Chapter XII

The ancient prophets had clearly predicted that the Messianic period should be attended by a remarkable effusion of the Holy Spirit. “And it shall come to pasa in those days,” it is said in the prophecies of Joel, “saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; and your bods and your daughters shall prophesy, and your yoimg men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.” Our Lord, before his crucifixion, promised to send the Comforter, who is the Holy Ghost, to inetrnct and guide his church, John 14, &e. And after hia resurrection he said to hia disciples, “These signs shall follow them that believe. In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak irith new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hart them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover,” Mark 16, 17, 18. And immediately before his ascension he said to the disciples, “Ya shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence,” Acta I, 6. Accordingly, on the day of Pentecost, these promises and prophecies were literally fulfilled. The peculiaiity of the new disjiensation condsted, in the first place, in the general diffnsion of these gifts. They were not confined to any one class of the people, but extended to all classes; male and female, young and old; and secondly, in the wonderful diversity of these Bupematural endowments. Under circumstances so extraordinary it was unavoidable that many disorders should arise. Some men would alsam to be the organs of the Spirit, who were deluded or impostors; some would be dissatisfied with the gifts which they had received, and envy those whom they regarded as more highly fevoured; others would be inflated, and make an ostentatious display of their extraordinaa-y powers; and in the public assemblies it might be expected that the greatest confusion would arise from so many persons being desirous to exercise their gifts at the same time. To the cor-I’ection of these evils, all of which had manifested themselves in the church of Coiinth, the apostle devotes this and the two following chapters. It is impossible to read these chapters without being deeply impressed by the divine wisdom with which they are peiwadcd. After contrasting the condition of

233 I. CORINTniAKS 12.

the Cormthiana, as members of that body which was instinct with tho life-giving Spint of God, with their foi-mer condition as the senaeleaa worshippere of dumh idols, he, First, lays down the criterion by which they might decide whether those who pretended to be the organs of the Spirit were really under hia mfluence. How do they speak of Christ? Do they blaspheme, or do they worship him? If they openly and sincerely recognize Jesns as the Supreme Lord, then they are under tJie influetice of the Holy Ghost, vs. 1-3. Secondly, these gifts, whether viewed as graces of the Spirit, or as forms of ministering to Christ, or the effects of God’s power, that is, whether viewed in relation to the Spirit, to the Son, or to the Father, are but different manifestations of the Holy Ghost dwelling in his people, and are all intended for the edification of the church, vs. 4-7, Thirdly, he arranges them under three heads, 1. The word of wisdom and the word of knowledge, 2, Faith, the gift of healmg, the power of working miracles, prophesying, and the discerning of spirits. 3, The gift of tongues and the interpretation of tongues, vs. 8-10, Fourthly, these gifts are not only all the iraits of the Spirit, but they are distributed according to his sovereign will, v. 11. Fifthly, there is therefore in tiua matter a striking analogy between the church and the human body. For, 1. As the body is one organic whole, because animated by one spirit, so the church is one because of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost as the principle of its life. 2, Aa the unity of life in the body is manifested in a diversity of organs and members; so the indwelling of the Spirit in the church ia manifested by a diversity of ^tts and offices. 3. Aa the very idea of the body as an organization supposes this diversity in unity, the same ia trae in regard to the church, 4. As in the human body the members are matiially dependent, and no one exists for itself alone but for the body as a whole, so alao in the church there is the same dependence of its members on each other, and their various gifts are not designed for the exclusive benefit of those who exercise them, but for the edification of the whole church. 6. As in the body the position and function of ea«h member ai-e determined not by Itself, but by God, so also these spiritual gifts are distributed according to the good pleasure of their author, 6. In the body the least attractive parts are those which ai-e indiapensa. ble to its existence, and so in the chui’ch it is not the most attractive gifts which are the most useful. Sixthly, the apostle draws from this analogy the following inferences. 1, Every

I. CORINTHIANa 12, 1.2. 239

ono should bo contented with the gift which, he has reoeived of the Lord, just as the hand and foot are contented with their position and office in the body. 2. There should be no esaltation of one member of the church over othei-a, on the ground of the supposed superiority of his gifts. 3. There should, and must be mutual sympathy between the members of the church, as there is between the members of the body. One cannot suffer without all the others suffering with it. No one lives, or acts, or feels for itself one, but each in all tho rest, va. 12-27. In conolnsion the apostle shows that what ho had said with regard to these spiritual gifts, appHes in all its force to the various offices of the church, which are the organs through which the gifts of the Spirit are exercised, vs. 28-31,

1. Now concerning spiritual (gifts), brethren, I
would not have you ignorant.

Instead of beginning with, in t/te second place, in continuance of the enumeration begun in 11, 17, he passes to the second ground of censure, by the simple now (StJ as the particle of transition. The misuse of the spiritual gifts, especially of the gift of tongues, was the next topic of rebuke. Concerning spiritual, whether men or gifts, depends on the context, as the word may be either masculine or neuter. The latter is the more natural and common explanation, because the gifts rather than the persons are the subject of discussion; and because in v. 31, and 14, 1, the neuter fonn is used. I would not have you ignorant, i. e. I wish you to understand the origin and intent of these extraordinary manifestations of liliviiie power, and to be able to discriminate between the true and false claimants to the possesion of them.

3. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away
unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

Here, as in Epheaans 2, 11, the apostle contrasts the former with the present condition of his readers. Formerly, they were Gentiles, now they were Christians. Formerly, they were the worshippers and consultera of dumb idols, now they worshipped the living and true God, Formerly, they were swayed by a blind, unintelligent impulse, which carried them away, they knew not why nor whither; now they were under the influence of the Spirit of God, Their former condition ia here adverted to as affording a reason why they needed mstruction on this subject. It was one on which their previous experience gave them no information.

Ye Amowi that* ye were Gentiles. This is the comprelienslve statement of their former condition. Under it are inchided the two particulai-s which follow. First, they were addicted to the worship of dumb idols, i. e. voiceless, comp. Hab. 2, 18.19, “Woe unto him that saith unto the wood, Awake; unto tho dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach,” and Ps. 115, 5, 135, 16. To worship dumb idols, gods who could neither hear nor save, expresses in the strongest terms at once their folly and their misery. Secondly, they were carried away to this worship just as they were led, i. e. they were controlled by an influence which they could not understand or resist. Compare, as to the force of the word here used, Gal. 2, 13. 2 Pet. 3, 17. It is often spoken of those who are led away to judgment, to prison, or to execution, Mark li, 53. John 18, 13. Matt. 27, 21. Paul means to contrast this (aTrdyca-Sai) being carried away, as it were, by force, with the {S.yc(T3ai irvevliart), being led by the Spirit. The one was an ii-rationai influence controlling the understanding and will; the other is an influence from God, congruous to our nature, and leading to

3. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed.: and (that) no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Wherefore, i. e. because I would not have you ignorant on this subject. The first thing which he teaches is the criterion or test of true divine influence. This criterion he states first negatively and then positively. The negative statement is, that no man speaking by the ^nrit of God calleth Jesus accursed. To speak by (or in) the Spirit, is to speak under the influence of the Spirit, as the ancient prophets did. Matt, 22, 43, Mark 12, 36. No one speaking (XoASr, using his voice), calleth (klyei pronounces) Jesus to be accursed. Or, according to another reading, utters the words, “Jesus is accursed.”

The common tent ia Sn, the MSS. A. C. D. E. F. I., and many of the veraions and Fathers hsive Kti Sts (thai loheii), which reading is adopted hj Laolimann, Scholz, and Tisohendorf, Tho oonBtciiotion is then irregulnr.

By Jesus, the historical person tnown among men by that name is indicated. And, therefore, Paul use a that word and not Christ, which is a term of office. A.ccursed, i, e, anathema. This word properly means something consecrated to God; and as among the Jews what was thus consecrated could not be redeemed, but, if a living thing, must be put to death, Lev. 27, 28. 28, hence the word was used to designate any person or thing devoted to destruction; and then with the aecessory idea of the divine displeasure, something devoted to destruction as accnrsed. This last is its uniform meaning in the New Testament. Rom. 9, 3. Gal. 1, 8. 9. I Cor. 16, 23. Hence to say that Jesus is anathema, is to say he was a malefactor, one justly condemned to death. This the Jews said who invoked his blood upon their heads. The affirmative statement is, no man can say Jesus is the X.ord, but by the Holy Ghost. The word Kupiof, Lokd, is that by which the word Jehovah is commonly rendered in the Greek version of the Old Testament. To say Jesus is the Lord, therefore, in the sense of the apostle, is to acknowledge him to be truly God. And aa the word Jesus here as before designates the historical person known by that name, who was born of the Virgin Mary, to say that Jesus is Lord, is to acknowledge that that person is God manifest in the flesh. In other wor, the confession includes the acknowledgment that he is truly God and truly man. What the apostle says, is that no man can make tms acknowledgment but by the Holy Ghost. This of course does not mean that no one can utter these words unless under special divine influence; but it means that no one can truly believe and openly confess that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh unless he is enlightened by the Spirit of God. This is precisely what our Lord himself said, when Peter confessed him to be the Son of God. “Blessed ai-t thou, Simon Bar-jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.” Matt. 16, 17. The same thing is aJso sd by the apostle John. “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God; every spirit ‘that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Chiist is come in the flesh is not of God,” 1 John 4, 2. 3; and in v. 15, “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and ho in God.” To blaspheme Christ, maledicere Chriato, Piin, Epiat, X. 07, was the fonu for renouncing Christianity before the Roman tribunals; and saying, “I believe that Jeaua is the Son of Gfod,” Acts 8, 37, was the foiin of professing a! iegiaiicf! fco Christ. Men acknowledsed themselves to be Christians, by acknowledg the divinity of Christ. These faasages, therefore, teach us first, whom we are to regard as Chiistiana, viz., those who acknowledge and worship Jesus of Nazareth as the true God; secondly, that the test of the divine commission of those who assume to he teachers of the gospel, is not external descent, or apostolic succession, but soundness in the faith. If even an apostle or angel teach any other gospel, we are to regard him as accursed, Gal. I, 8. And Paul tells the Corinthians that they were to disci-iminate between those who were really the organs of the Holy Ghost, and those who fiilsely pretended to that office, by the same criterion. As it is unscriptural to recognize as Christians those who deny the divinity of our Lord; so it is unscriptural for any man to doubt his own regeneration, if he is conscious that he dncerely worships the Lord Jesus.

4-6. Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

The second things which the apostle teaches concerning these gifts is, their diversity of character in connection with the unity of their source and design. He is not, however, to be understood as here dividing these gifts into three classes, under the heads of gifts, ministrations, and operations; but as presenting them each and all under three different aspects. Viewed in relation to the Spirit, they are gifts; in relation to the Lord, they are ministrations; and in relation to God, they are operations, i. e. effects wrought by his power. And it is the same Spirit, the same Lord, and the same God who are concerned in them ali. That is, the same Spirit is the giver; it is he who is the immediate and proximate author of all these various endowments. It is the same Lord in whose service and by whose authority these various ^fts are exercised. They are all different forms in which he is served, or ministered to. And it is the same God the Father, who having exalted the Lord Jesus to the supreme headship of the church, and having sent the Holy Ghost, works all these effects in the minds of men. There is no inconsistency between tliia statement and V. II, where the Spirit is said to work all these gifts; because God works by his Spbit. So in one place we are sd to bo born of God, and in another to be born of the SiDiiit. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity underlies the whole scheme of redemption in its execution and application as well as in its conception.

Those who understand this passage as describing three diatiuot classes of ^fts, one as derived from the Spirit, the other from the Son, and the other from the Father, suppose that to the first class belong wisdom, knowledge, and mith; to the second, charch-offices; and to the third, gift of miracles. But this view of the passage is inconastent with the constant and equal reference of these gifts to the Holy Spirit; they all come under the head of “spiritual gifts;” and with what follows in vs. 8-10, where a difierent classification is given. That is, the nine gifts there mentioned are not classified in reference to their relation to the Father, Son, and Spirit; and therefore it is unnatural to assume such a classification here. They are all and equally gifts of the Spirit, modes of seiTing the Son, and efibcts due to the efiicieney of the Father.

7. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to
every man to profit withal.

Sut, i. e. notwithstanding these ^fts have the same source, they are diverse in then- manifestations. To each one, i. e. to every believer, or every recipient of the Holy Ghost, is given a manifestation of the Spirit. That is, the Spirit who dwells in all believers as the body of Christ, manifests himself in one way in one person, and in another way in another person. The illustration which the apostle subsequently introduces is derived from the human body. As the principle of life manifests itself in one organ as the faculty of viaon, and in another as the fiiculty of hearing, so the Holy Ghost manifests himself vai-iously in the different members of the church; in one as the gift of teaching, in another as the gift of healing. This ia one of those pregnant truths, compressed in a single sentence, which are devefoped in manifold forms in dififerent parts of the word of God. It is the truth of which this whole chapter is the exposition and the application. To profit -withal (Trpos ro o-u/ifp’”’)) ‘■ ^°^ edification. This is the common object of all these gifts. They are not designed excluavely or mamly for the benefit, much less for the gratification of their reeipients; but for the good of the church. Just as the power of vision is not for the benefit of the eye, hut for the mau. When, therefore, the gifts of God, natural or supernatural, are perverted as means of selfexaltation or aggi-andizement, it is a sin against their giver, as well as against those for whose benefit they were intended.

With regard to the gifts mentioned in the following verses, it is to be remarked, first, that the enumeration is not intended to include all the forms in which the Spirit manifested his presence in the people of God. Gifts ai’e elsewhere mentioned which are not found in this catalogue; comp. Rom. 12, 4-8, and V. 28 of this chapter. Secondly, that although the apostle appears to divide these dits into three classes, the principle of classification is not discernible. That is, we can discover no reason why one gift is in one class rather than in another; why, for example, prophecy, uistead of being associated with other gifts of teaoliing, is connected with those of healing and working miracles. The different modes of classification which have been proposed, even when founded on a real difference, cannot be applied to the arrangement given by the apostle. Some would divide them into natural and supernatural. But they are all supernatural, although not to the same degree or in the same form. There are gifts of the Spu-it which are ordinary and permanent, such as those of teaching and ruling, but they are not included in this enumeration, which embraces nothing which was not miraculous, or at least supernatural. Others, as Neander, divide them into those exercised by word, and those exercised by deeds. To the former class belong those of wisdom, knowledge, prophecy, and speaking with tongues; and to the latter the gifts of healing and miracles. Others, agMn, projjose a psychSogioal division, i. e. one founded on the different ikaulties involved in then- exercise. Hence they are distinguished as those which concern the feelings, those which pertain to the inteliigence, and those which relate to the will. But this is altogether arbitrary, as all these feculties are concerned in the exercise of every ff. It is better to take the classification as we find it without ittempting to determine the principle of aiTangement, which may nave been m a measuie so to speak ioitmtous or dpteimmed by the meie issocntion ot ideis rather than by any chaiaoteiistic difference m the ffifts themselve, The Scnjtuies •iie raucl m le like i n jik of nit no than a work of art; much more like a landscape than a building. Things spiing up where ive cannot see the reason why they arc there, rather than elsawheve, while every thing is in its right place.

8. Por to one is given by the Spirit the word of
wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the
same Spirit;

In V. 7, he had said, “To each one is given a manifestation of the Spirit,” for to one is given one gift, and to another, another. What follows, theretbre, is the illustration and confirmation of what precedes. The point to be illustrated is the divei-sity of forms va which the same Spirit manifests himself in diiferent individuals, “To one is given the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge.” The mjoj-i? of wisdom, is the gift of speaking or communicating wisdom; and the word of knowledge is the gift of communicating knowledge. As to the difference, however, between wisdom and knowledge, as here used, it is not easy to decide. Some say the former is practical, and the latter speculative. Others, just the reverse; and passages maybe cited in favour of either view. Others say that wisdom refers to what is perceived by intuition, i. e, what ia apprehended (as they say) by the reason; and knowledge what is perceived by the understanding. The effect of the one is spiritual discernment; of the other, scientific knowledge; i. e, the logical nature and relations of the truths discerned. Others say that wisdom is the gospel, the whole system of revealed truth, and the word of wisdom ia the gift of revealing that system as the object of faith. In favour of this view are these obvious oonrfderations, 1. That Paul frequently uses the word in this sense. In ch, 2 he says, we speak wisdom, the wisdom of God, the hidden wisdom which the great of this world never could discover, but which God has revealed by his Spirit. 2. That gift stands first as the most important, and as the characteristic ff of the apostles, as may be inferred from v. 28, where the arrajigemeiit of offices to a certain extent corresponds with the ar-I’angement of the gifts here presented. Among the gifts, the fii-st is the word of wisdom; and among the offices, the first is lliat of the apostles. It is perfectly natural that this correspondence should be ol)sorved at the beginning, even if it be not carried oat. This 0.h in its full measure belonged to the apostles alone; psirtially, however, also, to the prophets of the New Testament. Hence apostles and prophets are often associated as possessing the same gift, although in diiferent degrees. “Built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,” Eph. 2, 20. “As now revealed onto the holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit,” Eph. 3, 6; see also 4, 11. The characteristic difference between these cla-sses of officers was, that the former were endowed with permanent and plenary, the latter with ocoasional and ‘partial, inspiration. By the word of knowledge, as distinguished from the word of wisdom, is probably to be understood the gift which belonged to teachers. Accordingly, they follow the apostles and prophets in the enumeration given in v. 28. ITte word of knowledge was the gift correctly to understand and properly to exhibit the truths revealed by the apostles and prophets. This agrees with 13, 8, where the gift of knowledge is represented as pertaining to the prent state of existence, g the same Spirit, literally, according to the same Spirit, i. e. according to his will, 01’ as he sees fit; see v. II. The Spirit is not only the author, but the distributor of these gifts. And therefore sometimes they are said to be given (Sa) iy, and sometimes (Kara) acGording to, the Spirit.

9. To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spuit j

There is a distinction indicated in the Greek which is not expressed in our version. The main divisions in this enumeration seem to be indicated by Irepaq, and the subordinate ones by oAXos, though both words are translated by anoth: the former, however, is a stronger expresaon of difference. Here, therefore, where hipi is used, a new class seems to be introduced. To the first class belong the word of wisdom and the word of knowledge; to the second, all that follow except the last two. To another faith. As liuth is here mentioned as a gift peculiar to some Christians, it cannot mean saving faith, which is common to all. It is generally supposed to mean the faith of miracles to which our Lord refers. Matt, 17, 19, 20, and also the apostle in the following chapter, “Though I have all feith, so that I could remove mountains,” 13, 2, But to this it is objected, that the ff of miracles is mentioned immediately afterwards as something different from the gift of faith. Others say it is that faith which manifests itself in the forms enumerated under this class, that ia, in miracles, in lieaUiig, in prophecy, and in discerning of spirits. But then it is nothing peculiar; it is a ^ift common to all under this head, whereas It is as much distinguished from them, as they are from each other. Besides, no degree of faith involves inspiration which is supposed in prophecy. In the absence of distinct data for detci-mining the nature of the faith here intended, it is safest, perhaps, to adhere to the simple meaning of the word, and assume that the mit meant is a higher measure of the ordinary grace of feith. Such a faith as enabled men to become confessors and martyrs, and which ia so fully iliiMtrated in Heb. XI, 33-40. This is something as truly won derfnl as the gift of miracles. To another the gifts of heating, i. e. gifts by which healing of the Mck was effected. Acts 4, 30. This evidently refers to the miraculous healing of diseases.

10. To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another (divers) kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

Worldng of miracles, literally, effects which are miraoulous, or which consist in miracles. This is more comprehensive than the preceding gift. Some had merely the gift of heahn the sick, while others had the general power of working miracles. This was exemified in the death of Ananias, in rdsing Dorcaa, in smiting Elymas with blindness, and in many other cases.

To another prophecy. The nature of this gift is clearly exhibited in the 14th ch. It consisted in occasional inspiration and revelations, not merely or generally relating to the future, as in the ease of Agabus, Acts 11, 28, but either in some new communications relating to faith or duty, or simply au immediate impulse and aid from the Holy Spirit, in presenting truth already known, so that conviction and repentance were the effects dmed at and produced; comp, 14, 25. The difference, as before stated, between the apostles and prophets, was, that the foi-mer were permanently inspired, so that their teaching was at all times infallible, whereas the prophets were infallible only occasionally. The ordinaiy teaohers were an inspired, speaJcing from the resources of tlioir own knowledge and experience.

To another diaeei-ning of spirits. It appears, especially fi-om the epistles of the apostle John, that pretenders to iiispi. ration were numerous in the apostolic age. He therelbre exhorts his readers, “to try the spirits, whether they be of God; for many fiilse prophets are gone out into the world,” 1 John 4, 1. It Tvas therefore of importance to have a class of men with the gift of discernment, who could deteiiiiine whether a man was reaJly inspired, or spoke only from the impulse of his own mind, or from the dictation of some eil spiilt. In 14, 29, reference is made to the exercise of tlus gift.. Compare also 1 Thess. 5, 20. 2L

To another divers kinds of tongues. That is, the ability to apeak in languages previously unlinoivn to the speakers. The nature of this gift la determined by the account given in Acts 2, 4-11, where it ia said, the apostles spoke “witn other tongues as the Spiiit gave them utterance;” and people of all the neighbouring nations asked with astonishment, “Ave not all these that speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue wherein we were born f” It is impossible to deny that the miracle recorded in Acts consisted in enabling the apostles to speak in languages which they had never learnt. Unless, therefore, it be assumed that the gift of which Paul here speaks was something of an entirely different nature, its character is put beyond dispute. The identity of the two, however, is proved from the samenessof the teiina by which they are described. In Mark 16, 17, it was promised that the disciples should speak “with new tongues.” In Acts 2, 4, it is said they spoke “with other tongues.” In Acts 10, 48, and 19, 6, it is SEO.d of those on whom the Holy Ghost came, that “they spake with tongues.” It can hardly be doubted that all these forms of expression are to be understood in the same sense; that to speak “with tongues” in Acts 10, 46, means the same thing as speaking “with other tongues,” in Acts 2, 4, and that this again means the same as epealdng “-with new tongues,” as promised in Mark 16, 17. u the meaning of the phrase is thna historically and philolo- cally detei-mined for Acts and Mark, it mast also be determined for the Epistle to the Corinthians. If tongues means languages in the former, it must have the same meaning in the latter. We have thus two arguments in fevour of the old interpretation of this passage. First, that the facts naiTated in Acts necessitate the interpretation of the phrase “to speak with other tongues” to mean to speak with foreign languages.

Seooni3, that tbc interchange of the expressions, new tongues, other tongues, and tongues, in reference to the same event, fihoivs that the last mentioned (to speak with tongues) mnat have the same sense with the two former expressions, which can only mean to speak in new languages. A thiiii argument is, that the common interpretation satisfies all the facts of the case. Those fecte ai’c, 1. That what was spoken with tongues was intelligible to those who understood foreign languages, aa apijeara from Acts 2, 11. Therefore the speaking waa not an incoherent, unintelligible rhapsody. 2. What was uttered were aa-ticulate sounds, the vehicle of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, 1 Cor. 14, 14-17. 3. They were edifying, and therefore intelligible to him who uttered them, 1 Cor. 14, 4. 18. 4. They admitted of being interpreted, which supposes them to be intelligible. 5. Though intelligible in themselves, and to the speaker, they were unmtelligible to others, that is, to those not acquahited with the language used; and consequently unsuited for an ordinary Chiistian assembly. The folly which Paul rebuked was, speaking in Arabic to men who understood only Greek. The spealter might understand what he said, but others were not profited, 1 Cor. 14, 2. 19. 0. The illuati-ation employed in 1 Cor. 14, 1. 11, from musical instruments, and from the case of foreigners, requii’es the common interpretation. Paul admits that the eoonds uttered were “not without signification,” v. 10. Hla complaint is, that a man who speaks Jn an nnknoivn tongue is to him a foreigner, V. 11. This illustration supposes the sounds nttered to be intellible in themselves, but not understood by those to whom they were addressed. 7. The common interpretation is suited even to those passages which present the only real difficulty in the case; viz., those in which the apostle speaks of the understanding as being nnmiitfu! in the exercise of the gift of tongues, and those in which he contrasts praying with the spirit and praying with the understanding, 14, 14. 15. Although these passages, taken by themselves, might seem to indicate that the speaker himself did not understand what he said, and even that his mtelleet was in abeyance, yet they may naturally mean only that the underatanding of the speaker Mas unprofitable to others; and speaking with the understanding may mean speaking intelligibly. It is not necessary, therefore, to infer from these passages, that to speak with tongues was to speak in a state of ecstasy, in a manner uninteUigibie to any linman being, 8. The common interpretation is dso con- 11* Bistent with the fact that the gift of interpretation was distinct from that of speaking with tongues. If a man could speak a foreign language, why covdd lie not intei-pret it? Simply, beoanse it was not bis gift. What he said in that foreign laJaguie, he said under the gnidance of the Spirit; had he attempted to interpret it without the gift of intei’pretation, he would be speaking of himself and not “as the Spirit gave him utterance.” In the one case he was the organ of the Holy Ghost, in the other he was not.

Fourth argument. Those who depart fi’om the common intei’pretation of the gift of tongues, differ indefinitely among themselves as to its true nature. Some assnme that the word tongues (jXHaa-aL) does not here mean tangaagea, hut idioms or peculiar and unusual forma of expression. To speaJc with tongues, according to this view, is to speak in an exalted poetic strain, beyond the comprehension of common people. But it has been proved from the expreaaiona neie and ot!wr tongues, and from the facts recorded in Acts, that the word yXoKTCTut (tonnes) must here mean languages. Besides, to speak in exalted language is not to apeak umntelligibly. The Grecian people undei-stood the loftiest strains of tlieu’ orators and poeta. This interpretation also gives to the word yXaawn a technical sense foreign to all scriptural usage, and one which is entirely inadmiahle, at least in those cases where the singulai’ is used. A man might be said to speak in “phrases,” but not in “a phrase.” Others say that the word means the tongue as the physical organ of utterance; and to speak with the tongue is to speak in a state of excitement in which the understanding and will do not control the tongue, which is moved by the Spirit to utter sounds which are as unintelligible to the speaker as to others. But this interpretation does not suit the expressions other tongues and new tongues, and is irreconcilable with the account in Acta. Besides it degrades the ff into a mere frenzy. It is out of analogy with all Scriptural facts. The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. The Old Testament seera were not beside themselves, and the apostles in the use of the gift of tongues were calm and rational, speaking the wonderful works of God in a way which the foreigners gathered in Jerusalem easily understood. Others, again, admit that the word toiguea means languages, but deny that they were languages foreign to the speaker. To speak with tongues, they aay, was to ipoak in an incohei’ent, unintelligible manner, in a state of ecstasy, when the miiicl is entirely abstracted from the external world, and unconscioua of things about it, as in a dream or trance. This, however, is liable to the objections already adduced against the other theories. Besides, it is evident from the whole discussion, that those who spake with tongues were se’f-controlled. They could speak or not as they pleased, Paul censures them for speaking when there was no occasion ibr it-, and in such a manner as lo produce confusion and disorder. They were, therefore, not in a state of uncontrollable excitement, unconscious of what they said or did. It is unnecessary to continue this ennmeration of conjectures; what has aheady been said woald be out of place if the opinions refeiTed to had not found favour in England and in our own country.

The arguments against the common view of the nature of the gift of tongues, (apart from the exegetical difficuities with which it is thought to be encumbered,) ai-e not such as to make much impression upon minds accustomed to reverence the Scriptures. 1, It is said the miracle was uonooessary, as Greek was understood wherever the apostles preached. This, no doubt, is in a great degree tnie. Greek was the Ismguage of educated persons throughout the Roman empiie, but it had not superseded the national languages in common life; neither was the preaching of the apostles confined to the limits of the EomMi empire. Besides, this supposes that the only desn of the gift was to facilitate the propagation of the gospeL This was doubtless one of the purposes which it was intended to answer; but it had other important uses. It served to prove the presence of the Spirit of God; and it symbolized the calling of the Gentiles and the common interest of all nations in the gospel. See the remarks on Acts 2, 4, 2. It is said God is not wont by miracles to remove difficulties out of the way of his people, which they can surmount by labour. 3, Others pronounce it impossible that a man should speak in a language which he had never learat. But does it thence follow tlSit God cannot give him the abihty? 4, It appears thol Paul and Barnabas did not understand tho speech of Lyoaonia, Acts 14, 11-14. The gift of tongues, however, was not the ability to speak all languages. Probably most of those who received the gift, could speak only in one or two. Paul thanked God that he had the gift in richer measure than any of the Corinthians. 5. The gift does not appear to have been made subservient to the missionaiy work. It certainly was in the first instance, as recorded in Acts, and may have been afterwards. 6, Paul, in 1 Cor. 14, 14-19, does not place speaking with tongaes and speaking in one’s own Janguage in opposition; but speaking with the understanding and speaking with the spirit; and therefore to apeak with tongues, is to speak withoat understanding, or in a state of ecstasy. This is a possible interpretation of this one parage considered in itselti but it is in direct contradiction to all those passages which prove that speaking with tongues was not an involuntary, incoherent, ecstatic mode of speaking. The passage referred to, therefore, mast be understood in conastency with the other passea referring to the same subject. Though there are chfflcalties attending any vie r of the giit in question, arising from our ignorance, iSose connected with the common interpretation are incomparably less than those which beset tmy of the modern conjectures.

To another, the interpretation of tongues. The nature of this gift depends on the view taken of the preceding. Commonly, at least, the man using a foreign language was able to understand it, see 14, 2. 4. 16, and may have had the gift of interpretation in connection with the gift of tongues. It is possible, however, that in some cases he did notiiimself understand the language which he spoke, and then of course he would need an intenireter. But even when he did understand the language which he used, he needed a distinct gift to make him the organ of the Spirit in its interpretation. If speaking with tongues waa speaking incoherently in ecstasy, it is hard to see how what was SMd could admit of intei-prelation. Unless coherent it was iiTational, and if irrational, it could not be translated.

11. But all these worketh that one and the self-Bame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he wDl, jBw( all these, &c., i. e, notwithstanding the diversity of these gifts they have a common origin. They are wrought by the same Spirit. What therefore in v, 6 is referred to the efficiency of God, is here refen-ed to the efficiency of the Spirit. This is in accordance with constant sciiptural usage. The same effect is sometimes attnbuted to one, and sometimes to another of the peraons of the Holy Trinity. This supposes that, being the same in substance (or essence) in which (Uvine power inheres, they cooperate in the production of these effects. Whatever tLe Father does, he does throogh the Spirit. The Holy Ghost not only produces these gifts in the minds of men, but he distributes them severally (SCa) to eoertf man as as will, i. e. not siccordbg to the merits or wishes of men, but according to his own wiS. This passage clearly proves that the Holy Spirit is a person. WIU is here attributed to him, which is one of the distinctive attributes of a person. Both the divinity and personality of the Holy Ghost are therefore involved in the nature of the worlc here ascribed to him.

13. Por as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body; so also (is) Christ.

M)r introduces an illustration of the truth taught in the preceding verses. Every organism, or organic whole, supposes diversity and unity. That is, different parts united so as to constitute one whole. The apostle had taught that in the unity of the church there is a diveiity of gifts. This is illustrated by a relerence to the human body. It is one, yet it consists of many members. And this diverrfty is essential to unity; for unless the body consisted of many members, it would not be a (a-Siita) body, i. e. an organic whole. So also is Christ, i. e. the body oi Christ, or the Church. As the body consists of many members and is yet one; so it is with the church, it is ono and yet consists of many members, each having its own gift and office. See Rom, 12, 4. 5. Eph. 1, 23, and 4, i. 16.

18. Tor by one Spirit are we all baptized into one
body, whether (we be) Jews or GentQes, whether (we
be) bond or free; and have been all made to drink
into one Spirit.

This is the proof of what immediately precedes. The church is one, for by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. The word is not in the present tense, but in the aorist. ’ “We were, by the baptism of the Spuit, constituted one body.’ This is commonly, and even by the modern commentators, imderetood of the sacrament of baptism; and the apostle is made to say that by the Holy Ghost received in baptism we wdro made one body. But the Bible clearly distinguishes between baptism with water and baptism T,vith the Holy Ghoat. “1 indeed baptize you with water.., but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost,” Matt. 3, II. “He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remainmg on him, the same is he which bapUzeth with the Holy Ghoat,” John 1, 33. “John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghoat, not many days hence,” Acts 1, 5. These passages not only distinguish between the baptism of water and the baptism of the Spirit, but they disconnect them. The baptism to which Acta 1, 6 refers took pla«6 on the day of Pentecost, and had nothing to do with the baptism of water. It is not denied that the one is saoramentally eomiected with the other; or that the baptism of the Spirit often attends the baptism of water; but they are not inseparably connected. The one may be without the other. And m the present passage there does not aeem to be even sm allusion to water baptism, any more than in Acts 1, 5. Paul does not say that we are made one body by baptism, but by the baptism of the Holy Ghost; that is, by spii’itual regeneration. Any communication of the Holy Spirit is called a baptism, because the Spu’it is said to be poured ont, and those upon whom he is poured out, whether in his regenerating, sanctifying, or inspiring influences, are said to be baptized. In all the passages above quoted the expression is ev jrwu/iaTi, 6y the Spirit, as it is here.* It is not therefore by baptism as an external rite, bat by the communication of the Holy Spirit that we are made members of the body of Christ. tJnto one body means so as to constitute one hody {tk, unto, expressing the result). No matter how great may have been the previous difference, whether they were Jews or Gentiles, bond or free, by this baptism of the Spirit, all who experience it are merged into one body; they are all intimately and organically united as partaking of the same life, Comp. Gal. 3, 28. And this is the essential point of the analogy between the human body and the church. As the body is one because pervaded and animated by one sou! or principle of life, so the church is one because pervaded by one Spirit. And as all parts of the body which partake of the common life belong to the body, so all

•It mayba remarked in passing that BairTrftd-Sai li- jtviiu-nri cannot moan lo be immersed in the Spirit, aay mors than Smrrlffirani ifSaTi, Luka 3, 16, Acfs 1, 5, can Iij- possibilitj moan to be immersed ia water. those ill Tvhom the Spirit of God dwells are members of the chiii-ch which is the body of Christ. And by parity of reasoning, those in whom the Spirit does not dwell are not members of Christ’s body. ‘They may be members of the visible or nomiaal church, but they are not members of the church in that sense in which it is the body of Christ. This passage, therefore, not only teaches us the nature of the church, bat also the principle of its unity. It is one, not as united under one exteiTiai visible head, or udder one governing tribunal, nor in virtue of any external visible bond, but in virtue of the indwelling of the Holy Spiait in all its members. And this internal spiritual union manifests itself in the profession of the same feith, and in all acts of Christian fellowship.

And have all been made to drink into one Spirit. This is a difficult clause. To drink into is an unexampled phrase, whether in English or Greek. The text vari. In some MSS, it is eis iv TiTtB/iia, into one Spirit, in others, ti- TireB/io, one Spirit. The latter is adopted by Lachmanu and Tisohendorf. If this be preferred, 1 he sense is, ‘We have all drank one Spirit.’ That is, we have all been made partakers of one Spirit. Compare John 1, 37, and other passages, in which the Spirit is compared to water of which m.en are said to drink. The meaning of the passage according to this reading is simple and pertinent. ‘By the baptisin of the Holy Ghost we have all been imited in one body and made partakers of one Spirit,’ If the common text be preferred, the most natural interpretation would seem to be, ‘We have all been made to drinls so as to become one Spirit.’ The words Uh tv Trvvjia) unto one Spirit, would then correspond to {ek tv (r5/ia) icnto one body. The allusion is supposed by Luther, Calvin and Beza to be to the Lord’s Supper. ‘By baptism we become one body, and by drinking (of the cup, i. e. by the Lord’s Slipper) we become one body.’ But tbia allusion is not only foreign to the context, but is not indicated by the words. How can the simple word ejror«rJ)j/iei’, made to drink, in such a connection, mean to partake of the Lord’s Supper? Besides, as the modern commentators all remark, the tense of the verb forbids this interpretation. It must express the same time with the preceding verb. ‘We were all baptized {iairrCa-Siy- y.ev), and we were all made to drink («roriiT5ij/M»’).’ It is something done in the past, not something continued in the present that the word expresses. If any thing is to be supplied it is not the word cup, but the Spirit, i. e. the water of

250 I. CORINTniANS 13, 13. U. 15. 10.

life. ‘We have been made to drink (i. e. of tJie Spirit) so aa to become one spirit,’ Another intei-pretation of the common test supposes that the preposition {eh) into belongs to the constvuotion of the verb — (o drink into being equivalent to drink of. The sense is then the same as in the reading without the ets, ‘”We have all drank of one Spirit.’ The doctrine taught is clear, viz., that by receiving the Spirit we are all made members of the body of Chi-ist, and that it is in virtue of the indwelling of the Spirit that the church is one.

14. Por the body is not one member, but many. This is a proof that diversity of gifts and members is necessary to the unity of the chm-ch. The church no more consists of persons all having the same gifts, than the body is all eye or all ear. As the body is not one member, but many, so the church is not one member, but many. The word member means a constituent part having a function of its own. It is not merely a multiplicity of parts that is necessary to the body; nor a multiplicity of persons that is necessary to the church; but in both cases what is required is a multiplicity of members in the sense just stated. To a certMn extent what Paul says of the diversity of gifts in individual members of the church, may, in the existing state of things, be applied to different denominations of Christians. No one is perfect or complete in itself; and no one can say to the others, I have no need of you. Each represents something that is not so well represented in the others. Each has its own function to exercise and work to perform, which could not so well be accomplished without it. As, therefore, hannony and cooperation, sympathy and mutual affection, are required between individual Christians as constituent members of Christ’s body, so also should they prevail between different denominations. It is only when the hand rmdertatea to turn the foot out of the body, that the foot is bound in self-defence and for the good of the whole, to defend its rights.

15. IG. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; k it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Becanse I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of ■;he body?

I. CORINTHIAHS 12, 16.16.17.18. 25T

The first and most obvious conclusion from the view which P;i,ul had given of the nature of the church is the duty of contentment. It is jast as unreasonable and absurd for the ibot to complain that it is not the hand, as for one member of the church to complain that he is not another; that ia, for a teacher to complEao that he is not an apostle; or for a deaconess to complain that she ia not a presbyter; or for one who had the gift ot healing to complain that he had not the gift of tongues. This, as the apostle shows, would destroy the very idea of the chiu-cb.

17. If the whole body (were) an eye, where (were)
the hearing? If the whole (were) heaiing, where
(were) the sineUiiig?

The obvious meaning of this verse is, that the very existence of the body as an organization depends on the union of members endowed with different functions. And the .ippUcation of this idea to the church is equally plain. It also requires to its existence a diversity of gifts and offices. If all were apostles where would be the church?

18. But now hath God. set the members every one
of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

JSui now, i. e. as the matter actually is. Instead of the body being all one member, God has arranged and disposed the parts each in its place so as to constitute one living organic whole. The eye did not give itself the power of vision, nor the ear its ability to discriminate sounds. Each member occupies in the body the position which God has seen fit to assign it, and which is most conducive to the good of the whde. It is so also in the church; the position and the gifts of every member ai’e determined by the Lord. One has one gift and another another; one is a pastor and another ia a misaonary; one labours in a city, another in the wilderness, not according to their relative merits, nor in virtue of their own selection, bat as God wills and orders. It is therefore as inconsistent with the idea of the church that each member should decide on his own position and functions, as that the members of the body should arrange themselves according to their own notions. The nature of the chui’ch supposes, that as in the body the principle of life manifests itself under one form in the eye, and in another form in the ear, so the Spirit of God dwelling in the church manifests himself under one form in one member and under a different form in another; and that the selection of his organs and distribution of his gifts are according to his sovereign pleasure. We are contending agst him, therefore, when we contend agmnat the position and the office which he has assigned us in the church. It is easy to give this principle a wider application. One ia born in Europe, another in Awa; one in America, another in Africa; one is rich, another poor; one has ten talents, another one; not because one is better than the other, but simply because God has so ordained. His will, as thus manifested, is not only soverdgn but infinitely wise and benevolent. It is on this diversity, whether in the world, in the church, or in the hnraan body, that the life and the good of the whole depend. This verse thus contmns the second practical inference from the nature of the church as the body of Christ, The place and gifts of each member are determined by the Lord.

19. 20. And if they were all one member, where (were) the body? But now (are they) many members, yet but one body.

These verses are a repetition of the idea that diversity of organs in the body is essential to ita nature as a body, i. e. aa an organization; and that this diversity is perfectly consistent with unity,

21. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

The third inference from the doctrine taught above, is the mutual dependence of the members of the church. As in the body the eye cannot dispense with the hand, nor the head with the feet, so in the church the most highly gifted are as much dependent on those less favoured aa the latter are on the former. Every thing life pride, therefore, is as much out of place in the church as discontent.

23. 23. Nay, miicli more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: and those (members) of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely (parts) have more abundant comeliness,

Tho fourth inference from the apostle’s doctrine is, that the least attractive gifts are the most important. Aa in the human fi-ame the heart is more important than the tongue, so in the church the gift of prayer is more important than eloquence. Those who in the closet, however obscure, wrestle with God, often do more for hia glory and for the advancement of hia kingdom than those who fill the largest space in the public eye. What would the tongue do without the langa, which ai’e neither seen nor heard? Gcd’s thoughts are not aa oar thoaghta. The childish Corinthians prized the gift of tongues, which, as they used it, could edify no one, to the gift of prophecy by which the whole body of Christ could be instracted and comforted. And those persons and offices in the church which are most admired or coveted, are often of little account in the sight of God. There ia another idea presented in these verses. It la an instinct of nature to adorn most the least comely portions of the body; and it ia an instinct of grace to honour most those members of the church who least attract adnuration. Those members of the body which we think to he less honowable, i, e. less mely to be honoured; on those we bestow the more abundant honour, i. e. we on that account honour them the more. It is thus with a mother. The child which is the least admired, she cherishes with special affection. And it is thus with the church. The true people of God are only the more disposed to honour those of their number who are undervalued or despised. In the body, as tho apostle says, our uncomely parts have (i. e. they receive) more abundant comeliness, i. e. are specially adorned.

24. Eor cm: comely (parts) have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that (part) which lacked: former needs no adorning, the latter does. God hath tempered tTie body together, i. e. he lias so adjusted it and combmed its several members, as to secure the result that more ahandant honour should be given to those which lacked. By making the uncomely parts essential to the -vrell-being of the rest, and by diffusing a common life through all the members, he has made the body a harmonious whole.

25. 26. That there should be no schism in the
body; but (that) the membeis should have the same
cai-e one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be
honoured, dl the members rejoice with it.

God has so constituted the body that there should be no schism in it, i. e. no diversity of feeling or interest. Schism means simply division, but when spoken of an oi-ganized body, or of a society, it commonly includes the idea of alienation of feeling. Such was the schism which existed among the Corinthians, see 1,10. 11,18. Sut that tM members should have the same care one /or another. That is, that one member should have the same care for another member that it has for itself. The body is so constituted that the eye is as solicitous for the welfere of the foot as it is for its own well-being. The consequence is that if one member suffers all the members suffer with it; and if one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. This is the law of our physical nature. The body is really one. It has a common life and consciousness. The pain or pleasure of one part is common to the whole.

27, Now ye ai’e the body of Christ, and members
in particular.

That is, collectively ye are the body of (Christ; individually or severally, ye are members. This is the application of the preceding analogy to the case of the Corinthians. What had been said of the body, of its unity; of the diversity of its members; of their mutual dependence; of the greater importance of the weaker than of the stronger members; of the community of feeling and interest that pervades the whole; is all true in it3 application to the church. The body of Ohiist is really one, pervaded by one and the same spirit; it consists of many members of different gifts and functions, each according to the will of the Spirit; these members are mntnally dejicndent; tte humble and obscure are more neeessaiy to the being and welfare of the church than those distinguished by attractive gifts; and the law of sympathy pei-vades the whole, so that if one Christian suffers all his fellow Christians suffer with him, and if one believer is honoured, all believers rejoice with him. It is to be observed that Paul is not speaking of what ought to be, but of what is. He does not say that it ia the duty of one member of the human body to care lor another membei’, but that it does thus care. Such is the law of our nature. The want of this sympathy in any part with all the rest, would prove that it was a mere excrescence which did not partake of the common life. The same is true with regard to the body of Christ. It is not merely the duty of one Christian to have sympathy with another, to suffer when he suffers, and to i-ojoice when he is honoured; but such is the nature of their relation that it must be so. The want of this sympathy with our fellow Christians, no matter by what name they may be called, is proof that we do not belong to the body of Christ. In this, as in all other respects, Christians are imperfect. The time baa not yet come when every believer shall have the same care for another that he has for himself and rejoice in his joy and grieve in his sorrow as though they were his own. The ideal is here set before us, and blessed are those who approach nearest to the standard.

28. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

In Epb. 4, 11, Paul says, “God gave some apostles, some prophets,” &c. Ho began here to use the same form, ‘God hath set some in the church,’ but varies the construction, and says, First, apostles. This verse is an amplification of the preceding one. In v. 27 he said the church is analogous to the human body. He here shows that the analogy consists in the common life of the church, or the indwelhng Spirit of God, manifesting itself in a diveraty of gifts and offices, just as the common iSe of the body manifests itself in different orgaoi and meiiibera. In the church some were apostles, i. e. immediate messengers of Christ, rendered infailible as teachers and ralers by the gift of plenary inspiration. Secondly, prophets, i. e. men who spoke for God as the occasional organs of the Spirit. Thirdly, teaohera, i. e. nninsph’ed men who had received the gift of teaching. Fourthly, miracles; here and in what follows abstract tei-ma are used for concrete — miracles mean men endowed with the power of working miracles. Fifthly, gifts of healing, i. e. persons endowed with the power of healing diseases. Sixthly, helps, i. e. persons qualified and appointed to help the other officers of the church, probably in the care of the poor and the sick. These, according to the common understanding from Chrysostom to the present day, were deacons and deaconesses. Seventhly, governments, i. e. men who had the gift and authority to rule. As this gift and office are distinguished from those of teachei’s, it cannot be undei-stood of the presbyters or bishops who were required “to be apt to teach.” It seems to refer clearly to a class of officers distinct from teachers, i, e. rulers, or as they are called in the Reformed churches, “ruling elders,” and in the ancient church, seniores plebis. Finally, diversities of tongues, i. e. persons having the gift of speakmg m foreign iaugaaes. This IS pat last probably because it was so unduly valued and so ostentatiously displayed by the Corinthians.

Oa this enumeration it may be remai-ked, first, that it was not intended to be exhaustive. Gifts are mentioned in vs. 8-10, and elsewhere, which have nothing to correspond to them here. Secondly, every office necessarily supposes the corresponding gift. No man could be an apostle without, the gift of infallibiUty; nor a prophet without the gift of inspiration; nor a healer of diseases without the gift of healing, Man may appoint men to offices for which they have not the necessary gifts, but God never does, any more than he ordains the foot to see or the hand to hear. If any man, therefore, cMms to he an apostle, or prophet, or worker of mii-acles, without the corresponding gift, he is a false pretender. In the early church, as now, there were many false apostles, i. e. those who claimed the honour and authority of the office without its gifts. Thirdly, the fact that any office existed in the apostolic church is no evidence that it was intended to be permanent. In that age there was a plenitude of spiritual manifestations and endowments demanded for the organization and propagation of the church, which is no longer required. We have no longer prophete, nor workera of miracles, nor gifts of tongues. The only evidence that an office was intended to l)e permanent is the continuance of the gift of which it was the organ, and the command to appoint to the office those who arc found to possess the gift. The only evidence that God intended the eye to te a permanent organ of the body, is, that he has perpetuated the faculty of vision. Had the giit of sight been discontinued, it would avail little that men should cdl the mouth and nose eyes, and demand that they should be recognized as such. This is precisely what Eomanista and others do, when they call their bishops apostles, and require men to honour and obey them as though they were. Fourthly, the only evidence of a call to an office, is the possession of the requisite gifts. If a man received the gift of prophecy, he was thereby called to be a prophet; or if he received the gift of healing, he was thereby called to exercise that ^ift. So if any man has received ministeiial ^fts, he has received a call to the minjstiy. What those gifts are the Bible has taught us. They are such as these: soundness in the feith, competent knowledge, ability to teach, the love of Christ and zeal ior his glory, an intelligent conviction of an oHigation to preach the gospel, and in short the qualifications which are necessary in one who is to be an example and guide of the flock of Jesus Christ. The office of the church in the matter is, first to examine whether the candidate for the ministry really possesses ministerial gifts; and then, if satisfied on that point, authoritatively to declare its judgment in the appointed way. The same remarks may be made in reference to a call to the missionary work or to any other department of labour in the church of Christ. The fundMnental idea is that the church is the body of Christ, filled by his Spirit, and that the Spirit distributes to every one severally as he wills, the gifts which he designs him to exercise for the edification of the whole.

39. SO. (Are) all apostles? (are) all prophets?
(are) all teachers? (are) all workers of miracles?
Ilave all the gifts of healing? do all speak with
tongues? do all interpret?

As ia the body all is not eye, or all ear, so in the church all have not the same gifts and offices. And as it would be preposterous in all the members of the body to aspire to the same oiEce, so it is no less preposterous in tho members of the church that all should covet the same gifts. It is the design of the apostle to suppress, on the one hand, all discontent and envy, and on the other, all pride and arrogance. God distributes his gifts as he pleases; all are necessary, and the recipients of them are mutually dependent.

31. But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet
shew I unto you a more excellent way.

All cannot have every gift, it it covet earnestly the better ones. To covet (^jfXdu)) is earnestly to desire, with the implication of corresponding effort to obtain. The extraordinary gifts of the Sph-it were bestowed according to his own good pleasure. But so also are his saving benefits. Yet both naay be, and should be sought in the use of the appointed means. The best gifts / literally, the better gifts, by which is meant, as appears from 14, 5, those which were the more useful. The Corinthians had a veiy different etandai’d of excellence; and coveted most the gifts which were the most littractive, although the least useful. And yet (or, moreover) I shew you an excellent way. The expression is not in itseif comparative, more excellent; but simply a way according to excellence, i. e. an excellent way. Whether it is excellent compared to something else, or most excellent, depends on the context. Here no compai’ison is imphed. The idea is not that he intends to show them a way that is better than seeking gifts, but a way par excellence to obtain those gifts. The other view is indeed adopted by Calvin and others, but it supposes the preceding imperative {covet ye) to be merely concessive, and is contrary to 14, 1, where the command to seek the more useful gift.s is repeated. The sense is, ‘Seek the better gifts, and moreover I miow you an excellent way to do it.’