ye name yourselves by the name of Paul? If all were baptized into that One Name, how is it that a few only have adoped It as their own?

Upon this we make two remarks: first, the value and blessedness of the Sacraments. It will be asked, To what purpose are the Sacraments of the Church? if they work no miracle, of what avail are they? Our reply is, Much, every way; among others, that they are authoritative signs and symbols. Now there is very much contained in the idea of a recognized authoritative symbol; for instance, in some parts of the country it is the custom to give and receive a ring in token of betrothal; but that is very different from the marriage-ring. It is neither authoritative, nor has it the sanction of the Church.

It would have been perfectly possible for man to have invented for himself another symbol of the truth conveyed in Baptism, but then it would not have been authoritative, and consequently it would have been weak and useless. Another purpose of the Sacraments is to serve as the epitomes of Christian Truth. This is the way in which the Apostle frequently makes use of them. From the Epistle to the Romans we find that Antinomianism had crept into the Church, and that there were some who said, that if only men believed, it did not matter that they sinned. How does St. Paul meet this? By an appeal to Baptism: he says, "God forbid. How shall we who are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death?" "Buried with Him by baptism,”—in the very form of that Sacrament there was a protest against this Antinomianism. And again, in reference to the Lord's Supper, in the Church of Corinth abuses had crept in; that Holy Communion had become a feast of gluttony and a signal of division. This error he endeavours to correct by reference to the institution of the

Supper itself: "The bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ?" The single loaf, broken into many fragments, contains within it the symbolical truth, that the Church of Christ is one. Here, in the text, St. Paul makes the same appeal: he appeals to Baptism against sectarianism, and so long as we retain it, it is an everlasting protest against every one who breaks the unity of the Church.

The other remark we have to make bears on the peculiar meaning of the Sacrament. We are all aware that there are those in the Church of Christ, whose personal holiness and purity are unquestionable, who yet believe and teach that all children are born into the world children of the devil; and there are those who agree in this belief, though differing as to the remedy; who hold that the especial and only instrument for their conversion into God's children is Baptism: and believe that there is given to the ministers of the Church the power of conveying in that Sacrament the Holy Spirit, Who effects this wondrous change. I know not that I have misrepresented this view: I do not think I have, yet I say at least, that if a minister really believes he has this power, then it is only with fear and trembling that he should approach the font in which he is about to baptize a child. But, let us try this view by the passage before us: if this view be true, then the Apostle, in saying that he thanked God he had not baptized, thanked God that he had not regenerated any he rejoices that he had not conveyed the Spirit of God to any one but Crispus and Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. And all this merely, lest he should perchance lie under the slander of having made to himself a party! If we reject this hypothesis as impossible, then it is plain that the view we have alluded to rests on no scriptural basis.

We pass on lastly, to consider the compromise which St. Paul refused to make: he would make none, either with the Jews in the craving after Signs, or with the Greeks in their

longing after Wisdom. We observe first, that he refused to make a compromise with the religion of the senses: "the Jews seek a sign." This was the general character of the Jews then, for almost nothing was left to them but the outward and the visible; among the religious there were left only such men as Gamaliel, men who worshipped the outward rather than the inward; men who looked for wonders, who believed that God was in the miraculous, but could not see Him in the things of everyday life; men who believed that when they had the outward, they necessarily had the inward too. For fifteen hundred years forms and signs had been the craving of the Jews. St. Peter even had a leaning in the same direction. The truth seems to be, that wherever there is life, there will be a form; but wherever a form is, it does not follow that there must be life. St. Paul stood firm: Not Signs, not Symbols, not even Sacraments, but Christ. Neither would he make any compromise with the craving after an intellectual religion. There was a diametrical contrast between the Jewish and the Grecian spirit: one seemed all body, and the other all mind.

The wisdom of which St. Paul speaks, appears to have been of two kinds-speculative philosophy, and wisdom of words-eloquence. The Greeks had deified wisdom; and St. Paul's language was that which ought to be written over the door of every school: We worship not Minerva, but Christ. Christian brethren! it is important to dwell upon this, for there is, in our day, a marvellous idolatry of talent; it is a strange and a grievous thing to see how men bow down before genius and success. Draw the distinction sharp and firm between these two things-goodness is one thing, talent is another. It is an instructive fact that the Son of Man came not as a scribe, but as a poor working man. He was a teacher, but not a Rabbi. When once the idolatry of talent enters the Church, then farewell to spirituality; when men ask their teachers, not for that which will make them more humble

and God-like, but for the excitement of an intellectual banquet, then farewell to Christian progress. Here also St. Paul again stood firm-Not Wisdom, but Christ crucified. St. Paul might have complied with these requirements of his converts, and then he would have gained admiration, and love-he might have been the leader of a party, but then he would have been false to his Master-he would have been preferring self to Christ.

IN

LECTURE V.

I CORINTHIANS, i. 23, 24.- -July 20, 1851.

N the course of our exposition of this Epistle, we have learnt the original constitution of Corinthian society, and have ascertained the state of the religious parties in that city at the time St. Paul wrote; we have seen that the Apostle Paul refused to make a compromise with any of these parties. It remains for us now to consider first, the subject which he resolved to dwell upon, and then the results of this teaching on the different classes of his hearers. His subject was-"Christ crucified." The expression, "preaching Christ," is very much misunderstood by many persons. It is, therefore, incumbent on us to endeavour calmly to understand what the Apostle meant by this. If I say that Newton is taught in our universities, I mean his doctrines are taught; and, to preach Christ crucified, is to preach His doctrines. In Acts xv. 21, we read: "Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him." The reading of the Pentateuch was the preaching of Moses. To give a man, is to give the man's mind; and therefore, though it may be that the name of Christ has not been pronounced, yet, if the spirit of Christ's doctrine has been given, so far there has been a preaching of the Redeemer. It is setting forth His Doctrines in contra-distinction to those of the World.

For example, the World says, Resent an injury; Christ says, Forgive your enemies. If therefore, we preach Forgiveness, are we not thereby preaching Christ, even though no distinct mention may be made of His Divinity or of the doctrine of the Atonement? The World says, Indulge your