bad character among the Jews. Yet the Christian women at Corinth uncovered their heads, when they prophefied'. This again was probably an imitation of heathen cuftoms: for not only the Baccha did the fame, but other pretended propheteffes uncovered their heads and dishevelled their hair, in order to fhew their facred fury and enthufiaftic rage". The reader therefore will not think it extraordinary, that St. Paul in the eleventh chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians fhould oppofe fo fuperftitious and offenfive a cuftom. 11. In the excrcife of extraordinary gifts many things were done, which obstructed general edification. Some, who were vain of their gifts, abuted them in such a manner, as to prevent other members from fpeaking in the congregation", This was not practicable in the cale of all gifts: no one, for inftance, could prophely, if the Holy Ghoft did not infpire him. But the gift of tongues was fo conferred, that whoever poffefed it could fpeak at all times in foreign languages, without waiting for a fresh infpiration. Confequently this gift was the moft liable to abufe, and therefore St. Paul in the four teenth chapter endeavours to regulate the ufe of it, and likewife to fhew that it is not the moft important gift of the Holy Ghoft. Some commentators fuppofe that St. Paul's principal adverfary was a Jew, who was particularly vain of fpeaking Hebrew. If this be true, we must conclude that he was an impudent impoftor, who laid claim to gifts, which he did not poffefs, and endeavoured to * See Numb. v. 18. 2 Sam. vi. 20. and Bayle's Dictionary. Art Babylon. to make the credulous and illiterate believe, that a language, which was learned by every well educated Jew, had been communicated to him by the fupernatural in-. tervention of the Holy Ghoft. 12. In the first Epiftle to the Corinthians we find the plainest indications, that they celebrated Sunday. They affembled on the first day of the week (xara pasan cabbaTP) and the expreffion xugiaxov SETTO, I Cor. xi. 20. may be tranflated, as in the Syriac verfion, a meal which is proper for the Lord's day,' or, a Sunday meal.' In the controverfy relative to the celebration of Sunday, it is extraordinary that this tranflation of xupixxor JESTVOR in fo ancient a verfion as the Syriac fhould never have been quoted. On this fubject the reader may confult Pliny's Epiftles, Lib. X. Ep. xcvii. 7. and Böhmer's Differtatio prima juris ecclefiaftici antiqui ad Plinium. On Sunday therefore it was the practice of the primitive Chriftians to celebrate the Lord's fupper: and this was preceded by their Agapæ, or feafts of love. Böhmer, in his Differtatio quarta juris ecclefiaftici antiqui ad Plinium, has fo fully explained this matter, that it is unneceffary to fay any thing further on it. The eleventh chapter of the firft Epistle to the Corinthians fhews that thefe Agape were customary alfo at Corinth. 13. The Jews, who lived out of Palestine, were chiefly engaged in trade, and were in general in more affluent circumftances, than thofe, who refided in Judæa, to whom they usually fent an annual relief. Now as the Gentile Chriftians became brethren to the Jews, and partook of their fpiritual riches, St. Paul thought it equitable that the Greek Chriftians fhould contribute to the fupport of their poorer brethren in Judæa'. When he was at Jerufalem, he had promised Peter, and James, that he would collect alms for this purpose: and accordingly • See 1 Cor. xiv. 37. 38. 1 Cor. xvi. 1. compared with Matth. xxviii. 1. 1 Vitringa de Syn. Vet. Lib. III. P. I. c. 13. • Rom. xv. 26. 27. • Gal. ii. 10. : cordingly we find that he made a collection among the Chriftians at Corinth. 14. Some of the Corinthian Chriftians denied the refurrection of the dead". If St. Paul's principal adverfary at Corinth, was a Sadducee, it is not extraordinary that the Apostle fhould have met with oppofition on this doctrine. One of the moft fpecious arguments against the refurrection of the dead feems to have been founded on the unfitness of our grofs body, and especially of fome of its members, for eternal life: an argument, to which St. Paul has replied, 1 Cor. xv. 35. In like manner the Sadducees had attempted to filence Chrift: but the adverfaries of this doctrine at Corinth made ufe perhaps of other arguments, and on the principle that evil derived its origin from matter, contended that a re-union with finful matter could be of no advantage to a pure and intellectual foul. SECT. III. Of the Epiftle of the Corinthians to St. Paul. TH HE more immediate occafion of St. Paul's first Epiftle to the Corinthians, namely of those which are now extant, was an Epiftle which he had received from the Corinthians by the hands of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus *. St. Paul had already warned them in a former Epistle, not to company with fornicators. This Epiftle is now loft: for though we have an Epiftle of St. Paul to the Corinthians in the Armenian language, which was published by the two Whiftons, and annexed to their edition of Mofis Chorenenfis Hiftoria Armenica, yet Mofheim in his Expofition of the first Epistle to the Corinthians rightly judges that this w Matth. xxii. 24-28. t 1 Cor. xvi. 1.-4. " 1 Cor. xv. 12. z Pag. 19. this is a fpurious production. That St. Paul had really written an Epistle to the Corinthians before he wrote that, which we call his firft Epiftle', is evident from what Dr. Stofch in his above-quoted treatife, De Epiftolis Apoftolorum non deperditis, p. 75. has taken great pains to fhew, that St. Paul by Έγραψα υμιν εν τη επίτολη, μη συναναμιγνυσθαι πόρνοις, 1 Cor. v. 9. meant no other than the Epistle, which he was then writing. He contends that the Aorift eyga may be taken in the prefent, as well as in the past time. But even if this be admitted, it will not be fufficient for his purpose: for in order to make sygada applicable to what we call the firft Epiftle, it must be explained of what St Paul was then guing to write, an explanation of which an Indicative Aorift is furely incapable. Befides, if St. Paul had meant to say, in this Epiftle,' he would hardly have ufed εν τη επιτολή. If we read the whole paffage, 1 Cor. v. 9-11. in connexion, the matter will become ftill more certain. 'I wrote to you in an Epistle, not to company with fornicators: yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then muft ye needs go out of the world. But now have I written unto you, not to keep company, if any man, that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard: with fuch an one no not to eat.' It is evident therefore from what St. Paul himself fays, that it was his intention in the Epiftle which he was then writing to give a clearer explanation of the words, not to company with fornicators,' which he had written elfewhere, and which perhaps had been taken in a fenfe not meant by the Apostle. He explains therefore and fays, that they were not to be understood of ⚫fornicators of this world, &c. for then must ye needs go out of the world.' Confequently, all the paffages, which Dr. Stofch has felected from the firft (as it is called) Epiftle to the Corinthians, relative to unchaftity, are foreign to the purpose. The only part of the whole' Epiftle, which appears to be applicable to the prefent fubject is 1 Cor. *. 1-8, the passage immediately preceding that, with which we are now concerned. This paffage contains indeed St. Paul's command to expel from the community the incestuous perfon: yet it cannot be the paffage, which he had in view, when he faid ver. 9. I wrote to you' in an Epiftle, not to company with fornicators. For in the first place, it does not contain the words, of which St. Paul gave an explanation:: and when a difficult or ambiguous expreffion is to be explained, the words in question must be retained, for if it be quoted in other terms, the explanation is nothing. Nor does it contain them even in fubftance: for it contains nothing, from which an inference can be drawn, that all intercourfe in civil fociety with perfons of unchaite character must be avoided. We must conclude therefore that the words not to company with fornicators,' which are not in St. Paul's Arft Epistle now extant, had been used by the Apostle in a preceding Epiftle, in which perhaps he had cautioned them, in general terms, and without entering into particulars, not to fuffer men whofe lives were openly vicious what Mofheim has faid in his Note to 1 Cor. v. 9. In this Epiftle were contained several things, which the Corinthians did not understand, and of which they defired an explanation. At the fame time they defired that Apollos would come to them, to which St. Paul anfwers, ch. xvi. 12. On the general contents of this Epiftle I fhall not hazard a conjecture; but of a part of it we may form fome judgement, from the queftions, which the Corinthians, in anfwer to it propofed to the Apoftle. Thefe questions were: 1. Whether it were, in general, good and commendable to marry. 2. Whether it were neceffary to feparate from an unbelieving confort. The former of thefe queftions was divifible into two, each of which required a diftinct anfiver, the one relative to virgins, the other to widows: for, when a widow married again, it was confidered by the heathens as a breach of propriety. But who was there at Corinth, that could entertain any doubt of the lawfulness of marriage? The ruling party of the Chriftian community in that city had certainly no Tuch doubt: for they had approved even of an incestuous marriage, and their conduct was fuch, that the Apostle had judged it neceffary to caution them againft fornication. It appears then, that only fome few members of the Corinthian community, whofe confciences were tenderer, than their minds were strong, had fcruples in regard to matrimony and this is probably, the reason why the Apoftle answers the queftion with gentleness, that he might not expofe to fhame those who had propofed it. If the fame doubts had been started vicious, like that of the incestuous perfon, to continue members of the Corinthian community. As the general expreffion, which he had used through motives of delicacy had not produced its proper effect, he was obliged in his next Epiftle to point out whom he meant in particular. At the fame time, he explained and limited the command in fuch a manner, that it should not be understood, as containing an abfolute prohibition to engage in common transactions with men of bad character. • Vitringa de Syn. Vet. Lib. III. P. I. c.4. p. 658-661. |