How are men saved? Directly through Christ? or indirectly by Christ through the priest ?-by personal faith? or by the miraculous instrumentality of the sacraments? What is the Christian minister? Is he one whose manipulations and meddling are necessary to make faith and moral goodness acceptable, and to impart to them a spiritual efficacy? or is he simply one whose office is to serve his brethren, by giving to them such superior knowledge as he may possess, or such superior influence as his character may command? The Apostle's decision here is plain; and it is marvellous how any can read his writings, and support the "priestly view."

But do not mistake the meaning of the word "priest;" as used by the Church of England it is simply a corrupted form of presbyter. In her formularies she does not claim sacrificial or priestly powers for her officers, but only ministerial ones. Observe therefore, it is not a question of words, but of things: Priestcraft is a spirit, a temper of mind; and does not depend upon a name. It is not because a man is called a priest, that therefore he is unlike St. Paul; nor because a man is named a minister, that therefore he is free from the priestly temper. In Rome, where all are called priests, you have had the humble, servant-like spirit of many a Fénélon. Among Dissenters, where the word "priest" is strenuously avoided, there has been many a proud, priestly spirit, domineering and overbearing. Such men are willing-nay, zealous-that others should be saved, provided it is only through them; and hence their estimate of goodness in others is a peculiar one. Those who accept their teaching, and admit their authority, they call humble, meek, Christlike. Those who dare to doubt, who seek Truth for themselves, not blindly their truth, they call latitudinarians, proud, heretics, presumptuous, and self-willed. Thus the priestly estimate of saintliness is always a peculiar one, since the main element of it is obedience and submission, and a blind subservience to individual teaching.

Besides, these men are always persecutors: the assumption of dominion over men's faith necessarily makes them so, although in different ways. In some ages they burn, in others curse, in others they affix stigmas and names on their fellow ministers, and bid people beware of them as dangerous teachers. Now I give you a criterion: Whenever you find a man trying to believe, and to make others believe, himself to be necessary to their salvation and progress, saying, "Except ye be circumcised, except ye believe what I teach, or except I baptize you, ye cannot be saved," there you have a priest, whether he be called minister, clergyman, or layman. But whenever you find a man anxious and striving to make men independent of himself, yea, independent of all men; desiring to help them not to rest on his authority, but-to stand on their own faith, not his; that they may be elevated, instructed, and educated; wishing for the blessed time to come when his services shall be unnecessary, and the prophecy be fulfilled-“They shall no more teach every man his brother, saying, Know ye the Lord; for all shall know Him from the least to the greatest,”—there you have the Christian minister, the servant, the "helper of your joy."

The second reason St. Paul alleges for not coming to Corinth is apparently a selfish one: to spare himself pain. And he distinctly says, he had written to pain them, in order that he might have joy. Very selfish, as at first it sounds: but if we look closely into it, it only sheds a brighter and fresher light upon the exquisite unselfishness and delicacy of St. Paul's character. He desired to save himself pain, because it gave them pain. He desired joy for himself, because his joy was theirs. He will not separate himself from them for a moment: he will not be the master, and they the school: it is not I and you, but we; "my joy is your joy, as your grief was my grief." And so knit together are we beloved,-minister and congregation !

Here it is best to explain the 5th verse, which in our version

is badly punctuated. If we read it thus, it is clear: "If any have caused grief he hath not grieved me, but in part (that I may not overcharge) you all."

To resume :-It was not to pain them merely, that he wrote, But because joy, deep and permanent, was impossible without pain; as the extraction of a thorn by a tender father gives a deeper joy in love to the child. It was not to inflict sorrow, "not that ye should be grieved, but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you." Again, it was not to save himself pain merely, that he did not come, but to save them that pain which would have given him pain. there is a canon for the difficult duty and right, of blame. When, to what extent,-how,-shall we discharge that difficult duty, so rarely done with gracefulness? To blame is easy enough, with some it is all of a piece with the hardness of their temperament; but to do this delicately-how shall we learn that? I answer, Love! and then say what you will; men will bear anything if love be there. If not, all blame, however just, will miss its mark; and St. Paul showed this in the 4th verse, where love lies at the root of his censure. Nothing but love can teach us how to understand such a sentence as this from a higher Heart than his-" He looked round about Him in anger, being grieved at the hardness of their hearts."

Here too, arises an occasion for considering the close connection between ministers and congregations. Let us compare the 14th verse of the first chapter-"We are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus "--with the 3rd verse of the second chapter-" Having confidence in you all that my joy is the joy of you all"—and what a lesson of comfort shall we not learn! But much mistake is made in representing the case of ministers now as parallel to that of the Apostles, and claiming, as is sometimes done, the same reverence for their words as the Apostles claimed rightfully for themselves. Much mistake too, is made in drawing the parallel,

or expecting it in the mutual affection of ministers and people. For gifts differ, and more than all, circumstances of trial differ; and it is only when dangers are undergone together, like those of the Apostles, that the cases can be parallel. Doubtless in the early Church, and among the persecuted Covenanters, similar instances have occurred, but rarely do they happen in prosperous times.

Yet let me call attention to one point, in which the connection is equally solemn. I waive the question of personal affection and private influence. In the public ministry of a Church, week by week, a congregation listens to one man's teaching; year by year, a solemn connection is thus formed; for so thoughts are infused, perforce absorbed. They grow in silence, vegetate, and bear fruit in the life and practice of the congregation; and a minister may even trace his modes of thinking in his people's conversation-not as mere phrases learnt by rote, but as living seed which has germinated in them. A very solemn thing! for what is so solemn as to have that part of a man which is his most real self-his thoughts and faith -grow into others, and become part of their being! Well, that will be his rejoicing in the judgment-day; for that harvest he will put in his claim. "We are your rejoicing." It was to be theirs that St. Paul had taught them in simplicity and godly sincerity, truly and fearlessly. It was to be his that spiritual thoughts and contrite feelings had been through him infused into them, and this though they partially denied it. Still, deny it as they might, they could not rob him of his harvest.

My Christian brethren, may that mutual rejoicing be yours and mine in the day of Jesus Christ!

TH

LECTURE XXXVIII.

2 CORINTHIANS, ii. 6-11.- —August 1, 1852.

HE main defence of the Apostle against the charge of fickleness in the non-fulfilment of his promise was, that he had abstained from going to Corinth in order to spare them the sharp rebuke he must have administered had he gone thither. A great crime had been committed: the Church had been compromised, more especially as some of the Corinthians had defended the iniquity on the ground of Liberty, and St. Paul had stayed away after giving his advice, that not he, but they themselves, might do the work of punishment. He gave sentence-that the wicked person should be put away, but he wished them to execute the sentence. For it was a matter of greater importance to St. Paul that the Corinthians should feel rightly the necessity of punishment, than merely that the offender should be punished. It was not to vindicate his authority that he wrote, but that they should feel the authority of Right: and the Corinthians obeyed. They excommunicated the incestuous person; for the Epistle of the Apostle stirred up their languid consciences into active exercise. Accordingly, he applauds their conduct, and recommends them now to forgive the offender whom they had punished; so that, in this section, we have St. Paul's views respecting

I. The Christian Idea of Punishment.

II. The Christian Idea of Absolution.

I. The Christian idea of punishment includes in it, first, the Reformation of the Offender.