from what St. Paul adds in the next verse, "that no one may justly say that I have baptised in my own name", which would seem to imply that these persons were of sufficient rank to have made it probable that he had baptised them with that view. And why, otherwise, should he separate the mention of the family of Stephanas? which, if not done designedly, looks like a sudden recollection suited rather to conversation than to writing. That Crispus and Gaius were persons of some consideration, would appear from the mention of the first as a chief ruler of the synagogue at Corinth (see Acts, ch. XVIII. 8.); and of the other as the host of the whole Church there, Rom. ch. xvi. 23.

Specially commission” απέστειλε

There is a

V. 17. I. " tacit allusion to his special appointment as an apostle, and an intimation that it implied that he had something more assigned him to do than the ordinary office of baptising.

II. "To publish the joyful offer of salvation." EvayyεNICεobar -The word Euayyeλoy from its composition signifies a good or joyful message. Hence, ευαγγελίζεσθαι signifies primarily to deliver a good or joyful message. When the matter relates, as it does here, to Christianity, it must signify the preaching concerning human salvation by Jesus Christ. This is properly termed a message, being a voluntary offer of reconciliation from God to man delivered by Christ or his ministers, as embassadors in Christ's stead (see 2 Cor. ch. v. 18-20.). It is important to keep in mind this first meaning of ευαγγελιον, because it rightly expresses the true character of the Christian dispensation as an offer from God to man. From this primary sense is derived that of" good tidings" and other similar ones, which serve to describe the dispensation generally as a new and joyful event, but do not convey the notion of its being essentially a divine message. I have therefore preferred to use in the Paraphrase the terms "joyful offer" in this and other places where it was desirable to mark the exact sense. The word vayyeλ(eσba, is, I think, to be understood to relate to the first delivery of the subject, as distinct from Sidary teaching the particulars. In this sense it is properly op

posed to baptising, or any other subordinate office of Christianity. But there would seem to be in this place, an allusion also to the circumstance of St. Paul's having announced the subject to the Gentiles, by which his mission was peculiarly distinguished, see Acts, ch. xxvi. 17, 18.

III. "He did not commission me to deliver a rule of life originating from human reasoning"; oux εY σopia λoyou, -I am of opinion that ATTESTEIAS ME is understood from the preceding clause; and that the sentence at length is ουκ απέστειλε με εν σοφια λόγου, literally, did not send me in (that is dealing in) wisdom from reasoning. Εν σοφια λογου does not express a modification of ευαγγελίζεσθαι, but something directly opposed to it; that is, a deduction of reason as distinguished from a message. The word copia may signify either wisdom or the practical result of it; and, in this place, I apprehend it means the result of wisdom, or a rule of life wisely contrived for the regulation of the conduct. As different systems would be thought to be such, according to the views by which the judgment is guided, hence, by persons who judge only in reference to this life, a system of mere morality would be so termed. This is human wisdom, and is derived from reasoning. On the other hand, the wisdom of God is a rule of life, having reference chiefly to another state of existence, and is the scheme of redemption derived from revelation. Accordingly, the term may be used either in a general sense, to denote true wisdom, or a just rule of life, or else to denote what is so considered either in human or in divine estimation, in which last case the sense is the same as in the first. These distinctions will serve to explain the use of the word in this chapter and the next; and, in each case, the proper meaning must be gathered from the context, and applied as the occasion requires. By the phrase ev copia 20you, St. Paul alludes to a law of works, on which the philosophical, and the Jewish infidel depended to the rejection of the Gospel, and to which also both the Judaising and the philosophising Christian had a leaning.

IV.

"In order that the crucifixion of Christ, on which the joyful offer which I publish is founded, should not be rendered null, which

in that case it would have been."

-If men could have been

brought to the practice of their duty, by a set of rules deduced by reasoning, the crucifixion would have been unnecessary.

V. 18. I. " (It is true that it is null to those who do not believe in its efficacy to salvation, yet it is not thereby rendered null." St. Paul at this verse breaks off from the regular course of his argument, which he does not resume till the first one of the next chapter. His design in this parenthetical paragraph is to notice, incidentally, an objection which might, in answer to what he had just said, be made generally, that the scheme of the crucifixion had failed of its effect as to those who reject it. This objection is implied in the sense of the context, as is also St. Paul's denial of it, to which the conjunction yag has reference (see the same construction of yag in verse 11). For the moment he admits the objection, allowing that through their wilfulness, the doctrine is in their opinion foolishness, and that, therefore, as to them, the scheme is ineffectual; only, intimating at the same time, by the designation which he gives to those persons, the perishable condition in which they are thereby placed-see the next note but one.

II. " Though"- This seems to be the proper force though not the exact rendering of the conjunction μɛv, opposed as it is to de in the next clause, and signifying " truly" by way of concession. The English version has failed to give the full meaning of the sentence by having altogether omitted the translation of May. The passage might be literally rendered "for the doctrine of the cross is, indeed, foolishness to the lost, but," &c.

III.

66

"Those who by rejecting it are lost as to the means of salvation," Tois aroλλuμevois" us who by receiving it are saved from all error on that subject,” σωζομενοις ἡμιν. The verbs απολλυμι

and oww signify generally to destroy and to save, and therefore may be used on any occasion on which these ideas respectively are to be expressed. But in every case, their particular meaning will be regu

lated by the circumstances of that case. Now it is evident from the context that the subject in hand is the first preaching of the gospel which circumstance, therefore, determines these words to relate, in this instance, to the rejecting or receiving of it as the means of salvation: and I think, therefore, that amoλλuevo is, here, a term of designation for those who reject the gospel (see 2 Cor. ch. 11. 15. 2 Thess. ch. 11. 10.); and owloμavo for those who receive it (see Acts, ch. 11. 40-47. 2 Cor. ch. 11. 15.). But to understand how these terms come to be so applied, we should consider that, as Christians, we are persuaded that the gospel is the only appointed means of salvation (Acts, ch. iv. 12.), and therefore that whoever rejects it, deprives himself of all means of salvation. Such a person, consequently, while he continues in that state, precludes the possibility of his being saved. But yet, as he might afterwards come to a better way of thinking, he could not be pronounced to be finally ruined; and accordingly the term aλλμεvos applied to him, must be restricted to mean ruined as to the means of salvation. On the other hand, whoever receives the gospel is thereby possessed of the means of salvation. But as his final salvation will depend on the use which he makes of them, he cannot be pronounced altogether saved by merely receiving the gospel. But yet he is secure as to all error respecting the means, and therefore in a comparison with the former person, and as far as relates to the means of salvation, he may be said to be saved. I think that it is in this way of contrast that these terms are here used. They have indeed a general reference to the final consequences of rejecting and receiving the gospel, but their immediate allusion is rather to the present than the future effects of those opposite kinds of conduct. In an argument with those who deny the truth of the gospel, these terms of designation might perhaps be objected to as assuming too much, but addressed as they are here to Christians, they must be admitted to be the most forcible and appropriate way of distinguishing infidels and believers. The general notions of ruin and salvation attached to these terms are in like manner in other cases modified by the circumstances. Let us consider them, for instance, ap

plied, as they might be in the way of argument, to professing Christians. As the question, in that case, would relate not to the means of salvation, but to the requisite holiness of character, the terms would be respectively applicable to each of these according to such reference. In that sense, then, we might apply the term aroλλuμEvos to a professing Christian who leads a vicious life, as we might that of owlouevos to one of opposite character.

V. 19. I. "For in ch. XXIX. 14. of his (Isaiah's) prophecy, it is thus written:"- -It is I believe not disputed that the quotation in this verse is from the above passage. There being at that time no established divisions in use, such as the modern invention of chapter and verse, no such reference could be made to point out the exact place from which a quotation is taken; but it is observable that frequently the sacred writers, as St. Paul in this and other cases, when making a quotation, do not mention even the name of the person or prophet from whom it is taken. This, it may be observed, once for all, would seem to be done by way of intimation that Christians are supposed to be acquainted with the antient scriptures, or, if not, to lead them to a diligent search of them.

II. "I will destroy the influence of the wisdom of the wise in a worldly sense," that is, of the philosophers who claimed to be, and were generally reckoned, the wise part of mankind. Their copiav, or systems of morality derived from reasoning on present worldly views, have been altogether destroyed by the gospel dispensation; since this is essentially founded, not on any principle deducible by a course of human reasoning, but on the single positive tenet, derived from revelation, that the death of Christ has made a full redemption from the effects and power of sin-" and the understanding of the intelligent in a worldly sense, I will displace from its present repute."-By "the understanding of the intelligent in a worldly sense", I apprehend is meant the literal interpretation given to the Mosaic writings by the Jewish doctors, by which they considered the scrupulous observance of the Mosaic ordi