9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called

r Isa. xlix. 7.

ch. x. 13.

unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our 1 Thess. v. 24,

Lord.

10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name

t

2 Thess. iii. 3. Heb. x. 23.

s John xv. 4.

& xvii. 21.

of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the John i. 3.

7

& iv. 13. tRom. xii. 16. & xv. 5. 2 Cor. xiii. 11. Phil. ii. 2. & iii. 16. 1 Pet. iii. 8.

of God that individuals should to a great extent sink their individuality in the mystical fellowship. It is not to be constantly "I," "I," ," "Christ died for me," "I am saved." But it is, "He died for us," ""We are saved,' ""We are in Him," "Our Father." We are to look to ourselves (2 John 8), but never, if possible, to assert ourselves. Constant self-assertion is a wretched sign.

9. "God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship," &c. Notice here, too, how the calling is not to a heaven above the sky, but to a fellowship here on earth. If God has called you to the fellowship of His Son, He will assuredly show faithfulness in keeping His promises made to that Holy Fellowship. As long as you are in It you shall partake of its life, enjoy Its spiritual gifts, partake, if you will, of Its spiritual Food, and be animated by Its hope.

10. "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.... same judgment." Observe the extreme seriousness and earnestness of the Apostle, "I beseech you by the name which is above every name, the name of the Saviour, the Son of God incarnate." It is quite clear, if he so beseeches them, that the matter respecting which he beseeches them cannot be of small importance, and indeed it is not. It is no other than this, that in them should be fulfilled the prayer of the Son of God, that all that believe in Him through the word of the Apostles should be one, even as the Father is in Him and He in the Father; and that this unity should not be merely a unity of spirit, but of outward expression-of word, that ye all speak the same thing on religion, on your common faith, on your common hope, on your duties. Now I do not think that this means that they should use the same words, but that the words which they used, though such words might express the same truth in different lights, or express different sides of the same doctrine, should mean or should have reference to one and the same

8

PERFECTLY JOINED TOGETHER.

[I. COR.

same thing, and that there be no † divisions among you; but + Gr. schisms, that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

ch, xi. 18.

thing. Dean Stanley translates it," call yourselves by one common name;" but this cannot be, because, if so, the Apostle would have designated the common name. "Call yourselves Christians only. Let no one call you anything else than brethren.”

"Ye are called

to be saints, call yourselves saints only." Their sin of calling themselves by the name of men could not have existed except as the expression of some difference of opinion respecting the truth, or respecting what is truth, on the part of those who ranged themselves under the names of particular leaders.

"And that there be no divisions among you." No schisms, in the sense of parties or factions. Attention is called by Stanley and others to the fact that what the Apostle reprobates are parties or factions within the Church, and not so much sects or bodies of men who had separated from the Church, thereby assuming that the one is not so evil or detrimental to Christianity as the other; but this is absurd. Just as factions in a particular national church prevent it acting together as one man, and so weaken it; so sects or schisms external to the catholic body weaken it, and are very rarely found on the side of that body in the assertion of the great truths of the faith.

"But that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." Stanley notices that the noun of the verb, "that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind," kaтaρTorno, was the acknowledged phrase in classical Greek for a reconciler of factions, and Godet remarks that the verb generally implies the rectification of a disordered state of things, such as the re-establishment of social order after a revolution, or the repairing of an instrument (Mark i. 19, fishing-nets); but the signification here is probably rather that of making perfect. The Apostle does not exhort that the oxioμara should be repaired, but that there should be none; and this could only be by unanimity as perfect as possible. "Mind seems to mean, according to Godet, the Christian way of thinking in general—the same mind, full harmony of view in regard to Christian truth: and "judgment," or opinion, yvúμn, perfect agreement in the way of solving particular ques

CHAP. I.]

CONTENTIONS AMONG YOU.

9

11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

tions. Men say that this is impossible, but how can that be impossible for which the Lord prayed, and which the Holy Spirit by the mouth of the Apostle commanded? If men of opposite parties or schools of thought would meet together, and not part till they had probed to the very root the reason of their differences—if they would never use ambiguous phrases, never charge their opponents with holding what they cannot really mean, never impute unworthy motives, never dogmatically pronounce that if a man holds what they think wrong he may be lawfully and charitably assumed to hold all the possible inferences from it—if men would also remember that upon a large number of Scripture doctrines there are in Scripture statements and counter-statements-if men would but act thus, the divisions in our own Church would be reduced to a minimum.

There seems, however, to have been less excuse for the existence of party divisions in the Church of Corinth, seeing that some among them had gifts of wisdom, others of knowledge, others of prophecy, others of discerning of spirits-all the gifts of one and the same Spirit.

11. "For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren . . . contentions among you." It is doubtful, and indeed immaterial, whether this Christian lady was of Corinth or of Ephesus. It is to be noticed that the Apostle gave the name of his informant. In this case, no doubt, he acted with the consent of those who had brought the information. But if in similar cases it was the rule always to give the name of those who brought information respecting character and conduct, much slander would be prevented, as well as much suspicion. A says to B, "I tell you in confidence that people are saying such things of you." B asks for the name of one of those who had said the obnoxious things. A says he is not at liberty to give it, and the matter ends for the time with B entertaining evil surmisings against twenty persons, instead of, perhaps, having an amicable explanation with one.

12. "Now, this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I," &c. We are not to suppose that these were parties analo

gous to our parties or schools of thought. It is probable that the divisions were personal, and arose naturally; but however they arose, they were typical of all party divisions and schisms, and in their effects very evil. An immense amount of learning and ingenuity has been expended in defining these marks of distinction, especially by German critics.

With respect to the first two, we have no ground whatever for supposing that there was the least difference between the theological or practical teaching of Paul and Apollos. If there had been, we may be sure that a man of the courage and zeal for truth of St. Paul would have asserted the difference: for in such a case, seeing that St. Paul was so especial an instrument of the Spirit, Apollos would have taught false doctrine. Is not the party feeling among the Corinthians amply accounted for by the difference between their gifts? Apollos was an eloquent man, Paul was not; Paul took no account of the way in which he presented the truths he was commissioned to teach; he presented them earnestly, fervently, at times, perhaps, passionately, whereas Apollos captivated by his eloquence, his admirable choice of words and phrases and rounding of sentences.

And in a mixed Church, which that of Corinth undoubtedly was, there would be many who would look to the expression of the truth more than to the truth itself. Those of Paul, then, would be those who owed themselves to him (Philemon 19), and would not hear of perhaps fiercely resented-any comparison of him with other teachers. Those of Apollos would be constantly asserting— often as against Paul-his more eloquent setting forth of the same truth. Thus there would be a constant bringing-up of personalities and odious comparisons which would be the occasion of constant breaches of charity and goodwill, and misunderstandings, and scandals.1

1 With respect to the opinions of Apollos, there is not the smallest ground for supposing that he was attached to the Alexandrian school of philosophy as represented in the writings of Philo. He was converted to the truth of Christ by the preaching of John, was baptized by him, and afterwards instructed in the faith more perfectly by Aquila and Priscilla. Not a syllable which he either spoke or wrote has come down to us. Some suppose, though without any reason, that he is alluded to somewhat disparagingly by St. Paul when he speaks of such things as "not with wisdom of words" or "I came not unto

X

11

I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Acts xviii. 'Cephas; and I of Christ.

24. & xix. 1. ch. xvi. 12.

y John i. 42.

With respect to those who said, "I am of Cephas," a corresponding party seems always to have existed in every Church where there was any Jewish element. The Jews never seem to have taken cordially to the doctrine of the equality of the Gentiles with themselves in the body of Christ. They would submit to it, rather than receive it. Such persons would never recognize with absolute cordiality the Apostolate of St. Paul. They would always be, at least, hinting the superiority of Cephas, in that he had seen and lived with the Lord, in that he had had the keys committed to him; such persons would always be trying, perhaps covertly, to bring the Gentiles under the yoke-if not in matters of importance, at least in minor matters, purifications, meats, drinks, &c. And they would appeal to the example of St. Peter, who was absent, for if he had been present, he would certainly have energetically repudiated such a use of his name. For, if we are to judge from his Epistles, there were not the smallest doctrinal or practical differences betwixt himself and St. Paul. They both held prominently the same doctrines of grace, and expressed them in very nearly the same way.

"And I of Christ." With respect to this party or faction, commentators are beyond measure divided. Godet has ten closelyprinted pages upon it, and refers to the opinions of above five-andtwenty commentators. It may suffice to notice two.

(1.) Those who asserted their superior spirituality, or their unique holding of Christ and Christ alone. Doubtless they prided themselves on their spirituality and inward light, and looked down with contempt on those who professed to follow the opinion of any teacher. Perhaps they ignored the Apostolic teaching altogether, and proclaimed the doctrine of direct communion with God, without the aid of ministry or ordinances, like modern Quakers or Plymouth Brethren; and these, as well as the others, the Apostle rebuked.

you with excellency of speech or of wisdom; others that he was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as if an Alexandrian Jew, dwelling in Asia Minor or Greece, without any Apostolical authority on the one hand, or connection with Palestine on the other, would write such an Epistle for the use of Palestinian Jews.