VER. 9. I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

g Eph. v. 11. 2 Thess. iii. 14.

I wrote unto you.-I have written (ypala.) This word may either refer to this epistle, or to some former epistle. It simply denotes that he had written to them, but whether in the former part of this, or in some former epistle which is now lost, cannot be determined by the use of this word. In an epistle (v TELOTON.) There has been considerable diversity of opinion in regard to this expression. A large number of commentators-as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ecumenius, most of the Latin commentators, and nearly all the Dutch commentators-suppose that this refers to the same epistle, and that the apostle means to say, that in the former part of this epistle, (ver. 2,) he had given them this direction. And in support of this interpretation they say that ry here is used for ravry, and appeal to the kindred passages in Rom. xvi. 2. Col. iv. 6. 1 Thess. v. 27. 2 Thess. iii. 3, 4. Many others -as Grotius, Doddridge, Rosenmüller, &c.— suppose it to refer to some other epistle which is now lost, and which had been sent to them before their messengers had reached him. This epistle might have been very brief, and might have contained little more than this direction. That this is the correct opinion, may appear from the following considerations, viz. (1.) It is the natural and obvious interpretation, one that would strike the great mass of men. It is just such an expression as Paul would have used, on the supposition that he had written a previous epistle. (2.) It is the very expression which he uses in 2 Cor. vii. 8, where he is referring to this epistle as one which he had sent to them. (3.) It is not true that Paul had in any former part of this epistle given this direction. He had commanded them to remove an incestuous person, and such a command might seem to imply that they ought not to keep company with such a person; but it was not a general command not to have intercourse with them. (4.) It is altogether probable that Paul would write more letters than we have preserved. We have but fourteen of his remaining. Yet he laboured many years, founded many churches, and had frequent occasion to write to them. (5.) We know that a number of books have been lost which were either inspired or which were regarded as of authority by inspired men. Thus the books of Jasher, of Iddo the seer, &c., are referred to in the Old Testament, and there is no improbability that similar instances may have occurred in regard to the writers of the New Testament. (6.) In ver. 11 he expressly makes a distinction between the epistle which he was then writing, and the former one. "But now," i. e. in this epistle, "I have written (ypava) to you," &c., an expression which he would not use if ver. 9 referred to the same epistle. These considerations seem to me to be unanswerable, and to prove that Paul had sent another epistle to them in which he had given this direction. (7.) This opinion accords with that of a very large number of commentators. As an instance, Calvin says, "The epistle of which he here speaks is not now extant. Nor is it to be doubted that many others

have perished; but it is sufficient that these survive to us which the Lord saw to be needful.” If it be objected that this may affect the doctrine of the inspiration of the New Testament, since it is not to be supposed that God would suffer the writings of inspired men to be lost, we may reply, (a) That there is no evidence that these writings were inspired. Paul often makes a distinction in regard to his own words and doctrines as inspired or uninspired, (see chap. vii. ;) and the same thing may have occurred in his writings. (b) This does not affect the inspiration of the books which remain, even on the supposition that those which were lost were inspired. It does not prove that these are not from God. If a man loses a guinea, it does not prove that those which he has not lost are counterfeit or worthless. (c) If inspired, they may have answered the purpose which was designed by their inspiration, and then have been suffered to be lost, as all inspired books will be destroyed at the end of the world. (d) It is to be remembered that a large part of the discourses of the inspired apostles, and even of the Saviour himself, (John xxi. 25,) have been lost. And why should it be deemed any more wonderful that inspired books should be lost, than inspired oral teaching? Why more wonderful that a brief letter of Paul should be destroyed, than that numerous discourses of him "who spake as never man spake" should be lost to the world? (e) We should be thankful for the books that remain, and we may be assured that all the truth that is needful for our salvation has been preserved and is in our hands. That any inspired books have been preserved amidst the efforts which have been made to destroy them all, is more a matter of wonder than that a few have been lost, and should rather lead us to gratitude that we have them, than to grief that a few, probably relating to local and comparatively unimportant matters, have been destroyed. Not to company, &c.-Not to associate with. See Eph. v. 11. 2 Thess. iii. 14. This, it seems, was a general direction on the subject. It referred to all who had this character. But the direction which he now (ver. 11) proceeds to give, relates to a different matter-the proper degree of intercourse with those who were in the church.

VER. 10. Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

Yet not altogether, &c.-In my direction not "to company" with them, I did not mean that you should refuse all kinds of intercourse with them; that you should not treat them with civility, or be engaged with them in any of the transactions of life, or in the ordinary intercourse of society between man and man, for this would be impossible; but that you should not so associate with them as to be esteemed to belong to them, or so as to be corrupted by their example. You are not to make them companions and friends. With the fornicators.-Most heathen were of this description, and particularly at Corinth. See the Introduction to this epistle. Of this world.— Of those who are out of the church; or who are not

professed Christians. Or with the covetous.-The avaricious; those greedy of gain. Probably his direction in the former epistle had been that they should avoid them. Or extortioners.-Rapacious persons; greedy of gain, and oppressing the poor, the needy, and the fatherless, to obtain money. Or an idolator.-All the Corinthians before the gospel was preached there, worshipped idols. Then must ye needs, &c.—It would be necessary to leave the world. The world is full of such persons. You meet them every where. You cannot avoid them in the ordinary transactions of life, unless you either destroy yourselves, or withdraw wholly from society. This passage shows, (1.) That that society was full of the licentious and the covetous, of idolators and extortioners. Comp. Notes, Rom. i. (2.) That it is not right either to take our own lives to avoid them, or to withdraw from society and become monks; and therefore, that the whole monastic system is contrary to Christianity; and, (3.) That it is needful we should have some intercourse with the men of the world; and to have dealings with them as neighbours, and as members of the community. How far we are to have intercourse with them is not settled here. The general principles may be, (1.) That it is only so far as is necessary for the purposes of good society, or to show kindness to them as neighbours and as members of the community. (2.) We are to deal justly with them in all our transactions. (3.) We may be connected with them in regard to the things which we have in common-as public improvements, the business of education, &c. (4.) We are to endeavour to do them good, and for that purpose we are not to shun their society. But, (5.) We are not to make them our companions; or to associate with them in their wickedness, or as idolators, or covetous, or licentious; we are not to be known as partakers with them in these things. And for the same reason we are not to associate with the gay in their gaiety; with the proud in their pride; with the fashionable in their regard to fashion; with the friends of the theatre, the ball-room, or the splendid party, in their attachment to these amusements. In all these things we are to be separate; and are to be connected with them only in those things which we may have in common with them; and which are not inconsistent with the holy rules of the Christian religion. (6.) We are not so to associate with them as to be corrupted by their example; or so as to be led by that example to neglect prayer and the sanctuary, and the deeds of charity, and the effort to do good to the souls of men. We are to make it a great point that our piety is not to suffer by that intercourse; and we are never to do any thing, or conform to any custom, or to have any such intercourse with them as to lessen our growth in grace; divert our attention from the humble duties of religion; or mar our Christian enjoyment. VER. 11. But now I have 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, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. r Rom. 16, 17. 2 John 10.

But now. In this epistle. This shows that he had written a former letter. I have written to you.-Above. I have designed to give this injunction that you are to be entirely separated from one who is a professor of religion and who is guilty of these things. Not to keep company. To be wholly separated and withdrawn from such a person. Not to associate with him in any manner. If any man that is called a brother.-Any professing Christian; any member of the church. Be a fornicator, &c.-Like him who is mentioned ver. 1. Or an idolator.-This must mean those persons who, while they professed Christianity, still attended the idol feasts, and worshipped there. Perhaps a few such may have been found who had adopted the Christian profession hypocritically. Or a railer.-A reproachful man; a man of coarse, harsh, and bitter words; a man whose characteristic it was to abuse others; to vilify their character, and wound their feelings. It is needless to say how much this is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and to the example of the Master, "who when he was reviled, reviled not again." Or a drunkard.—Perhaps there might have been some then in the church, as there are now, who were addicted to this vice. It has been the source of incalculable evils to the church; and the apostle, therefore, solemnly enjoins on Christians to have no fellowship with a man who is intemperate. With such an one no not to eat.To have no intercourse or fellowship with him of any kind; not to do any thing that would seem to acknowledge him as a brother; with such an one not even to eat at the same table. A similar

The

course is enjoined by John. (2 John 10, 11.) This refers to the intercourse of common life, and not particularly to the communion. true Christian was wholly to disown such a person, and not to do any thing that would seem to imply that he regarded him as a Christian brother. It will be seen here that the rule was much more strict in regard to one who professed to be a Christian than to those who were known and acknowledged heathens. The reasons may have been, (1.) The necessity of keeping the church pure, and of not doing any thing that would seem to imply that Christians were the patrons and friends of the intemperate and the wicked. (2.) In respect to the heathen, there could be no danger of its being supposed that Christians regarded them as brethren, or showed to them any more than the ordinary civilities of life; but in regard to those who professed to be Christians, but who were drunkards, or licentious, if a man was on terms of intimacy with them, it would seem as if he acknowledged them as brethren, and recognised them as Christians. (3.) This entire separation and withdrawing from all communion was necessary in these times to save the church from scandal, and from the injurious reports which were circulated. The heathen accused Christians of all manner of crime and abominations. These reports were greatly injurious to the church. But it was evident that currency and plausibility would be given to them if it was known that Christians were on terms of intimacy and good fellowship with heathens and intemperate persons. Hence it became necessary to withdraw wholly from them; to withhold even the ordinary

courtesies of life, and to draw a line of total and entire separation. Whether this rule in its utmost strictness is demanded now, since the nature of Christianity is known, and since religion cannot be in so much danger from such reports, may be made a question. I am inclined to the opinion that the ordinary civilities of life may be shown to such persons; though certainly nothing that would seem to recognise them as Christians. But as neighbours and relatives; as those who may be in distress and want, we are assuredly not forbidden to show towards them the offices of kindness and compassion. Whitby and some others, however, understand this of the communion of the Lord's supper, and of that only.

VER. 12. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

a Mark iv. 11.

For what have I to do, &c.-I have no authority over them; and can exercise no jurisdiction over them. All my rules, therefore, must have reference only to those who are within the church. To judge. To pass sentence upon; to condemn or to punish. As a Christian apostle I have no jurisdiction over them. Them also that are without. Without the pale of the Christian church; heathens; men of the world; those who did not profess to be Christians. Do not ye judge, &c.-Is not your jurisdiction as Christians confined to those who are within the church, and professed members of it? Ought you not to exercise discipline there, and inflict punishment on its unworthy members? Do you not, in fact, thus exercise discipline, and separate from your society unworthy persons-and ought it not to be done in this instance, and in reference to the offender in your church?

VER. 13. But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away 'from among yourselves that wicked person.

# Matt. xviii. 17.

But them, &c.-They who are unconnected with the church are under the direct and peculiar government of God. They are indeed sinners, and they deserve punishment for their crimes. But it is not ours to pronounce sentence upon them, or to inflict punishment. God will do that. Our province is in regard to the church. We are to judge these; and these alone. All others we are to leave entirely in the hands of God. Therefore.-Gr. And (kai). Since it is yours to judge the members of your own society, do you exercise discipline on the offender, and put him away." Put away from among yourselves.Excommunicate him; expel him from your society. This is the utmost power which the church has; and this the church is bound to exercise on all those who have openly offended against the laws of Jesus Christ.

REMARKS.

1st. A public rumour with regard to the existence of an offence in the church should lead

to discipline. This is due to the church itself, that it may be pure and uninjured; to the cause, that religion may not suffer by the offence; and to the individual, that he may have justice done him, and his character vindicated if he is unjustly accused; or that, if guilty, he may be reclaimed and reformed.-Offences should not be allowed to grow until they become scandalous; but when they do, every consideration demands that the matter should be investigated. (Ver. 1.)

2nd. Men are often filled with pride when they have least occasion for it. (Ver. 2.) This is the case with individuals-who are often elated when their hearts are full of sin-when they are indulging in iniquity; and it is true of churches also, that they are most proud when the reins of discipline are relaxed, and their members are cold in the service of God, or when they are even living so as to bring scandal and disgrace on the gospel.

3rd. We see in what way the Christian church should proceed in administering discipline. (Ver. 2.) It should not be with harshness, bitterness, It should be with revenge, or persecution. mourning that there is necessity for it; with tenderness toward the offender; with deep grief that the cause of religion has been injured; and with such grief at the existence of the offence as to lead them to prompt and decided measures to remove it.

4th. The exercise of discipline belongs to the church itself. (Ver. 4.) The church at Corinth was to be assembled with reference to this offence, and was to remove the offender. Even Paul, an apostle, and the spiritual father of the church, did not claim the authority to remove an offender, except through the church. The church was to take up the case; to act on it; to pass the ' sentence; to excommunicate the man. There could scarcely be a stronger proof that the i power of discipline is in the church, and is not to be exercised by any independent individual, or body of men, foreign to the church, or claiming an independent right of discipline. If Paul would not presume to exercise such discipline independently of the church, assuredly no minister, and no body of ministers, have any such right now. Either by themselves in a collective congregational capacity, or through their representatives in a body of elders, or in a committee zppointed by them; every church is itself to originate and execute all the acts of Christian discipline over its members.

5th. We see the object of Christian discipline. (Ver. 5.) It is not revenge, hatred, malice, or the mere exercise of power that is to lead to it; it is the good of the individual that is to be pursued and sought. While the church endeavours to remain pure, its aim and object should be mainly to correct and reform the offender, that his spirit may be saved. When discipline is undertaken from any other motive than this; when it is pursued from private pique, or rivalship, er ambition, or the love of power; when it seeks to overthrow the influence or standing of another, it is wrong. The salvation of the offender and the glory of God should prompt to all the measures which should be taken in the case.

6th. We see the danger of indulging in any

sin-both in reference to ourselves as individuals, or to the church. (Ver. 6.) The smallest sin indulged in will spread pollution through the whole body, as a little leaven will affect the largest

mass.

7th. Christians should be pure. (Ver. 7, 8.) Their Saviour-their paschal lamb, was pure; and he died that they might be pure. He gave himself that his people might be holy; and by all the purity of his character; by all the labours and self-denials of his life; by all his sufferings and groans in our behalf, are we called on to be holy.

8th. We are here presented with directions in regard to our intercourse with those who are not members of the church. (Ver. 10.) There is nothing that is more difficult to be understood, than the duty of Christians respecting such intercourse. Christians often feel that they are in danger from it, and are disposed to withdraw almost entirely from the world. And they ask with deep solicitude, often, what course they are to pursue? Where shall the line be drawn? How far shall they go? And where shall they deem the intercourse with the world unlawful or dangerous?-A few remarks here, as rules, may aid us in answering these questions.

(1.) Christians are not wholly to withdraw from intercourse with the people of this world. This was the error of the monastic system, and this error has been the occasion of innumerable corruptions and abominations in the papal church. -They are not to do this, because, (a) It is impossible. They must needs, then, says Paul, go out of the world.

(b) Because religion is not to be regarded as dissocial, and gloomy, and unkind.

(c) Because they have many interests in common with those who are unconnected with the church, and they are not to abandon them. The interests of justice, and liberty, and science, and morals, and public improvements, and education, are all interests in which they share in common with others.

(d) Many of their best friends-a father, a mother, a son, a daughter, may be out of the church, and religion does not sever those ties, but binds them more tenderly and closely.

(e) Christians are inevitably connected in commercial dealings with those who are not members of the church; and to cease to have any connexion with them, would be to destroy their own business, and to throw themselves out of employment, and to break up society.

(f) It would prevent the possibility of doing much good, either to the bodies or the souls of men. The poor, the needy, and the afflicted are, many of them, out of the church, and they have a claim on the friends of Christ, and on their active beneficence.

(9) It would break up and destroy the church altogether. Its numbers are to be increased and replenished from age to age by the efforts of Christians; and this demands that Christians should have some intercourse with the men of the world whom they hope to benefit.

(h) An effort to withdraw wholly from the world injures religion. It conveys the impression that religion is morose, severe, misanthropic; and all such impressions do immense injury to the cause of God and truth.

(2.) The principles on which Christians should regulate their intercourse with the world, are these:

(a) They are not to be conformed to the world; they are not to do any thing that shall countenance the views, feelings, principles of the world as such, or as distinguished from religion. They are not to do any thing that would show that they approve of the peculiar fashions, amusements, opinions of the people of the world; or to leave the impression that they belong to the world.

(b) They are to do justice and righteousness to every man, whatever may be his rank, character, or views. They are not to do any thing that will be calculated to give an unfavourable view of the religion which they profess to the men of the world.

(c) They are to discharge with fidelity all the duties of a father, husband, son, brother, friend, benefactor or recipient of favours, towards those who are out of the church; or with whom they may be connected.

(d) They are to do good to all men to the poor, the afflicted, the needy, the widow, the fatherless.

(e) They are to endeavour so to live and act -so to converse, and so to form their plans as to promote the salvation of all others. They are to seek their spiritual welfare; and to endeavour by example, and by conversation; by exhortation, and by all the means in their power to bring them to the knowledge of Christ. For this purpose they are kept on the earth instead of being removed to heaven; and to this object they should devote their lives.

9th. We see from this chapter who are not to be regarded as Christians, whatever may be their professions. (Ver. 11.) A man who is, (1.) a fornicator; or, (2.) COVETOUS; or, (3.) an idolator; or, (4.) a railer; or, (5.) a drunkard; or, (6.) an extortioner, is not to be owned as a Christian brother. Paul has placed the covetous man, and the railer, and extortioners, in most undesirable company. They are ranked with fornicators and drunkards. And yet how many such persons there are in the Christian church-and many, too, who would regard it as a special insult to be ranked with a drunkard or an adulterer. But in the eye of God both are alike unfit for his kingdom, and are to be regarded as having no claims to the character of Christians.

10th. God will judge the world. (Ver. 12, 13.) The world that is without the church-the mass of men that make no profession of piety, must give an account to God. They are travelling to his bar; and judgment in regard to them is taken into God's own hands, and he will pronounce their doom. It is a solemn thing to be judged by a holy God; and they who have no evidence that they are Christians, should tremble at the prospect of being soon arraigned at his bar.

CHAPTER VI.

VER. 1. Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

The main design of this chapter is to reprove the Corinthians for the practice of going to law before heathen courts, or magistrates, instead of settling their differences among themselves. It seems that after their conversion they were still in the habit of carrying their causes before heathen tribunals, and this the apostle regarded as contrary to the genius and spirit of the Christian religion, and as tending to expose religion to contempt in the eyes of the men of the world. He therefore, (ver. 1-7,) reproves this practice, and shows them that their differences should be settled among themselves. It seems also that the spirit of litigation and of covetousness had led them in some instances to practise fraud and oppression of each other, and he, therefore, takes occasion (ver. 8-11) to show that this was wholly inconsistent with the hope of heaven and the nature of Christianity.

It would seem, also, that some at Corinth had not only indulged in these and kindred vices, but had actually defended them. This was done by plausible, but sophistical arguments drawn from the strong passions of men; from the fact that the body was made for eating and drinking, &c. To these arguments the apostle replies in the close of the chapter, (ver. 12-20,) and especially considers the sin of fornication, to which they were particularly exposed in Corinth, and shows the heinousness of it, and its entire repugnance to the pure gospel of Christ.

Dare any of you.-The reasons why the apostle introduced this subject here may have been, (1.) That he had mentioned the subject of judging (chap. v. 13,) and that naturally suggested the topic which is here introduced; and, (2.) This might have been a prevailing evil in the church of Corinth, and demanded correction. The word "dare" here implies that it was inconsistent with religion, and improper. "Can you do it; is it proper or right; or do you presume so far to violate all the principles of Christianity as to do it?" Having a matter.-A subject of litigation; or a suit. There may be differences between men in regard to property and right, in which there shall be no blame on either side. They may both be desirous of having it equitably and amicably adjusted. It is not a difference between men that is in itself wrong, but it is the spirit with which the difference is adhered to, and the unwillingness to have justice done that is so often wrong. Against another.-Another member of the church. A Christian brother. The apostle here directs his reproof against the plaintiff, as having the choice of the tribunal before which he would bring the cause. Before the unjust. The heathen tribunals; for the word 'unjust" here evidently stands opposed to the saints. The apostle does not mean that they were always unjust in their decisions, or that equity could in no case be hoped from them, but that they were classed in that division of the world which was different from the saints, and

66

is synonymous with unbelievers, as opposed to believers. And not before the saints-Before Christians. Can you not settle your differences among yourselves as Christians, by leaving the cause to your brethren, as arbitrators, instead of going before heathen magistrates ? The Jews would not allow any of their causes to be brought before the Gentile courts. Their rule was this, "He that tries a cause before the judges of the gentiles, and before their tribunals, although their judgments are as the judgments of the Israelites, so this is an ungodly man," &c.-Maimon. Hilch. Sanhedrim, chap. xxvi. § 7. They even looked on such an action as as bad as profaning the name i of God.

VER. 2. Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters ?

Do ye not know, &c.-The object of this verse is evidently to show that Christians were qualified to determine controversies which might arise among themselves. This the apostle shows by reminding them that they shall be engaged in determining matters of much more moment than those which could arise among the members of a church on earth; and that if qualified for that, they must be regarded as qualified to express a judgment on the questions which might arise | among their brethren in the churches. The saints.-Christians, for the word is evidently used in the same sense as in ver. 1. The apostle says that they knew this, or that this was so well established a doctrine that none could doubt it. It was to be admitted on all hands. Shall judge the world.-A great variety of interpretations has been given to this passage. Grotius supposes it means, that they shall be first judged by Christ, and then act as assessors to him in the judgment, or join with him in con- ¦ demning the wicked; and he appeals to Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 30, where Christ says, that they which have followed him should sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." See! Note on Matt. xix. 28. Whitby supposes that it means that Christians are to judge or condemn the world by their example, or that there shall ! be Christian magistrates, according to the prophecy of Isaiah (xlix. 23,) and Daniel (vii. 18.) Rosenmüller supposes it means that Christians are to judge the errors and sins of men pertaining to religion, as in chap. ii. 13, 16; and that they ought to be able, therefore, to judge the smaller matters pertaining to this life. Bloomfield, and the Greek fathers, and commentators, suppose that this means, that the saints will furnish matter to condemn the world; that is, by their lives and example they shall be the occasion of the greater condemnation of the world. But to this there are obvious objections. (1.) It is an unusual meaning of the word judge. (2.) It does not meet the case before us. The apostle is evidently saying that Christians will occupy so high and important a station in the work of