Page images
PDF
EPUB

for architectural ornaments (1 Kings vii.) It would however appear (1 Kings vii. 14) that the art of copper-founding was, even in the time of Solomon, but little known among the Jews, and was peculiar to foreigners, particularly the Phonicians. Michaelis (Mos. Recht, iv. 217, 314) observes, that Moses seems to have given to copper vessels the preference over earthen, and on that ground endeavours to remove the common prejudice against their use for culinary purposes. From copper, also, money was coined (Matt. x. 9).-E. M.

CORAL, a hard, cretaceous marine production, arising from the deposit of calcareous matter by a minute polypous animal, in order to form the cell or polypidom into whose hollows the tenant can wholly or partially retire. The corals thus proluced are of various shapes, most usually branched like a tree. The masses are often enormous in the tropical seas, where they top the reefs and cap the submarine mountains, frequently rising to or near the surface so as to form what are called coral islands and coral reefs. These abound in the Red Sea; from which, most probably, was derived the coral with which the Hebrews were acquainted; but coral is also found in the Mediterranean. It is of different colours, white, black, red. The red kind was anciently, as at present, the most valued, and was worked into various ornaments. Coral is usually understood to be denoted by the word ramoth, in Job xxviii. 18; Ezek. xxvii. 16; and this interpretation is not unsuitable, although the etymology is not well made out, and the dialects afford little support. The ancient translators were evidently much perplexed to determine whether the word ' peninim (Job.xxviii. 18; Prov. iii. 15; viii. 11; xx. 15; xxxi. 10; Lam. iv. 7) meant corals or pearls. This will always be doubtful: but the text in Lament. iv. 7, by describing the article as red, suggests a preference of the former. Winer indeed remarks

(Realwörterbuch, s. v. Korallen), that it is scarcely credible such a product should have circulated under two different names (if ramoth also means coral) but surely there is no difficulty in conceiving that one word may have denoted coral generally, while another may have distinguished that red coral, which was the most esteemed and

the most in use for ornament.

CORBAN (; N. T. Kopßâv), a Hebrew word employed in the Hellenistic Greek, just as the corresponding Greek word d@pov was employed in the Rabbinical Hebrew (Buxtorf, Lex. Rab. col. 579) to designate an oblation of any kind to God. It occurs only once in the New Testament (Mark vii. 11), where it is explained (as also by Josephus, Antiq. 1. 4, c. 4, § 4, Contra Ap. 1. 1, § 22) by the word dwpov. There is some difficulty in the construction and exact meaning of this passage and the corresponding one, Matt. xv. 5. The grammatical difficulty arises from the sentence being apparently incomplete. This difficulty our translators, following Beza, solve by supplying the words he shall be free' (insons erit). Most critics, however, regard the following verse (Matt. xv. 6, Mark vii. 12) as the apodosis of the sentence, the kal being redundant more Hebræo,' according to Grotius, or rather serving to indicate the conclusion (De Wette, Kurze Erklärung des Ev. Matt., p. 151; see also Winer, Gram. der N. T. Sprachidioms,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

§ 66, p. 537). The more important point, however, is to ascertain the precise meaning of the expression kopßav (8 éσri dŵpov) d éàv éę éμoû peλnoîs. Many interpreters, at the head of whom stands Beza, supply or after the word коpßâv, and suppose that a gift of the property of the son had actually been made to the service of God (see Olshausen, Biblischer Commentar, on Matt. xv. 5). The sense is then, 'Whatever of mine might benefit thee is corban, is already dedicated to God, and I have therefore no power over it.' Others, more correctly, as we think, supply σrw rather than eσrí, and translate, 'Be it corbat. (that is, devoted) whatever of mine shall profit thee' (Campbell's translation, see his note on the passage). Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. on Matt. xv. 5) notices a formula of frequent occurrence in the Talmud (in the treatises Nedarim and Nazir) which seems to be exactly that quoted by our Lord, 5 min) '~ ¡7p, ‹ [Be it] corban, [as to] which I may be profitable to thee.' He, as well as Grotius, shows that this and similar formula were not used to signify that the thing to prohibit the use of it from the party to whom was actually devoted, but was simply intended it was thus made corban, as though it were said, If I give you anything or do anything for you, may it be as though I gave you that which is devoted to God, and may I be accounted perjured and sacrilegious. This view of the passage certainly gives much greater force to the charge made by our Lord that the command Whoso curseth father or mother let him die the death' was nullified by the tradition. It would, indeed, seem surprising that such a vow as this (closely analogous to the modern profanity of imprecating curses on one's self if certain conditions be not fulfilled) should be considered to involve a relibe freed even if afterwards he repented of his gious obligation from which the party could not Rabbinical authority that anything thus devoted rashness and sin. It appears, however, from was irreclaimable (Grotius, Annotationes in Matt. xv. 5), and that even the hasty utterance of a word implying a vow was equivalent to a vow formally made (Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr.). This, indeed, seems to be the force of the expression used in Mark, καὶ οὐκέτι ἀφίετε, κ. τ. λ., 'ye suffer him no more to do aught for his father or his mother. A more striking instance of the subversion of a command of God by the tradition of men can hardly be conceived.-F. W. G.

CORIANDER. [GAD.]

CORINTH, a Grecian city, placed on the isthmus which joins Peloponnesus (now called the Morea) to the continent of Greece. A lofty rock rises above it, on which was the citadel, or the Acrocorinthus (Livy, xlv. 28). It had two harbours: Cenchreæ, on the eastern side, about 70 stadia distant; and Lechæum, on the modern Gulf of Lepanto, only 12 stadia from the city (Strabo, viii. 6). Its earliest name, as given by Homer, is Ephyre; and mysterious legends connect it with Lycia, by means of the hero Bellerophon, to whom a plot of ground was consecrated in front of the city, close to a cypress grove (Pausanias, ii. 2). Owing to the great difficulty of weathering Malea, the southern promontory of Greece, merchandise passed through Corinth from sea to sea; the city becoming an entrepôt for the

goods of Asia and Italy (Strabo, viii. 6). At the same time it commanded the traffic by land from north to south. An attempt made to dig through the isthmus was frustrated by the rocky nature of the soil; at one period, however, they had an invention for drawing galleys across from sea to sea on trucks. With such advantages of position, Corinth was very early renowned for riches, and seems to have been made by nature for the capital of Greece. The numerous colonies which she sent forth, chiefly to the west and to Sicily, gave her points of attachment in many parts; and the good will, which, as a mercantile state, she carefully maintained, made her a valuable link between the various Greek tribes. The public and foreign policy of Corinth appears to have been generally remarkable for honour and justice (Herod. and Thucyd. passim); and the Isthmian

games, which were celebrated there every othes year, might have been converted into a national congress, if the Corinthians had been less peaceful and more ambitious.

When the Achæan league was rallying the chief powers of southern Greece, Corinth became its military centre; and as the spirit of freedom was active in that confederacy, they were certain, sooner or later, to give the Romans a pretence for attacking them. The fatal blow fell on Corinth (B.c. 146), when L. Mummius, by order of the Roman Senate, barbarously destroyed that beautiful town (Cicero, Ferr. i. 21), eminent even in Greece for painting, sculpture, and all work

metal and pottery; and as the teritory a given or to the Sicyonians (Stralm, Z. e.). ng for that the whole population

[ocr errors]
[graphic][ocr errors][merged small]

The Corinth of which we read in the New Testament was quite a new city, having been rebuilt and established as a Roman colony, and peopled with freedmen from Rome (Pausanias and Strabo, u. s.) by the dictator Cæsar, a little before his assassination. Although the soil was too rocky to be fertile, and the territory very limited, Corinth again became a great and wealthy city in a short time, especially as the Roman proconsuls made it the seat of government (Acts xviii.) for southern Greece, which was now called the province of Achaia. In earlier times Corinth had been celebrated for the great wealth of its Temple of Venus, which had a gainful traffic of a most dishonourable kind with the numerous merchants resident there--supplying them with harlots under the forms of religion. The same phenomena, no doubt, reappeared in the later and Christian age. The little which is said in the New Testament seems to indicate a wealthy and

luxurious community, prone to impurity of morals; nevertheless, all Greece was so contaminated, that we may easily overcharge the accusation against Corinth.

The Corinthian Church is remarkable in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul by the variety of its spiritual gifts, which seem for the time to have eclipsed or superseded the office of the elder or bishop, which in most churches became from the beginning so prominent. Very soon, however, this peculiarity was lost, and the bishops of Corinth take a place co-ordinate to those of other capital cities. One of them, Dionysius, appears to have exercised a great influence over many and distant churches, in the latter part of the second century (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iv. 23).-F. W. N.

CORINTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THE.FIRST EPISTLE. The testimony of Christian antiquity is full and unanimous in ascribing this in spired production to the pen of the Apostle Pau

Lardner's Credibility. Works, vol. ii. plur. loc.; see also Heydenreich, Comment, in priorem D. Pauli ad Cor. epist. Proleg. p. 30; Schott, Isagoge in N. T. pp. 236, 239, sqq.), and with this the internal evidence arising from allusions, undesigned coincidences, style, and tone of thought, fully accords. The epistle seems to have been occasioned partly by some intelligence received by the Apostle concerning the Corinthian church from the domestics of Chloe, a pious female connected with that church (i. 11), and, probably, also from common report (akoveтal, v. i.); and partly by an epistle which the Corinthians themselves had addressed to the Apostle, asking advice aud instruction on several points (vii. 1), and which probably was conveyed to him by Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (xvi. 17). Apollos, also, who succeeded the Apostle at Corinth, but who seems to have been with him at the time this epistle was written (xvi. 12), may have given him information of the state of things among the Christians in that city. From these sources the Apostle had become acquainted with the painful fact that since he had left Corinth (Acts xviii. 18) the church in that place had sunk into a state of great corruption and error. One prime source of this evil state of things, and in itself an evil of no inferior magnitude, was the existence of schisms or party divisions in the church. Every one of you,' Paul tells them, saith I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ' (i. 12). This has led to the conclusion that four great parties had arisen in the church, which boasted of Paul, Apollos, Peter, and Christ, as their respective heads. By what peculiarities of sentiment these parties may be supposed to have been distinguished from each other it is not difficult, with the exception of the last, to conjecture. The existence in many of the early churches of a strong tendency towards the ingrafting of Judaism upon Christianity is a fact well known to every reader of the New Testament; and though the church at Corinth was founded by Paul and afterwards instructed by Apollos, yet it is extremely probable that as in the churches of Galatia so in those of Achaia this tendency may have been strongly manifested, and that a party may have arisen in the church at Corinth opposed to the liberal and spiritual system of Paul, and more inclined to one which aimed at fettering Christianity with the restrictions and outward ritual of the Mosaic dispensation. That this party received any countenance from Peter cannot for a moment be supposed; but that they might, for the sake of giving greater authority to their own doctrines, have made use of the name of the great Apostle of the circumcision' by assigning it to their party, appears extremely probable. The vehement opposition of this party to Paul, and their pointed attack upon his claims to the Apostolic office, would naturally lead those who had been Paul's converts and who probably formed the major part of the church to rally round his pretensions and the doctrines of a pure and spiritual Christianity which he taught. Closely allied with this party, and in some respects only a subdivision of it, was that of Apollos. This distinguished individual was not only the friend of Paul, but had followed up Paul's teaching at Corinth in a congenial spirit and to a harmonious result (iii. 5, &c.). Between

the party, therefore, assuming his name and that ranking itself under the name of the Apostle there could be no substantial ground of difference Perhaps, as Apollos had the advantage of Paul in mental polish, and especially in facility in public speaking (Acts xviii. 24; comp. 2 Cor. x. 10), the sole ground on which his party may have preferred him was the higher gratification be afforded by his addresses to their educated taste than was derived from the simple statements of the Apostle concerning Christ and him crucified. Thus far all, though almost purely conjectural, is easy and probable; but in relation to the fourth party-that which said, 'I am of Christ,' it has been found extremely difficult to determine by what peculiar sentiments they were distinguished. The simplest hypothesis is that of Eichhorn (Einleit. iii. 107), Schott (Isagoge in Nov. Test. p. 233), Pott (Nov. Test. Koppian. vol. v. part i. p. 25), and others, viz. that this party was composed of the better sort in the church, who stood neutral and did not mingle in the contentions of the other parties. This opinion is chiefly based on 1 Cor. iii. 22, 23, where it is supposed the four parties are alluded to and that of Christ alone commended. But this seems a forced and improbable interpretation of that passage; the words vueîs dè Xploтoû being much more naturally understood as applying to all the Corinthians, than as describing only a part of them. This opinion, moreover, hardly tallies with the language of the Apostle concerning the Christ-party, in 1 Cor. i. 12, and 2 Cor. x. 7, where he evidently speaks of them in terms of censure, and as guilty of dividing Christ. Another hypothesis is that suggested by Storr (Notitia Historica epistoll. ad Cor. interpretationi servientes. Opusc. Acad. vol. ii. p. 242), and which has been followed, among others, by Hug (Introd. II. p. 371, Eng. Tr.), Bertholdt (Einl. s. 3320), and Krause (Pauli ad Cor. Epistolæ Græce. Perpetua annot. illustr. Proleg. p. 35), viz. that the Christparty was one which, professing to follow James and the other brethren of the Lord, as its heads, claimed to itself, in consequence of this relationship, the title of Toû Xpirou, by way of eminence. To this it has been objected, that had the party in question designed, by the name they assumed, to express the relationship of their leader to Jesus Christ, they would have employed the words of τοῦ κυρίου, not οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, the former being more correctly descriptive of a personal, and the latter of an official, relationship. Besides, as Olshausen remarks, the party of James could not be precisely distinguished from that of Peter; both must have been composed of strenuous JewChristians. And, in fine, there is a total absence of all positive grounds for this hypothesis. The mere naming of "the brethren of the Lord' in 1 Cor. ix. 5, and of James in 1 Cor. xv. 7, can prove nothing, as this is not in connection with any strictures on the Christ-party, or indeed on any party, but entirely incidentally; and the expression γινώσκειν Χριστὸν κατὰ σάρκα (2 Cor. v. 16) refers to something quite different from the family-relations of the Saviour: it is designed to contrast the purely human aspect of his existence with his eternal heavenly essence' (Biblische Comment. bd. iii. abt. 1, s. 457; Comp. Billroth's Commentary on the Corinthians, vol. i. p. 11, Eng. Tr.). In an able treatise which appeared

in the Tübingen Zeitschrift für Theologie for 1831, part iv. p. 61, Professor Baur has suggested that, properly speaking, there were only two parties in the Corinthian Church-the Pauline and the Petrine; and that, as that of Apollos was a subdivision of the former, that of Christ was a subdivision of the latter. This subdivision, he sup poses, arose from the opposition offered by the Petrine party to Paul, which led some of them to call in question the right of the latter to the apostleship, and to claim for themselves, as followers of Peter, a closer spiritual relationship to the Saviour, the honour of being the alone genuine and apostolically-designated disciples of Christ. This opinion is followed by Billroth, and has much in its favour; but the remark of Neander, that according to it the Christ-party would be discriminated from the Petrine only in name, which is not in keeping with the relation of this partyappellation to the preceding party-names,' has considerable weight as an objection to it. Neansler himself, followed by Olshausen, supposes that the Christ-party was composed of persons who repudiated the authority of all these teachers, and independently of the apostles, sought to construct for themselves a pure Christianity, out of which probably they cast everything that too strongly opposed their philosophical ideas as a mere foreign addition. From the opposition of Hellenism and Judaism and from the Helleno-philosophical tendency at Corinth, such a party might easily have arisen. ... To such the Apostles would seem to have mixed too much that was Jewish with their system, and not to have presented the doctrines of Christ sufficiently pure. To Christ alone, therefore, would they professedly appeal, and out of the materials furnished them by tradition, they sought, by means of their philosophic criticism, to extract what should be the pure doctrine of Christ' (Apostol. Zeitalt. s. 205; vol. i. p. 273 of Eng. Tr.). The reasoning of the Apostle in the 1st, 2nd, 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th chapters of the 1st Epistle seems clearly to indicate that some such notions as these had crept into the Church at Corinth; and, upon the whole, this hypothesis of Neander commends itself to our minds as the one which is best maintained and most probable. At the same time, we have serious doubts of the soundness of the assumption on which all these hypotheses proceed, viz. that there really were in the Corinthian church sects or parties specifically distinguished from each other by peculiarities of doctrinal sentiment. That erroneous doctrines were entertained by individuals in the church, and that a schismatical spirit pervaded it, cannot be questioned; but that these two stood formally connected with each other may fairly admit of doubt. Schisms often arise in churches from causes which have little or nothing to do with diversities of docmrinal sentiment among the members; and that such were the schisms which disturbed the church at Corinth appears to us probable, from the circumstance that the existence of these is condemned by the Apostle, without reference to any doctrinal errors out of which they might arise; whilst, on the other hand, the doctrinal errors condemned by him are denounced without reference to their having led to party strifes. From this we are inclined to the opinion that the schisms arose merely from quarrels among the Corinthians as to the comparative

excellence of their respective teachers-those whe had learned of Paul boasting that he excelled al, others, and the converts of Apollos and Peter ad vancing a similar claim for them, whilst a fourth party haughtily repudiated all subordinate teaching, and pretended that they derived all their religious knowledge from the direct teaching of Christ. The language of the Apostle in the first four chapters, where alone he speaks directly of these schisms, and where he resolves their cri minality not into their relation to false doctrine, but into their having their source in a disposition to glory in men, must be regarded as greatly favouring this view. Comp. also 2 Cor. v. 16.

Besides the schisms and the erroneous opinions which had invaded the Church at Corinth, the Apostle had learned that many immoral and disorderly practices were tolerated among them, and were in some cases defended by them. A connection of a grossly incestuous character had beers formed by one of the members, and gloried in by his brethren (v. 1, 2); law-suits before heathen judges were instituted by one Christian against another (vi. 1); licentious indulgence was not so firmly denounced and so carefully avoided as the purity of Christianity required (vi. 9-20); the public meetings of the brethren were brought into disrepute by the women appearing in them unveiled (xi. 3-10), and were disturbed by the confused and disorderly manner in which the persons possessing spiritual gifts chose to exercise them (xii.-xiv.); and in fine the ayára, which were designed to be scenes of love and union, became occasions for greater contention through the selfishness of the wealthier members, who, instead of sharing in a common meal with the poorer, brought each his own repast, and partook of it by himself, often to excess, while his needy brother was left to fast (xi. 20-34). The judgment of the Apostle had also been solicited by the Corinthians concerning the comparative advantages of the married and the celibate state (vii. 1-10), as well as, apparently, the duty of Christians in relation to the use for food, of meat which had been offered to idols (viii. 1-13). For the correction of these errors, the remedying of these disorders, and the solution of these doubts, this epistle was written by the Apostle. It consists of four parts. The first (i.-iv) is designed to reclaim the Corinthians from schismatic contentions; the second (v.-vi.) is directed against the immoralities of the Corinthians; the third (vii.xiv.) contains replies to the queries addressed to Paul by the Corinthians, and strictures upon the disorders which prevailed in their worship; and the fourth (xv.-xvi.) contains an elaborate defence of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection, followed in the close of the epistle by some general instructions, intimations, and greetings.

From an expression of the Apostle in ch. v. 9, it has been inferred by many that the present was not the first epistle addressed by Paul to the Corinthians, but that it was preceded by one now lost. For this opinion, however, the words in question afford a very unsatisfactory basis. They are as follows:—ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ, K. T.A. Now these words must be rendered either I have written to you in this epistle,' or 'I wrote to you in that epistle; and our choice between these two renderings will depend partly on gram matical and partly on historical grounds. As the

[ocr errors]

aorist ypata may mean either I wrote' or 'I have written,' nothing can be concluded from it in either way. It may be doubted, however, whether, had the Apostle intended to refer to a former epistle, he would have used the article T simply, without adding perépą; whilst on the other hand there are cases which clearly show that had the Apostle intended to refer to the present epistle, it was in accordance with his practice to use the article in the sense of this (comp. TOTO Coloss. iv. 16, thy miσT. I Thess. v. 27). in support of this conclusion it may be added, 1st. that the Apostle had really in this epistle given the prohibition to which he refers, viz., in the verses immediately preceding that under notice; and that his design in the verses which follow is so to explain that prohibition as to preclude the risk of their supposing that he meant by it anything else than that in the church they should not mingle with immoral persons; 2nd. that it is not a little strange that the Apostle should, only in this cursory and incidental manner, refer to a circumstance so important in its bearing upon the case of the Corinthians as his having already addressed them on their sinful practices; and 3rd. that had such an epistle ever existed, it may be supposed that some hint of its existence would have been found in the records of the primitive Church, which is not the case. On these grounds we strongly incline to the opinion that the present is the first epistle which Paul addressed to the Corinthians (Bloomfield, Recensio Synopt. in loc.; Billroth's Commentary, Eng. Tr., vol. i. p. 4, note a).

From 2 Cor. xii. 14, and xiii. 1, compared with 2 Cor. ii. 1, and xiii. 2, it appears that before the writing of that epistle Paul had twice visited Corinth, and that one of these visits had been after the Church there had fallen into an evil state; for otherwise his visit could not have been described as one v Aury, and one during which God had humbled him before them. Did this second visit to Corinth precede also the writing of the first epistle? On this point the Acts give us no help, as the writer is totally silent concerning this second visit of Paul to Corinth. But we may safely infer from 2 Cor. i. 15, 16, 23, that Paul had not been at Corinth between the writing of the first and second epistles, so that we must place his second visit before the writing of the first epistle. When this second visit took place we can only conjecture; but Billroth's suggestion that it was made some time during the period of Paul's residence of three years at Ephesus (Acts xx. 31), perhaps on the first reception of unpleasant news from Corinth, is extremely probable. Supposing the Apostle to have made this short visit and to have returned to Ephesus, this first epistle may have been written either in that city or in Macedonia, through which Paul probably journeyed on his way from Corinth to Ephesus. This latter is the traditional opinion (see the addition to eh. xiii. in some MSS.), and is greatly favoured by the way in which Paul speaks of Ephesus (1 Cor. xv. 32) as a place in which he had been rather than one in which he was when writing this epistle. From the allusion to the Passover in ch. v. 7, 8, most have inferred that the epistle was written at the time of Easter; but this does not necessarily follow from the Apostle's allusion. As to the year, great diversity of opinion prevails, but most

are agreed that it was not earlier than 56 nor later than 59.

The subscription above referred to intimates that this epistle was conveyed to Corinth by Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus, and Timothy. As respects the last named there is evidently a mistake, for from ch. xvi. 10, it appears that Timothy's visiting Corinth was a thing not cer tain when this letter was finished, and from 2 Cor. viii. 17, 18, it appears that Timothy did not visit Corinth till afterwards. Comp. also Acts xix. 22. As respects the others, this tradition is probably correct.

SECOND EPISTLE. Not long after the transmission of the first epistle, the Apostle left Ephesus in consequence of the uproar excited against him by Demetrius the silversmith, and betook himself to Troas (Acts xix. 23, eq.). Here he expected to meet Titus with intelligence from Corinth of the state of things in that church. According to the common opinion Titus had been sent by Paul to Corinth, partly to collect money in aid of the distressed Christians in Palestine, partly to observe the effect of the Apostle's first epistle on the Corinthians; but Billroth, Rückert, and others, rather suppose him to have been sent before the writing of the first epistle solely for the former of these purposes, and that he remained in Corinth till after the reception by the church there of that epistle, while Bleek (Studien und Kritiken, Jahrg. 1830, s. 625; comp. Neander's Hist. of the Apostolic Age, vol. i. p. 312, Eng. Tr.) suggests that Titus may have been despatched with an epistle now lost, and written between the first and second of those still extant. This hypothesis of a 'lost epistle' seems to be the convenient resource of the German critics for the removal of all difficulties, but in the absence of any direct evidence in its support, it cannot, in this case, be admitted to be worthy of consideration. Billroth's hypothesis rests also upon a very unstable basis, as Neander shows, by whom the common opinion is espoused and defended (vol. i. p. 312). În this expectation of meeting Titus at Troas, Paul was disappointed. He accordingly went into Macedonia, where, at length, his desire was gratified, and the wished-for information obtained (2 Cor. ii. 13; vii. 15, sq.).

The intelligence brought by Titus concerning the church at Corinth was on the whole favourable. The censures of the former epistle had produced in their minds a godly sorrow, had awakened in them a regard to the proper discipline of the church, and had led to the exclusion from their fellowship of the incestuous person. This had so wrought on the mind of the latter that he had repented of his evil courses, and showed such contrition that the Apostle now pities him, and exhorts the church to restore him to their communion (2 Cor. ii. 6-11; vii. 8, sq.). A cordial response had also been given to the appeal that had been made on behalf of the saints in Palestine (ix. 2). But with all these pleasing symptoms there were some of a painful kind. The anti-Pauline influence in the church had increased, or at least had become more active; and those who were actuated by it had been seeking by all means to overturn the authority of the Apostle, and discredit his claims as an ambassador of Christ.

This intelligence led the Apostle to compose

« PreviousContinue »