St. Paul was laden with a message that would seem homely and jejune beside a fine-spun rhetoric. Come from Athens, where he had partly failed, to make at Corinth a fresh attempt to confront the grandeur of Greek philosophy with the simplicity of the gospel, was enough to make him timid. Of this contrast he was daily conscious, and the weakness here described was ethical, not physical. He was naturally anxious, lest in poising the plain argument of the Cross against the colossal fabric of a seated philosophy, he might fail: was a David armed with such a pebble to prevail against a Goliath in such a panoply? But in his “fear and tremblingthe apostle was encouraged by a vision of God’s presence and his own duty (Act_18:9). (Canon Evans.)
The feelings of a faithful minister
I. Their character--often--
1. Intense.
2. Painful.
II. The occasion of them--a sense of--
1. The importance of his work.
2. His own insufficiency.
3. His responsibility.
4. The tremendous issues. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
And … preaching was not with enticing words,… but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.--
Enticing words
Itis related of Dr. Manton that, having to preach before the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London, he chose a subject in which he had an opportunity of displaying his learning and judgment. He was heard with admiration and applause by the intelligent part of his audience; but as he was returning from dinner with the Lord Mayor, a poor man, following him, pulled him by the sleeve of his gown, and asked him if he was the gentleman that preached before the Lord Mayor. He replied he was. “Sir,” said he, “I came with the hopes of getting some good to my soul, but I was greatly disappointed, for I could not understand a great deal of what you said; you were quite above my comprehension.” “Friend,” said the doctor, “if I have not given you a sermon, you have given me one: by the grace of God, I will not play the fool in such a manner again.”
Some displeased and one converted
The Rev. John Cotton wasan eminent minister of the seventeenth century, who laboured for many years at Boston, in Lincolnshire. When at the University of Cambridge, he was remarkable for learning and eloquence; and being called upon to preach at St. Mary’s church in that town, high expectations were raised as to the character of the sermon. After many struggles in his own mind, arising from the temptation to display his talent and learning, and from a powerful impression of the importance of preaching the gospel with all simplicity, he at length wisely determined on the latter course. The vice-chancellor and students were not pleased, though a few of theprofessors commended his style; but his sermon was blessed to the conversion of Dr. Preston, who became one of the most eminent ministers of his day.
Effective preaching
I. Needs so display.
1. This does not exclude the use of knowledge or talent.
2. But the ostentatious exhibition of it.
3. Which helps nothing.
4. But damages much.
II. Depends on divine power.
1. The convincing energy of the HolySpirit.
2. The saving power of the truth.
III. Requires the communication of the spirit.
1. To the preacher.
2. To the hearer. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
Flowery preaching
Hall was once asked what he thought of a sermon which he had just heard delivered, and which had appeared to produce a great sensation among the congregation. His reply may suggest an important hint to some Christian ministers--“Very fine, sir; but a man cannot live upon flowers.”
Force the main consideration in preaching
Ihad tried to drive certain long brass-headed nails into a wall, but had never succeeded, except in turning up their points, and rendering them useless. When a tradesman came who understood his work, I noticed that he filed off all the points of the nails, the very points upon whose sharpness I had relied; and when he had quite blunted them, he drove them in as far as he pleased. With some consciences our fine points in preaching are worse than useless. Our keen distinctions and nice discriminations are thrown away on many; they need to be encountered with sheer force and blunt honesty. The truth must be hammered into them by main strength, and we know from whom to seek the needed power. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Popular and apostolical preaching
I. Popular.
1. Is distinguished by display, attractiveness, novelty.
2. Aims at pleasing and sensational effect.
II. Apostolic.
1. Plain.
2. Unvarnished.
3. Accompanied by the convictions of the Spirit and the saving power of God. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
Paul’s preaching and the blessing that attended it
I. “The speech and preaching” of the apostle.
1. His great subject was the gospel. He was a great preacher of the law; for no man preaches the gospel who does not preach the law, and our appreciation of the gospel is always in direct proportion to our real perception of God’s holy law. But that which Paul delighted in was the gospel. He preached in all His fulness a full Christ; he exhibited Him in the glory of His person, in all the perfection of His atonement, in all the freeness of His free-grace salvation. And he preached it largely, and wherever he went. He preached it holily too; he set it forth in all its holy tendencies, and he exhibited it in its holy effects in his own life (1Th_1:5).
2. His manner was “not with enticing words of man’s wisdom.” His subject was grand, awful, sublime, wondrous; but his speech was plain, simple, unadorned, and homely. No glare and glitter were his, no traps for human applause, no desire to be thought a man of great talent; the gifted apostle was above it. How does this show to us what sort of preachers we want! We do not mean that the apostle did not suit his speech to those to whom he spake, for he became all things to all men, &c.
II. The blessing that attended it. “In demonstration of the Spirit and of power.”
1. Many understand by this the miraculous gifts that Paul was able to exhibit, as proof that he was an apostle of Christ. That be wrought miracles, is quite clear; and that they were great seals to his ministry is also quite clear (Rom_15:18). But the Word of God tells us that signs and wonders may be the means of hardening those who work them. Besides, a continuous miracle would cease to be a miracle; and the mightiest could never of itself convert one single soul.
2. More marvellous things than those that wrought in the triumph of God over matter are wrought when He triumphs over mind. The apostle set forth the truth to men’s understanding, but the Holy Ghost conveyed the light into their minds; he spake to men’s consciences, but the Spirit conveyed the tenderness of heart, and made the word’ effectual. Here is no violence, no new faculty, no new truth; but the Holy Ghost put forth His power, and brought in demonstration (Col_1:5-6; 1Th_1:5; 1Th_2:13).
3. The power of the gospel is demonstrated--
(1) In the conversion of the sinner.
(2) In the comfort of the mourner.
(3) In the sanctification of the believer.
(4) In the hour of death. (J. H. Evans, M. A.)
Powerless sermons
Many a powerful sermon so called is a powerless sermon, because of the absence from it of what is invisible. The gospel preached without power is like a cloud, without rain; there is a promise of rain, but there is no water of life, and no springing up of the seed the result. The gospel preached without power is like a well with all its arrangements for drawing perfect--but without water. (G. Pentecost.)
True power lies in the gospel itself
Hipponicus, intending to dedicate a costly statue, was advised by a friend to employ Policletus, a famous workman, in the making of it; but he, being anxious that his great expense should be the admiration of all men, said that “he would not make use of a workman whose art would be more regarded than his own cost.” When, in preaching the great truths of gospel salvation, the enticing words which man’s wisdom teacheth are so much sought out that the art of the orator is more regarded by the hearers than the value of the truth spoken, it is no wonder that the Lord refuses to grant His blessing. He will have it seen that the excellency of the power lies not in our speech, but in His gospel.
That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Faith
1. Upon what does your faith stand?
2. Where ought it to stand?
3. Why should it stand there? (J. Lyth, D. D.)
True faith
I. Cannot be produced by the wisdom of man.
1. He may convince by the force of argument or persuasion.
2. But such a faith is--
(1) Impure.
(2) Unsettled.
(3) Inoperative.
II. Depends upon the power of God.
1. Through the operation of the Spirit.
2. This--
(1)Heals the conscience.
(2) Converts the soul.
(3) Sanctifies the life.
III. Should be the end of all preaching.
1. The preacher should aim at it.
2. The people should desire it. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
The domain of faith
I. The domain of faith is to be distinguished from that of human wisdom,
1. Men are ever confounding the two. Faith, they think, is simply the intellect in its ordinary processes dealing with religious things. The man who rejects Christianity does it on this ground. “I cannot,” he says, “reason out a demonstrative proof of Christianity; therefore I refuse to believe it true.” Because faith cannot stand in the wisdom of man, it cannot, he thinks, stand at all. Now, according to the apostle, faith stands in “the power of God.” What is the difference?
2. How do we know things?
(1) By sensible proof. If I put my finger into the fire it burns me; if I hear music it delights me. This is the proof which my body furnishes concerning things that appeal to it. I do not reason about them; no spiritual or moral sympathies are called into exercise. I prove them exactly as a brute does.
(2) By rational proof. If a man tells me that two and two make four, that a whole is greater than its part, my senses, my religious feeling have nothing to do with the proof--it is a process of pure reason. A brute could not prove anything in this way. A rational man must believe on such evidence.
(3) Moral proof. When I see moral qualities in a man, I instinctively receive impressions concerning him. I say he is a kind man, a true man, a reverential man. If he be a hypocrite, he may deceive me; but that does not affect the validity of this method of proof. Life would be impossible if we could not trust men until we had collected evidence about them. We are always trusting men whom we know nothing about, because of the moral judgment of them which we form.
3. Now, this distinction of different kinds of proof will carry us a long way in understanding the domain of faith as distinguished from that of intellectual wisdom. When God speaks religious things to me, He does not appeal to my physical senses. He does notappeal to my reason, as the multiplication table does, as a proof in logic does; He appeals directly to my religious sense. Is not this religiously true, pure, suitable? And my religious sense responds, as the eye responds to light, understanding to intellectual truth, the heart to love. Men who are “of the truth” respond tomoral truth when they see it.
4. Now, the strong tendency is to interchange these methods of proof. “I can believe nothing,” says the materialist, “that I cannot prove.” Quite true; neither ought you. “Aye, but I mean that I cannot prove by processes of reason,” which is quite another thing. Suppose the brute should say, “I will believe nothing which I cannot prove by the senses. I will not believe in your mathematical astronomy, your subtle chemistry.” And is he not as much justified in denying your rational proof as you are in denying my spiritual proof? Your rational proof belongs to a higher nature than his; my spiritual proof belongs to a higher nature than mere reason. What can reason do with moral qualities? You cannot reason out right and wrong; you cannot by reason prove love, or purity, or goodness; you can only feel them. You tell me that you have explored nature, but cannot find God; as well may the surgeon conducting a post-mortem examination tell us that he cannot find the pure patriot, the loving father. How can he detect moral qualities by physical tests?
5. We are always trying to get above the domain of mere matter into that of reason. How the painter and the poet idealise nature; change actual colour and form into glorious ideals! How the philosopher uses them for the creation of a science! How the economist uses them for an economy of social life! And so we are always trying to get above the domain of reason into the domain of faith. It is the necessity of our nature to think about good and evil, to form moral judgments about things. There is another tendency which is always dragging the spiritual down to the sensual; but all men agree to call this wrong moral feeling; Christianity calls it sin.
6. Faith, then, is that quality of our spiritual nature which, when it hears God’s truth, sees God’s purity, feels God’s love, simply and implicitly believes it. It does not wait for processes of reason to prove it, any more than the eye waits for processes of reason to prove light, or the heart for processes of reason to prove love. But, it may be said, does not this make faith irrational? Certainly not. It simply goes farther than reason can go, sees things that reason cannot see, feels things that reason cannot feel. When a truth of God is spoken to me--first, my senses are exercised; next, my reason--it judges the meaning of the words, of the thought, then it delivers the sentiment to my spiritual faculty. Is it religiously true, suitable, and precious? Simple reason could not pronounce upon this; but my religious heart does. I am told of the existence of a God; my senses cannot recognise Him, my reason cannot demonstrate Him, but my spiritual nature confesses His existence, just as the heart confesses love. I am told of the Incarnation; neither sense nor reason can prove it; but my religious consciousness testifies that it is precisely what my condition needed. So with the atonement--the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, the resurrection of Christ; and the immortal life that He gives.
II. How did Paul set forth Christ? (verse 1). Not as a rhetorician, or a moral philosopher. Why not? There is no merit in abjuring reason, when it is a process of reasoning that has to be conducted. But it was not an argument that Paul had to conduct; it was a testimony of God that he had to bear. It was not a science of religion that he had to construct; it was a simple fact that he had to declare. Men knew all about sin; he did not need to prove that they were sinful. Men earnestly craved to know “what they must do to be saved.” He did not need to reason about that. And he simply declared the great fact that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners”; that was all he said, but that was enough. Thus, receiving his testimony to the Divine fact, the faith of these men “stood not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” Christ, then, is to be preached, and His atonement set forth by bearing testimony. It is the cry of a herald rather than a philosophical argument. The physician does not need to prove to the sick that they need healing; he needs only say, “Wilt thou be made whole?” Preaching Christ is simply setting Him forth as the great gift of the Father’s love. They who hear the testimony have only to trust in the crucified Christ for forgiveness and life. And when so believing God’s testimony we receive Christ, and have experience of His redeeming grace, our“faith stands in the power of God.“We have the witness in ourselves--a certainty and strength of belief which is like the consciousness of life; argument cannot disturb it. Christ is “formed in us”; we “know whom we have believed.(H. Allon, D. D.)
