By this conciliatory introduction, the Apostle prepares the minds of the Corinthians for receiving, in good part, the reproof's which he was about to administer. It was also his wish to avoid every thing that might discourage them, or lead them to call in question the reality of their conversion. This is a proof of the tenderness of his spirit, and of his great knowledge of human nature. REFLECTIONS. 1. From this passage, we learn the proper qualifications of church members-they must be persons who give evidence of having been sanctified in Christ Jesus, and called to be saints. Such was the character of the first christians, though undoubtedly there were some in the primitive churches who had only a form of godliness. Still, however, the majority could be addressed in the judgment of charity, as faithful brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling. 2. Even in those who know the Lord, there is often much that calls for reproof; but in administering the necessary warnings we must avoid the indulgence of a contentious spirit, and commend them for those qualities which they possess in accordance with the nature of the Gospel. 3. Have we been sanctified by the truth as it is in Christ ?-How happy our privilege, how secure our hope, how animating our expectations! God is faithful who hath called us, and to them that look for him, he will appear, the second time, without a sinoffering, to their salvation. But are we living according to the course of this world? how vain to name the name of Christ! Then to us his second appearing can be no object of hope, but the source of uneasiness and fear. SECTION SECOND.-VERSE 10-16. IMPORTANCE OF UNITY. The Apostle had expressed his confidence in the religious character of the members of the Corinthian church. He now proceeds to one principal design of his letter, to warn them against imbibing a contentious and party spirit. 10."Now I exhort you brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms (xicata) among you, but that ye be perfectly united (arg) in the same mind () and in the same judgment (y)." He beseeches them to preserve unity of sentiment, and affection in the church, by that endearing name, by which the whole redeemed family in heaven and earth is named; and which ought, of itself, to be a pledge of their mutual attachment, and the bond of peace. This was a point of the first importance, on the observance of which depended the credit of the Gospel, the stability and prosperity of the church, and the comfort of their own souls. Here it is not necessary to suppose that the Apostle means to require an absolute sameness of opinion among the followers of Christ; this is not to be expected in the present state of human nature, while the capacities, prejudices, education, habits, and tempers of men, are so various. These the Gospel sanctifies and improves, but does not eradicate. And it is evident, both from this Epistle, and from that to the Romans, (chap. xiv. 5.) that the primitive christians were not all of one mind, as to the obligation of certain observances. Thus, some who were weak, would only eat herbs; and one man esteemed one day above another, while others esteemed every day alike. Neither does the passage seem to require an exact uniformity in external forms and modes of worship. The fact is, this has often been the consequence of ignorance and indifference, and a mark of degeneracy and corruption. The church never enjoyed a greater semblance of uniformity, than just before the Reformation; yet it never was more corrupt. This enforcement of uniformity has often occasioned unhappy disputes, and unrighteous persecutions, which have led to the very evils here deprecated-divisions and separations. Those who insist on an exact uniformity, at the expence of the conscience of their brethren, are chargeable with the sin of schism, not the individuals who resist impositions of human authority. Nor can the passage mean that it is the duty of Christians to sacrifice what they believe to be a part of the will of God, in order to maintain a specious appearance of unity in the church; for we are See Campbell's Prelim, Dissert. Dissert, 9. pt. 3. forbid either to add to, or diminish from, the words of God; and we must follow his will, without regard to the opinion of others. But what the Apostle seems to enjoin is, that those who are united in their views respecting the essential doctrines of the Gospel, and in the observance of the same ordinances, should live together in peace, and avoid all occasions of contention and strife. It is evident that the Corinthians had not split into distinct churches ; but they had formed different parties in the same church. Thus, while the semblance of union was retained, there was no real fellowship; the design of their meeting together was forgotten. Their differences did not arise from entertaining conscientious scruples respecting some points of doubtful disputation; then it would have been their duty to bear with each other; but from indulgence of party feelings, utterly at variance with the due exercise of christian love. Now, such divisions ought to be immediately laid aside; and called forth the just animadversion of the Apostle. They all professed to hold the same faith, and to be members of the same body; and it was their duty to avoid every thing that would interrupt the free exercise of mutual sympathy and affection. The word, (xaragra) signifies to compact together, as the stones in a building, or the members of one body. (See Parkhurst.) Thus there should be no disruption or dislocation of parts in the Christian church. See on 2 Cor. xiii. 11.; also Phil. ii. 1, 2. It is desirable that those who are united in church fellowship, should be of one mind and one judgment respecting the doctrines they hold, and the institutions they observe. Those, however, who have confidence in each other, as sincere disciples of Christ, though they may not see it their duty to remain in the same communion, ought to cherish a spirit of mutual esteem and goodwill; and to make the great points on which they are agreed, the bond of their union. All evangelical christians, are nearly united respecting what should be considered as the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel. 11. The Apostle had reason to fear that the church at Corinth was very far from exhibiting this happy union of sentiment; "For it has been shewn (den) to me my brethren, concerning you, (g) by them of the family of Chloe, that there are contentions, or strifes, (igidis) among you." Some have conjectured that the persons here mentioned were Fortunatus and Achaicus, referred to, chap. xvi. 17., and that these were sons of Chloe. This is uncertain; but the accounts which they brought were very painful to his mind. He does not conceal the name of the family, that the Corinthians might know his authority, and to shew that he was not displeased with the spirit and zeal of these individuals, who were actuated, not by an officious disposition, but by love to their brethren, and zeal for the glory of God. From them he had learned that the Corinthians had fallen from their first love, and that a spirit of contention and jealousy had arisen among them. 12." Now this I say brethren, that each of you ('exacles) saith, I indeed am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ." It is not certainly known, whether the different parties actually assumed the names of the persons here specified, or whether the Apostle merely avails himself of these names, to avoid giving unnecessary offence by enumer ating the real leaders of the faction at Corinth. This last supposition seems verified by what is said chap. iv. 6. "These things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes." Each party might have much to say, in defence of their favourite preacher, as they would certainly have for the respected names here specified. Paul had planted the church at Corinth-he was their spiritual father, and his preaching was remarkable for simplicity and purity; these, according to modern ideas, would seem best to entitle him to give his name to the church. Apollos was an eloquent speaker, and mighty in the scriptures, and had laboured among them with great success after Paul's departure; Cephas or Peter was distinguished among the twelve, and had first opened the door of faith to the Gentiles; he was also in an eminent degree the Apostle of the circumcision. Those who took the name of Christ, would seem to have the fairest pretensions; but they arrogated to themselves the exclusive title of Christians, and at the same time despised his apostles and ministers. Thus those excellent names were used as the mere watchword of a party, while their professed followers neither aimed at imitating their virtues, nor considered the entire unity of their interests and views. The Apostle therefore proceeds, in a lively manner, to argue with them on the pernicious consequences of such conduct. 13. "Is Christ divided, was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?" Did they imagine there were as many B Saviours as there were parties---or that the salvation of Christ could be separated from the obedience that is due to his authority, and that of his servants? Did they owe their hope of acceptance with God to the Apostle's sufferings, or were they bound to yield the same reverence and obedience to him, which they owed to that Divine Redeemer into whose name they had been baptized? No doubt they would abhor the thought of placing a fellow creature on a level with the Almighty Saviour: why then should they set their names in opposition, as if they had contrary objects in view? For his own part, the Apostle was happy that he had avoided, as much as possible, giving any countenance to such divisions. Though he had laboured more abundantly than any of his brethren, and had been honoured to bring many of the Corinthians to the knowledge of the truth, Providence had so ordered it, that he had administered the initiatory rite of Christianity to very few of them. This indeed he had purposely avoided, lest any one should be led to the conclusion that he was making disciples to himself. 14, 15. "I thank my God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest any one should say that I baptized into my own name." This ordinance, which has been the subject of so much disputation, and on which such undue stress has been laid by persons holding very different sentiments respecting its efficacy, the Apostle viewed merely as a symbolical rite, which might be performed by any inferior person; and he would not allow his attention to be diverted from the main object of his ministry, by any subordinate duty. 16. On further consideration, he recollected that he had also baptized the family (oxov) of Stephanas, "besides whom," he adds, “I do not know whether I baptized any other." The Apostle speaks from his own memory, and absolute certainty was not required in relating so trifling a circumstance. Some things seem to be mentioned by him, as a private individual; but even when he appears to distinguish what he said as a man, from what he uttered by inspiration, it is implied that when no such distinction is marked, he is to be viewed as speaking by the Spirit of God. REFLECTIONS. 1. Divisions in the church hinder the spread of the Gospel, open the mouths of the enemies of Christ, inflame the passions 24 |