of life ?—then "you must suffer being tempted." Now here we have a very peculiar source of consolation in suffering. It is the same which we spoke of in the First Epistle, when the subject of the contribution for the poor of Jerusalem came before us. Their suffering had taught many lessons to the Christians of Corinth and Galatia, had linked the Gentile churches together in a common cause, had unconsciously drawn out sympathy and self-denial, and had kindled into a living flame the apostolical energies of St. Paul. So here: the thought that the Apostle's suffering benefited others, soothed him in his afflictions.; and this is quite a peculiar consolation -one too, which is essentially Christian. Thus we see that Christianity is the true philosophy, after all. Consider only how moralists, how the old Stoicism, had groped about in the dark to solve the mystery of pain and grief; telling you it must be, that it is the common lot, and therefore to be borne; that it benefits and perfects you.

Yes, that is true enough. But Christianity says much more to you; it says, Your suffering blesses others: it teaches you sympathy; it gives them firmness and example, and reminds them of their frailty. How high a truth! for here is the law of the Cross: "No man dieth to himself;" for his pain and loss is for others, and, unconsciously to himself, brings with it, to others, joy and gain.

II. The testimony of conscience.

Met by these charges from his enemies, and even from his friends, the Apostle falls back on his own conscience. Let us explain what he means by the testimony of conscience. He certainly does not mean faultlessness: for he says, “ Of sinners I am chief." And St. John, in a similar spirit, declares that none can boast of faultlessness: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." And here St. Paul is not speaking of his own personal character, but of his ministry; and again,

he is not speaking of the blamelessness of his ministry, but of its success. No it was not faultlessness St. Paul meant by the testimony of conscience, but this-integrity, moral earnestness in his work; he had been straightforward in his ministry, and his worst enemies could be refuted if they said that he was insincere.

Now this sincerity excluded, first, all subtle manoeuvring, all indirect modes of teaching. The Corinthians said he had caught them with guile. He said he had not: there had been no concealment of views, no doctrine of reserve, no Jesuitry nor subtlety of reasoning in all his teaching: his conscience told him that. Yet many would have thought this subtlety the best mode of dealing with the bigoted Jews and the intricate and versatile Greek intellect. St. Paul might have said: "These views about the Sabbath will offend the Jews; these declarations of the Christ crucified will be unpleasant to the Greeks." Instead of which, in simplicity and godly sincerity, St. Paul preached the Cross. And in this, let men say what they please, the Apostle was true to the nature of men. One of the keenest of Eastern diplomatists has left it on record that subtlety fails in India; that there, manœuvring politicians have ever been those who were most easily outwitted. For none succeed like the straightforward, blunt, simple Englishman, sailor or soldier, as long as he is simple. Be sure that straightforwardness is more than a match at last for all the involved windings of deceit. In your daily life, do what you feel right, say what you feel true, and leave, with faith and boldness, the consequences to God. Force men to feel of you, "Yes, he has faults, but they lie on the surface; he may be impetuous, hasty, mistaken, but what he says he thinks; there is no arrière pensée, no acting in his character with a view to personal interests."

St. Paul's sincerity excluded also all teaching upon the ground of mere authority. It is commonly taught that this or

that truth is to be believed because an inspired Apostle taught it. It is often said, It is incredible; nevertheless you must believe it, because it was accredited by miracles. But the Apostle never taught on this ground. Nay, even Christ Himself in all His ministry did not teach any doctrine on the ground of authority. He simply said: "If I say the truth, why do ye not believe?" "They that are of the truth hear my voice;" "Wisdom is justified of her children." In the same way spoke St. Paul. The truth he had taught commended itself to their consciences: and so, too, throughout all his instruction, he says, "If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost." And again: "We use great plainness of speech."

This was the secret of the Apostle's wondrous power. It was because he had used no adroitness, nor craft, nor any threat of authority, but stood simply on the truth, evident like the sunlight to all who had eyes to see, that thousands, go where he would, "acknowledged" what he taught. There are some men who thus interpret us to ourselves, who make us more really ourselves, from whose writings and words we feel a flash which kindles all into light at once. Of the words of such,

men we do not say, "How can they be proved?" We say: "It is the truth of God, and needs no proof." And such is our feeling as we read the Word of Inspiration.

LECTURE XXXVI.

2 CORINTHIANS, i. 15-22.- -July 18, 1852.

`HE whole tone of this Epistle is apologetical—it is defen

Te the tughout. In other Epistles, the main subject

But in

being some Christian truth or truths, it is only incidentally that we ever learn anything respecting St. Paul himself. this, the main subject is St. Paul and St. Paul's conduct; and yet from chapter to chapter he digresses from his own conduct to some great principle which was dearer far to him than himself. Of course generally, the value of this Epistle is extremely great. But its special value consists in two things:

:

1. It exhibits the way in which a Christian may defend himself when maligned or misrepresented. No doubt it is very true that, in the end, character will clear itself; and a popular phrase says, with some truth, that the character which cannot defend itself is best left without defence. Yet this may be pressed too far. An uncontradicted slander is believed readily, and often for long; and, meanwhile, influence is crippled or lost. Conceive what might have ensued, had St. Paul not met the slanders against his character with denial at once! For few persons take the trouble to sift a charge which is not denied. Now, in the exposition of this Epistle, our attention (inter alia) will be frequently directed to the tone and manner in which the inspired Apostle defends himself.

2.

In

This Epistle is valuable as peculiarly forcing our attention to the fact of the humility of St. Paul. remembering the inspiration of the Apostles, we sometimes forget that they felt, thought, and wrote as men-that the

Holy Ghost spoke through them, mixing the Divine with the human—that inspiration flowed through roused human feelings and passions. Hence there is a peculiar value in an Epistle whose main character is personal.

The link of connection between the subject of last Sunday and that of to-day is to be found in the 12th and 13th verses, in which the Apostle maintains the openness and straightforwardness of his ministry. He had concealed nothing, he had used no reserve or duplicity. Nor had he taught truth to them on the mere ground of authority, but as truth,-that which was clear and self-evident when declared; that which they received and acknowledged.

Next he comes to a particular defence against a charge of failure of promise. The charge against him was one of duplicity or double-dealing, and this both in his public teaching, and also in his personal intercourse. His defence on the first count of the charge we have already dealt with. We come to-day to the charge as respects his personal deportment towards the Corinthians. He was, they said, a man who would teach plausibly, meaning something else all the while; all was not said out boldly by him. He was a man who would make a promise for a momentary purpose, and then break it for his own private ends. The alleged proof on which the charge was founded was, that he had promised to come to Corinth, and he had not come. The Apostle's reply includes a general defence against a general charge: and a defence in the particular case of apparent insincerity. He admits the fact, he had intended to go to Corinth: and he had not fulfilled his intention. he denies the inference of trifling with his word; or that it was with him "yea yea" -and then with a juggler's dexterity, nay nay.”

66

But

The broad ground on which St. Paul denies the possibility of such conduct is, that he was a spiritual Christian. He could not do so, because it would be acting according to the