Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 6.djvu/431

Rh into three portions, viz. :--(!) a very earnest description of his own interest in and relation to the Corinthian churches, and of the impression produced on his mind by what Titus reported (i.-vii.), (2) some exhortations to liberality in respect of the collection which was going on in Macedonia and Achaia for the brethren at Jerusalem (viii., ix.) ; (3) a vindication of his apostolic authority against the calumnies and misrepresentations of those who were endeavouring to subvert it (x.-xiii.) The epistle was taken to Corinth by Titus, who was quite ready to undertake a second journey (viii. 17), and with him went two other brethren (ib. 18, 22), who were selected &quot; messengers of the churches,&quot; in charge of the contributions to the collection already men tioned. It has been noticed that this letter was &quot; addressed not to Corinth only but to all the churches in the whole province of Achaia, including Athens and Cenchrese, and perhaps also Sicyon, Argos, Megara, Patraa, and other neighbouring towns, all of which probably shared more or less in the agitation which affected the Christian com munity at Corinth (Howson). We may here mention the conjecture of Bleek that between our 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians another letter intervened, which Titus took with him on his first mission, and that this is the letter which is referred to in 2 Cor. ii. 3, vii. 8 as one of unusual severity If this con jecture, which is a plausible one, be admitted, there must have been four letters from the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians, two of which have not been preserved. At any rate our 2d epistle is one in which all the affection and eagerness of the apostle culminate, and it gives to us, more than any other of his letters which have come down to us, an idea of the intensity of the zeal and sympathy with which he laboured in the cause of the gospel. &quot; What an admirable epistle,&quot; wrote George Herbert, &quot; is the second to the Corinthians ! how full of affections ; he joys, he sorrows, he grieves, and he glories ; never was there such care of a flock expressed save in the great Shepherd of the fold, who first shed tears over Jerusalem, and then blood.&quot; There are three special points in connection with the Epistles to the Corinthians on which a few further remarks must be made. One is the question whether a visit to Corinth, which is not mentioned in the Acts, yet seems alluded to in several passages of the epistles (2 Cor. xii 14, xiii. 1, 2, and comp. ii. 1, xii. 21), took place. The opponents of this view rely principally on the argumentum a silentio (which in this case, however, is a very weak one, when we consider the evidently compendious nature of St Luke s narrative in the Acts), and on the expression &quot; a second benefit,&quot; in 2 Cor. i. 15, 16. But this expression seems to refer to St Paul s intention to pay a double visit to Corinth, one in going to, and a second in returning from, Macedonia. The advocates of the unrecorded visit urge, first, that the language about the u third &quot; visit cannot reasonably be explained by saying that it was the third time St Paul intended to come ; and, secondly, that it is very natural to suppose that the apostle would have found some opportunity for at least a short visit during his three years residence at Ephesus. This visit appears to have been a very painful one, during which St Paul must have had sad forebodings of the evils which he rebukes in our first epistle ; but it must have been a brief one, and the language of 1 Cor. xvi. 7 might possibly allude to the hurried nature of a former visit. Another disputed point, and one which it is perhaps im possible to determine, is, What was the nature of the &quot; Christine &quot; party at Corinth 1 Were they a separate faction at all I if so, were they a Judaizing faction or a philosophizing one 1 ? Some hold that 1 Cor. i. 12 does not oblige us to believe in the existence of distinct parties or factions in the church, but only of certain tendencies. The indications throughout the epistles are, at any rate, sufficient to show that a strong antagonism existed between a Judaizing faction and a more liberal, less formal, and less scrupulous body of professed Christians, some of whom adhered to Paul as their recognized leader, while others preferred Apollos. We can quite understand how the Judaizing party would seize on the name and position of Peter, or Cephas (and it is noticeable that the Hebrew designation is preferred), as a rallying point, where they could oppose the claims of Paul and Apollos. But who were those who boasted that they were peculiarly Christ s ? Some (as Howson, Alford, Stanley) think it probable they were an extreme section of the Judaizers. Others (as Neander and Olshausen) consider that they may have been &quot; philosophical &quot; Greeks who, &quot; with arrogant self-will,&quot; professed to belong to no party, and renounced all &quot; apostolic &quot; intervention, perhaps modelling for themselves a peculiar form of Christian doctrine by means of some collection of memorable sayings and actions of Christ. A third point which calls for brief notice is the &quot; gift of tongues,&quot; of which so much is said in the first of our two epistles. It is quite what we should expect that a gift which ministered rather to individual notoriety than to general edification should have been abused and overrated in a Greek community like that at Corinth. It does not seem probable, nor is there evidence forthcoming to show, that the &quot; gift of tongues &quot; was used for purposes of in struction. It was a mystical condition rather than a linguistic faculty, an ecstatic utterance connected with a peculiar state of religious emotion. Stanley compares Montanist utterances, the prophets of Cevennes, Wesleyan paroxysms, and Irvingite manifestations as phenomena which, &quot; however inferior to the manifestations of Apostolic times, have their origin in the same mysterious phase of human life and human nature.&quot; The evidential value of the epistles to the Corinthians is very great. For we have in them indisputable historical and biographical data which in various ways imply and establish all the fundamental facts which concern the origin of the Christian church, and indicate the process, of which we have a more direct narrative in the Acts whereby Christianity was extended beyond the range of Jewish in fluences and prejudices, and its principles brought into con tact with &quot; the culture and vices of the ancient classical world.&quot;

1em  CORIOLANUS, (or ), a Roman patrician, said in the legend to have belonged to the 5th century B.C., and to have been a descendant of King Ancus Marcius. Brought up by his proud but patriotic mother Veturia (or, as Plutarch calls her, Volumnia), Coriolanus 