"the law, are curfed." Nor could Paul, in respect of rank, claim great fuperiority over the reft. He was only a handicraftsman, having been bred a tent-maker; a bufinefs which he occafionally exercifed, for the fupport of himself and his attendants, during his apostleship. Ay but had not this man all the advantage refulting from the Grecian arts of logic and rhetoric? Did he not fpeak their language with elegance and purity? I know the apoftle has had fome ftrenuous and well-meaning advocates, especially among the moderns, not infidels, but Chriftians, who, with more zeal than judgement, have maintained the affirmative. I am far from denying, that this eminent fervant of our Lord poffeffed confiderable talents, in refpect of natural eloquence, depth of thought, ftrength of reafoning, and nervoufnefs of expreffion. But that his Greek diction was pure and claffical, or that in compofing he followed the rules laid down by rhetoricians, we have the greateft reafon to deny. His works that are extant, do, to every able and candid judge of thefe matters, fhow the contrary. The contrary was admitted by the beft critics and orators among the Greek fathers, who must be allowed more capable of judging of propriety, fluency, and harmony, in their native tongue, than any modern can be in a dead #John, vii. 49. and and foreign language *. Further, the contrary is frankly owned by the apostle himself. Nay, he infists, that according to the divine counfel it must be fo, this being of a piece with all the other natural means God had employed in the work. Thus he was "fent 66 to preach the gofpel," as he tells us in the context, not with wisdom of words." Why? "Left the cross of Chrift should be made of 66 none effect +." Shall we then maintain his oratorical talents in fpite of himself, and in fpite of the irrefragable reafon he adduces from the analogy of the divine procedure, in this whole difpenfation? It would be paying him but a bad compliment, to extol his elocution at the expence of his veracity; for we are under a neceffity of denying one or other. It appears, that his enemies made a handle of the rudeness and inelegance of his ftyle, to injure his reputation, especially at Corinth, where oratory was much in vogue. But though he vindicates himself from their other cenfures, he invariably admits the truth of this. "Though rude in fpeech," fays he, "yet not in knowledge t." And, "I came "not with excellency of speech, or of wif"dom." And, "the things of God we "fpeak, not in the words which man's wif"dom teacheth **." Again, "My fpeech,: ❝ and my preaching was not with enticing *Such were Origen and Chryfoftom. † 1 Cor. i. 17. Cor. ii. 1. "words "words of man's wifdom." He affigns the reafon, the fame in import with that given formerly, "that your faith fhould not ftand "in the wisdom of men, but in the power of "God" Speaking of their sentiments concerning him, "His letters, fay they, are "weighty and powerful, but his bodily pre"fence is weak, and his fpeech contempt"ible +." The power afcribed to his letters undoubtedly refers to the sense conveyed in them, and the ardour of spirit by which they are animated. That they did not conceive any part of their merit to be the purity or harmony of the style, is manifeft from the latter part of the character, efpécially when compared with what is repeatedly acknowledged in other places. Paul therefore had neither the graces of perfon, nor the ornaments of elocution, to recommend or enforce his doctrine. His language to Greek ears must have appeared idiomatical, not to fay barbarous. And as his fort of learning was but ill adapted to the people of Greece, Italy, or Afia Minor, amongst whom his miffion chiefly lay, he did not poffefs that fuperiority over the other apoftles which is commonly imagined. Juftly therefore might we apply to a Christian who fhould zealously affert the claffic purity of our apoftle's ftyle, the rebuke which our Lord once gave to Peter, on an occafion not unfimilar: "Thou favoureft not the things that I Cor. ii. 4, 5. † 2 Cor. x. 10. "be "be of God, but the things that be of men *." The weaknefs, the infirmity, or, if you will, the infufficiency of thefe meffengers of the new covenant, was their glory, and their boast, Their motive was, "that the power of Chrift "might reft upon" them †, and be manifefted by them. To men of the world, indeed, the doctrine appeared not more foolish, than the miniftry was weak. Mat. xvi. 23. + 2 Cor. xii. 9. VOL. III. SER SERMON XI. The Subject continued. I COR. i. 25. The foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is ftronger than men. PART II. HAVE now, as I purposed in the first place, fhown the inability of the natural means employed in promulgating the gospel, to effect the end. I PROCEED to confider, fecondly, the rapid and unexampled fuccefs of the means that were employed. As to the rapidity of the fuccefs, need I ufe many words to evince a point fo evident, and fo univerfally acknowledged ? The canon of fcripture was not finished, that generation had not paffed, when Jefus Chrift had difciples and churches in Judea, Samaria, Syria, Phenicia, Mefopotamia, Arabia, the countries of Afia Minor, Greece, Macedonia, Italy, Egypt, and as far as Ethiopia. This we learn, partly from the books of the New Teftament, partly from the authentic remains of the apoftolic fathers. Whilft the faith of the |