generous, catholic spirit of service?\n\n2. Paul having illustrated the supremacy of love by showing that\nwithout it all other gifts are profitless, proceeds (vers. 4-7) to\ncelebrate its own positive excellence. It is possible, though\nunlikely, that Paul may have read the eulogium pronounced on love by\nthe greatest of Greek writers five hundred years before: \"Love is our\nlord, supplying kindness and banishing unkindness, giving friendship\nand forgiving enmity, the joy of the good, the wonder of the wise, the\namazement of the gods; desired by those who have no part in him, and\nprecious to those who have the better part in him; parent of delicacy,\nluxury, desire, fondness, softness, grace; careful of the good,\nuncareful of the evil. In every word, work, wish, fear--pilot,\nhelper, defender, saviour; glory of gods and men, leader best and\nbrightest; in whose footsteps let every man follow, chanting a hymn\nand joining in that fair strain with which love charms the souls of\ngods and men.\" Five hundred years after Paul another eulogium was\npronounced on love by Mohammed: \"Every good act is charity: your\nsmiling in your brother's face; your putting a wanderer in the right\nroad; your giving water to the thirsty, or exhortations to others to\ndo right. A man's true wealth hereafter is the good he has done in\nthis world to his fellow-man. When he dies, people will ask, What\nproperty has he left behind him? but the angels will ask what good\ndeeds he has sent before him.\"\n\nPaul's eulogium is the more effective because it exhibits in detail\nthe various ramifications of this exuberant and fruitful grace, how it\nruns out into all our intercourse with our fellow-men and carries with\nit a healing and sweetening virtue. It imbues the entire character,\nand contains in itself the motive of all Christian conduct. It is \"the\nfulfilling of the Law.\" Its claims are paramount because it embraces\nall other virtues. If a man has love, there is no grace impossible to\nhim or into which love will not on occasion develop. Love becomes\ncourage of the most absolute kind where danger threatens its object.\nIt begets a wisdom and a skill which put to shame technical training\nand experience. It brings forth self-restraint and temperance as its\nnatural fruit; it is patient, forgiving, modest, humble, sympathizing.\nIt is quite true that\n\n \"As every lovely hue is light,\n So every grace is love.\"\n\nThomas a Kempis dwells with evident relish on the varied capacity of\nthis all-comprehending grace. \"Love,\" he says, \"feels no burden,\nregards not labours, would willingly do more than it is able, pleads\nnot impossibilities, because it feels sure that it can and may do all\nthings. Love is swift, sincere, pious, pleasant, and delightful;\nstrong, patient, faithful, prudent, longsuffering, manly, and never\nseeking itself: it is circumspect, humble, and upright; sober, chaste,\nsteadfast, quiet, and guarded in all its senses.\"\n\nPaul's description of the behaviour of love is drawn in view of the\ndiscords and vanities of the Corinthians and as a contrast to their\nunseemly and unbrotherly conduct. \"Love suffereth long, and is kind;\"\nit reveals itself in a magnanimous bearing of injuries and in a\nconsiderate and tender imparting of benefits. It returns good for\nevil; not readily provoked by slights and wrongs, it ever seeks to\nspend itself in kindnesses. Then there is nothing envious, vain, or\nselfish in love. \"Love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself.\" It\nneither grudges others their gifts, nor is eager to show off its own.\nThe pallor and bitter sneer of envy and the ridiculous swagger of the\nboastful are equally remote from love. \"It is not puffed up, and doth\nnot behave itself unseemly.\" Love saves a man from making a fool of\nhimself by consequential conduct, and by thrusting himself into\npositions which betray his incompetence, and by immodest, irreverent,\nand eccentric actions. It balances a man and gives him sense by\nbringing him into right relations with his fellows and prompting him\nto esteem their gifts more highly than his own. Neither is love ever\non the watch for its own rights, scrupulously exacting the\nremuneration, the recognition, the applause, the precedence, the\ndeference, that may be due: \"it seeketh not its own.\" \"It is not\neasily provoked, nor does it take account of evil;\" it is not fired\nwith resentment at every little slight, and does not make a mental\nnote and lay up in its memory the contempt shown by one, the\nindifference shown by another, the intention to wound betrayed by a\nthird. Love is too little occupied with itself to feel these\nexhibitions of malice very keenly. It is bent on winning the battle\nfor others, and the wounds received in the cause are made light of.\nIts eye is still on the advantage to be gained by the needy, and not\non itself.\n\nAnother manifestation of love, and one the mention of which pricks the\nconscience, is that it \"rejoiceth not in unrighteousness.\" It has no\nmalignant pleasure in seeing reputations exploded, in discovering the\nsin, the hypocrisy, the mistakes, of other men. \"It rejoiceth with the\ntruth.\" Where truth scatters calumny and shows that suspicions were\nill-founded, love rejoices. Successful wickedness, whether for or\nagainst its own interests, love has no pleasure in; but where goodness\ntriumphs love is thrilled with a sympathetic joy. In place of\nrejoicing in discovered wickedness because it lowers a rival or seems\nto leave a more prominent position to itself, love hastens to cover\nthe fault. \"It covereth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all\nthings.\" It has untiring charity, making every allowance, proposing\nevery excuse, believing that explanations can be made, accepting\ngreedily such as are made, slow to be persuaded that things are as bad\nas rumour paints, hoping against hope for the acquittal, or at any\nrate for the reformation, of every culprit.\n\n3. Finally, Paul shows the superiority of love by comparing it in\npoint of permanence, first, with the gifts of which the Corinthians\nwere so proud, and, second, with the universal Christian graces.\n\n\"Love never faileth;\" it is imperishable: it grows from less to more;\nthere never comes a time when it gives place to some higher quality of\nsoul, or when it is unimportant whether a man has it or no, or when it\nis no longer the criterion of the whole moral state. The most\nsurprising spiritual gifts can make no such claim. \"Whether there be\nprophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they\nshall cease.\" These gifts were for the temporary benefit of the\nChurch. However some might misapprehend their significance and fancy\nthat these extraordinary manifestations were destined to characterise\nthe Christian Church throughout its history, Paul was not so deceived.\nHe was prepared for their disappearance. They were the scaffolding\nwhich no one thinks of or inquires after when the building is\nfinished, the schoolbooks which become the merest rubbish when the boy\nis educated, the prop which the forester removes when the sapling has\nbecome a tree.\n\nBut knowledge? The knowledge of God and of Divine things in which good\nmen delight, and which is esteemed the stamina of character--is not\nthis permanent? No, says Paul. \"Knowledge also shall be done away.\"\nAnd to illustrate his meaning Paul uses two figures: the figure of a\nchild's knowledge, which is gradually lost in the knowledge of the\nman, and the figure of an object dimly seen through a semi-transparent\nmedium. We shall understand the significance and the bearing of these\nfigures if we consider that when we speak of imperfect knowledge we\nmay mean either of two things: we may either mean that it is imperfect\nin amount or that it is imperfect in quality, in accuracy. When a boy\nbegins the study of Euclid, the first proposition he learns is\nabsolutely accurate and true; he may add to it, but he can never\nimprove upon it. His knowledge is imperfect in amount, but so far as\nit goes it is absolutely reliable; he may build upon it and deduce\nother truths from it. But when we are walking on a misty morning and\nsee an object at a distance, our knowledge is imperfect, but in quite\nanother sense. It is imperfect in the sense of being dim, uncertain,\ninaccurate. We see that there is something before us, but whether a\nhuman being or a gatepost we cannot say. A little nearer we see it is\na human being, but whether old or young, friend or no friend, we\ncannot say. Here the growth of our knowledge is from dimness to\naccuracy.\n\nBoth the figures used by Paul imply that our knowledge of Divine\nthings is of this latter kind. They loom, as it were, through a mist.\nMany of their details are invisible. We have not got them under our\nhand to examine at leisure. Our present knowledge is as the light of a\nlantern by which we can pick our way, or as the starlight, for which\nwe are thankful in the meantime; but when the sun of a wider, deeper,\ntruer knowledge rises, what we now call knowledge shall be quite\neclipsed. \"When I was a child,\" says Paul, \"I spake as a child, I\nunderstood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man,\nI put away childish things.\" That is to say, Paul was distinctly aware\nthat much of our present knowledge is provisional. We do not know the\nvery truth, but only such approximations to the truth and such symbols\nof it as we are able to understand. We are at present in the state of\nchildhood, which cherishes many notions destined to be exploded by\nmaturer knowledge. We think of God as a Being very similar to\nourselves, only very much greater; and in our present state we must be\ncontent with this imperfect knowledge, but prepared to put it away as\n\"childish\" when fuller knowledge comes. The atoning death of Christ\nmay be spoken of as the substitutionary sacrifice of a Victim on whom\nour guilt is laid; but to speak thus of the death of Christ is to make\nlarge use of the language of symbol, and we must hold our minds open\nfor the fuller knowledge which will make such language seem quite\ninadequate. Paul's language warns us against speaking, or thinking, or\nacting as if our knowledge of Divine things were perfectly accurate,\nand as if therefore we might freely and unhesitatingly condemn all who\ndiffer from us.\n\nThe other figure is still more precise, although there is great\ndifference of opinion as to what Paul means by seeing now \"through a\nglass, darkly.\" The word here rendered \"glass\" is used either for the\ndim metallic mirror used by the ancients, or for the semi-translucent\ntalc which was their substitute for glass in windows. Of these two\nmeanings it is the latter which in this passage gives the best sense.\nIt was a common figure among the rabbis to illustrate dimness of\nvision. If they wished to denote direct and clear vision, they spoke\nof seeing a thing face to face; if they wished to denote uncertain and\nhazy vision, they spoke of seeing through a glass--that is, through a\nsubstance only a little more transparent than our own dimmed glass,\nthrough which you can see objects, but cannot tell exactly what they\nare or who the persons are who are moving. Thus they had a common\nsaying, \"All other prophets saw as through nine glasses, Moses as\nthrough one.\" The rabbis, too, had another saying which illustrates\nthe second part of this twelfth verse: \"Even as a king, who with\ncommon people talks through a veil, so that he sees them, but they do\nnot see him, but when his friend comes to speak to him, he removes\nthis veil, so that he might see him face to face, even so did God\nspeak to Moses apparently, and not darkly.\"[15]\n\n [15] See the passages in Wets ein and Sch\u00f6ttgen.\n\nInterpreting Paul's language then by the language of his own kith and\nkin and of the schools in which he had been educated, his meaning is\nthat in this life we can see Divine things only dimly and as through a\nveil, but hereafter we shall see them without the intervention of any\nobscuring medium. Here and now we can make out only the general\noutline of the unseen realities; but hereafter we shall know even as\nwe are known, shall see God as directly as He now sees us. We shall\nnot have even then the same perfect knowledge of Him that He has of\nus, but shall see Him as immediately and directly as He sees us. Now\nHe wears a veil through which He can see, but through which we cannot\nsee; hereafter He will lay aside this. Our present knowledge of God\nand of all things unseen is necessarily vague, not susceptible of\nexact definition. There are some things of which we may be quite sure,\nothers of which we must be content to remain in uncertainty. We may be\nquite sure that God exists, that He loves us, that He has sent His Son\nto save us; but if we attempt to run a sharp and clear outline round\nthe truths thus dimly seen, we shall inevitably err.\n\nIt may be added that while Paul warns us against supposing that our\nknowledge is perfect, he does not mean to brand it as useless or\ndelusive. On the contrary, his figures imply that it is necessary for\nour growth, and that unless we honestly use such knowledge as we have,\nwe cannot win our way to knowledge that is perfect. It is the\nimperfect knowledge of the child which leads it on to further\nattainment. The fundamental doctrine of the Christian creed that there\nare three Persons in one God is certainly a very rough and childish\nexpression of a truth far deeper than we can understand, but to reject\nthis doctrine because it is evidently only an approximation to a truth\nwhich cannot be defined and stated in final terms is to refuse to\nsubmit to the conditions under which we now live and to ape a manhood\nwhich in point of fact we do not possess.\n\nPaul's crowning testimony to the worth of love is given in the\nthirteenth verse: \"But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and\nthe greatest of these is love.\" He does not mean that love abides\nwhile faith becomes sight and hope fruition. Rather he indicates that\nfaith and hope are also imperishable, and hereby distinguished from\nthe spiritual gifts of which he has been speaking. Both in this life\nand in that which is to come faith, hope, and love abide. For faith\nand hope pass away only in one aspect of their exercise. If by faith\nbe meant belief in things unseen, this passes away when the unseen is\nseen. If hope be taken as referring only to the future state in\ngeneral, then when that state is reached hope passes away. But faith\nand hope are really permanent elements of human life, faith being the\nconfidence we have in God, and hope the ever-renewed expectancy of\nfuture good. But while faith maintains us in connection with God, love\nis the enjoyment of God and the partaking of His nature; and while\nhope renews our energy and guides our aims, it can bring us to no\nbetter thing than love.\n\nTo see the beauty, fruitfulness, and sufficiency of love is easy, but\nto have it as the mainspring of our own life most difficult, indeed\nthe greatest of all attainments. This we instinctively recognise as\nthe true test of our condition. Have we that in us which really knits\nus to God and our fellow-men and prompts us to do our utmost for them?\nHave we in us this new affection which destroys selfishness and brings\nus into true and lasting relations with all we have to do with? This\nis the root of all good, the beginning of all blessedness, because the\ngerm of all likeness to God, who Himself is love.\n\n_SPIRITUAL GIFTS AND PUBLIC WORSHIP._\n\n \"Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather\n that ye may prophesy. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue\n speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth\n him; howbeit in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries. But he that\n prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation,\n and comfort. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth\n himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the Church. I would\n that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied:\n for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with\n tongues, except he interpret, that the Church may receive\n edifying. Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with\n tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you\n either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by\n doctrine? And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe\n or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall\n it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an\n uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So\n likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be\n understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall\n speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices\n in the world, and none of them is without signification.\n Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto\n him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a\n barbarian unto me. Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of\n spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the\n Church. Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray\n that he may interpret. For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my\n spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it\n then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the\n understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing\n with the understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless with the\n spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say\n Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what\n thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is\n not edified. I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye\n all: yet in the Church I had rather speak five words with my\n understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than\n ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. Brethren, be not\n children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but\n in understanding be men. In the Law it is written, With men of\n other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and\n yet for all that will they not hear Me, saith the Lord. Wherefore\n tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them\n that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that\n believe not, but for them which believe. If therefore the whole\n Church be come together into one place, and all speak with\n tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or\n unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? But if all\n prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one\n unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: and thus\n are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down\n on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of\n a truth. How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every\n one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a\n revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto\n edifying. If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by\n two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one\n interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence\n in the Church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. Let the\n prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If anything\n be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his\n peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn,\n and all may be comforted. And the spirits of the prophets are\n subject to the prophets. For God is not the Author of confusion,\n but of peace, as in all Churches of the saints. Let your women\n keep silence in the Churches: for it is not permitted unto them\n to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also\n saith the Law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask\n their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in\n the Church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it\n unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or\n spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto\n you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant,\n let him be ignorant. Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and\n forbid not to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently\n and in order.\"--1 COR. xiv. 1-40.\n\n\n\n\nXX.\n\n_SPIRITUAL GIFTS AND PUBLIC WORSHIP._\n\n\nIn the first twenty-five verses of this chapter Paul gives his\nestimate of the comparative value of the two chief spiritual gifts:\nspeaking with tongues and prophesying; in the latter half of the\nchapter he lays down certain rules which were to guide the exercise of\nthese gifts and certain principles on which all the worship and public\nservices of the Church should proceed.\n\nA difficulty, however, meets us at the outset. We have no opportunity\nof observing these gifts in exercise, and cannot readily understand\nthem. With prophecy indeed there need be no great difficulty.\nProphesying is speaking for God, whether the utterance regards present\nor future matters. When Moses complained that he had no gift of\nutterance, God said, \"Aaron shall be thy prophet;\" that is, shall\nspeak for thee, or be thy spokesman. Prediction is not necessarily any\npart of the prophet's function. It may be so, and often it was so, but\na man might be a prophet who had no revelation of the future. In the\nsense in which Paul uses the word, a prophet was \"an inspired teacher\nand exhorter who revealed to men the secrets of God's will and word\nand the secrets of their own hearts for the purpose of conversion and\nedification.\" The function of the prophet is indicated in the third\nverse: \"He that prophesieth speaketh for edification, and\nexhortation, and comfort;\" and still further in the twenty-fourth and\ntwenty-fifth verses, where the results of prophesying are described in\nterms precisely such as we should use to describe the results of\nefficacious preaching. The hearer is \"convinced,\" is conscious in\nhimself that the words spoken are shedding light and carrying\nconviction into the recesses of his heart. The gift of prophecy, then,\nwas the endowment which enabled a Christian to speak so as to bring\nthe mind and spirit of the hearer into touch with God.\n\nBut the gift of tongues is involved in greater obscurity. On its first\noccurrence, as recorded in the book of Acts, it would seem to have\nbeen the gift of speaking in foreign languages. We are told that the\nstrangers from Asia Minor, Parthia, the shores of the Black Sea,\nAfrica, and Italy, when they heard the disciples speaking, recognised\nthat they were speaking intelligible languages. One man was attracted\nby the sound of his native Arabic; another heard the familiar Latin; a\nthird for the first time in Jerusalem heard a Jew speaking the\nlanguage he was accustomed to hear on the banks of the Nile. Naturally\nthey were confounded by the circumstance, \"every man hearing,\" as it\nis said, \"his own language, the tongue wherein he was born.\" It would\ncertainly seem probable, therefore, that, whether the gift afterwards\nchanged its character or not, it was originally the power of speaking\nin a foreign language so as to be intelligible to any one who\nunderstood that language.\n\nThis gift was of course communicated, not as a permanent acquisition,\nto fit men to preach the Gospel in foreign countries, but merely as a\ntemporary impulse to utter words which to themselves had no meaning.\nAll spiritual gifts seem to have been inconstant in their influence.\nPaul had the gift of healing, and yet he \"left Trophimus at Miletum\nsick;\" his dear friend Epaphroditus was sick nigh unto death without\nPaul being able to help him; and when Timothy was unwell, he did not\ncure him by miracle, but by a very commonplace prescription. So, too,\nwhen a man by study and practice acquires the use of a foreign tongue,\nhe has command of that language so long as memory lives and for all\npurposes; but this \"gift of tongues\" was only available \"as the Spirit\ngave utterance\" to each, and failed to communicate a constant and\ncomplete command of the language. It is not to be supposed therefore\nthat this gift was bestowed in order to enable men more easily to\nproclaim the Gospel to all races. And at no period of the world's\nhistory was such a gift less needed, Greek and Latin being very\ngenerally understood throughout the Roman world. Perhaps more persons\ngrew up bilingual in that day than at any other time.\n\nIf then this gift was intermittent and did not qualify its possessor\nto use a foreign language for the ordinary purposes of life or for\npreaching the Gospel, what was its use? It served the same purpose as\nother miracles; it made visible and called attention to the entrance\nof new powers into human nature. As Paul says, it was \"for them that\nbelieve not, not for them that believe.\" It was meant to excite\ninquiry, not to instruct the mind of the Christian. It produced\nconviction that among the followers of Christ new powers were at work.\nThe evidence of this took a shape which seemed to intimate that the\nreligion of Christ was suitable for every race of mankind. This gift\nof tongues seemed to claim all nations as the object of Christ's work.\nThe most remote and insignificant tribe was accessible to Him. He\nknew their language, suited Himself to their peculiarities, and\nclaimed kindred with them.\n\nIt must, however, be said that the common opinion of scholars is that\nthe gift of tongues did not consist in ability to speak a foreign\nlanguage even temporarily, but in an exalted frame of mind which found\nexpression in sounds or words belonging to no human language. What was\nthus uttered has been compared to the \"merry, unmeaning shouts of\nboyhood, getting rid of exuberant life, uttering in sounds a joy for\nwhich manhood has no words.\" These ecstatic cries or exclamations were\nnot always understood either by the person uttering them, or by any\none else, so that there was always a risk of such utterances being\nconsidered either as the ravings of lunatics, or, as in the first\ninstance, the thick and inarticulate mutterings of drunkards. But\nsometimes there was present a person in the same key of feeling whose\nspirit vibrated to the note struck by the speaker, and who was able to\nrender his inarticulate sounds into intelligible speech. For as music\ncan only be interpreted by one who has a feeling for music, and as the\ninarticulate language of tears, or sighs, or groans can be\ncomprehended by a sympathetic soul, so the tongues could be\ninterpreted by those whose spiritual state corresponded to that of the\ngifted person.\n\nAt various periods of the Church's history these manifestations have\nbeen reproduced. The Montanists of the early Church, the Camisards of\nFrance at the close of the seventeenth century, and the Irvingites of\nour own country claimed that they possessed similar gifts. Probably\nall such manifestations are due to violent nervous agitation. The\nearly Quakers showed their wisdom in treating all physical\nmanifestations as physical.\n\nComparing these two gifts, prophecy and speaking with tongues, Paul\nvery decidedly gives the preference to the former, and this mainly on\nthe score of its greater utility. It often happened that when one of\nthe Christians spoke in tongues there was no one present who could\ninterpret. However exalted the man's own spirit might be, the\ncongregation could derive no benefit from his utterances. And if a\nnumber of persons spoke at once, as they seemed to do in Corinth, on\nthe pretext that they could not control themselves, any unbeliever who\ncame in and heard this Babel of sound would naturally conclude, as\nPaul says, that he had stumbled into a ward of lunatics. Such disorder\nmust not be. If there were no one present who could interpret what the\nspeakers with tongues were saying, they must be silent. Apart from\ninterpretation speaking with tongues was mere noise, the blare of a\ntrumpet sounded by one who did not know one call from another, and\nwhich was mere unintelligible sound. Prophesying was not liable to\nthese abuses. All understood it, and could learn something from it.\n\nFrom this preference shown by Paul for the less showy but more useful\ngift, we may gather that to make public worship the occasion of\nself-display or sensational exhibitions is to degrade it. This is a\nhint for the pulpit rather than for the pew. Preachers must resist the\ntemptation to preach for effect, to make a sensation, to produce fine\nsermons. The desire to be recognised as able to move men, to say\nthings smartly, to put the truth freshly, to be eloquent, or to be\nsensible is always striving against the simple-minded purpose of\nedifying Christ's people. Worshippers as well as preachers may,\nhowever, be so tempted. They may sing with a gratified sense of\nexhibiting a good voice. They may find greater pleasure in what is\nsensational in worship than in what is simple and intelligible.\n\nAgain, we here see that worship in which the understanding bears no\npart receives no countenance from Paul. \"I will pray with the spirit;\nI will pray with the understanding also.\" Where the prayers of the\nChurch are in an unknown tongue, such as Latin, the worshipper may\nindeed pray with the spirit, and may be edified thereby, but his\nworship would be better did he pray with the understanding also. Music\nunaccompanied by words induces in some temperaments an impressible\ncondition which has an appearance of devoutness and probably something\nof the reality; but such devoutness is apt to be either hazy or\nsentimental or both, unless by the help of accompanying words the\nunderstanding goes hand in hand with feeling.\n\nNo countenance can be found in this chapter to the idea that worship\nshould exclude preaching and become the sole purpose of the assembling\ntogether of Christian people. Some temperaments incline towards\nworship, but resent being preached to or instructed. The reverential\nand serious feelings which are quickened into life by devotional forms\nof prayer may be scattered by the buffoonery or ineptitudes of the\npreacher. Exasperation, unbelief, contempt, in the mind of the hearer\nmay be the only results achieved by some sermons. It may occasionally\noccur to us that the Christian world would be very much the better of\nsome years of silence, and that results which have not been reached by\nfloods of preaching might be attained if these floods were allowed to\nebb and a period of quiet and repose succeed. Unquestionably there is\na danger at present of leading men to suppose that religion is a thing\nwhich must be ceaselessly talked about, and which perhaps chiefly\nconsists of talk, so that if one only hears enough, and has the right\nopinions, he may accept himself as a religious person. But it is one\nthing to say that there is at present too much preaching or too\ncareless and unequal a distribution of preaching, and quite another\nthing to say there should be none.\n\nHaving given expression to his preference for prophesying, Paul goes\non to indicate the manner in which the public services should be\nconducted. The picture he draws is one which finds no counterpart in\nthe greater modern Churches. The chief distinction between the\nservices of the Corinthian Church and those we are now familiar with\nis the much greater freedom with which in those days the membership of\nthe Church took part in the service. \"When ye come together, every one\nof you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a\nrevelation, hath an interpretation.\" Each member of the congregation\nhad something to contribute for the edification of the Church. The\nexperience, the thought, the gifts, of the individual were made\navailable for the benefit of all. One with a natural aptitude for\npoetry threw his devotional feeling into a metrical form, and\nfurnished the Church with her earliest hymns. Another with innate\nexactness of thought set some important aspect of Christian truth so\nclearly before the mind of the congregation that it at once took its\nplace as an article of faith. Another, fresh from contact with the\nworld and intercourse with unbelieving and dissolute men, who had felt\nhis own feet sliding and renewed his grasp on Christ, entered the\nmeeting with the glow of conflict on his face, and had eager words of\nexhortation to utter. And so passed the hours of meeting, without any\nfixed order, without any appointed ministry, without any uniformity of\nservice. And certainly the freshness, fulness, and variety of such\nservices were greatly to be desired if possibly they could be\nattained. We lose much of what would interest and much that would\nedify by enjoining silence upon the membership of the Church.\n\nAnd yet, as Paul observes, there was much to be desired in those\nCorinthian services. Had there been some authorized official presiding\nover them, the abuses of which this letter speaks could not have\narisen. To appeal to this chapter or to any part of this letter in\nproof that there should be no distinction between clergy and laity\nwould be very bad policy. It is indeed obvious that at this time there\nwere neither elders nor deacons, bishops nor rulers of any kind, in\nthe Church of Corinth; but then it is quite as obvious that there was\ngreat need of them, and that the want of them had given rise to some\nscandalous abuses and to much disorder. The ideal condition would be\none in which authority should be lodged in certain elected\noffice-bearers, while the faculty and gift of each member in some way\ncontributed to the good of the whole Church. In most Churches of our\nown day, efforts are made to utilize the Christian energies of their\nmembership in those various charitable works which are so necessary\nand so abundant. But probably we should all be the better of a much\nfreer ventilation of opinion within the Church and of listening to men\nwho have not been educated in any particular school of theology and\nhold their minds closely to the realities of experience.\n\nWe cannot but ask in passing, What has become of all those inspired\nutterances with which the Corinthian Church from week to week\nresounded? Doubtless they entered into the life of that generation and\nfostered the Christian character which so often shone out on the\nheathen world with surprising purity. Doubtless, too, the unknown\nteachers of those primitive Churches did much both in the way of\nsuggesting aspects of truth to Paul and of confirming, and expounding,\nand illustrating his somewhat condensed and difficult teaching. Had\ntheir utterances been recorded, many obscurities of Scripture might\nhave been removed, much light must have been reflected on the whole\ncircle of Christian truth, and we should have been able to define more\nclearly the actual condition of the Christian Church. Shorthand was in\ncommon use at that time in the Roman courts, and by its means we are\nin possession of relics of that age of much less value than the report\nof one or two of these Christian meetings might have been. No such\nreport, however, is forthcoming.\n\nWhile Paul abstains from appointing office-bearers to preside at their\nmeetings, he is careful to lay down two principles which should\nregulate their procedure. First, \"let everything be done decently and\nin order.\" This advice was greatly needed in a Church in which the\npublic services were sometimes turned into tumultuous exhibitions of\nrival gifts, each man trying to make himself heard above the din of\nvoices, one speaking with tongues, another singing a hymn, a third\nloudly addressing the congregation, so that any stranger who might be\nattracted by the noise and step into the house could think this\nChristian meeting nothing else than Bedlam broke loose. Above all\nthings, then, says Paul, conduct your meetings in a seemly fashion.\nObserve the rules of common decency and order. I do not prescribe any\nparticular forms you must observe nor any special order you must\nfollow in your services. I do not pronounce what portion of time\nshould be devoted to prayer nor what to praise or exhortation; nor do\nI require that you should in all cases begin your service in the same\nstereotyped manner and carry it through in the same routine. Your\nservices must vary both in form and in substance from week to week\naccording to the equipment of the individual members of your Church;\nsometimes there may be many who wish to exhort, sometimes there may be\nnone. But in all this freedom and variety, spontaneity must not run\ninto obtrusiveness, and variety must be saved from disorder.\n\nThe other general principle Paul lays down in the words, \"Let all\nthings be done unto edifying.\" Let each use his gift for the good of\nthe congregation. Keep the great end of your meetings in view, and you\nneed no formal rubrics. If extempore prayer is found inspiring, use\nit; if the old liturgy of the synagogue is preferred, retain its\nservice; if both have advantages, employ both. Judge your methods by\ntheir bearing on the spiritual life of your members. Make no boast of\nyour \u00e6sthetic worship, your irreproachable liturgy, your melting\nmusic, if these things do not result in a more loyal service of\nChrist. Do not pique yourselves on your puritanic simplicity of\nworship and the absence of all that is not spiritual if this bareness\nand simplicity do not bring you more directly into the presence of\nyour Lord. It matters little what we eat or in what shape it is served\nif we are the better for our food and are maintained in health and\nvigour. It matters little whether the vehicle in which we travel be\nhighly decorated or plain so long as it brings us safely to our\ndestination. Are we the better for our services? Is it our chief aim\nin them to receive and promote an earnest religious spirit and a\nsincere service of Christ?\n\nIt might be difficult to say whether the somewhat selfish ambition of\nthose Corinthians to secure the surprising gifts of the Spirit or our\nown torpid indifference and lack of expectation is less to be\ncommended. Certainly every one who attaches himself to Christ ought to\nindulge in great expectations. Through Christ lies the way out from\nthe poverty and futility that oppress our spiritual history. From Him\nwe may, however falsely modest we are, expect at least His own Spirit.\nAnd in this \"least\" there is promise of all. They who sincerely attach\nthemselves to Christ cannot fail to end by being like Him. But lack of\nexpectation is fatal to the Christian. If we expect nothing or very\nlittle from Christ, we might as well not be Christians. If He does not\nbecome to us a second conscience, ever present in us to warn against\nsin and offer opposing inducements, we might as well call ourselves by\nany other name. His power is exerted now not to excite to unwonted\nexhibitions of abnormal faculties, but to promote in us all that is\nmost stable and substantial in character. And the fact is that they\nwho hunger after righteousness are filled. They who expect that Christ\nwill help them to become like Himself do become like Him. All grace is\nattainable. Nothing but unbelief shuts us out from it. Do not be\ncontent until you find in Christ more abundant life, until you have as\nclear evidence as these Corinthians had that a new spirit of power\ndwells within you. He Himself encourages you to expect this. It is to\nreceive this He calls us to Him; and if we are not expecting this\nspirit of life, it is because we do not understand or do not believe\nHim. He has come to give us the best God has to give, and the best is\nlikeness to Himself. He has come to save our life from being a folly\nand a failure, and He saves it by filling it with His own Spirit. All\nfulness resides in Him; in Him Divine resource is made available for\nhuman needs: but the distribution is moral, not mechanical; that is to\nsay, it depends on your willingness to receive, on your expectation of\ngood, on your true personal attachment to Christ in spirit and in\nwill.\n\n_THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST._\n\n \"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the Gospel which I\n preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye\n stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I\n preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I\n delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how\n that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and\n that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day\n according to the Scriptures: and that He was seen of Cephas, then\n of the twelve: after that, He was seen of above five hundred\n brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this\n present, but some are fallen asleep. After that He was seen of\n James; then of all the Apostles. And last of all He was seen of\n me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of\n the Apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I\n persecuted the Church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I\n am: and His grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but\n I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the\n grace of God which was with me. Therefore whether it were I or\n they, so we preach, and so ye believed. Now if Christ be preached\n that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is\n no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of\n the dead, then is Christ not risen: and if Christ be not risen,\n then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and\n we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of\n God that He raised up Christ: whom He raised not up, if so be\n that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not\n Christ raised: and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain;\n ye are yet in your sins.\"--1 COR. xv. 1-17.\n\n\n\n\nXXI.\n\n_THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST._\n\nI. ITS PLACE IN THE CHRISTIAN CREED.\n\n\nPaul having now settled the minor questions of order in public\nworship, marriage, intercourse with the heathen, and the other various\ndifficulties which were distracting the Corinthian Church, turns at\nlast to a matter of prime importance and perennial interest: the\nresurrection of the body. This great subject he handles not in the\nabstract, but with a view to the particular attitude and beliefs of\nthe Corinthians. Some of them said broadly, \"There is no resurrection\nof the dead,\" although apparently they had no intention of denying\nthat Christ had risen. Accordingly Paul proceeds to show them that the\nresurrection of Christ and that of His followers hang together, that\nthe resurrection of Christ is essential to the Christian creed, that\nit is amply attested, and that although great difficulties surround\nthe subject, making it impossible to conceive what the risen body will\nbe, yet the resurrection of the body is to be looked forward to with\nconfident hope.\n\nIt will be most convenient to consider first the place which the\nresurrection of Christ holds in the Christian creed; but that we may\nfollow Paul's argument and appreciate its force, it will be necessary\nto make clear to our own mind what he meant by the resurrection of\nChrist and what position the Corinthians sought to maintain.\n\nFirst, by the resurrection of Christ Paul meant His rising from the\ngrave with a body glorified or made fit for the new and heavenly life\nHe had entered. Paul did not believe that the body he saw on the road\nto Damascus was the very body which had hung upon the cross, made of\nthe same material, subject to the same conditions. He affirms in this\nchapter that flesh and blood, a natural body, cannot enter upon the\nheavenly life. It must pass through a process which entirely alters\nits material. Paul had seen bodies consumed to ashes, and he knew that\nthe substance of these bodies could not be recovered. He was aware\nthat the material of the human body is dissolved, and is by the\nprocesses of nature used for the constructing of the bodies of fishes,\nwild beasts, birds; that as the body was sustained in life by the\nproduce of the earth, so in death it is mingled with the earth again,\ngiving back to earth what it had received. The arguments therefore\ncommonly urged against the Resurrection had no relevancy against that\nin which Paul believed, for it was not that very thing which was\nburied which he expected would rise again, but a body different in\nkind, in material, and in capacity.\n\nBut yet Paul always speaks as if there were some connection between\nthe present and the future, the natural and the spiritual, body. He\nspeaks, too, of the body of Christ as the type or specimen into the\nlikeness of which the bodies of His people are to be transformed. Now\nif we conceive, or try to conceive, what passed in that closed\nsepulchre in the garden of Joseph, we can only suppose that the body\nof flesh and blood which was taken down from the cross and laid there\nwas transformed into a spiritual body by a process which may be called\nmiraculous, but which differed from the process which is to operate in\nourselves only by its rapidity. We do not understand the process; but\nis that the only thing we do not understand? All along the line which\nmarks off this world from the spiritual world mystery broods; and the\nfact that we do not understand how the body Christ had worn on earth\npassed into a body fit for another kind of life ought not to prevent\nour believing that such a transmutation can take place. There are in\nnature many forces of which we know nothing, and it may one day appear\nto us most natural that the spirit should clothe itself with a\nspiritual body. The connection between the two bodies is the\npersistent and identical spirit which animates both. As the life that\nis in the body now assimilates material and forms the body to its\nparticular mould, so may the spirit hereafter, when ejected from its\npresent dwelling, have power to clothe itself with a body suited to\nits needs. Paul refuses to recognise any insuperable difficulty here.\nThe transmutation of the earthly body of Christ into a glorified body\nwill be repeated in the case of many of His followers, for, as he\nsays, \"we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed _in a\nmoment, in the twinkling of an eye_.\"\n\nSecondly, we must understand the position occupied by those whom Paul\naddressed in this chapter. They doubted the Resurrection; but in that\nday, as in our own, the Resurrection was denied from two opposite\npoints of view. Materialists, such as the Sadducees, believing that\nmental and spiritual life are only manifestations of physical life and\ndependent upon it, necessarily concluded that with the death of the\nbody the whole life of the individual terminates. And it would rather\nappear as if the Corinthians were tainted with materialism. \"Let us\neat and drink, for to-morrow we die,\" can only be the suggestion of\nthe materialist, who believes in no future life of any kind.\n\nBut many who opposed materialism held that the resurrection of the\nbody, if not impossible, was at all events undesirable. It was the\nfashion to speak contemptuously of the body. It was branded as the\nsource and seat of sin, as the untamed bullock which dragged its\nyokefellow, the soul, out of the straight path. Philosophers gave\nthanks to God that He had not tied their spirit to an immortal body,\nand refused to allow their portrait to be taken, lest they should be\nremembered and honoured by means of their material part. When Paul's\nteaching was accepted by such persons, they laid great stress on his\ninculcation of the mystical or spiritual dying with Christ and rising\nagain, until they persuaded themselves this was all he meant by\nresurrection. They declared that the Resurrection was past already,\nand that all believing men were already risen in Christ. To be free\nfrom all connection with matter was an essential element in their idea\nof salvation, and to promise them the resurrection of the body was to\noffer them a very doubtful blessing indeed.\n\nIn our own day the resurrection of Christ is denied both from the\nmaterialist and from the spiritualist or idealist point of view. It is\nsaid that the resurrection of Christ is an undoubted fact if by the\nresurrection it be meant that His spirit survived death and now lives\nin us. But the bodily resurrection is a thing of no account. Not from\nthe risen body flows the power that has altered human history, but\nfrom the teachings and life of Christ and from His devotement of\nHimself even unto death to the interests of men. Christ lay in His\ngrave, and the elements of His body have passed into the bosom of\nnature, as ours will before long; but His spirit was not imprisoned in\nthe grave: it lives, perhaps in us. Statements to this effect you may\nhear or read frequently in our day. And either of two very different\nbeliefs may be expressed in such language. It may, on the one hand,\nmean that the person Jesus is individually extinct, and that although\nvirtue still flows from His life, as from that of every good man, He\nis Himself unconscious of this and of everything else, and can exert\nno new and fresh influence, such as emanates from a person presently\nalive and aware of the exigencies appealing to His interference. This\nis plainly a form of belief entirely different from that of the\nApostles, who acted for a living Lord, to whom they appealed and by\nwhom they were guided. Belief in a dead Christ, who cannot hear prayer\nand is unconscious of our service, may indeed help a man who has\nnothing better to help him; but it is not the belief of the Apostles.\n\nOn the other hand, it may be meant that although the body of Christ\nremained in the tomb, His spirit survived death, and lives a\ndisembodied but conscious and powerful life. One of the profoundest\nGerman critics, Keim, has expressed himself to this effect. The\nApostles, he thinks, did not see the actual risen body of the Lord;\ntheir visions of a glorified Jesus were not, however, delusive; the\nappearances were not the creations of their own excitement, but were\nintentionally produced by the Lord Himself. Jesus, it is believed, had\nactually passed into a higher life, and was as full of consciousness\nand of power as He had been on earth; and of this glorified life in\nwhich He was He gave the Apostles assurance by these appearances. The\nbody of the Lord remained in the tomb; but these appearances were\nintended, to use the critic's own words, as a kind of telegram, to\nassure them He was alive. Had such a sign of His continued and\nglorified life not been given, their belief in Him as the Messiah\ncould not have survived the death on the cross.\n\nThis view, although erroneous, can do little harm to experimental or\npractical Christianity. The difference between a disembodied spirit\nand a spiritual body is really unappreciable to our present knowledge.\nAnd if any one finds it impossible to believe in the bodily\nresurrection of Christ, but easy to believe in His present life and\npower, it would only be mischievous to require of him a faith he\ncannot give in addition to a faith which brings him into real\nfellowship with Christ. The main purpose of Christ's appearances was\nto give to His disciples assurance of His continued life and power. If\nthat assurance already exists, then belief in Christ as alive and\nsupreme supersedes the use of the usual stepping-stone towards that\nbelief.\n\nAt the same time, it must be maintained that not only did the Apostles\nbelieve they saw the body of Christ, by which indeed they first of all\nidentified Him, but also they were distinctly assured that the body\nthey saw was not a ghost or a telegram, but a veritable body that\ncould stand handling, and whose lips and throat could utter sound.\nBesides, it is not in reason to suppose that when they saw this\nappearance, whatever it was, they should not at once go to the\nsepulchre and see what was there. And if there they saw the body while\nin various other places they saw what seemed to be the body, what a\nworld of incomprehensible and mystifying jugglery must they have felt\nthemselves to be involved in!\n\nIt is a fact then that those who knew most both about the body and\nabout the spirit of Jesus believed they saw the body and were\nencouraged so to believe. Besides, if we accept the view that though\nChrist is alive, His body remained in the grave, we are at once\nconfronted with the difficulty that Christ's glorification is not yet\ncomplete. If Christ's body did not partake in His conquest over the\ngrave, then that conquest is partial and incomplete. Human nature both\nin this life and in the life to come is composed of body and spirit;\nand if Christ now sits at God's right hand in perfected human nature,\nit is not as a disembodied spirit, but as a complete person in a\nglorified body, we must conceive of Him. No doubt it is a spiritual\ninfluence which Christ now exerts upon His followers, and their belief\nin His risen life may be independent of any statements made by the\ndisciples concerning His body; at the same time, to suppose that\nChrist is now without a body is to suppose that He is imperfect: and\nit must also be remembered that the primitive faith and restored\nconfidence in Christ, to which the very existence of the Church is\ndue, were created by the sight of the empty tomb and the glorified\nbody.\n\nIn the face of such chapters as this and other passages equally\nexplicit, modern believers in a merely spiritual resurrection have\nfound some difficulty in reconciling their views with the statements\nof Paul. Mr. Matthew Arnold undertakes to show us how this may be\ndone. \"Not for a moment,\" he says, \"do we deny that in Paul's earlier\ntheology, and notably in the Epistles to the Thessalonians and\nCorinthians, the physical and miraculous aspect of the Resurrection,\nboth Christ's and the believer's, is primary and predominant. Not for\na moment do we deny that to the very end of his life, after the\nEpistle to the Romans, after the Epistle to the Philippians, if he had\nbeen asked whether he held the doctrine of the Resurrection in the\nphysical and miraculous sense as well as in his own spiritual and\nmystical sense, he would have replied with entire conviction that he\ndid. Very likely it would have been impossible to him to imagine his\ntheology without it. But--\n\n 'Below the surface stream, shallow and light,\n Of what we _say_ we feel--below the stream,\n As light, of what we _think_ we feel, there flows\n With noiseless current strong, obscure and deep,\n The central stream of what we feel indeed;'\n\nand by this alone are we truly characterised.\" This, however, is not\nto interpret an author, but to make him a mere nose of wax that can be\nworked into any convenient shape. Probably Paul understood his own\ntheology quite as well as Mr. Arnold; and, as his critic says, he\nconsidered the physical resurrection of Christ and the believer an\nessential part of it.\n\nConsidering the place which our Lord's risen body had in Paul's\nconversion, it could not be otherwise. At the very moment when Paul's\nwhole system of thought was in a state of fusion the risen Lord was\npre-eminently impressed upon it. It was through his conviction of the\nresurrection of Christ that both Paul's theology and his character\nwere once for all radically altered. The idea of a crucified Messiah\nhad been abhorrent to him, and his life was dedicated to the\nextirpation of this vile heresy that sprang from the Cross. But from\nthe moment when with his own eyes he saw the risen Lord he understood,\nwith the rest of the disciples, that death was the Messiah's\nappointed path to supreme spiritual headship. As truly in Paul's case\nas in that of the other disciples faith sprang from the sight of the\nglorified Christ; and to none could it be so inevitable as to him to\nsay, \"If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your\nfaith is also vain.\" From the first Paul had put the resurrection of\nChrist forward as an essential and fundamental part of the Gospel he\nhad received, and which he was accustomed to deliver.\n\nAnd, generally speaking, this place is assigned to it both by\nbelievers and by unbelievers. It is recognised that it was the belief\nin the Resurrection which first revived the hopes of Christ's\nfollowers and drew them together to wait for the promise of His\nSpirit. It is recognised that whether the Resurrection be a fact or\nno, the Church of Christ was founded on the belief that it had taken\nplace, so that if that had been removed the Church could not have\nbeen. This is affirmed as decisively by unbelievers as by believers.\nThe great leader of modern unbelief (Strauss) declares that the\nResurrection is \"the centre of the centre, the real heart of\nChristianity as it has been until now;\" while one of his ablest\nopponents says, \"The Resurrection created the Church, the risen Christ\nmade Christianity; and even now the Christian faith stands or falls\nwith Him.... If it be true that no living Christ ever issued from the\ntomb of Joseph, then that tomb becomes the grave, not of a man, but of\na religion, with all the hopes built on it and all the splendid\nenthusiasms it has inspired\" (Fairbairn).\n\nIt is not difficult to perceive what it was in the resurrection of\nChrist which gave it this importance.\n\n1. First, it was the convincing proof that Christ's words were true,\nand that He was what He had claimed to be. He Himself had on more\noccasions than one hinted that such proof was to be given, \"Destroy\nthis temple,\" He said, \"and in three days I will raise it again.\" The\nsign which was to be given, notwithstanding His habitual refusal to\nyield to the Jewish craving for miracle, was the sign of the prophet\nJonah. As he had been thrown out and lost for three days and nights,\nbut had thereby only been forwarded in his mission, so our Lord was to\nbe thrown out as endangering the ship, but was to rise again to fuller\nand more perfect efficiency. In order that His claim to be the Messiah\nmight be understood, it was necessary that He should die; but in order\nthat it might be believed, it was needful that He should rise. Had He\nnot died, His followers would have continued to expect a reign of\nearthly power; His death showed them no such reign could be, and\nconvinced them His spiritual power sprang out of apparent weakness.\nBut had He not risen again, all their hopes would have been blighted.\nAll who had believed in Him would have joined with the Emmaus\ndisciples in their hopeless cry, \"We thought that this had been He who\nshould have redeemed Israel.\"\n\nIt was the resurrection of our Lord, then, which convinced His\ndisciples that His words had been true, that He was what He had\nclaimed to be, and that He was not mistaken regarding His own person,\nHis work, His relation to the Father, the prospects of Himself and His\npeople. This was the answer given by God to the doubts, and calumnies,\nand accusations of men. Jesus at the last had stood alone, unsupported\nby one favouring voice. His own disciples forsook Him, and in their\nbewilderment knew not what to think. Those who considered Him a\ndangerous and seditious person or at best a crazed enthusiast found\nthemselves backed by the voice of the people and urged to extreme\nmeasures, with none to remonstrate save the heathen judge, none to\npity save a few women. This delusion, they congratulated themselves,\nwas stamped out. And stamped out it would have been but for the\nResurrection. \"Then it was seen that while the world had scorned the\nSon of God, the Father had been watching over Him with unceasing love;\nthat while the world had placed Him at its bar as a malefactor and\nblasphemer, the Father had been making ready for Him a seat at His own\nright hand; that while the world nailed Him to the cross, the Father\nhad been preparing for Him 'many crowns' and a name that is above\nevery name; that while the world had gone to the grave in the garden,\nsetting a watch and sealing the stone, and had then returned to its\nfeasting and merriment, because the Preacher of righteousness was no\nlonger there to trouble it, the Father had waited for the third\nmorning in order to bring Him forth in triumph from the grave.\"[16]\n\n [16] Milligan, _The Resurrection of our Lord_, p. 150.\n\nThis contrast between the treatment Christ received at the hands of\nmen and His justification by the Father in the Resurrection fills and\ncolours all the addresses delivered by the Apostles to the people in\nthe immediately succeeding days. They evidently accepted the\nResurrection as God's great attestation to the person and work of\nChrist. It changed their own thoughts about Him, and they expected it\nwould change the thoughts of other men. They saw now that His death\nwas one of the necessary steps in His career, one of the essential\nparts of the work He had come to do. Had Christ not been raised, they\nwould have thought Him weak and mistaken as other men. The beauty and\npromise of His words which had so attracted them would now have seemed\ndelusive and unbearable. But in the light of the Resurrection they saw\nthat the Christ \"ought to have suffered these things and so to enter\nHis glory.\" They could now confidently say, \"He died for our sins, and\nwas raised again for our justification.\"\n\n2. Secondly, the resurrection of Christ occupies a fundamental place\nin the Christian creed, because by it there is disclosed a real and\nclose connection between this world and the unseen, eternal world.\nThere is no need now of argument to prove a life beyond; here is one\nwho is in it. For the resurrection of Christ was not a return to this\nlife, to its wants, to its limitations, to its inevitable close; but\nit was a resurrection to a life for ever beyond death. Neither was it\na discarding of humanity on Christ's part, a cessation of His\nacceptance of human conditions, a rising to some kind of existence to\nwhich man has no access. On the contrary, it was because He continued\ntruly human that in human body and with human soul He rose to\nveritable human life beyond the grave. If Jesus rose from the dead,\nthen the world into which He is gone is a real world, in which men can\nlive more fully than they live here. If He rose from the dead, then\nthere is an unseen Spirit mightier than the strongest material powers,\na God who is seeking to bring us out of all evil into an eternally\nhappy condition. Quite reasonably is death invested with a certain\nmajesty, if not terror, as the mightiest of physical things. There may\nbe greater evils; but they do not affect all men, but only some, or\nthey debar men from certain enjoyments and a certain kind of life,\nbut not from all. But death shuts men out from everything with which\nthey have here to do, and launches them into a condition of which they\nknow absolutely nothing. Any one who conquers death and scatters its\nmystery, who shows in his own person that it is innocuous, and that it\nactually betters our condition, brings us light that reaches us from\nno other quarter. And He who shows this superiority over death in\nvirtue of a moral superiority, and uses it for the furtherance of the\nhighest spiritual ends, shows a command over the whole affairs of men\nwhich makes it easy to believe He can guide us into a condition like\nHis own. As Peter affirms, it is \"by the resurrection of Jesus Christ\nfrom the dead we are begotten again unto a lively hope.\"\n\n3. For, lastly, it is in the resurrection of Christ we see at once the\nnorm or type of our life here and of our destiny hereafter. Holiness\nand immortality are two aspects, two manifestations, of the Divine\nlife we receive from Christ. They are inseparable the one from the\nother. His Spirit is the source of both. \"If the Spirit that raised up\nthe Lord Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, He that raised up Christ\nJesus from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies through His\nSpirit that dwelleth in you.\" If we have now the one evidence of His\nindwelling in us, we shall one day have the other. The hope that\nshould uplift and purify every part of the Christian's character is a\nhope which is shadowy, unreal, inoperative, in those who merely know\nabout Christ and His work; it becomes a living hope, full of\nimmortality, in all who are now actually drawing their life from\nChrist, who have their life truly hid with Christ in God, who are in\nheart and will one with the Most High, in whom is all life.\n\nTherefore does Paul so continually hold up to us the risen life of\nChrist as that to which we are to be conformed. We are to rise with\nHim to newness of life. As Christ has done with death, having died to\nsin once, so must His people be dead to sin and live to God with Him.\nSometimes in weariness or dejection one feels as if he had seen the\nbest of everything experienced all he can experience, and must now\nsimply endure life; he sees no prospect of anything fresh, or\nattractive, or reviving. But this is not because he has exhausted\nlife, but because he has not begun it. To the \"children of the\nResurrection,\" who have followed Christ in His path to life by\nrenouncing sin, and conquering self, and giving themselves to God,\nthere is a springing life in their own soul that renews hope and\nenergy.\n\n\n\n\nXXII.\n\n_THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST (continued)._\n\nII. ITS PROOF.\n\n\nPaul, having affirmed that the resurrection of Christ is an essential\nelement of the Gospel, proceeds to sketch the evidence for the fact.\nThat evidence mainly consists in the attestation of those who at\nvarious times and in various places and circumstances had seen the\nLord after His death. Other evidence there is, as Paul indicates. In\ncertain unspecified passages of the Old Testament he thinks a\ndiscerning reader might have found sufficient intimation that when the\nMessiah came He would both die and rise again. But as he himself had\nnot at first recognised these intimations in the Old Testament, he\ndoes not press them upon others, but appeals to the simple fact that\nmany of those who had been familiar with the appearance of Christ\nwhile He lived saw Him after death alive.\n\nAs a preliminary to the positive evidence here adduced by Paul, it may\nbe remarked that we have no record of any contemporary denial of the\nfact, save only the story put in the mouths of the soldiers by the\nchief priests. Matthew tells us that it was currently reported that\nthe soldiers who had been on guard at the sepulchre were bribed by the\npriests and elders to say that the disciples had come in the night\nand stolen the body. But whatever temporary purpose they fancied this\nmight serve, the great purpose it now serves is to prove the truth of\nthe Resurrection, for the main point is admitted, the tomb was empty.\nAs for the story itself, its falsehood must have been apparent; and\nprobably no one in Jerusalem was so simple as to be taken in by it.\nFor, in point of fact, the authorities had taken steps to prevent this\nvery thing. They were resolved there should be no tampering with the\ngrave, and accordingly had set their official seal upon it and placed\na guard to watch.\n\nThe evidence thus unintentionally furnished by the authorities is\nimportant. Their action after the Resurrection proves that the tomb\nwas empty; while their action previous to the Resurrection proves that\nit was emptied by no ordinary interposition, but by the actual rising\nof Jesus from the dead. So beyond doubt was this that when Peter stood\nbefore the Sanhedrim and affirmed it no one was hardy enough to\ncontradict him. Had they been able to persuade themselves that the\ndisciples had tampered with the guard, or overpowered them, or\nterrified them in the night by strange appearances, why did they not\nprosecute the disciples for breaking the official seal? Could they\nhave had a more plausible pretext for exploding the Christian faith\nand stamping out the nascent heresy? They were perplexed and alarmed\nat the growth of the Church; what hindered them from bringing proof\nthat there had been no resurrection? They had every inducement to do\nso, yet they did not. If the body was still in the grave, nothing was\neasier than to produce it; if the grave was empty, as they affirmed,\nbecause the disciples had stolen the body, no more welcome handle\nagainst them could have been furnished to the authorities. But they\ncould not in open court pretend any such thing. They knew that what\ntheir guard reported was true. In short, there was no object the\nSanhedrim would more gladly have compassed than to explode the belief\nin the resurrection of Christ; if that belief was false, they had\nample means of showing it to be so: and yet they did absolutely\nnothing that had any weight with the public mind. It is apparent that\nnot only the disciples, but the authorities, were compelled to admit\nthe fact of the Resurrection.\n\nThe idea that there was only a pretended resurrection, vamped up by\nthe disciples, may therefore be dismissed; and indeed no well-informed\nperson nowadays would venture to affirm such a thing. It is admitted\nby those who deny the Resurrection as explicitly as by those who\naffirm it that the disciples had a _bon\u00e2 fide_ belief that Jesus had\nrisen from the dead and was alive. The only question is, How was that\nbelief produced? And to this question there are three answers: (1)\nthat the disciples saw our Lord alive after the Crucifixion, but He\nhad never been dead; (2) that they only thought they saw Him; and (3)\nthat they did actually see Him alive after being dead and buried.\n\n1. The first answer is plainly inadequate. We are asked to account for\nthe Christian Church, for the belief in a risen Lord which animated\nthe first disciples with a faith, a hope, a courage, whose power is\nfelt to this day; we ask for an explanation of this singular\ncircumstance that a number of men arrived at the conclusion that they\nhad an almighty Friend, One who had all power in heaven and on earth;\nand we are told, in explanation of this, that they had seen their\nMaster barely rescued from crucifixion, creeping about the earth,\nscarcely able to move, all stained with blood, soiled from the tomb,\npale, weak, helpless, and this object caused them to believe He was\nalmighty. As one of the most sceptical of critics himself says, \"one\nwho had thus crept forth half dead from the grave and crawled about a\nsickly patient, needing medical and surgical assistance, nursing and\nstrengthening, and who finally succumbed to his sufferings, could\nnever have given his followers the impression that he was the\nConqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of life. Such a\nrecovery could only have weakened or at best given a pathetic tinge to\nthe impression which he had made upon them by his life and death; it\ncould not possibly have changed their sorrow into ecstasy, and raised\ntheir reverence into worship.\"\n\nThis explanation then may be dismissed. It is neither in harmony with\nthe facts, nor is it adequate as an explanation.\n\nIt is not in harmony with the facts, because the fact of His death was\ncertified by the surest authority. There was in the world at that\ntime, and there is in the world now, nothing more punctiliously\naccurate than a soldier trained under the old Roman discipline. The\npunctilious exactness of this discipline is seen in the conduct both\nof the soldiers at the cross and of Pilate. Though the soldiers see\nthat Jesus is dead, they make sure of His death by a spear-thrust, a\nhandbreadth wide, sufficient of itself, as they very well knew, to\ncause death. And when Pilate is applied to for the body, he will not\ngive it up until he has received from the centurion on duty the\nnecessary certificate that the sentence of death has actually been\nexecuted.\n\nNeither is the supposition that Jesus survived the Crucifixion and\nappeared to His disciples in this rescued condition any explanation\nof their faith in Him as a risen, glorious, almighty Lord. The Person\nthey saw and afterwards believed in was not a bleeding, crushed,\ndefeated man, who had death still to look forward to, but a Person who\nhad passed through and conquered death, and was now alive for\nevermore, opening for Himself and to them the gates of a glorious and\ndeathless life.\n\n2. The belief of the disciples is explained with greater appearance of\ninsight by those who say that they imagined they saw the risen Lord,\nalthough in reality they did not. There are, it is pointed out,\nseveral ways in which the disciples may have been deceived. For\nexample, some clever and scheming person may have personated Jesus.\nSuch personations have been made, but never with such results. When\nPostumus Agrippa was killed, one of his slaves secreted or dispersed\nthe ashes of the murdered man, to destroy the evidence of his death,\nand retired for a time till his hair and beard were grown, to favour a\ncertain likeness which he actually bore him. Meanwhile, taking a few\nintimates into his confidence, he spread a report, which found ready\nlisteners, that Agrippa still lived. He glided from town to town,\nshowing himself in the dusk for a few minutes only at a time to men\nprepared for the sudden apparition, until it came to be noised abroad\nthat the gods had saved the grandson of Agrippa from the fate intended\nfor him, and that he was about to visit the city and claim his\nrightful inheritance. But no sooner did the vulgar imposture take this\npractical shape and come into contact with the realities of life than\nthe whole trick exploded. Imposture, in fact, does not fit the case\nbefore us at all; and the more we consider the combination of\nqualities required in any one who could undertake to personate the\nrisen Lord, the more we shall be persuaded that the right explanation\nof the belief in the Resurrection is not to be sought in this\ndirection.\n\nAgain, one of the most reasonable and influential of our\ncontemporaries ascribes \"the great myth of Christ's bodily revival to\nthe belief on the part of the disciples that such a soul could not\nbecome extinct. In a lesser way the grave of a beloved friend has been\nto many a man the birthplace of his faith; and it is obvious that in\nthe case of Christ every condition was fulfilled which would raise\nsuch sudden conviction to the height of passionate fervour. The first\nwords of the disciples to one another on that Easter morn may well\nhave been 'He is not dead. His spirit is this day in paradise among\nthe sons of God.'\" Quite so; they of course believed that His spirit\nwas in paradise, and for that very reason fully expected to find His\nbody in the tomb. No ordinary visit to a grave, nor any ordinary\nresults flowing from such a visit, throw light on the case before us,\nbecause in ordinary circumstances sane men do not believe that their\nfriends are restored to them, and are standing in bodily palpable\nshape before them. There is no likelihood whatever that their belief\nin the continued existence of their Master's spirit should have given\nrise to the conviction that they had seen Him. It might have given\nrise to such expressions as that He would be with them to the end of\nthe world, but not to the conviction that they had seen Him in the\nbody.\n\nHere, again, is R\u00e9nan's account of the growth of this belief: \"To\nJesus was to happen the same fortune which is the lot of all men who\nhave riveted the attention of their fellow-men. The world, accustomed\nto attribute to them superhuman virtues, cannot admit that they have\nsubmitted to the unjust, revolting, iniquitous law of the death common\nto all. At the moment in which Mahomet expired Omar rushed from the\ntent, sword in hand, and declared that he would hew down any one who\nshould dare to say that the prophet was no more.... Heroes do not die.\nWhat is true existence but the recollection of us which survives in\nthe hearts of those who love us? For some years this adored Master had\nfilled the little world by which He was surrounded with joy and hope;\ncould they consent to allow Him to the decay of the tomb? No; He had\nlived so entirely in those who surrounded Him, that they could but\naffirm that after His death He was still living.\" M. R\u00e9nan is careful\nnot to remind us that the uproar occasioned by Omar's announcement was\nstilled by the calm voice of Abu Bekr, who also came forth from the\ndeathbed of Mahomet with the memorable words, \"Whoso hath worshipped\nMahomet, let him know that Mahomet is dead, but whoso hath worshipped\nGod that the Lord liveth and doth not die.\" The great critic omits\nalso to notice that none of the Apostles said, like Omar, that their\nMaster was not dead; they admitted and felt His death keenly; and it\nis vain to attempt to confound things essentially distinct, the\nassertion of a matter of fact, viz., that the Lord had risen again,\nwith the sentimental or regretful resuscitation of a man's image in\nthe hearts of his surviving friends.\n\nBesides, it should be observed that all these hypotheses which explain\nthe belief in the Resurrection by supposing that the disciples\nimagined they had seen Christ, or persuaded themselves that He still\nlived, omit altogether to explain how they disposed of the tomb of\nour Lord, in which, according to this hypothesis, His body was still\nquietly reposing. One or two persons in a peculiarly excitable state\nmight suppose they had seen a figure resembling a person about whom\nthey were concerned; but how the belief that the tomb was empty could\ntake any hold on them or on the thousands who must have visited it in\nthe succeeding weeks is not explained, nor is any attempt made to\nexplain it.\n\nIs there then no possibility of the disciples having been deceived?\nMay they not have been mistaken? May they not have seen what they\nwished to see, as other men have sometimes done? Men of vivid fancy or\nof a boastful spirit sometimes come really to believe they have done\nand said things they never did or said. Is it out of the question to\nimagine that the disciples may have been similarly misled? Had the\nbelief in the Resurrection depended on the report of one man, had\nthere been only one or a few eyewitnesses of the matter, their\nevidence might have been explained away on this ground. It is\npossible, of course, that one or two persons who were anxiously\nlooking for the resurrection of Jesus might have persuaded themselves\nthey saw Him, might persuade themselves that some distant figure or\nsome gleam of morning sunshine among the trees of the garden was the\nlooked-for person. It requires no profound psychological knowledge to\nteach us that occasionally visions are seen. But what we have here to\nexplain is how not one but several persons, not together but in\ndifferent places and at different times, not all in one mood of mind\nbut in various moods, came to believe they had seen the risen Lord. He\nwas recognised, not by persons who expected to see Him alive, but by\nwomen who went to anoint Him dead; not by credulous, excitable\npersons, but by men who would not believe till they had gone to and\ninto the sepulchre; not by persons so enthusiastic and creative of\ntheir own belief as to mistake any passing stranger or even a gleam of\nlight for Him they sought, but so slow to believe, so scornfully\nincredulous of resurrection, so resolutely sceptical and so keenly\nalive to the possibility of delusion, that they vowed nothing would\nsatisfy them but the test of touch and sight. It was a belief\nproduced, not by one extraordinary and doubtful appearance, but by\nrepeated and prolonged appearances to persons in various places and of\nvarious temperaments.\n\nThis supposition, therefore, that the disciples were prepared to\nbelieve in the Resurrection and wished to believe it, and that what\nthey wished to see they thought they saw, must be given up. It has\nnever been shown that the disciples _had_ such a belief; it formed no\npart of the Jewish creed regarding the Messiah: and the idea that they\nactually were in this expectant state of mind is thoroughly\ncontradicted by the narrative. So far from being hopeful, they were\nsad and gloomy, as witness the melancholy, resigned despair of the two\nfriends on the road to Emmaus.\n\n \"It is a woe 'too deep for tears' when all\n Is reft at once, when some surpassing spirit,\n Whose light adorned the world around it, leaves\n Those who remain behind, not sobs or groans,\n But pale despair and cold tranquillity.\"\n\nSuch was the state of mind of the bereft disciples. They thought all\nwas over. The women who went with their spices to anoint the\ndead--_they_ certainly were not expecting to find their Lord risen.\nThe men to whom they announced what they had seen were sceptical;\nsome of them laughed at the women, and called their report \"idle\ntales,\" and would not believe. Mary Magdalene was so little expecting\nto see her Lord alive again that when He did appear to her she thought\nHe was the gardener, the _only_ person she dreamt of seeing going\nabout at that hour in the garden. Thomas, with all the resolute\ndistrust of others which a modern sceptic could show, vows he will\nbelieve such a wild imagination on no man's word, and unless he sees\nthe Lord with his own eyes and is allowed to test the reality of the\nfigure by touch as well, he will not be convinced. To the disciples on\nthe way to Emmaus, though they had never heard such conversation\nbefore as that of the Person who joined them, it never once occurred\nthat this could be the Lord. In short, there was not one person to\nwhom our Lord appeared who was not taken wholly by surprise. So far\nwere they from depicting the Resurrection in their hopes and fancies\nwith such vividness as to make it seem to take outward shape and\nreality, that even when it did actually take place they could scarcely\nbelieve it on the strongest evidence. We are compelled, therefore, to\ndismiss the idea that the first disciples believed in the resurrection\nbecause they wished to do so and were prepared to do so.\n\n3. There remains, therefore, only the third explanation of the\ndisciples' belief in the Resurrection: they did see Him alive after He\nhad been dead and buried. Plainly it was no phantom, or ghost, or\nimaginary appearance which could personate their lost Master and rouse\nthem from the despondency, and inaction, and timidity of disappointed\nhopes to the calmest consistency of plan and the firmest courage. It\nwas no vision created by their own imagination which could at once\nand for ever alter the idea of the Messiah which the disciples, in\ncommon with all their countrymen, held. It was no phantom who could\nimitate the impressive individuality of the Lord and continue His\nidentity into new scenes, who could inspire the disciples with unity\nof purpose, and who could lead them forward to the most splendid\nvictories men have ever won. No; nothing will explain the faith of the\nApostles and of the rest but the fact of their really seeing the Lord\nafter His death clothed in power. The men who said they had seen Him\nwere men of probity; they were men who showed themselves worthy of\nbeing witnesses to so great an event; men animated by no paltry spirit\nof vainglory, but by seriousness, even sublimity, of mind; men whose\nlives and conduct require an explanation, and which are explained by\ntheir having been brought in contact with the spiritual world in this\nsurprising and solemnizing manner.\n\nThe testimony of Paul himself is in some respects more convincing than\nthat of those who saw the Lord immediately after the Resurrection.\nCertainly he was neither anxious to believe nor likely to be ignorant\nof the facts. He had devoted himself to the extermination of the new\nfaith; all his hopes as a Pharisee and as a Jew were banded against\nit. He had the best means of ascertaining the truth, living on terms\nof friendship with the leading men in Jerusalem. It is simply\ninconceivable that he should have abandoned all his prospects and\nentered on a wholly different life without carefully investigating the\nchief fact which influenced him in making this change. It is of course\nsaid that Paul was a nervous, excitable creature, probably epileptic,\nand certainly liable to see visions. It is insinuated that his\nconversion was due to the combined influence of epilepsy and a\nthunderstorm--of all the unlucky suggestions of modern scepticism\nperhaps the unluckiest. Were it true, one could only wish epilepsy\ncommoner than it is. We have to account not only for Paul's\nconversion, but for his abiding by the convictions at first produced\nin him. It is out of the question to suppose that he did not spend\nmuch of the immediately succeeding years in examining the grounds of\nthe Christian faith and in questioning himself as to his own belief.\nPaul was no doubt eager and enthusiastic, but no man was ever better\nfitted to move among the realities of life or to ascertain what these\nrealities are. Englishmen regard Paley as one of the best\nrepresentatives of the combined acuteness and sense, penetration and\nsolidity of judgment, by which English judges are supposed to be\ncharacterized; and Paley says of Paul, \"His letters furnish evidence\nof the soundness and sobriety of his judgment, and his morality is\neverywhere calm, pure, and rational; adapted to the condition, the\nactivity, and the business of social life and of its various\nrelations; free from the overscrupulousness and austerities of\nsuperstition, and from what was more perhaps to be apprehended, the\nabstractions of quietism and the soarings and extravagances of\nfanaticism.\" But really no person of ordinary capacity needs\ncertificates of Paul's sanity. No saner or more commanding intellect\never headed a complex and difficult movement. There is no one of that\ngeneration whose testimony to the Resurrection is more worth having,\nand we have it in the most emphatic form of a life based upon it.\n\nNo one, so far as I know, who has taken a serious interest in the\nevidence adduced for this event, has denied that it would be quite\nsufficient to authenticate any ordinary historical event. In point of\nfact, the majority of the events of past history are accepted on much\nslenderer evidence than that which we have for the Resurrection. The\nevidence we have for it is of precisely the same kind as that on which\nwe accept ordinary events; it is the testimony of the persons\nconcerned, the simple statements of eyewitnesses and of those who were\nacquainted with eyewitnesses. It is not a prophetical, or poetical, or\nsymbolical, or supernatural statement, but the plain and unvarnished\ntestimony of ordinary men. The accounts vary in many particulars, but\nas to the central fact that the Lord rose and was seen over and over\nagain there is no variation, and such variations as there are are\nmerely such as exist in all similar accounts by different individuals\nof one and the same event. In short, the evidence can be refused only\non the ground that no evidence, however strong, could prove such an\nincredible event. It is admitted that the evidence would be accepted\nin any other case, but this reported event is in itself incredible.\nThe idea of any interference with the physical laws which rule the\nworld, no matter how important an end is to be served by the\ninterference, is rejected as out of the question. This seems to me\nquite an illogical method of dealing with the subject. The\nsupernatural is rejected as a preliminary, so as to bar any\nconsideration of the most appropriate evidences of the supernatural.\nBefore looking at that which, if not the most effective proof of the\nsupernatural, is at least among those arguments which chiefly deserve\nattention, the mind is made up to reject all evidence of the\nsupernatural.\n\nThe first business of scientific men is to look at facts. Many facts\nwhich at first sight seemed to contradict previously ascertained laws\nwere ultimately found to indicate the presence of a higher law. Why\nare men of science so terrified by the word \"miracle\"? This event may,\nlike the visit of a comet, have occurred only once in the world's\nhistory; but it need not on that account be irreducible to law or to\nreason. The resurrection of Christ is unique, because He is unique.\nFind another Person bearing the same relation to the race and living\nthe same life, and you will find a similar resurrection. To say that\nit is unusual or unprecedented is to say nothing at all to the\npurpose.\n\nBesides, those who reject the resurrection of Christ as impossible are\ncompelled to accept an equally astounding moral miracle--the miracle,\nI mean, that those who had the best means of ascertaining the truth\nand every possible inducement to ascertain it should all have been\ndeceived, and that this deception should have been the most fruitful\nsource of good, not only to them, but to the whole world.\n\nWe are brought then to the conclusion that the disciples believed in\nthe resurrection of Christ because it had actually taken place. No\nother account of their belief has ever been given which commends\nitself to the common understanding which accepts what appeals to it.\nNo account of the belief has been given which is at all likely to gain\ncurrency or which is more credible than that which it seeks to\nsupplant. The belief in the Resurrection which so suddenly and\neffectively possessed the first disciples remains unexplained by any\nother supposition than the simple one that the Lord did rise again.\n\n_CONSEQUENCES OF DENYING RESURRECTION._\n\n \"Now if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how say\n some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if\n there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:\n and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your\n faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God;\n because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ: whom\n He raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the\n dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: and if Christ be not\n raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they\n also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this\n life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most\n miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the\n firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by\n man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all\n die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in\n his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are\n Christ's at His coming. Then cometh the end, when He shall have\n delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall\n have put down all rule and all authority and power. For He must\n reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last\n enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For He hath put all\n things under His feet. But when He saith, all things are put\n under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted, which did put all\n things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him,\n then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all\n things under Him, that God may be all in all. Else what shall\n they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at\n all? why are they then baptized for the dead? And why stand we in\n jeopardy every hour? I protest by your rejoicing which I have in\n Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If after the manner of men I\n have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if\n the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to-morrow we die. Be\n not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. Awake to\n righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of\n God: I speak this to your shame.\"--1 COR. xv. 12-34.\n\n\n\n\nXXIII\n\n_CONSEQUENCES OF DENYING RESURRECTION._\n\n\nIn endeavouring to restore among the Corinthians the belief in the\nresurrection of the body, Paul shows the fundamental place occupied in\nthe Christian creed by the resurrection of Christ, and what\nattestation His resurrection had received. He further exhibits certain\nconsequences which flow from denial of the resurrection. These\nconsequences are (1) that if there is no resurrection of the body,\nthen Christ is not risen, and that, therefore, (2) the Apostles who\nwitnessed to that resurrection are false witnesses; (3) that those who\nhad already died believing in Christ, had perished, and that our hope\nin Christ must be confined to this life; (4) that baptism for the dead\nis a vain folly if the dead rise not. To the statement and discussion\nof these consequences Paul devotes a large part of this chapter, from\nverse 12 to verse 34. Let us take the least important consequence\nfirst.\n\n1. \"If the dead rise not at all, what shall they do who are baptized\nfor the dead?\" (ver. 29)--an enquiry of which the Corinthians no doubt\nfelt the full force, but which is rather lost upon us because we do\nnot know what it means. Some have thought that as baptism is sometimes\nused in Scripture as equivalent to immersion in a sea of troubles,\nPaul means to ask, \"What shall they do, what hope have they, who are\nplunged in grief for the friends they have lost?\" Some think it refers\nto those who have been baptized with Christ's baptism, that is to say,\nhave suffered martyrdom and so entered into the Church of the dead.\nOthers again think, that to be baptized \"for the dead\" means no more\nthan ordinary baptism, in which the believer looks forward to the\nresurrection from the dead. The primitive form of baptism brought\ndeath and the resurrection vividly before the believer's mind, and\nconfirmed his hope in the resurrection, which hope was vain if there\nis no resurrection.\n\nThe plain meaning of the words, however, seems to point to a vicarious\nbaptism, in which a living friend received baptism as a proxy for a\nperson who had died without baptism. Of such a custom there is\nhistorical trace. Even before the Christian era, among the Jews when a\nman died in a state of ceremonial defilement it was customary for a\nfriend of the deceased to perform in his stead the washings and other\nrites which the dead man would have performed had he recovered. A\nsimilar practice prevailed to some small extent among the primitive\nChristians, although it was never admitted as a valid rite by the\nChurch Catholic. Then, as now, it sometimes happened that on the\napproach of death the thoughts of unbelieving persons were strongly\nturned towards the Christian faith, but before baptism could be\nadministered death cut down the intending Christian. Baptism was\ngenerally postponed until youth or even middle life was passed, in\norder that a large number of sins might be washed away in baptism, or\nthat fewer might stain the soul after it. But naturally\nmiscalculations sometimes occurred, and sudden death anticipated a\nlong-delayed baptism. In such cases the friends of the deceased\nderived consolation from vicarious baptism. Some one who was persuaded\nof the faith of the departed answered for him and was baptized in his\nstead.\n\nIf Paul meant to say, On the supposition that death ends all, what is\nthe use of any one being baptized as proxy for a dead friend? he could\nnot have used words more expressive of his meaning than when he says,\n\"If the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized for the\ndead?\" The only difficulty is, that Paul might thus seem to draw an\nargument for a fundamental doctrine of Christianity from a foolish and\nunjustifiable practice. Is it possible that a man of such sagacity can\nhave sanctioned or countenanced so absurd a superstition? But his\nalluding to this custom in the way he here does, scarcely implies that\nhe approved of it. He rather differentiates himself from those who\npractised the rite. \"What shall _they_ do who are baptized for the\ndead?\"--referring, probably, to some of the Corinthians themselves. In\nany case, the point of the argument is obvious. To be baptized for\nthose who had died without baptism, and whose future was supposed\nthereby to be jeopardized, had at least a show of friendliness and\nreason; to be baptized for those who had already passed out of\nexistence was of course, on the face of it, absurd.\n\n2. The second consequence which flows from the denial of the\nresurrection is, that Paul's own life is a mistake. \"Why stand we in\njeopardy every hour? What advantageth it me to risk death daily, and\nto suffer daily, if the dead rise not?\" If there is no resurrection,\nhe says, my whole life is a folly. No day passes but I am in danger of\ndeath at the hands either of an infuriated mob or a mistaken\nmagistrate. I am in constant jeopardy, in perils by land and sea, in\nperils of robbers, in nakedness, in fasting; all these dangers I\ngladly encounter because I believe in the resurrection. But \"if in\nthis life only we have hope in Christ, then we are of all men most\nmiserable.\" We lose both this life and that which we thought was to\ncome.\n\nPaul's meaning is plain. By the hope of a life beyond, he had been\ninduced to undergo the greatest privations in this life. He had been\nexposed to countless dangers and indignities. Although a Roman\ncitizen, he had been cast into the arena to contend with wild beasts:\nthere was no risk he had not run, no hardship he had not endured. But\nin all he was sustained by the assurance that there remained for him a\nrest and an inheritance in a future life. Remove this assurance and\nyou remove the assumption on which his conduct is wholly built. If\nthere is no future life either to win or to lose, then the Epicurean\nmotto may take the place of Christ's promises, \"Let us eat and drink,\nfor to-morrow we die.\"\n\nIt may indeed be said that even if there be no life to come, this life\nis best spent in the service of man, however full of hazard and\nhardship that service be. That is quite true; and had Paul believed\nthis life was all, he might still have chosen to spend it, not on\nsensual indulgence, but in striving to win men to something better.\nBut in that case there would have been no deception and no\ndisappointment. In point of fact, however, Paul believed in a life to\ncome, and it was because he believed in that life he gave himself to\nthe work of winning men to Christ regardless of his own pains and\nlosses. And what he says is that if he is mistaken, then all these\npains and losses have been gratuitous, and that his whole life has\nproceeded on a mistake. The life to which he sought to win and for\nwhich he sought to prepare men does not exist.\n\nBesides, it must be acknowledged that the mass of men do sink to a\nmerely sensual or earthly life if the hope of immortality is removed,\nand that Paul did not require to be very guarded in his statement of\nthis truth. In fact, the words \"Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we\ndie\" were taken from the history of his own nation. When Jerusalem was\nbesieged by the Babylonians and no escape seemed possible, the people\ngave themselves up to recklessness and despair and sensual indulgence,\nsaying, \"Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.\" Similar\ninstances of the recklessness produced by the near approach of death\nmay very readily be culled from the history of shipwrecks, of\npestilences, and of besieged cities. In the old Jewish book, the Book\nof Wisdom, it finds a very beautiful expression, the following words\nbeing put into the mouth of those who knew not that man is immortal:\n\"Our life is short and tedious, and in the death of man is no remedy;\nneither was any man ever known to return from the grave: for we are\nall born at an adventure, and shall be afterwards as though we had\nnever been; for the breath of our nostrils is as smoke, and a little\nspark is the moving of our heart, which, being extinguished, our\nbodies will be burnt to ashes, and our spirit vanish as the soft air:\nand our name shall be forgotten in time, and no man shall hold our\nworks in remembrance, and our life shall pass away like the trace of a\ncloud, and shall be dispersed as a mist that is driven away with the\nbeams of the sun, and overcome with the heat thereof.... Come on\ntherefore, let us enjoy the good things that are present, and let us\nspeedily use the creatures like as in youth, Let us fill ourselves\nwith costly wine and ointments, and let no flower of the spring pass\nby us; let us crown ourselves with rosebuds before they be withered;\nlet none of us go without his share of voluptuousness; let us leave\ntokens of our joyfulness in every place, for this is our portion and\nour lot is this.\"\n\nIt is obvious therefore that this is the conclusion which the mass of\nmankind draw from a disbelief in immortality. Convince men that this\nlife is all, that death is final extinction, and they will eagerly\ndrain this life of all the pleasure it can yield. We may say that\nthere are some men to whom virtue is the greatest pleasure: we may say\nthat to all the denial of appetite and self-indulgence is a more\ngenuine pleasure than the gratification of it: we may say that virtue\nis its own reward, and that irrespective of the future it is right to\nlive now spiritually and not sensually, for God and not for self: we\nmay say that the judgments of conscience are pronounced without any\nregard to future consequences, and that the highest and best life for\nman is a life in conformity to conscience and in fellowship with God,\nwhether such life is to be long or short, temporal or eternal. And\nthis is true, but how are we to get men to accept it? Teach men to\nbelieve in a future life and you strengthen every moral sentiment and\nevery Godward aspiration by revealing the true dignity of human\nnature. Make men feel that they are immortal beings, that this life,\nso far from being all, is the mere entrance and first step to\nexistence; make men feel that there is open to them an endless moral\nprogress, and you give them some encouragement to lay the foundations\nof this progress in a self-denying and virtuous life in this world.\nTake away this belief, encourage men to think of themselves as\nworthless little creatures that come into being for a few years and\nare blotted out again for ever, and you destroy one mainspring of\nright action in men. It is not that men do noble deeds for the sake of\nreward: the hope of reward is scarcely a perceptible influence in the\nbest of men, or indeed in any men; but in all men trained as we are,\nthere is an indefinite consciousness that, being immortal creatures,\nwe are made for higher ends than those of this life, and have\nprospects of enjoyments which should make us independent of the\ngrosser pleasures of the present bodily condition.\n\nApparently the Corinthians themselves had argued that morality was\nquite independent of a belief in immortality. For Paul goes on: \"Be\nnot deceived:\" you cannot, however much you may think so, you _cannot_\nhear such theories without having your moral convictions undermined\nand your tone lowered. This he conveys to them in a common quotation\nfrom a heathen poet--\"Evil communications corrupt good manners;\" that\nis to say, false opinions have a natural tendency to produce\nunsatisfactory and immoral conduct. To keep company with those whose\nconversation is frivolous or cynical, or charged with dangerous or\nfalse views of things, has a natural tendency to lead us to a style of\nconduct we should not otherwise have fallen into. Men do not always\nrecognise this; they need the warning, \"Be not deceived.\" The\nbeginnings of conduct are so hidden from our observation, our lives\nare formed by influences so imperceptible, what we hear sinks so\ninsidiously into the mind and mingles so insensibly with our motives,\nthat we can never say _what_ we have heard without moral\ncontamination. No doubt it is possible to hold the most erroneous\nopinions and yet to keep the life pure; but they are strong and\nguileless spirits who can preserve a high moral tone while they have\nlost faith in those truths which mainly nourish the moral nature of\nthe mass of men. And many have found to their surprise and grief that\nopinions which they fancied they might very well hold and yet live a\nhigh and holy life, have somehow sapped their moral defences against\ntemptation and paved the way for shameful falls. We cannot always\nprevent doubts, even about the most fundamental truths, from entering\nour minds, but we can always refuse to welcome such doubts, or to be\nproud of them; we can always be resolved to treat sacred things in a\nreverent and not in a flippant spirit, and we can always aim at least\nat an honest and eager seeking for the truth.\n\n3. But the most serious consequence which results if there be no\nresurrection of the dead, is that in that case Christ is not risen.\n\"If there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen.\"\nFor Paul refused to consider the resurrection of Christ as a miracle\nin the sense of its being exceptional and aside from the usual\nexperience of man. On the contrary, he accepts it as the type to which\nevery man is to be conformed. Precedent in time, exceptional possibly\nin some of its accidental accompaniments, the resurrection of Christ\nmay be, but nevertheless as truly in the line of human development as\nbirth, and growth, and death. Christ being man must submit to the\nconditions and experience of men in all essentials, in all that\ncharacterises man as human. And, therefore, if resurrection be not a\nnormal human experience, Christ has not risen. The time at which\nresurrection takes place, and the interval elapsing between death and\nresurrection, Paul makes nothing of. A child may live but three days,\nbut it is not on that account any the less human than if he had lived\nhis threescore years and ten. Similarly the fact of Christ's\nresurrection identifies Him with the human race, while the shortness\nof the interval elapsing between death and resurrection does not\nseparate Him from man, for in point of fact the interval will be less\nin the case of many.\n\nBoth here and elsewhere Paul looks upon Christ as the representative\nman, the one in whom we can see the ideal of manhood. If any of our\nown friends should veritably die, and after death should appear to us\nalive, and should prove his identity by remaining with us for a time,\nby showing an interest in the very things which had previously\noccupied his thought, and by taking practical steps to secure the\nfulfilment of his purposes, a strong probability that we too should\nlive through death would inevitably be impressed on our mind. But when\nChrist rises from the dead this probability becomes a certainty,\nbecause He is the type of humanity, the representative person. As Paul\nhere says, \"He is the firstfruits of them that sleep.\" His\nresurrection is the sample and pledge of ours. When the farmer pulls\nthe first ripe ears of wheat and carries them home, it is not for\ntheir own sake he values them, but because they are a specimen and\nsample of the whole crop; and when God raised Christ from the dead,\nthe glory of the event consisted in its being a pledge and specimen of\nthe triumph of mankind over death. \"If we believe that Jesus died and\nrose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with\nHim.\"\n\nAnd yet while Paul distinctly holds that resurrection is a normal\nhuman experience, he also implies that but for the interposition of\nChrist that experience might have been lost to men. It is in Christ\nthat men are made alive after and through death. As Adam is the source\nof physical life that ends in death, so Christ is the source of\nspiritual life that never dies. \"By man came death, by man came also\nthe resurrection of the dead.\" Adam's severance from God and\npreference of what was physical, brought man under the powers of the\nphysical world: Christ by perfect adhesion to God, and constant\nconquest of all physical allurements, won life eternal for Himself and\nfor those who have His Spirit. As a man of genius and wisdom will by\nhis occupation of a throne enlarge men's ideas of what a king is, and\nbring many blessings to his subjects, so Christ by living a human life\nenlarged it to its utmost dimensions, compelling it to express His\nideas of life, and winning for those who follow Him entrance into a\nlarger and higher condition. Resurrection is here represented, not as\nan experience which men would have enjoyed had Christ never appeared\non earth, nor as an experience opened to men by God's sovereign\ngoodwill, but as an experience in some way brought by Christ within\nhuman reach. \"By man came death, by man came also the resurrection of\nthe dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made\nalive.\" That is to say, all who are by physical derivation truly\nunited to Adam, incur the death which by sinning he introduced into\nhuman experience; and similarly all who by spiritual affinity are in\nChrist, enjoy the new life which triumphs over death, and which He\nwon. Adam was not the only man who died, but the firstfruits of a rich\nharvest; and so, Christ is not alone in resurrection, but is become\nthe firstfruits of them that sleep. According to Paul's theology, the\nconduct of a man, the sin of Adam, carried in it disastrous\nconsequences to all connected with him: but equally fruitful in\nconsequences was the human life, death, and resurrection of Christ.\nThe death of Adam was the first stroke of that funeral knell that has\nceaselessly sounded through all generations: but the resurrection of\nChrist was equally the pledge and earnest that the same experience\nwould be enjoyed by all \"that are Christ's.\"\n\nPaul is carried on from the thought of the resurrection of \"them that\nare Christ's,\" to the thought of the consummation of all things which\nthis great event introduces and signalizes. This exhibition of the\ntriumph over death is the signal that all other enemies are now\ndefeated. \"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death;\" and this\nbeing destroyed, all Christ's followers being now gathered in and\nhaving entered on their eternal condition, the work of Christ so far\nas this world is concerned is over. Having reunited men to God, His\nwork is done. The provisional government administered by Him having\naccomplished its work of bringing men into perfect harmony with the\nSupreme Will, it gives place to the immediate and direct government of\nGod. What is implied in this it is impossible to say. A condition in\nwhich sin shall have no place and in which there shall be no need of\nmeans of reconciliation, a condition in which the work of Christ shall\nbe no longer needed and in which God shall be all in all, pervading\nwith His presence every soul and as welcome and natural as the air or\nthe sunlight,--that is a condition not easy to be imagined. Neither\ncan we readily imagine what Christ Himself shall be and do when the\nterm of His mediatorial administration is finished and God is all in\nall.\n\nOne idea conspicuous in this brief and pregnant passage is that Christ\ncame to subdue all the enemies of mankind, and that He will continue\nHis work until His purpose is accomplished. He alone has taken a\nperfectly comprehensive view of the obstacles to human happiness and\nprogress, and He has set Himself to remove these. He alone has\npenetrated to the root of all human evil and misery, and has given\nHimself to the task of emancipating men from all evil, of restoring\nmen to their true life, and of abolishing for ever the miseries which\nhave so largely characterised man's history. Slowly indeed, and\nunseen, does His work proceed; slowly, because the work is for\neternity, and because only gradually can moral and spiritual evils be\nremoved. \"It is by no breath, turn of eye, wave of hand, salvation\njoins issue with death,\" but by actual and sustained moral conflict,\nby real sacrifice and persistent choice of good, by long trial and\ndevelopment of individual character, by the slow growth of nations and\nthe interaction of social and religious influences, by the leavening\nof all that is human with the spirit of Christ, that is, with\nself-devotement in practical life to the good of men. All this is too\ngreat and too real to be other than slow. The tide of moral progress\nin the world has often seemed to turn. Even now, when the leaven has\nbeen working for so long, how doubtful often seems the issue, how\nconcerned even Christian people are about the merest superficialities\nand how little labouring to put down in Christ's name the common\nenemies. Can any one who looks at things as they are find it easy to\nbelieve in the final extinction of evil? Whither tend the prevalent\nvices, the empty-souled love of pleasure and demand for excitement,\nthe unyielding, brazen-faced selfishness of the principles of\nbusiness if not of the men who engage in it, the diligent propagation\nof error, the oppression of the rich and the greed and sensuality that\npoverty induces? One needs to be reminded that these things are the\nenemies, not only of good men, but of Christ, and that by God's will\nHe is to defeat them. One needs to be reminded also that to see this\nvictory accomplished and to have had no share in it will be the sorest\nhumiliation and the most painful reflection to every generous mind.\nHowever slight be our power, let us strike such blow as we can at the\ncommon enemies which must be destroyed ere the great consummation is\nreached.\n\n_THE SPIRITUAL BODY._\n\n \"But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what\n body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not\n quickened, except it die: and that which thou sowest, thou sowest\n not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of\n wheat, or of some other grain: but God giveth it a body as it\n hath pleased Him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is\n not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men,\n another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.\n There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the\n glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial\n is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of\n the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth\n from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the\n dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: it\n is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory; it is sown in\n weakness; it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body; it is\n raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a\n spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made\n a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.\n Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is\n natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is\n of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As\n is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the\n heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have\n borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of\n the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood\n cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption\n inherit incorruption. Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not\n all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the\n twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall\n sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall\n be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and\n this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible\n shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on\n immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is\n written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy\n sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin;\n and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which\n giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore,\n my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding\n in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is\n not in vain in the Lord.\"--1 COR. xv. 35-58.\n\n\n\n\nXXIV.\n\n_THE SPIRITUAL BODY._\n\n\nThe proofs of the Resurrection which Paul has adduced are\nsatisfactory. So long as they are clearly before the mind, we find it\npossible to believe in that great experience which will finally give\nus possession of the life to come. But after all proof rises doubt\nirrepressible, owing to the difficulty of understanding the process\nthrough which the body passes and the nature of the body that is to\nbe. \"Some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body\ndo they come?\" Not always in an unbelieving or scoffing spirit, often\nin mere perplexity and justifiable inquisitiveness, will men ask these\nquestions.\n\nPaul answers both inquiries by referring to analogies in the natural\nworld. Only by death, he says, does seed reach its designed\ndevelopment; and the body or form in which seed rises is very\ndifferent in appearance from that in which it is sown. These analogies\nhave their place and their use in removing objections and\ndifficulties. They are not intended or supposed to establish the fact\nof the Resurrection, but only to remove difficulties as to its mode.\nBy analogy you can show that a certain process or result is not\nimpossible, you may even create a presumption in its favour, but you\ncannot establish it as an actuality. Analogy is a powerful instrument\nfor removing objections, but utterly weak for establishing positive\ntruth. Seed lives again after burial, but it does not follow that our\nbodies will do so. Seed when it rots away beneath the soil gives birth\nto a better thing than that which was sown, but this is no proof that\nthe same result will follow when our bodies pass through a similar\ntreatment. But if a man says, as Paul here supposes he may, \"Such a\nthing as this resurrection you speak of is an unnatural, unheard-of,\nand impossible thing,\" the best reply is to point him to some\nanalogous process in nature, in which this apparent impossibility or\nsomething very similar is actually brought to pass.\n\nEven outside the circle of Christian thought these analogies in nature\nhave always been felt to remove some of the presumptions against the\nResurrection and to make room for listening to evidence in its favour.\nThe transformation of the seed into the plant and the development of\nthe seed to a fuller life through apparent extinction, the\ntransformation of the grub into the brilliant and powerful dragon-fly\nthrough a process which terminates the life of the grub--these and\nother natural facts show that one life may be continued through\nvarious phases, and that the termination of one form of life does not\nalways mean the termination of all life in a creature. We need not,\nthese analogies tell us, at once conclude that death ends all, for in\nsome visible instances death is only a birth to a higher and freer\nlife. Neither need we point to the dissolution of the natural body and\nconclude that no more perfect body can be connected with such a\nprocess, because in many cases we see a more efficient body disengaged\nfrom the original and dissolving body. Thus far the analogies carry\nus. It is doubtful whether they should be pushed further, although\nthey might seem to indicate that the new body is not to be a new\ncreation, but is to be produced by virtue of what is already in\nexistence. The new body is not to be irrespective of what has gone\nbefore, but is to be the natural result of causes already working.\nWhat these causes are, or how the spirit is to impress its character\non the body, we do not know.\n\nIt is not impossible, then, nor even quite improbable, that the death\nof our present body may set free a new and far more perfectly equipped\nbody. The fact that we cannot conceive the nature of this body need\nnot trouble us. Who without previous observation could imagine what\nwould spring from an acorn or a seed of wheat? To each God gives its\nown body. We cannot imagine what our future body, subject to no waste\nor decay, can be; but we need not on that account reject as childish\nall expectation that such a body shall exist. \"All flesh is not the\nsame flesh.\" The kind of flesh you now wear may be unfit for\neverlasting life, but there may await you as suitable and congenial a\nbody as your present familiar tenement. Consider the inexhaustible\nfertility of God, the endless varieties already existing in nature.\nThe bird has a body which fits it for life in the air; the fish lives\nwith comfort in its own element. And the variety already existing does\nnot exhaust God's resources. We read at present but one chapter in the\nhistory of life, and what future chapters are to unfold who can\nimagine? A fertile and inventive man knows no bound to his progress;\nwill God stand still? Are we not but at the beginning of His works?\nMay we not reasonably suppose that a truly infinite expansion and\ndevelopment await God's works? Is it not entirely unreasonable to\nsuppose that what we see and know is the measure of God's resources?\n\nPaul does not attempt to describe the future body, but contents\nhimself with pointing out one or two of its characteristics by which\nit is distinguished from the body we now wear. \"It is sown in\ncorruption; it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonour; it\nis raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: it\nis sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.\" In this body\nthere is decay, humiliation, weakness, a life that is merely\ntemporary; in the body that is to be decay gives place to\nincorruptibility, humiliation to glory, weakness to power, animal life\nto spiritual.\n\nThe present body is subject to decay. Not only is it easily injured by\naccident and often rendered permanently useless, but it is so\nconstituted that all activity wastes it; and this waste needs constant\nrepair. That we may constantly seek this repair, we are endowed with\nstrong appetites, which sometimes overbear everything else in us and\nboth defeat their own ends and hinder the growth of the spirit. The\norgans by which the waste is repaired themselves wear out, so that by\nno care or nourishment can a man make out to live as long as a tree.\nBut the very decay of this body makes way for one in which there shall\nbe no waste, no need of physical nourishment, and therefore no need of\nstrong and overbearing physical appetites. Instead of impeding the\nspirit by clamouring to have its wants attended to, it will be the\nspirit's instrument. A great part of the temptations of this present\nlife arise from the conditions in which we necessarily exist as\ndependent for our comfort in great measure on the body. And one can\nscarcely conceive the feeling of emancipation and superiority which\nwill possess those who have no anxiety about a livelihood, no fear of\ndeath, no distraction of appetite.\n\nThe present body is for similar reasons characterized by \"weakness.\"\nWe cannot be where we would, nor do what we would. A man may work his\ntwelve hours, but he must then acknowledge he has a body which needs\nrest and sleep. Many persons are disqualified by bodily weakness from\ncertain forms of usefulness and enjoyment. Many persons also, though\nable to do a certain amount of work, do it with labour; their vitality\nis habitually low, and they never have the full use of their powers,\nbut need continually to be on their guard, and go through life\nburdened with a lassitude and discomfort more difficult to bear than\npassing attacks of pain. In contradistinction to this and to every\nform of weakness, the resurrection body will be full of power, able to\naccomplish the behests of the will, and fit for all that is required\nof it.\n\nBut the most comprehensive contrast between the two bodies is\nexpressed in the words, \"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a\nspiritual body.\" A natural body is that which is animated by a human\nlife and is fitted for this world. \"The first man Adam was made a\nliving soul,\" or, as we should more naturally say, an animal. He was\nmade with a capacity for living; and because he was to live upon\nearth, he had a body in which this life or soul was lodged. The\nnatural body is the body we receive at birth, and which is suited for\nits own requirements of maintaining itself in life in this world into\nwhich we are born. The soul, or animal life, of man is higher than\nthat of the other animals, it has richer endowments and capacities,\nbut it is also in many respects similar. Many men are quite content\nwith the merely animal life which this world upholds and furnishes.\nThey find enough to satisfy them in its pleasures, its work, its\naffairs, its friendships; and for all these the natural body is\nsufficient. The thoughtful man cannot indeed but look forward and ask\nhimself what is to become of this body. If he turns to Scripture for\nlight, he will probably be struck with the fact that it sheds no light\nwhatever on the future of the natural body. Those who are in Christ\nenter into possession of a spiritual body, but there is no hint of any\nmore perfect body being prepared for those who are not in Christ.\n\nThe spiritual body, which is reserved for spiritual men, is a body in\nwhich the upholding life is spiritual. The natural life of man both\nforms to a human shape and upholds the natural body; the spiritual\nbody is similarly maintained by what is spiritual in man. It is the\nsoul, or natural life, of man which gives the body its appetites and\nmaintains it in efficiency; remove this soul, and the body is mere\ndead matter. In like manner it is the spirit which maintains the\nspiritual body; and by the spirit is meant that in man which can\ndelight in God and in goodness. The body we now have is miserable and\nuseless or happy and serviceable in proportion to its animal vitality,\nin proportion to its power to assimilate to itself the nutriment this\nphysical world supplies. The spiritual body will be healthy or sickly\nin proportion to the spiritual vitality that animates it; that is to\nsay, in proportion to the power of the individual spirit to delight in\nGod and find its life in Him and in what He lives for.\n\nWe have already seen that Paul refuses to consider the resurrection of\nChrist as miraculous in the sense of its being unique or abnormal; on\nthe contrary, he considers resurrection to be an essential step in\nnormal human development, and therefore experienced by Christ. And now\nhe enunciates the great principle or law which governs not only this\nfact of resurrection, but the whole evolution of God's works: \"first\nthat which is natural, afterward that which is spiritual.\" It is this\nlaw which we see ruling the history of creation and the history of\nman. The spiritual is the culminating point towards which all the\nprocesses of nature tend. The gradual development of what is\nspiritual, of will, of love, of moral excellence--this, so far as man\ncan see, is the end towards which all nature constantly and steadily\nis working.\n\nSometimes, however, it occurs to one to question the law \"first that\nwhich is natural, afterward that which is spiritual.\" If the present\nbody hinders rather than helps the growth of the spirit, if at last\nall Christians are to have a spiritual body, why might we not have had\nthis body to begin with? What need of this mysterious process of\npassing from life to life and from body to body? If it is true that we\nare here only for a few years and in the future life for ever, why\nshould we be here at all? Why might we not at birth have been ushered\ninto our eternal state? The answer is obvious. We are not at once\nintroduced into our eternal condition because we are moral creatures,\nfree to choose for ourselves, and who cannot enter an eternal state\nsave by choice of our own: first that which is natural, first that\nwhich is animal, first a life in which we have abundant opportunity to\ntest what appears good and are free to make our choice; then that\nwhich is spiritual, because the spiritual can only be a thing of\nchoice, a thing of the will. There is no spiritual life or spiritual\nbirth save by the will. Men can become spiritual only by choosing to\nbe so. Involuntary, compulsory, necessitated, natural spirituality is,\nso far as man is concerned, a contradiction in terms.\n\nHuman nature is a thing of immense possibilities and range. On the one\nside it is akin to the lower animals, to the physical world and all\nthat is in it, high and low; on the other side it is akin to the\nhighest of all spiritual existences, even to God Himself. At present\nwe are in a world admirably adapted for our probation and discipline,\na world in which, in point of fact, every man does attach himself to\nthe lower or to the higher, to the present or to the eternal, to the\nnatural or to the spiritual. And although the results of this may not\nbe apparent in average cases, yet in extreme cases the results of\nhuman choice are obtrusively apparent. Let a man give himself\nunrestrainedly and exclusively to animal life in its grosser forms,\nand the body itself soon begins to suffer. You can see the process of\nphysical deterioration going on, deepening in misery, until death\ncomes. But what follows death? Can one promise himself or another a\nfuture body which shall be exempt from the pains which unrepented sin\nhas introduced? Are those who have by their vice committed a slow\nsuicide to be clothed hereafter in an incorruptible and efficient\nbody? It seems wholly contrary to reason to suppose so. And how can\ntheir probation be continued if the very circumstance which makes this\nlife so thorough a probation to us all--the circumstance of our being\nclothed with a body--is absent? The truth is, there is no subject on\nwhich more darkness hangs or on which Scripture preserves so ominous a\nsilence as the future of the body of those who in this life have not\nchosen God and things spiritual as their life.\n\nOn the other hand, if we consider instances in which the spiritual\nlife has been resolutely and unreservedly chosen, we see anticipations\nhere also of the future destiny of those who have so chosen. They may\nbe crushed by diseases as painful and as fatal as the most flagrant of\nsinners endure, but these diseases frequently have the result only of\nmaking the true spiritual life shine more brightly. In extreme cases,\nyou would almost say, the transmutation of the tortured and worn body\ninto a glorified body is begun. The spirit seems dominant; and as you\nstand by and watch, you begin to feel that death has no relation to\nthe emotions, and hopes, and intercourse you detect in that spirit.\nThese, which seem, and are, the very life of the spirit, cannot be\nthought of as terminated by a merely physical change. They do not\nspring from, nor do they depend upon, what is physical; and it is\nreasonable to suppose that they will not be destroyed by it. Looking\nat Christ Himself and allowing due impression to be made upon us by\nHis concernment about the highest, and best, and most lasting things,\nby His recognition of God and harmony with Him, by His living in God,\nand by His superiority to earthly considerations, we cannot but feel\nit to be most unlikely that such a spirit should be extinguished by\nbodily death.\n\nThis spiritual body we receive through the intervention of Christ. As\nfrom the first man we receive animal life, from the second we receive\nspiritual life. \"The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last\nAdam a quickening spirit. And as we have borne the image of the\nearthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.\" The image of\nthe first man we have by our natural and physical derivation from him,\nthe image of the second by spiritual derivation; that is to say, by\nour choosing Christ as our ideal and by our allowing His Spirit to\nform us. This Spirit is life-giving; this Spirit is indeed God,\ncommunicating to us a life which is at once holy and eternal.\n\nThe mode of Christ's intervention is more fully described in the\nwords, \"The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.\nBut thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord\nJesus Christ.\" Everywhere Paul teaches that it was sin which brought\ndeath upon man; that man would have broken through the law of death\nwhich reigns in the physical world had he not by sin brought himself\nunder the power of things physical. And this poisonous fang was\npressed in by the Law. The strength of sin is the Law. It is positive\ndisobedience, the preference of known evil to known good, the\nviolation of law whether written in the conscience or in spoken\ncommandments, which gives sin its moral character. The choice of the\nevil in presence of the good--it is that which constitutes sin.\n\nThe words are no doubt susceptible of another meaning. They could be\nused by one who wished to say that sin is that which makes death\npainful, which adds terror of future judgment and gloomy forebodings\nto the natural pain of death. But it must be owned that this is not so\nmuch in keeping with Paul's usual way of looking at the connection\nbetween death and sin.\n\nChrist's victory over death is thus explained by Godet: \"Christ's\nvictory over death has two aspects, the one relating to Himself, the\nother concerning men. He first of all conquered _sin_ in relation to\nHimself by denying to it the right of existence in Him, condemning it\nto non-existence in His flesh, similar though it was to our sinful\nflesh (Rom. viii. 3); and thereby He disarmed _the Law_ so far as it\nconcerned Himself. His life being the Law in living realization, He\nhad it for Him, and not against Him. This twofold personal victory was\nthe foundation of His own resurrection. Thereafter He continued to act\nthat this victory might extend to us. And first He freed us from the\nburden of condemnation which _the Law_ laid on us, and whereby it was\never interposing between us and communion with God. He recognised in\nour name the right of God over the sinner; He consented to satisfy it\nto the utmost in His own person. Whoever appropriates this death as\nundergone in his room and stead and for himself, sees the door of\nreconciliation to God open before him, as if he had himself expiated\nall his sins. The separation established by the Law no longer exists;\nthe Law is disarmed. By that very fact _sin_ also is vanquished.\nReconciled to God, the believer receives Christ's Spirit, who works in\nhim an absolute breach of will with sin and complete devotion to God.\nThe yoke of sin is at an end; the dominion of God is restored in the\nheart. The two foundations of the reign of death are thus destroyed.\nLet Christ appear, and this reign will crumble in the dust for ever.\"\n\nIt is then with joy and triumph Paul contemplates death. Naturally we\nshrink from and fear it. We know it only from one side: only from\nseeing it in the persons of other men, and not from our own\nexperience. And what we see in others is necessarily only the darker\nside of death, the cessation of bodily life and of all intercourse\nwith the warm and lively interests of the world. It is a condition\nexciting tears, and moaning, and grief in those that remain in life;\nand though these tears arise chiefly from our own sense of loss, yet\ninsensibly we think of the condition of the dead as a state to be\nbewailed. We see the sowing in weakness, in dishonour, in corruption,\nas Paul says; and we do not see the glory, and strength, and\nincorruption of the spiritual body. The dead may be in bright regions\nand be living a keener life than ever; but of this we see nothing: and\nall we do see is sad, depressing, humiliating.\n\nBut to \"faith's foreseeing eye\" the other side of death becomes also\napparent. The grave becomes the robing room for life eternal. Stripped\nof \"this muddy vesture of decay,\" we are there to be clothed with a\nspiritual body. Death is enlisted in the service of Christ's people;\nand by destroying flesh and blood, it enables this mortal to put on\nimmortality. The blow which threatens to crush and annihilate all life\nbreaks but the shell and lets the imprisoned spirit free to a larger\nlife. Death is swallowed up in victory, and itself ministers to the\nfinal triumph of man. Our instincts tell us that death is critical and\nhas a determining power on our destinies. We cannot evade it; we may\ndepreciate or neglect, but we cannot diminish, its importance. It has\nits place and its function, and it will operate in each one of us\naccording to what it finds in us, destroying what is merely animal,\nemancipating what is truly spiritual. We cannot as yet stand on the\nfurther side of death, and look back on it, and recognise its kindly\nwork in us; but we can understand Paul's burst of anticipated triumph,\nand with him we can forecast the joy of having passed all doubtful\nstruggle and anxious foreboding, and of finally experiencing that all\nthe evils of humanity have been overcome. With a triumph so complete\nin view, we can also listen to his exhortation, \"Therefore, my beloved\nbrethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of\nthe Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the\nLord.\"\n\nBut if we have any fit conception of the magnitude of the triumph, we\nshall also cherish some worthy idea of the reality of the conflict.\nThose who have felt the terror of death know that it can be\ncounterbalanced only by something more than a surmise, a hope, a\nlonging, only indeed by a fact as solid as itself. And if to them the\nresurrection of Christ approves itself as such a fact, and if they can\nlisten to His voice saying, \"Because I live, ye shall live also,\" they\ndo feel themselves armed against the graver terrors of death, and\ncannot but look forward with some confident hope to a life into which\nthe ills they have here experienced cannot follow them. But at the\nsame time, and in proportion as the reality of the future life\nquickens hope within them, it must also reveal to them the reality of\nthe conflict through which that life is reached. By no mere idle\nnaming of the name of Christ or resultless faith in Him can men pass\nfrom what is natural to what is spiritual. We are summoned to believe\nin Christ, but for a purpose; and that purpose is that, believing in\nHim as the revelation of God to us, we may be able to choose Him as\nour pattern and live His life. It is only what is truly spiritual in\nourselves that can put us in possession of a spiritual body. From\nChrist we can receive what is spiritual; and if our belief in Him\nprompts us to become like Him, then we may count upon sharing in His\ndestiny.\n\nThis is the permanent incentive of the Christian life. This present\nexperience of ours leads to a larger, more satisfying experience.\nBeyond our horizon there awaits us an endlessly enlarging world.\nDeath, which seems to bound our view, is really but our real birth to\na fuller, and eternal, and true life. \"Therefore be ye steadfast,\nunmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord.\" The promptings\nof conscience do not delude you; your instinctive hopes will not be\nput to shame; your faith is reasonable; there is a life beyond. And no\neffort you now put forth will prove vain; no prayer, no earnest\ndesire, no struggle towards what is spiritual, will fail of its\neffect. All that is spiritual is destined to live; it belongs to the\neternal world: and all that you do in the Spirit, all mastery of self,\nand the world, and the flesh, all devoted fellowship with God--all is\ngiving you a surer place and a more abundant entrance into the\nspiritual world, for \"your labour is not in vain in the Lord.\"\n\n_THE POOR._\n\n \"Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given\n order to the Churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first\n day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God\n hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. And\n when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them\n will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem. And if it be\n meet that I go also, they shall go with me. Now I will come unto\n you, when I shall pass through Macedonia: for I do pass through\n Macedonia. And it may be that I will abide, yea, and winter with\n you, that ye may bring me on my journey whithersoever I go. For I\n will not see you now by the way; but I trust to tarry a while\n with you, if the Lord permit. But I will tarry at Ephesus until\n Pentecost. For a great door and effectual is opened unto me, and\n there are many adversaries. Now if Timotheus come, see that he\n may be with you without fear: for he worketh the work of the\n Lord, as I also do. Let no man therefore despise him: but conduct\n him forth in peace, that he may come unto me: for I look for him\n with the brethren. As touching our brother Apollos, I greatly\n desired him to come unto you with the brethren: but his will was\n not at all to come at this time; but he will come when he shall\n have convenient time. Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you\n like men, be strong. Let all your things be done with charity. I\n beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it\n is the first-fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted\n themselves to the ministry of the saints,) that ye submit\n yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and\n laboureth. I am glad of the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus\n and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have\n supplied. For they have refreshed my spirit and yours: therefore\n acknowledge ye them that are such. The Churches of Asia salute\n you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the\n Church that is in their house. All the brethren greet you. Greet\n ye one another with an holy kiss. The salutation of me Paul with\n mine own hand. If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him\n be Anathema Maran-atha. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be\n with you. My love be with you all in Christ Jesus, Amen.\"--1 COR.\n xvi.\n\n\n\n\nXXV.\n\n_THE POOR._\n\n\nIn closing his letter to the Corinthians, Paul, as usual, explains his\nown movements, and adds a number of miscellaneous directions and\nsalutations. These for the most part relate to matters of merely\ntemporary interest, and call for no comment. Interest of a more\npermanent kind unfortunately attaches to the collection for the poor\nChristians of Jerusalem which Paul invites the Corinthians to make.\nSeveral causes had contributed to this poverty; and, among others, it\nis not improbable that the persecution promoted by Paul himself had an\nimportant place. Many Christians were driven from their homes, and\nmany more must have lost their means of earning a livelihood. But it\nis likely that Paul was anxious to relieve this poverty, not so much\nbecause it had been partly caused by himself as because he saw in it\nan opportunity for bringing more closely together the two great\nparties in the Church. In his Epistle to the Galatians Paul tells us\nthat the three leaders of the Jewish Christian Church--James, Peter,\nand John--when they had assured themselves that this new Apostle was\ntrustworthy, gave him the right hand of fellowship, on the\nunderstanding that he should minister to the Gentiles, \"only,\" he\nadds--\"only they would that we should remember the poor, the same\nwhich I also was forward to do.\" Accordingly we find him seeking to\ninterest the Gentile Churches in their Jewish brethren, and of such\nimportance did he consider the relief that was to be sent to Jerusalem\nthat he himself felt it an honour to be the bearer of it. He saw that\nno doctrinal explanations were likely to be so fruitful in kindly\nfeeling and true unity as this simple expression of brotherly\nkindness.\n\nIn our own day poverty has assumed a much more serious aspect. It is\nnot the poverty which results from accident, nor even that which\nresults from wrong-doing or indolence, which presses for\nconsideration. Such poverty could easily be met by individual charity\nor national institutions. But the poverty we are now confronted with\nis a poverty which necessarily results from the principle of\ncompetition which is the mainspring of all trade and business. It is\nthe poverty which results from the constant effort of every man to\nsecure custom by offering a cheaper article, and to secure employment\nby selling his labour at a cheaper rate than his neighbour. So\noverstocked is the labour-market that the employer can name his own\nterms. Where he wants one man, a hundred offer their services; and he\nwho can live most cheaply secures the place. So that necessarily wages\nare pressed down by competition to the very lowest figure; and\nwherever any trade is not strong enough to combine and resist this\nconstant pressure, the results are appalling. No slaves were ever so\nhunger-bitten, no lives were ever more crushed under perpetual and\nhopeless toil, than are thousands of our fellow-countrymen and\ncountrywomen in our own time. It is the fact that in all our large\ncities there are thousands of persons who by working sixteen hours a\nday earn only what suffices to maintain the most wretched existence.\nEvery day hundreds of children are being born to a life of hopeless\ntoil and misery, unrelieved by any of the comforts or joys of the\nwell-to-do.\n\nThe most painful and alarming feature of this condition of things is,\nas every one knows, that it seems the inevitable result of the\nprinciples on which our entire social fabric is built. Every\ninvention, every new method of facilitating business, every\ncontrivance or improvement in machinery, makes life more difficult to\nthe mass of men. The very advances made by civilised nations in the\nrapid production of needful articles increase the breach between rich\nand poor, throwing larger resources into the hands of the few, but\nmaking the lot of the many still darker and more poverty-stricken.\nEvery year makes the darkness deeper, the distress more urgent. Here\nindividual charity is unavailing. It is not the relief of one here or\nthere that is needed; it is the alteration of a system of things which\ninevitably produces such results. Individual charity is here a mere\nmop in the face of the tide. What is wanted is not larger workhouses\nwhere the aged poor may be sheltered, but such a system as will enable\nthe working man to provide for himself against old age. What is wanted\nis not that the charitable should eke out by voluntary contributions\nthe earnings of the labouring classes, but that these earnings should\nbe such as to amply cover all ordinary human wants. \"Money given in\naid of wages relieves the employer, not the employed; reduces wages,\nnot misery.\" What is wanted is a social system which tends to bring\nwithin the reach of all the comforts and the joys of life which men\nlegitimately desire, and which does not tend, as our present social\nsystem does, to overload a small number of men with more wealth than\nthey need, or desire, or can use, while the millions are crushed with\ntoil and pinched with semi-starvation. What the working classes at\npresent demand is, not charity, but justice. They do not wish to seem\nto be indebted to others for support which they feel they have toiled\nfor and earned. They require a social system, in which the honest toil\nof a lifetime shall be sufficient to secure the toiler and his family\nfrom the dangers and degradation of utter poverty.\n\nThat a change is desirable no one who has spent two thoughts on the\nsubject can doubt. The only question is, What change is desirable and\npossible? Is there any organization or social system which could check\nthe evils resulting from the present competitive system, and secure\nthat every one who is willing to work should be furnished with\nremunerative employment? Socialists are quite convinced that the whole\nproblem would be solved were private capital to be converted into\nco-operative or public capital. Socialism demands that society shall\nbe the only capitalist, and that all private captains of industry and\ncapital be abolished. No return is possible to the state of things in\nwhich every man worked by himself with his own hands and at his own\nrisk, producing his one or two webs, tilling his one or two acres. It\nis recognised that far more and better products can be produced when\nmanufactures are carried on in large factories. But on the socialistic\nprinciple these factories must be owned, not by private capitalists,\nbut by the State, or at any rate by co-operative societies of some\nkind. This is the essence of the demand of Socialism: that \"whereas\nindustry is at present carried on by private capitalists served by\nwage-labour, it must in the future be conducted by associated or\nco-operating workmen jointly owning the means of production.\"\n\nThe difficulty in pronouncing judgment on such a demand arises from\nthe fact that very few men indeed have sufficient imagination and\nsufficient knowledge of our complicated social system to be able to\nforecast the results of so great a change. In the present stage of\nhuman progress personal interest is undoubtedly one of the strongest\nincentives to industry, and to this motive the present system of\ncompetition appeals. And although Socialists declare that their system\nwould not exclude competition, it is difficult to see what field it\nwould have or at what point it would find its opportunity. Certain\ndepartments of industry are already in the hands of the State or of\nco-operative societies, but the organization of all industries and the\nmanagement and remuneration of all labour demand a machinery so\ncolossal that it is feared it would fall to pieces by its own weight.\nStill it is possible that ways and means of working a socialistic\nscheme may be devised; and it is quite certain that if any system\ncould be devised which is really workable, and which should at once\nsave us from the disastrous results of competition and yet evoke all\nthe energy which competition evokes, that system would forthwith be\nadopted in every civilised country.\n\nAs yet, however, no such social system has been elaborated. General\nprinciples, ruling ideas, theories, paper plans, have been enunciated\nby the score; but, in point of fact, there is no system yet devised\nwhich appeals either to the common-sense and instincts of the masses,\nor which stands the criticism of experts. And some of those who have\ngiven greatest attention to social subjects, and have made the\ngreatest personal sacrifices in behalf of the poor and down-trodden,\nare inclined to believe that no such system can be devised, and that\ndeliverance from the present wretched state of matters is to be found,\nnot in compulsory enactment, nor even in the sudden adoption of a\ndifferent social system, but in the application of Christian\nprinciples to the working of the present competitive system. That is\nto say, they believe that true progress here, as elsewhere, begins in\ncharacter, not in outward organization, or, as it has been put, that\n\"the soul of improvement is the improvement of the soul.\" They\nconsider that the present system rests on unchangeable laws of human\nnature, but that if men worked that system with consideration,\nunworldliness, and brotherly kindness, the present evil results would\nbe avoided. Or they believe that it is at any rate useless to alter\nthe present system violently by mere legislative enactment or by\nrevolution, but that if it is to be altered, it can effectually, and\npermanently, and beneficially be so only under the pressure and at the\ndictation of an improved public opinion.\n\nAppeal is confidently made to the mind of Christ by both parties, both\nby those who trust to the enforcement of a socialistic scheme, and by\nthose who believe only in the social improvement which results from\nthe improvement of the individual. By the one party it is confidently\naffirmed that were Jesus Christ now on earth He would be a communist,\nwould aim at equalizing all classes and at commuting private property\ninto a public fund. Communism has been tried to some extent in the\nChurch. In monastic societies private property is surrendered for the\ngood of the community, and this practice professes to find its\nsanction in the communism of the primitive Church. But the account we\nhave of that communism shows that it was neither compulsory nor\npermanent. It was not compulsory, for Peter reminds Ananias that his\nproperty was his own, and that even after he had sold it he was at\nliberty to do what he pleased with the proceeds. And it was not\npermanent nor universal, for here we find that Paul had to ask\ncontributions for the relief of the poor Christians of Jerusalem;\nwhile we see that there were rich and poor in the same congregations,\nand that such duties as almsgiving and hospitality, which could not be\npractised without private means, were enjoined upon Christians. It is\nalso obvious that many of the duties inculcated in the Epistles of\nPaul could not be discharged in a society in which all classes were\nlevelled.\n\nIt is perhaps of more importance to observe that in probably the most\ncritical period of the world's history our Lord took no part in any\npolitical movement; nay, He counted it a temptation of the devil when\nHe saw how much inducement there was to head some popular party and\ncompete with kings or statesmen. He was no agitator, although He lived\nin an age abounding in abuses. And this limitation of His work was due\nto no superficial view of social movements nor to any mere shrinking\nfrom the rougher work of life, but to His perception that His own task\nwas to touch what was deepest in man, and to lodge in human nature\nforces which ultimately would achieve all that was desirable. The cry\nof the poor against the oppressor was never louder than in His\nlifetime; slavery was universal: no country on earth enjoyed a free\ngovernment. Yet our Lord most carefully abstained from following in\nthe steps of a Judas the Gaulanite, and from intermeddling with\nsocial or State affairs. He came to found a kingdom, and that kingdom\nwas to exist on earth, and was to be the ideal condition of mankind;\nbut He trusted to move and mould society by regenerating the\nindividual and by teaching men to seek in the first place not what\n\"the Gentiles seek\"--happy outward conditions--but the kingdom of God,\nthe rule of God's Spirit in the heart, and the righteousness that\ncomes of that. It was by the regeneration of individuals society was\nto be regenerated. The leaven which contact with Him imparted to the\nindividual would touch and purify the whole social fabric.\n\nIn any case the duty of individual Christians is plain. Whether\nneedless and unjust poverty is to be relieved by social revolution or\nby the happier and surer, if slower, method of leavening society with\nthe spirit of Christ, it is the part of every Christian man to inform\nhimself of the state of his fellow-citizens and to bring himself in\nsome practically helpful way into connection with the wretchedness in\nthe midst of which we are living. To shut our eyes to the squalor, and\nvice, and hopelessness which poverty too often brings, to seclude\nourselves in our own comfortable homes and shut out all sounds and\nsigns of misery, to \"abhor the affliction of the afflicted,\" and\npractically to deny that it is better to visit the house of mourning\nthan the house of feasting--this is simply to furnish proof that we\nknow nothing of the spirit of Christ. We may find ourselves quite\nunable to rectify abuses on a large scale or to discern how poverty\ncan be absolutely prevented, but we can do something to brighten some\nlives; we can consider those whose hard and bare lives make our\ncomforts cheap; we can ask ourselves whether we are quite free from\nblood-guiltiness in using articles which are cheap to us because wrung\nout of underpaid and starving hands. It is true that anything we can\ndo may be but a scratching of the surface, the lifting of a bucketful\nout of an overflowing flood which should be stopped at the source;\nstill we must do what we can, and all knowledge of social facts and\nkindly feeling and action towards the oppressed are helpful, and on\nthe way to a final settlement of our social condition. Let every\nChristian give his conscience fair play, let him ask himself what\nChrist would do in his circumstances, and this final settlement will\nnot be long postponed. But so long as selfishness rules, so long as\nthe world of men is like a pit full of loathsome creatures, each\nstruggling to the top over the heads and crushed bodies of the rest,\nno scheme will alter or even disguise our infamy.\n\nThe method of collecting which Paul recommends was in all probability\nthat which he himself practised. \"Upon the first day of the week let\nevery one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that\nthere be no gatherings when I come.\" This verse has sometimes been\nquoted as evidence that the Christians met for worship on Sundays as\nwe do. Manifestly it shows nothing of the kind. It is proof that the\nfirst day of the week had a significance, _probably_ as the day of our\nLord's resurrection, possibly only for some trade reasons now unknown.\nIt is expressly said that each was to lay up \"by him\"--that is, not in\na public fund, but at home in his own purse--what he wished to give.\nBut what is chiefly to be noticed is that Paul, who ordinarily is so\nfree from preciseness and form, here enjoins the precise method in\nwhich the collection might best be made. That is to say, he believed\nin methodical giving. He knew the value of steady accumulation. He\nlaid it on each man's conscience deliberately to say how much he would\ngive. He wished no one to give in the dark. He did not carry out in\nthe letter, even if he knew, the precept, \"Let not thy right hand know\nwhat thy left hand doeth.\" He knew how men seem to themselves to be\ngiving much more than they are if they do not keep an exact account of\nwhat they give, how some men shrink from knowing definitely the\nproportion they give away. And therefore he presents it as a duty we\nhave each to discharge to determine what proportion we can give away,\nand if God prospers us and increases our incomes, to what extent we\nshould increase our personal expenditure and to what extent use for\ncharitable objects the additional gain.\n\nThe Epistle concludes with an overflowing expression of affection from\nPaul and his friends to the Church of Corinth; but suddenly in the\nmidst of this there occur the startling words, \"If any man love not\nthe Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema.\" \"Anathema\" means\naccursed. What induced Paul to insert these words just here, it is\ndifficult to see. He had taken the manuscript out of the hand of\nSosthenes and written the salutation with his own hand, and apparently\nstill with his own hand adds this startling sentence. Probably his\nfeeling was that all his lessons of charity and every other lesson he\nhad been inculcating would be in vain without love to the Lord Jesus.\nAll his own love for the Corinthians had sprung from this source; and\nhe knew that their love for the Jews would prove hollow unless it too\nwas animated by this same principle, They are serious words for us\nall--serious because our own hearts tell us they are just. If we do\nnot love the Lord Jesus, what good thing can we love? If we do not\nlove Him who is simply and only good, must there not be something\naccidental, superficial, unsafe, about our love for anything or any\none besides? If we have not learned by loving Him to love all that is\nworthy, may we not justly fear that we are yet in danger of losing\nwhat life is meant to teach and to give? Trying to reach the truth\nabout ourselves, do we find that we have attained to see and to love\nwhat is worthy? Can we say with something of Paul's conviction and\njoy, \"Maranatha\"--\"The Lord is at hand\"? Is it the true stay of our\nspirit that Christ rules, and will in His own time reconcile all\nthings by His own spirit?\n\n_Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury._","title":"The Expositor's Bible: The First Epistle to the Corinthians","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":110534}