THE apostle, in his first letter to the Corinthians (chap. 5:1), refers to a most aggravating offense on the part of a member of the church. This caused him much anguish of spirit (2 Cor. 2:4), and in the chapter first mentioned, he recommends severe measures in such cases. This affair caused him great anxiety while at Troas, waiting for Titus (2 Cor. 2:12, 13), who had been sent to rectify matters at Corinth as also at Philippi, until Titus came with a favorable report. In chapter 7, he commends the church for their action, and says, verse 11, "In all things ye have approved yourselves clear in this matter." They had promptly dealt with the offender, and cleared themselves of his guilt. And the punishment had been "inflicted of many," showing that no official had taken the responsibility alone. There was nothing like excommunication by a priest, or conclave of officials. It was the act of the church as a body. BUT, the offender having repented, the apostle pleads for his restoration in verses 6-11. On verse 6, we quote the comment of Dr. Barnes:— "The object of Paul here is to have him again restored. For that purpose he says that the punishment which they had inflicted on him was "sufficient." It was, (1) A sufficient expression of the evil of the offense, and of the readiness of the church to preserve itself pure; and, (2) It was a sufficient punishment to the offender. It had accomplished all that Paul had desired. It had humbled him, and brought him to repentance. As that had been done, it was proper now that he should be again restored to the privileges of the church. No evil would result from such a restoration, and their duty to their penitent brother demanded it. Mr. Locke has remarked that Paul conducts this subject here with very great tenderness and delicacy. The entire passage from verse 5-10 relates solely to this offending brother, yet he never once mentions his name, nor does he mention his crime. He speaks of him only in the soft terms of "such a one" and "any one;" nor does he use an epithet which would be calculated to wound his feelings, to transmit his name to posterity, or to communicate it to other churches. So that though this epistle should be read, as Paul doubtless intended, by other churches, and be transmitted to future times, yet no one would ever be acquainted with the name of the individual. How different this from the temper of those who blazon abroad the names of offenders, or make a permanent record to carry them down with dishonor to posterity!"