difference is like that between a life which is good, for fear of consequences if it is evil, and a life which is good for love of God; between those who may safely be trusted so long as they are directed and watched, and those who may safely be trusted because nobody else can possibly be so desirous to have them do right as they are to do right themselves.

After the central chapters (5-8) in which St. Paul maintains that we are saved by faith and not by works, he discusses the problem of acceptance and rejection which is involved in the realization of the kingdom of God in the Christian Church rather than in the Jewish Church (9-11). Then follow practical counsels (12-15). And the epistle ends with a chapter which is thought by some to have been written not to the Romans but to the Ephesians. It contains a list of persons to whom the writer sends messages; an extraordinarily long list considering the fact that he has never been in Rome. And some of the names, as Priscilla and Aquila, are associated in other places with Ephesus. The chapter commends a deaconess, Phebe, to the good will and hospitality of the church, wherever it is. The sentence, "I, Tertius, who wrote his Epistle, salute you," gives us the name of the brother to whom, as his secretary, St. Paul dictated this letter.

XVIII

THE EARLIER EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL-II

FTER a year and a half in Corinth, St. Paul went

AFTE

to Ephesus, where he remained for two years and three months. The sea made communication easy between Ephesus and Corinth, and the apostle kept in touch with his Corinthian converts. He appears to have visited them several times, and several times he wrote them letters, of which two have survived.

Another letter, which preceded these, but is lost, is referred to in such a manner as to let us know what it was about. He warned them against bad company. He told them to have nothing to do with covetous persons, or idolaters, or fornicators, or railers, or extortioners, or drunkards. They replied that in order to obey such a counsel of exclusion they must give up both society and business. They reminded him that Corinth was inhabited mostly by such sinners. Would he require them to go out of the world? Answering them in the progress of his First Epistle (I. Cor. 5:9-11), he mitigated the rigor of his former advice and allowed them to consort, if necessary, with pagan sinners; but he drew the line at Christian sinners. They were not even to eat, he said, with Christian extortioners, or with Christian drunkards. The letter makes it plain that even after a year and a

half of cultivation at the hands of Paul himself, there were still tares in the Corinthian field.

I

Then two things happened: friends came, notably from the house of Chloe, bringing various reports from Corinth; and a letter came asking various questions. The First Epistle deals in part (1-6) with these reports and in part (7-16) with these questions.

It was reported, in the first place, (1-4) that there were divisions among the Corinthian disciples. Some said "I am of Paul;" others, "I am of Apollos;" others, "I am of Cephas;" and still others, about whom we do not know enough to warrant either praise or blame, "I am of Christ." There seems to have been no disagreement as to the fundamentals; the debates concerned inferences, details and additions. Apollos, a young man from Alexandria, who had succeeded Paul in Corinth, seems to have taught some things which Paul had not taught. Thereupon arose a Paul party, holding to the old ways, and an Apollos party, preferring the new ways. The like has happened in many a parish. And then, as now, those who liked what St. Paul calls "milk," and those who liked what he calls "meat," were not content to enjoy each his own preference, and to have the parochial table spread with both meat and milk, but insisted on criticizing and reviling the preference of the other. "There is only one foundation," St. Paul says; "I have laid that. I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus

Christ and him crucified. But on this foundation there may be various buildings, for various uses, and in various kinds of architecture. It is not necessary that you should all live in one room. Let men build as they will and see what structures stand the test." (3:9-15.) St. Paul is opposing the divisive policy of "either-or." His plan is in essentials unity, but in non-essentials liberty. He would have difference without division.

It was reported as a matter of common scandal in the Corinthian congregation that one of the brethren had married his step-mother. The apostle deals with this offender briefly and peremptorily, advising that at the next meeting of the parish to consider cases of discipline he be put out.

It was reported that Christians were going to law against Christians, and carrying their disputes before the pagan courts (6:1-8). "Why do ye not rather take wrong?" Paul says, "Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?"

Then the epistle passes to the questions. First, concerning marriage. Paul advises against it. (Ch. 7.) This is not, however, for any ascetic reason, but as a matter of expediency. He writes as an unmarried man, who is abundantly satisfied with his single state. In other places in the letter he makes it plain that he regards women from the oriental point of view, as creatures inferior to men. At the same time, it is interesting to notice that it is in this chapter, which contributes so little to our present life, that the apostle frankly admits the possibility that he may be mistaken.

He perceives in his mind differing degrees of confidence. "I speak this," he says, "by permission, and not of commandment." "As to the rest," he says, referring to what he is about to advise, "speak I, not the Lord." And again, of another matter, "I have no commandment of the Lord, yet I give my judgment." And still again, "After my judgment, and I think also that I have the Spirit of God."

Then, concerning food offered to idols (8-10). The religion of the pagan world touched life at every point. The rites of sacrifice carried the benediction of the altar to the domestic table. Part of the meat belonged to the god, part to the priest, the rest to the worshiper. On every occasion of festivity the guests partook of meat which had been thus blessed, having been offered to an idol. By the act of giving a portion in sacrifice, the god was invited to the dinner, and accepted the invitation, and sat with them out of sight. On such an occasion a Christian guest might say, "I know that an idol is nothing, the sacrificial aspects of this feast are of no concern to me;" and he might therefore eat freely of the idol meat. "But suppose," said the Corinthians, "that some Christian guest should not be of this opinion. To his conscience the partaking of this meat is sin. The effect of the example of the wise brother will be either to scandalize the weak brother, or to tempt him to do that which he believes to be wrong. What then? Shall the wise forego the liberty of his wisdom because of the weak?" St. Paul says, "Yes. There is something better than knowledge, and better even than the exercise of liberty, and that is