Christians of our day to the Apostolic age. How few would have had courage to pray for Saul the perse; cutor! courage; for they might have had the charity. But to pray for such a man, especially to pray that he might preach the faith which he had persecuted might seem almost to be tempting GOD. Yet it was not so, and it would have been faithlessness to think S. Paul's conversion appears a direct answer to i the prayer of S. Stephen. (Acts vii. 60.) The Son of GOD, conspicuous to both from heaven, seems to link the events. With such an example, never let us cease to pray for our sinful brethren. (1 Sam. xii. 23 ; §. James v. 16; 1 S. John v. 16.)

So.

IV. The bearing of the event on our own particular

cases.

If ever

1. Conversion is not independent of means. there was a case which was such, it was this; and to this the advocates of sudden and irresistible conver sions appeal. But, granting all they say, it was a miracle—and do they expect miracles? and it is the only instance of the kind, even in Holy Scripture. But, in truth, S. Paul was not miraculously converted, but only miraculously instructed. The evidence was miraculous; the conversion, ordinary. His SAVIOUR expostulated with him. Saul asked, "What wilt Thou have me to do ?" He was told-not compelled-he obeyed-he was taught by a person commissioned for the purpose-he was regenerated in Holy Baptism. (Acts xxii. 16.) He was not then converted without his will, or without means; and he received the HOLY SPIRIT in the same Sacrament in which that Gift is ordinarily bestowed. If we despise

those means which he thankfully used, we cannot expect his reward.

2. The sinner must put to the SAVIOUR the same question which S. Paul did, (Acts ix. 6) with the same determination to abide by the answer. That answer will be found in His Word-and it is substantially, S. Mark i. 15; xvi. 16; S. Matt. xix. 17. If he obeys not this, it is the same with him as it would have been with Saul had he refused to enter Damascus.

3. Momentary and miraculous conversions are falsely thought to ensure ultimate salvation. That the conversion of S. Paul did not ensure this, see outline for Septuagesima Sunday. The sinner who makes sure of his salvation does that which the great Apostle dared not do.

4. S. Paul's case differs from ours in one particular very widely. His was properly a conversion. When a fallen disciple arises, he may be said to be converted, (S. Luke xxii. 32; S. James v. 19, 20,) but clearly not in the same sense as the Jew or Gentile brought over to Christianity. Before S. Paul's conversion he was in no covenant with GOD through CHRIST; he had no especial promise of grace. How different the case of the baptized Christian, vowed to GOD, sealed by His Spirit, instructed in his duty! Heb. vi. 4; x. 26, 27; 2 S. Pet. ii. 20, 21. If we use not these advantages, and break a solemn covenant, shall a miracle be wrought to convert us? No! It would even be useless. (S. Luke xvi. 31.)

5. How important is sincerity! This qualification alone, with much of error and sin, how does it attract the favour and teaching of GOD! (Ps. li. 6.) The

indifferent and insincere, however correct in belief or morals, can expect no Divine guidance, no sanctifying blessing.

6. How important is enlightenment! Without this even with the purest love of GOD, we may commit the most awful sins! See Rom. x. 2, 3.

The event of this day is one of thankfulness and encouragement, but affords no ground to hope for forcible conversion, which was not vouchsafed even to S. Paul. God's promises are to be received as they are set forth in Holy Scripture, (Art. XVII.) and nothing can be more unscriptural than forcible conversion. The reality of our thankfulness and sincerity of our repentance will be best evinced by following S. Paul, as he followed CHRIST. (1 Cor. xi. 1.)

[The evidential view of the transaction of this day is well wrought out in Lord Lyttelton's "Observ tions on the Conversion of S. Paul.”]

X.

Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and Presentation of our Lord in the Temple.

Subject. The occasion.

Text. S. Luke ii. 22.

"When the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the LORD."

Illustrative Scriptures and Texts. Exod. xiii.; xxii. 29, 30; Lev. xii.; xxvii. 26, 27; Numb. iii.; viii.; xviii. 15—17; Deut. xv. 19-23.

Principal Words. καθαρισμοῦ, παραστῆσαι.

Two events hallow this day, which require separate consideration.

I. The Purification of the Blessed Virgin.

It was the primal sentence on the woman, "In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children." (Gen. iii. 15.) Sorrow is the attendant on sin-this sorrow therefore proved the natural sinfulness of the mother, and hence of the child. (Job xiv. 4; xv. 14; xxv. 4; Ps. li. 5.) The law set forth this truth by necessitating various purifications. This was one of the most significant. [Give account of it from Illustrative Scriptures.] In this ceremony, the sacrifice was a lamb for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon, or turtle dove, for a sin-offering; if the woman were poor, h

VOL. II.

the lamb was commuted for a turtle dove; but the sin-offering was alike to rich and poor, because t same LORD was to make atonement for both.

In this one case only this ceremony had no such mearing. The Blessed Virgin incurred no mystical impe rity in giving birth to her SAVIOUR: and He was spotted by sin. Through that birth, on the contra all we are cleansed. No atonement could be needed; when He Who was born was the atonement for å She was not under the curse who was "blessed amo women." (S. Luke i. 28, 48.) She might well har offered the thank-offering, for none ever had so gr reason to be thankful; but she might surely, we think, have pleaded exception to the sin-offering, wher none was, or could be, needed, and which was her an unmeaning ceremony.

Why then did she not?

migh

Had she actel example, where They would have

1. That she might not give offence. thus, others would have followed the the ceremony was not unmeaning. violated an appointment of GOD, and closed the access to Him. Better that an unmeaning cere mony should be once practised, than that a significan: one should be often neglected, a means of grac wasted. Moreover, those who did not follow the example would have reprobated it, and the Blessed Virgin would have lain under imputation of unfaith fulness and impiety, the disgrace of which would har been cast on her Son. The Jews never had a word to say against S. Mary or S. Joseph. The faithful dis ciple must submit to unmerited censure; but he must not invite obloquy by equivocal conduct, lest he draw