Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquench- Act. Ser Luke 23.42. Tshi 2d unto Jimi 5. Commby my worth on comest kom" ywa find win wis love and to wom we are unor pre oblingens has died at a distan to have g froom us, we are fullest inforsue for respecting pe and we procure and peruse it great interest & letters of you who wer presents or smeline daly spirit of vainglory and faction, which produced the Popedom, began SERMON S. SERMON I. THE CHARACTER OF PAUL. By the grace of God I am what I am.”—1 Cor. xv. 10. It is not my intention from these words to discourse of the nature of the grace of God, or to prove the necessity of divine influence on the hearts of men, to form them to goodness and happiness. But I propose to show what Paul became through the grace of God, or, in other words, to set before you the leading features of his character as a Christian and apostle. Every one who has read the New Testament must have observed, that, next to "the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus," Paul is the most extraordinary person whose name has been handed down to us in connection with the propagation of the Gospel, and the establishment of the Christian Church. The Church of Rome, building on a single declaration of our Saviour greatly misunderstood, has pretended that Peter was the Prince of the apostles, and universal Bishop. If this had been the fact, it would have been rather strange that we have a much fuller account in the sacred records of the labours of Paul in spreading the Gospel, than we have of those of Peter; and that we possess only two epistles of the latter, while no fewer than thirteen, written by the former, are included in the canon of Scripture. Not that we would infer from this, that Paul was advanced to any species of primacy, either in respect of jurisdiction, dignity, or order among the apostles. They were all brethren, and he that was greatest' among them, in point of usefulness, was to act as "the least," and he that appeared to be "chief" in gifts, was not only to call himself, but also to behave as, "the servant of all." He that said, "I am of Paul," and he that said, "I am of Cephas," in the primitive church (for the spirit of vainglory and faction, which produced the Popedom, began of one early to work), were equally blamable: neither of them was crucified for us, nor were we baptised in the name of either, and their highest honour is, not that they were lords of God's heritage, but ensamples to it, and helpers of its joy. I mean not to speak of the apostolical authority of Paul; nor do I intend pronouncing his panegyric, a species of discourse in which the excellences of the person described are rhetorically exaggerated, and artificially blazoned, so as to form a masterpiece, in which the device and image of the artist are conspicuously enstamped. Such an attempt the sacredness of the subject forbids; the text frowns on it; and it would violate instead of embalming the memory whose uniform object it was to "preach not himself, but Christ Jesus the Lord," and who had these words more than any other in his mouth "Glory not in men." But without incurring this censure, we may surely dwell for a little on a character which meets us so frequently in the word of God. It cannot, surely, be unlawful for us to trace and point out the marks of the finger of God in framing this "chosen vessel” to bear "the unsearchable riches of Christ" to the Gentiles. We must be prone to idolatry, indeed, if we are in danger of putting that servant out of his place who is continually reminding us that he is "nothing," and that his Master is "all in all." In delineating his excellences, and describing his abundant labours, is it possible that we should be puffed up, and not rather humbled and mortified at our falling so far behind a man, who, after all, disclaimed everything bordering on perfection, and gloried only in his infirmities? The information which the New Testament contains respecting Paul, appears to point out his character as peculiarly deserving our attention, while it furnishes us with ample materials for describing it. In the Acts of the Apostles we have a narrative of his travels and preaching by the pen of one who accompanied him for many years-who enjoyed the very best opportunities of knowing his inmost sentiments, and of observ ing his conduct among Jews and Gentiles, among friends and enemies, in circumstances of honour and of disgrace-and whose record of what he saw and heard bears the most indubitable and convincing marks of truth and ingenuousness. Besides this, we have the confidential letters (which, of all things, reflect the character most truly) written by the apostle to individuals and churches in different parts of the world, and at different periods of his life, which show him to be always the same person, and on comparing which with the narrative of Luke, we dis cover such incidental coincidences in facts, sentiments, and feelings, as throw equal light and authority on both. Those who have carefully examined these documents, and especially those who have entered into the spirit of his epistles, are admitted to all those advantages which were enjoyed by his contemporaries and companions, and may be said, like Timothy, to have "fully known his doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, long-suffering, charity, patience, persecutions, afflictions." 1 2 Tim. iii. 10. |