cease to be respectable. Society may annihilate a Church Establishment, but yet that which is essential in the office remains: the minister is still a minister of Christ, a steward of the mysteries of God, whose chief glory consists not in that he is respectable, or well-off, or honoured, but in that he serves, like Him, "Who came not to be ministered unto, but to minister."

Lastly, the Office may be depreciated by such a view as these Corinthians were tempted to take. The Corinthians measured their teachers by their gifts, and in proportion to their acceptability to them. So now, men seem to look on the Ministry as an Institution intended for their comfort, for their gratification, nay, even for their pastime. In this way the preaching of the Gospel seems to be something like a lecture, professorial or popular; a thing to be freely found fault with, if it has not given comfort, or shown ability, or been striking or original; a free arena for light discussion and flippant criticism; for of course, if a man had a right to be an admirer of Paul, he had also to be a blamer of Apollos.

Now see how St. Paul meets this. “With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment." He simply refuses to submit his authority to any judgment; and this you will say, perchance, was priestly pride, a characteristic haughtiness. Exactly the reverse, it was profound humility. Not because he was above judgment, not because he was infallible, or teaching truths too grand for them, but because he was to be judged before a tribunal far more awful than Corinthian society. Not by man would he be judged, because fidelity is the chief excellence in a steward, and fidelity is precisely that which men cannot judge. They can only judge of gifts, whereas the true dignity of their minister consists not in gifts, nor in popularity, nor in success, but simply in having faithfully used his powers, and boldly spoken the truth which was in him.

St. Paul refuses even to pass judgment on himself. He

66

says, "I know nothing by myself." In the common reading this passage would seem to mean, Whatever I know is not by myself, but by a Higher Power; but what the translator meant, and as it would even now be understood by our northcountrymen, is this, "I know nothing against myself," "I am not conscious of untruth, or lack of fidelity." "Yet," he goes on to say, am I not hereby justified: but He that judgeth me is the Lord." Here, then, is what St. Paul appeals to, for another Eye had seen, and He could tell how far the sentence was framed for man's applause; how far the unpleasant truth was softened, not for love's sake, but simply from cowardice. Even the bold unpopularity, that cares not whom it offends, may be, and often is, merely the result of a contentious, warlike spirit, defiant of all around, and proud in a fancied superiority. But God discerns through all this, and sees how far independence is only another name for stubbornness; how even that beautiful avoidance of sectarianism is merely, in many cases, a love of standing alone: a proud resolve not to interfere with any other man's ministry, or to allow any man to interfere with his.

In applying this to our daily life, we must, then,

1. Learn not to judge, for we do not know the secrets of the heart. We judge men by gifts, or by a correspondence with our own peculiarities; but God judges by fidelity.

Many a dull sermon is the result of humble powers, honestly cultivated, whilst many a brilliant discourse arises merely from a love of display. Many a diligent and active ministry proceeds from the love of power.

2. Learn to be neither depressed unduly by blame, nor on the other side, to be too much exalted by praise. Life's experience should teach us this. Even in war, honours fall as by chance, with cruel and ludicrous injustice; often the hero, whom the populace worship, is only made so by accident. Often the coronet falls on brows that least deserve it.

And our own individual experience should teach us how little men know us! How often when we have been most praised and loved, have we been conscious of another motive actuating us than that which the world has given us credit for ; and we have been blamed, perhaps disgraced, when, if all the circumstances were known, we should have been covered with honour. Therefore, let us strive, as much as possible, to be tranquil; smile when men sneer; be humble when they praise; patient when they blame. Their judgment will not last; "man's judgment," literally "man's day," is only for a time, but God's is for Eternity. So, would you be secure alike when the world pours its censure or its applause upon you? feel hourly that God will judge. That will be your safeguard under both. It will be a small thing to you to be judged of any man's judgment, for your cause will be pleaded before the Judge and the Discerner of all secrets.

THE

LECTURE X.

-November 23, 1851.

I CORINTHIANS, iv. 7-21.

HE former part of this chapter is addressed to congregations, in order that a right estimate may be formed by them of the ministerial office, which neither on the one hand ought to be depreciated, nor, on the other, to be unduly valued. We have explained how St. Paul's view was in opposition to all tendencies to worship the man, or to represent the Office as magical or mysterious; and on the other hand, his view was in direct opposition to all opinions which represent it as a creature and institution of the State, or which value it only as a sphere for the exhibition of gifts and talents. And one definition sufficed the Apostle: "Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God."

And in reference to that right, so liberally assumed, of passing judgment, of awarding praise and blame, of criticising individual ministers, the Apostle teaches that the same definition excludes this right, because of the impossibility of judgment; for all that a steward can have of merit is fidelity, and fidelity is exactly that which men cannot judge-it is a secret hidden with God. Now this sin of sectarianism was not imputable to the congregation only. It was also shared by their ministers. There were those who made themselves leaders of parties, those who accepted and gloried in adulation, those who unduly assumed mysterious powers, magnifying their office that they might personally have that spiritual power which to most men is so grateful.

And here again is shown the Apostle's singular delicacy.

He names none of those leaders, none of those who were vain of their eloquence or gifts. He only speaks of those who were involuntarily raised to the headship of different factions : Christ, the Lord-Cephas-Apollos-and himself. "These things I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another." That is, these are named for a general, not a specific purpose, that they might learn not to be puffed up for any minister. And just because the accusation is not special, therefore should it be universally applied.

We gain nothing from this chapter if we simply learn the historical fact, that in Corinth there were certain parties and sects; and that St. Paul blamed that of Apollos, and that of Cephas, and that likewise which had formed round himself; unless we learn also that there are parties amongst ourselves—one setting up the Church against the Bible, and another the Bible against the Church; one calling itself the "Evangelical " party par excellence, affixing special terms to the names of its reviews and magazines, as if no other publications deserved the name of Christian; another party calling itself "AngloCatholic," as though true Catholicity was not rather in spirit than in outward form; every party having its organ, its newspapers and reviews, full of faction and bitterness, and each branding the other with opprobrious names. And unless we learn that St. Paul would have blamed us, and taken our party spirit as a proof that we are carnal, and walk as men," we gain nothing from the delicacy of his abstaining from mentioning names that he might teach a general principle.

Another lesson however, we gain. This is an anonymous accusation; but of that rare kind, that not the name of the accuser, but of the accused, is suppressed. If all this were anonymous then, surely it should be so with us now. Our accusations should be personal, that is, directed against our