__________________________________________________________________

   Title: Commentary on Corinthians - Volume 1
   Creator(s): Calvin, John (1509-1564)
   (Alternative)
   (Translator)
   Rights: Public Domain
   LC Call no: BS491
   LC Subjects:

   The Bible

   Works about the Bible
     __________________________________________________________________

   COMMENTARIES

   ON THE

   EPISTLES OF PAUL THE APOSTLE

   TO

   THE CORINTHIANS


   BY JOHN CALVIN



   TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN, AND COLLATED WITH
   THE AUTHOR'S FRENCH VERSION

   BY THE REV. JOHN PRINGLE



   VOLUME FIRST



   CHRISTIAN CLASSICS ETHEREAL LIBRARY
   GRAND RAPIDS, MI

   [1]http://www.ccel.org
     __________________________________________________________________

   TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

   The Sixteenth century was distinguished by a large and valuable
   accession of Expositors of the Sacred Volume. Mosheim reckons up not
   fewer than fifty-five writers, who, in the course of that century,
   devoted their labors, to a greater or less extent, to the
   interpretation or illustration of the inspired writings — a
   circumstance which at once indicated the progress of the principles of
   the Reformation, and contributed most materially to their diffusion.
   Nor were expository treatises, in illustrations of the Sacred
   Scriptures, simply increased in number; they were marked by a decided
   improvement in point of intrinsic value. It is to the honor of a large
   proportion of the Interpreters of that age, that, rejecting the
   practice so well exposed by Bishop Horsley, of “drawing I know not what
   mystical meanings, by a certain cabalistic alchemy, from the simplest
   expressions of holy writ,” they made it their endeavor, in every case,
   to ascertain the true meaning of the Spirit of God, by a careful
   examination of the text and context.

   In unbending integrity of purpose in the investigation of the Inspired
   Oracles — which must be regarded as one of the primary excellences of
   an Expositor — John Calvin is surpassed by none in his own, or indeed
   in any age. His readers, even where they may not be prepared to adopt
   his interpretation of a passage, cannot fail to perceive that it is his
   sincere desire and honest endeavor to ascertain its true meaning. His
   uprightness of design is more especially observable in connection with
   passages bearing on controverted points. In such cases the candid
   reader will discover no disposition to wrest a single expression for
   the purpose of enlisting it on the side of a particular system of
   opinion; but, on the contrary, the utmost fairness of interpretation is
   uniformly apparent.

   Every one that is acquainted with Calvin’s history, and considers the
   trying scenes through which he was called to pass, must feel astonished
   that he should have found leisure to prepare, in addition to all his
   other writings, Commentaries on nearly the whole of the Sacred
   Scriptures. That he wrote so much, and more especially as an Expositor,
   appears to have been chiefly owing to the frequent and urgent
   solicitations of his intimate and beloved Farel, who “not merely
   entreated Calvin, but frequently urged him with great vehemence to
   write one Commentary after another, from a conviction that he possessed
   the gifts requisite for exposition in a very extraordinary manner, and
   that, with the blessing of God, his works of this kind would be
   extensively useful. ‘Being an inconsiderable man myself,’ said he, ‘I
   am wont to require very much from those that possess the greatest
   excellence, and often press them hard to labor beyond their strength.’
   It was his conviction that every one who had received superior talents
   was bound to devote them to the advancement of the kingdom of God.” [1]

   The Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians form a most important part of
   the Sacred Writings. Though not so systematic as the Epistle to the
   Romans, they contain many passages, bearing directly on the
   fundamentally important doctrines of the Christian system, while they
   are of the highest utility in connection with Practical Theology. The
   disorders that had unhappily crept into the Church at Corinth, gave
   occasion for the Apostle’s handling at greater length than in any of
   his other Epistles various important points as to doctrine and worship;
   while the relaxed state of discipline that had begun to prevail among
   them rendered it necessary to exhibit more fully the principles which
   ought to regulate the administration of the Christian Church. In this
   the overruling hand of Him who brings good out of evil is strikingly
   apparent.

   While in the selection of the particular places into which the Gospel
   was first introduced, and in which Christian Churches were first
   planted, there is a display of Divine sovereignty which it is beyond
   our power for fathom, this at least is abundantly manifest, that the
   places selected were not those in which the triumphs of the Gospel were
   likely to be most easily affected, but quite the reverse. As the skill
   of the workman appears so much the more strikingly, when the tools
   employed by him are few and simple, and the materials to be wrought
   upon are hard and unyielding; so the wonders achieved in the first ages
   of the Church, through the foolishness of preaching. (1 Corinthians
   1:21) excite so much the more our astonishment, when we take into view
   the peculiarly formidable obstacles that opposed its progress in the
   places that were selected as the scenes of its triumphs. Of this the
   inspired narrative furnished in the Acts of the Apostles presents
   numerous and striking illustrations; and when we observe the particular
   Churches to which Paul’s Epistles are addressed — in the order in which
   they are presented to our view in the New Testament — it might almost
   seem as if the order of arrangement had been designed for the very
   purpose of calling our particular attention to the fact that the
   triumphs of the Gospel had been most signal in those places in which
   its success might have appeared most unlikely. It is a remarkable
   circumstance, and, assuredly, it is not to be looked upon as merely
   accidental, that the Christian Church to which the first of Paul’s
   Epistles — in the order in which they stand — is addressed, is one that
   had been planted, not in some city of secondary importance, but in Rome
   itself, the metropolis of the then known world; while the second of the
   Churches to whom Paul’s Epistles are addressed is that of Corinth, a
   city that was proverbial among Heathens themselves for its
   extraordinary profligacy, and consequently the most unlikely place of
   all to be the scene of the triumphs of a religion that will allow of no
   compromise with iniquity.

   When Paul first visited Corinth, appearances were most unpromising;
   but, having received special encouragement from his Divine Master, he
   continued to labor at Corinth for a year and six months, (Acts 18:11;)
   and such was the success of his labors in that profligate city, that
   after enumerating some of the worst descriptions of character, he says
   to the Corinthian converts, — “And such were some of you,” (1
   Corinthians 6:11). While, however, the notorious wickedness that
   prevailed at Corinth was the occasion of illustrating so much the more
   clearly the power of Christianity in subduing human depravity, that
   extreme dissoluteness of manners to which the Corinthian Christians had
   been addicted previously to their conversion, and which was daily
   witnessed by them in the unconverted around them, was fitted to exert a
   most injurious influence; and while the disorders that prevailed in the
   Corinthians Church after Paul left them, were in part attributable to
   the insidious efforts of false teachers, there seems every reason to
   believe that they were, in a very considerable degree, owing to the
   contagion of corrupt manners around them. It is to this that we must
   trace their preference of the ornaments of speech to the plain
   unadorned doctrine of the cross — their party jealousies — their
   vexatious lawsuits — their unseemly fellowship with heathens in their
   idol-feasts; and their philosophical speculations, leading them to
   question the possibility of a resurrection from the dead; while the
   flagrant case of incest, fallen into by one of their number, and
   connived at by the others, must still more manifestly be ascribed, in
   part, to the contagion of evil example. Yet even in this we have
   occasion still farther to mark the overruling hand of God in making
   evil subservient to good — the disordered state of the Corinthian
   Church having given occasion for exhortations and reproofs that are
   fraught with invaluable instruction to the Church of Christ in every
   successive age.

   Calvin’s Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians was first
   published in the year 1546, and his Commentary on the Second Epistle
   was published in the course of the same year. It was a year that was
   greatly “unfavorable to Calvin’s repose. He was obliged to cheer the
   drooping spirits of the Genevese, whom the designs of Charles V.
   against The Reformed Religion had alarmed. But, besides the cares which
   the fear of all these evils occasioned him, he was deeply afflicted at
   the state of Geneva, and the general and daring profligacy of its
   inhabitants.” [2]

   In the course of the same year (as is stated by Beza) one of the
   members of the senate, “instigated, it is supposed, by two ministers of
   the Consistory, both of them given to drunkenness, and not less afraid
   than others of the rigor of the law, accused Calvin of preaching false
   doctrine.” It may well appear surprising that in such circumstances he
   should have found leisure for preparing this valuable portion of his
   Expository Works. This, however, is not peculiar to this portion of his
   Commentaries; for the greater part of them were prepared amidst
   numerous engagements and harassing occurrences. Yet they do not bear
   the marks of haste, but might seem to have been prepared in quiet
   retirement.

   The reader will observe that The Dedication, which is prefixed to the
   Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians in all the ordinary
   editions of Calvin’s works, bears date in 1556. It is however stated,
   at the same time, by Calvin in the close of the Dedication, that the
   Commentary to which it is prefixed had been originally published by him
   ten years previously. It will farther be observed that in the
   commencement of the Dedication, Calvin alludes to an individual to whom
   he had originally dedicated the Commentary, but whose name he had been
   under the painful necessity — contrary to his usual manner — of erasing
   from his writings. The individual alluded to is James of Burgundy. The
   original Dedication, which is exceedingly rare, is contained in
   “Lettres de Calvin a Jaque de Bourgogne,” kindly allowed to the
   Translator by Mr. Laing, Edinburgh, from the Library of Writers to the
   Signet. A translation of that Dedication, as well as of the one that
   was subsequently prefixed by Calvin to this part of his Commentaries,
   will be found below.

   The circumstances connected with the case of James of Burgundy, are
   briefly stated by Bayle in his Dictionary, (Art. Philip of Burgundy,)
   in the following terms: — “James of Burgundy, Lord of Fallaix,
   grandson, I suppose, of Baldwin, another natural son of Duke Philip,
   professed the Protestant religion, but being scandalized at the
   disputes which arose at Geneva between Bolsec and Calvin in the year
   1551, he and his wife turned aside from the doctrine of the Reformed.
   He had carried it fair in the Church several years. Calvin dedicated to
   him his Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians,
   but afterwards he suppressed that Dedication, and prefixed another to
   The Marquis of Vic.”

   Farther, Bayle, in the Art. Calvin, remarks, when speaking of Beza’s
   Life of Calvin — “We do not find in the edition of 1564, in 12mo, what
   I have transcribed from the folio edition of 1565, when I said that the
   grandson of a bastard of Philip, the good Duke of Burgundy, forsook the
   Church of Rome.”

   The editor of “Lettres de Calvin,” states that, after much fruitless
   search in many quarters for two documents referred to in Calvin’s
   Letters, viz. the Dedication of Calvin’s Commentary on the First
   Epistle to the Corinthians, and an Apology for the Masters of Falais,
   presented to the Emperor Charles the Fifth, and composed by Calvin, he
   had at length obtained them from one of the librarians of Geneva. The
   Dedication, he states, had been “transcribed from a copy that is at
   present at Strasburg.” “These pieces,” he adds, “arrived just in time
   for being printed in the last sheet of the Letters, to which I have not
   failed to append them, as being absolutely necessary to render them
   intelligible. I flatter myself that the public will receive them with
   delight, as an authentic document, [3] hitherto wanting in the
   ecclesiastical history of this country. Even those who have neither
   interest nor inclination for knowing this history to the bottom, will
   admire the beauty of Calvin’s genius, the insinuating turns of the
   Dedication, and the liberty and modesty that reign equally in the
   Apology; and they will agree with me in thinking, that Calvin was no
   less expert, in the art of pleading, than he had been in the art of
   preaching.”

   James of Burgundy was the grandson of Baldwin, a natural son of Philip,
   Duke of Burgundy, whom the Emperor Maximilian, in 1501, put in
   possession of Falais, a “Manor of Brabant, situated on the borders of
   the county of Namur, upon the river Mohaine, between the towns of Huy
   and Henneguy.” He was “elevated to the court of the Emperor Charles the
   Fifth. He embraced the views of the Protestants at the age of fifteen.
   He afterwards married Jolande of Brederode, a descendant of the ancient
   Counts of Holland, and aunt to Henry of Brederode.” “This marriage
   increased the suspicions that he had conceived as to the religions in
   which he was brought up, so that he adopted the resolution of leaving
   his native country, where he reckoned his life no longer safe. His
   withdrawment led to a law-suit, before the court of Malines, for the
   confiscation of his lands. During his exile, the Master of Falais
   changed his abode from time to time, having taken refuge first at
   Cologne, afterwards at Strasbourg, and at Basle, and, last of all, at
   Geneva. There is ground to believe that he was a person of merit, upon
   the testimony of Calvin himself, who, after pronouncing upon him the
   highest eulogiums in his Dedication to the First Epistle to the
   Corinthians, carried on a familiar correspondence with him for nearly
   ten years, and takes pleasure in subscribing himself very frequently
   his friend unreservedly forever. [4]

   “It is true that this friendship did not always continue, but, on the
   contrary, changed into irreconcilable aversion. It may at first view be
   thought, that the fault was altogether on the side of the Master of
   Falais, and that Calvin must have had sufficient reasons for carrying
   matters so far. We must, however, beware of forming a rash judgment. We
   often see the greatest animosities between the best friends arise out
   of nothing. Frequently the two parties are equally in the wrong; and in
   many cases the fault is found to have been on the side of the one that
   had been least suspected.”... The reader who peruses superficially the
   statement of Beza, quoted by Bayle, might imagine not merely that the
   Master of Falais had approved of all that Bolsec had done or said, but
   also that he entirely abandoned the side of the Protestants, and
   entered again the communion of the Romish Church. He might, therefore,
   fall into a mistake on all these points.

   “I do not believe that the Master of Falais ever thought of approving
   of the conduct of Bolsec, who ventured in a full church to contradict a
   minister, when preaching the doctrine of predestination. Neither Calvin
   nor Beza say so. Besides, the Master of Falais protests in his Apology,
   that he has no sympathy with those that support their religion in a
   turbulent and seditious manner. Assuredly he must have been a fanatic,
   to do what Bolsec did on that occasion; but to say that he had done
   well, he must have been a downright madman.

   “Nor is there any better proof that the Master of Falais was of
   Bolsec’s opinion on the subject of predestination. Calvin, Beza, and
   Castalio himself, (who would not have failed to mention it,) say no
   such thing. Besides this, the Confession of the Master of Falais, such
   as he had published in his Apology, is quite in unison with Calvin’s
   sentiments; and it may be presumed that he had not renounced these
   views in three years afterwards, while experience tells us, that they
   have once imbibed. What was then, properly, the ground of quarrel
   between Calvin and the Master of Falais? In my opinion it was this:
   After Bolsec had been put in prison, on the 16th October 1551, for
   having contradicted the doctrine of Calvin, and given occasion of
   offense in the Church, Calvin was disposed to punish him with all
   possible severity. To accomplish his purpose in accordance with forms,
   he asked the opinion of the Churches of Switzerland, hinting to them at
   the same time what he desired from them.”

   “‘We are desirous,’ says he, ‘to clear our Church from this pestilence
   in such a way that it will not, on being expelled from it, do injury to
   the neighboring Churches.’ meaning, plainly enough, that he must either
   be put to death, or suffered to remain in prison during his whole
   life.”

   The Master of Falais was of another mind; whether it was that he was
   influenced by a regard to his own interest, and that, being sickly, he
   imagined that his life depended on that of his physician; or whether it
   was that, from a principle of humanity and Christianity forbearance, he
   reckoned that Bolsec’s imprudence did not merit so severe a punishment,
   he wrote to the clergy of the Cantons, or to his friends in that
   quarters, and thereby defeated the design of Calvin, who received
   replies less full and distinct, and much more moderate, than he had
   expected and desired. Calvin finding himself thwarted by the Master of
   Falais, got into a passion, broke entirely with him, and roused up
   against him so many enemies at Geneva, that he was obliged to retire
   into the district of Vaud.

   “Judge, now, which of the two was in the right — Calvin or the Master
   of Falais.” “I do not know what became of the Master of Falais after
   this time, nor when he died, nor where, nor in what communion. I
   cannot, however, subscribe to the views of Mr. Bayle, who says that the
   Master of Falais turned aside from the doctrine of the Reformed, and
   that he renounced the Reformed Church. I am of opinion that Beza, on
   whose authority Mr. Bayle proceeds, means nothing more than this, that
   the Master of Falais left the Church of Geneva, on quarreling with
   Calvin. This does not mean that he renounced the Reformed Church, or
   abandoned the Protestant party. For it was possible to quarrel with
   Calvin, to reject his views on predestination and on persecution, and
   spurn the discipline of the Church of Geneva, and yet, after all, be as
   good a Protestant, and member of the Reformed Church, as Calvin
   himself.”

   From the extracts furnished above form an introductory notice by the
   editor [5] of the work already referred to, (“Lettres de Calvin a Jaque
   de Bourgogne,”) it will abundantly appear that the writer is desirous
   to present as favorable a view of James of Burgundy as the
   circumstances of the case will at all admit of. His attempt to show
   that James of Burgundy may have, after all, remained in connection with
   the Reformed Church, appears to be more ingenious than solid, and seems
   directly at variance with a statement by Calvin in his second
   Dedication to this part of his Commentaries, to this effect, that the
   individual to whom the former Dedication was addressed “has
   intentionally made it his object, not merely to withdraw as much as
   possible from me personally, but also to have no connection with our
   Church.” [6] This expression naturally conveys the idea that he had not
   simply left the Church of Geneva, but had withdrawn entirely from the
   Reformed Church. But however matters may have been as to this, the
   case, as a whole, was of such a nature as could not fail to be painful
   in the extreme to the mind of Calvin. In proportion, however, to the
   pain excited in his mind by this distressing case, must have been the
   happiness afforded him by an occurrence of an opposite nature, which
   took place about the same time.

   The Church of Geneva, which had suffered from the defection of James of
   Burgundy, was strengthened by the accession of an Italian nobleman,
   Galeazus Caracciolus, who, having been led to espouse the Protestant
   faith, took up his residence at Geneva in the year 1551, with a view to
   enjoy the society of Calvin, and have opportunity of attending upon his
   ministry. The particulars of his history, and more especially of his
   conversion from Popery, are interestingly narrated in a work entitled —
   “The Italian Convert — Newes From Italy of A Second Moses — The Life of
   Galeacius Caracciolus, The noble Marquesse of Vico,” etc. London, 1635.

   This work was written originally in Italian, “by Nicola Balbani,
   minister of the Italian Church in Geneva. It was translated into Latin
   by Beza; into French by Minutoli and by Sieur de Lestan; and into
   English by William Crashaw.” [7]

   The writer of this work referred to presents, in the dedicatory
   epistle, the following brief summary of the leading facts of this
   interesting case: —

   “I present you with as strange a story as, out of the holy stories,
   afore it be laid down at large? Thus it is: — Galeacius Caracciolus,
   son and heir-apparent to Calantonius, Marquesse of Vicum in Naples,
   bred, borne and brought up in Popery — a courtier to the Emperor
   Charles the Fifth, nephew to the Pope, Paul the Fourth, being married
   to the Duke of Nucerne’s daughter, and having by her six goodly
   children, at a sermon of Peter Martyr’s was first untouched, — after
   reading Scripture, and other good means, was fully converted — labored
   with his lady, but could not persuade her; therefore, that he might
   enjoy Christ and serve Him with a good conscience, he left his lands,
   livings and honors of a Marquesdome, the comforts of his lady and
   children, the pleasures of Italy, his credit with the Emperor, his
   kindred with the Pope, and forsaking all for the love of Jesus Christ,
   came to Geneva, and there lived a poor and mean, yet an honorable and a
   holy life for forty years; and though his father, his lady, his
   kinsmen, yea, the Emperor and Pope did all they could to reclaim him,
   yet continued he constant to the end, and lived and died the blessed
   servant of God, leaving behind him a rare example to all ages.” [8]

   Caracciolus was born at Naples in January 1517. His father’s name was
   Calantonius, who was descended from the ancient and noble family of the
   Caracciolies in the district of Capua, and was elevated by Charles the
   Fifth to the rank of Vico. His mother was descended from the noble
   family of the Caraffi, and was sister to Pope Paul the Fourth. His
   wife, Victoria, was daughter to the Duke of Nuceria, one of the
   principal noblemen of Italy. She brought him a large fortune. He had by
   her six children — four sons and two daughters. His mind was first
   influenced in favor of the Protestant religion by repeated
   conversations held by him with a nobleman nearly related to him, who
   had, along with various persons of distinction in Italy, been induced
   to renounce Popery, chiefly through the instrumentality of a Spanish
   nobleman, who at that time resided at Naples — Joannes Waldesius. The
   more immediate instrument, however, of his conversion, was the
   celebrated Peter Martyr Vermilius. Caracciolus having from curiousity
   gone to hear him, was savingly impressed by what he heard; and it is to
   be noticed as an interesting coincidence, that the means of his
   conversion was a discourse on a passage in the First Epistle to the
   Corinthians.

   “At that time Peter Martyr was in hand with Paul’s First Epistle to the
   Corinthians, and as he was showing the weakness and deceitfulness of
   the judgment of man’s reason in spiritual things, as likewise the power
   and efficacy of the Word of God in those men in whom the Lord worketh
   by His Spirit — amongst other things he used this simile or comparison:
   If a man, walking in a large place, see afar off men and women dancing
   together, and hear no sound of instrument, he will judge them mad, or
   at least foolish; but if he come nearer them, and perceive their order
   and hear their music, and mark their measures and their courses, he
   will then be of another mind, and not only take delight in seeing them,
   but feel a desire in himself to bear them company and dance with them.
   Even the same (said Martyr) betides many men, who, when they behold in
   others a sudden and great change of their looks, apparel, behavior, and
   whole course of life, at the first sight they impute to melancholy, or
   some other foolish humor; but if they look more narrowly into the
   matter, and begin to hear and perceive the harmony and sweet consent of
   God’s Spirit, and His word in them, by the joint power of which two
   this change was made and wrought, (which afore they counted folly,)
   then they change their opinion of them, and first of all begin to like
   them, and that change in them, and afterwards feel in themselves a
   motion and desire to imitate them, and to be of the number of such men,
   who, forsaking the world and his vanities, do think that they ought to
   reform their lives by the rule of the gospel, that so they may come to
   true and sound holiness. This comparison, by the grace of God’s Spirit,
   wrought so wonderfully with Galeacius, as himself hath often told more
   carefully to restrain his affections from following the world and his
   pleasures, as before they did, and to set his mind about seeking out
   the truths of religion and the way to true happiness... And thus far,
   in this short time, had the Lord wrought with him by that sermon: — as
   first, to consider with himself seriously whether he were right or no:
   secondly, to take up an exercise continual of reading Scripture:
   thirdly, to change his former company and make choice of better. And
   this time was done in the year 1541, and in the four and twentieth year
   of his age.”

   Caracciolus having thus had his eyes opened to the errors of Popery,
   and being fully satisfied that it was his duty to embrace the
   Protestant faith, found himself placed in peculiarly trying
   circumstances. Even those of his countrymen who were personally
   inclined towards the Protestant cause could not be persuaded to hold
   meetings in private for their mutual edification, but were prepared not
   merely to conceal their real sentiments, but even to practice
   occasional conformity to the rites of Popery. In these circumstances he
   was called to consider whether he would be prepared to spend the
   remainder of his life in daily violation of the dictates of conscience,
   or forsake all for Christ.

   “The sacrifice of his secular dignities and possessions did not cost
   him a sigh, but as often as he reflected on the distress which his
   departure would inflict on his aged father, who, with parental pride,
   regarded him as the heir of his titles and the stay of his family, — or
   his wife whom he loved, and by whom he was loved tenderly, and on the
   dear pledges of their union, he was thrown into a state of unutterable
   anguish, and started back with horror from the resolution to which
   conscience had brought him. At length, by an heroic effort of zeal,
   which few can imitate and many will condemn, he came to the
   determination of bursting the tenderest ties which perhaps ever bound
   man to country and kindred.” [9]

   The reader will observe that the author of the work already referred to
   — “The Life of Galeacius Caracciolus,” etc., entitles it — “The Italian
   Convert — Newes from Italy of a Second Moses” — and in accordance with
   this title the writer, in the dedicatory epistle prefixed to the work,
   institutes a comparison between Moses and the subjects of his narrative
   in a variety of interesting particulars.

   “I may say much rather than Jacob — Few and evil have my days been; yet
   in these few days of mine something have I seen, more have I read, more
   have I heard; yet never saw I, heard I, or read I any example (all
   things laid together) more nearly seconding the examples of Moses than
   this of the most renowned Marquesse Galeacius. Moses was the adopted
   son of a king’s daughter; Galeacius the natural son and heir apparent
   to a Marquesse; Moses a courtier in the court of Pharoah, Galeacius in
   the court of the emperor Charles the Fifth; Moses by adoption a kin to
   a Queen, Galeacius by marriage to a Duke, by blood son to a Marquesse,
   nephew to a Pope; Moses in possibility of a kingdom, he in possession
   of a Marquesdome; Moses in his youth brought up in the heathenism of
   Egypt, Galeacius schooled in the superstition of Popery; Moses at last
   saw the truth and embraced it, so did Galeacius; Moses openly fell from
   the heathenism of Egypt, so did Galeacius from the superstition of
   Popery. But all this is nothing to that which they both suffered for
   their conscience. What Moses suffered Saint Paul tells us — ‘Moses,
   when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharoah’s
   daughter, and chose rather to suffer adversities with the people of
   God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the
   rebuke of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt.’ Nay,
   Moses had rather be a base brick maker amongst the oppressed
   Israelites, being true Christians, than to be the son of a king’s
   daughter in the court of Pharaoh amongst idolaters. In like case noble
   Galeacius, when he was come to years and knowledge of Christ, refused
   to be called son and heir to a Marquesse, cup-bearer to an Emperor,
   nephew to a Pope, and chose rather to suffer affliction, persecution,
   banishment, loss of lands, livings, wife, children, honors and
   preferments, than to enjoy the sinful pleasures of Italy for a season,
   esteeming the rebuke of Christ greater riches than the honors of a
   Marquesdome without Christ, and therefore, seeing he must either want
   Christ or want them, he despoiled himself of all these to gain Christ.
   So excellent was the fact of Moses, and so heroical, that the Holy
   Ghost vouchsafes it remembrance both in the Old and New Testament, that
   so the Church in all ages might know it and admire it, and doth
   chronicle it in the epistle to the Hebrews almost two thousand years
   after it was done. If God himself did so to Moses, shall not God’s
   Church be careful to commend to posterity this second Moses, whose love
   to Christ Jesus was so zealous, and so inflamed by the heavenly fire of
   God’s Spirit, that no earthly temptations could either quench or abate
   it; but to win Christ, and to enjoy Him in the liberty of His Word and
   Sacraments, he delicately contemned the honors and pleasures of the
   Marquesdome of Vicum — Vicum, one of the paradises of Naples, Naples,
   the paradise of Italy — Italy of Europe — Europe of the earth; yet all
   these paradises were nothing to him in comparison of attaining the
   celestial paradise, there to live with Jesus Christ.”

   “And for my part I freely and truly profess, I have been often ravished
   with admiration of this noble example — to see an Italian so excellent
   a Christian — one so near the Pope so near to Jesus Christ, and such
   blessed fruit to blossom in the Pope’s own garden; and to see a
   nobleman of Italy forsake that for Christ, for which I fear many
   amongst us would forsake Christ Himself. And surely (I confess truth)
   the serious consideration of this so late, so true, so strange an
   example hath been a spur to my slowness, and whetted my dull spirits,
   and made me to esteem more highly of religion than I did before. I know
   it is an accusation of myself, and a disclosing of my own shame to
   confess thus much; but it is a glory to God, an honor to religion, a
   credit to the truth, and a praise to this noble Marquesse, and
   therefore I will not hide it. And why should I shame to confess it,
   when that famous and renowned man of God, holy Calvin, freely
   confesseth, [10] as in the sequel of this story you shall hear, that
   this nobleman’s example did greatly confirm him in his religion, and
   did revive and strengthen his faith, and cheer up all the holy graces
   of God in him.”

   Caracciolus had no sooner left Naples, forsaking country and kindred
   for the sake of Christ and his gospel, than every possible effort was
   employed by his family and relatives, and all that were concerned for
   the credit of the religion that he had abandoned, to induce him to
   return.

   On his refusing to do so, “sentence was passed against him, and he was
   deprived of all the property which he inherited from his mother.” “In
   the following year... an offer was made to him in the name of his uncle
   now Pope Paul IV., [11] that he should have a protection against the
   Inquisition, provided he would take up his residence within the
   Venetian States; a proposal to which neither his safety nor the
   dictates of his conscience would permit him to accede.” He went
   repeatedly to Italy, and had interviews with his aged father, but was
   refused the privilege of seeing his wife and family, until about six
   years after he had quitted Naples. His wife, Victoria, then wrote to
   him, earnestly requesting an interview with him, and fixing the place
   of meeting. This she did on two different occasions, but in both
   instances, on his arrival at the appointed place, after a fatiguing and
   dangerous journey, he had the disappointment of finding that she did
   not make her appearance. At length, impatient of delay, he went once
   more to Italy, and at his father’s house had an interview with
   Victoria, when he entreated her to accompany him to Geneva, “promising
   that no restraint should be laid on her conscience, and that she should
   be at liberty to practice her religion under his roof. After many
   protestations of affection, she finally replied, that she could not
   reside out of Italy, nor in a place where any other religion than that
   of the Church of Rome was professed, and farther, that she could not
   live with him as her husband so long as he was infected with heresy.”
   The scene at their final parting was peculiarly tender. “Bursting into
   tears, and embracing her husband, Victoria besought him not to leave
   her a widow, and her babies fatherless. The children joined in the
   entreaties of their mother, and the eldest daughter, a fine girl of
   thirteen, grasping his knees, refused to part with him. How he
   disengaged himself, he knew not; for the first thing which brought him
   to recollection was the noise made by the sailors on reaching the
   opposite shore of the Gulf.” (of Venice.) “He used often to relate to
   his intimate friends, that the parting scene continued long to haunt
   his mind; and that not only in dreams, but also in reveries into which
   he fell during the day; he thought he heard the angry voice of his
   father, saw Victoria in tears, and felt his daughter dragging at his
   heels.” [12]

   Caracciolus spent the remainder of his days at Geneva, with the
   exception of five years spent by him at Nion and Lausanne, for the sake
   of economy in his living, and continued steadfast in his attachment to
   the Protestant faith. He was on terms of intimate friendship with
   Calvin, which continued unbroken until the death of the Reformer in
   1564 — thirteen years subsequent to the time when Carcciolus went to
   reside at Geneva. One step taken by him during his exile must be
   regarded as (to say the least) of greatly questionable propriety — that
   of contracting a second marriage, about nine years after he went to
   reside at Geneva. Calvin, on being consulted by him as to the propriety
   of such a step, “felt great scruples as to the expediency” of it, but
   “ultimately gave his approbation to it, after he had consulted the
   divines of Switzerland and the Grisons.” [13] Accordingly, the courts
   of Geneva having legally pronounced a sentence of divorce against
   Victoria, on the ground of her obstinate refusal to live with her
   husband, he married Anne Fremejere, the widow of a French refugee from
   Rouen, with whom he continued to live happily in a state of dignified
   frugality. [14] He was held, deservedly, by the Church of Geneva, and
   wherever he was known, in the greatest esteem, as one whose piety was
   of a very high order. Matthew Henry, in one part of his Writings, [15]
   makes mention of “a noble saying of the Marquis of Vico, ‘Let their
   money perish with them, who esteem all the wealth of this world worth
   one hour’s communion with God in Jesus Christ,’” and assuredly the
   devotedness manifested by him to the cause of Christ affords ample
   evidence that the sentiment was deeply inwrought into his mind. He died
   at Geneva in 1568, in the sixty-eighth year of his age.

   Calvin’s Commentary on Paul’s Epistles to the Corinthians having, (in
   common with a large portion of his Commentaries on other parts of the
   Scriptures) been translated by himself into French for the benefit of
   his countrymen, the Latin original and French version have been
   carefully collated, and any additional terms or clauses that occur in
   the latter, tending to bring out more fully the Author’s meaning, will
   be found given at the bottom of the page. “Calvin,” says Pasquier
   (Biographia Evangelica) “was a good writer, both in Latin and French,
   and our French tongue is highly obliged to him for enriching it with so
   great a number of fine expressions.” D’Aubigne, when speaking of
   Calvin’s early education, states that “he made great progress in Latin
   literature. He became familiar with Cicero, and learned from this great
   master to employ the language of the Romans with a facility, purity,
   and ease that excite the admiration even of his enemies. But at the
   same time, he found riches in this language which he afterwards
   transferred to his own.” “CALVIN when called upon to discuss and to
   prove, enriched his mother-tongue with modes of connection and
   dependence, with shadows, transitions, and dialectic forms, that it did
   not as yet possess.” [16]

   The Old English Translation of this part of Calvin’s Commentaries
   having been published in black letter in 1573, about thirty years after
   the Commentary itself was first published by Calvin, it is not to be
   wondered that it abounds with obsolete terms and phrases, fitted to
   render it unpalatable to modern taste. In addition to this, the
   Author’s meaning has, in not a few instances, been manifestly
   misapprehended, and in almost all cases Calvin’s critical observations
   are entirely omitted. The Translator, Mr. Thomas Timme, was the author
   of various works, one of which more particularly — quaintly entitled “A
   Silver Bell,” appears to have gained much celebrity. It has been
   thought proper to subjoin to this Preface, a fac-simile of the
   title-page to this old English version, with a copy of “The Epistle
   Dedicatorie” to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

   In preparing the present Translation of this part of Calvin’s
   Commentaries, care has been taken to bring out as fully as possible the
   Author’s meaning, while the reader will find in a variety of instances
   in the Notes some additional light thrown on some important but
   difficult passages — derived chiefly from the labors of interpreters
   that have appeared subsequently to the times of Calvin. The Translator
   is fully persuaded that Calvin’s Commentaries on both of Paul’s
   Epistles to the Corinthians will be found, in so far at least as the
   Author’s meaning is properly brought out in the Translation, to justify
   most amply the confident expectation of the Author himself, (as
   expressed in his first Dedication to the Commentary on the First
   Epistle) — that it would “furnish no ordinary assistance for thoroughly
   understanding Paul’s mind.”

   J.P.
   Elgin, October 1848.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1] Kirch-hoffer’s Life of Farel, pp. 281, 282.

   [2] Mackenzie’s Life of Calvin, p. 63.

   [3] “Un monument authentique;” — “An authentic moment.”

   [4] “Entier amy a jamais;” — “Thorough friend for ever.”

   [5] “Avertissement de l’Editeur.”

   [6] “Nihil haberet cum Ecclesia nostria commune;” — “De n’avoir rien de
   commun avec nostre Eglise;” — Might have nothing in common with our
   Church.

   [7] M’Crie’s History of the Reformation in Spain. — Note.

   [8] Baxter, in his “Treatise of Conversion,” makes the following
   interesting allusion to the case of Caracciolus: — “As it was with
   Carraciolus, the Marquis of Vicum, when his conscience bid him leave
   his land, and friends, and all for Christ, to forsake Popery, and
   betake himself to these countries where he might enjoy the gospel, his
   house and lands then came in his eyes: ‘What! must I leave all these
   for mere conscience, and live I know not how.’ His wife hangs upon him,
   his children with tears do cry after him, ‘O father! leave us not.’ And
   many a sob and sigh it costs his heart before he could resolve to get
   away.” — Baxter’s Works, volume 7. — Ed.

   [9] M’Crie’s History of the Reformation in Spain.

   [10] The reader will find the statement referred to in the second
   dedication prefixed by Calvin to his commentary on 1st Corinthians —
   “Caeterum quia et ego, quantum ad fidei meae pietatisque confirmationem
   valeat tuum exemplum experior,” etc.; — “As however I, for my part,
   know by experience the tendencies of your example to strengthen my
   faith and piety,” etc. — Ed.

   [11] It is remarked by David Dundas Scott, Esq., Translator of Ranke’s
   History of the Popes of Rome, in connexion with the case of certain
   relatives of Pope Paul IV. who had incurred his sever displeasure, that
   “although Paul seems to have relaxed the stern severity of the
   archinquisitor in regard to his Protestant nephew, [Galeacius
   Caracciolus,] by permitting him to be dealt with in the way of
   remonstrance and bribery, when another would have been arrested and put
   to death, still the compulsory retirement of the latter, after
   literally leaving ‘brethren and sisters, and father and mother, and
   wife and children, and lands for Christ’s sake and the gospel’ to
   Geneva, where he spent the evening of his days as a ruling-elder in the
   Italian Reformed Church, presented a striking contrast to the brilliant
   fortunes of his cousins the Caraffas, during their enjoyment of the
   Papal favor. But when the Pope found these ungrateful, and when that
   favor was lost, the Genevan exile [Caracciolus] must have felt
   peculiarly thankful for the deliverance he had had from such tempations
   and reverses, and one can hardly suppose but that the Pope himself must
   have been affected by the contrast at all points between his many Roman
   Catholic and one Reformed relative.” — Ranke’s History of the Romish
   Popes,. Note.

   [12] M’Crie’s History of the Reformation in Spain.

   [13] The part which Calvin acted as to this matter will be found to be
   in exact accordance with the [2]views expressed by him, when commenting
   on 1 Corinthians 7:15 — a passage on which opposite opinions have been
   entertained by eminent interpreters. It may be noticed in connexion
   with this case, that the United Brethren, when laboring in the West
   India Islands, near the close of the last century, felt greatly at a
   loss as to the course proper to be pursued in the case of converted
   negroes, whose husbands or wives had (as very frequently happened) been
   purchased by proprietors from other islands, and were, in consequence
   of this, parted from them for ever. “For some time” they “prohibited
   the converts from contracting another marriage, apprehending this to be
   inconsistent with the principles of Christianity.” Afterwards, however,
   in particular cases, they judged it better “not to hinder,” though they
   “did not advise, a regular marriage with another person.” — Brown’s
   History of Misssions, volume 1.

   [14] M’Crie’s History of the Reformation in Spain,

   [15] Communicant’s Companion.

   [16] D’Aubigne’s History of the Reformation, (Oliver and Boyd’s
   Edition,) volume 3.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Facsimile of the title page to the 1573 English Translation
     __________________________________________________________________

   A COMMENTARY

   UPON SAINT PAUL’S

   EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS

   WRITTEN BY M JOHN CALVIN;

   And translated out of Latin into English, by

   Thomas Timme, Minister.

   Imprinted at London, for

   John Harifon and George Byfhop.

   1573.

   To the Most Reverend Father
   in God, and His Singuler Good Lord, Edmond,
   by the Grace of God, Archbishop of Canterburie,
   Primate and Metropolitiane of all England, Thomas Timme
   wisheth the plentifull riches of the Spirite,
   in Christ Iesu

   After long exercise in translating such Latine Commentaries uppon the
   holy Scriptures, as I though most like to further my country men, which
   understand not that tongue, to the soud knowledg of true Religion: at
   last I tooke in hand M. Caluin’s exposition upon Saint Paul’s Epistles
   to the Corinthias. And, as in my poor judgment, the writer is a most
   excellent instrument of God, for the simple setting foorth of his
   trueth, so in making my choyse (most reverend Father) I could not
   devise with my selfe, a more fyt personage, to whom I might dedicate
   his trauayle, by my willing paynes translated, than to your Grace: So
   much the rather, for that as your selfe can skillfully iudge, so they,
   for whom I have taken this labor upon me, by your allowance (whereon
   they may and will rest) shalbe the more encouraged to lyke, and with
   greater diligence to reade, and to take the profite ment them thereby.
   And although my part herein by the least, and in respect thereof,
   unwoorthye to be presented to your hands, your worthines in eche
   condition considered: yet calling to mynde the benefites, which long
   ago in Cambridge, and els where since, I haue receyued by your Graces
   preferment: I thought it better nowe at the last, to aduenture the
   offer of this simple gift, being such as I haue, than utterly to shewe
   myself unthankeful for that I have receyued. Most humbly therefore
   beseeching your Grace, that as heretofore it hath pleased you to
   encourage me in this exercise, by licensing the first booke which I
   translated to passe the Englishe presse, so now you will vouchsafe to
   take in good part M. Caluin’s present, offered you by me. I ceasse to
   trouble you further, recommending your Grace, and all your godly
   affayres to almighty God, whom I heartely beseeche to direct in all
   heauenly wisdome, grace, and knowledge, now and euer.

   Your Graces most humble at all tymes,
   to commaunde, Thomas Tymme.
     __________________________________________________________________

   THE AUTHOR’S FIRST EPISTLE DEDICATORY

   TO THAT ILLUSTRIOUS MAN, JAMES OF BURGUNDY,
   MASTER OF FALAIS AND BREDA

   Would that this my Commentary, in which I have attempted to expound an
   Epistle not less obscure than useful, published, as it now is, in
   accordance with the earnest solicitations of many for a long time past,
   and even reiterated demands, may be correspondingly answerable to the
   hopes and wishes of all! I say this, not with the view of earning from
   this work any need of praise — an ambition that ought to be quite away
   from the minds of Christ’s servants — but from a desire that it may do
   good at all, which it cannot do, if it does meet with acceptance. I
   have, for my part, labored with the utmost faithfulness, and with no
   less diligence, that it may, without any show, be of the greatest
   service to the Church of God. How far I have succeeded, my readers will
   judge for themselves.

   This much at least I am confident that I have secured — that it will
   furnish no ordinary assistance for thoroughly understanding Paul’s
   mind. That it will to you, most illustrious Sir, prove exceedingly
   acceptable, is so far from appearing to me doubtful, that I find it
   necessary even to warn you against allowing yourself to be carried
   beyond due bounds by an undue attachment to me, though, if it should so
   happen, I shall nevertheless regard your judgment as of so much
   importance, that I shall reckon myself to have succeeded admirably in
   my labors, if they have secured your unqualified approbation.

   In dedicating my Work to you, [17] however, I have not been influenced
   solely by the hope of its being acceptable to you, but by various other
   considerations; and more especially this, that your personal character
   corresponded admirably with the argument of Paul’s Epistle. For while
   too many in the present day convert the Gospel into a cold and shadowy
   philosophy, imagining that they have sufficiently discharged their
   duty, if they simply give a nod of assent to what they hear, you, on
   the other hand, are an illustrious pattern of that living efficacy,
   [18] which Paul testifies, ought to breathe in the Gospel. This,
   assuredly, I do not mention on your account, but because I consider it
   to be of great importance by way of example.

   It would have been an important point gained, though there had been
   nothing more than this, that, in the first order of nobility, in the
   elevated station of honor which you had obtained, and amidst a large
   abundance of fortune and wealth, (situations in life that are all of
   them at the present day overrun with so many corruptions,) you have
   yourself lived moderately and temperately, and have regulated your
   household in a chaste and honorable discipline. You have done both
   admirably. For you have conducted yourself in such a manner, as to lead
   all to perceive, by clear tokens, that you are altogether free from
   ambition. While retaining your splendor, as was necessary, it has been
   in such a manner, that, moderate as has been your style of living, no
   symptom of meanness was to be seen; while, at the same time, it was
   abundantly apparent that you avoided magnificence rather than courted
   it. You have shown yourself affable and kind to all, so that all were
   constrained to commend your moderation, while there was not even the
   slightest token of haughtiness or insolence to give offense to any one.
   As to your household, suffice it to say, in one word, that is has been
   regulated in such a manner, as to reflect the mind and manners of the
   Lord, as a mirror does the person. Even this would have been an
   illustrious and rare pattern of virtue for imitation.

   I reckon it, however, of much greater importance, that while you have
   been groundlessly charged before the Emperor, through the calumnies of
   wicked men, and that, too, simply because Christ’s kingdom, whenever it
   begins to flourish in any quarter, drives them to madness and fury, you
   bear up with unconquerable magnanimity, and are now in exile from your
   native country, with no less credit than you had when adorning it
   previously with your presence. Other things I pass over, because it
   were tedious to enlarge. It ought indeed to be more than simply common
   and customary among Christians, not merely to leave contentedly behind
   them estates, castles, and princely domains, for Christ’s sake, but
   even cheerfully and willingly to despise in comparison with Him every
   thing that is most valued under heaven. In consequence, however, of the
   backwardness and indifference, too, of almost all of us, as the virtue
   itself is worthy of special admiration, so when it is seen in you so
   conspicuously, I do most earnestly desire that it may stir up many to a
   desire of emulation, that they may not in future be always lurking idly
   in their nests, but may at length discover openly some spark, if they
   have any, of Christian spirit.

   As to your being assaulted from time to time with fresh accusations by
   those who are manifestly the infuriated enemies of piety, they will
   gain nothing by this, except to make themselves more and more odious by
   their gross indulgence in falsehood. At least every man in his senses,
   perceives that they are mad dogs, that would fain tear you in pieces,
   and when they cannot bite, take revenge upon themselves by barking. It
   is well that they do so at a distance, so as to be perfectly harmless.
   From the injuries of the wicked, however, much as they have diminished
   your pecuniary resources, there has accrued to you no less glory among
   the pious. You, however, as becomes a Christian, look beyond this. For
   you rest satisfied with nothing short of the heavenly glory, which is
   laid up for us with God, and will be manifested, so soon as “our
   outward man perishes.” — (2 Corinthians 4:16.)

   Farewell, most illustrious Sir, with your noble partner. The Lord Jesus
   long preserve you both in safety for the spread of His kingdom, and
   always triumph in you over Satan, and the whole band of his troops!

   Geneva, 24th January 1546.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [17] In the interesting volume already referred to — “Lettres de Calvin
   a Jaque de Bourgogne“ — there is preserved the original letter of
   Calvin to James of Burgundy, (received on the 6th February 1546,)
   requesting permission to dedicate to him the Commentary on the First
   Epistle to the Corinthians. The following translation of such parts of
   said letter as bear upon this point, will be interesting to the reader:
   — “Since my letter was written, I have taken another thought as to the
   Dedicatory Epistle to my Commentary; for as there is much trouble and
   difficulty in binding one’s self to fill up a certain number of pages,
   and no more, I send it quite complete. At the same time it is with the
   understanding, that it is not to be printed, except by your order.
   Accordingly I enclose it in this, in order that Vendelin may not have
   it otherwise than through your hands. If it does not appear to you
   expedient that I should address it to you, I shall, on receiving notice
   to that effect, prepare a new one. “Be not surprised, however, if I
   speak of you briefly; for I was afraid of coming upon some thorny
   points by going into more detail. But, according as matters shall turn
   out, we shall be able, God willing, in the second impression, to
   present fully in detail everything that will be necessary.” In a
   subsequent letter to James of Burgundy, (received on the 2nd April
   1546,) Calvin expresses in the following terms his high satisfaction on
   receiving permission to dedicate the Commentary to him: — “I give
   praise to our Lord, because the present of my Commentary is agreeable
   to you.” (Lettres de Calvin, etc.) — Ed.

   [18] Among other passages in the First Epistle to the Corinthians,
   which Calvin may be supposed to have had more particularly in his eye,
   there are the following, — 1:24; 2:4; and 4:20. In commenting on the
   last of these passages, he complains, as above, of the very general
   lack in his times of “spiritualis efficacia,” (spiritual efficacy.) —
   Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   THE AUTHOR’S
   SECOND EPISTLE DEDICATORY

   TO LORD GALLIAZUS CARACCIOLUS:

   A Nobleman, Distinguished Still More By Eminent Virtues Than By
   Illustrious Descent, Only Son And Rightful Heir Of The Marquis Of Vico,
   Health: —

   Would that when this Commentary first saw the light, I had either not
   known at all, or else had known thoroughly the individual whose name,
   hitherto inscribed upon this page, I am now under the necessity of
   erasing! I have, it is true, no fear of his upbraiding me with
   fickleness, or complaining that I have taken from him what I had
   previously given, for having intentionally made it his object, not
   merely to withdraw as much as possible from me personally, but also to
   have no connection with our Church, he has left himself no just ground
   of complaint. It is, however, with reluctance that I deviate from my
   custom, so as to erase any one’s name from my writings, and it grieves
   me that that individual should have quitted the lofty eminence that I
   had assigned him, [19] so as not to hold out a light to others, as it
   was my desire that he should. [20] As, however, it is not in my power
   to remedy this evil, let him, so far as I am concerned, remain buried,
   as I am desirous even now of sparing his credit by not mentioning his
   name.

   To you, however, most illustrious Sir, I should have had to look out
   for some apology, for now putting you in his place, did I not freely
   take this liberty, from the confidence that I have in your incredible
   kindness of disposition, and your affection towards me personally,
   which is well known to all our friends. To return again to wishes,
   would that I had known you ten years sooner, for I should not have had
   occasion at present for making any change. So far as an example to the
   Church generally is concerned, it is a fortunate circumstance; because
   there will not only be no loss incurred by burying in oblivion the
   individual who has withdrawn from us, but in place of him we shall have
   in you a compensation [21] much more abundant and every way superior.
   For although you do not court public applause — satisfied to have God
   alone as your witness — and though it is not my design to herald your
   praises, yet it were not proper to conceal altogether from my readers
   what is useful and profitable to be known: — that a man, sprung from a
   family of the first rank, [22] prosperous in honors and wealth, blest
   with a spouse of the noblest descent and strictest virtue, a numerous
   offspring, domestic quiet and harmony, and happy in his entire
   condition in life, has, of his own accord, with the view of joining the
   camp of Christ, quitted his native country, has left behind him a
   fertile and lovely domain, a splendid patrimony, and a residence not
   less commodious than delightful, has stript himself of domestic
   splendor, has left father, wife, children, relatives, and connections,
   and after bidding farewell to so many worldly allurements, satisfied
   with our mean style, adopts our frugal and homely way of living, just
   as if he were one of ourselves. [23] I make mention, however, of these
   things to others, in such a way as not to overlook at the same time my
   own individual advantage; for if I hold up here, as in a mirror, your
   virtues before the eyes of my readers, in order that they may set
   themselves to imitate them, it were a shame if I, who have a nearer
   view of them, were not more keenly affected by a daily and distinct
   contemplation of them. As, however, I for my part know by experience
   the tendency of your example to strengthen my faith and piety, and all
   the children of God that live here acknowledge, as I do, that they have
   derived from this source no ordinary advantage, I have thought that it
   might be of importance, that, by my publishing it, the like benefit
   were made to flow out to a still greater distance. But for this, [24]
   it were utter folly to expatiate in the praises of a man, whose nature
   and disposition are at the farthest distance possible from ostentation,
   and that, too, before persons who are in foreign and far distant
   regions. Hence, if any considerable number to whom, in consequence of
   distance, you have been hitherto unknown, shall, on this admirable
   example being presented to them, prepare to imitate it, by leaving the
   nests to which they too fondly cling, I shall have obtained an ample
   reward for what I have written.

   It ought, indeed, to have been more than simply common and customary
   among Christians, not simply to leave contentedly behind them estates,
   castles, and princely domains, where Christ cannot be followed
   otherwise, but even cheerfully and willingly to despise, in comparison
   with Him, everything that is most valued under heaven. [25] Such,
   however, is the backwardness or rather indifference that pervades all
   of us, that, while many give a cold assent [26] to the doctrine of the
   gospel, scarcely one in a hundred will, for the sake of it, if he
   possesses the most insignificant little farm, allow himself to be torn
   from it. Scarcely one is induced, without the greatest difficulty, to
   renounce the smallest conveniences: so very far are they from being
   prepared to abandon, as were befitting, life itself. [27] Above all
   things, I should wish that all resembled you in that first of all
   excellences — self-denial. For you are well prepared to bear witness to
   me, and I in like manner to you, how little pleasure we feel in
   cultivating the society of those, who, after leaving their native
   country, come at length to manifest, that they have not left their old
   dispositions behind them.

   As, however, it were better that my readers should revolve in their
   minds, more than I can express in words, I now turn to entreat, that
   God, who has encouraged you hitherto by the wonderful efficacy of His
   Spirit, may furnish you with an unconquerable perseverance unto the
   end. For I am well aware with what arduous conflicts God has exercised
   you, and from which, in accordance with your singular prudence, you
   conclude, that a hard and laborious warfare is still awaiting you. Well
   knowing, however, from ample experience, how necessary it is for us to
   have a hand held out to us from heaven, you will, of your own accord,
   unite with me in imploring from that source the gift of perseverance.
   As for myself, I will entreat Christ our King, to whom supreme power
   has been given by the Father, and in whose hands all the treasures of
   spiritual blessings have been deposited, that He may long preserve you
   safely to us for the spread of His kingdom; and that He may in you
   accomplish farther triumphs over Satan and his bands.

   24th January 1556, ten years after this Commentary was first published.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [19] “Par mon Epistre;” — “By my Epistle.”

   [20] “Par bon exemple;” — “By a good example.”

   [21] “On aura en vous pour recompense vn exemple;” — “We shall have in
   you, by way of compensation, an example.”

   [22] “Vn homme de maison anciene et grand parentage;” — “A man of an
   ancient house and great parentage.”

   [23] “Vit frugalement et selon la facon du commun peuple, ne plus ne
   moins qu’un autre d’entre nous le premier qu’on scache prendre;” — “He
   lives frugally, and after the manner of the common people, neither more
   nor less than one of ourselves, the first that might be fixed upon.”

   [24] “Autrement, si je n’auoye cest esgard;” — “Otherwise, if I had not
   this in view.”

   [25] The reader will observe that Calvin here repeats, in precisely the
   same words, a statement which had been made by him in his previous
   dedication to James of Burgundy, and unquestionably the conduct of
   Caracciolus still more strikingly exemplified the spirit of self-denial
   which Calvin here recommends. — Ed.

   [26] “Consentent a la doctrine de l’Evangile tellement quellement, et
   comme faisans signe de la teste;” — “They consent to the doctrine of
   the gospel in some sort of way, and as giving a nod of assent with the
   head.”

   [27] “Pour ceste querelle;” — “In that contest.”
     __________________________________________________________________

   THE ARGUMENT

   ON THE

   FIRST EPISTLE TO THE

   CORINTHIANS

   The advantages of this Epistle are various and manifold; for it
   contains many special topics, [28] the handling of which successively
   in their order, will show how necessary they are to be known. Nay, it
   will appear in part from the argument itself, in the recital of which I
   shall study to be brief, yet in such a way as to take in the whole,
   without omitting any of the leading points.

   Corinth, as every one knows, was a wealthy and celebrated city of
   Achaia. While it was destroyed by L. Mummius for no other reason than
   that the advantageousness of its situation excited his suspicions,
   posterity afterwards rebuilt it for the same reason that Mummius had
   for destroying it. [29] The convenience of the situation, too,
   occasioned its being restored again in a short time. For as it had the
   Aegean Sea contiguous on the one side, and the Ionian on the other, and
   as it was a thoroughfare between Attica and the Peloponnesus, it was
   very conveniently situated for imports and exports. Paul, after
   teaching there for a year and a half, as Luke mentions in the Acts,
   constrained at length by the wickedness of the Jews, sailed thence into
   Syria (Acts 18:11, 18.) During Paul’s absence false apostles had crept
   in, not, in my opinion, to disturb the Church openly with wicked
   doctrines, or designedly to undermine sound doctrine; but, priding
   themselves in the splendor and magnificence of their address, or
   rather, being puffed up with an empty loftiness of speech, they looked
   upon Paul’s simplicity, and even the Gospel itself, with contempt. They
   afterwards, by their ambition, gave occasion for the Church being split
   into various parties; and, last of all, reckless as to every thing,
   provided only they were themselves held in estimation, made it their
   aim to promote their own honor, rather than Christ’s kingdom and the
   people’s welfare.

   On the other hand, as those vices prevailed at Corinth with which
   mercantile cities are wont to be particularly infested, — luxury,
   pride, vanity, effeminacy, insatiable covetousness, and ambition; so
   they had found their way even into the Church itself, so that
   discipline was greatly relaxed. Nay more, purity of doctrine had
   already begun to decline, so that the main article of religion — the
   resurrection of the dead — was called in question. Yet amidst this
   great corruption in every department, they were satisfied with
   themselves, equally as though every thing had been on the best possible
   footing. Such are Satan’s usual artifices. If he cannot prevent the
   progress of doctrine, he creeps forward secretly to make an attack upon
   it: if he cannot by direct falsehoods suppress it, so as to prevent it
   from coming forth to light, he digs secret mines for its overthrow; and
   in fine, if he cannot alienate men’s minds from it, he leads them by
   little and little to deviate from it.

   As to those worthless persons, however, who had disturbed the
   Corinthian Church, it is not without good ground that I conclude that
   they were not open enemies of the truth. We see that Paul nowhere else
   spares false doctrines. The Epistles to the Galatians, to the
   Colossians, to the Philippians, and to Timothy, are short; yet in all
   of them he does not merely censure the false apostles, but also points
   out at the same time in what respects they injured the Church. Nor is
   it without good reason; for believers must not merely be admonished as
   to the persons whom they ought to shun, they must also be shown the
   evil against which they should be on their guard. I cannot therefore
   believe that, in this comparatively long Epistle, he was prepared to
   pass over in silence what he carefully insists upon in others that are
   much shorter. In addition to this, he makes mention of many faults of
   the Corinthians, and even some that are apparently trivial, so that he
   appears to have had no intention of passing over any thing in them that
   was deserving of reproof. Besides, he must, in any other view, be
   regarded as wasting many words in disputing against those absurd
   teachers and prating orators. [30] He censures their ambition; he
   reproves them for transforming the gospel into human philosophy; he
   shows that they are destitute of the efficacy of the Spirit, inasmuch
   as they are taken up with mere ornaments of speech, and seek after a
   mere dead letter; but not a word is there as to a single false
   doctrine. Hence I conclude that they were persons who did not openly
   take away any thing from the substance of the gospel, but, as they
   burned with a misdirected eagerness for distinction, I am of opinion
   that, with the view of making themselves admired, they contrived a new
   method of teaching, at variance with the simplicity of Christ. This
   must necessarily be the case with all that have not as yet thrown off
   self, that they may engage unreservedly in the Lord’s work. The first
   step towards serving Christ is to lose sight of ourselves, and think
   only of the Lord’s glory and the salvation of men. Farther, no one will
   ever be qualified for teaching that has not first himself tasted the
   influence of the gospel, so as to speak not so much with the mouth, as
   with the dispositions of the heart. Hence, those that are not
   regenerated by the Spirit of God — not having felt inwardly the
   influence of the gospel, and know not what is meant when it is said
   that we must become new creatures, (John 3:7) have a dead preaching,
   whereas it ought to be lively and efficacious; and, with the view of
   playing off their part, they disfigure the gospel by painting it over,
   so as to make it a sort of worldly philosophy.

   Nor was it difficult for those of whom we are now speaking to
   accomplish this at Corinth. For merchants are usually led away with
   outward disguises, and they do not merely allow themselves to be
   imposed upon by the empty show with which they deceive others, but in a
   manner take delight in this. Besides, as they have delicate ears, so
   that they cannot bear to be rudely taken to task, so if they meet with
   teachers of the milder sort, that will handle them gently, they give
   them, as it were, a reward in turn by caressing them. [31] It is so, I
   grant, everywhere; but it is more especially common in wealthy and
   mercantile cities. Paul, who was in other respects a god-like man, and
   distinguished by admirable virtues, was, nevertheless, not adorned with
   outward elegance, and was not puffed up with show, with the view of
   setting himself off to advantage. In fine, as he was inwardly
   replenished with the genuine excellence of the Spirit, so he had
   nothing of outward show. He knew not to flatter, and was not concerned
   to please men. (Galatians 1:10.) The one object that he had in view
   was, that Christ might reign, himself and all others being brought
   under subjection to him. As the Corinthians were desirous of doctrine
   that was ingenious, rather than useful, the gospel had no relish for
   them. As they were eager for new things, Christ had now become stale.
   Or if they had not as yet fallen into these vices, they were,
   nevertheless, already of their own accord predisposed to corruptions of
   that nature. Such were the facilities afforded to the false apostles
   for adulterating the doctrine of Christ among them; for adulterated it
   is, when its native simplicity is stained, and in a manner painted
   over, so as to differ nothing from worldly philosophy. Hence, to suit
   the taste of the Corinthians, they seasoned their preaching in such a
   way that the true savor of the gospel was destroyed. We are now in
   possession of the design that Paul had in view in writing this Epistle.
   I shall now take in the sum of the argument, by noting down briefly the
   particular heads of discourse.

   He begins with an ascription of praise, [32] that is in effect an
   exhortation, that they should go on as they have begun, and in this way
   he soothes them beforehand, that he may make them the more docile.
   Immediately afterwards, however, he proceeds to chide them, making
   mention of the dissensions with which their Church was infested. Being
   desirous to cure this evil, he calls upon them to exchange haughtiness
   for humility. For he overthrows all the wisdom of the world, that the
   preaching of the Cross may alone be exalted. He also at the same time
   abases them as individuals, in exhorting them to look around and see
   what class of persons chiefly the Lord has adopted as members of his
   flock.

   In the second chapter he brings forward, by way of example, his own
   preaching, which, in the account of men, was base and contemptible, but
   had nevertheless been signalized by the influence of the Spirit. And in
   the meantime he unfolds at greater length the sentiment, that there is
   a heavenly and secret wisdom that is contained in the gospel, which
   cannot be apprehended by any acuteness or perspicacity of intellect, or
   by any perception of sense, and is not influenced by human reasonings,
   and needs no meretricious ornament of words or embellishment, but
   simply by the revelation of the Spirit comes to be known by the
   understandings of men, and is sealed upon their hearts. He at length
   comes to this conclusion, that the preaching of the gospel does not
   merely differ widely from the wisdom of the flesh, and consists in the
   abasement of the Cross, but cannot be estimated as to its true nature
   by the judgment of the flesh; and this he does, with the view of
   drawing them off from a mistaken confidence in their own judgment, by
   which they measured every thing amiss.

   The beginning of the third chapter contains the application of this
   last department of the subject to their case. For Paul complains, that,
   being carnal, they were scarcely capable of learning the first
   rudiments of the gospel. He intimates in this way, that the distaste
   which they had contracted for the word, arose from no fault in the word
   itself, but from their ignorance; and at the same time he indirectly
   admonishes them, that they need to have their minds renewed, before
   they will begin to judge aright. He afterwards shows in what estimation
   the ministers of the gospel ought to be held — that it ought to be in
   such a way, that the honor given to them does not in any degree detract
   from the glory that is due to God — as there is one Lord, and all are
   his servants: all are mere instruments; he alone imparts efficacy, and
   from him proceeds the entire result. He shows them, at the same time,
   what they ought to have as their aim — to build up the Church. He takes
   occasion from this to point out the true and proper method of building
   aright. It is to have Christ alone as the foundation, and the entire
   structure harmonizing with the foundation. And here, having stated in
   passing that he is a wise master-builder, he admonishes those that come
   after him to make the end [33] correspond with the beginning. He
   exhorts also the Corinthians not to allow their souls to be desecrated
   by corrupt doctrines, inasmuch as they are temples of God. Here he
   again brings to naught proud fleshly wisdom, that the knowledge of
   Christ may alone be in estimation among believers.

   In the beginning of the fourth chapter he points out what is the office
   of a true apostle. And as it was their corrupt judgment that prevented
   them from recognizing him as such, putting it aside, he appeals to the
   day of the Lord. Farther, as he was contemptible in their view from an
   appearance of abasement, he teaches them that this ought to be regarded
   as an honor to him rather than a disgrace. He afterwards brings forward
   tokens, from which it might in reality appear that he had not consulted
   his own glory, or his own belly (Romans 16:18), but had with
   faithfulness devoted himself exclusively to Christ’s work. He comes at
   length to infer what honor is due to him from the Corinthians. In the
   close of the chapter he recommends Timothy to them, until he shall come
   to them himself; and at the same time he forewarns them that, on his
   coming, he will openly discover how little account he makes of those
   empty boastings by which the false apostles endeavored to recommend
   themselves.

   In the fifth chapter he takes them to task, for silently tolerating an
   incestuous connection between a son-in-law and a mother-in-law, and
   instructs them that in connection with a crime of such enormity, there
   was good reason why they should be covered with shame, instead of being
   elated with pride. From this he passes on to lay down a general
   doctrine to this effect, that crimes of that nature ought to be
   punished with excommunication, that indulgence in sin may be repressed,
   and that the infection may not spread from one individual to the
   others.

   The sixth chapter consists chiefly of two parts. In the first he
   inveighs against law-suits, with which they harassed one another,
   before unbelievers, to the great dishonor of the gospel. In the second
   he reproves indulgence in fornication, which had come to such a pitch,
   that it was almost looked upon as a lawful thing. He sets out with a
   heavy threatening, and afterwards enforces that threatening with
   arguments.

   The seventh chapter contains a discussion in reference to virginity,
   marriage, and celibacy. So far as we may conjecture from Paul’s words,
   a superstitious notion had become prevalent among the Corinthians of
   this nature — that virginity was a distinguished, and in a manner
   angelic virtue, so that marriage was held by them in contempt, as
   though it had been a profane thing. With the view of removing this
   error, he teaches that every one must consider what his gift is, and
   not strive in this matter beyond his ability, inasmuch as all have not
   the same calling. Accordingly he shows who they are that may abstain
   from marriage, and what ought to be the design of abstaining from it;
   and on the other hand, who they are that ought to enter into the
   married state, and what is the true principle of Christian marriage.

   In the eighth chapter he prohibits them from having fellowship with
   idolaters in their impure sacrifices, or giving countenance to anything
   of such a nature as might injure weak consciences. And as they excused
   themselves on this pretext, that they did not by any means connect
   themselves with idolaters in any corrupt sentiment, inasmuch as they
   acknowledged in their heart one God, and regarded idols as empty
   contrivances, he sets aside this excuse, on this principle that every
   one ought to have a regard to his brethren, and that there are many
   weak persons whose faith might be staggered by such dissimulation.

   In the ninth chapter he shows that he requires from them nothing more
   than he himself practiced, that he may not be reckoned so unreasonable
   as to impose upon others a law that he did not himself observe. For he
   puts them in mind how he had voluntarily refrained from availing
   himself of the liberty granted him by the Lord, lest he should give
   occasion of offense to any one, and how he had, in things indifferent,
   put on as it were various appearances, with the view of accommodating
   himself to all, that they may learn from his example that no one should
   be so devoted to self as not to endeavor to accommodate himself to his
   brethren for their edification.

   Now as the Corinthians were highly satisfied with themselves, as we
   said in the outset, in the beginning of the tenth chapter he admonishes
   them, from the example of the Jews, not to deceive themselves by a
   mistaken confidence; for if they are puffed up on account of outward
   things and gifts of God, he shows that the Jews were not without
   similar ground of glorying, and yet all this availed them nothing,
   because they abused their privileges. After alarming them by this
   threatening he returns immediately to the subject on which he had
   previously entered, and shows how unseemly it is for those who partake
   of the Lord’s Supper to be participants in the “table of devils,” that
   being a shameful and insufferable pollution. He at length draws this
   conclusion, that all our actions should be regulated in such a manner
   as not to be an occasion of offense to any one.

   In the eleventh chapter he clears the public assemblies from certain
   corrupt observances, which were at variance with Christian decorum and
   propriety, and shows what gravity and modesty ought to be exercised
   when we stand in the view of God and angels. He takes them to task,
   however, chiefly for their corrupt administration of the Supper. He
   subjoins the method of correcting the abuse that had crept in, which is
   by calling them back to our Lord’s original institution, as the only
   sure rule and permanent law of right acting.

   As, however, many abused spiritual gifts for purposes of ambition, he
   enters into a discussion, in the twelfth chapter, as to the purpose for
   which they are conferred by God, and also as to what is the proper and
   genuine use of them, which is, that by contributing mutually to each
   other’s advantage, we may be united together in one body, that of
   Christ. This doctrine he illustrates by drawing a similitude from the
   human body, in which, although there are different members and various
   faculties, there is nevertheless such a symmetry and fellow-feeling,
   that what has been conferred on the members severally contributes to
   the advantage of the whole body — and hence love is the best directress
   in this matter. [34]

   The subject he follows out at greater length, and illustrates it more
   fully in the thirteenth chapter. The sum is this — that all things must
   be viewed in relation to love. He takes occasion from this to make a
   digression for the purpose of commending that virtue, that he may the
   more strongly recommend the pursuit of it, and may encourage the
   Corinthians the more to cultivate it.

   In the fourteenth chapter he begins to point out more particularly in
   what respect the Corinthians had erred in the use of spiritual gifts;
   and as mere show bulked so much in their estimation, he teaches them
   that in all things edification alone should be looked to. For this
   reason he prefers prophecy to all other gifts, as being more useful,
   while the Corinthians set a higher value on tongues, purely from empty
   show. In addition to this, he lays down the right order of procedure,
   and at the same time reproves the fault of sounding forth in unknown
   tongues without any advantage, while in the meantime the doctrine and
   exhortations, which ought ever to hold the foremost place, were left in
   the background. He afterwards forbids women to teach publicly, as being
   a thing unseemly.

   In the fifteenth chapter he inveighs against a very pernicious error,
   which, although we can scarcely suppose it to have spread generally
   among the Corinthians, had nevertheless taken possession of the minds
   of some of them to such a degree, that it was necessary that a remedy
   should be openly administered. He appears, however, to have
   intentionally delayed mentioning this matter until the close of the
   Epistle, for this reason — that if he had set out with this, or had
   entered upon it immediately after commencing, they might have thought
   that they were all reckoned to be in fault. The hope of a resurrection,
   accordingly, he shows to be so necessary, that, if it is taken away,
   the whole gospel falls to pieces. Having established the doctrine
   itself by powerful arguments, he subjoins also the principle and manner
   of it. In fine, he carefully draws out a full discussion of this point.

   The sixteenth chapter consists of two parts. In the first of these he
   exhorts them to relieve the necessity of the brethren at Jerusalem.
   They were at that time pinched with famine, and they were cruelly
   treated by the wicked. The apostles had assigned to Paul the charge of
   stirring up the Churches of the Gentiles to afford them help. He
   accordingly exhorts them to lay up in store whatever they were inclined
   to contribute, that it might be transmitted to Jerusalem without delay.
   He at length concludes the Epistle with a friendly exhortation and
   congratulations.

   Hence we may gather, as I stated in the outset, that the Epistle is
   replete with most profitable doctrine, containing, as it does, a
   variety of discussions on many important topics.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [28] “Bonnes matieres, et points de doctrine;” — “Good subjects and
   points of doctrines.”

   [29] Strabo describes Mummius as “megalaphrōn mallon ē philotechnos,” —
   “a man of magnanimity rather than a lover of the arts.” — Ed

   [30] “Ces habiles docteurs, et plaisans harangueurs;” — “Those expert
   teachers and pleasant orators.”

   [31] “En flattant et mignardant ces bons maistres;” — “By flattering
   and caressing these good master.”

   [32] “En s’esiouissant de leur avancement en l’Evangile;” — “While
   exulting in their profiency in the gospel.”

   [33] “De leur besongne;” — “Of their work.”

   [34] “Ainsi, il conclud, que charite nous seruira d’vne bonne regle
   pour nous bien gouuerner en cest endroit;” — “Thus, he concludes, that
   charity will furnish us with a good rule for directing us aright in
   this matter.”
     __________________________________________________________________

   COMMENTARY ON THE

   FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS

   CHAPTER 1
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 1:1-3

   1. Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of
   God, and Sosthenes our brother,

   1. Paulus, vocatus apostolus Jesu Christi per voluntatem Dei, et
   Sosthenes frater,

   2. Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are
   sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every
   place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and
   ours:

   2. Ecclesiae Dei quae est Corinthi, sanctificatis in Christo Jesu,
   vocatis sanctis, una cum omnibus qui invocant nomen Domini nostri Jesu
   Christi in quovis loco tam sui quam nostri: [35]

   3. Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord
   Jesus Christ.

   3. Gratia vobis et pax a Deo Patre nostro, et Domino Jesu Christi.


   1. Paul, called to be an Apostle In this manner does Paul proceed, in
   almost all the introductions to his Epistles, with the view of
   procuring for his doctrine authority and favor. The former he secures
   to himself from the station that had been assigned to him by God, as
   being an Apostle of Christ sent by God; the latter by testifying his
   affection towards those to whom he writes. We believe much more readily
   the man whom we look upon as regarding us with affection, and as
   faithfully endeavoring to promote our welfare. In this salutation,
   therefore, he claims for himself authority, when he speaks of himself
   as an Apostle of Christ, and that, too, as called by God, that is, set
   apart by the will of God Now, two things are requisite in any one that
   would be listened to in the Church, and would occupy the place of a
   teacher; for he must be called by God to that office, and he must
   faithfully employ himself in the discharge of its duties. Paul here
   lays claim to both. For the name, Apostle, implies that the individual
   conscientiously acts the part of an ambassador for Christ (2
   Corinthians 5:19), and proclaims the pure doctrine of the gospel. But
   as no one ought to assume this honor to himself, unless he be called to
   it, he adds, that he had not rashly intruded into it, but had been
   appointed [36] to it by God.

   Let us learn, therefore, to take these two things together when we wish
   to ascertain what kind of persons we ought to esteem as ministers of
   Christ, — a call to the office, and faithfulness in the discharge of
   its duties. For as no man can lawfully assume the designation and rank
   of a minister, unless he be called, so it were not enough for any one
   to be called, if he does not also fulfill the duties of his office. For
   the Lord does not choose ministers that they may be dumb idols, or
   exercise tyranny under pretext of their calling, or make their own
   caprice their law; but at the same time marks out what kind of persons
   they ought to be, and binds them by his laws, and in fine chooses them
   for the ministry, or, in other words, that in the first place they may
   not be idle, and, secondly, that they may confine themselves within the
   limits of their office. Hence, as the apostleship depends on the
   calling, so the man who would be reckoned an apostle, must show himself
   to be really such: nay more, so must every one who demands that credit
   be given him, or that his doctrine be listened to. For since Paul rests
   on these arguments for establishing his authority, worse than impudent
   were the conduct of that man who would think to have any standing
   without such proofs.

   It ought, however, to be observed, that it is not enough for any one to
   hold out to view the title to a call to the office, along with
   faithfulness in discharging its duties, if he does not in reality give
   proof of both. For it often happens that none boast more haughtily of
   their titles than those that are destitute of the reality; as of old
   the false prophets, with lofty disdain, boasted that they had been sent
   by the Lord. Nay, at the present day, what else do the Romanists make a
   noise about, but “ordination from God, and an inviolably sacred
   succession even from the Apostles themselves,” [37] while, after all,
   it appears that they are destitute of those things of which they vaunt?
   Here, therefore, it is not boasting that is required, but reality. Now,
   as the name is assumed by good and bad alike, we must come to the test,
   that we may ascertain who has a right to the name of Apostle, and who
   has not. As to Paul, God attested his calling by many revelations, and
   afterwards confirmed it by miracles. The faithfulness must be estimated
   by this, — whether or not he proclaimed the pure doctrine of Christ. As
   to the twofold call — that of God and that of the Church — see my
   Institutes. [38]

   An Apostle Though this name, agreeably to its etymology, has a general
   signification, and is sometimes employed in a general sense, to denote
   any kind of ministers, [39] yet, as a peculiar designation, it is
   applicable to those that were set apart by the Lord’s appointment to
   publish the Gospel throughout the whole world. Now, it was of
   importance that Paul should be reckoned in that number, for two
   reasons, — first, because much more deference was paid to them than to
   other ministers of the gospel; and, secondly, because they alone,
   properly speaking, had authority to instruct all the Churches.

   By the will of God While the Apostle is accustomed cheerfully to
   acknowledge himself indebted to God for whatever he has of good, he
   does so more especially in reference to his apostleship, that he may
   free himself from all appearance of presumption. And assuredly as a
   call to salvation is of grace, so also a call to the office of apostle
   is of grace, as Christ teaches in these words:

   “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,”
   (John 15:16.)

   Paul, however, at the same time indirectly intimates, that all who
   attempt to undermine his apostleship, or in any way oppose it, contend
   against an appointment of God. For Paul here makes no useless boast of
   honorary titles, but designedly vindicates his apostleship from
   malicious aspersions. For as his authority must have been sufficiently
   established in the view of the Corinthians, it would have been
   superfluous to make particular mention of “the will of God,” had not
   wicked men attempted by indirect means to undermine that honorable rank
   which had been divinely assigned him.

   And Sosthenes our brother This is that Sosthenes who was ruler of the
   Jewish synagogue that was at Corinth, of whom Luke makes mention in
   Acts 18:17. His name is added for this reason, that the Corinthians,
   knowing his ardor and steadfastness in the gospel, could not but hold
   him in deserved esteem, and hence it is still more to his honor to be
   made mention of now as Paul’s brother, than formerly as ruler of the
   synagogue

   2. To the Church of God which is at Corinth. It may perhaps appear
   strange that he should give the name of a Church of God to a multitude
   of persons that were infested with so many distempers, that Satan might
   be said to reign among them rather than God. Certain it is, that he did
   not mean to flatter the Corinthians, for he speaks under the direction
   of the Spirit of God, who is not accustomed to flatter. But [40] among
   so many pollutions, what appearance of a Church is any longer
   presented? I answer, the Lord having said to him, “Fear not: I have
   much people in this place” (Acts 18:9, 10;) keeping this promise in
   mind, he conferred upon a godly few so much honor as to recognize them
   as a Church amidst a vast multitude of ungodly persons. Farther,
   notwithstanding that many vices had crept in, and various corruptions
   both of doctrine and manners, there were, nevertheless, certain tokens
   still remaining of a true Church. This is a passage that ought to be
   carefully observed, that we may not require that the Church, while in
   this world, should be free from every wrinkle and stain, or forthwith
   pronounce unworthy of such a title every society in which everything is
   not as we would wish it. For it is a dangerous temptation to think that
   there is no Church at all where perfect purity is not to be seen. For
   the man that is prepossessed with this notion, must necessarily in the
   end withdraw from all others, and look upon himself as the only saint
   in the world, or set up a peculiar sect in company with a few
   hypocrites.

   What ground, then, had Paul for recognizing a Church at Corinth? It was
   this: that he saw among them the doctrine of the gospel, baptism, the
   Lord’s Supper — tokens by which a Church ought to be judged of. For
   although some had begun to have doubts as to the resurrection, the
   error not having spread over the entire body, the name of the Church
   and its reality are not thereby affected. Some faults had crept in
   among them in the administration of the Supper, discipline and
   propriety of conduct had very much declined: despising the simplicity
   of the gospel, they had given themselves up to show and pomp; and in
   consequence of the ambition of their ministers, they were split into
   various parties. Notwithstanding of this, however, inasmuch as they
   retained fundamental doctrine: as the one God was adored among them,
   and was invoked in the name of Christ: as they placed their dependence
   for salvation upon Christ, and, had a ministry not altogether
   corrupted: there was, on these accounts, a Church still existing among
   them. Accordingly, wherever the worship of God is preserved
   uninfringed, and that fundamental doctrine, of which I have spoken,
   remains, we must without hesitation conclude that in that case a Church
   exists.

   Sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints He makes mention of the
   blessings with which God had adorned them, as if by way of upbraiding
   them, at least in the event of their showing no gratitude in return.
   For what could be more base than to reject an Apostle through whose
   instrumentality they had been set apart as God’s peculiar portion.
   Meanwhile, by these two epithets, he points out what sort of persons
   ought to be reckoned among the true members of the Church, and who they
   are that belong of right to her communion. For if you do not by
   holiness of life show yourself to be a Christian, you may indeed be in
   the Church, and pass undetected, [41] but of it you cannot be. Hence
   all must be sanctified in Christ who would be reckoned among the people
   of God. Now the term sanctification denotes separation This takes place
   in us when we are regenerated by the Spirit to newness of life, that we
   may serve God and not the world. For while by nature we are unholy, the
   Spirit consecrates us to God. As, however, this is effected when we are
   engrafted into the body of Christ, apart from whom there is nothing but
   pollution, and as it is also by Christ, and not from any other source
   that the Spirit is conferred, it is with good reason that he says that
   we are sanctified in Christ, inasmuch as it is by Him that we cleave to
   God, and in Him become new creatures.

   What immediately follows — called to be saints — I understand to mean:
   As ye have been called unto holiness. It may, however, be taken in two
   senses. Either we may understand Paul to say, that the ground of
   sanctification is the call of God, inasmuch as God has chosen them;
   meaning, that this depends on his grace, not on the excellence of men;
   or we may understand him to mean, that, it accords with our profession
   that we be holy, this being the design of the doctrine of the gospel.
   The former interpretation appears to suit better with the context, but
   it is of no great consequence in which way you understand it, as there
   is an entire agreement between the two following positions — that our
   holiness flows from the fountain of divine election, and that it, is
   the end of our calling.

   We must, therefore, carefully maintain, that it is not through our own
   efforts that we are holy, but by the call of God, because He alone
   sanctifies those who were by nature unclean. And certainly it appears
   to me probable, that, when Paul has pointed out as it were with his
   finger the fountain of holiness thrown wide open, he mounts up a step
   higher, to the good pleasure of God, in which also Christ’s mission to
   us originated. As, however, we are called by the gospel to harmlessness
   of life (Philippians 2:15,) it is necessary that this be accomplished
   in us in reality, in order that our calling may be effectual. It will,
   however, be objected, that, there were not many such among the
   Corinthians. I answer, that the weak are not excluded from this number;
   for here God only begins his work in us, and by little and little
   carries it forward gradually and by successive steps. I answer farther,
   that Paul designedly looks rather to the grace of God in them than to
   their own defects, that he may put them to shame for their negligence,
   if they do not act a suitable part.

   With all that call. This, too, is an epithet common to all the pious;
   for as it is one chief exercise of faith to call upon the name of God,
   so it is also by this duty chiefly that believers are to be estimated.
   Observe, also, that he says that Christ is called upon by believers,
   and this affords a proof of his divinity — invocation being one of the
   first expressions of Divine homage. Hence invocation here by synecdoche
   [42] (kata sunekdochēn) denotes the entire profession of faith in
   Christ, as in many passages of Scripture it is taken generally for the
   whole of Divine worship. Some explain it as denoting mere profession,
   but this appears to be meager, and at variance with its usual
   acceptation in Scripture. The little words nostri (ours) and sui
   (theirs) I have put in the genitive, understanding them as referring to
   Christ, while others, understanding them as referring to place, render
   them in the ablative. In doing so I have followed Chrysostom. This
   will, perhaps, appear harsh, as the expression in every place is
   introduced in the middle, but in Paul’s Greek style there is nothing of
   harshness in this construction. My reason for preferring this rendering
   to that of the Vulgate is, that if you understand it as referring to
   place, the additional clause will be not merely superfluous, but
   inappropriate. For what place would Paul call his own? Judea they
   understand him to mean; but on what ground? And then, what place could
   he refer to as inhabited by others? “All other places of the world”
   (say they;) but this, too, does not suit well. On the other hand, the
   meaning that I have given it suits most admirably; for, after making
   mention of all that in every place call upon the name of Christ our
   Lord, he adds, both theirs and ours, manifestly for the purpose of
   showing that Christ is the one common Lord, without distinction, of all
   that call upon him, whether they be Jews or Gentiles.

   In every place This Paul has added, contrary to his usual manner; for
   in his other Epistles he makes mention in the salutation of those only
   for whom they are designed. He seems, however, to have had it in view
   to anticipate the slanders of wicked men, that they might not have it
   to allege that, in addressing the Corinthians, he assumed a confident
   air, and claimed for himself an authority that he would not venture to
   assert in writing to other Churches. For we shall see by and by, that
   he was unjustly loaded with this reproach, too, as though he were
   preparing little nests [43] for himself, with the view of shunning the
   light, or were withdrawing himself in a clandestine way from the rest
   of the Apostles. It appears, then, that expressly for the purpose of
   refuting this falsehood, he places himself in a commanding position,
   from which he may be heard afar off.

   3. Grace be to you and peace For an exposition of this prayer, let my
   readers consult the beginning of my Commentary on the Epistle to the
   Romans (Romans 1:7;) for I do not willingly burden my readers with
   repetitions.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [35] “Le leur et le nostre,” ou, “le Seigneur (di-ie) et de eux et de
   nous;” — “Both theirs and ours,” or, “the Lord (I say) both of them and
   of us.”

   [36] “Constitue, ordonne, et establi;” — “Appointed, ordained, and
   established.”

   [37] “Et aujour d’huy, qu’est ce qu’entonnent a plene bouche les
   Romanisques, sinon cen gros mots, Ordination de Dieu, La sainte et
   sacree succession depuis le temps mesme des Apostres;” — “And at the
   present day, what do the Romanists sound forth with open mouth, but
   those grand terms, Ordination from God, — The holy and sacred
   succession from the very times of the Apostles.”

   [38] Institutes, volume 3.

   [39] Apostolos, (an apostle) derived from apostellein, (to send forth,)
   signifies literally a messenger. The term is employed by classical
   writer to denote the commander of an expedition, or a delegate, or
   ambassador. (See Herodotus, v. 38.) In the New Testament it is in
   various instances employed in a general sense to denote a messenger.
   (See Luke 11:49; John 13:16; Philippians 2:25.) In one instance it is
   applied to Christ himself, (Hebrews 3:1.) Most frequently, however, it
   is applied to those extraordinary messengers who were (to use the words
   of Leigh in his Critics Sacra) Christ’s “legates a latere,” from his
   side. — Ed

   [40] “Mais (dira quelqu’un;)“ — “But (some one will say.)”

   [41] “Tu te pourras bien entretenir en l’Eglise tellement quellement
   estant mesle parmi les autres;” — “You may quite well have a standing
   in the Church in some sort of way, being mixed up among others.”

   [42] Synedoche, a figure of speech, by which part is taken for the
   whole. — Ed.

   [43] “Nids et cachettes;” — “Nests and lurking-holes.”
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 1:4-9

   4. I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is
   given you by Jesus Christ;

   4. Gratias ago Deo meo semper de vobis propter gratiam Dei, quae data
   vobis est in Christo Jesu.

   5. That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in
   all knowledge;

   5. Quia in onmibus ditati estis in ipso, in omni sermone, [44] et in
   omni cognitione.

   6. Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:

   6. Quemadmodum testimonium Christi confirmatum fuit in vobis.

   7. So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our
   Lord Jesus Christ:

   7. Ut nullo in dono destituamini, exspectantes revelationem Domini
   nostri Jesu Christi.

   8. Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in
   the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

   8. Qui etiam confirmabit vos usque in finem inculpatos, in diem Domini
   nostri Jesu Christi.

   9. God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his
   Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

   9. Fidelis Deus, per quem vocati estis in communionem Filii ipsius Jesu
   Christi Domini nostri.


   4. I give thanks to my God. Having in the salutation secured for
   himself authority from the station assigned him, he now endeavors to
   procure favor for his doctrine, by expressing his affection for them.
   In this way he soothes their minds beforehand, that they may listen
   patiently to his reproofs. [45] He persuades them of his affection for
   them by the following tokens — his discovering as much joy in the
   benefits bestowed upon them, as if they had been conferred upon
   himself; and his declaring that he entertains a favorable opinion of
   them, and has good hopes of them as to the future. Farther, he
   qualifies his congratulations in such a way as to give them no occasion
   to be puffed up, as he traces up to God all the benefits that they
   possessed, that the entire praise may redound to him, inasmuch as they
   are the fruits of his grace. It is as though he had said — “I
   congratulate you indeed, but it is in such a way as to ascribe the
   praise to God.” His meaning, when he calls God his God, I have
   explained in my Commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans (Romans 1:8.)
   As Paul was not prepared to flatter the Corinthians, so neither has he
   commended them on false grounds. For although all were not worthy of
   such commendations, and though they corrupted many excellent gifts of
   God by ambition, yet the gifts themselves it became him not to despise,
   because they were, in themselves, deserving of commendation. Farther,
   as the gifts of the Spirit are conferred for the edification of all, it
   is with good reason that he enumerates them as gifts common to the
   whole Church. [46] But let us see what he commends in them.

   For the grace, etc. This is a general term, for it comprehends
   blessings of every kind that they had obtained through means of the
   gospel. For the term grace denotes here not the favor of God, but by
   metonymy [47] (metōnumikōs), the gifts that he bestows upon men
   gratuitously. He immediately proceeds to specify particular instances,
   when he says that they are enriched in all things, and specifies what
   those all things are — the doctrine and word of God. For in these
   riches it becomes Christians to abound; and they ought also to be
   esteemed by us the more, and regarded by us as so much the more
   valuable, in proportion as they are ordinarily slighted. The phrase in
   ipso (in him) I have preferred to retain, rather than render it per
   ipsum (by him,) because it has in my opinion more expressiveness and
   force. For we are enriched in Christ, inasmuch as we are members of his
   body, and are engrafted into him: nay more, being made one with him, he
   makes us share with him in everything that he has received from the
   Father.

   6. Even as the testimony, etc. Erasmus gives a different rendering, to
   this effect, “that by these things the testimony of Christ was
   confirmed in them;” that is, by knowledge and by the word. The words,
   however, convey another meaning, and if they are not wrested, the
   meaning is easy — that God has sealed the truth of his gospel among the
   Corinthians, for the purpose of confirming it. Now, this might be done
   in two ways, either by miracles, or by the inward testimony of the Holy
   Spirit. Chrysostom seems to understand it of miracles, but I take it in
   a larger sense; and, first of all, it is certain, that the gospel is
   properly confirmed in our experience by faith, because it is only when
   we receive it by faith that we “set to our seal that God is true” (John
   3:33.) And though I admit that miracles ought to have weight for the
   confirmation of it, yet we must go higher in search of the origin,
   namely this, that the Spirit of God is the earnest and seal.
   Accordingly, I explain these words in this manner — that the
   Corinthians excelled in knowledge, inasmuch as God had from the
   beginning given efficacy to his gospel among them, and that not in one
   way merely, but had done so both by the internal influence of the
   Spirit, and by excellence and variety of gifts, by miracles, and by all
   other helps. He calls the gospel the testimony of Christ, or respecting
   Christ, because the entire sum of it tends to discover Christ to us,

   “In whom all the treasures of knowledge are hid” (Colossians 2:3.)

   If any one prefers to take it in an active sense, on the ground that
   Christ is the primary author of the gospel, so that the Apostles were
   nothing but secondary or inferior witnesses, I shall not much oppose
   it. I feel better satisfied, however, with the former exposition. It is
   true that a little afterwards (1 Corinthians 2:1) the testimony of God
   must, beyond all controversy, be taken in an active sense, as a passive
   signification would not be at all suitable. Here, however, the case is
   different, and, what is more, that passage strengthens my view, as he
   immediately subjoins what it is [48] — to know nothing but Christ. (1
   Corinthians 2:2.)

   7. So that ye come behind in no gift ̔Ustereisthai means to be in want
   of what you would otherwise stand in need of. [49] He means, therefore,
   that the Corinthians abound in all the gifts of God, so as not to be in
   want of anything, as if he had said, “The Lord has not merely honored
   you with the light of the gospel, but has eminently endowed you with
   all those graces that may be of service to the saints for helping them
   forward in the way of salvation.” For he gives the name of gifts
   (charismata) to those spiritual graces that are, as it were, means of
   salvation to the saints. But it is objected, on the other hand, that
   the saints are never in such abundance as not to feel in want of graces
   to some extent, so that they must always of necessity be “hungering and
   thirsting” (Matthew 5:6.) For where is the man that does not come far
   short of perfection? I answer, “As they are sufficiently endowed with
   needful gifts, and are never in such destitution but that the Lord
   seasonably relieves their need; Paul on this ground ascribes to them
   such wealth.” For the same reason he adds: waiting for the
   manifestation, meaning, that he does not ascribe to them such abundance
   as to leave nothing to be desired; but merely as much as will suffice,
   until they shall have arrived at perfection. The participle waiting I
   understand in this sense, “In the meantime while you are waiting.” Thus
   the meaning will be, “So that ye are in want of no gift in the meantime
   while you are waiting for the day of perfected revelation, by which
   Christ our wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:30) will be fully manifested.”

   8. Who will also confirm you. The relative here refers not to Christ,
   but to God, though the word God is the remoter antecedent. For the
   Apostle is going on with his congratulation, and as he has told them
   previously what he thought of them, so he now lets them know what hope
   he has of them as to the future, and this partly for the purpose of
   assuring them still farther of his affection for them, and partly that
   he may exhort them by his own example to cherish the same hope. It is
   as if he had said — Though the expectation of a salvation to come keeps
   you still in suspense, you ought nevertheless to feel assured that the
   Lord will never forsake you, but will on the contrary increase what he
   has begun in you, that when that day comes on which

   “we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ,”
   (2 Corinthians 5:10,)

   we may be found there blameless.

   Blameless In his Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians (Ephesians
   1:4, and Colossians 1:22) he teaches that this is the end of our
   calling — that we may appear pure and unreproachable in the presence of
   Christ. It is, however, to be observed, that this glorious purity is
   not in the first instance perfected in us; nay, rather, it goes well
   with us if we are every day making progress in penitence, and are being
   purged from the sins (2 Peter 1:9) that expose us to the displeasure of
   God, until at length we put off, along with the mortal body, all the
   offscourings of sin. Of the day of the Lord we shall have occasion to
   speak when we come to the fourth chapter.

   9. God is faithful When the Scripture speaks of God as faithful the
   meaning in many cases is, that in God there is steadfastness and
   evenness of tenor, so that what he begins he prosecutes to the end,
   [50] as Paul himself says elsewhere, that the calling of God is without
   repentance (Romans 11:29.) Hence, in my opinion, the meaning of this
   passage is, that God is steadfast in what he purposes. This being the
   case, he consequently does not make sport as to his calling, but will
   unceasingly take care of his work. [51] From God’s past benefits we
   ought always to hope well as to the future. Paul, however, has
   something higher in view, for he argues that the Corinthians cannot be
   cast off, having been once called by the Lord into Christ’s fellowship.
   To apprehend fully, however, the force of this argument, let us observe
   first of all, that every one ought to regard his calling as a token of
   his election. Farther, although one cannot judge with the same
   certainty as to another’s election, yet we must always in the judgment
   of charity conclude that all that are called are called to salvation; I
   mean efficaciously and fruitfully. Paul, however, directed his
   discourse to those in whom the word of the Lord had taken root, and in
   whom some fruits of it had been produced.

   Should any one object that many who have once received the word
   afterwards fall away, I answer that the Spirit alone is to every one a
   faithful and sure witness of his election, upon which perseverance
   depends. This, however, did not stand in the way of Paul’s being
   persuaded, in the judgment of charity, that the calling of the
   Corinthians would prove firm and immovable, as being persons in whom he
   saw the tokens of God’s fatherly benevolence. These things, however, do
   not by any means tend to beget carnal security, to divest us of which
   the Scriptures frequently remind us of our weakness, but simply to
   confirm our confidence in the Lord. Now this was needful, in order that
   their minds might not be disheartened on discovering so many faults, as
   he comes afterwards to present before their view. The sum of all this
   may be stated thus, — that it is the part of Christian candor to hope
   well of all who have entered on the right way of salvation, and are
   still persevering in that course, notwithstanding that they are at the
   same time still beset with really distempers. Every one of us, too,
   from the time of his being illuminated (Hebrews 10:32) by the Spirit of
   God in the knowledge of Christ, ought to conclude with certainty from
   this that he has been adopted by the Lord to an inheritance of eternal
   life. For effectual calling ought to be to believers an evidence of
   divine adoption; yet in the meantime we must all walk with fear and
   trembling (Philippians 2:12.) On this point I shall touch again to some
   extent when we come to the tenth chapter.

   Into the fellowship. Instead of this rendering Erasmus translates it
   into partnership The old interpreter renders it society I have
   preferred, however, to render it fellowship, as bringing out better the
   force of the Greek word koinōnias [52] For this is the design of the
   gospel, that Christ may become ours, and that we may be engrafted into
   his body. Now when the Father gives him to us in possession, he also
   communicates himself to us in him; and hence arises a participation in
   every benefit. Paul’s argument, then, is this — “Since you have, by
   means of the gospel which you have received by faith, been called into
   the fellowship of Christ, you have no reason to dread the danger of
   death, [53] having been made partakers of him (Hebrews 3:14) who rose a
   conqueror over death.” In fine, when the Christian looks to himself he
   finds only occasion for trembling, or rather for despair; but having
   been called into the fellowship of Christ, he ought, in so far as
   assurance of salvation is concerned, to think of himself no otherwise
   than as a member of Christ, so as to reckon all Christ’s benefits his
   own. Thus he will obtain an unwavering hope of final perseverance, (as
   it is called,) if he reckons himself a member of him who is beyond all
   hazard of falling away.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [44] “Parole,” ou “eloquence;” — “Utterance,” or “eloquence.”

   [45] The same view of Paul’s design here is given by Theodoret: “Mellōn
   katēgorein protherapeuei tēn akoēn hōste dektēn genesthai tēn
   iatreian;” — “As he is about to censure them, he soothes beforehand the
   organ of hearing, that the remedy to be applied may be the more
   favorably received.” — Ed

   [46] “Que chacun ha en son endroit;” — “Which every one has severally.”

   [47] A figure of speech, by which one term is put for another — the
   cause for the effect, the effect for the cause, etc. — Ed.

   [48] “Quel est ce tesmoignage;” — “What this testimony is.”

   [49] The word is used in this sense in the following passages: Luke
   15:14; 2 Corinthians 11:9; Philippians 4:12; and Hebrews 11:37. The
   proper meaning is — to come too late for a thing, and so miss of it.
   Xenophon uses it in this sense. Abrokomas husterēse tōs machēs: —
   “Abrocomas came too late for the battle.” The word occurs in the same
   sense in Hebews 4:1 and Hebews 12:15. — Ed

   [50] Calvin probably refers to the following (among other) passagess: —
   1 Thessalonians 5:24; 2 Thessalonians 3:3; Hebrews 10:23.

   [51] “La vocation done qu’il fait d’un chacun des siens, n’est point un
   jeu, et en les appellant il ne se mocque point, ainsi il entretiendra
   et pour suyura son ceuvre perpetuellement;” — “The calling, therefore,
   that he makes of each of his own, is not mere play; and in calling them
   he does not make sport, but will unceasingly maintain and prosecute his
   work.”

   [52] Calvin in his Institutes, (volume 2,) after speaking of Christ’s
   being represented by Paul as “offered to us in the gospel with all the
   abundance of heavenly blessings, with all his merits, all his
   righteousness, wisdom, and grace, without exception,” remarks — “And
   what is meant by the fellowship koinōnia of Christ, which, according to
   the same apostle (1 Corinthians 1:9) is offered to us in the gospel,
   all believers know.” — Ed

   [53] “La mort et perdition;” — “Death and perdition.”
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 1:10-13

   10. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
   that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among
   you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in
   the same judgment.

   10. Observo autem vos, fratres, per nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi,
   ut idem loquamini omnes, et non sint inter vos dissidia: sed apte
   cohaereatis in una mente et in una sententia. [54]

   11. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them
   which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

   11. Significatum enim mihi de vobis fuit, fratres mei, ab iis qui sunt
   Chloes, quod contentiones sint inter vos.

   12. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of
   Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

   12. Dico autem illud, [55] quod unusquisque vestrum dicat, Ego quidem
   sum Pauli, ego autem Apollo, ego autem Cephae:, ego autem Christi.

   13. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized
   in the name of Paul?

   13. Divisusne est Christus? numquid pro vobis crucifixus est Paulus?
   aut vos in nomen Pauli baptizati estis?


   10. Now I beseech you, brethren Hitherto he has handled the Corinthians
   mildly, because he knew that they were much too sensitive. Now,
   however, after preparing their minds for receiving correction, acting
   the part of a good and skillful surgeon, who soothes the wound when
   about to apply a painful remedy, he begins to handle them with more
   severity. Even here, however, as we shall still farther see, he uses
   great moderation. The sum is this: “It is my hope that the Lord has not
   in vain conferred upon you so many gifts, so as not to have it in view
   to bring you to salvation, but you ought at the same time to take heed
   lest graces so distinguished be polluted by your vices. See, then, that
   you be agreed among yourselves; and it is not without good reason that
   I call for agreement among yourselves, for I have been informed that
   you are in a state of disagreement, amounting even to hostility, and
   that there are parties and contentions raging among you, by which true
   unity of faith is torn asunder.” As, however, they might not perhaps be
   sufficiently aroused by mere exhortation, he uses earnest entreaty, for
   he adjures them, by the name of Christ, that, as they loved him, they
   should aim at promoting harmony.

   That ye all speak the same thing In exhorting them to harmony, he
   employs three different forms of expression: for, in the first place,
   he requires such agreement among them that all shall have one voice;
   secondly, he takes away the evil by which unity is broken and torn
   asunder; and, thirdly, he unfolds the nature of true harmony, which is,
   that they be agreed among themselves in mind and will. What he has
   placed second is first in order, — that we beware of strifes. For from
   this a second thing will naturally follow, — that we be in harmony; and
   then at length a third thing will follow, which is here mentioned
   first, — that we all speak, as it were, with one mouth; a thing
   exceedingly desirable as a fruit of Christian harmony. Let us then
   observe, that nothing is more inconsistent on the part of Christians
   than to be at variance among themselves, for it is the main article of
   our religion that we be in harmony among ourselves; and farther, on
   such agreement the safety of the Church rests and is dependent.

   But let us see what he requires as to Christian unity. If any one is
   desirous of nice distinctions — he would have them first of all joined
   together in one mind; secondly, in one judgment; and, thirdly, he would
   have them declare in words that agreement. As, however, my rendering
   differs somewhat from that of Erasmus, I would, in passing, call my
   readers to observe, that Paul here makes use of a participle, which
   denotes things that are fitly and suitably joined together [56] For the
   verb katartizesthai itself (from which the participle katērtismenos
   comes) properly signifies, to be fitted and adjusted, just as the
   members of the human body are connected together by a most admirable
   symmetry. [57]

   For sententia (judgment) Paul has gnōmēn: but I understand it here as
   denoting the will, so that there is a complete division of the soul,
   and the first clause refers to faith, the second to love. Then only
   will there be Christian unity among us, when there is not merely a good
   agreement as to doctrine, but we are also in harmony in our affections
   and dispositions, and are thus in all respects of one mind. Thus Luke
   bears witness to believers in the primitive Church, (Acts 2:46,) that
   they had “one heart and one soul.” And without doubt this will be found
   wherever the Spirit of Christ reigns. When, however, he exhorts them to
   speak the same thing, he intimates still more fully from the effect,
   how complete the agreement ought to be — so that no diversity may
   appear even in words. It is difficult, indeed, of attainment, but still
   it is necessary among Christians, from whom there is required not
   merely one faith, but also one confession.

   11. It has been declared. As general observations have usually little
   effect, he intimates, that what he had said was more particularly
   applicable to them. The application, therefore, is designed with the
   view of leading the Corinthians to perceive, that it was not without
   good reason that Paul had made mention of harmony. For he shows that
   they had not merely turned aside from a holy unity, [58] but had even
   fallen into contentions, which are worse [59] than jarrings of
   sentiment. And that he may not be charged with believing too readily
   what was said, [60] as though he lightly lent his ear to false
   accusations, he speaks with commendation of his informants, who must
   have been in the highest esteem, as he did not hesitate to adduce them
   as competent witnesses against an entire Church. It is not indeed
   altogether certain, whether Chloe is the name of a place or of a woman,
   but to me it appears more probable that it is the name of a woman. [61]
   I am of opinion, therefore, that it was a well-regulated household that
   acquainted Paul with the distempered condition of the Corinthian
   Church, being desirous that it might be remedied by him. The idea
   entertained by many, in accordance with Chrysostom’s view, that he
   refrained from mentioning names, lest he should bring odium upon them,
   appears to me to be absurd. For he does not say that some of the
   household had reported this to him, but, on the contrary, makes mention
   of them all, and there is no doubt that they would willingly have
   allowed their names to be made use of. Farther, that he might not
   exasperate their minds by undue severity, he has modified the reproof
   by an engaging form of address; not as though he would make light of
   the distemper, but with the view of bringing them to a more teachable
   spirit, for perceiving the severity of the malady.

   12. I say then, etc. Some think there is here an instance of mimēsis,
   imitation, as if Paul were here repeating their expressions. Now,
   although the manuscripts differ as to the particle hoti, I am of
   opinion that it is the conjunction (because) rather than the relative
   (which), so that there is simply an explanation of the preceding
   statement in this sense. “My reason for saying that there are
   contentions among you is, because every one of you glories in the name
   of some individual.” It will, however, be objected, that in these words
   there is no appearance as yet of contention. My answer is, that where
   there are jarrings in religion, it cannot but be that men’s minds will
   soon afterwards burst forth in open strife. For as nothing is more
   effectual for uniting us, and there is nothing that tends more to draw
   our minds together, and keep them in a state of peace, than agreement
   in religion, so, on the other hand, if any disagreement has arisen as
   to matters of this nature, the effect necessarily is, that men’s minds
   are straightway stirred up for combat, and in no other department are
   there more fierce contendings. [62] Hence it is with good reason that
   Paul brings it forward as a sufficient evidence of contention, that the
   Corinthians were infested with sects and parties.

   I am of Paul He makes mention here of Christ’s faithful servants —
   Apollos, who had been his successor at Corinth, and Peter himself too,
   and then adds himself to their number, that he may appear to plead not
   so much his own cause as that of Christ. In any other point of view it
   is not likely that there were any parties that espoused the separate
   interests of ministers joined together by a sacred agreement. [63] He
   has, however, as he afterwards mentions, transferred to himself and
   Apollos what was applicable to others; and this he has done, in order
   that they might more candidly consider the thing itself, viewing it
   apart from respect of persons. It will, however, be replied, that he
   makes mention here even of those who professed that they were of Christ
   Was this, too, worthy of blame? I answer, that in this way he shows
   more fully what unseemly consequences result from those depraved
   affections, when we give ourselves up to men, as in that case Christ
   must be acknowledged merely in part, and the pious have no alternative
   left them, but to separate themselves from others, if they would not
   renounce Christ.

   As, however, this passage is wrested in various ways, we must endeavor
   to ascertain more minutely what Paul intends here. His object is, to
   maintain Christ’s exclusive authority in the Church, so that we may all
   exercise dependence upon him, that he alone may be recognized among us
   as Lord and Master, and that the name of no individual be set in
   opposition to his. Those, therefore, that draw away disciples after
   them (Acts 20:30,) with the view of splitting the Church into parties,
   he condemns as most destructive enemies of our faith. Thus then he does
   not, suffer men to have such pre-eminence in the Church as to usurp
   Christ’s supremacy. He does not allow them to be held in such honor as
   to derogate even in the slightest degree from Christ’s dignity. There
   is, it is true, a certain degree of honor that is due to Christ’s
   ministers, and they are also themselves masters in their own place, but
   this exception must always be kept in view, that Christ must have
   without any infringement what belongs to him — that he shall
   nevertheless be the sole Master, and looked upon as such. Hence the aim
   of good ministers is this, that they may all in common serve Christ,
   and claim for him exclusively power, authority, and glory — fight under
   his banner — obey him alone, and bring others in subjection to his
   sway. If any one is influenced by ambition, that man gathers disciples,
   not to Christ, but to himself. This then is the fountain of all evils —
   this the most hurtful of all plagues — this the deadly poison of all
   Churches, when ministers seek their own interests rather than those of
   Christ. In short, the unity of the Church consists more especially in
   this one thing — that we all depend upon Christ alone, and that men
   thus occupy an inferior place, so as not to detract in any degree from
   his pre-eminence.

   13. Is Christ divided? This intolerable evil was consequent upon the
   divisions that prevailed among the Corinthians: for Christ alone must
   reign in the Church. And as the object of the gospel is, that we be
   reconciled to God through him, it is necessary, in the first place,
   that we should all be bound together in him. As, however, only a very
   few of the Corinthians, who were in a sounder condition than the
   others, [64] retained Christ as their Master, (while all made it their
   boast that they were Christians,) Christ was by this means torn
   asunder. For we must be one body, if we would be kept together under
   him as our head. If, on the other hand, we are split asunder into
   different bodies, we start aside from him also. Hence to glory in his
   name amidst strifes and parties is to tear him in pieces: which indeed
   is impossible, for never will he depart from unity and concord, because
   “He cannot deny himself” (2 Timothy 2:13.) Paul, therefore, by setting
   before them this absurdity, designs to lead the Corinthians to perceive
   that they are estranged from Christ, inasmuch as they are divided, for
   then only does he reign in us, when we have him as the bond of an
   inviolably sacred unity.

   Was Paul crucified for you? By two powerful considerations, he shows
   how base a thing [65] it is to rob Christ of the honor of being the
   sole Head of the Church — the sole Teacher — the sole Master; or to
   draw away from him any part of that honor, with the view of
   transferring it to men. The first is, that we have been redeemed by
   Christ on this footing, that we are not our own masters. This very
   argument Paul makes use of in his Epistle to the Romans (Romans 14:9,)
   when he says,

   “For this end Christ died and rose again, that he might be Lord both of
   the living and the dead.”

   To him, therefore, let us live and die, because we are always his. Also
   in this same Epistle (1 Corinthians 7:23,)

   “Ye are bought with a price: be not ye the servants of men.”

   As the Corinthians, therefore, had been purchased with the blood of
   Christ, they in a manner renounced the benefit of redemption, when they
   attached themselves to other leaders. Here is a doctrine that is
   deserving of special notice — that we are not at liberty to put
   ourselves under bondage to men, [66] because we are the Lord’s
   heritage. Here, therefore, he accuses the Corinthians of the basest
   ingratitude, in estranging themselves from that Leader, by whose blood
   they had been redeemed, however they might have done so unwittingly.

   Farther, this passage militates against the wicked contrivance of
   Papists, by which they attempt to bolster up their system of
   indulgences. For it is from the blood of Christ and the martyrs [67]
   that they make up that imaginary treasure of the Church, which they
   tell us is dealt out by means of indulgences. Thus they pretend that
   the martyrs by their death merited something for us in the sight of
   God, that we may seek help from this source for obtaining the pardon of
   our sins. They will deny, indeed, that they are on that account our
   redeemers; but nothing is more manifest than that the one thing follows
   from the other. The question is as to the reconciling of sinners to
   God; the question is as to the obtaining of forgiveness; the question
   is as to the appeasing of the Lord’s anger; the question is as to
   redemption from our iniquities. This they boast is accomplished partly
   by the blood of Christ, and partly by that of the martyrs. They make,
   therefore, the martyrs partners with Christ in procuring our salvation.
   Here, however, Paul in strong terms denies that any one but Christ has
   been crucified for us. The martyrs, it is true, died for our benefit,
   but (as Leo [68] observes) it was to furnish an example of
   perseverance, not to procure for us the gift of righteousness.

   Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? Here we have a second
   argument, which is taken from the profession of baptism; for we enlist
   ourselves under the banners of him in whose name we are baptized. We
   are, accordingly, bound [69] to Christ, in whose name our baptism is
   celebrated. Hence it follows that the Corinthians are chargeable with
   perfidy and apostasy, if they place themselves under subjection to men.
   Observe here that the nature of baptism resembles a contract [70] of
   mutual obligation; for as the Lord by that symbol receives us into his
   household, and introduces us among his people, so we pledge our
   fidelity to him, that we will never afterwards have any other spiritual
   Lord. Hence as it is on God’s part a covenant of grace that he
   contracts with us, in which he promises forgiveness of sins and a new
   life, so on our part it is an oath of spiritual warfare, in which we
   promise perpetual subjection to him. The former department Paul does
   not here touch upon, because the subject did not admit of it; but in
   treating of baptism it ought not to be omitted. Nor does Paul charge
   the Corinthians with apostasy simply on the ground of their forsaking
   Christ and betaking themselves to men; but he declares that if they do
   not adhere to Christ alone — that very thing would make them
   covenant-breakers.

   It is asked, what it is to be baptized in the name of Christ? I answer
   that by this expression it is not simply intimated that baptism is
   founded on the authority of Christ, but depends also on his influence,
   and does in a manner consist in it; and, in fine, that the whole effect
   of it depends on this — that the name of Christ is therein invoked. It
   is asked farther, why it is that Paul says that the Corinthians were
   baptized in the name of Christ, while Christ himself commanded (Matthew
   28:19) the Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the
   Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I answer, that in baptism the first thing
   to be considered is, that God the Father, by planting us in his Church
   in unmerited goodness, receives us by adoption into the number of his
   sons. Secondly, as we cannot have any connection with him except by
   means of reconciliation, we have need of Christ to restore us to the
   Father’s favor by his blood. Thirdly, as we are by baptism consecrated
   to God, we need also the interposition of the Holy Spirit, whose office
   it is to make us new creatures. Nay farther, our being washed in the
   blood of Christ is peculiarly his work; but as we do not obtain the
   mercy of the Father, or the grace of the Spirit, otherwise than through
   Christ alone, it is on good grounds that we speak of him as the
   peculiar object in view in baptism, and more particularly inscribe his
   name upon baptism. At the same time this does not by any means exclude
   the name of the Father and of the Spirit; for when we wish to sum up in
   short compass the efficacy of baptism, we make mention of Christ alone;
   but when we are disposed to speak with greater minuteness, the name of
   the Father and that of the Spirit require to be expressly introduced.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [54] “Et en une mesme volonte,” ou “et mesme avis;” — “And in the same
   disposition,” or “and the same judgement.”

   [55] “Et ie de ceci,” ou “Or ce que ie di c’est qu’un chacun;” — “And
   this I say,” or “Now what I say is this, that every one.”

   [56] “Et assembles l’une h l’autre;” — “And associated with each
   other.”

   [57] The verb katartizō properly signifies, to repair, or refit, or
   restore to its original condition what has been disarranged or broken;
   and in this sense it is applied to the repairing of nets, ships, walls,
   etc. (See Matthew 4:21; Mark 1:19.) We might with perfect propriety
   understand the Apostle as alluding here to the repairing of a ship that
   has been broken or damaged, and as intimating that a Church, when
   shattered by divisions, is (so to speak) not sea-worthy, and must be
   carefully repaired, before she can be fit for purposes of commerce, by
   conveying to the nations of the earth the “true riches.” The allusion,
   however, most probably is, as Calvin thinks, to the members of the
   human body, which are so admirably adjusted to each other. It deserves
   to be noticed, that Paul makes use of a derivative from the same verb
   (katartisis) in 2 Corinthians 13:9, on which Beza observes, “that the
   Apostle’s meaning is, that whereas the members of the Church were all
   (as it were) dislocated and out of joint, they should now again be
   joined together in love, and they should endeavor to make perfect what
   was amiss amongst them either in faith or manners.” — Ed

   [58] “La sancte union qui doit estre entre les Chrestiens;” — “That
   holy unity which ought to be among Christians.”

   [59] “Bien plus dangereuses;” — “Much more dangerous.”

   [60] It is remarked by Beza that the verb here employed, dēloō, (to
   declare,)has a stronger signification than sēmainō (to intimate,) just
   as there is a difference of meaning between the Latin words declarare
   (to declare) and significare (to intimate,) an example of which is
   furnished in a letter of Cicero to Lucretius, “tibi non significandum
   solum, sed etiam declarandum arbitror, nihil mihi esse potuisse tuis
   literis gratius;” “I think it ought to be not merely intimated to you
   but declared, that nothing could be more agreeable to me than your
   letters.” The emphatic word edēlōthn (it has been declared,) appears to
   have been made use of by the Apostle to convey more fully to the mind
   of the Corhlthians, that he had not hastily given heed to a mere
   report. — Ed

   [61] Some have thought that by tōs Chloēs,(those of Chloe,) the Apostle
   means persons who were in a flourishing condition in religion; from
   chloē, green herbage, (Herodotus, 4:34, Euripides, Hipp. 1124.) One
   writer supposes Paul to mean seniores, (elders,) deriving the word
   chloē from כלח, old age. These conjectures, however, are manifestly
   more ingenious than solid. It is certain that the name Chlon (Chloe,)
   was frequent among the Greeks as the name of a female. It is most
   natural to understand by tōn Chlons those of Chloe, as equivalent to
   tōn Chlons soikeiōs — those of the household of Chloe. — Ed

   [62] “Et n’y a en chose quelconque debars si grans ni tant a craindre
   que sent ceux-la;” — “And in no department are there disputes so great,
   or so much to be dreaded as those:”

   [63] “Autrement veu que ces trois estoyent d’un sainct accord ensemble
   en leur ministere, il n’est point vray-semblable, qu’il y eust aucunes
   partialitez entre les Corinthiens pour se glorifier en l’un plustost
   qu’en l’autre;” — “Otherwise, seeing that those three were united in
   their ministry by a sacred agreement, it is not likely that there were
   any parties among the Corinthians that were prepared to glory in one of
   them rather than in another.”

   [64] “Mieux avisez que les autres;” — “Better advised than the others.”

   [65] “Combien c’est vne chose insupportable;” — “How insufferable a
   thing it is.”

   [66] “Addicere nos hominibus in servitutem“ — “de nous assuiettir aux
   hommes en seruitude;” — “To give ourselves up to men, so as to be in
   bondage to them.” Calvin very probably had in his eye the celebrated
   sentiment of Horace, (Epistle 1 50:14,) “Nullius addictus jurare in
   verba magistri;” — “Bound to swear allegiance to no master,” while
   enforcing the sentiment by a powerful consideration, to which the
   heathen poet was an entire stranger. — Ed.

   [67] “Du sang de Christ, et des martyrs tous ensemble;” — “From the
   blood of Christ, and of all the martyrs together.”

   [68] Leo, ad Palaestinos, Epistle 81. The passage alluded to above is
   quoted at large in the Institutes. (Volume 2.) “Although the death of
   many saints was precious in the sight of the Lord, (Psalm 116:15,) yet
   no innocent man’s slaughter was the propitiation of the world. The just
   received crowns, did not give them; and the fortitude of believers
   produced examples of patience, not gifts of righteousness; for their
   deaths were for themselves; and none by his final end paid the debt of
   another, except Christ our Lord, in whom alone all are crucified, all
   dead, buried, and raised up.” Leo, from whose writings this admirable
   passage is extracted, was a Roman bishop, who flourished in the fifth
   century, and was one of the most distinguished men of his age. He was a
   most zealous defender of the doctrines of grace, in opposition to
   Pelagianism and other heresies. — Ed.

   [69] “Obligez par serment;” — “Bound by oath.”

   [70] “Syngrapha (the term employed by Calvin) was a contract or bond,
   formally entered into between two parties, signed and sealed by both,
   and a copy given to each.” Cic. Verr. 1:36. Dio. 48:37. It is derived
   from a Greek term sungraphē (a legal instrument or obligation.)
   Herodotus 1:48; and Demosthenes 268:13. P. steph. — Ed
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 1:14-20

   14. I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

   14. Gratias ago Deo meo, quod neminem baptizaverim vestrum, nisi
   Crispurn et Gaium:

   15. Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

   15. Ne quis dieat, quod in meum nomen baptizaverim.

   16. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not
   whether I baptized any other.

   16. Baptizavi autem et Stephanae familiam; praeteterea nescio, num quem
   alium baptizaverim.

   17. For Christ sent me not, to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not
   with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none
   effect.

   17. Non enim misit me Christus ut baptizarem, sed ut evangelizarem: non
   in sapientia sermonis, ne inanis reddatur crux Christi.

   18. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness;
   but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

   18. Nam sermo erucis iis, qui pereunt, stultitia est; at nobis qui
   salutem consequimur, potentia Dei est.

   19. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will
   bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

   19. Scriptum est enim; (Ies. 29:14): perdam sapientiam sapientum, et
   intelligentiam intelligentum auferam e medio.

   20. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of
   this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

   20. Ubi sapiens? ubi scriba? ubi disputator hujus saeculi? nonne
   infatuavit Deus sapientiam mundi hujus?


   14. I thank my God. In these words he reproves very sharply the
   perversity of the Corinthians, which made it necessary for him to
   avoid, in a manner, a thing so sacred and honorable as that of the
   administration of baptism. Paul, indeed, would have acted with
   propriety, and in accordance with the nature of his office, though he
   had baptized ever so many. He rejoices, however, that it had happened
   otherwise, and acknowledges it as having been so ordered, in the
   providence of God, that they might not take occasion from that to glory
   in him, or that he might not bear any resemblance to those ambitious
   men who endeavored in this way to catch followers. But what if he had
   baptized many? There would have been no harm in it, but (as I have
   said) there is couched under this a heavy reproach against the
   Corinthians and their false apostles, inasmuch as a servant of the Lord
   found occasion to rejoice that he had refrained from a work, otherwise
   good and commendable, lest it should become an occasion of harm to
   them.

   17. For Christ sent me not. He anticipates an objection that might,
   perhaps, be brought against him — that he had not discharged his duty,
   inasmuch as Christ commands his Apostles to baptize as well as teach.
   Accordingly he replies, that this was not the principal department of
   his office, for the duty of teaching had been principally enjoined upon
   him as that to which he should apply himself. For when Christ says to
   the Apostles, (Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:15,) Go, preach and baptize, he
   connects baptism with teaching simply as an addition or appendage, so
   that teaching always holds the first place.

   Two things, however, must be noticed here. The first is, that the
   Apostle does not here absolutely deny that he had a command to baptize,
   for this is applicable to all the Apostles: Go and baptize; and he
   would have acted rashly in baptizing even one, had he not been
   furnished with authority, but simply points out what was the chief
   thing in his calling. The second thing is, that he does not by any
   means detract here, as some think, from the dignity or utility of the
   sacrament. For the question here is, not as to the efficacy of baptism,
   and Paul does not institute this comparison with the view of detracting
   in any degree from that; but because it was given to few to teach,
   while many could baptize; and farther, as many could be taught at the
   same time, while baptism could only be administered to individuals
   successively, one by one, Paul, who excelled in the gift of teaching,
   applied himself to the work that was more especially needful for him,
   and left to others what they could more conveniently accomplish. Nay
   farther, if the reader considers minutely all the circumstances of the
   case, he will see that there is irony [71] tacitly conveyed here,
   dexterously contrived for making those feel acutely, who, under color
   of administering a ceremony, endeavor to catch a little glory at the
   expense of another’s labor. Paul’s labors in building up that Church
   had been incredible. There had come after him certain effeminate
   masters, who had drawn over followers to their party by the sprinkling
   of water; [72] Paul, then, giving up to them the title of honor,
   declares himself contented with having had the burden. [73]

   Not with wisdom of words There is here an instance of anticipation, by
   which a twofold objection is refuted. For these pretended teachers
   might reply that it was ludicrous to hear Paul, who was not endowed
   with eloquence, making it his boast that the department of teaching had
   been assigned to him. Hence he says, by way of concession, that he had
   not been formed to be an orator, [74] to set himself off by elegance of
   speech: but a minister of the Spirit, that he might, by plain and
   homely speech, bring to nothing the wisdom of the world. Now, lest any
   one should object that he hunted after glory by his preaching, as much
   as others did by baptism, he briefly replies, that as the method of
   teaching that he pursued was the farthest removed from show, and
   breathed nothing of ambition, it could give no ground of suspicion on
   that head. Hence, too, if I mistake not, it may readily be inferred
   what was the chief ground of the controversy that Paul had with the
   wicked and unfaithful ministers of the Corinthians. It was that, being
   puffed up with ambition, that they might secure for themselves the
   admiration of the people, they recommended themselves to them by a show
   of words and mask of human wisdom.

   From this main evil two others necessarily followed — that by these
   disguises (so to speak) the simplicity of the gospel was disfigured,
   and Christ was, as it were, clothed in a new and foreign garb, so that
   the pure and unadulterated knowledge of him was not to be found.
   Farther, as men’s minds were turned aside to neatness and elegance of
   expression, to ingenious speculations, and to an empty show of superior
   sublimity of doctrine, the efficacy of the Spirit vanished, and nothing
   remained but the dead letter. The majesty of God, as it shines forth in
   the gospel, was not to be seen, but mere disguise and useless show.
   Paul, accordingly, with the view of exposing these corruptions of the
   gospel, makes a transition here to the manner of his preaching. This he
   declares to be right and proper, while at the same time it was
   diametrically opposed to the ambitious ostentation of those men. [75]
   It is as though he had said — “I am well aware how much your fastidious
   teachers delight themselves in their high-sounding phrases. As for
   myself, I do not simply confess that my preaching has been conducted in
   a rude, coarse, and unpolished style, but I even glory in it. For it
   was right that it should be so, and this was the method that was
   divinely prescribed to me.” By the wisdom of words, he does not mean
   logodaidalia, [76] which is mere empty talk, but true eloquence, which
   consists in skillful contrivance of subjects, ingenious arrangement,
   and elegance of expression. He declares that he had nothing of this:
   nay more, that it was neither suitable to his preaching nor
   advantageous.

   Lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect As he had so
   often previously presented the name of Christ in contrast with the
   arrogant wisdom of the flesh, so now, with the view of bringing down
   thereby all its pride and loftiness, he brings forward to view the
   cross of Christ. For all the wisdom of believers is comprehended in the
   cross of Christ, and what more contemptible than a cross? Whoever,
   therefore, would desire to be truly wise in God’s account, must of
   necessity stoop to this abasement of the cross, and this will not be
   accomplished otherwise than by his first of all renouncing his own
   judgment and all the wisdom of the world. Paul, however, shows here not
   merely what sort of persons Christ’s disciples ought to be, and what
   path of learning they ought to pursue, but also what is the method of
   teaching in Christ’s school. “The cross of Christ (says he) would have
   been made of none effect, if my preaching had been adorned with
   eloquence and show.” The cross of Christ he has put here for the
   benefit of redemption, which must be sought from Christ crucified. Now
   the doctrine of the gospel which calls us to this, should savor of the
   nature of the Cross, so as to be despised and contemptible, rather than
   glorious, in the eyes of the world. The meaning, therefore, is, that if
   Paul had made use of philosophical acuteness and studied address in the
   presence of the Corinthians, the efficacy of the cross of Christ, in
   which the salvation of men consists, would have been buried, because it
   cannot come to us in that way.

   Here two questions are proposed: first, whether Paul here condemns in
   every respect the wisdom of words, as opposed to Christ; and secondly,
   whether he means that eloquence and the doctrine of the gospel are
   invariably opposed, so they cannot agree together, and that the
   preaching of the gospel is vitiated, if the slightest tincture of
   eloquence [77] is made use of for adorning it. To the first of these I
   answer — that it were quite unreasonable to suppose, that Paul would
   utterly condemn those arts which, it is manifest, are excellent gifts
   of God, and which serve as instruments, as it were, to assist men in
   the accomplishment of important purposes. As for those arts, then, that
   have nothing of superstition, but contain solid learning, [78] and are
   founded on just principles, as they are useful and suited to the common
   transactions of human life, so there can be no doubt that they have
   come forth from the Holy Spirit; and the advantage which is derived and
   experienced from them, ought to be ascribed exclusively to God. What
   Paul says here, therefore, ought not to be taken as throwing any
   disparagement upon the arts, as if they were unfavorable to piety.

   The second question is somewhat more difficult, for he says, that the
   cross of Christ is made of none effect if there be any admixture of the
   wisdom of words I answer, that we must consider who they are that Paul
   here addresses. The ears of the Corinthians were tickled with a silly
   fondness for high sounding style. [79] Hence they needed more than
   others to be brought back to the abasement of the cross, that they
   might learn to embrace Christ as he is, unadorned, and the gospel in
   its simplicity, without any false ornament. I acknowledge, at the same
   time, that this sentiment in some respects holds invariably, that the
   cross of Christ is made of none effect, not merely by the wisdom of the
   world, but also by elegance of address. For the preaching of Christ
   crucified is simple and unadorned, and hence it ought not to be
   obscured by false ornaments of speech. It is the prerogative of the
   gospel to bring down the wisdom of the world in such a way that,
   stripped of our own understanding, we show ourselves to be simply
   docile, and do not think or even desire to know anything, but what the
   Lord himself teaches. As to the wisdom of the flesh, we shall have
   occasion to consider more at large ere long, in what respects it is
   opposed to Christ. As to eloquence, I shall advert to it here in a few
   words, in so far as the passage calls for.

   We see that God from the beginning ordered matters so, that, the gospel
   should be administered in simplicity, without any aid from eloquence.
   Could not he who fashions the tongues of men for eloquence, be himself
   eloquent if he chose to be so? While he could be so, he did not choose
   to be so. Why it was that he did not choose this, I find two reasons
   more particularly. The first is, that in a plain and unpolished manner
   of address, the majesty of the truth might shine forth more
   conspicuously, and the simple efficacy of his Spirit, without external
   aids, might make its way into the hearts of men. The second is, that he
   might more effectually try our obedience and docility, and train us at
   the same time to true humility. For the Lord admits none into his
   school but little children. [80] Hence those alone are capable of
   heavenly wisdom who, contenting themselves with the preaching of the
   cross, however contemptible it may be in appearance, feel no desire
   whatever to have Christ under a mask. Hence the doctrine of the gospel
   required to be regulated with this view, that believers should be drawn
   off from all pride and haughtiness.

   But what if any one should at the present day, by discoursing with some
   degree of elegance, adorn the doctrine of the gospel by eloquence?
   Would he deserve to be on that account rejected, as though he either
   polluted it or obscured Christ’s glory. I answer in the first place,
   that eloquence is not at all at variance with the simplicity of the
   gospel, when it does not merely not disdain to give way to it, and be
   in subjection to it, but also yields service to it, as a handmaid to
   her mistress. For as Augustine says, “He who gave Peter a fisherman,
   gave also Cyprian an orator.” By this he means, that both are from God,
   notwithstanding that the one, who is much the superior of the other as
   to dignity, is utterly devoid of gracefulness of speech; while the
   other, who sits at his feet, is distinguished by the fame of his
   eloquence. That eloquence, therefore, is neither to be condemned nor
   despised, which has no tendency to lead Christians to be taken up with
   an outward glitter of words, or intoxicate them with empty delight, or
   tickle their ears with its tinkling sound, or cover over the cross of
   Christ with its empty show as with a veil; [81] but, on the contrary,
   tends to call us back to the native simplicity of the gospel, tends to
   exalt the simple preaching of the cross by voluntarily abasing itself,
   and, in fine, acts the part of a herald [82] to procure a hearing for
   those fishermen and illiterate persons, who have nothing to recommend
   them but the energy of the Spirit.

   I answer secondly, that the Spirit of God, also, has an eloquence of
   his own, but of such a nature as to shine forth with a native luster
   peculiar to itself, or rather (as they say) intrinsic, more than with
   any adventitious ornaments. Such is the eloquence that the Prophets
   have, more particularly Isaiah, David, and Solomon. Moses, too, has a
   sprinkling of it. Nay farther, even in the writings of the Apostles,
   though they are more unpolished, there are notwithstanding some sparks
   of it occasionally emitted. Hence the eloquence that is suited to the
   Spirit of God is of such a nature that it does not swell with empty
   show, or spend itself in empty sound, but is solid and efficacious, and
   has more of substance than elegance.

   18. For the preaching of the cross, etc. In this first clause a
   concession is made. For as it might very readily be objected, that the
   gospel is commonly held in contempt, if it be presented in so bare and
   abject a form, Paul of his own accord concedes this, but when he adds,
   that it is so in the estimation of them that perish, he intimates that
   no regard must be paid to their judgment. For who would choose to
   despise the gospel at the expense of perishing? This statement,
   therefore, must be understood in this way: “However the preaching of
   the cross, as having nothing of human wisdom to recommend it to esteem,
   is reckoned foolishness by them that perish; in our view,
   notwithstanding, the wisdom of God clearly shines forth in it.” He
   indirectly reproves, however, the perverted judgment of the
   Corinthians, who, while they were, through seduction of words, too
   easily allured by ambitious teachers, regarded with disdain an Apostle
   who was endowed with the power of God for their salvation, and that
   simply because he devoted himself to the preaching of Christ. In what
   way the preaching of the cross is the power of God unto salvation, we
   have explained in commenting upon Romans 1:16

   19. For it is written, etc. He shows still farther, from the testimony
   of Isaiah, how unreasonable a thing it is that the truth of the gospel
   should be regarded with prejudice on the ground that the wise of this
   world hold it in contempt, not to say derision. For it is evident from
   the words of the Prophet, that their opinion is regarded as nothing in
   the account of God. The passage is taken from Isaiah 29:14, where the
   Lord threatens that he will avenge himself upon the hypocrisy of the
   people by this kind of punishment, that wisdom will perish from the
   wise, etc. Now the application of this to the subject in hand is this:
   “It is nothing new or unusual for men to form utterly absurd judgments,
   who appear in other respects to be distinguished for wisdom. For in
   this manner the Lord has been wont to punish the arrogance of those
   who, depending on their own judgment, think to be leaders to themselves
   and others. In this manner did He, among the Israelitish people of old,
   destroy the wisdom of those who were the leaders of the people. If this
   happened among a people, whose wisdom the other nations had occasion to
   admire, what will become of others?”

   It is proper, however, to compare the words of the Prophet with those
   of Paul, and to examine the whole matter still more closely. The
   Prophet, indeed, makes use of neuter verbs when he says, Wisdom will
   perish and prudence will vanish, while Paul turns them into the active
   form, by making them have a reference to God. They are, however,
   perfectly the same in meaning. For this is a great prodigy which God
   declares he will exhibit, so that all will be filled with astonishment.
   Wisdom, therefore, perishes, but it is by the Lord’s destroying it:
   wisdom vanishes, but it is by the Lord’s covering it over and effacing
   it. As to the second term athetein, (which Erasmus renders reject,) as
   it is ambiguous, and is sometimes taken to mean efface, or expunge, or
   obliterate, I prefer to understand it in this sense here, so as to
   correspond with the Prophet’s word vanish, or be hid. At the same time,
   there is another reason that has weighed more with me, [83] — that the
   word reject was not in accordance with the subject, as will appear ere
   long. Let us see, then, as to the meaning.

   The Prophet’s meaning, without doubt, is precisely this, that they
   would no longer have governors that would rule well, because the Lord
   will deprive them of sound judgment and intelligence. For as he
   elsewhere threatens to send blindness upon the whole nation (Isaiah
   6:10,) so here, upon the leaders; which is just as though he were
   plucking the eyes out of the body. However this may be, a great
   difficulty arises from the circumstance, that the term wisdom or
   prudence was taken by Isaiah in a good sense, while Paul quotes it for
   an opposite purpose, as though the wisdom of men were condemned by God,
   as being perverted, and their prudence set aside as being mere vanity.
   I confess that it is commonly expounded in this way; but as it is
   certain that the oracles of the Holy Spirit are not perverted by the
   Apostles to meanings foreign to their real design, I choose rather to
   depart from the common opinion of interpreters than to charge Paul with
   falsehood. In other respects, too, the natural meaning of the Prophet’s
   words accords not ill with Paul’s intention; for if even the wisest
   become fools, when the Lord takes away a right spirit, what confidence
   is to be placed in the wisdom of men? Farther, as it is God’s usual way
   of punishing, to strike blind those who, following implicitly their own
   judgment, are wise in their own esteem, it is not to be wondered if
   carnal men, when they rise up against God, with the view of subjecting
   His eternal truth to their rashness, are turned into fools, and become
   vain in their imaginations. We now see with what appropriateness Paul
   makes use of this testimony. Isaiah declares that the vengeance of God
   upon all those that served God with their own inventions would be, that
   wisdom would vanish from their wise men. Paul, with the view of proving
   that the wisdom of this world is vain and worthless, when it exalts
   itself against God, adduces this testimony from Isaiah.

   20. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? This expression of triumph
   is added for the purpose of illustrating the Prophet’s testimony. Paul
   has not taken this sentiment from Isaiah, as is commonly thought, but
   speaks in his own person. For the passage which they point to (Isaiah
   33:18) has nothing corresponding to the subject in hand, or nearly
   approaching to it. For in that passage, while he promises to the Jews
   deliverance from the yoke of Sennacherib, that he may magnify the more
   this great blessing from God, he shows how miserable is the condition
   of those that are oppressed by the tyranny of foreigners. He says, that
   they are in a constant fever of anxiety, from thinking themselves beset
   with scribes or questors, treasurers, and counters of towers. Nay more,
   he says, that the Jews were involved in such difficulties, that they
   were stirred up to gratitude by the very remembrance of them. [84] It
   is a mistake, therefore, to suppose that this sentence is taken from
   the Prophet. [85] The term world, ought not to be taken in connection
   with the last term merely, but also with the other two. Now, by the
   wise of this world, he means those who do not derive their wisdom from
   illumination by the Spirit through means of the word of God, but,
   endowed with mere worldly sagacity, rest on the assurance which it
   affords.

   It is generally agreed, that by the term scribes is meant teachers. For
   as ספר, saphar, among the Hebrews, means to relate or recount, and the
   noun derived from it, ספר, sepher,, is used by them to signify a book
   or volume, they employ the term סופרימ, sopherim, to denote learned
   men, and those that are conversant with books; and, for the same
   reason, too, sopher regis is often used to denote a chancellor or
   secretary The Greeks, following the etymology of the Hebrew term, have
   translated it grammateis, scribes [86] He appropriately gives the name
   of investigators [87] to those that show off their acuteness by
   starting difficult points and involved questions. Thus in a general way
   he brings to nothing man’s entire intellect, so as to give it no
   standing in the kingdom of God. Nor is it without good reason that he
   inveighs so vehemently against the wisdom of men, for it is impossible
   to express how difficult a thing it is to eradicate from men’s minds a
   misdirected confidence in the flesh, that they may not claim for
   themselves more than is reasonable. Now there is more than ought to be,
   if, depending even in the slightest degree upon their own wisdom, they
   venture of themselves to form a judgment.

   Hath not God made foolish, etc By wisdom here he means everything that
   man can comprehend either by the natural powers of his understanding,
   or as deriving aid from practice, from learning, or from a knowledge of
   the arts. For he contrasts the wisdom of the world with the wisdom of
   the Spirit. Hence, whatever knowledge a man may come to have without
   the illumination of the Holy Spirit, is included in the expression, the
   wisdom of this world This he says God has utterly made foolish, that
   is, He has convicted it of folly. This you may understand to be
   effected in two ways; for whatever a man knows and understands, is mere
   vanity, if it is not grounded in true wisdom; and it is in no degree
   better fitted for the apprehension of spiritual doctrine than the eye
   of a blind man is for discriminating colors. We must carefully notice
   these two things — that a knowledge of all the sciences is mere smoke,
   where the heavenly science of Christ is wanting; and man, with all his
   acuteness, is as stupid for obtaining of himself a knowledge of the
   mysteries of God, as an ass is unqualified for understanding musical
   harmonies. For in this way he reproves the destructive pride of those
   who glory in the wisdom of the world so as to despise Christ, and the
   entire doctrine of salvation, thinking themselves happy when they are
   taken up with creatures; and he beats down the arrogance of those who,
   trusting to their own understanding, attempt to scale heaven itself.

   There is also a solution furnished at the same time to the question,
   how it happens that Paul in this way throws down upon the ground every
   kind of knowledge that is apart from Christ, and tramples, as it were,
   under foot what is manifestly one of the chief gifts of God in this
   world. For what is more noble than man’s reason, in which man excels
   the other animals? How richly deserving of honor are the liberal
   sciences, which polish man, so as to give him the dignity of true
   humanity! Besides this, what distinguished and choice fruits they
   produce! Who would not extol with the highest commendations civil
   prudence [88] (not to speak of other things,) by which governments,
   principalities, and kingdoms are maintained? A solution of this
   question, I say, is opened up to view from the circumstance, that Paul
   does not expressly condemn either man’s natural perspicacity, or wisdom
   acquired from practice and experience, or cultivation of mind attained
   by learning; but declares that all this is of no avail for acquiring
   spiritual wisdom. And, certainly, it is madness for any one, confiding
   either in his own acuteness, or the assistance of learning, to attempt
   to fly up to heaven, or, in other words, to judge of the secret
   mysteries of the kingdom of God, [89] or to break through (Exodus
   19:21) to a discovery of them, for they are hid from human view. Let
   us, then, take notice, that we must restrict to the specialities of the
   case in hand what Paul here teaches respecting the vanity of the wisdom
   of this world — that it rests in the mere elements of the world, and
   does not reach to heaven. In other respects, too, it holds true, that
   without Christ sciences in every department are vain, and that the man
   who knows not God is vain, though he should be conversant with every
   branch of learning. Nay more, we may affirm this, too, with truth, that
   these choice gifts of God — expertness of mind, acuteness of judgment,
   liberal sciences, and acquaintance with languages, are in a manner
   profaned in every instance in which they fall to the lot of wicked men.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [71] “Ironie, c’est a dire, mocquerie;” — “Irony, that is to say,
   mockery.”

   [72] “Seulement en les arrousant d’eau: c’est a dire, baptizant;” —
   “Simply by sprinkling them with water, that is to say, baptizing.”

   [73] “Toute la charge et la pesanteur du fardeau;” — “The whole charge
   and weight of the burden.”

   [74] “Vn Rhetoricien ou harangueur;” — “A Rhetorician, or declaimer.”

   [75] “Ces vaillans docteurs;” — “Those valiant teachers.”

   [76] The term logodaidalia properly denotes speech ingeniously
   contrived. It is compounded of logos (speech) and Daidalos (Daedalus,)
   an ingenious artist of Athens, celebrated for his skill in statuary and
   architecture. Hence everything that was skilfully contrived was called
   Daedalean. See Lucr. 4. 555, and 5. 235; Virg. G. 4. 179; and Aen. 7.
   282. — Ed

   [77] “Eloquence et rhetorique;” — “Eloquence and rhetoric.”

   [78] “Vne bonne erudition, et scauoir solide;” — “Good learning, and
   solid wisdom.”

   [79] “Les Corinthiens auoyent les oreilles chatouilleuses, et estoyent
   transportez d’vn fol appetit d’auoir des gens qui eussent vn beau
   parler;” — “The Corinthians had itching ears, (2 Timothy 4:3,) and were
   carried away with a silly eagerness to have persons that had a good
   manner of address.”

   [80] “Les humbles;” — “The humble.”

   [81] “Ni a offusquer de sa pompe la croix de Christ, comme qui mettroit
   vne nuee au denant;” — “Nor to darken the cross of Christ with its
   empty show, as if one were drawing a cloud over it.”

   [82] “Brief, a seruir comme de trompette;” — “In short, to serve as a
   trumpet.”

   [83] “Combien que j’aye vne raison encore plus valable, qui m’a induit
   a changer ceste translation;” — “At the same time, I have a still more
   forcible reason, which has induced me to alter this translation.”

   [84] The passage referred to in Isaiah is happily rendered by
   Lowth:-Thine heart shall reflect on the past terror: Where is now the
   accomptant? where the weigher of tribute? where is he that numbered the
   towers? The last of these expressions Lowth explains to mean, “the
   commander of the enemy’s forces, who surveyed the fortifications of the
   city, and took an account of the height, strength, and situation of the
   walls and towers, that he might know where to make the assault with the
   greatest advantage.” — Ed.

   [85] “The words of Paul, 1 Corinthians 1:20, pou sophos; pou
   grammateus; pou suzētētēs k.t.l., are not, as some have imagined, a
   quotation of the words of this verse,” (Isaiah 33:18;) “the only points
   of agreement between them being merely the occurrence of grammateus,
   and the repetition of the interrogative tou. It is not impossible,
   however, that the structure of the one passage may have suggested the
   other.” — Henderson on Isaiah. — Ed

   [86] The Hebrew phrase referred to occurs in 2 Kings 12:10 ספר המלך
   (the king’s scribe.) It is rendered by the Septuagint, ho grammateus
   tou basileōs The corresponding Greek term, grammateis is employed by
   the classical writers to denote a clerk or secretary, (Demosth.
   269.19.) The grammateis (notaries) “had the custody of the laws and the
   public records, which it was their business to write, and to repeat to
   the people and senate when so required.” — Potter’s Grecian
   Antiquities, volume 1. — Ed

   [87] Calvin, here has manifestly in his eye the original meaning of
   suzētētēs, which is derived from sun and zēteō (to inquire together,)
   and comes very naturally to mean one that indulges in arguments or
   disputes. The term was applied to the subtle Sophists, or disputants in
   the Greek academies. — Ed

   [88] “La prudence civile, c’est a dire la science des lois;” — “Civil
   prudence, that is to say, the science of laws.”

   [89] See Institutes, volume 1. — Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 1:21-25

   21. For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not
   God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that
   believe.

   21. Quoniam enim in sapientia Dei non cognovit mundus per sapientiam
   Deum, placuit Deo per stultitiam praedicationis salvos facere
   credentes.

   22. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

   22. Siquidem et Judaei signum petunt et Graeci sapientiam quaerunt.

   23. But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and
   unto the Greeks foolishness;

   23. Nos autem praedicamus Christum crucifixum, Judaeis quidem
   scandalum, Graecis autem stultitiam:

   24. But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the
   power of God, and the wisdom of God.

   24. Ipsis autem vocatis, tam Judaeis, quam Graecis, Christum Dei
   potentiam, et Dei sapientiara.

   25. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness
   of God is stronger than men.

   25. Nam stultitia Dei sapientior est hominibus, et infirmitas Dei
   robustior est hominibus.


   21. For since the world knew not. The right order of things was
   assuredly this, that man, contemplating the wisdom of God in his works,
   by the light of the understanding furnished him by nature, might arrive
   at an acquaintance with him. As, however, this order of things has been
   reversed through man’s depravity, God designs in the first place to
   make us see ourselves to be fools, before he makes us wise unto
   salvation, (2 Timothy 3:15;) and secondly, as a token of his wisdom, he
   presents to us what has some appearance of folly. This inversion of the
   order of things the ingratitude of mankind deserved. By the wisdom of
   God he means the workmanship of the whole world, which is an
   illustrious token and clear manifestation of his wisdom: God therefore
   presents before us in his creatures a bright mirror of his admirable
   wisdom, so that every one that looks upon the world, and the other
   works of God, must of necessity break forth in admiration of him, if he
   has a single spark of sound judgment. If men were guided to a right
   knowledge of God by the contemplation of his works, they would know God
   in the exercise of wisdom, or by a natural and proper method of
   acquiring wisdom; but as the whole world gained nothing in point of
   instruction from the circumstance, that God had exhibited his wisdom in
   his creatures, he then resorted to another method for instructing men.
   [90] Thus it must be reckoned as our own fault, that we do not attain a
   saving acquaintance with God, before we have been emptied of our own
   understanding.

   He makes a concession when he calls the gospel the foolishness of
   preaching, having that appearance in the view of those foolish sages
   (mōrosophois) who, intoxicated with false confidence, [91] fear not to
   subject God’s sacred truth to their senseless criticism. And indeed in
   another point of view nothing is more absurd in the view, of human
   reason than to hear that God has become mortal — that life has been
   subjected to death — that righteousness has been veiled under the
   appearance of sin — and that the source of blessing has been made
   subject to the curse, that by this means men might be redeemed from
   death, and become partakers of a blessed immortality — that they might
   obtain life — that, sin being destroyed, righteousness might reign —
   and that death and the curse might be swallowed up. We know,
   nevertheless, in the meantime, that the gospel is the hidden wisdom, (1
   Corinthians 2:7,) which in its height surmounts the heavens, and at
   which angels themselves stand amazed. Here we have a most beautiful
   passage, from which we may see how great is the blindness of the human
   mind, which in the midst of light discerns nothing. For it is true,
   that this world is like a theater, in which the Lord presents to us a
   clear manifestation of his glory, and yet, notwithstanding that we have
   such a spectacle placed before our eyes, we are stone-blind, not
   because the manifestation is furnished obscurely, but because we are
   alienated in mind, (Colossians 1:21,)and for this matter we lack not
   merely inclination but ability. For notwithstanding that God shows
   himself openly, it is only with the eye of faith that we can behold
   him, save only that we receive a slight perception of his divinity,
   sufficient to render us inexcusable.

   Accordingly, when Paul here declares that God is not known through
   means of his creatures, you must understand him to mean that a pure
   knowledge of him is not attained. For that none may have any pretext
   for ignorance, mankind make proficiency in the universal school of
   nature; so far as to be affected with some perception of deity, but
   what God is, they know not, nay more, they straightway become vain in
   their imaginations, (Romans 1:21.) Thus the light shineth in darkness,
   (John 1:5.) It follows, then, that mankind do not err thus far through
   mere ignorance, so as not to be chargeable with contempt, negligence,
   and ingratitude. Thus it holds good, that all

   have known God, and yet have not glorified him,
   (Romans 1:21,)

   and that, on the other hand, no one under the guidance of mere nature
   ever made such proficiency as to know God. Should any one bring forward
   the philosophers as exceptions, I answer, that in them more especially
   there is presented a signal token of this our weakness. For there will
   not be found one of them, that has not from that first principle of
   knowledge, which I have mentioned, straightway turned aside into
   wandering [92] and erroneous speculations, and for the most part they
   betray a silliness worse than that of old wives. When he says, that
   those are saved that believe, this corresponds with the foregoing
   statement — that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation Farther,
   by contrasting believers, whose number is small, with a blind and
   senseless world, he teaches us that we err if we stumble at the
   smallness of their number, inasmuch as they have been divinely set
   apart to salvation.

   22. For the Jews require a sign This is explanatory of the preceding
   statement — showing in what respects the preaching of the gospel is
   accounted foolishness At the same time he does not simply explain, but
   even goes a step farther, by saying that the Jews do not merely despise
   the gospel, but even abhor it. “The Jews,” says he, “desire through
   means of miracles to have before their eyes an evidence of divine
   power: the Greeks are fond of what tends to gratify human intellect by
   the applause of acuteness. We, on the other hand, preach Christ
   crucified, wherein there appears at first view nothing but weakness and
   folly. He is, therefore, a stumblingblock to the Jews, when they see
   him as it were forsaken by God. To the Greeks it appears like a fable,
   to be told of such a method of redemption.” By the term Greeks here, in
   my opinion, he does not mean simply Gentiles, but has in view those who
   had the polish of the liberal sciences, or were distinguished by
   superior intelligence. At the same time by synecdoche, all the others
   come in like manner to be included. Between Jews and Greeks, however,
   he draws this distinction, that the former, striking against Christ by
   an unreasonable zeal for the law, raged against the gospel with
   unbounded fury, as hypocrites are wont to do, when contending for their
   superstitions; while the Greeks, on the other hand, puffed up with
   pride, regarded him with contempt as insipid.

   When he ascribes it to the Jews as a fault, that they are eagerly
   desirous of signs, it is not on the ground of its being wrong in itself
   to demand signs, but he exposes their baseness in the following
   respects: — that by an incessant demand for miracles, they in a manner
   sought to bind God to their laws — that, in accordance with the
   dullness of their apprehension, they sought as it were to feel him out
   [93] in manifest miracles — that they were taken up with the miracles
   themselves, and looked upon them with amazement — and, in fine, that no
   miracles satisfied them, but instead of this, they every day gaped
   incessantly for new ones. Hezekiah is not reproved for having of his
   own accord allowed himself to be confirmed by a sign, (2 Kings 19:29,
   and 2 Kings 20:8,) nor even Gideon for asking a two-fold sign, (Judges
   6:37, 39.) Nay, instead of this, Ahaz is condemned for refusing a sign
   that the Prophet had offered him, (Isaiah 7:12.) What fault, then, was
   there on the part of the Jews in asking miracles? It lay in this, that
   they did not ask them for a good end, set no bounds to their desire,
   and did not make a right use of them. For while faith ought to be
   helped by miracles, their only concern was, how long they might
   persevere in their unbelief. While it is unlawful to prescribe laws to
   God, they wantoned with inordinate desire. While miracles should
   conduct us to an acquaintance with Christ, and the spiritual grace of
   God, they served as a hindrance in their way. On this account, too,
   Christ upbraids them, (Mark 8:12.)

   A perverse generation seeketh after a sign.

   For there were no bounds to their curiosity and inordinate desire, and
   for all that they had so often obtained miracles, no advantage appeared
   to arise from them.

   24. Both Greeks and Jews He shows by this contrast, that the fact that
   Christ was so unfavorably received, was not owing to any fault on his
   part, nor to the natural disposition of mankind generally, but arose
   from the depravity of those who were not enlightened by God, inasmuch
   as the elect of God, whether Jews or Gentiles, are not hindered by any
   stumblingblock from coming to Christ, that they may find in him a sure
   salvation. He contrasts power with the stumblingblock, that was
   occasioned by abasement, and wisdom he contrasts with folly The sum,
   then, is this: — “I am aware that nothing except signs has effect upon
   the obstinacy of the Jews, and that nothing soothes down the
   haughtiness of the Greeks, except an empty show of wisdom. We ought,
   however, to make no account of this; because, however our Christ in
   connection with the abasement of his cross is a stumblingblock to the
   Jews, and is derided by the Greeks, he is, notwithstanding, to all the
   elect, of whatever nation they may be, at once the power of God unto
   salvation for surmounting these stumblingblocks, and the wisdom of God
   for throwing off that mask.” [94]

   25. For the foolishness of God While the Lord deals with us in such a
   way as to seem to act foolishly, because he does not exhibit his
   wisdom, what appears foolishness surpasses in wisdom all the ingenuity
   of men. Farther, while God appears to act with weakness, in consequence
   of his concealing his power, that weakness, as it is reckoned, is
   stronger than any power of men. We must, however, always keep it in
   view, that there is a concession, as I have noticed a little ago. For
   no one can but perceive, that in strict propriety neither foolishness
   nor weakness can be ascribed to God, but it was necessary, by such
   ironical expressions, to beat down the mad presumption of the flesh,
   which does not scruple to rob God of all his glory.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [90] The reader will find the same train of thought as above in the
   Institutes, volume 1. — Ed.

   [91] “Et outrecuidance;” — “And presumption.”

   [92] “Extrauagantes;” — “Extravagant.”

   [93] There can be no doubt that Calvin refers here to an expression
   made use of by Paul in his discourse to the Athenians, Acts 17:27 Ei
   ara ge psēlaphēseian auton kai euroien (if haply they may feel him out
   and find him.) The allusion is to a blind man feeling his way The same
   word is employed by Plato, (Phoed. footnote 47, edit. Forster.) ̔O de
   moi phainontai psēlaphōntes hoi polloi hōsper en skotei, (In this
   respect the many seem to me to be feeling their way as it were in the
   dark.) — Ed

   [94] “Pour oster et faire esvanoir ceste vaine apparence, et masque de
   sagesse;” — “For taking away and causing to vanish, that empty show and
   mask of wisdom.”
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 1:26-31

   26. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after
   the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

   26. Videte (vel, videtis) vocationem vestram, fratres, quod non multi
   [95] sapientes secundum carnem, non multi potentes, non multi nobiles:

   27. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world, to confound
   the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound
   the things which are mighty;

   27. Sed stulta mundi elegit Deus, ut sapientes pudefaciat: et infirma
   mundi elegit Deus, ut patifaciat fortia:

   28. And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath
   God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to naught things
   that are:

   28. Et ignobilia mundi et contempta elegit Deus, et ea quae non erant,
   ut quae erant aboleret;

   29. That no flesh should glory in his presence.

   29. Ne glorietur ulla caro coram Deo.

   30. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us
   wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

   30. Ex ipso vos estis [96] in Christo Jesu, qui factus est nobis
   sapientia a Deo, et justitia, et sanctificatio, et redemptio. [97]

   31. That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory
   in the Lord.

   31. Ut (quemadmodum scriptum est) Qui gloriatur, in Domino glorietur
   (Jeremiah 9:24.)


   26. Behold your calling. As the mood of the Greek verb (blepete) is
   doubtful, and the indicative suits the context equally as well as the
   imperative, I leave it to the reader’s choice which of them he may
   prefer. The meaning is manifestly the same in either case, for
   supposing it to be the indicative (ye see,) he would in that case
   summon them as witnesses — as of a thing that is manifest, and call
   them forward as it were to a thing that is present. On the other hand,
   understanding it in the imperative, he stirs them up, as it were, from
   their drowsiness to a consideration of the matter itself. The term
   calling may be taken in a collective sense to mean the multitude of
   those that are called — in this sense: “Ye see what description of
   persons they are among you that the Lord has called.” I am, however,
   rather inclined to think, that he points out the manner of their
   calling, and it is a most forcible argument, because it follows from
   this, that, if they despise the abasement of the cross, they in a
   manner make void their calling, in which God had acted in such a
   manner, as to take away all merit from human wisdom, and power, and
   glory. Hence he tacitly accuses them of ingratitude, because, forgetful
   alike of God’s grace and of themselves, they regard the gospel of
   Christ with disdain.

   Two things, however, must be observed here — that he was desirous from
   the example of the Corinthians to confirm the truth of what he had
   said: and farther, that he designed to admonish them, that they must be
   entirely divested of pride, if they duly considered the order of things
   that the Lord had observed in their calling. To put to shame, says he,
   the wise and noble, and to bring to naught things that are Both
   expressions are appropriate, for fortitude and wisdom vanish when they
   are put to shame, but what has an existence requires to be brought to
   naught By the choosing of the poor, and the foolish, and the ignoble,
   he means, that God has preferred them before the great, and the wise,
   and the noble. For it would not have sufficed, for beating down the
   arrogance of the flesh, if God had placed them all upon a level. Hence,
   those who appeared to excel he put in the background, in order that he
   might thoroughly abase them. That man, however, were an arrant fool,
   who would infer from this, that God has in this manner abased the glory
   of the flesh, in order that the great and noble might be shut out from
   the hope of salvation. There are some foolish persons that make this a
   pretext for not merely triumphing over the great, as if God had cast
   them off, but even despising them as far beneath them. Let us, however,
   bear in mind, that this is said to the Corinthians, who, though they
   had no great distinction in the world, were nevertheless, even without
   any occasion, puffed up. God, therefore, by confounding the mighty, and
   the wise, and the great, does not design to elate with pride the weak,
   the illiterate, and the abject, but brings down all of them together to
   one level. Let those, therefore, that are contemptible in the eyes of
   the world, think thus with themselves: “What modesty is called for on
   our part, when even those that have high honor in the view of the world
   have nothing left them?” [98] If the effulgence of the sun is obscured,
   what must become of the stars? If the light of the stars is
   extinguished, what must become of opaque objects?” The design of these
   observations is, that those who have been called by the Lord, while of
   no estimation in the view of the world, may not abuse these words of
   Paul by pluming their crests, but, on the contrary, keeping in mind the
   exhortation —

   Thou standest by faith, be not high-minded, but fear,
   (Romans 11:20,)

   may walk thoughtfully in the sight of God with fear and humility.

   Paul, however, does not say here, that there are none of the noble and
   mighty that have been called by God, but that there are few He states
   the design of this — that the Lord might bring down the glory of the
   flesh, by preferring the contemptible before the great. God himself,
   however, by the mouth of David, exhorts kings to embrace Christ, [99]
   (Psalm 2:12,) and by the mouth of Paul, too, he declares, that he will
   have all men to be saved, and that his Christ is offered alike to small
   and great, alike to kings and their subjects, (1 Timothy 2:1-4.) He has
   himself furnished a token of this. Shepherds, in the first place, are
   called to Christ: then afterwards come philosophers: illiterate and
   despised fishermen hold the highest rank of honor; yet into their
   school there are received in process of time kings and their
   counselors, senators and orators.

   28. Things that are not He makes use of similar terms in Romans 4:17,
   but in a different sense. For in that passage, when describing the
   universal call of the pious, he says, that we are nothing previously to
   our being called, which must be understood as referring to reality in
   the sight of God, however we may appear to be something in the eyes of
   men. Here, the nothingness (oudeneia) of which he speaks must be viewed
   as referring to the opinion of men, as is manifest from the
   corresponding clause, in which he says that this is done in order that
   the things that are may be brought to naught For there is nothing
   except in appearance, because in reality we are all nothing. Things
   that are, therefore, you must explain to mean things that appear, so
   that this passage corresponds with such statements as these: —

   He raiseth up the poor out of the dunghill, (Psalm 113:7.)

   He raiseth up them that are cast down, (Psalm 146:8,)

   and the like. Hence we may clearly see how great is the folly of those
   who imagine that there is in mankind some degree of merit or
   worthiness, which would hold a place antecedent to God’s choice.

   29. That no flesh should glory Though the term flesh here, and in many
   passages of Scripture, denotes all mankind, yet in this passage it
   carries with it a particular idea; for the Spirit, by speaking of
   mankind in terms of contempt, beats down their pride, as in Isaiah 31:3
   — The Egyptian is flesh and not spirit It is a sentiment that is worthy
   to be kept in remembrance — that there is nothing left us in which we
   may justly glory. With this view he adds the expression in God’s
   presence For in the presence of the world many delight themselves for
   the moment in a false glorying, which, however, quickly vanishes like
   smoke. At the same time, by this expression all mankind are put to
   silence when they come into the presence of God; as Habakkuk says —

   Let all flesh keep silence before God, (Habakkuk 2:20.)

   Let every thing, therefore, that is at all deserving of praise, be
   recognized as proceeding from God.

   30. Of him are ye. Lest they should think that any of those things that
   he had said were inapplicable to them, he now shows the application of
   those things to them, inasmuch as they are not otherwise than of God
   For the words ye are are emphatic, as though he had said — “You have
   your beginning from God, who calleth those things which are not,”
   (Romans 4:17,) passing by those things that appear to be; and your
   subsistence is founded upon Christ, and thus you have no occasion to be
   proud. Nor is it of creation merely that he speaks, but of that
   spiritual existence, into which we are born again by the grace of God.

   Who of God is made unto us As there are many to be found who, while not
   avowedly inclined to draw back from God, do nevertheless seek something
   apart from Christ, as if he alone did not contain all things [100] in
   himself, he reckons up in passing what and how great are the treasures
   with which Christ is furnished, and in such a way as to intimate at the
   same time what is the manner of subsistence in Christ. For when he
   calls Christ our righteousness, a corresponding idea must be understood
   — that in us there is nothing but sin; and so as to the other terms.
   Now he ascribes here to Christ four commendatory titles, that include
   his entire excellence, and every benefit that we receive from him.

   In the first place, he says that he is made unto us wisdom, by which he
   means, that we obtain in him an absolute perfection of wisdom, inasmuch
   as the Father has fully revealed himself to us in him, that we may not
   desire to know any thing besides him. There is a similar passage in
   Colossians 2:3 —

   In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

   Of this we shall have occasion to speak afterwards when we come to the
   next chapter.

   Secondly, he says that he is made unto us righteousness, by which he
   means that we are on his account acceptable to God, inasmuch as he
   expiated our sins by his death, and his obedience is imputed to us for
   righteousness. For as the righteousness of faith consists in remission
   of sins and a gracious acceptance, we obtain both through Christ.

   Thirdly, he calls him our sanctification, by which he means, that we
   who are otherwise unholy by nature, are by his Spirit renewed unto
   holiness, that we may serve God. From this, also, we infer, that we
   cannot be justified freely through faith alone without at the same time
   living holily. For these fruits of grace are connected together, as it
   were, by an indissoluble tie, [101] so that he who attempts to sever
   them does in a manner tear Christ in pieces. Let therefore the man who
   seeks to be justified through Christ, by God’s unmerited goodness,
   consider that this cannot be attained without his taking him at the
   same time for sanctification, or, in other words, being renewed to
   innocence and purity of life. Those, however, that slander us, as if by
   preaching a free justification through faith we called men off from
   good works, are amply refuted from this passage, which intimates that
   faith apprehends in Christ regeneration equally with forgiveness of
   sins.

   Observe, on the other hand, that these two offices of Christ are
   conjoined in such a manner as to be, notwithstanding, distinguished
   from each other. What, therefore, Paul here expressly distinguishes, it
   is not allowable mistakenly to confound.

   Fourthly, he teaches us that he is given to us for redemption, by which
   he means, that through his goodness we are delivered at once from all
   bondage to sin, and from all the misery that flows from it. Thus
   redemption is the first gift of Christ that is begun in us, and the
   last that is completed. For the commencement of salvation consists in
   our being drawn out of the labyrinth of sin and death; yet in the
   meantime, until the final day of the resurrection, we groan with desire
   for redemption, (as we read in Romans 8:23.) If it is asked in what way
   Christ is given to us for redemption, I answer — “Because he made
   himself a ransom.”

   In fine, of all the blessings that are here enumerated we must seek in
   Christ not the half, or merely a part, but the entire completion. For
   Paul does not say that he has been given to us by way of filling up, or
   eking out righteousness, holiness, wisdom, and redemption, but assigns
   to him exclusively the entire accomplishment of the whole. Now as you
   will scarcely meet with another passage of Scripture that more
   distinctly marks out all the offices of Christ, you may also understand
   from it very clearly the nature and efficacy of faith. For as Christ is
   the proper object of faith, every one that knows what are the benefits
   that Christ confers upon us is at the same time taught to understand
   what faith is.

   31. He that glorieth let him glory in the Lord Mark the end that God
   has in view in bestowing all things upon us in Christ — that we may not
   claim any merit to ourselves, but may give him all the praise. For God
   does not despoil with the view of leaving us bare, but forthwith
   clothes us with his glory — yet on this condition, that whenever we
   would glory we must go out of ourselves. In short, man, brought to
   nothing in his own estimation, and acknowledging that there is nothing
   good anywhere but in God alone, must renounce all desire for his own
   glory, and with all his might aspire and aim at the glory of God
   exclusively. This is also more clearly apparent from the context in the
   writings of the Prophet, from whom Paul has borrowed this testimony;
   for in that passage the Lord, after stripping all mankind of glory in
   respect of strength, wisdom, and riches, commands us to glory only in
   knowing him, (Jeremiah 9:23, 24.) Now he would have us know him in such
   a way as to know that it is he that exercises judgment, righteousness,
   and mercy For this knowledge produces in us at once confidence in him
   and fear of him. If therefore a man has his mind regulated in such a
   manner that, claiming no merit to himself, he desires that God alone be
   exalted; if he rests with satisfaction on his grace, and places his
   entire happiness in his fatherly love, and, in fine, is satisfied with
   God alone, that man truly “glories in the Lord.” I say truly, for even
   hypocrites on false grounds glory in him, as Paul declares, (Romans
   2:17,) when being either puffed up with his gifts, or elated with a
   base confidence in the flesh, or abusing his word, they nevertheless
   take his name upon them.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [95] “Que vous n’estes point beaucoup;” — “That you are not many.”

   [96] “Or c’est de luy que vous estes;” — “Now it is of him that ye
   are.”

   [97] “Redemption, ou rancon;” — “Redemption, or ransom”

   [98] “Dieu ne permet de presumer d’eux mesmes;” — “God does not allow
   them to have confidence in themselves.”

   [99] “A faire hommage a Christ;” — “To do homage to Christ.”

   [100] “Toute plenitude;” — “All fulness.” (Colossians 1:19.)

   [101] The reader will find the same train of thought as above in the
   Institutes, volume 2. — Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER 2
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 2:1-2

   1. And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of
   speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

   1. Et ego, quum venissem ad vos, fratres, veni non in excellentia
   sermonis vel sapientiae, annuntians vobis testimonium Dei.

   2. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ,
   and him crucified.

   2. Non enim eximium duxi, (vel, duxi pro scientia,) scire quicquam
   inter vos, [102] nisi Iesum Christum, et hunc crucifixum.


   1. And I, when I came Paul having begun to speak of his own method of
   teaching, had straightway fallen into a discussion as to the nature of
   gospel preaching generally. Now again he returns to speak of himself,
   to show that nothing in him was despised but what belonged to the
   nature of the gospel itself, and did in a manner adhere to it. He
   allows therefore that he had not had any of the aids of human eloquence
   or wisdom to qualify him for producing any effect, but while he
   acknowledges himself to be destitute of such resources, he hints at the
   inference to be drawn from this — that the power of God shone the more
   illustriously in his ministry, from its standing in no need of such
   helps. This latter idea, however, he will be found bringing forward
   shortly afterwards. For the present he simply grants that he has
   nothing of human wisdom, and in the meantime reserves to himself this
   much — that he published the testimony of God Some interpreters,
   indeed, explain the testimony of God in a passive sense; but as for
   myself, I have no doubt that another interpretation is more in
   accordance with the Apostle’s design, so that the testimony of God is
   that which has come forth from God — the doctrine of the gospel, of
   which he is the author and witness. He now distinguishes between speech
   and wisdom (logon apo tōs sophias.) Hence what I noticed before [103]
   is here confirmed — that hitherto he has not been speaking of mere
   empty prattling, but has included the entire training of human
   learning.

   2. For I did not reckon it desirable. As krinein, in Greek, has often
   the same meaning as eklegein, that is to choose out anything as
   precious, [104] there is, I think, no person of sound judgment but will
   allow that the rendering that I have given is a probable one, provided
   only the construction admits of it. At the same time, if we render it
   thus — “No kind of knowledge did I hold in esteem,” there will be
   nothing harsh in this rendering. If you understand something to be
   supplied, the sentence will run smoothly enough in this way — “Nothing
   did I value myself upon, as worth my knowing, or on the ground of
   knowledge.” At the same time I do not altogether reject a different
   interpretation — viewing Paul as declaring that he esteemed nothing as
   knowledge, or as entitled to be called knowledge, except Christ alone.
   Thus the Greek preposition and, would, as often happens, require to be
   supplied. But whether the former interpretation is not disapproved of,
   or whether this latter pleases better, the substance of the passage
   amounts to this: “As to my wanting the ornaments of speech, and
   wanting, too, the more elegant refinements of discourse, the reason of
   this was, that I did not aspire at them, nay rather, I despised them,
   because there was one thing only that my heart was set upon — that I
   might preach Christ with simplicity.”

   In adding the word crucified, he does not mean that he preached nothing
   respecting Christ except the cross; but that, with all the abasement of
   the cross, he nevertheless preached Christ. It is as though he had
   said: “The ignominy of the cross will not prevent me from looking up to
   him [105] from whom salvation comes, or make me ashamed to regard all
   my wisdom as comprehended in him — in him, I say, whom proud men
   despise and reject on account of the reproach of the cross.” Hence the
   statement must be explained in this way: “No kind of knowledge was in
   my view of so much importance as to lead me to desire anything but
   Christ, crucified though he was.” This little clause is added by way of
   enlargement (auxēsin,) with the view of galling so much the more those
   arrogant masters, by whom Christ was next to despised, as they were
   eager to gain applause by being renowned for a higher kind of wisdom.
   Here we have a beautiful passage, from which we learn what it is that
   faithful ministers ought to teach, what it is that we must, during our
   whole life, be learning, and in comparison with which everything else
   must be “counted as dung.” (Philippians 3:8.)
     __________________________________________________________________

   [102] “Car je n’ay point eu en estime de scauoir aucune chose ou rien
   deli-ber~ de sqauoir entre vous:” — “I had nothing in esteem as
   knowledge; or, I determined to know nothing among you.”

   [103] Calvin refers to what he had said when commenting on an
   expression which occurs in chap. 1:17 — not with wisdom of words.

   [104] Xenophon uses krinō in the sense of choosing out, or preferring:
   in Mem. 4. 4, sec. 16, ouch hopōs tous autous chorous krinōsin hoi
   politai — not that the citizens should prefer the dances.” See also
   Menander, prefer the same line 245, edit. Cleric. In the New Testament
   we find krinō used in the sense of esteeming, in Romans 14:5. — Ed

   [105] “Ne fera point que ie n’aye en reuerence et admiration;” — “Will
   not prevent me from holding in reverence and admiration.”
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 2:3-5

   3. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

   3. Et ego in infirmirate, [106] et in timore, et in tremore multo fui
   apud vos:

   4. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s
   wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

   4. Et sermo meus, et praedicatio mea, non in persuasoriis humanae
   sapientiae sermonibus, sed in demonstratione Spiritus et potentiae:

   5. That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the
   power of God.

   5. Ut fides vestra non sit in sapientia hominum, sed in potentia Dei.


   3. And I was with you in weakness He explains at greater length what he
   had previously touched upon — that he had nothing shining or excellent
   in him in the eyes of men, to raise him to distinction. He concedes,
   however, to his adversaries what they desired in such a way as to make
   those very things which, in their opinion, tended to detract from the
   credit of his ministry, redound to its highest commendation. If he
   appeared less worthy of esteem from his being so mean and abject
   according to the flesh, he shows that the power of God shone out the
   more conspicuously in this, that he could effect so much, while
   sustained by no human helps. He has in his eye not merely those foolish
   boasters [107] who aimed at mere show, with the view of obtaining for
   themselves a name, but the Corinthians, too, who gazed with
   astonishment on their empty shows. Accordingly a recital of this kind
   was fitted to have great weight with them. They were aware that Paul
   had brought nothing with him in respect of the flesh that was fitted to
   help him forward, or that might enable him to insinuate himself into
   the favor of men, and yet they had seen the amazing success which the
   Lord had vouchsafed to his preaching. Nay more, they had in a manner
   beheld with their own eyes the Spirit of God present in his doctrine.
   When, therefore, despising his simplicity, they were tickled with a
   desire for a kind of wisdom, I know not of what sort, more puffed up
   and more polished, and were captivated with outward appearance, nay,
   even with adventitious ornament, rather than with the living efficacy
   of the Spirit, did they not sufficiently discover their ambitious
   spirit? It is with good reason, therefore, that Paul puts them in mind
   of his first entering in among them, (1 Thessalonians 2:1,) that they
   may not draw back from that divine efficacy, which they once knew by
   experience.

   The term weakness he employs here, and in several instances afterwards,
   (2 Corinthians 11:30; 2 Corinthians 12:5, 9, 10,) as including
   everything that can detract from a person’s favor and dignity in the
   opinion of others. Fear and trembling are the effects of that weakness
   There are, however, two ways in which these two terms may be explained
   by us. Either we may understand him to mean, that when he pondered the
   magnitude of the office that he sustained, it was tremblingly, and not
   without great anxiety, that he occupied himself in it; or that, being
   encompassed with many dangers, he was in constant alarm and incessant
   anxiety. Either meaning suits the context sufficiently well. The
   second, however, is, in my opinion, the more simple. Such a spirit of
   modesty, indeed, becomes the servants of the Lord, that, conscious of
   their own weakness, and looking, on the other hand, at once to the
   difficulty and the excellence of so arduous an office, they should
   enter on the discharge of it with reverence and fear For those that
   intrude themselves confidently, and in a spirit much elated, or who
   discharge the ministry of the word with an easy mind, as though they
   were fully equal to the task, are ignorant at once of themselves and of
   the task. [108]

   As, however, Paul here connects fear with weakness, and as the term
   weakness denotes everything that was fitted to render him contemptible,
   it follows necessarily that this fear must relate to dangers and
   difficulties. It is certain, however, that this fear was of such a
   nature as did not prevent Paul from engaging in the Lord’s work, as
   facts bear witness. The Lord’s servants are neither so senseless as not
   to perceive impending dangers, nor so devoid of feeling as not to be
   moved by them. Nay more, it is necessary for them to be seriously
   afraid on two accounts chiefly — first, that, abased in their own eyes,
   they may learn wholly to lean and rest upon God alone, and secondly,
   that they may be trained to a thorough renunciation of self. Paul,
   therefore, was not devoid of the influence of fear, but that fear he
   controlled in such a manner as to go forward, notwithstanding, with
   intrepidity through the midst of dangers, so as to encounter with
   undaunted firmness and fortitude all the assaults of Satan and of the
   world; and, in fine, so as to struggle through every impediment.

   4. And my preaching was not in the persuasive words. By the persuasive
   words of man’s wisdom he means that exquisite oratory which aims and
   strives rather by artifice than by truth, and also an appearance of
   refinement, that allures the minds of men. It is not without good
   reason, too, that he ascribes persuasiveness (to pithanon) [109] to
   human wisdom. For the word of the Lord constrains us by its majesty, as
   if by a violent impulse, to yield obedience to it. Human wisdom, on the
   other hand, has her allurements, by which she insinuates herself [110]
   and her blandishments, as it were, by which she may conciliate for
   herself the affections of her hearers. With this he contrasts the
   demonstration of the Spirit and of power, which most interpreters
   consider as restricted to miracles; but I take it in a more general
   sense, as meaning the hand of God powerfully exercised in every way
   through the instrumentality of the Apostle. Spirit and power he seems
   to have made use of by hypallage, [111] (kath ' hupallagēn,) to denote
   spiritual power, or at least with the view of showing by signs and
   effects in what manner the presence of the Spirit had shown itself in
   his ministry. He appropriately, too, makes use of the term apodeixeōs,
   (demonstration;) for such is our dullness in contemplating the works of
   God, that when he makes use of inferior instruments, they serve as so
   many veils to hide from us his influence, so that we do not clearly
   perceive it. On the other hand, as in the furtherance given to Paul’s
   ministry, there was no aid furnished from the flesh or the world, and
   as the hand of God was as it were made bare, (Isaiah 52:10,) his
   influence was assuredly the more apparent.

   5. That your faith should not be in the wisdom of men. To be is used
   here as meaning to consist His meaning, then, is, that the Corinthians
   derived this advantage from his having preached Christ among them
   without dependence on human wisdom, and relying solely on the Spirit’s
   influence, that their faith was founded not on men but on God. If the
   Apostle’s preaching had rested exclusively on the power of eloquence,
   it might have been overthrown by superior eloquence, and besides, no
   one would pronounce that to be solid truth which rests on mere elegance
   of speech. It may indeed be helped by it, but it ought not to rest upon
   it On the other hand, that must have been most powerful which could
   stand of itself without any foreign aid. Hence it forms a choice
   commendation of Paul’s preaching, that heavenly influence shone forth
   in it so clearly, that it surmounted so many hindrances, while deriving
   no assistance from the world. It follows, therefore, that they must not
   allow themselves to be moved away from his doctrine, which they
   acknowledge to rest on the authority of God. Paul, however, speaks here
   of the faith of the Corinthians in such a way as to bring forward this,
   as a general statement. Let it then be known by us that it is the
   property of faith to rest upon God alone, without depending on men; for
   it requires to have so much certainty to go upon, that it will not
   fail, even when assailed by all the machinations of hell, but will
   perseveringly endure and sustain every assault. This cannot be
   accomplished unless we are fully persuaded that God has spoken to us,
   and that what we have believed is no mere contrivance of men. While
   faith ought properly to be founded on the word of God alone, there is
   at the same time no impropriety in adding this second prop, — that
   believers recognize the word which they hear as having come forth from
   God, from the effect of its influence.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [106] “En infirmite ou foiblesse;” — “In weakness or feebleness.”

   [107] “Thrasones.” The appellation is borrowed from Thraso, a foolish
   captain in Terence (Eun. 3:1.) — Ed.

   [108] “Ne cognoissent ni eux ni la chose qu’ils ont entre mains;” —
   “They know not either themselves or the thing that they have in hand.”

   [109] This passage has largely exercised the ingenuity of critics, from
   the circumstance that the adjective peithois, occurring nowhere else in
   the New Testament, or in any of the writings of classical authors, it
   is supposed that there has been some corruption of the reading. Some
   suppose it to be a contraction or corruption of peithanois or
   pithasois, and Chrysostom, in one or two instances, when quoting the
   passage, uses the adjective pithanois, while in other cases he has
   peithois It is perhaps in allusion to those instances in which
   Chrysostom makes use of the adjective pithasois, that Calvin employs
   the phrase to pithanon (persuasiveness.) Semler, after adducing various
   authorities, suggests the following reading: — en peithoi sophais
   taking peithoi; as the dative of hē peithō, (persuasion.) Bloomfield
   considers peithoi, to be a highly probable reading, but prefers to
   retain peithois. — Ed

   [110] “Secrettement et doucement;” — “Secretly and softly.”

   [111] A figure of speech by which words change their cases with each
   other. — Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 2:6-9

   6. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the
   wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to
   naught:

   6. Porro sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos: sapientiam quidem non
   saeculi hujus, neque principum saeculi hujus, qui abolentur:

   7. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom,
   which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

   7. Sed loquimur sapientiam Dei in mysterio, quae est recondita: quam
   praefinivit Deus ante saecula in gloriam nostram,

   8. Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it,
   they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

   8. Quam nemo principum saeculi hujus cognovit: si emro cognovissent,
   nequaquam Dominum gloriae crucifixissent.

   9. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have
   entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for
   them that love him.

   9. Sed quemadmodum Scriptum est (Ies. 64:4.) “Quae oculus non vidit,
   nec auris audivit, nec in cor hominis ascenderunt, quae praeparavit
   Deus iis, qui ipsum diligunt.”


   6. We speak wisdom Lest he should appear to despise wisdom, as
   unlearned and ignorant men (Acts 4:13) condemn learning with a sort of
   barbarian ferocity, he adds, that he is not devoid of that wisdom,
   which was worthy of the name, but was esteemed as such by none but
   competent judges. By those that were perfect, he means not those that
   had attained a wisdom that was full and complete, but those who possess
   a sound and unbiased judgment. For תם, which is always rendered in the
   Septuagint by teleios means complete [112] He twits, however, in
   passing, those that had no relish for his preaching, and gives them to
   understand that it was owing to their own fault: “If my doctrine is
   disrelished by any of you, those persons give sufficient evidence from
   that very token, that they possess a depraved and vitiated
   understanding, inasmuch as it will invariably be acknowledged to be the
   highest wisdom among men of sound intellect and correct judgment.”
   While Paul’s preaching was open to the view of all, it was,
   nevertheless, not always estimated according to its value, and this is
   the reason why he appeals to sound and unbiased judges, [113] who would
   declare that doctrine, which the world accounted insipid, to be true
   wisdom. Meanwhile, by the words we speak, he intimates that he set
   before them an elegant specimen of admirable wisdom, lest any one
   should allege that he boasted of a thing unknown.

   Yet not the wisdom of this world He again repeats by way of
   anticipation what he had already conceded — that the gospel was not
   human wisdom, lest any one should object that there were few supporters
   of that doctrine; nay more, that it was contemned by all that were most
   distinguished for intellect. Hence he acknowledges of his own accord
   what might be brought forward by way of objection, but in such a way as
   not at all to give up his point.

   The princes of this world By the princes of this world he means those
   that have distinction in the world through means of any endowment, for
   sometimes there are persons, who, though they are by no means
   distinguished by acuteness of intellect, are nevertheless held in
   admiration from the dignity of the station which they hold. That,
   however, we may not be alarmed by these imposing appearances, the
   Apostle adds, that they come to nought, or perish. For it were
   unbefitting, that a thing that is eternal should depend upon the
   authority of those who are frail, and fading, and cannot give
   perpetuity even to themselves: “When the kingdom of God is revealed,
   let the wisdom of this world retire, and what is transient give place
   to what is eternal; for the princes of this world have their
   distinction, but it is of such a nature as is in one moment
   extinguished. What is this in comparison with the heavenly and
   incorruptible kingdom of God?”

   7. The wisdom of God in a mystery He assigns the reason why the
   doctrine of the gospel is not held in high esteem by the princes of
   this world — because it is involved in mysteries, and is consequently
   hidden For the gospel so far transcends the perspicacity of human
   intellect, that to whatever height those who are accounted men of
   superior intellect may raise their view, they never can reach its
   elevated height, while in the meantime they despise its meanness, as if
   it were prostrate at their feet. The consequence is, that the more
   proudly they contemn it, they are the farther from acquaintance with it
   — nay more, they are removed to so great a distance as to be prevented
   from even seeing it.

   Which God hath ordained. Paul having said that the gospel was a hidden
   thing, there was a danger lest believers should, on hearing this, be
   appalled by the difficulty, and retire in despair. Accordingly he meets
   this danger, and declares that it had notwithstanding been appointed to
   us, that we might enjoy it. Lest any one, I say, should reckon that he
   has nothing to do with the hidden wisdom, or should imagine it to be
   unlawful to direct his eyes towards it, as not being within the reach
   of human capacity, he teaches that it has been communicated to us in
   accordance with the eternal counsel of God. At the same time he has
   something still farther in view, for by an implied comparison he extols
   that grace which has been opened up by Christ’s advent, and
   distinguishes us above our fathers, who lived under the law. On this
   point I have spoken more at large in [3]the end of the last chapter of
   the Romans. First of all then he argues from what God had ordained, for
   if God has appointed nothing in vain, it follows, that we will be no
   losers by listening to the gospel which he has appointed for us, for he
   accommodates himself to our capacity in addressing us. In accordance
   with this Isaiah (Isaiah 45:19) says —

   “I have not spoken in a lurking place, or in a dark corner. [114]
   I have not in vain said to the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me.”

   Secondly, with the view of rendering the gospel attractive, and
   alluring us to a desire of acquaintance with it, he draws an argument
   still farther from the design that God had in view in giving it to us —
   “for our glory.” In this expression, too, he seems to draw a comparison
   between us and the fathers, our heavenly Father not having vouchsafed
   to them that honor which he reserved for the advent of his Son. [115]

   8. None of the princes of this world knew If you supply the words by
   their own discernment, the statement would not be more applicable to
   them than to the generality of mankind, and the very lowest of the
   people; for what are the attainments of all of us as to this matter,
   from the greatest to the least? Only we may perhaps say, that princes,
   rather than others, are charged with blindness and ignorance — for this
   reason, that they alone appear in the view of the word clear-sighted
   and wise. At the same time I should prefer to understand the expression
   in a more simple way, agreeably to the common usage of Scripture, which
   is wont to speak in terms of universality of those things that, happen
   epi to polu, that is commonly, and also to make a negative statement in
   terms of universality, as to those things that happen only epi elatton,
   that is very seldom In this sense there were nothing inconsistent with
   this statement, though there were found a few men of distinction, and
   elevated above others in point of dignity, who were at the same time
   endowed with the pure knowledge of God.

   For had they known The wisdom of God shone forth clearly in Christ, and
   yet there the princes did not perceive it; for those who took the lead
   in the crucifixion of Christ were on the one hand the chief men of the
   Jews, high in credit for holiness and wisdom; and on the other hand
   Pilate and the Roman empire. In this we have a most distinct proof of
   the utter blindness of all that are wise only according to the flesh.
   This argument of the Apostle, however, might appear to be weak. “What!
   do we not every day see persons who, with deliberate malice, fight
   against the truth of God, as to which they are not ignorant; nay, even
   if a rebellion so manifest were not to be seen by us with our eyes,
   what else is the sin against the Holy Ghost than a willful obstinacy
   against God, when a man knowingly and willingly does not merely oppose
   his word, but even fights against it. It is on this account, too, that
   Christ declares that the Pharisees, and others of that description,
   knew him, (John 7:28,) while he deprives them of all pretext of
   ignorance, and accuses them of impious cruelty in persecuting him, the
   faithful servant of the Father, for no other reason but that they hated
   the truth.”

   I answer that there are two kinds of ignorance. The one arises from
   inconsiderate zeal, not expressly rejecting what is good, but from
   having an impression that it is evil. No one, it is true, sins in
   ignorance in such a way as not to be chargeable meanwhile in the sight
   of God with an evil conscience, there being always a mixture of
   hypocrisy, or pride, or contempt; but at the same time judgment, and
   all intelligence in the mind of man, are sometimes so effectually
   choked, that nothing but bare ignorance is to be seen by others, or
   even by the individual himself. Such was Paul before he was
   enlightened; for the reason why he hated Christ and was hostile to his
   doctrine was, that he was through ignorance hurried away with a
   preposterous zeal for the law. [116] Yet he was not devoid of
   hypocrisy, nor exempt from pride, so as to be free from blame in the
   sight of God, but those vices were so completely covered over with
   ignorance and blindness as not to be perceived or felt even by himself.

   The other kind of ignorance has more of the appearance of insanity and
   derangement, than of mere ignorance; for those that of their own accord
   rise up against God, are like persons in a frenzy, who, seeing, see
   not. (Matthew 13:13.) It must be looked upon, indeed, as a settled
   point, that infidelity is always blind; but the difference lies here,
   that in some cases malice is covered over with blindness to such a
   degree that the individual, through a kind of stupidity, is without any
   perception of his own wickedness. This is the case with those who, with
   a good intention, as they speak, or in other words, a foolish
   imagination, impose upon themselves. In some cases malice has the
   ascendancy in such a manner, that in spite of the checks of conscience,
   the individual rushes forward into wickedness of this sort with a kind
   of madness. [117] Hence it is not to be wondered, if Paul declares that
   the princes of this world would not have crucified Christ, had they
   known the wisdom of God. For the Pharisees and Scribes did not know
   Christ’s doctrine to be true, so as not to be bewildered in their mind,
   and wander on in their own darkness.

   9. As it is written, “What eye hath not seen.” All are agreed that this
   passage is taken from Isaiah 64:4, and as the meaning is at first view
   plain and easy, interpreters do not give themselves much trouble in
   expounding it. On looking, however, more narrowly into it, two very
   great difficulties present themselves. The first is, that the words
   that are here quoted by Paul do not correspond with the words of the
   Prophet. The second is, that it seems as though Paul had perverted the
   Prophet’s declaration to a purpose quite foreign to his design.

   First then as to the words; and as they may be taken in different
   senses, they are explained variously by interpreters. Some render the
   passage thus: “From the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor
   perceived with their ears, and eye hath not seen any god beside Thee,
   who doth act in such a manner towards him that waiteth for him.” Others
   understand the discourse as addressed to God, in this manner: “Eye hath
   not seen, nor hath ear heard, O God, besides thee, the things which
   thou dost for those that wait for thee.” Literally, however, the
   Prophet’s meaning is: “From the beginning of the world men have not
   heard, nor have they perceived with the ears, hath not seen a god, (or
   O God,) besides thee, will do (or will prepare) for him that waiteth
   for him.” If we understand אלהים (God) to be in the accusative, the
   relative who must be supplied. This exposition, too, appears, at first
   view, to suit better with the Prophet’s context in respect of the verb
   that follows being used in the third person; [118] but it is farther
   removed from Paul’s meaning, on which we ought to place more dependence
   than on any other consideration. For where shall we find a surer or
   more faithful interpreter than the Spirit of God of this authoritative
   declaration, which He himself dictated to Isaiah — in the exposition
   which He has furnished by the mouth of Paul. With the view of
   obviating, however, the calumnies of the wicked, I observe that the
   Hebrew idiom admits of our understanding the Prophets true meaning to
   be this: “O God, neither hath eye seen, nor hath ear heard: but thou
   alone knowest the things which thou art wont to do to those that wait
   for thee.” The sudden change of person forms no objection, as we know
   that it is so common in the writings of the Prophets, that it needs not
   be any hindrance in our way. If any one, however, prefers the former
   interpretation, he will have no occasion for charging either us or the
   Apostle with departing from the simple meaning of the words, for we
   supply less than they do, as they are under the necessity of adding a
   mark of comparison to the verb, rendering it thus: “who doth act in
   such a manner.”

   As to what follows respecting the entering of these things into the
   heart of man, though the expression is not made use of by the Prophet,
   it does not differ materially from the clause besides thee For in
   ascribing this knowledge to God alone, he excludes from it not merely
   the bodily senses of men, but also the entire faculty of the
   understanding. While, therefore, the Prophet makes mention only of
   sight and hearing, he includes at the same time by implication all the
   faculties of the soul. And without doubt these are the two instruments
   by which we attain the knowledge of those things that find their way
   into the understanding. In using the expression them that love him, he
   has followed the Greek interpreters, who have translated it in this way
   from having been misled by the resemblance between one letter and
   another; [119] but as that did not affect the point in hand, he did not
   choose to depart from the common reading, as we frequently have
   occasion to observe how closely he follows the received version. Though
   the words, therefore, are not the same, there is no real difference of
   meaning.

   I come now to the subject-matter. The Prophet in that passage, when
   mentioning how signally God had on all occasions befriended his people
   in their emergencies, exclaims, that his acts of kindness to the pious
   surpass the comprehension of human intellect. “But what has this to
   do,” some one will say, “with spiritual doctrine, and the promises of
   eternal life, as to which Paul is here arguing?” There are three ways
   in which this question may be answered. There were no inconsistency in
   affirming that the Prophet, having made mention of earthly blessings,
   was in consequence of this led on to make a general statement, and even
   to extol that spiritual blessedness which is laid up in heaven for
   believers. I prefer, however, to understand him simply as referring to
   those gifts of God’s grace that are daily conferred upon believers. In
   these it becomes us always to observe their source, and not to confine
   our views to their present aspect. Now their source is that unmerited
   goodness of God, by which he has adopted us into the number of his
   sons. He, therefore, who would estimate these things aright, will not
   contemplate them in their naked aspect, but will clothe them with God’s
   fatherly love, as with a robe, and will thus be led forward from
   temporal favors to eternal life. It might also be maintained that the
   argument is from the less to the greater; for if man’s intellect is not
   competent to measure God’s earthly gifts, how much less will it reach
   the height of heaven? (John 3:12.) I have, however, already intimated
   which interpretation I prefer.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [112] “Thus we read, (Genesis 25:27,) that Jacob was איש תם, “a perfect
   man,” i.e. without any manifest blemish. See also Job 1:1, 8. The
   corresponding word תמים, is frequently applied to the sacrificial
   victims, to denote their being without blemish Exodus 12:5; Leviticus
   1:3. — Ed

   [113] “Il ne s’en rapporte pas a vn chacvn, mais requiert des luges
   entiers;” — “He does not submit the case to every one, but appeals to
   competent judges.”

   [114] “In allusion, it is generally thought, to the deep and dark
   caverns from which the heathen oracles gave forth their responses. Such
   was the cave (antrum) of the Cumean Sibyl, described by Virgil, AEn.
   6:42-44, and also the cavern in the temple of Apollo at Delphi,
   described by Strabo (lib. 9.) “phasi d ' einai to manteion antron
   koilon meta bathous, ou mala eurostomon;” — “They say that the oracle
   is a hollow cavern of considerable depth, but not at all wide in the
   opening.” — Ed

   [115] Locke, in accordance with Calvin’s view, understands Paul as if
   he had said: “Why do you make divisions, by glorying, as you do, in
   your distinct teachers? The glory that God has ordained us (Christian
   teachers and professors) to, is to be expounders, preachers, and
   believers of those revealed truths and purposes of God, which, though
   contained in the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament, were not
   understood in former ages.” — Ed.

   [116] “Vne zele de la loy desordonne et real regle;” — “An inordinate
   and ill regulated zeal for the law.”

   [117] The distinction drawn by Calvin is illustrated by a statement of
   Solomon in Proverbs 21:27. “The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination:
   how much more when he bringeth it with a wicked mind.” בזמה — “with a
   wicked design.” — Ed

   [118] “Assauoir, Fera, or Preparera;” — “Namely — He will do, or He
   will prepare.”

   [119] The word made use of by Isaiah is מחכה, which is a part of the
   verb חכה, to wait for, and Calvin’s meaning most probably is, that the
   “Greek interpreters had (from the resemblance between ב and כ) been led
   into the mistake of supposing it to be a part of the verb חבב, to love,
   while the corresponding part of the latter verb — מחובב, manifestly
   differs very widely from the word made use of by the Prophet. There
   appears, how ever, to have been an oversight, in this instance, on the
   part of Calvin, as the word in the Septuagint version is not the word
   made use of by the Apostle — agapōsin, “them that love” (him,) but
   (corresponding to the word made use of bythe Prophet hupomenousin,
   “them that wait for” (him.) It is not a little singular, that Clemens
   Romanus (Ep. ad Cor. Sect. 34.) quotes the words of Isaiah precisely as
   Paul quotes them, with the exception of the last clause, which he gives
   as follows: hosa hētoimase tois hupomenousin auton — “which he hath
   prepared for them that wait for him.” Some have supposed the citation
   to have been taken from one or other of the two Apocryphal books,
   entitled, “The Ascension of Esaiah,” and “The Apocalyps of Elias,” in
   both of which this passage was found, but, as is justly observed by
   Horne in his Introduction (volume 2,) “it is so near to the Hebrew here
   both in sense and words, that we cannot suppose it to be taken from any
   other source, nor in this case would the Apostle have introduced it
   with the formula of quotation — as it is written.” In accordance with
   Calvln’s remark, that “though the words are not the same, there is no
   real difference of meaning,” it is well observed by Poole in his
   Annotations, that “waiting for” God is “the certain product and effect
   of love to him.” — Ed
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 2:10-13

   10. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit
   searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

   10. Nobis autem Deus revelavit per Spiritum suum: Spiritus enim omnia
   scrutatur, etiam profunditates Dei.

   11. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man
   which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the
   Spirit of God.

   11. Quis enim hominum novit, quae ad eum pertinent, nisi spiritus
   hominis, qui est in ipso? Ita et quae Dei sunt, nemo novit, nisi
   Spiritus Dei.

   12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit
   which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to
   us of God.

   12. Nos autem non spiritum mundi accepimus, seal Spiritum qui est ex
   Deo: ut sciamus quae a Christo donata sunt nobis:

   13. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom
   teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things
   with spiritual.

   13. Quae et loquimur, non in eruditis humanae sapientiae sermonibus,
   sed Spiritus sancti, spiritualibus spiritualia coaptantes.


   10. But God hath revealed them to us. Having shut up all mankind in
   blindness, and having taken away from the human intellect the power of
   attaining to a knowledge of God by its own resources, he now shows in
   what way believers are exempted from this blindness, — by the Lord’s
   honoring them with a special illumination of the Spirit. Hence the
   greater the bluntness of the human intellect for understanding the
   mysteries of God, and the greater the uncertainty under which it
   labors, so much the surer is our faith, which rests for its support on
   the revelation of God’s Spirit. In this, too, we recognize the
   unbounded goodness of God, who makes our defect contribute to our
   advantage.

   For the Spirit searcheth all things This is added for the consolation
   of the pious, that they may rest more securely in the revelation which
   they have from the Spirit of God, as though he had said. “Let it
   suffice us to have the Spirit of God as a witness, for there is nothing
   in God that is too profound for him to reach.” For such is the import
   here of the word searcheth By the deep things you must understand — not
   secret judgments, which we are forbidden to search into, but the entire
   doctrine of salvation, which would have been to no purpose set before
   us in the Scriptures, were it not that God elevates our minds to it by
   his Spirit.

   11. For what man knoweth? Two different things he intends to teach
   here: first, that the doctrine of the Gospel cannot be understood
   otherwise than by the testimony of the Holy Spirit; and secondly, that
   those who have a testimony of this nature from the Holy Spirit, have an
   assurance as firm and solid, as if they felt with their hands what they
   believe, for the Spirit is a faithful and indubitable witness. This he
   proves by a similitude drawn from our own spirit: for every one is
   conscious of his own thoughts, and on the other hand what lies hid in
   any man’s heart, is unknown to another. In the same way what is the
   counsel of God, and what his will, is hid from all mankind, for “who
   hath been his counselor?” (Romans 11:34.) It is, therefore, a secret
   recess, inaccessible to mankind; but, if the Spirit of God himself
   introduces us into it, or in other words, makes us acquainted with
   those things that are otherwise hid from our view, there will then be
   no more ground for hesitation, for nothing that is in God escapes the
   notice of the Spirit of God.

   This similitude, however, may seem to be not altogether very
   appropriate, for as the tongue bears an impress of the mind, mankind
   communicate their dispositions to each other, so that they become
   acquainted with each other’s thoughts. Why then may we not understand
   from the word of God what is his will? For while mankind by pretenses
   and falsehoods in many cases conceal their thoughts rather than
   discover them, this cannot happen with God, whose word is undoubted
   truth, and his genuine and lively image. We must, however, carefully
   observe how far Paul designed to extend this comparison. A man’s
   innermost thought, of which others are ignorant, is perceived by
   himself alone: if he afterwards makes it known to others, this does not
   hinder but that his spirit alone knows what is in him. For it may
   happen that he does not persuade: it may even happen that he does not
   properly express his own meaning; but even if he attains both objects,
   this statement is not at variance with the other — that his own spirit
   alone has the true knowledge of it. There is this difference, however,
   between God’s thoughts and those of men, that men mutually understand
   each other; but the word of God is a kind of hidden wisdom, the
   loftiness of which is not reached by the weakness of the human
   intellect. Thus the light shineth in darkness, (John 1:5,) aye and
   until the Spirit opens the eyes of the blind.

   The spirit of a man Observe, that the spirit of a man is taken here for
   the soul, in which the intellectual faculty, as it is called, resides.
   For Paul would have expressed himself inaccurately if he had ascribed
   this knowledge to man’s intellect, or in other words, the faculty
   itself, and not to the soul, which is endued with the power of
   understanding.

   12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world He heightens by
   contrast the certainty of which he had made mention. “The Spirit of
   revelation,” says he, “which we have received, is not of the world, so
   as to be merely creeping upon the ground, so as to be subject to
   vanity, or be in suspense, or vary or fluctuate, or hold us in doubt
   and perplexity. On the contrary, it is from God, and hence it is above
   all heavens, of solid and unvarying truth, and placed above all risk of
   doubt.”

   It is a passage that is most abundantly clear, for refuting that
   diabolical doctrine of the Sophists as to a constant hesitancy on the
   part of believers. For they require all believers to be in doubt,
   whether they are in the grace of God or not, and allow of no assurance
   of salvation, but what hangs on moral or probable conjecture. In this,
   however, they overthrow faith in two respects: for first they would
   have us be in doubt, whether we are in a state of grace, and then
   afterwards they suggest a second occasion of doubt — as to final
   perseverance. [120] Here, however, the Apostle declares in general
   terms, that the elect have the Spirit given them, by whose testimony
   they are assured that they have been adopted to the hope of eternal
   salvation. Undoubtedly, if they would maintain their doctrine, they
   must of necessity either take away the Spirit of God from the elect, or
   make even the Spirit himself subject to uncertainty. Both of these
   things are openly at variance with Paul’s doctrine. Hence we may know
   the nature of faith to be this, that conscience has from the Holy
   Spirit a sure testimony of the good-will of God towards it, so that,
   resting upon this, it does not hesitate to invoke God as a Father. Thus
   Paul lifts up our faith above the world, that it may look down with
   lofty disdain upon all the pride of the flesh; for otherwise it will be
   always timid and wavering, because we see how boldly human ingenuity
   exalts itself, the haughtiness of which requires to be trodden under
   foot by the sons of God through means of an opposing haughtiness of
   heroical magnanimity. [121]

   That we may know the things that are given us by Christ. The word know
   is made use of to express more fully the assurance of confidence. Let
   us observe, however, that it is not acquired in a natural way, and is
   not attained by the mental capacity, but depends entirely on the
   revelation of the Spirit. The things that he makes mention of as given
   by Christ are the blessings that we obtain through his death and
   resurrection — that being reconciled to God, and having obtained
   remission of sins, we know that we have been adopted to the hope of
   eternal life, and that, being sanctified by the Spirit of regeneration,
   we are made new creatures, that we may live to God. In Ephesians 1:18,
   he says what amounts to the same thing —

   “That ye may know what is the hope of your calling.”

   13. Which things also we speak, not in the learned words, etc. He
   speaks of himself, for he is still employed in commending his ministry.
   Now it is a high commendation that he pronounces upon his preaching,
   when he says of it that it contains a secret revelation of the most
   important matters — the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the sum of our
   salvation, and the inestimable treasures of Christ, that the
   Corinthians may know how highly it ought to be prized. In the meantime
   he returns to the concession that he had made before — that his
   preaching had not been adorned with any glitter of words, and had no
   luster of elegance, but was contented with the simple doctrine of the
   Holy Spirit. By the learned words of human wisdom [122] he means those
   that savor of human learning, and are polished according to the rules
   of the rhetoricians, or blown up with philosophical loftiness, with a
   view to excite the admiration of the hearers. The words taught by the
   Spirit, on the other hand, are such as are adapted to a pure and simple
   style, corresponding to the dignity of the Spirit, rather than to an
   empty ostentation. For in order that eloquence may not be wanting, we
   must always take care that the wisdom of God be not polluted with any
   borrowed and profane luster. Paul’s manner of teaching was of such a
   kind, that the power of the Spirit shone forth in it single and
   unattired, without any foreign aid.

   Spiritual things with spiritual Sunkrinesthai is used here, I have no
   doubt, in the sense of adapt This is sometimes the meaning of the word,
   [123] (as Budaeus shows by a quotation from Aristotle,)and hence
   sunkrima is used to mean what is knit together or glued together, and
   certainly it suits much better with Paul’s context than compare or
   liken, as others have rendered it. He says then that he adapts
   spiritual things to spiritual, in accommodating the words to the
   subject; [124] that is, he tempers that heavenly wisdom of the Spirit
   with a simple style of speech, and of such a nature as carries in its
   front the native energy of the Spirit. In the meantime he reproves
   others, who, by an affected elegance of expression and show of
   refinement, endeavor to obtain the applause of men, as persons who are
   either devoid of solid truth, or, by unbecoming ornaments, corrupt the
   spiritual doctrine of God.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [120] The reader will find this subject treated of at greater length in
   the Institutes, volume 2, p. 143. — Ed.

   [121] “Fondee en vne magnanimite heroique;” — “Founded upon a heroical
   magnanimity.”

   [122] “A similar rendering is given in some of the old English versions
   of the Scriptures. Thus, Wiclif’s version, (1380,) it is rendered “not
   in wise wordis of mannes wisdom:” in Tyndale’s version (1534) — “not in
   the connynge wordes of mannes wysdome: and in Rhemls version (1582) —
   “not in learned wordes of humane wisedom.” — Ed.

   [123] “Es bons autheurs;” — “In good authors.”

   [124] Beza’s view is substantially the same — “Verba rei accommodantes,
   ut, sicut spiritualia sunt quae docemus, neque sinceritas doctrinae
   caelestis ullis humanis commentis est depravata, ita spirituale sit
   nostrum illius docendae ghenus: — “Accommodating the words to the
   subject, so that as the things at we teach are spiritual, and the
   purity of heavenly doctrine is not corrupted by human contrivances, our
   mode of teaching it may in like manner be spiritual.” — Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 2:14-16

   14. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:
   for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because
   they are spiritually discerned.

   14. Animalis autem homo non comprehendit quae sunt Spiritus Dei. Sunt
   enim illi stultitia; nec potest intelligere, quia spiritualiter
   diiudicantur.

   15. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet himself is judged
   of no man.

   15. Spiritualis autem diiudicat omnia, ipsc vero a neminc (vel, nullo)
   diiudicatur.

   16. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?
   But we have the mind of Christ.

   16. Quis enim cognovit mentem Domini, qui adjuvet ipsum? nos autem
   mentem Christi habemus.


   14. But the animal man. [125] By the animal man he does not mean (as is
   commonly thought) the man that is given up to gross lusts, or, as they
   say, to his own sensuality, but any man that is endowed with nothing
   more than the faculties [126] of nature. [127] This appears from the
   corresponding term, for he draws a comparison between the animal man
   and the spiritual As the latter denotes the man whose understanding is
   regulated by the illumination of the Spirit of God, there can be no
   doubt that the former denotes the man that is left in a purely natural
   condition, as they speak. For the soul [128] belongs to nature, but the
   Spirit is of supernatural communication.

   He returns to what he had previously touched upon, for his object is to
   remove a stumblingblock which might stand in the way of the weak — that
   there were so many that despised the gospel. He shows that we ought to
   make no account of a contempt of such a nature as proceeds from
   ignorance, and that it ought, consequently, to be no hindrance in the
   way of our going forward in the race of faith, unless perhaps we choose
   to shut our eyes upon the brightness of the sun, because it is not seen
   by the blind. It would, however, argue great ingratitude in any
   individual, when God bestows upon him a special favor, to reject it, on
   the ground of its not being common to all, whereas, on the contrary,
   its very rareness ought to enhance its value. [129]

   For they are foolishness to him, neither can he know them. “The
   doctrine of the gospel,” says he, “is insipid [130] in the view of all
   that are wise merely in the view of man. But whence comes this? It is
   from their own blindness. In what respect, then, does this detract from
   the majesty of the gospel?” In short, while ignorant persons depreciate
   the gospel, because they measure its value by the estimation in which
   it is held by men, Paul derives an argument from this for extolling
   more highly its dignity. For he teaches that the reason why it is
   contemned is that it is unknown, and that the reason why it is unknown
   is that it is too profound and sublime to be apprehended by the
   understanding of man. What a superior wisdom [131] this is, which so
   far transcends all human understanding, that man cannot have so much as
   a taste of it! [132] While, however, Paul here tacitly imputes it to
   the pride of the flesh, that mankind dare to condemn as foolish what
   they do not comprehend, he at the same time shows how great is the
   weakness or rather bluntness of the human understanding, when he
   declares it to be incapable of spiritual apprehension. For he teaches,
   that it is not owing simply to the obstinacy of the human will, but to
   the impotency, also, of the understanding, that man does not attain to
   the things of the Spirit. Had he said that men are not willing to be
   wise, that indeed would have been true, but he states farther that they
   are not able. Hence we infer, that faith is not in one’s own power, but
   is divinely conferred.

   Because they are spiritually discerned That is, the Spirit of God, from
   whom the doctrine of the gospel comes, is its only true interpreter, to
   open it up to us. Hence in judging of it, men’s minds must of necessity
   be in blindness until they are enlightened by the Spirit of God. [133]
   Hence infer, that all mankind are by nature destitute of the Spirit of
   God: otherwise the argument would be inconclusive. It is from the
   Spirit of God, it is true, that we have that feeble spark of reason
   which we all enjoy; but at present we are speaking of that special
   discovery of heavenly wisdom which God vouchsafes to his sons alone.
   Hence the more insufferable the ignorance of those who imagine that the
   gospel is offered to mankind in common in such a way that all
   indiscriminately are free [134] to embrace salvation by faith.

   15. But the spiritual man judgeth all things. Having stripped of all
   authority man’s carnal judgment, he now teaches, that the spiritual
   alone are fit judges as to this matter, inasmuch as God is known only
   by his Spirit, and it is his peculiar province to distinguish between
   his own things and those of others, to approve of what is his own, and
   to make void all things else. The meaning, then, is this: “Away with
   all the discernment of the flesh as to this matter! It is the spiritual
   man alone that has such a firm and solid acquaintance with the
   mysteries of God, as to distinguish without fail between truth and
   falsehood — between the doctrine of God and the contrivances of man, so
   as not to fall into mistake. [135] He, on the other hand, is judged by
   no man, because the assurance of faith is not subject to men, as though
   they could make it totter at their nod, [136] it being superior even to
   angels themselves.” Observe, that this prerogative is not ascribed to
   the man as an individual, but to the word of God, which the spiritual
   follow in judging, and which is truly dictated to them by God with true
   discernment. Where that is afforded, a man’s persuasion [137] is placed
   beyond the range of human judgment. Observe, farther, the word rendered
   judged: by which the Apostle intimates, that we are not merely
   enlightened by the Lord to perceive the truth, but are also endowed
   with a spirit of discrimination, so as not to hang in doubt between
   truth and falsehood, but are able to determine what we ought to shun
   and what to follow.

   But here it may be asked, who is the spiritual man, and where we may
   find one that is endowed with so much light as to be prepared to judge
   of all things, feeling as we do, that we are at all times encompassed
   with much ignorance, and are in danger of erring: nay more, even those
   who come nearest to perfection from time to time fall and bruise
   themselves. The answer is easy: Paul does not extend this faculty to
   everything, so as to represent all that are renewed by the Spirit of
   God as exempt from every kind of error, but simply designs to teach,
   that the wisdom of the flesh is of no avail for judging of the doctrine
   of piety, and that this right of judgment and authority belong
   exclusively to the Spirit of God. In so far, therefore, as any one is
   regenerated, and according to the measure of grace conferred upon him,
   does he judge with accuracy and certainty, and no farther.

   He himself is judged by no man. I have already explained on what ground
   he says that the spiritual man is not subject to the judgment of any
   man — because the truth of faith, which depends on God alone, and is
   grounded on his word, does not stand or fall according to the pleasure
   of men. [138] What he says afterwards, that

   the spirit of one Prophet is subject to the other Prophets,
   (1 Corinthians 14:32,)

   is not at all inconsistent with this statement. For what is the design
   of that subjection, but that each of the Prophets listens to the
   others, and does not despise or reject their revelations, in order that
   what is discovered to be the truth of God, [139] may at length remain
   firm, and be received by all? Here, however, he places the science of
   faith, which has been received from God, [140] above the height of
   heaven and earth, in order that it may not be estimated by the judgment
   of men. At the same time, hup ' oudenos may be taken in the neuter
   gender as meaning — by nothing, understanding it as referring to a
   thing, and not to a man. In this way the contrast will be more
   complete, [141] as intimating that the spiritual man, in so far as he
   is endowed with the Spirit of God, judgeth all things, but is judged by
   nothing, because he is not subject to any human wisdom or reason. In
   this way, too, Paul would exempt the consciences of the pious from all
   decrees, laws, and censures of men.

   16. For who hath known? It is probable that Paul had an eye to what we
   read in the 40th chapter of Isaiah. The Prophet there asks,

   Who hath been God’s counselor? Who hath weighed his Spirit, [142]
   (Isaiah 40:13,)

   or hath aided him both in the creation of the world and in his other
   works? and, in fine, who hath comprehended the reason of his works?
   Now, in like manner Paul, by this interrogation, designs to teach, that
   his secret counsel which is contained in the gospel is far removed from
   the understanding of men. This then is a confirmation of the preceding
   statement.

   But we have the mind of Christ. It is uncertain whether he speaks of
   believers universally, or of ministers exclusively. Either of these
   meanings will suit sufficiently well with the context, though I prefer
   to view it as referring more particularly to himself and other faithful
   ministers. [143] He says, then, that the servants of the Lord are
   taught by the paramount authority of the Spirit, what is farthest
   removed from the judgment of the flesh, that they may speak fearlessly
   as from the mouth of the Lord, — which gift flows out afterwards by
   degrees to the whole Church.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [125] “Or l’homme naturel. A le traduire du Grec mot a mot, il y auroit
   l’homme animal;” — “But the natural man. Rendering the Greek literally
   it means the animal man.”

   [126] “Les facultes et graces;” — “The faculties and gifts.”

   [127] Beza’s definition of the term is much similar — “Homo non alia
   quam naturali animi luce praeditus;” — “A man that is not endowed with
   anything more than the natural light of the mind.” — Ed.

   [128] “Anima“ “the soul” corresponds to the Greek term psuchē, and the
   Hebrew term נפש, while spiritus (spirit) corresponds to pneuma and רוח;
   but Calvin employs the epithet animalis (animal) as a derivative from
   anima, (the soul,) and as designating the man whose soul is in a purely
   natural state — without supernatural illumination — in other words, the
   man of mere mind. — Ed

   [129] “D’autant qu’il est fait a peu de gens, d’autant doit-il estre
   trouue plus excellent;” — “The fewer it is conferred upon, it ought to
   be accounted so much the more valuable.”

   [130] “Et n’auoir point de goust;” — “And has no relish.”

   [131] “O quelle sagesse!“ — “O what wisdom!”

   [132] “Vn petit goust;” — “A slight taste.”

   [133] “The reader will find the Apostle’s statement respecting the
   “natural man” commented upon at some length in the Institutes, volume
   1. — Ed.

   [134] Calvin obviously does not mean to deny that “all
   indiscriminately” are invited and warranted to “embrace salvation by
   faith.” He says in the Harmony, volume 3, “For since by his word he
   [God] calls all men indiscriminately to salvation, and since the end of
   preaching is, that all should betake themselves to his guardianship and
   protection, it may justly be said that he wills to gather all to
   himself.” His meaning is, that the will requires to be set free by the
   Spirit of God. — Ed.

   [135] “En cest endroit“ — “In this matter.”

   [136] “Pour estre ou n’estre point selon qu’il leur plaira;” — “So as
   to be or not to be, according as it shall please them.”

   [137] “Et foy;” — “And faith.”

   [138] “N’est point suiete au plaisir des hommes, pour estre ou n’estre
   point, selon qu’ils voudront;” — “It is not subject to the pleasure of
   men, so as to be, or not to be, according as they shall choose.”

   [139] “La pure verite du Seigneur;” — “The pure truth of the Lord.”

   [140] “Mais yci il establit et conferme la science de roy, laquelle les
   eleus recoyuent de Dieu;” — “But here he establishes and confirms the
   science of faith, which the elect have received from God.”

   [141] “Et expresse;” — “And exact.”

   [142] The expression made use of by Isaiah is, Who hath directed the
   Spirit of the Lord? Our author, quoting from memory, seems to have had
   in his eye an expression that occurs in a preceding part of the same
   passage, “and weighed the mountains in scales.” — Ed.

   [143] Calvin, when alluding to this passage, as he evidently does in
   his Commentary on Romans 11:34, views the expression, We have the mind
   of Christ, as applicable to believers universally — “Nam et Paulus ipso
   alibi, postquam testatus erat onmia Dei mysteria ingenii nostri captum
   longe excedere, mox tamen subjicit, fideles tenere mentem Domini: quia
   non spiritum hujus mundi acceperint, sed a Deo sibi datum, per quem de
   incomprehensibili alioqui ejus bonitate edocentur;” — “For even Paul
   himself, in another place, after testifying that all the mysteries of
   God far exceed the capacity of our understanding, does nevertheless
   immediately add, that believers are in possession of the Lord’s mind,
   because they have received not the spirit of this world, but that which
   has been given them by God, whereby they are instructed as to his
   otherwise incomprehensible goodness.” — Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER 3
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 3:1-4

   1. And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as
   unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

   1. Et ego, fratres, non potui vobis loqui tanquam spiritualibus, sed
   tanquam carnalibus, tanquam pueris in Christo. [144]

   2. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were
   not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

   2. Lactis potu vos alui, non solido cibo. Nondum enim eratis capaces,
   ac ne nunc quidem estis:

   3. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and
   strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

   3. Siquidem estis adhuc carnales. Postquam enim sunt inter vos
   aemulatio et contentio, et factioncs; nonne carnales estis, et secundum
   hominem ambulatis?

   4. For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are
   ye not carnal?

   4. Quum enim dicat unus, Ego sum Pauli: alter vero, Ego Apollo: nonne
   carnales estis?


   1. And I, brethren He begins to apply to the Corinthians themselves,
   that he had said respecting carnal persons, that they may understand
   that the fault was their own — that the doctrine of the Cross had not
   more charms for them. It is probable, that in mercantile minds like
   theirs there was too much confidence and arrogance still lingering, so
   that it was not without much ado and great difficulty that they could
   bring themselves to embrace the simplicity of the gospel. Hence it was,
   that undervaluing the Apostle, and the divine efficacy of his
   preaching, they were more prepared to listen to those teachers that
   were subtle and showy, while destitute of the Spirit. [145] Hence, with
   the view of beating down so much the better their insolence, he
   declares, that they belong to the company of those who, stupefied by
   carnal sense, are not prepared to receive the spiritual wisdom of God.
   He softens down, it is true, the harshness of his reproach by calling
   them brethren, but at the same time he brings it forward expressly as a
   matter of reproach against them, that their minds were suffocated with
   the darkness of the flesh to such a degree that it formed a hindrance
   to his preaching among them. What sort of sound judgment then must they
   have, when they are not fit and prepared as yet even for hearing! He
   does not mean, however, that they were altogether carnal, so as to have
   not one spark of the Spirit of God — but that they had still greatly
   too much of carnal sense, so that the flesh prevailed over the Spirit,
   and did as it were drown out his light. Hence, although they were not
   altogether destitute of grace, yet, as they had more of the flesh than
   of the Spirit, they are on that account termed carnal This sufficiently
   appears from what he immediately adds — that they were babes in Christ;
   for they would not have been babes had they not been begotten, and that
   begetting is from the Spirit of God.

   Babes in Christ This term is sometimes taken in a good sense, as it is
   by Peter, who exhorts us to be like new-born babes, (1 Peter 2:2,) and
   in that saying of Christ,

   Unless ye become as these little children,
   ye shall not enter into the kingdom of God, (Luke 18:17.)

   Here, however, it is taken in a bad sense, as referring to the
   understanding. For we must be children in malice, but not in
   understanding, as he says afterwards in 1 Corinthians 14:20, — a
   distinction which removes all occasion of doubt as to the meaning. To
   this also there is a corresponding passage in Ephesians 4:14.

   That we be no longer children tossed to and fro with every wind of
   doctrine, and made the sport [146] of human fallacies, but may day by
   day grow up, etc

   2. I have fed you with milk Here it is asked, whether Paul transformed
   Christ to suit the diversity of his hearers. I answer, that this refers
   to the manner and form of his instructions, rather than to the
   substance of the doctrine. For Christ is at once milk to babes, and
   strong meat to those that are of full age, (Hebrews 5:13, 14,) the same
   truth of the gospel is administered to both, but so as to suit their
   capacity. Hence it is the part of a wise teacher to accommodate himself
   to the capacity of those whom he has undertaken to instruct, so that in
   dealing with the weak and ignorant, he begins with first principles,
   and does not go higher than they are able to follow, (Mark 4:33,) and
   so that, in short, he drops in his instructions by little and little,
   [147] lest it should run over, if poured in more abundantly. At the
   same time, those first principles will contain everything necessary to
   be known, no less than the farther advanced lessons that are
   communicated to those that are stronger. On this point read Augustine’s
   98th homily on John. This tends to refute the specious pretext of some,
   who, while they do but mutter out, from fear of danger, something of
   the gospel in an indistinct manner, [148] pretend to have Paul’s
   example here. Meanwhile, they present Christ at such a distance, and
   covered over, besides, with so many disguises, that they constantly
   keep their followers in destructive ignorance. I shall say nothing of
   their mixing up many corruptions, their presenting Christ not simply in
   half, but torn to fragments, [149] their not merely concealing such
   gross idolatry, but confirming it also by their own example, and, if
   they have said anything that is good, straightway polluting it with
   numerous falsehoods. How unlike they are to Paul is sufficiently
   manifest; for milk is nourishment and not poison, and nourishment that
   is suitable and useful for bringing up children until they are farther
   advanced.

   For ye were not yet able to bear it That they may not flatter
   themselves too much on their own discernment, he first of all tells
   them what he had found among them at the beginning, and then adds, what
   is still more severe, that the same faults remain among them to this
   day. For they ought at least, in putting on Christ, to have put off the
   flesh; and thus we see that Paul complains that the success which his
   doctrine ought to have had was impeded. For if the hearer does not
   occasion delay by his slowness, it is the part of a good teacher to be
   always going up higher, [150] till perfection has been attained.

   3. For ye are as yet carnal So long as the flesh, that is to say,
   natural corruption, prevails in a man, it has so completely possession
   of the man’s mind, that the wisdom of God finds no admittance. Hence,
   if we would make proficiency in the Lord’s school, we must first of all
   renounce our own judgment and our own will. Now, although among the
   Corinthians some sparks of piety were emitted, they were kept under by
   being choked. [151]

   For since there are among you. The proof is derived from the effects;
   for as envying, and strifes, and divisions, are the fruits of the
   flesh, wherever they are seen, it is certain that the root is there in
   its rigor. Those evils prevailed among the Corinthians; and accordingly
   he proves from this that they are carnal He makes use of the same
   argument, too, in Galatians 5:25 If ye live in the Spirit, walk also in
   the Spirit For while they were desirous to be regarded as spiritual, he
   calls them to look at their works, by which they denied what with their
   mouth they professed (Titus 1:16.) Observe, however, the elegant
   arrangement that Paul here pursues: for from envying spring up
   contentions, and these, when they have once been enkindled, break out
   into deadly sects: but the mother of all these evils is ambition.

   Walk as men From this it is manifest that the term flesh is not
   restricted to the lower appetites merely, as the Sophists pretend, the
   seat of which they call sensuality, but is employed to describe man’s
   whole nature. For those that follow the guidance of nature, are not
   governed by the Spirit of God. These, according to the Apostle’s
   definition, are carnal, so that the flesh and man’s natural disposition
   are quite synonymous, and hence it is not without good reason that he
   elsewhere requires that we be new creatures in Christ (2 Corinthians
   5:17.)

   4. For while one saith He now specifies the particular kind of
   contentions, [152] and he does this by personating the Corinthians,
   that his description may have more force — that each one gloried in his
   particular master, as though Christ were not the one Master of all
   (Matthew 23:8.) Now, where such ambition still prevails, the gospel has
   little or no success. You are not, however, to understand that they
   declared this openly in express words, but the Apostle reproves those
   depraved dispositions to which they were given up. At the same time it
   is likely, that, as a predilection arising from ambition is usually
   accompanied with an empty talkativeness, [153] they openly discovered
   by their words the absurd bias of their mind, by extolling their
   teachers to the skies in magnificent terms, accompanying this at the
   same time with contempt of Paul and those like him.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [144] “C’est a dire comme a enfans en Christ;” — “That is to say, as to
   babes in Christ.”

   [145] “Combien qu’il n’y eust en eux ancunc efficace de l’Esprit;” —
   “Though there was in them no efficacy of the Spirit.”

   [146] Our author gives in this, as in many other instances, the
   substance of the passage quoted rather than the express words In the
   expression “made the sport of human fallacies,” he seems to have had in
   his eye the term kubeia — rendered by our translators sleight (of men,)
   which, as Calvin himself remarks when commenting upon the passage, is
   “translatum ab aleatoribus, quod inter eos multae sint fallendi artes:”
   borrowed from players at dice, there being many arts of deception
   practiced among them. — Ed

   [147] “Il leur propose la doctrine petit a petit, et par maniere de
   dire, la face distiller en eux;” — “He presents instruction to them by
   little and little, and, so to speak, makes it drop upon them.”

   [148] “Ne parlans de l’Euangile que quelques mots bleu obscurement, et
   comme entre les deurs, pour la crainte qu’ils ont de tomber en quelque
   danger de leurs ersonnes;” — “Speaking merely some words of the gospel
   very indistinctly, and, as it were, through their teeth, from the fear
   that they have of incurring some personal danger.”

   [149] “Par pieces et morceaux;” — “Into pieces and morsels.”

   [150] “D’avaneer tousiours ses escholiers, et monter plus haut;” — “To
   be always carrying forward his pupils, and going up higher.”

   [151] “L’estouffement touteffois venant de leurs affections perverses,
   surmontoit;” — “The suffocation, nevertheless, proceeding from their
   perverse affections, prevailed.”

   [152] “Qui estoyent entr’eux;” — “Which were among them.”

   [153] “Cette ration de jetter son coeur sur un homme par ambition, est
   accompagnee d’un sot babil;” — “This way of setting one’s heart upon an
   individual through ambition, is accompanied with a foolish
   talkativeness.”
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 3:5-9

   5. Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye
   believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

   5. Quis ergo est Paulus, aut quis Apollos, nisi ministri, per quos
   credidistis, et sicut unicuique Dominus every dedit?

   6. I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

   6. Ego plantavi, Apollos rigavit; at Deus incrementum dedit.

   7. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that
   watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

   7. Ergo neque qui plantat aliquid est, neque qui rigat; sed Deus qui
   dat incrementurn.

   8. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man
   shall receive his own reward according to his own labor.

   8. Qui autem plantat, et qui rigat, unum [154] sunt. Porro quisque
   propriam mercedem secundum laborem suum recipiet.

   9. For we are laborers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye
   are God’s building.

   9. Dei enim cooperarii sumus, [155] Dei agricultura, Dei aedificatio
   estis.


   5. Who then is Paul? Here he begins to treat of the estimation in which
   ministers ought to be held, and the purpose for which they have been
   set apart by the Lord. He names himself and Apollos rather than others,
   that he may avoid any appearance of envy. [156] “What else,” says he,
   “are all ministers appointed for, but to bring you to faith through
   means of their preaching?” From this Paul infers, that no man ought to
   be gloried in, for faith allows of no glorying except in Christ alone.
   Hence those that extol men above measure, strip them of their true
   dignity. For the grand distinction of them all is, that they are
   ministers of faith, or, in other words, that they gain disciples to
   Christ, not to themselves. Now, though he appears in this way to
   depreciate the dignity of ministers, yet he does not assign it a lower
   place than it ought to hold. For he says much when he says, that we
   receive faith through their ministry. Nay farther, the efficacy of
   external doctrine receives here extraordinary commendation, when it is
   spoken of as the instrument of the Holy Spirit; and pastors are honored
   with no common title of distinction, when God is said to make use of
   them as his ministers, for dispensing the inestimable treasure of
   faith.

   As the Lord hath given to every man. In the Greek words used by Paul
   the particle of comparison hōs, as, is placed after hekastō — to every
   man; but the order is inverted. [157] Hence to make the meaning more
   apparent, I have rendered it “Sicut unicuique,” — “as to every man,”
   rather than “Unicuique sicut,” — “to every man as.” In some
   manuscripts, however, the particle kai, and, is wanting, and it is all
   in one connection, thus: Ministers by whom ye believed as the Lord gave
   to every man If we read it in this way, the latter clause will be added
   to explain the former, — so that Paul explains what he meant by the
   term minister: “Those are ministers whose services God makes use of,
   not as though they could do anything by their own efforts, but in so
   far as they are guided by his hand, as instruments.” The rendering that
   I have given, however, is, in my opinion, the more correct one. If we
   adopt it, the statement will be more complete, for it will consist of
   two clauses, in this way. In the first place, those are ministers who
   have devoted their services to Christ, that you might believe in him:
   farther, they have nothing of their own to pride themselves upon,
   inasmuch as they do nothing of themselves, and have no power to do
   anything otherwise than by the gift of God, and every man according to
   his own measure — which shows, that whatever each individual has, is
   derived from another. In fine, he unites them all together as by a
   mutual bond, inasmuch as they require each other’s assistance.

   6. I have planted, Apollos watered He unfolds more clearly the nature
   of that ministry by a similitude, in which the nature of the word and
   the use of preaching are most appropriately depicted. That the earth
   may bring forth fruit, there is need of ploughing and sowing, and other
   means of culture; but after all this has been carefully done, the
   husbandman’s labor would be of no avail, did not the Lord from heaven
   give the increase, by the breaking forth of the sun, and still more by
   his wonderful and secret influence. Hence, although the diligence of
   the husbandman is not in vain, nor the seed that he throws in useless,
   yet it is only by the blessing of God that they are made to prosper,
   for what is more wonderful than that the seed, after it has rotted,
   springs up again! In like manner, the word of the Lord is seed that is
   in its own nature fruitful: ministers are as it were husbandmen, that
   plough and sow. Then follow other helps, as for example, irrigation.
   Ministers, too, act a corresponding part when, after casting the seed
   into the ground, they give help to the earth as much as is in their
   power, until it bring forth what it has conceived: but as for making
   their labor actually productive, that is a miracle of divine grace —
   not a work of human industry.

   Observe, however, in this passage, how necessary the preaching of the
   word is, and how necessary the continuance of it. [158] It were,
   undoubtedly, as easy a thing for God to bless the earth without
   diligence on the part of men, so as to make it bring forth fruit of its
   own accord, as to draw out, or rather press out [159] its increase, at
   the expense of much assiduity on the part of men, and much sweat and
   sorrow; but as the Lord hath so ordained (1 Corinthians 9:14) that man
   should labor, and that the earth, on its part, yield a return to his
   culture, let us take care to act accordingly. In like manner, it were
   perfectly in the power of God, without the aid of men, if it so pleased
   him, to produce faith in persons while asleep; but he has appointed it
   otherwise, so that faith is produced by hearing. (Romans 10:17.) That
   man, then, who, in the neglect of this means, expects to attain faith,
   acts just as if the husbandman, throwing aside the plough, taking no
   care to sow; and leaving off all the labor of husbandry, were to open
   his mouth, expecting food to drop into it from heaven.

   As to continuance [160] we see what Paul says here — that it is not
   enough that the seed be sown, if it is not brought forward from time to
   time by new helps. He, then, who has already received the seed, has
   still need of watering, nor must endeavors be left off, until full
   maturity has been attained, or in other words, till life is ended.
   Apollos, then, who succeeded Paul in the ministry of the word at
   Corinth, is said to have watered what he had sown.

   7. Neither is he that planteth anything It appears, nevertheless, from
   what has been already said, that their labor is of some importance. We
   must observe, therefore, why it is that Paul thus depreciates it; and
   first of all, it is proper to notice that he is accustomed to speak in
   two different ways of ministers, [161] as well as of sacraments. For in
   some cases he views a minister as one that has been set apart by the
   Lord for, in the first instance, regenerating souls, and, afterwards,
   nourishing them up unto eternal life, for remitting sins, (John 20:23,)
   for renewing the minds of men, for raising up the kingdom of Christ,
   and destroying that of Satan. Viewed in that aspect he does not merely
   assign to him the duty of planting and watering, but furnishes him,
   besides, with the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, that his labor may not
   be in vain. Thus [162] in another passage he calls himself a minister
   of the Spirit, and not of the letter, inasmuch as he writes the word of
   the Lord on men’s hearts. (2 Corinthians 3:6.)

   In other cases he views a minister as one that is a servant, not a
   master — an instrument, not the hand; and in short as man, not God.
   Viewed in that aspect, he leaves him nothing but his labor, and that,
   too, dead and powerless, if the Lord does not make it efficacious by
   his Spirit. The reason is, that when it is simply the ministry that is
   treated of, we must have an eye not merely to man, but also to God,
   working in him by the grace of the Spirit — not as though the grace of
   the Spirit were invariably tied to the word of man, but because Christ
   puts forth his power in the ministry which he has instituted, in such a
   manner that it is made evident, that it was not instituted in vain. In
   this manner he does not take away or diminish anything that belongs to
   Him, with the view of transferring it to man. For He is not separated
   from the minister, [163] but on the contrary His power is declared to
   be efficacious in the minister. But as we sometimes, in so far as our
   judgment is depraved, take occasion improperly from this to extol men
   too highly, we require to distinguish for the purpose of correcting
   this fault, and we must set the Lord on the one side, and the minister
   on the other, and then it becomes manifest, how indigent man is in
   himself, and how utterly devoid of efficacy.

   Let it be known by us, therefore, that in this passage ministers are
   brought into comparison with the Lord, and the reason of this
   comparison is — that mankind, while estimating grudgingly the grace of
   God, are too lavish in their commendations of ministers, and in this
   manner they snatch away what is God’s, with the view of transferring it
   to themselves. At the same time he always observes a most becoming
   medium, for when he says, that God giveth the increase, he intimates by
   this, that the efforts of men themselves are not without success. The
   case is the same as to the sacraments, as we shall see elsewhere. [164]
   Hence, although our heavenly Father does not reject our labor in
   cultivating his field, and does not allow it to be unproductive, yet he
   will have its success depend exclusively upon his blessing, that he may
   have the entire praise. Accordingly, if we are desirous to make any
   progress in laboring, in striving, in pressing forward, let it be known
   by us, that we will make no progress, unless he prospers our labors,
   our strivings, and our assiduity, in order that we may commend
   ourselves, and everything we do to his grace.

   8. He that planteth, and he that watereth are one He shows farther,
   from another consideration, that the Corinthians are greatly to blame
   in abusing, with a view to maintain their own sects and parties, the
   names of their teachers, who in the meantime are, with united efforts,
   aiming at one and the same thing, and can by no means be separated, or
   torn asunder, without at the same time leaving off the duties of their
   office. They are one, says he; in other words, they are so linked
   together, that their connection does not allow of any separation,
   because all ought to have one end in view, and they serve one Lord, and
   are engaged in the same work. Hence, if they employ themselves
   faithfully in cultivating the Lord’s field, they will maintain unity;
   and, by mutual communication, will help each other — so far from their
   names serving as standards to stir up contendings. Here we have a
   beautiful passage for exhorting ministers to concord. Meanwhile,
   however, he indirectly reproves those ambitious teachers, who, by
   giving occasion for contentions, discovered thereby that they were not
   the servants of Christ, but the slaves of vain-glory — that they did
   not employ themselves in planting and watering, but in rooting up and
   burning.

   Every man will receive his own reward Here he shows what is the end
   that all ministers should have in view — not to catch the applause of
   the multitude, but to please the Lord. This, too, he does with the view
   of calling to the judgment-seat of God those ambitious teachers, who
   were intoxicated with the glory of the world, and thought of nothing
   else; and at the same time admonishing the Corinthians, as to the
   worthlessness of that empty applause which is drawn forth by elegance
   of expression and vain ostentation. He at the same time discovers in
   these words the fearlessness of his conscience, inasmuch as he ventures
   to look forward to the judgment of God without dismay. For the reason
   why ambitious men recommend themselves to the esteem of the world is,
   that they have not learned to devote themselves to God, and that they
   do not set before their eyes Christ’s heavenly kingdom. Accordingly, as
   soon as God comes to be seen, that foolish desire of gaining man’s
   favor disappears.

   9. For we are fellow-laborers with God. Here is the best argument. It
   is the Lord’s work that we are employed in, and it is to him that we
   have devoted our labors: hence, as he is faithful and just, he will not
   disappoint us of our reward. That man, accordingly, is mistaken who
   looks to men, or depends merely on their remuneration. Here we have an
   admirable commendation of the ministry — that while God could
   accomplish the work entirely himself, he calls us, puny mortals, [165]
   to be as it were his coadjutors, and makes use of us as instruments. As
   to the perversion of this statement by the Papists, for supporting
   their system of free-will, it is beyond measure silly, for Paul shows
   here, not what men can effect by their natural powers, but what the
   Lord accomplishes through means of them by his grace. As to the
   exposition given by some — that Paul, being God’s workman, was a
   fellow-workman with his colleagues, that is, with the other teachers —
   it appears to me harsh and forced, and there is nothing whatever in the
   case that shuts us up to have recourse to that refinement. For it
   corresponds admirably with the Apostle’s design to understand him to
   mean, that, while it is peculiarly the work of God to build his temple,
   or cultivate his vineyard, he calls forth ministers to be
   fellow-laborers, by means of whom He alone works; but, at the same
   time, in such a way, that they in their turn labor in common with him.
   As to the reward of works, consult my Institutes [166]

   God’s husbandry, God’s building. These expressions may be explained in
   two ways. They may be taken actively in this sense: “You have been
   planted in the Lord’s field by the labor of men in such a way, that our
   heavenly Father himself is the true Husbandman, and the Author of this
   plantation. You have been built up by men in such a way, that he
   himself is the true Master-builder. [167] Or, it may be taken in a
   passive sense, thus: “In laboring to till you, and to sow the word of
   God among you and water it, we have not done this on our own account,
   or with a view to advantage to accrue to us, but have devoted our
   service to the Lord. In our endeavors to build you up, we have not been
   influenced by a view to our own advantage, but with a view to your
   being God’s planting and building. This latter interpretation I rather
   prefer, for I am of opinion, that Paul meant here to express the idea,
   that true ministers labor not for themselves, but for the Lord. Hence
   it follows, that the Corinthians were greatly to blame in devoting
   themselves to men, [168] while of right they belonged exclusively to
   God. And, in the first place, he calls them his husbandry, following
   out the metaphor previously taken up, and then afterwards, with the
   view of introducing himself to a larger discussion, he makes use of
   another metaphor, derived from architecture. [169]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [154] “Sont un, ou une chose;” — “Are one, or one thing.”

   [155] “Car nous sommes ouuriers avec Dieu, ou, nous ensemble sommes
   ouuriers de Dieu;” — “For we are workers with God, or we are together
   God’s workmen.”

   [156] “Afin que le propos soit moins odieux, et qu’on ne dise qu’il
   porte enuie aux autres;” — “That the discourse may be less offensive,
   and that none may say that he bears envy towards others.”

   [157] An instance of the same kind occurs in Romans 12:3 hekastō hōs ho
   Theos euerise metron pisteōs — as God hath distributed to every one the
   measure of faith.” Calvin, when commenting on the passage, observes,
   that it is an instance of “anastrophe, seu vocum inversio, pro
   Quemadmodum unicuique;” — “anastrophe, or inversion of words for As to
   every one.” — Ed

   [158] “Combien aussi il est necessaire qu’elle continue et soit
   tousiours entretenue;” — “How necessary it is also, that it continue
   and be always kept up.”

   [159] “Tous les ans;” — “Every year.”

   [160] Our author refers to what he had, a little before, adverted to,
   as to the necessity for the word of God continuing to be dispensed. —
   Ed.

   [161] Calvin will be found adverting to the same subject at
   considerable length, when [4]commenting on 1 Corinthians 9:1. — Ed.

   [162] “Suyuant ceste consideration;” — “In accordance with this view.”

   [163] “Car en ces facons de parler Christ n’est point separe du
   ministre;” — “In these modes of expression Christ is not separated (or
   viewed apart) from the minister.”

   [164] Calvin most probably refers here to the statements afterwards
   made by him, when [5]commenting on Galatians 3:27, to the following
   effect: “Respondeo, Paulum de Sacramentis bifariam solere loqui. Dum
   negotium est cum hypocritis, qui nudis signis superbiunt, tum
   concionatur, quam inanis ac nihili res sit externum signum: et in
   praeposteram fiduciam fortiter invehitur. Quare? non respicit Dei
   institutionem, sed impiorum corruptelam. Quum autem fideles alloquitur,
   qui rite utuntur signis, illa tunc conjungit cum sua veritate, quam
   figurant. Quare? neque enim fallacem pompam ostentat in Sacramentis,
   sed quae externa ceremonia figurat, exhibet simul re ipsa. Hinc fit, ut
   veritas, secundum Dei institutum, conjuncta sit cum signis;” — “I
   answer, it is customary with Paul to speak of the Sacraments in two
   different ways. When he has to do with hypocrites, who glory in mere
   symbols, he in that case proclaims aloud the emptiness and
   worthlessness of the outward symbol, and denounces in strong terms
   their absurd confidence. Why so? It is because he has in view, not the
   ordinance of God, but the corruption of it by wicked men. When, on the
   other hand, he addresses believers, who make a proper use of the
   symbols, he in that case views them in connection with the reality
   which they represent. Why so? It is because he does not make a show of
   any false splendor as belonging to the Sacraments, but presents before
   our view in reality what the outward ceremony represents. Hence it
   comes that, agreeably to the divine appointment, the reality is
   associated with the symbols.” The same subject is touched upon in the
   Institutes, volume 3. — Ed.

   [165] “Poures vers de terre;” — “Mere worms of the dust.”

   [166] The subject of Rewards is largely treated of in the Institutes,
   volume 2. The reader will find the expression “laborers together with
   God” commented upon in the Institutes, volume 1. — Ed.

   [167] “Et conducteur de l’oeuvre;” — “And conductor of the work.”

   [168] “De se rendre suiets aux hommes, et attacher la leurs
   affections;” — “In making themselves subject to men, and placing their
   affections there.”

   [169] “De la massonerie, ou charpenterie;” — “From masonry, or
   carpentry.”
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 3:10-15

   10. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise
   masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth
   thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

   10. Ut saplens architectus, secundum gratiam Dei mihi datam,
   fundamentum posui, alius autem superaedificat: porro unusquisque
   videat, quomodo superaedificet.

   11. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is
   Jesus Christ.

   11. Fundamentum enim aliud nemo potest ponere, praeter id quod positum
   est, quod est Iesus Christus.

   12. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious
   stones, wood, hay, stubble;

   12. Si quis autem superstruat super fundamentum hoc aurum, argentum,
   lapides pretiosos, ligna, faenum, stipulam,

   13. Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare
   it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every
   man’s work of what sort it is.

   13. Cuiuscunque opus manifestum fiet: dies enim manifestabit, quia in
   igne revelabitur, et cuiuscunque opus quale sit, ignis probabit.

   14. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall
   receive a reward.

   14. Si cuius opus maneat quod superaedificaverit, mercedem accipiet.

   15. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he
   himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

   15. Si cuius opus arserit, jacturam faciet: ipse autem salvus fiet, sic
   tamen tanquam per ignem. [170]


   10. As a wise master-builder It is a most apt similitude, and
   accordingly it is frequently met with in the Scriptures, as we shall
   see ere long. Here, however, the Apostle declares his fidelity with
   great confidence and fearlessness, as it required to be asserted in
   opposition not merely to the calumnies of the wicked, but also to the
   pride of the Corinthians, who had already begun to despise his
   doctrine. The more, therefore, they lowered him, so much the higher
   does he raise himself up, and speaking as it were from a pulpit of vast
   height, he declares [171] that he had been the first master-builder of
   God among them in laying the foundation, and that he had with wisdom
   executed that department of duty, and that it remained that others
   should go forward in the same manner, regulating the superstructure in
   conformity with the rule of the foundation. Let us observe that these
   things are said by Paul first of all for the purpose of commending his
   doctrine, which he saw was despised by the Corinthians; and, secondly,
   for the purpose of repressing the insolence of others, who from a
   desire for distinction, affected a new method of teaching. These he
   accordingly admonishes to attempt nothing rashly in God’s building. Two
   things he prohibits them from doing: they must not venture to lay
   another foundation, and they must not raise a superstructure that will
   not be answerable to the foundation.

   According to the grace He always takes diligent heed not to usurp to
   himself a single particle of the glory that belongs to God, for he
   refers all thing’s to God, and leaves nothing to himself, except his
   having been an instrument. While, however, he thus submits himself
   humbly to God, he indirectly reproves the arrogance of those who
   thought nothing of throwing the grace of God into the shade, [172]
   provided only they were themselves held in estimation. He hints, too,
   that there was nothing of the grace of the Spirit in that empty show,
   for which they were held in esteem, while on the other hand he clears
   himself from contempt, on the ground of his having been under divine
   influence. [173]

   11. For other foundation can no man lay This statement consists of two
   parts; first, that Christ is the only foundation of the Church; and
   secondly, that the Corinthians had been rightly founded upon Christ
   through Paul’s preaching. For it was necessary that they should be
   brought back to Christ alone, inasmuch as their ears were tickled with
   a fondness for novelty. It was, too, of no small importance that Paul
   should be recognized as the principal, and, so to speak, fundamental
   master-builder, from whose doctrine they could not draw back, without
   forsaking Christ himself. The sum is this — that the Church must by all
   means be founded upon Christ alone, and that Paul had executed this
   department of duty so faithfully that nothing could be found to be
   wanting in his ministry. Hence, whoever may come after him, can in no
   other way serve the Lord with a good conscience, or be listened to as
   ministers of Christ, than by studying to make their doctrine correspond
   with his, and retain the foundation which he has laid. Hence we infer,
   that those are not faithful workmen for building up the Church, but on
   the contrary are scatterers of it, (Matthew 12:30,) who succeed
   faithful ministers, but do not make it their aim to conform themselves
   to their doctrine, and carry forward what has been well commenced, so
   as to make it quite manifest [174] that they are attempting no new
   work. For what can be more pernicious than by a new manner of teaching
   to harass believers, who have been well instructed in pure doctrine, so
   that they stagger in uncertainty as to the true foundation. Now the
   fundamental doctrine, which it were unlawful to undermine, is, that we
   learn Christ, for Christ is the only foundation of the Church; but
   there are many who, while they make use of Christ’s name in pretense,
   tear up the whole truth of God by the roots. [175]

   Let us observe, then, in what way the Church is rightly built upon
   Christ. It is when he alone is set forth for righteousness, redemption,
   sanctification, wisdom, satisfaction and cleansing; in short, for life
   and glory; or if you would have it stated more briefly, when he is
   proclaimed in such a manner that his office and influence are
   understood in accordance with what we found stated in the close of the
   first chapter. (1 Corinthians 1:30.) If, on the other hand, Christ is
   only in some degree acknowledged, and is called a Redeemer only in
   name, while in the meantime recourse is had to some other quarter for
   righteousness, sanctification and salvation, he is driven off from the
   foundation, and spurious [176] stones are substituted in his room. It
   is in this manner that Papists act, who rob him of almost all his
   ornaments, leaving him scarcely anything but the bare name. Such
   persons, then, are far from being founded on Christ. For as Christ is
   the foundation of the Church, because he is the only source of
   salvation and eternal life — because in him we come to know God the
   Father — because in him we have the source of every blessing; if he is
   not acknowledged as such he is no longer regarded as the foundation

   But it is asked — “Is Christ only a part, or simply the commencement of
   the doctrine of salvation, as the foundation is merely a part of the
   building; for if it were so, believers would have only their
   commencement in Christ, and would be perfected without him. Now this
   Paul might seem to intimate.” I answer that this is not the meaning of
   the words; otherwise he would contradict himself when he says
   elsewhere, that “in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and
   knowledge.” (Colossians 2:3.) He, then, who has learned Christ,
   (Ephesians 4:20,) is already complete in the whole system of heavenly
   doctrine. But as Paul’s ministry had contemplated rather the founding
   of the Corinthians than the raising up among them of the top-stone of
   the building, he merely shows here what he had done in respect of his
   having preached Christ in purity. With respect to himself therefore, he
   calls him the foundation, while at the same time he does not thereby
   exclude him from the rest of the building. In fine, Paul does not put
   any kind of doctrine in opposition to the knowledge of Christ, but on
   the contrary there is a comparison between himself and the ministers.

   12. Now if any man build upon this foundation He pursues still farther
   the metaphor. It would not have been enough to have laid the foundation
   if the entire superstructure did not correspond; for as it were an
   absurd thing to raise a structure of vile materials on a foundation of
   gold, so it were greatly criminal to bury Christ under a mass of
   strange doctrines. [177] By gold, then, and silver, and precious
   stones, he means doctrine worthy of Christ, and of such a nature as to
   be a superstructure corresponding to such a foundation. Let us not
   imagine, however, that this doctrine is apart from Christ, but on the
   contrary let us understand that we must continue to preach Christ until
   the very completion of the building. Only we must observe order, so as
   to begin with general doctrine, and more essential articles, as the
   foundations, and then go on to admonitions, exhortations, and
   everything that is requisite for perseverance, confirmation, and
   advancement.

   As there is an agreement thus far as to Paul’s meaning, without any
   controversy, it follows on the other hand, that by wood, stubble and
   hay, is meant doctrine not answering to the foundation, such as is
   forged in men’s brain, and is thrust in upon us as though it were the
   oracles of God. [178] For God will have his Church trained up by the
   pure preaching of his own word, not by the contrivances of men, of
   which sort also is that which has no tendency to edification, as for
   example curious questions, (1 Timothy 1:4,) which commonly contribute
   more to ostentation, or some foolish appetite, than to the salvation of
   men.

   He forewarns them that every man’s work will one day be made manifest
   of what sort it is, however it may be for a time concealed, as though
   he had said: “It may indeed happen, that unprincipled workmen may for a
   time deceive, so that the world does not perceive how far each one has
   labored faithfully or fraudulently, but what is now as it were buried
   in darkness must of necessity come to light, and what is now glorious
   in the eyes of men, must before the face of God fall down, and be
   regarded as worthless.”

   13. For the day will declare it In the old translation it is the day of
   the Lord, [179] but it is probable that the words of the Lord were
   added by some one by way of explanation. The meaning unquestionably is
   complete without that addition. For with propriety we give the name of
   day to the time when darkness and obscurity are dispelled, and the
   truth is brought to light. Hence the Apostle forewarns us, that it
   cannot always remain a secret who have acted fraudulently in the work
   of the Lord, or who have conducted themselves with fidelity, as though
   he had said: “The darkness will not always remain: the light will one
   day break forth; which will make all things manifest.” That day, I own,
   is God’s — not man’s, but the metaphor is more elegant if you read
   simply — the day, because Paul in this way conveys the idea, that the
   Lord’s true servants cannot always be accurately distinguished from
   false workmen, inasmuch as virtues and vices are concealed by the
   darkness of the night. That night, however, will not always continue.
   For ambition is blind — man’s favor is blind — the world’s applause is
   blind, but this darkness God afterwards dispels in his own time. Take
   notice, that he always discovers the assurance of a good conscience,
   and with an unconquerable magnanimity despises perverse judgments;
   first, in order that he may call back the Corinthians from popular
   applause to a right rule of judgment; and secondly, for the purpose of
   confirming the authority of his ministry.

   Because it will be revealed by fire. Paul having spoken of doctrine
   metaphorically, now also applies metaphorically the name of fire to the
   very touchstone of doctrine, that the corresponding parts of the
   comparison may harmonize with each other. The fire, then, here meant is
   the Spirit of the Lord, who tries by his touchstone what doctrine
   resembles gold and what resembles stubble The nearer the doctrine of
   God is brought to this fire, so much the brighter will be its luster.
   On the other hand, what has had its origin in man’s head will quickly
   vanish, [180] as stubble is consumed in the fire. There seems also to
   be an allusion to the day of which he makes mention: “Not only will
   those things which vain ambition, like a dark night, concealed among
   the Corinthians, be brought to light by the brightness of the sun, but
   there will also be a strength of heat, not merely for drying up and
   cleansing away the refuse, but also for burning up everything wrong.”
   For however men may look upon themselves, as forming acute judgments,
   their discernment, notwithstanding, reaches no farther than appearance,
   which, for the most part, has no solidity. There is nothing but that
   day to which the Apostle appeals, that tests everything to the quick,
   not merely by its brightness, but also by its fiery flame.

   14. If any man’s work remains, he will receive a reward. His meaning
   is, that those are fools who depend on man’s estimation, so as to
   reckon it enough to be approved by men, for then only will the work
   have praise and recompense — when it has stood the test of the day of
   the Lord Hence he exhorts His true ministers to have an eye to that
   day. For by the word remains, he intimates that doctrines fly about as
   it were in an unsettled state, nay more, like empty bubbles, they
   glitter for the moment, until they have come to be thoroughly tested.
   Hence it follows, that we must reckon as nothing all the applauses of
   the world, the emptiness of which will in a very little be exposed by
   heaven’s judgment.

   15. If any man’s work shall be burned. It is as though he had said: Let
   no man flatter himself on the ground that, in the opinion of men, he is
   reckoned among the most eminent master-builders, for as soon as the day
   breaks in, his whole work must go utterly to nothing, if it is not
   approved of by the Lord. This, then, is the rule to which every one’s
   ministry requires to be conformed. Some explain this of doctrine, so
   that zēmiousthai [181] means simply to perish, and then what
   immediately follows they view as referring to the foundation, because
   in the Greek themelios (foundation) is in the masculine gender. They do
   not, however, sufficiently attend to the entire context. For Paul in
   this passage subjects to trial, not his own doctrine, but that of
   others. [182] Hence it were out of place to make mention at present of
   the foundation. He has stated a little before, that every man’s work
   will be tried by fire. He comes afterwards to state an alternative,
   which ought not to be extended beyond that general observation. Now it
   is certain that Paul spoke there simply of the structure which had been
   erected upon the foundation. He has already in the first clause
   promised a reward to good master-builders, [183] whose labor shall have
   been approved of. Hence the contrast in the second clause suits
   admirably well — that those who have mixed stubble, or wood, or straw,
   will be disappointed of the commendation which they had expected.

   He himself will be saved, etc. It is certain that Paul speaks of those
   who, while always retaining the foundations, mix hay with gold, stubble
   with silver, and wood with precious stones — that is, those who build
   upon Christ, but in consequence of the weakness of the flesh, admit
   something that is man’s, or through ignorance turn aside to some extent
   from the strict purity of God’s word. Such were many of the saints,
   Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, and the like. Add to these, if you choose,
   from those of later times, Gregory and Bernard, and others of that
   stamp, who, while they had it as their object to build upon Christ, did
   nevertheless often deviate from the right system of building. Such
   persons, Paul says, could be saved, but on this condition — if the Lord
   wiped away their ignorance, and purged them from all dross.

   This is the meaning of the clause so as by fire. He means, therefore,
   to intimate, that he does not take away from them the hope of
   salvation, provided they willingly submit to the loss of their labor,
   and are purged by the mercy of God, as gold is refined in the furnace.
   Farther, although God sometimes purges his own people by afflictions,
   yet here by the name of fire, I understand the touchstone of the
   Spirit, by which the Lord corrects and removes the ignorance of his
   people, by which they were for a time held captive. I am aware, indeed,
   that, many refer this to the cross, [184] but I am confident that my
   interpretation will please all that are of sound judgment.

   It remains, that we give an answer in passing to the Papists, who
   endeavor from this passage to prop up Purgatory. “The sinners [185]
   whom God forgives, pass through the fire, that they may be saved.”
   Hence they in this way suffer punishment in the presence of God, so as
   to afford satisfaction to his justice I pass over their endless
   fictions in reference to the measure of punishment, and the means of
   redemption from them, but I ask, who they are that pass through the
   fire? Paul assuredly speaks of ministers alone. “There is the same
   reason,” they say, “as to all.” It is not for us [186] but for God to
   judge as to this matter. But even granting them this, how childishly
   they stumble at the term fire. For to what purpose is this fire, [187]
   but for burning up the hay and straw, and on the other hand, for
   proving the gold and silver. Do they mean to say that doctrines are
   discerned by the fire of their purgatory? Who has ever learned from
   that, what difference there is between truth and falsehood? Farther,
   when will that day come that will shine forth so as to discover every
   one’s work? Did it begin at the beginning of the world, and will it
   continue without interruption to the end? If the terms stubble, hay,
   gold, and silver are figurative, as they must necessarily allow, what
   correspondence will there be between the different clauses, if there is
   nothing figurative in the term fire? Away, then, with such silly
   trifles, which carry their absurdity in their forehead, for the
   Apostle’s true meaning is, I think, sufficiently manifest.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [170] “Par feu, ou parmi le feu;” — “By fire, or amidst the fire.”

   [171] “I1 leur fait assavoir, et declare fort et ferme:” — “He gives
   them to know, and declares strongly and firmly.”

   [172] “Ne faisoyent point de conscience d’amoindrir ou offusquer la
   grace de Dieu;” — “Made no scruple of disparaging or obscuring the
   grace of God.”

   [173] “Monstrant, quant a luy qu’il a este pousse et conduit de Dieu,
   il se defend et maintient contre tout mepris;” — “Showing, as to
   himself, that he had been led on and conducted by God, he guards and
   defends himself against all contempt.”

   [174] “En sorte qu’on puisse voir a l’oeil;” — “So that one may see
   with the eye.”

   [175] “Arrachent et renversent entierement;” — “They tear up and
   entirely overthrow”

   [176] “Et non eonvenantes;” — “And not suitable.”

   [177] “Ce seroit vne chose mal seante que Christ lust suffoque en
   mettant et meslant auec luy quelques doctrines estranges;” — “It were
   an unseemly thing that Christ should be choked by placing upon him and
   mixing up with him some strange doctrines.”

   [178] “On vent a force faire receuoir pour oracles et reuelations
   procedees de Dieu;” — “They would force us to receive it as if it were
   oracles and revelations that have come forth from God.”

   [179] It is so in two of the old English versions. In Wiclif’s version
   (1380) the rendering is as follows: For the dai of the Lord schal
   declare. The Rheims version (1582) reads thus: For the day of our Lord
   will declare. — Ed.

   [180] “Celle, qui aura este forgee au cerveau des hommes s’esuanouira
   tout incontinent, et s’en ira en fumee;” — “That which has been forged
   in man’s brain, will quickly vanish, and go off in smoke.”

   [181] “Le mot Grec suyuant, qui signifie souffrir perte ou dommage;” —
   “The Greek word following, which signifies to suffer loss or damage.”

   [182] “Car ce n’est pas sa doctrine, mais celle des autres que Sainct
   Paul dit, qui viendra a l’examen;” — “For it is not his own doctrine,
   but that of others, that St. Paul says will come to be tested.”

   [183] “Et fideles ouuriers;” — “And faithful workmen.”

   [184] “Et affliction;” — “And affliction.”

   [185] “Les pecheurs, (disent-ils);” — “The sinners, (say they).”

   [186] “Je respon, que ce n’est pas a nous;” — “I answer, that it is not
   for us.”

   [187] “Car a quel propos est-il yci parle du feu?” — “For to what
   purpose does he speak here of fire?”
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 3:16-23

   16. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of
   God dwelleth in you?

   16. An nescitis, quod templum Dei estis et Spiritus Dei habitat in
   vobis?

   17. If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the
   temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

   17. Si quis ternplum Dei corrumpit, [188] hunc perdet Deus. Templum
   enim Dei sanctum est, quod estis vos.

   18. Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise
   in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise,

   18. Nemo se decipiat, si quis videtur sapiens esse inter vos: in
   saeculo hoc stultus fiat, [189] ut fiat sapiens.

   19. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is
   written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

   19. Sapientia enim mundi huius stultitia est apud Deum. Scriptum est
   enim (Job 5:13) Deprehendens sapientes in astutia sua.

   20. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are
   vain.

   20. Et rursum (Psalm 94:11) Dominus novit cogitationes sapientum vanas
   esse.

   21. Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;

   21. Proinde nemo glorietur in hominibus, omnia enim vestra sunt;

   22. Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or
   death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;

   22. Sive Paulus, sive Apollos, sive Cephas, sive mundus, sive vita,
   sive mors, sive prmsentia, sive futura: omnia vestra sunt,

   23. And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.

   23. Vos autem Christi; Christus autem Dei.


   16. Know ye not, etc. Having admonished the teachers as to their duty,
   he now addresses himself to the pupils — that they, too, may take heed
   to themselves. To the teachers he had said, “You are the
   master-builders of the house of God.” He now says to the people, “You
   are the temples of God. It is your part, therefore, to take care that
   you be not, in any way defiled.” Now, the design [190] is, that they
   may not prostitute themselves to the service of men. He confers upon
   them distinguished honor in speaking thus, but it is in order that they
   may be made the more reprehensible; for, as God has set them apart as a
   temple to himself, he has at the same time appointed them to be
   guardians of his temple It is sacrilege, then, if they give themselves
   up to the service of men. He speaks of all of them collectively as
   being one temple of God; for every believer is a living stone, (1 Peter
   2:5,) for the rearing up of the building of God. At the same time they
   also, in some cases, individually receive the name of temples We shall
   find him a little afterwards (1 Corinthians 6:19) repeating the same
   sentiment, but for another purpose. For in that passage he treats of
   chastity; but here, on the other hand, he exhorts them to have their
   faith resting on the obedience of Christ alone. The interrogation gives
   additional emphasis; for he indirectly intimates, that he speaks to
   them of a thing that they knew, while he appeals to them as witnesses.

   And the Spirit of God. Here we have the reason why they are the temple
   of God Hence and must be understood as meaning because [191] This is
   customary, as in the words of the poet — “Thou hadst heard it, and it
   had been reported.” “For this reason,” says he, “are ye the temples of
   God, because He dwells in you by his Spirit; for no unclean place can
   be the habitation of God.” In this passage we have an explicit
   testimony for maintaining the divinity of the Holy Spirit. For if he
   were a creature, or merely a gift, he would not make us temples of God,
   by dwelling in us. At the same time we learn, in what manner God
   communicates himself to us, and by what tie we are bound to him — when
   he pours down upon us the influence of his Spirit.

   17. If any man corrupts the temple of God. He subjoins a dreadful
   threatening — that, as the temple of God ought to be inviolably sacred,
   that man, whoever he may be, that corrupts it, will not pass with
   impunity. The kind of profanation of which he now speaks, is, when men
   intrude themselves, so as to bear rule in the Church in the place of
   God. For as that faith, which is devoted to the pure doctrine of
   Christ, is called elsewhere spiritual chastity, (2 Corinthians 11:2,)
   so it also sanctifies our souls for the right and pure worship of God.
   For as soon as we are tinctured with the contrivances of men, the
   temple of God is polluted, as it were, with filth, because the
   sacrifice of faith, which he claims for himself alone, is in that case
   offered to creatures.

   18. Let no man deceive himself Here he puts his finger upon the true
   sore, as the whole mischief originated in this — that they were wise in
   their own conceit. Hence he exhorts them not to deceive themselves with
   a false impression, by arrogating any wisdom to themselves — by which
   he means, that all are under a mistake, who depend upon their own
   judgment. Now, he addresses himself, in my opinion, to hearers as well
   as teachers. For the former discovered a partiality for those ambitious
   men, and lent an ear to them, [192] because they had too fastidious a
   taste, so that the simplicity of the gospel was insipid to their taste;
   while the latter aimed at nothing but show, that they might be in some
   estimation. He accordingly admonishes both to this effect — “Let no one
   rest satisfied with his own wisdom, but let him who thinketh himself to
   be wise, become a fool in this world,” or, “Let him who is
   distinguished in this world by reputation for wisdom, of his own accord
   empty himself, [193] and become a fool in his own estimation.”

   Farther, in these words the Apostle does not require, that we should
   altogether renounce the wisdom that is implanted in us by nature, or
   acquired by long practice; but simply, that we subject it to the
   service of God, so as to have no wisdom but through his word. For this
   is what is meant by becoming a fool in this world, or in our own
   estimation — when we are prepared to give way to God, and embrace with
   fear and reverence everything that he teaches us, rather than follow
   what may appear to us plausible. [194]

   The meaning of the clause in this world, is as though he had said —
   “According to the judgment or opinion of the world.” For the wisdom of
   the world is this — if we reckon ourselves sufficient of ourselves for
   taking counsel as to all matters (Psalm 13:2) for governing ourselves,
   and for managing whatever we have to do — if we have no dependence on
   any other [195] — if we feel no need of the guidance of another, but
   are competent to govern ourselves. [196] He, therefore, on, the other
   hand, is a fool in this world, who, renouncing his own understanding,
   allows himself to be directed by the Lord, as if with his eyes shut —
   who, distrusting himself, leans wholly upon the Lord, places his whole
   wisdom in him, and yields himself up to God in docility and submission.
   It is necessary that our wisdom should in this way vanish, in order
   that the will of God may have authority over us, and that we be emptied
   of our own understanding, that we may be filled with the wisdom of God.
   At the same time, the clause [197] may either be taken in connection
   with the first part of the verse, or joined with the last, but as the
   meaning is not much different, I leave every one to choose for himself.

   19. For the wisdom of this world This is an argument taken from things
   opposite. To maintain the one is to overturn the other. As, therefore,
   the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, it follows that we
   cannot be wise in the sight of God, unless we are fools in the view of
   the world. We have already explained (1 Corinthians 1:20) what he means
   by the wisdom of this world; for natural perspicacity is a gift of God,
   and the liberal arts, and all the sciences by which wisdom is acquired,
   are gifts of God. They are confined, however, within their own limits;
   for into God’s heavenly kingdom they cannot penetrate. Hence they must
   occupy the place of handmaid, not of mistress: nay more, they must be
   looked upon as empty and worthless, until they have become entirely
   subject to the word and Spirit of God. If, on the other hand, they set
   themselves in opposition to Christ, they must be looked upon as
   dangerous pests, and, if they strive to accomplish anything of
   themselves, as the worst of all hindrances. [198] Hence the wisdom of
   the world, in Paul’s acceptation, is that which assumes to itself
   authority, and does not allow itself to be regulated by the word of
   God, or to be subdued, so as to yield itself up in entire subjection to
   him. Until, therefore, matters have come to this, that the individual
   acknowledges that he knows nothing but what he has learned from God,
   and, giving up his own understanding; resigns himself unreservedly to
   Christ’s guidance, he is wise in the world’s account, but he is foolish
   in the estimation of God.

   For it is written, He taketh the wise He confirms this from two
   Scripture proofs, the first of which is taken from Job 5:13, where the
   wisdom of God is extolled on this ground, that no wisdom of the world
   can stand before it.

   Now it is certain, that the Prophet speaks there of those that are
   cunning and crafty; but as the wisdom of man is invariably such without
   God, [199] it is with good reason that Paul applies it in this sense, —
   that whatever wisdom men have of themselves is reckoned of no account
   in the sight of God. The second is from Psalm 94:11, where David, after
   claiming for God alone the office and authority of the Instructor of
   all, adds, that He knows the thoughts of all to be vain. Hence, in
   whatever estimation they are held by us, they are, in the judgment of
   God, vain Here we have an admirable passage for bringing down the
   confidence of the flesh, while God from on high declares that
   everything that the mind of man conceives and contrives is mere vanity
   [200]

   21. Therefore let no man glory in men As there is nothing that is more
   vain than man, how little security there is in leaning upon an
   evanescent shadow! Hence he infers with propriety from the preceding
   statement, that we must not glory in men, inasmuch as the Lord thus
   takes away from mankind universally every ground of glorying. At the
   same time this inference depends on the whole of the foregoing
   doctrine, as will appear ere long. For as we belong to Christ alone, it
   is with good reason that he teaches us, that any supremacy of man, by
   which the glory of Christ is impaired, involves sacrilege.

   22. All things are yours. He proceeds to show what place and station
   teachers should occupy [201] — such as not to detract in any degree
   from the authority of Christ, the one Master. As therefore Christ is
   the Church’s sole master, and as he alone without exception is worthy
   to be listened to, it is necessary to distinguish between him and
   others, as even Christ himself has testified respecting himself,
   (Matthew 23:8,) and no other is recommended to us by the Father with
   this honorable declaration, [202] “Hear ye him.” (Matthew 17:5.) As,
   therefore, he alone is endowed with authority to rule us by his word,
   Paul says that others are ours — meaning, that they are appointed to us
   by God with the view of our making use of them — not that they should
   exercise dominion over our consciences. Thus on the one hand, he shows
   that they are not useless, and, on the other hand, he keeps them in
   their own place, that they may not exalt themselves in opposition to
   Christ. What he adds, as to death, life, and the rest, is hyperbolical,
   so far as concerns the passage before us. He had it in view, however,
   to reason, as it were, from the greater to the less, in this manner.
   “Christ having put in subjection to us life and death, and everything,
   can we doubt, whether he has not also made men subject to us, to help
   us by their ministrations — not to oppress us by tyranny.”

   Now if any one takes occasion from this to allege, that the writings
   both of Paul and of Peter are subject to our scrutiny, inasmuch as they
   were men, and are not exempted from the common lot of others, I answer,
   that Paul, while he does not by any means spare himself or Peter,
   admonishes the Corinthians to distinguish between the person of the
   individual, and the dignity or distinction of office. “As for myself,
   viewed as a man, I wish to be judged of simply as a man, that Christ
   alone may have distinction in our ministry.” This, however, in a
   general way, we must hold, [203] that all who discharge the office of
   the ministry, are ours, from the highest to the lowest, so that we are
   at liberty to withhold our assent to their doctrine, until they show
   that it is from Christ. For they must all be tried, (1 John 4:1,)and we
   must yield obedience to them, only when they have satisfactorily shown
   themselves to be faithful servants of Christ. Now as to Peter and Paul,
   this point being beyond all controversy, and the Lord having furnished
   us with amply sufficient evidence, that their doctrine has come forth
   from Him, when we receive as an oracle from heaven, and venerate
   everything that they have delivered to us, we hear not so much them, as
   Christ speaking in them.

   23. Christ is God’s This subjection relates to Christ’s humanity, for
   by taking upon him our flesh, he assumed “the form” and condition “of a
   servant,” that he might make himself obedient to his Father in all
   things. (Philippians 2:7, 8.) And assuredly, that we may cleave to God
   through him, it is necessary that he have God as his head (1
   Corinthians 11:3.) We must observe, however, with what intention Paul
   has added this. For he admonishes us, that the sum of our felicity
   consists in this, [204] that we are united to God who is the chief
   good, and this is accomplished when we are gathered together under the
   head that our heavenly Father has set over us. In the same sense Christ
   said to his disciples,

   “Ye ought to rejoice, because I go to the Father,
   for the Father is greater than I,” (John 14:28,)

   for there he set himself forth as the medium, through which believers
   come to the original source of every blessing. It is certain, that
   those are left destitute of that signal blessing, who depart from the
   unity of the Head. [205] Hence this order of things suits the
   connection of the passage — that those subject themselves to Christ
   alone, who desire to remain under God’s jurisdiction.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [188] “Viole destruit;” — “Violates, or destroys.”

   [189] “Si aucvn entre vous cuide estre sage, qu’il soit fait fol en ce
   monde, afin qu’il soit sage — ou, sage en ce monde, qu’il soit fait
   fol, afin, etc.;” — “If any one among you seemeth to be wise, let him
   become a fool in this world, that he may be wise — or, wise in this
   world, let him become a fool, that,” etc.

   [190] “De cest aduertissement;” — “Of this caution.”

   [191] Audieras, et fama fitit. Virg. Eclog. 9. 11.

   [192] “Trop facilement;” — “Too readily.”

   [193] “Soit fait fol en soy de son bon gre s’abbaissant, et
   s’aneantissant soymesme;” — “Let him become, of his own accord, a fool
   in his own estimation, abasing and emptying himself.”

   [194] “Bon et raisonnable;” — “Good and reasonable.”

   [195] “Que de nous-mesmes;” — “Than ourselves.”

   [196] “Nous semble que nous sommes assez suffisans de nous conduire, et
   gouuerner nous-mesmes;” — “It appears to us, that we are quite
   competent to conduct and govern ourselves.”

   [197] “En ce monde;” — “In this world.”

   [198] “Ce sont de grans empeschemens, et bien a craindre;” — “They are
   great hindrances, and much to be dreaded.”

   [199] “Quand la sagesse de Dieu n’y est point;” — “When the wisdom of
   God is not in it.”

   [200] “The humbling tendency ef the statement referred to is well
   brought out by Fuller of Kettering. (Fuller’s Works, volume 4, p. 89.)

   [201] “C’est a dire, quelle estime on en doit auoir;” — “That is to
   easy, in what esteem they ought to be held.”

   [202] “Nul autre ne nous a este donne du Pere authorize de ce titre et
   commandement;” — “No other has been given to us by the Father,
   authorized by this distinction and injunction.”

   [203] “Pour vne maxime;” — “As a maxim.”

   [204] “Car il nous donne a entendre, et remonstre, que le comble et la
   perfection de nostre felicite consiste la;” — “For he gives us to
   understand, and shows, that the summit and perfection of our felicity
   consists in this.”

   [205] “Qui ne retienent ce seul Chef;” — “Who do not retain that sole
   Head.”
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER 4
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 4:1-5

   1. Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and
   stewards of the mysteries of God.

   1. Sic nos aestimet homo ut ministros Christi, et dispensatores
   arcanorum Dei.

   2. Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

   2. Caeterum in ministris hoc quaeritur, ut fidelis aliquis reperiatur.

   3. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you,
   or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.

   3. Mihi viro pro minimo est, a vobis diiudicari, aut ab humano die:
   [206] imo nec me ipsum diiudico.

   4. For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he
   that judgeth me is the Lord.

   4. Nullius enim rei mihi sum conscius: sed non in hoc sum justificatus.
   Porro qui me diiudicat, Dominus est.

   5. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who
   both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make
   manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have
   praise of God.

   5. Itaque ne ante tempus quicquam iudicetis, donec venerit Dominus, qui
   et illustrabit abscondita tenebrarum, et manifestabit consilia cordium;
   et tunc laus erit cuique a Deo.


   1. Let a man so account of us As it was a matter of no little
   importance to see the Church in this manner torn by corrupt factions,
   from the likings or dislikings that were entertained towards
   individuals, he enters into a still more lengthened discussion as to
   the ministry of the word. Here there are three things to be considered
   in their order. In the first place, Paul describes the office of a
   pastor of the Church. Secondly, he shows, that it is not enough for any
   one to produce a title, or even to undertake the duty — a faithful
   administration of the office being requisite. Thirdly, as the judgment
   formed of him by the Corinthians was preposterous, [207] he calls both
   himself and them to the judgment-seat of Christ. In the first place,
   then, he teaches in what estimation every teacher in the Church ought
   to be held. In this department he modifies his discourse in such a
   manner as neither, on the one hand, to lower the credit of the
   ministry, nor, on the other, to assign to man more than is expedient.
   For both of these things are exceedingly dangerous, because, when
   ministers are lowered, contempt of the word arises, [208] while, on the
   other hand, if they are extolled beyond measure, they abuse liberty,
   and become “wanton against the Lord.” (1 Timothy 5:11.) Now the medium
   observed by Paul consists in this, that he calls them ministers of
   Christ; by which he intimates, that they ought to apply themselves not
   to their own work but to that of the Lord, who has hired them as his
   servants, and that they are not appointed to bear rule in an
   authoritative manner in the Church, but are subject to Christ’s
   authority [209] — in short, that they are servants, not masters.

   As to what he adds — stewards of the mysteries of God, he expresses
   hereby the kind of service. By this he intimates, that their office
   extends no farther than this, that they are stewards of the mysteries
   of God In other words, what the Lord has committed to their charge they
   deliver over to men from hand to hand — as the expression is [210] —
   not what they themselves might choose. “For this purpose has God chosen
   them as ministers of his Son, that he might through them communicate to
   men his heavenly wisdom, and hence they ought not to move a step beyond
   this.” He appears, at the same time, to give a stroke indirectly to the
   Corinthians, who, leaving in the background the heavenly mysteries, had
   begun to hunt with excessive eagerness after strange inventions, and
   hence they valued their teachers for nothing but profane learning. It
   is an honorable distinction that he confers upon the gospel when he
   terms its contents the mysteries of God. But as the sacraments are
   connected with these mysteries as appendages, it follows, that those
   who have the charge of administering the word are the authorized
   stewards of them also.

   2. But it is required in ministers [211] It is as though he had said,
   it is not enough to be a steward if there be not an upright
   stewardship. Now the rule of an upright stewardship, is to conduct
   one’s self in it with fidelity. It is a passage that ought to be
   carefully observed, for we see how haughtily [212] Papists require that
   everything that they do and teach should have the authority of law,
   simply on the ground of their being called pastors. On the other hand,
   Paul is so far from being satisfied with the mere title, that, in his
   view, it is not even enough that there is a legitimate call, unless the
   person who is called conducts himself in the office with fidelity. On
   every occasion, therefore, on which Papists hold up before us the mask
   of a name, for the purpose of maintaining the tyranny of their idol,
   let our answer be, that Paul requires more than this from the ministers
   of Christ, though, at the same time, the Pope and his attendant train
   are wanting not merely in fidelity in the discharge of the office, but
   also in the ministry itself, if everything is duly considered.

   This passage, however, militates, not merely against wicked teachers,
   but also against all that have any other object in view than the glory
   of Christ and the edification of the Church. For every one that teaches
   the truth is not necessarily faithful, but, only he who desires from
   the heart to serve the Lord and advance Christ’s kingdom. Nor is it
   without good reason that Augustine assigns to hirelings, (John 10:12,)
   a middle place between the wolves and the good teachers. As to Christ’s
   requiring wisdom also on the part of the good steward, (Luke 12:42,) he
   speaks, it is true, in that passage with greater clearness than Paul,
   but the meaning is the same. For the faithfulness of which Christ
   speaks is uprightness of conscience, which must be accompanied with
   sound and prudent counsel. By a faithful minister Paul means one who,
   with knowledge as well as uprightness, [213] discharges the office of a
   good and faithful minister.

   3. But with me it is a very small thing It remained that he should
   bring before their view his faithfulness, that the Corinthians might
   judge of him from this, but, as their judgment was corrupted, he throws
   it aside and appeals to the judgment-seat of Christ. The Corinthians
   erred in this, that they looked with amazement at foreign masks, and
   gave no heed to the true and proper marks of distinction. [214] He,
   accordingly, declares with great confidence, that he despises a
   perverted and blind judgment of this sort. In this way, too, he, on the
   one hand, admirably exposes the vanity of the false Apostles who made
   the mere applause of men their aim, and reckoned themselves happy if
   they were held in admiration; and, on the other hand, he severely
   chastises the arrogance [215] of the Corinthians, which was the reason
   why they were so much blinded in their judgment.

   But, it is asked, on what ground it was allowable for Paul, not merely
   to set aside the censure of one Church, but to set himself above the
   judgment of men? for this is a condition common to all pastors — to be
   judged of by the Church. I answer, that it is the part of a good pastor
   to submit both his doctrine and his life for examination to the
   judgment of the Church, and that it is the sign of a good conscience
   not to shun the light of careful inspection. In this respect Paul,
   without doubt, was prepared for submitting himself to the judgment of
   the Corinthian Church, and for being called to render an account both
   of his life and of his doctrine, had there been among them a proper
   scrutiny, [216] as he often assigns them this power, and of his own
   accord entreats them to be prepared to judge aright. But when a
   faithful pastor sees that he is borne down by unreasonable and perverse
   affections, and that justice and truth have no place, he ought to
   appeal to God, and betake himself to his judgment-seat, regardless of
   human opinion, especially when he cannot secure that a true and proper
   knowledge of matters shall be arrived at.

   If, then, the Lord’s servants would bear in mind that they must act in
   this manner, let them allow their doctrine and life to be brought to
   the test, nay more, let them voluntarily present themselves for this
   purpose; and if anything is objected against them, let them not decline
   to answer. But if they see that they are condemned without being heard
   in their own defense, and that judgment is passed upon them without
   their being allowed a hearing, let them raise up their minds to such a
   pitch of magnanimity, as that, despising the opinions of men, they will
   fearlessly wait for God as their judge. In this manner the Prophets of
   old, having to do with refractory persons, [217] and such as had the
   audacity to despise the word of God in their administration of it,
   required to raise themselves aloft, in order to tread under foot that
   diabolical obstinacy, which manifestly tended to overthrow at once the
   authority of God and the light of truth. Should any one, however, when
   opportunity is given for defending himself, or at least when he has
   need to clear himself, appeal to God by way of subterfuge, he will not
   thereby make good his innocence, but will rather discover his
   consummate impudence. [218]

   Or of man’s day. While others explain it in another manner, the simpler
   way, in my opinion, is to understand the word day as used
   metaphorically to mean judgment, because there are stated days for
   administering justice, and the accused are summoned to appear on a
   certain day He calls it man’s day [219] when judgment is pronounced,
   not according to truth, or in accordance with the word of the Lord, but
   according to the humor or rashness of men, [220] and in short, when God
   does not preside. “Let men,” says he, “sit for judgment as they please:
   it is enough for me that God will annul whatever they have pronounced.”

   Nay, I judge not mine own self. The meaning is: “I do not venture to
   judge myself, though I know myself best; how then will you judge me, to
   whom I am less intimately known?” Now he proves that he does not
   venture to judge himself by this, that though he is not conscious to
   himself of anything wrong, he is not thereby acquitted in the sight of
   God. Hence he concludes, that what the Corinthians assume to
   themselves, belongs exclusively to God. “As for me,” says he, “when I
   have carefully examined myself, I perceive that I am not so
   clear-sighted as to discern thoroughly my true character; and hence I
   leave this to the judgment of God, who alone can judge, and to whom
   this authority exclusively belongs. As for you, then, on what ground
   will you make pretensions to something more?”

   As, however, it were very absurd to reject all kinds of judgment,
   whether of individuals respecting themselves, or of one individual
   respecting his brother, or of all together respecting their pastor, let
   it be understood that Paul speaks here not of the actions of men, which
   may be reckoned good or bad according to the word of the Lord, but of
   the eminence of each individual, which ought not to be estimated
   according to men’s humors. It belongs to God alone to determine what
   distinction every one holds, and what honor he deserves. The
   Corinthians, however, despising Paul, groundlessly extolled others to
   the skies, as though they had at their command that knowledge which
   belonged exclusively to God. This is what he previously made mention of
   as man’s day — when men mount the throne of judgment, and, as if they
   were gods, anticipate the day of Christ, who alone is appointed by the
   Father as judge, allot to every one his station of honor, assign to
   some a high place, and degrade others to the lowest seats. But what
   rule of distinction do they observe? They look merely to what appears
   openly; and thus what in their view is high and honorable, is in many
   instances an abomination in the sight of God. (Luke 16:15.) If any one
   farther objects, that the ministers of the word may in this world be
   distinguished by their works, as trees by their fruits, (Matthew 7:16,)
   I admit that this is true, but we must consider with whom Paul had to
   deal. It was with persons who, in judging, looked to nothing but show
   and pomp, and arrogated to themselves a power which Christ., while in
   this world, refrained from using — that of assigning to every one his
   seat in the kingdom of God. (Matthew 20:23.) He does not, therefore,
   prohibit us from esteeming those whom we have found to be faithful
   workmen, and pronouncing them to be such; nor, on the other hand, from
   judging persons to be bad workmen according to the word of God, but he
   condemns that rashness which is practiced, when some are preferred
   above others in a spirit of ambition — not according to their merits,
   but without examination of the case. [221]

   4. I am not conscious to myself of anything faulty. Let us observe that
   Paul speaks here not of his whole life, but simply of the office of
   apostleship. For if he had been altogether unconscious to himself of
   anything wrong, [222] that would have been a groundless complaint which
   he makes in Romans 7:15, where he laments that the evil which he would
   not, that he does, and that he is by sin kept back from giving himself
   up entirely to God. Paul, therefore, felt sin dwelling in him, and
   confessed it; but as to his apostleship, (which is the subject that is
   here treated of,) he had conducted himself with so much integrity and
   fidelity, that his conscience did not accuse him as to anything. This
   is a protestation of no common character, and of such a nature as
   clearly shows the piety and sanctity of his breast; [223] and yet he
   says that he is not thereby justified, that is, pure, and altogether
   free from guilt in the sight of God. Why? Assuredly, because God sees
   much more distinctly than we; and hence, what appears to us cleanest,
   is filthy in his eyes. Here we have a beautiful and singularly
   profitable admonition, not to measure the strictness of God’s judgment
   by our own opinion; for we are dim-sighted, but God is preeminently
   discerning. We think of ourselves too indulgently, but God is a judge
   of the utmost strictness. Hence the truth of what Solomon says —

   “Every man’s ways appear right his own eyes, but the Lord pondereth the
   hearts.” (Proverbs 21:2.)

   Papists abuse this passage for the purpose of shaking the assurance of
   faith, and truly, I confess, that if their doctrine were admitted, we
   could do nothing but tremble in wretchedness during our whole life. For
   what tranquillity could our minds enjoy if it were to be determined
   from our works whether we are well-pleasing to God? I confess,
   therefore, that from the main foundation of Papists there follows
   nothing but continual disquietude for consciences; and, accordingly, we
   teach that we must have recourse to the free promise of mercy, which is
   offered to us in Christ, that we may be fully assured that we are
   accounted righteous by God.

   5. Therefore judge nothing before the time From this conclusion it is
   manifest, that Paul did not mean to reprove every kind of judgment
   without exception, but only what is hasty and rash, without examination
   of the case. For the Corinthians did not mark with unjaundiced eye the
   character of each individual, but, blinded by ambition, groundlessly
   extolled one and depreciated another, and took upon themselves to mark
   out the dignity of each individual beyond what is lawful for men. Let
   us know, then, how much is allowed us, what is now within the sphere of
   our knowledge, and what is deferred until the day of Christ, and let us
   not attempt to go beyond these limits. For there are some things that
   are now seen openly, while there are others that lie buried in
   obscurity until the day of Christ.

   Who will bring to light. If this is affirmed truly and properly
   respecting the day of Christ, it follows that matters are never so well
   regulated in this world but that many things are involved in darkness,
   and that there is never so much light, but that many things remain in
   obscurity. I speak of the life of men, and their actions. He explains
   in the second clause, what is the cause of the obscurity and confusion,
   so that all things are not now manifest. It is because there are
   wonderful recesses and deepest lurking-places in the hearts of men.
   Hence, until the thoughts of the hearts are brought to light, there
   will always be darkness.

   And then shall every one have praise It is as though he had said, “You
   now, O Corinthians, as if you had the adjudging of the prizes, [224]
   crown some, and send away others with disgrace, but this right and
   office belong exclusively to Christ. You do that before the time —
   before it has become manifest who is worthy to be crowned, but the Lord
   has appointed a day on which he will make it manifest.” This statement
   takes its rise from the assurance of a good conscience, which brings us
   also this advantage, that committing our praises into the hands of God,
   we disregard the empty breath of human applause.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [206] “De iour humain — c’est a dire, de iugement d’homme;” — “Of man’s
   day — that is to say, of man’s judgment.”

   [207] “Pource que les Corinthiens iugeoyent de luy d’vne mauuaise
   sorte, et bien inconsidereement;” — “As the Corinthians judged of him
   in an unfavorable way, and very rashly.”

   [208] “Facilement on viendra a mespriser la parole de Dieu;” — “They
   will readily come to despise the word of God.”

   [209] “Ils sont eux-mesmes comme les autres sous la domination de
   Christ;” — “They are themselves, in common with others, under the
   dominion of Christ.”

   [210] Our Author makes use of the same expression when commenting on 1
   Corinthians [6]11:23, and 1 Corinthians [7]15:3. — Ed.

   [211] “Entre les dispensateurs;” — “Among stewards.”

   [212] “Et d’une facon magistrale;” — “And with a magisterial air.”

   [213] “Auec science et bonne discretion, et d’vn coeur droit;” — “With
   knowledge and good discretion, as well as with an upright heart.”

   [214] “Ils estoyent rauis en admiration de ces masques externes, comme
   gens tout transportez, et ne regardoyent point a discerner vrayement ne
   proprement;” — “They were ravished with admiration of those foreign
   masks, as persons quite transported, and were not careful to
   distinguish truly or properly.”

   [215] “Et orgueil;” — “And pride.”

   [216] “Si entr’eux fi y eust eu vne legitime et droite facon de iuger;”
   — “If there had been among them a lawful and right method of judging.”

   [217] “Ils auoyent affaire a des gens opiniastres et pleins de
   rebellion;” — “They had to do with persons that were obstinate, and
   full of rebellion.”

   [218] “Se demonstrera estre merueilleusement impudent;” — “He will show
   himself to be marvellously impudent.”

   [219] The word day, which is the literal rendering of the original word
   (hēmeras) is made use of in some of the old English versions. Thus in
   Wiclif’s version, (1380,) the rendering is: “of mannes daie;” in
   Tyndale’s, (1534,) “of man’s daye;” and in the Rheims version, (1582,)
   “of man’s day.” — Ed

   [220] “Selon les sottes affections, ou les mouuemens temeraires des
   hommes;” — “According to the foolish affections, or rash impulses of
   men.”

   [221] “Comme on dit;” — “As they say.”

   [222] “Si nihil prorsus sibi consciret;” — our author most probably had
   in his eye a well-known passage in Horace, (Ep. I. 1. 61,) “Nil
   conscire sibi;” — “To be conscious to one’s self of nothing wrong.” —
   Ed.

   [223] “Combien sa conscience estoit pure et nette;” — “How pure and
   clean his conscience was.”

   [224] “Tanquam agonothetos The allusion is to the presiding officers or
   umpires (agōnothetai) who adjudged the prizes in the Grecian games.
   (See Herod. 6. 127.) — Ed
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 4:6-8

   6. And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself
   and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think
   of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for
   one against another.

   6. Haec autem, fratres, transfiguravi in me ipsum et Apollo propter
   vos, ut in nobis disceretis, quis supra id quod scriptum est, de se
   sentiat: ut ne quis pro hoc vel illo infletur adversus alterum.

   7. For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that
   thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou
   glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

   7. Quis enim to discernit? quid autem habes, quod non acceperis? si
   vero etiam acceperis, quid gloriaris tanquam non acceperis?

   8. Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without
   us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you.

   8. Jam saturati estis, jam ditati estis, absque nobis regnum adepti
   estis; atque utinam sitis adepti ut et nos vobiscum regnemus.


   6. I have in a figure transferred. Hence we may infer, that it was not
   those who were attached to Paul that gave rise to parties, as they,
   assuredly, had not. been so instructed, but those who had through
   ambition given themselves up to vain teachers. [225] But as he could
   more freely and less invidiously bring forward his own name, and that
   of his brethren, he preferred to point out in his own person the fault
   that existed in others. At the same time, he strikes a severe blow at
   the originators of the parties, and points his finger to the sources
   from which this deadly divorce took its rise. For he shows them, that
   if they had been satisfied with good teachers, they would have been
   exempted from this evil. [226]

   That is us. Some manuscripts have it “that in you.” Both readings suit
   well, and their is no difference of meaning; for what Paul intends is
   this — “I have, for the sake of example, transferred these things to
   myself and Apollos, in order that you may transfer this example to
   yourselves.” “Learn then in us,” that is, “in that example which I have
   placed before you in our person as in a mirror;” or, “Learn in you,”
   that is, “apply this example to yourselves.” But what does he wish them
   to learn? That no one be puffed up for his own teacher against another,
   that is, that they be not lifted up with pride on account of their
   teachers, and do not abuse their names for the purpose of forming
   parties, and rending the Church asunder. Observe, too, that pride or
   haughtiness is the cause and commencement of all contentions, when
   every one, assuming to himself more than he is entitled to do, is eager
   to have others in subjection to him.

   The clause above what is written may be explained in two ways — either
   as referring to Paul’s writings, or to the proofs from Scripture which
   he has brought forward. As this, however, is a matter of small moment,
   my readers may be left at liberty to take whichever they may prefer.

   7. For who distinguisheth thee? The meaning is — “Let that man come
   forward, whosoever he be, that is desirous of distinction, and troubles
   the Church by his ambition. I will demand of him who it is that makes
   him superior to others? That is, who it is that has conferred upon him
   the privilege of being taken out of the rank of the others, and made
   superior to others?” Now this whole reasoning depends on the order
   which the Lord has appointed in his Church — that the members of
   Christ’s body may be united together, and that every one of them may
   rest satisfied with his own place, his own rank, his own office, and
   his own honor. If one member is desirous to quit his place, that he may
   leap over into the place of another, and invade his office, what will
   become of the entire body? Let us know, then, that the Lord has so
   placed us in the Church, and has in such a manner assigned to every one
   his own station, that, being under one head, we may be mutually helpful
   to each other. Let us know, besides, that we have been endowed with a
   diversity of gifts, in order that we may serve the Lord with modesty
   and humility, and may endeavor to promote the glory of him who has
   conferred upon us everything that we have. This, then, was the best
   remedy for correcting the ambition of those who were desirous of
   distinction — to call them back to God, in order that they might
   acknowledge that it was not according to any one’s pleasure that he was
   placed in a high or a low station, but that this belonged to God alone;
   and farther, that God does not confer so much upon any one as to
   elevate him to the place of the Head, but distributes his gifts in such
   a manner, that He alone is glorified in all things.

   To distinguish here means to render eminent. [227] Augustine, however,
   does not ineptly make frequent use of this declaration for maintaining,
   in opposition to the Pelagians, [228] that whatever there is of
   excellence in mankind, is not implanted in him by nature, so that it
   could be ascribed either to nature or to descent; and farther, that it
   is not acquired by free will, so as to bring God under obligation, but
   flows from his pure and undeserved mercy. For there can be no doubt
   that Paul here contrasts the grace of God with the merit or worthiness
   of men. [229]

   And what hast thou? This is a confirmation of the preceding statement,
   for that man cannot on good ground extol himself, who has no
   superiority above others. For what greater vanity is there than that of
   boasting without any ground for it? Now, there is no man that has
   anything of excellency from himself; therefore the man that extols
   himself is a fool and an idiot. The true foundation of Christian
   modesty is this — not to be self-complacent, as knowing that we are
   empty and void of everything good — that, if God has implanted in us
   anything that is good, we are so much the more debtors to his grace;
   and in fine, that, as Cyprian says, we must glory in nothing, because
   there is nothing that is our own.

   Why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it? Observe, that
   there remains no ground for our glorying, inasmuch as it is by

   the grace of God that we are what we are,
   (1 Corinthians 15:10.)

   And this is what we had in the first chapter, that Christ is the source
   of all blessings to us, that we may learn to glory in the Lord, (1
   Corinthians 1:30, 31,) and this we do, only when we renounce our own
   glory. For God does not obtain his due otherwise than by our being
   emptied, so that it may be seen that everything in us that is worthy of
   praise is derived.

   8. Now ye are full Having in good earnest, and without the use of any
   figure, beat down their vain confidence, he now also ridicules it by
   way of irony, [230] because they are so self-complacent, as if they
   were the happiest persons in the world. He proceeds, too, step by step,
   in exposing their insolence. In the first place, he says, that they
   were full: this refers to the past. He then adds, Ye are rich: this
   applies to the future. Lastly, he says, that they had reigned as kings
   this is much more than either of those two. It is as though he had
   said, “What will you attain to, when you appear to be not merely full
   for the present, but are also rich for the future — nay more, are
   kings?” At the same time, he tacitly upbraids them with ingratitude,
   because they had the audacity to despise him, or rather those, through
   means of whom they had obtained everything.

   Without us, says he. “For Apollos and I are now esteemed nothing by
   you, though it is by our instrumentality that the Lord has conferred
   everything upon you. What inhumanity there is in resting with
   self-complacency in the gifts of God, while in the meantime you despise
   those through whose instrumentality you obtained them!”

   And I would to God that ye did reign [231] Here he declares that he
   does not envy their felicity, (if indeed they have any,) and that from
   the beginning he has not sought to reign among them, but only to bring
   them to the kingdom of God. He intimates, however, on the other hand,
   that the kingdom in which they gloried was merely imaginary, and that
   their glorying was groundless and pernicious, [232] there being no true
   glorying but that which is enjoyed by all the sons of God in common,
   under Christ their Head, and every one of them according to the measure
   of the grace that has been given him.

   For by these words that ye also may reign with us, he means this — “You
   are so renowned in your own opinion that you do not hesitate to despise
   me, and those like me, but mark, how vain is your glorying. For you can
   have no glorying before God, in which we have not a share — for if
   honor redounds to you from having the gospel of God, how much more to
   us, by whose ministry it was conveyed to you! And assuredly, this is a
   madness [233] that is common to all the proud, that by drawing
   everything to themselves, they strip themselves of every blessing — nay
   more, they renounce the hope of everlasting salvation.”
     __________________________________________________________________

   [225] “A ces docteurs pieins d’ostentation;” — “To those teachers, full
   of ostentation.”

   [226] “S’ils se contentent de bons et fideles docteurs, ils seront hors
   de danger d’vn tel mal;” — “If they had contented themselves with good
   and faithful teachers, they would have been beyond the risk of such an
   evil.”

   [227] “Rendre excellent, ou mettre en reputation;” — “To render
   eminent, or exalt to fame.”

   [228] The reader will find a variety of passages of this tenor quoted
   from Augustine in the Institutes, volume 1. — Ed.

   [229] “Comme estans ehoses contraires;” — “As being things opposite.”

   [230] “Vsant d’ironie, c’est a dire, d’vne facon de parler qui sonne en
   mocquerie;” — “Making use of irony, that is to say, a form of speech
   that has a tone of mockery.”

   [231] “A bitter taunt,” says Lightfoot, “chastising the boasting of the
   Corinthians, who had forgot from whom they had first received those
   evangelical privileges, concerning which they now prided themselves.
   They were enriched with spiritual gifts; they reigned, themselves being
   judges, in the very top of the dignity and happiness of the gospel; and
   that, ‘without us,’ saith the Apostle, ‘as though ye owed nothing to us
   for these privileges,’ and, ‘O would to God ye did reign, and that it
   went so happily and well with you indeed, that we also might reign with
   you, and that we might partake of some happiness in this your
   promotion, and might be of some account among you!’” — Ed.

   [232] “Fausse et dangereuse:” — “Groundless and dangerous.”

   [233] “C’est vne folie, et bestise;” — “This is a folly and stupidity.”
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 4:9-15

   9. For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were
   appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to
   angels, and to men.

   9. Existimo enim, quod Deus nos postremos Apostolos demonstraverit
   tanquam morti destinatos: nam theatrum facti sumus mundo,et angelis, et
   hominibus.

   10. We are fools for Christ’s sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are
   weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.

   10. Nos stulti propter Christum, vos autem prudentes in Christo:
   infirmi, vos autem robusti: vos gloriosi, nos autem ignobiles.

   11. Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are
   naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place;

   11. Ad hanc enim horam usque et sitimus, et esurimus, et nudi sumus, et
   colaphis caedimur.

   12. And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless;
   being persecuted, we suffer it:

   12. Etcircumagimur, et laboramus operantes manibus propriis: maledictis
   lacessiti benedicimus: persequutionem patientes sustinemus:

   13. Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world,
   and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.

   13. Conviciis affecti obsecramus: quasi exsecrationes mundi facti
   sumus, omnium reiectamentum usque ad hunc diem.

   14. I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I
   warn you

   14. Non quo pudorem vobis incutiam, haec scribo: sed ut filios meos
   dilectos admoneo.

   15. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye
   not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the
   gospel.

   15. Nam etsi decem millia paedagogorum habueritis in Christo, non tamen
   multos patres; in Christo enim Iesu par Evangelium ego vos genui.


   9. For I think, etc. It is uncertain whether he speaks of himself
   exclusively, or takes in at the same time Apollos and Silvanus, for he
   sometimes calls such persons apostles. I prefer, however, to understand
   it of himself exclusively. Should any one be inclined to extend it
   farther, I shall have no particular objection, provided only he does
   not understand it as Chrysostom does, to mean that the apostles were as
   if for the sake of ignominy reserved to the last place. [234] For there
   can be no doubt that by the term last, he means those who were admitted
   to the rank of apostles subsequently to the resurrection of Christ.
   Now, he admits that he is like those who are exhibited to the people
   when on the eve of being led forth to death. For such is the meaning of
   the word exhibited — as those who on occasion of a triumph were led
   round [235] for the sake of show, and were afterwards hurried away to
   prison to be strangled.

   This he expresses more distinctly by adding, that they were made a
   spectacle. “This,” says he, “is my condition, that I exhibit to the
   world a spectacle of my miseries, like those who having been condemned
   to fight with wild beasts, [236] or to the games of the gladiators, or
   to some other mode of punishment, are brought forth to the view of the
   people, and that not before a few spectators, but before the whole
   world.” Observe here the admirable steadfastness of Paul, who, while he
   saw himself to be dealt with by God in this manner, was nevertheless
   not broken or dispirited. For he does not impute it to the wantonness
   of the wicked, that he was, as it were, led forth with ignominy to the
   sport of the arena, but ascribes it wholly to the providence of God.

   The second clause to angels and to men, I take to be expository in this
   sense — “I am made a sport and spectacle, not merely to earth, but also
   to heaven.” This passage has been commonly explained as referring to
   devils, from its seeming to be absurd to refer it to good angels. Paul,
   however, does not mean, that all who are witnesses of this calamity are
   gratified with such a spectacle He simply means, that the Lord has so
   ordered his lot that he seems as though he had been appointed to
   furnish sport to the whole world.

   10. We are fools for Christ’s sake This contrast is throughout
   ironical, and exceedingly pointed, it being unseemly and absurd that
   the Corinthians should be in every respect happy and honorable,
   according to the flesh, while in the meantime they beheld their master
   and father afflicted with the lowest ignominy, and with miseries of
   every kind. For those who are of opinion that Paul abases himself in
   this manner, in order that he may in earnestness ascribe to the
   Corinthians those things which he acknowledges himself to be in want
   of, may without any difficulty be refuted from the little clause that
   he afterwards subjoins. In speaking, therefore, of the Corinthians as
   wise in Christ, and strong, and honorable, he makes a concession
   ironically, as though he had said [237] — “You desire, along with the
   gospel, to retain commendation for wisdom, [238] whereas I have not
   been able to preach Christ otherwise than by becoming a fool in this
   world. Now when I have willingly, on your account, submitted to be a
   fool, or to be reckoned such, consider whether it be reasonable that
   you should wish to be esteemed wise. How in these things consort — that
   I who have been your master, am a fool for Christ’s sake, and you, on
   the other hand, remain wise!” In this way, being wise in Christ is not
   taken here in a good sense, for he derides the Corinthians for wishing
   to mix up together Christ and the wisdom of the flesh, inasmuch as this
   were to endeavor to unite things directly contrary.

   The case is the same as to the subsequent clauses — “You are strong
   says he, and honorable, that is, you glory in the riches and resources
   of the world, you cannot endure the ignominy of the cross. In the
   meantime, is it reasonable that I should be on your account [239] mean
   and contemptible, and exposed to many infirmities? Now the complaint
   carries with it so much the more reproach [240] on this account, that
   even among themselves he was weak and contemptible. (2 Corinthians
   10:10.) In fine, he derides their vanity in this respect, that,
   reversing the order of things, those who were sons and followers were
   desirous to be esteemed honorable and noble, while their father was in
   obscurity, and was exposed also to all the reproaches of the world.

   11. For to this hour. The Apostle here describes his condition, as if
   in a picture, that the Corinthians may learn, from his example, to lay
   aside that loftiness of spirit, and embrace, as he did, the cross of
   Christ with meekness of spirit. He discovers the utmost dexterity in
   this respect, that in making mention of those things which had rendered
   him contemptible, he affords clear proof of his singular fidelity and
   indefatigable zeal for the advancement of the gospel; and, on the other
   hand, he tacitly reproves his rivals, who, while they had furnished no
   such proof, were desirous, nevertheless, to be held in the highest
   esteem. In the words themselves there is no obscurity, except that we
   must take notice of the distinction between those two participles —
   loidoroumenoi kai blasphēmoumenoi (reviled and defamed.) As loidoria
   means — that harsher sort of raillery, which does not merely give a
   person a slight touch, but a sharp bite, and blackens his character by
   open contumely, there can be no doubt that loidorein means — wounding a
   person with reproach as with a sting. [241] I have accordingly rendered
   it — harassed with revilings Blasphēmia signifies a more open reproach,
   when any one is severely and atrociously slandered. [242]

   12. When he says that while persecuted he suffers it, and that he prays
   for his revilers, he intimates that he is not merely afflicted and
   abased by God, by means of the cross, but is also endowed with a
   disposition to abase himself willingly. In this, perhaps, he gives a
   stroke to the false apostles, who were so effeminate and tender, that
   they could not bear to be touched even with your little finger. In
   speaking of their laboring he adds — with our own hands, to express
   more fully the meanness of his employments [243] — “I do not merely
   gain a livelihood for myself by my own labor, but by mean labor,
   working with my own hands.”

   13. As the execrations of the world. He makes use of two terms, the
   former of which denotes a man who, by public execrations, is devoted,
   with the view to the cleansing of a city, [244] for such persons, on
   the ground of their cleansing the rest of the people, by receiving in
   themselves whatever there is in the city of crimes, and heinous
   offense, are called by the Greeks sometimes katharmoi, but more
   frequently katharmata. [245] Paul, in adding the preposition peri
   (around) seems to have had an eye to the expiatory rite itself,
   inasmuch as those unhappy men who were devoted to execrations were led
   round through the streets, that they might carry away with them
   whatever there was of evil [246] in any corner, that the cleansing
   might be the more complete. The plural number might seem to imply that
   he speaks not of himself exclusively, but also of the others who were
   his associates, and who were not less held in contempt by the
   Corinthians. There is, however, no urgent reason for regarding what he
   says as extending to more than himself. The other term — peripsēma,
   (offscouring,) denotes filings or scrapings of any kind, and also the
   sweepings that are cleared away with a brush. [247] As to both terms
   consult the annotations of Budaeus. [248]

   In so far as concerns the meaning of the passage before us, Paul, with
   the view of expressing his extreme degradation, says that he is held in
   abomination by the whole world, like a man set apart for expiation,
   [249] and that, like offscourings, he is nauseous to all. At the same
   time he does not mean to say by the former comparison that he is all
   expiatory victim for sins, but simply means, that in respect of
   disgrace and reproaches he differs nothing from the man on whom the
   execrations of all are heaped up.

   14. I write not these things to shame you As the foregoing instances of
   irony were very pointed, so that they might exasperate the minds of the
   Corinthians, he now obviates that dissatisfaction by declaring, that he
   had not said these things with a view to cover them with shame, but
   rather to admonish them with paternal affection. It is indeed certain
   that this is the nature and tendency of a father’s chastisement, to
   make his son feel ashamed; for the first token of return to a right
   state of mind is the shame which the son begins to feel on being
   reproached for his fault. The object, then, which the father has in
   view when he chastises his son with reproofs, is that he may bring him
   to be displeased with himself. And we see that the tendency of what
   Paul has said hitherto, is to make the Corinthians ashamed of
   themselves. Nay more, we shall find him a little afterwards (1
   Corinthians 6:5) declaring that he made mention of their faults in
   order that they may begin to be ashamed. Here, however, he simply means
   to intimate, that it was not his design to heap disgrace upon them, or
   to expose their sins publicly and openly with a view to their reproach.
   For he who admonishes in a friendly spirit, makes it his particular
   care that whatever there is of shame, may remain with the individual
   whom he admonishes, [250] and may in this manner be buried. On the
   other hand, the man who reproaches with a malignant disposition,
   inflicts disgrace upon the man whom he reproves for his fault, in such
   a manner as to hold him up to the reproach of all. Paul then simply
   affirms that what he had said, had been said by him, with no
   disposition to upbraid, or with any view to hurt their reputation, but,
   on the contrary, with paternal affection he admonished them as to what
   he saw to be defective in them.

   But what was the design of this admonition? It was that the
   Corinthians, who were puffed up with mere empty notions, might learn to
   glory, as he did, in the abasement of the cross, and might no longer
   despise him on those grounds on which he was deservedly honorable in
   the sight of God and angels — in fine, that, laying aside their
   accustomed haughtiness, they might set a higher value on those marks
   [251] of Christ (Galatians 6:17) that were upon him, than on the empty
   and counterfeit show of the false apostles. Let teachers [252] infer
   from this, that in reproofs they must always use such moderation as not
   to wound men’s minds with excessive severity, and that, agreeably to
   the common proverb, they must mix honey or oil with vinegar — that they
   must above all things take care not to appear to triumph over those
   whom they reprove, or to take delight in their disgrace — nay more,
   that they must endeavor to make it understood that they seek nothing
   but that their welfare may be promoted. For what good will the teacher
   [253] do by mere bawling, if he does not season the sharpness of his
   reproof by that moderation of which I have spoken? Hence if we are
   desirous to do any good by correcting men’s faults, we must distinctly
   give them to know, that our reproofs proceed from a friendly
   disposition.

   15. For though you had ten thousand. He had called himself father, and
   now he shows that this title belongs to him peculiarly and specially,
   inasmuch as he alone has begotten them in Christ. In this comparison,
   however, he has an eye to the false apostles to whom the Corinthians
   showed all deference, so that Paul was now almost as nothing among
   them. Accordingly he admonishes them to consider what honor ought to be
   rendered to a father, and what to a pedagogue [254] “You entertain
   respect for those new teachers. To this I have no objection, provided
   you bear in mind that I am your father, while they are merely
   pedagogues.” Now by claiming for himself authority, he intimates that
   he is actuated by a different kind of affection from that of those whom
   they so highly esteemed. “They take pains in instructing you. Be it so.
   Very different is the love of a father, very different his anxiety,
   very different his attachment from those of a pedagogue What if he
   should also make an allusion to that imperfection of faith [255] which
   he had previously found fault with? For while the Corinthians were
   giants in pride, they were children in faith, and are, therefore, with
   propriety, sent to pedagogues [256] He also reproves the absurd and
   base system of those teachers in keeping their followers in the mere
   first rudiments, with the view of keeping them always in bonds under
   their authority. [257]

   For in Christ Here we have the reason why he alone ought to be esteemed
   as the father of the Corinthian Church — because he had begotten it.
   And truly it is in most appropriate terms that he here describes
   spiritual generation, when he says that he has begotten them in Christ,
   who alone is the life of the soul, and makes the gospel the formal
   cause. [258] Let us observe, then, that we are then in the sight of God
   truly begotten, when we are engrafted into Christ, out of whom there
   will be found nothing but death, and that this is effected by means of
   the gospel, because, while we are by nature flesh and hay, the word of
   God, as Peter (1 Peter 1:24, 25) teaches from Isaiah, (Isaiah 40:6, 7,
   8,) is the incorruptible seed by which we are renewed to eternal life.
   Take away the gospel, and we will all remain accursed and dead in the
   sight of God. That same word by which we are begotten is afterwards
   milk to us for nourishing us, and it is also solid food to sustain us
   for ever. [259]

   Should any one bring forward this objection, “As new sons are begotten
   to God in the Church every day, why does Paul say that those who
   succeeded him were not fathers?” the answer is easy — that he is here
   speaking of the commencement of the Church. For although many had been
   begotten by the ministry of others, this honor remained to Paul
   untouched — that he had founded the Corinthian Church. Should any one,
   again, ask, “Ought not all pastors to be reckoned fathers, and if so,
   why does Paul deprive all others of this title, so as to claim it for
   himself exclusively?” I answer — “He speaks here comparatively.” Hence,
   however the title of fathers might be applicable to them in other
   respects, yet in respect of Paul, they were merely instructors We must
   also keep in mind what I touched upon a little ago, that he is not
   speaking of all, (for as to those who were like himself, as, for
   example, Apollos, Silvanus, and Timotheus, who aimed at nothing but the
   advancement of Christ’s kingdom, he would have had no objection to
   their being so named, and having the highest honor assigned to them,)
   but is reproving those who, by a misdirected ambition, transferred to
   themselves the glory that belonged to another. Of this sort were those
   who robbed Paul of the honor that was due to him, that they might set
   themselves off in his spoils.

   And, truly, the condition of the Church universal at this day is the
   same as that of the Corinthian Church was at that time. For how few are
   there that love the Churches with a fatherly, that is to say, a
   disinterested affection, and lay themselves out to promote their
   welfare! Meanwhile, there are very many pedagogues, who give out their
   services as hirelings, in such a manner as to discharge as it were a
   mere temporary office, and in the meantime hold the people in
   subjection and admiration. [260] At the same time, even in that case it
   is well when there are many pedagogues, who do good, at least, to some
   extent by teaching, and do not destroy the Church by the corruptions of
   false doctrine. For my part, when I complain of the multitude of
   pedagogues, I do not refer to Popish priests, (for I would not do them
   the honor of reckoning them in that number,) but those who, while
   agreeing with us in doctrine, employ themselves in taking care of their
   own affairs, rather than those of Christ. We all, it is true, wish to
   be reckoned fathers, and require from others the obedience of sons, but
   where is the man to be found who acts in such a manner as to show that
   he is a father? [261]

   There remains another question of greater difficulty: As Christ forbids
   us to

   call any one father upon earth, because we have one Father in heaven,
   (Matthew 23:9,)

   how does Paul dare to take to himself the name of father? I answer,
   that, properly speaking, God alone is the Father, not merely of our
   soul, but also of our flesh. As, however, in so far as concerns the
   body, he communicates the honor of his paternal name to those to whom
   he gives offspring, while, as to souls, he reserves to himself
   exclusively the right and title of Father, I confess that, on this
   account, he is called in a peculiar sense the Father of spirits, and is
   distinguished from earthly fathers, as the Apostle speaks in Hebrews
   12:9. As, however, notwithstanding that it is he alone who, by his own
   influence, begets souls, and regenerates and quickens them, he makes
   use of the ministry of his servants for this purpose, there is no harm
   in their being called fathers, in respect of this ministry, as this
   does not in any degree detract from the honor of God. The word, as I
   have said, is the spiritual seed. God alone by means of it regenerates
   our souls by his influence, but, at the same time, he does not exclude
   the efforts of ministers. If, therefore, you attentively consider, what
   God accomplishes by himself, and what he designs to be accomplished by
   ministers, you will easily understand in what sense he alone is worthy
   of the name of Father, and how far this name is applicable to his
   ministers, without any infringement upon his rights.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [234] “Et bien peu estimez;” — “And very little esteemed.”

   [235] “On pourmenoit par toute la ville les poures prisonniers;” —
   “They led the poor prisoners round the whole town.”

   [236] “Condamnez a seruir de passe-temps en combatrant contre des
   bestes;” — “Condemned to serve as a pastime in fighting against wild
   beasts.”

   [237] “C’est une concession ironique, c’est a dire, qu’il accorde ce
   dont ils se vantoyent, mais c’est par mocquerie, comme s’il disoit;” —
   “It is an ironical concession; that is to say — he grants what they
   boast of, but it is in mockery, as though he had said.”

   [238] “En faisant profession de l’Euangile, vous voulez auec cela estre
   estimez prudens;” — “In making a profession of the gospel, you wish,
   along with that, to be esteemed wise.”

   [239] “Pour l’amour de vous;” — “From love to you.”

   [240] “Est d’autant plus picquante, et aigre;” — “Is so much the more
   cutting and severe.”

   [241] loidoria, is supposed by Eustathius to be derived from logos, a
   word, and doru, a spear A similar figure is employed by the Psalmist,
   when he speaks of words that are drawn swords (Psalm 55:21.) — Ed

   [242] “Or le premier signifie non seulement se gaudir d’vn homme, mais
   aussi toucher son honneur comme en le blasonnant, et le naurer en
   termes picquans: ce que nous disons communement, Mordre en riant. Le
   second signifie quand on detracte apertement de quelqu’vn sans vser de
   couuerture de paroles;” — “Now the first means not simply to make one’s
   self merry at another’s expense, but also to touch his reputation, as
   if with the view of blackening it, and wounding it by cutting
   expressions, as we commonly say — to give a good humored bite. The
   second means when persons slander any one openly, without using any
   disguise of words.”

   [243] “Que c’estoit vn mestier ville, et mechanique;” — “That it was a
   mean and mechanical occupation.”

   [244] “Comme c’estoit vne chose qui se faisoit anciennement entre les
   payens;” — “As this was a thing that was practiced anciently among the
   heathens.”

   [245] The Scholiast on Aristophanes, Plut. 454, gives the following
   explanation of the term katharma: Katharmata elegonto hoi epi tō
   katharsei loimou tinos ētinos hetera; nasou thuomenoi tois theois.
   Touto de ethos kai para ̔rōmaiois epekratēse. Those were called
   cleansings who were sacrificed to the gods for the cleansing out of
   some famine, or some other calamity. This custom prevailed also among
   the Romans. — Ed

   [246] “De malediction;” — “Of curse.”

   [247] “Les ballieures d’vne maison;” — “The sweepings of a house.”

   [248] The view given by Budaeus of the former term (perikatharmata) is
   stated by Leigh in his Critica Sacra to be the following: That “the
   Apostle had allusion unto the expiations in use among the heathens, in
   time of any pestilence or contagious infection; for the removal of such
   diseases they then sacrificed certain men unto their gods, which men
   they termed katharmata. As if the Apostle had said — We are as
   despicable and as odious in the sight of the people, as much loaded
   with the revilings and cursings of the multitude, as those condemned
   persons who were offered up by way of public expiation.” The latter
   term (peripsēma) Budaeus renders as follows: “Scobem aut ramentum et
   quicquid limando fleter;” — “Filings or scrapings, or whatever is
   cleared off by filing.” — Ed

   [249] “Destine a porter toutes les execrations et maudissons du monde;”
   — “Set apart to bear all the execrations and curses of the world.”

   [250] “Tasche sur toutes choses que toute la honte demeure entre lui et
   celui lequel il admoneste;” — “Endeavors above all things that the
   shame may remain between him and the person whom he admonishes.”

   [251] “Les marques et fietrisseurs de Christ en luy;” — “The marks and
   brands of Christ in him.” The allusion, as our Author himself remarks,
   when [8]commenting upon Galatians 6:17, is to “the marks with which
   barbarian slaves, or fugitives, or malefactors were branded.” Hence the
   expression of Juvenal: stigmate dignum credere — “to reckon one worthy
   of being branded as a slave.” (Juv. 10. 183.) — Ed.

   [252] “Les docteurs et ministres;” — “Teachers and ministers.”

   [253] “Le ministre:” — “The minister.”

   [254] “The Greek word pedagogue,” says Calmet, “now carries with it an
   idea approaching to contempt. With no other word to qualify it, it
   excites the idea of a pedant, who assumes an air of authority over
   others, which does not belong to him. But among the ancients a
   pedagogue was a person to whom they committed the care of their
   children, to lead them, to observe them, and to instruct them in their
   first rudiments. Thus the office of a pedagogue nearly answered to that
   of a governor or tutor, who constantly attends his pupil, teaches him,
   and forms his manners. Paul (1 Corinthians 4:15) says: “For though you
   have ten thousand instructors (pedagogues) in Christ, yet have ye not
   many fathers’ — representing himself as their father in the faith,
   since he had begotten them in the gospel. The pedagogue, indeed, may
   have some power and interest in his pupil, but he can never have the
   natural tenderness of a father for him.” — Ed.

   [255] “Quel mal y auroit-il, quand nous dirions, qu’il fait aussi vne
   allusion a ceste petitesse et enfance en la foy?” — “What harm were
   there, though we should say that he also makes an allusion to that
   littleness and childhood in the faith?”

   [256] Our Author evidently alludes to the etymology of the original
   term paidagōgous, as being derived from pais, a boy, and agō, to lead
   Such instructors were generally slaves, whose business it was to attend
   upon their youthful charge, to observe their behavior, and to lead them
   to and from school. (Herod. 8. 75, Eur. Ion, 725.) — Ed

   [257] “La mauuaise procedure et faqon d’enseigner des docteurs,
   d’autant qu’ils amusoyent leurs disciples aux premiers rudimens et
   petis commencemens, et les tenoyent tousiours la;” — “The base
   procedure and method of instruction of the teachers, inasmuch as they
   amused their followers with the first rudiments and little beginnings,
   and kept them constantly there.”

   [258] “Qu’on appelle;” — “As they call it.”

   [259] Our Author probably refers to what he had said when [9]commenting
   on 1 Corinthians 3:2.

   [260] “Qui se loent, comme ouuriers a la iournee, pour exercer l’office
   a leur profit, ainsi qu’on feroit vne chose qu’on aura prise pour vn
   temps certain, et cependant, tenir le peuple en obeissance, et acquerir
   bruit, ou estre en admiration enuers iceluy;” — “Who hire themselves
   out, as workmen for the day, in order to exercise the office to their
   own advantage, as if one were doing a thing that he had taken up for a
   certain time, and in the meantime to hold the people in subjection, and
   acquire fame, or be in admiration among them.”

   [261] “Combien yen a-t-il qui facent office de pere, et qui demonstrent
   par effet ce qu’ils vetdent estre appelez?” — “How many are there of
   them that discharge the office of a father, and show in deeds what they
   wish to be called?”
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 4:16-21

   16. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

   16. Adhortor ergo vos, imitatores mei estote.

   17. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved
   son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of
   my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

   17. Hac de causa misi ad vos Timotheum, qui est filius meus dilectus et
   fidelis in Domino: qui vobis in memoriam reducat vias meas, quae sunt
   in Christo, quemadmodum ubique in omnibus Ecclesiis doceam.

   18. Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you.

   18. Perinde quasi non sum ad vos venturus, inflati sunt quidam:

   19. But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know,
   not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.

   19. Veniam autem brevi ad vos, si Dominus voluerit, et cognoscam non
   sermonem eorum qui sunt inflati, sed virtutem.

   20. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.

   20. Neque enim in sermone regnum Dei est, sed in virtute.

   21. What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in
   the spirit of meekness?

   21. Quid vultis? in virga veniam ad vos, an in dilectione spirituque
   mansuetudinis?


   16. I exhort you. He now expresses also, in his own words, what he
   requires from them in his fatherly admonition — that, being his sons,
   they do not degenerate from their father. For what is more reasonable
   than that sons endeavor to be as like as possible to their father.
   [262] At the same time he gives up something in respect of his own
   right, when he exhorts them to this, by way of entreaty rather than of
   command. But to what extent he wishes them to be imitators of him, he
   shows elsewhere, when he adds, as he was of Christ (1 Corinthians
   11:1.) This limitation must always be observed, so as not to follow any
   man, except in so far as he leads us to Christ. We know what he is here
   treating of. The Corinthians did not merely shun the abasement of the
   cross, but they also regarded their father with contempt, on this
   account, that, forgetting earthly glory, he gloried rather in
   reproaches for Christ; and they reckoned themselves and others
   fortunate in having nothing contemptible according to the flesh. He
   accordingly admonishes them to devote themselves, after his example, to
   the service of Christ, so as to endure all things patiently.

   17. For this cause. The meaning is: “That you may know what my manner
   of life is, and whether I am worthy to be imitated, listen to what
   Timothy has to say, who will be prepared to be a faithful witness of
   these things. Now as there are two things that secure credit to a man’s
   testimony — a knowledge of the things which he relates, and fidelity —
   he lets them know that Timothy possesses both of these things. For in
   calling him his dearly beloved son, he intimates that he knew him
   intimately, and was acquainted with all his affairs; and farther, he
   speaks of him as faithful in the Lord He gives also two things in
   charge to Timothy — first, to recall to the recollection of the
   Corinthians those things which they should of themselves have had in
   remembrance, and in this he tacitly reproves them; and secondly, to
   testify to them, how uniform and steady his manner of teaching was in
   every place. Now it is probable that he had been assailed by the
   calumnies of the false apostles, as though he assumed more authority
   over the Corinthians than he did over others, or as though he conducted
   himself in a very different way in other places; for it is not without
   good reason that he wishes this to be testified to them. It is then the
   part of a prudent minister so to regulate his procedure, and to observe
   such a method of instruction, that no such objection may be brought
   against him, but he shall be prepared to answer on the same ground as
   Paul does.

   18. As though I would not come to you This is the custom of the false
   apostles — to take advantage of the absence of the good, that they may
   triumph and vaunt without any hindrance. Paul, accordingly, with the
   view of reproving their ill-regulated conscience, and repressing their
   insolence, tells them, that they cannot endure his presence. It happens
   sometimes, it is true, that wicked men, on finding opportunity of
   insulting, rise up openly with an iron front against the servants of
   Christ, but never do they come forward ingenuously to an equal combat,
   [263] but on the contrary, by sinister artifices they discover their
   want of confidence.

   19. But I will come shortly. “They are in a mistake,” says he, “in
   raising their crests during my absence, as though this were to be of
   long duration, for they shall in a short time perceive how vain their
   confidence has been.” He has it not, however, so much in view to
   terrify them, as though he would on his arrival thunder forth against
   them, but rather presses and bears down upon their consciences, for,
   however they might disguise it, they were aware that he was furnished
   with divine influence.

   The clause, if the Lord will, intimates, that we ought not to promise
   anything to others as to the future, or to determine with ourselves,
   without adding this limitation in so far as the Lord will permit Hence
   James with good reason derides the rashness of mankind (James 4:15) in
   planning what they are to do ten years afterwards, while they have not
   security for living even a single hour. We are not, it is true, bound
   by a constant necessity to the use of such forms of expression, but it
   is the better way to accustom ourselves carefully to them, that we may
   exercise our minds from time to time in this consideration — that all
   our plans must be in subjection to the will of God.

   And I will know not the speech By speech you must understand that
   prating in which the false apostles delighted themselves, for they
   excelled in a kind of dexterity and gracefulness of speech, while they
   were destitute of the zeal and efficacy of the Spirit. By the term
   power, he means that spiritual efficacy, with which those are endowed
   who dispense the word of the Lord with earnestness. [264] The meaning,
   therefore, is: “I shall see whether they have so much occasion for
   being puffed up; and I shall not judge of them by their mere outward
   talkativeness, in which they place the sum-total [265] of their glory,
   and on the ground of which they claim for themselves every honor. If
   they wish to have any honor from me, they must bring forward that power
   which distinguishes the true servants of Christ from the merely
   pretended: otherwise I shall despise them, with all their show. It is
   to no purpose, therefore, that they confide in their eloquence, for I
   shall reckon it nothing better than smoke.”

   20. For the kingdom of God is not in word As the Lord governs the
   Church by his word, as with a scepter, the administration of the gospel
   is often called the kingdom of God Here, then, we are to understand by
   the kingdom of God whatever tends in this direction, and is appointed
   for this purpose — that God may reign among us. He says that this
   kingdom does not consist in word, for how small an affair is it for any
   one to have skill to prate eloquently, while he has nothing but empty
   tinkling. [266] Let us know, then, a mere outward gracefulness and
   dexterity in teaching is like a body that is elegant and of a beautiful
   color, while the power of which Paul here speaks is like the soul. We
   have already seen that the preaching of the gospel is of such a nature,
   that it is inwardly replete with a kind of solid majesty. This majesty
   shows itself, when a minister strives by means of power rather than of
   speech — that is, when he does not place confidence in his own
   intellect, or eloquence, but, furnished with spiritual armor,
   consisting of zeal for maintaining the Lord’s honor — eagerness for the
   raising up of Christ’s kingdom — a desire to edify — the fear of the
   Lord — an invincible constancy — purity of conscience, and other
   necessary endowments, he applies himself diligently to the Lord’s work.
   Without this, preaching is dead, and has no strength, with whatever
   beauty it may be adorned. Hence in his second epistle, he says, that in
   Christ nothing avails but a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17) — a
   statement which is to the same purpose. For he would have us not rest
   in outward masks, but depend solely on the internal power of the Holy
   Spirit.

   But while in these words he represses the ambition of the false
   apostles, he at the same time reproves the Corinthians for their
   perverted judgment, in measuring the servants of Christ by what holds
   the lowest place among their excellences. Here we have a remarkable
   statement, and one that is not less applicable to us than to them. As
   to our gospel, of which we are proud, [267] where is it in most persons
   except in the tongue? Where is newness of life? Where is spiritual
   efficacy? Nor is it so among the people merely. [268] On the contrary,
   how many there are, who, while endeavoring to procure favor and
   applause from the gospel, as though it were some profane science, aim
   at nothing else than to speak with elegance and refinement! I do not
   approve of restricting the term power to miracles, for from the
   contrast we may readily gather that it has a more extensive import.

   21. What will ye? The person who divided the Epistles into chapters
   ought to have made this the beginning of the fifth chapter. For having
   hitherto reproved the foolish pride of the Corinthians, their vain
   confidence, and their judgment as perverted and corrupted by ambition,
   he now makes mention of the vices with which they were infected, and on
   account of which they ought to be ashamed — “You are puffed up, as
   though everything were on the best possible footing among you, but it
   were better if you did with shame and sighing acknowledge the
   unhappiness of your condition, for if you persist, I shall be under the
   necessity of laying aside mildness, and exercising towards you a
   paternal severity.” There is, however, still more of emphasis in this
   threatening in which he gives them liberty to choose, for he declares
   that it does not depend upon himself whether he shall show himself
   agreeable and mild, but that it is their own fault that he is
   necessitated to use severity. “It is for you,” says he, “to choose in
   what temper you would have me. As for me, I am prepared to be mild, but
   if you go on as you have done hitherto, I shall be under the necessity
   of taking up the rod.” He thus takes higher ground, after having laid
   claim to fatherly authority over them, for it would have been absurd to
   set out with this threatening, without first opening up the way by what
   he said, and preparing them for entertaining fears.

   By the term rod, he means that severity with which a pastor ought to
   correct his people’s faults. He places in contrast with this, love, and
   the spirit of meekness — not, as though the father hated the sons whom
   he chastises, for on the contrary the chastisement proceeds from love,
   but because by sadness of countenance and harshness of words, he
   appears as though he were angry with his son. To express myself more
   plainly — in one word, a father always, whatever kind of look he may
   put on, regards his son with affection, but that affection he manifests
   when he teaches him pleasantly and lovingly; but when, on the other
   hand, being displeased with his faults, he chastises him in rather
   sharp terms, or even with the rod, he puts on the appearance of a
   person in a passion. As then love does not appear when severity of
   discipline is exercised, it is not without good reason, that Paul here
   conjoins love with a spirit of meekness There are some that understand
   the term rod to mean excommunication — but, for my part, though I grant
   them that excommunication is a part of that severity with which Paul
   threatens the Corinthians, I at the same time extend it farther, so as
   to include all reproofs that are of a harsher kind.

   Observe here what system a good pastor ought to observe; for he ought
   of his own accord to be inclined to mildness, with the view of drawing
   to Christ, rather than driving. This mildness, so far as in him lies,
   he ought to maintain, and never have recourse to bitterness, unless he
   be compelled to do so. On the other hand, he must not spare the rod,
   (Proverbs 13:24,) when there is need for it, for while those that are
   teachable and agreeable should be dealt with mildly, sharpness requires
   to be used in dealing with the refractory and contumacious. We see,
   too, that the Word of God does not contain mere doctrine, but contains
   an intermixture of bitter reproofs, so as to supply pastors with a rod
   For it often happens, through the obstinacy of the people, that those
   pastors who are naturally the mildest [269] are constrained to put on,
   as it were, the countenance of another, and act with rigor and
   severity.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [262] “Taschent a suyure les bonnes moeurs de lears peres;” — “Endeavor
   to follow the good manners of their fathers.”

   [263] “Si est-ce que jamais ils ne vienent a combatre franchement, et
   s’ ils ne voyent leur auantage: mats plustot en vsant de ruses et
   circuits obliques, ils monstrent leur deffiance, et comment ils sont
   mal asseurez;” — “So it is, that they never come forward frankly to a
   combat, and unless they have a view to their own advantage; but on the
   contrary, by making use of tricks and indirect windings, they show
   their want of confidence, and how distrustful they are.”

   [264] “D’vn bon zele, et pure affection;” — “With a right zeal and a
   pure affection.”

   [265] “Proram et puppim;” — “Prow and stern.”

   [266] “Sqaura bien babiller et parler eloquemment, et cependant il
   n’aura rien qu’vn son retentissant en l’air;” — “Has skill to prate
   well, and speak eloquently, and in the meantime has nothing but a sound
   tinkling in the air.”

   [267] “Duquel nous nous vantons et glorifions tant;” — “Of which we
   boast and glory so much.”

   [268] “Et ce n’est point au peuple seulement qu’est ce defaut;” — “And
   it is not among the people merely that this defect exists.”

   [269] “Qu’on pourra trouuer;” — “That one could find.”
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER 5
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 5:1-5

   1. It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and
   such fornication as is not so much named among the Gentiles, that one
   should have his father’s wife.

   1. Omnino auditur in vobus scortatio, et talis scortatio, quae ne
   interGentes quidem nominatur, ut quis as uxorem patris habeat.

   2. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath
   done this deed might be taken away from among you.

   2. Et vos inflati estis, ac non magis luxistis, ut e medio vestri
   removeretur, qui facinus hoc admisit.

   3. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged
   already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done
   this deed,

   3. Ego quidem certe tanquam absens corpore, praesens autem spiritu, jam
   iudicavi tanquam praesens, qui hoc ita designavit,

   4. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together,
   and my spirit, with the power our Lord Jesus Christ,

   4. In nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi, congregatis vobis et spiritu
   meo, cum potentia Domini nostri of Iesu Christi, eiusmodi inquam
   hominem.

   5. To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh,
   that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

   5. Tradere Satanae in exitium carnis, ut spiritus salvus fiat in die
   Domini Iesu.


   1. It is generally reported that there is among you. Those contentions
   having originated, as has been observed, in presumption and excessive
   confidence, he most appropriately proceeds to make mention of their
   diseases, the knowledge of which should have the effect of humbling
   them. First of all, he shows them what enormous wickedness it is to
   allow one of their society to have an illicit connection with his
   mother-in-law. It is not certain, whether he had seduced her from his
   father as a prostitute, or whether he kept her under pretense of
   marriage. This, however, does not much affect, the subject in hand;
   for, as in the former case, there would have been an abominable and
   execrable whoredom, so the latter would have involved an incestuous
   connection, abhorrent to all propriety and natural decency. Now, that
   he may not seem to charge them on doubtful suspicions, he says, that
   the case which he brings forward is well known and in general
   circulation. For it is in this sense that I take the particle holōs
   (generally) as intimating that it was no vague rumor, but a matter well
   known, and published everywhere so as to cause great scandal.

   From his saying that such a kind of whoredom was not named even among
   the Gentiles, some are of opinion, that he refers to the incest of
   Reuben, (Genesis 35:22,) who, in like manner, had an incestuous
   connection with his mother-in-law. They are accordingly of opinion,
   that Paul did not make mention of Israel, because a disgraceful
   instance of this kind had occurred among them, as if the annals of the
   Gentiles did not record many incestuous connections of that kind! This,
   then, is an idea that is quite foreign to Paul’s intention; for in
   making mention of the Gentiles rather than of the Jews, he designed
   rather to heighten the aggravation of the crime. “You,” says he,
   “permit, as though it were a lawful thing, an enormity, which would not
   be tolerated even among the Gentiles — nay more, has always been
   regarded by them with horror, and looked upon as a prodigy of crime.”
   When, therefore, he affirms that it was not named among the Gentiles,
   he does not mean by this, that no such thing had ever existed among
   them, or was not recorded in their annals, for even tragedies have been
   founded upon it; [270] but that it was held in detestation by the
   Gentiles, as a shameful and abominable monstrosity, for it is a beastly
   lust, which destroys even natural modesty. Should any one ask, “Is it
   just to reproach all with the sin of one individual?” I answer, that
   the Corinthians are accused, not because one of their number has
   sinned, but because, as is stated afterwards, they encouraged by
   connivance a crime that was deserving of the severest punishment.

   2. And ye are puffed up “Are ye not ashamed,” says he, “to glory in
   what affords so much occasion for humiliation?” He had observed
   previously, that even the highest excellence gives no just ground of
   glorying, inasmuch as mankind have nothing of their own, and it is only
   through the grace of God that they possess any excellence. (1
   Corinthians 4:7.) Now, however, he attacks them from another quarter.
   “You are,” says he, “covered with disgrace: what ground have you, then,
   for pride or haughtiness? For there is an amazing blindness in glorying
   in the midst of disgrace, in spite, as it were of angels and men.”

   When he says, and have not rather mourned, he argues by way of
   contrast; for where there is grief there is no more glorying. It may be
   asked: “Why ought they to have mourned over another man’s sin?” I
   answer, for two reasons: first, in consequence of the communion that
   exists among the members of the Church, it was becoming that all should
   feel hurt at so deadly a fall on the part of one of their number; and
   secondly, when such an enormity is perpetrated in a particular Church,
   the perpetrator of it is all offender in such a way, that the whole
   society is in a manner polluted. For as God humbles the father of a
   family in the disgrace of his wife, or of his children, and a whole
   kindred in the disgrace of one of their number, so every Church ought
   to consider, that it contracts a stain of disgrace whenever any base
   crime is perpetrated in it. Nay, farther, we see how the anger of God
   was kindled against the whole nation of Israel on account of the
   sacrilege of one individual — Achan. (Joshua 7:1.) It was not as though
   God had been so cruel as to take vengeance on the innocent for another
   man’s crime; but, as in every instance in which anything of this nature
   has occurred among a people, there is already some token of his anger,
   so by correcting a community for the fault of one individual, he
   distinctly intimates that the whole body is infected and polluted with
   the contagion of the offense. Hence we readily infer, that it is the
   duty of every Church to mourn over the faults of individual members, as
   domestic calamities belonging to the entire body. And assuredly a pious
   and dutiful correction takes its rise in our being inflamed with holy
   zeal through displeasure at the offense; for otherwise severity will be
   felt to be bitter. [271]

   That he might be taken away from among you. He now brings out more
   distinctly what he finds fault with in the Corinthians — remissness,
   inasmuch as they connived at such an abomination. Hence, too, it
   appears that Churches are furnished with this power [272] — that,
   whatever fault there is within them, they can correct or remove it by
   strictness of discipline, and that those are inexcusable that are not
   on the alert to have filth cleared away. For Paul here condemns the
   Corinthians. Why? Because they had been remiss in the punishment of one
   individual. Now he would have accused them unjustly, if they had not
   had this power. Hence the power of excommunication is established from
   this passage. On the other hand, as Churches have this mode of
   punishment put into their hands, those commit sin, [273] as Paul shows
   here, that do not make use of it, when it is required; for otherwise he
   would act unfairly to the Corinthians in charging them with this fault.

   3. I truly, etc. As the Corinthians were wanting in their duty, having
   condemned their negligence, he now shows what ought to be done. In
   order that this stain may be removed, they must cast out this
   incestuous person from the society of the faithful. He prescribes,
   then, as a remedy for the disease, excommunication, which they had
   sinfully delayed so long. When he says, that he had, while absent in
   body, already determined this, he severely reproves in this way the
   remissness of the Corinthians, for there is here all implied contrast.
   It is as though he had said: “You who are present ought before this
   time to have applied a remedy to this disease, having it every day
   before your eyes, and yet you do nothing; [274] while for my part I
   cannot, even though absent, endure it.” Lest any one should allege that
   he acted rashly in forming a judgment when at so great a distance, he
   declares himself to be present in spirit, meaning by this, that the
   line of duty was as plain to him as if he were present, and saw the
   thing with his eyes. Now it is of importance to observe what he teaches
   as to the mode of excommunication.

   4. When you are gathered together and my spirit — that is, when ye are
   gathered together with me, but in spirit, for they could not meet
   together as to bodily presence. He declares, however, that it would be
   all one as though he were personally present. It is to be carefully
   observed, that Paul, though an Apostle, does not himself, as an
   individual, excommunicate according to his own pleasure, but consults
   with the Church, that the matter may be transacted by common authority.
   He, it is true, takes the lead, and shows the way, but, in taking
   others as his associates, he intimates with sufficient plainness, that
   this authority does not belong to any one individual. As, however, a
   multitude never accomplishes anything with moderation or seriousness,
   if not governed by counsel, there was appointed in the ancient Church a
   Presbytery, [275] that is, an assembly of elders, who, by the consent
   of all, had the power of first judging in the case. From them the
   matter was brought before the people, but it was as a thing already
   judged of. [276] Whatever the matter may be, it is quite contrary to
   the appointment of Christ and his Apostles — to the order of the
   Church, and even to equity itself, that this right should be put into
   the hands of any one man, of excommunicating at his pleasure any that
   he may choose. Let us take notice, then, that in excommunicating this
   limitation be observed — that this part of discipline be exercised by
   the common counsel of the elders, and with the consent of the people,
   and that this is a remedy in opposition to tyranny. For nothing is more
   at variance with the discipline of Christ than tyranny, for which you
   open a wide door, if you give one man the entire power.

   In the name of our Lord For it is not enough that we assemble, if it be
   not in the name of Christ; for even the wicked assemble together for
   impious and nefarious conspiracies. Now in order that an assembly may
   be held in Christ’s name, two things are requisite: first, that we
   begin by calling upon his name; and secondly, that nothing is attempted
   but in conformity with his word. Then only do men make an auspicious
   commencement of anything that they take in hand to do, when they with
   their heart call upon the Lord that they may be governed by his Spirit,
   and that their plans may, by his grace, be directed to a happy issue;
   and farther, when they ask at his mouth, as the Prophet speaks, (Isaiah
   30:2,) that is to say, when, after consulting his oracles, they
   surrender themselves and all their designs to his will in unreserved
   obedience. If this is becoming even in the least of our actions, how
   much less ought it to be omitted in important and serious matters, and
   least of all, when we have to do with God’s business rather than our
   own? For example, excommunication is an ordinance of God, and not of
   men; on any occasion, therefore, on which we are to make use of it,
   where shall we begin if not with God. [277] In short, when Paul exhorts
   the Corinthians to assemble in the name of Christ, he does not simply
   require them to make use of Christ’s name, or to confess him with the
   mouth, (for the wicked themselves can do that,) but to seek him truly
   and with the heart, and farther, he intimates by this the seriousness
   and importance of the action.

   He adds, with the power of our Lord, for if the promise is true,

   As often as two or three are gathered together in my name,
   I am in the midst of them, (Matthew 18:20,)

   it follows, that whatever is done in such an assembly is a work of
   Christ. Hence we infer, of what importance excommunication, rightly
   administered, is in the sight of God, inasmuch as it rests upon the
   power of God. For that saying, too, must be accomplished,

   Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. (Matthew
   18:18.)

   As, however, this statement ought to fill despisers [278] with no
   ordinary alarm, so faithful pastors, as well as the Churches generally,
   are by this admonished in what a devout spirit [279] they should go to
   work in a matter of such importance. For it is certain that the power
   of Christ is not tied to the inclination or opinions of mankind, but is
   associated with his eternal truth.

   5. To deliver to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. As the
   Apostles had been furnished with this power among others, that they
   could deliver over to Satan wicked and obstinate persons, and made use
   of him as a scourge to correct them, Chrysostom, and those that follow
   him, view these words of Paul as referring to a chastisement of that
   kind, agreeably to the exposition that is usually given of another
   passage, in reference to Alexander and Hymeneus, (1 Timothy 1:20.) To
   deliver over to Satan, they think, means nothing but the infliction of
   a severe punishment upon the body. But when I examine the whole context
   more narrowly, and at the same time compare it with what is stated in
   the Second Epistle, I give up that interpretation, as forced and at
   variance with Paul’s meaning, and understand it simply of
   excommunication. For delivering over to Satan is an appropriate
   expression for denoting excommunication; for as Christ reigns in the
   Church, so Satan reigns out of the Church, as Augustine, too, has
   remarked, [280] in his sixty-eighth sermon on the words of the Apostle,
   where he explains this passage. [281] As, then, we are received into
   the communion of the Church, and remain in it on this condition, that
   we are under the protection and guardianship of Christ, I say, that he
   who is cast out of the Church is in a manner delivered over to the
   power of Satan, for he becomes an alien, and is cast out of Christ’s
   kingdom.

   The clause that follows, for the destruction of the flesh, is made use
   of for the purpose of softening; for Paul’s meaning is not that the
   person who is chastised is given over to Satan to be utterly ruined, or
   so as to be given up to the devil in perpetual bondage, but that it is
   a temporary condemnation, and not only so, but of such a nature as will
   be salutary. For as the salvation equally with the condemnation of the
   spirit is eternal, he takes the condemnation of the flesh as meaning
   temporal condemnation. “We will condemn him in this world for a time,
   that the Lord may preserve him in his kingdom.” This furnishes an
   answer to the objection, by which some endeavor to set aside this
   exposition, for as the sentence of excommunication is directed rather
   against the soul than against the outward man, they inquire how it can
   be called the destruction of the flesh My answer, then, is, (as I have
   already in part stated,) that the destruction of the flesh is opposed
   to the salvation of the spirit, simply because the former is temporal
   and the latter is eternal. In this sense the Apostle in Hebrews 5:7,
   uses the expression the days of Christ’s flesh, to mean the course of
   his mortal life. Now the Church in chastising offenders with severity,
   spares them not in this world, in order that God may spare them. [282]
   Should any one wish to have anything farther in reference to the rite
   of excommunication, its causes, necessity, purposes, and limitation,
   let him consult my Institutes. [283]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [270] Calvin probably had in his eye, among other instances, the
   Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles — Ed.

   [271] “Et ne profitera pas;” — “And will do no good.”

   [272] “Et authorite;” — “And authority.”

   [273] “Offensent Dieu;” — “Offend God.”

   [274] “Vous dissimulez;” — “You connive.”

   [275] “Qu’on appeloit le Presbytere;” — “What they called a
   Presbytery.”

   [276] “Puis apres la chose estoit renuoyee au peuple par eux, avec un
   advertissement touteffois de ce qui leur en sembloit;” — “The matter
   was afterwards brought by them before the people, with an intimation,
   however, of their views respecting it.” See Calvin’s Institutes, volume
   3, pp. 233-5. — Ed.

   [277] “Le nom de Dieu;” — “The name of God.”

   [278] “Contempteurs de Dieu;” — “Despisers of God.”

   [279] “En quelle crainte et obeissance: — “With what fear and
   obedience.”

   [280] “L’a tres-bien note;” — “Has very well remarked.”

   [281] “The reader will find the same sentiment quoted in the
   Institutes, volume 3. — Ed.

   [282] “Mais c’est afin que Dieu leur espargne;” — “But it is in order
   that God may spare them.”

   [283] See Institutes, volume 3.
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 5:6-8

   6. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven
   leaveneth the whole lump?

   6. Non est bona gloriatio vestra: an nescitis, quod exiguum fermentum
   totam massam fermentat?

   7. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye
   are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.

   7. Expurgate ergo vetus fermentum, ut sitis nova conspersio, sicut
   estis azymi: nam Pascha nostrum pro nobis immolatum est, Christus.
   [284]

   8. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with
   the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of
   sincerity and truth.

   8. Proinde epulemur non in fermento veteri, neque in fermento malitiae
   et pravitatis, sed in azymis sinceritatis veritatis. [285]


   6. Your glorying is not good. He condemns their glorying, not simply
   because they extolled themselves beyond what is lawful for man, but
   because they delighted themselves in their faults. He had previously
   stripped mankind of all glory; for he had shown that, as they have
   nothing of their own, whatever excellence they may have, they owe the
   entire praise of it to God alone. (1 Corinthians 4:7.) What he treats
   of here, however, is not that, God is defrauded of his right, when
   mortals arrogate to themselves the praise of their excellences, but
   that the Corinthians are guilty of arrant folly in extolling themselves
   without any just ground. For they proudly gloried as if everything had
   been in a golden style among them, while in the meantime there was so
   much among them that was wicked and disgraceful.

   Know ye not That they might not think that it was a matter of little or
   no importance that they gave encouragement to so great an evil, he
   shows the destructive tendency of indulgence and dissimulation in such
   a case. He makes use of a proverbial saying, by which he intimates that
   a whole multitude is infected by the contagion of a single individual.
   For this proverb has in this passage [286] the same meaning as in those
   expressions of Juvenal: “A whole herd of swine falls down in the fields
   through disease in one of their number, and one discolored grape
   infects another.” [287] I have said in this passage, because Paul, as
   we shall see, makes use of it elsewhere (Galatians 5:9) in another
   sense.

   7. Purge out therefore Having borrowed a similitude from leaven, he
   pursues it farther, though he makes a transition from a particular
   point to a general doctrine. For he is no longer speaking of the case
   of incest, but exhorts them generally to purity of life, on the ground
   that we cannot remain in Christ if we are not cleansed. He is
   accustomed to do this not infrequently. When he has made a particular
   statement, he takes occasion to pass on to general exhortations. He had
   made mention of leaven on another account, as we have seen. As this
   same metaphor suited the general doctrine which he now subjoins, he
   extends it farther.

   Our Passover [288] Before coming to the subject-matter, I shall say a
   few words in reference to the words. Old leaven receives that name on
   the same principle as the old man, (Romans 6:6,) for the corruption of
   nature takes the precedence in us, previously to our being renewed in
   Christ. That, therefore, is said to be old which we bring with us from
   the womb, and must perish when we are renewed by the grace of the
   Spirit. [289] The verb etuthē, which occurs between the name Christ and
   the term which denotes a sacrifice, [290] may refer to either. I have
   taken it as referring to the sacrifice, though this is of no great
   importance, as the meaning is not affected. The verb heortazōmen, which
   Erasmus rendered “Let us celebrate the feast,” signifies also to
   partake of the solemn feast which was observed after the sacrifice had
   been offered up. This interpretation appeared to suit better with the
   passage before us. I have, accordingly, followed the Vulgate in
   preference to Erasmus, as this rendering is more in accordance with the
   mystery of which Paul treats.

   We come now to the subject-matter. Paul, having it in view to exhort
   the Corinthians to holiness, shows that what was of old figuratively
   represented in the passover, ought to be at this day accomplished in
   us, and explains the correspondence which exists between the figure and
   the reality. In the first place, as the passover consisted of two parts
   — a sacrifice and a sacred feast — he makes mention of both. For
   although some do not reckon the paschal lamb to have been a sacrifice,
   yet reason shows that it was properly a sacrifice, for in that rite the
   people were reconciled to God by the sprinkling of blood. Now there is
   no reconciliation without a sacrifice; and, besides, the Apostle now
   expressly confirms if, for he makes use of the word thuesthai, which is
   applicable to sacrifices, and in other respects, too, the context would
   not correspond. The lamb, then, was sacrificed yearly; then followed a
   feast, the celebration of which lasted for seven successive days.
   Christ, says Paul, is our Passover [291] He was sacrificed once, and on
   this condition, that the efficacy of that one oblation should be
   everlasting. What remains now is, that we eat, [292] not once a-year,
   but continually.

   8. Now, in the solemnity of this sacred feast we must abstain from
   leaven, as God commanded the fathers to abstain. But from what leaven?
   As the outward passover was to them a figure of the true passover, so
   its appendages were figures of the reality which we at this day
   possess. If, therefore, we would wish to feed on Christ’s flesh and
   blood, let us bring to this feast sincerity and truth Let these be our
   loaves of unleavened bread Away with all malice and wickedness, for it
   is unlawful to mix up leaven with the passover In fine, he declares
   that we shall be members of Christ only when we shall have renounced
   malice and deceit. In the meantime we must carefully observe this
   passage, as showing that the ancient passover was not merely
   mnēmosunon, [293] a memorial of a past benefit, but also a sacrament,
   representing Christ who was to come, from whom we have this privilege,
   that we pass from death to life. Otherwise, it would not hold good,
   that in Christ is the body of the legal shadows. (Colossians 2:17.)
   This passage will also be of service for setting aside the sacrilege of
   the Papal mass. For Paul does not teach that Christ is offered daily,
   but that the sacrifice having been offered up once for all, it remains
   that the spiritual feast be celebrated during our whole life.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [284] “Nostre Pasque, assavoir Christ;” — “Our passover, namely,
   Christ.”

   [285] “Avec pains sans leuain, c’est a dire, de syncerite et de
   verite;” — “With unleavened bread, that is to say, of sincerity and
   truth.”

   [286] “Ha en ce passage un mesme sens comme ce qu’on dit communeement,
   Qu’ilne faut qu’vne brebis rongneuse pour gaster tout le troupeau;” —
   “Has in this passage the same meaning as what is commonly said: — There
   needs but one diseased sheep to infect a whole flock.”

   [287] — grex totus in agris ^
   Unius scabie cadit, et porrigine porci: ^
   Uvaque conspecta livorem ducit ab uva ^
   Juv. II. 79-81.

   [288] “Would any one,” asks Hervey, (in his Theroa and Aspasio, volume
   1,) “venture to say — ‘Paul our passover is sacrificed for us?’ Yet
   this, I think, may be, or rather is in effect said, by the account
   which some persons give of Christ’s satisfaction. The very thought of
   such a blasphemous absurdity is too painful and offensive for the
   serious Christian to dwell upon. I would therefore direct his attention
   to a more pleasing object. Let him observe the exquisite skill which
   here and everywhere conducts the zeal of our inspired writer. The odes
   of Pindar are celebrated for their fine transitions, which, though bold
   and surprising, are perfectly natural. We have in this place,” (1
   Corinthians 5:7) “a very masterly stroke of the same beautiful kind.
   The Apostle, speaking of the incestuous criminal, passes, by a most
   artful digression, to his daring topic — a crucified Savior. Who would
   have expected it on such an occasion? Yet, when thus admitted, who does
   not see and admire both the propriety of the subject and the delicacy
   of its introduction?” — Ed.

   [289] Our Author gives a similar definition of the expression the old
   man, when [10]commenting on Romans 6:6. “Totam antem naturam
   significat, quam afterlinus ex utero, quae adeo regni Dei capax non
   est, ut interire eatenus oporteat, quatenus in veram vitam
   instauramur;” — “It denotes the whole of that nature which we bring
   with us from the womb, and is so far from being fit for the kingdom of
   God, that it must perish, in so far as we are renewed to a true life.”
   — Ed.

   [290] “Assauoir, Pasque;” — “Namely, passover.”

   [291] Charnock makes the following pointed observations on the form of
   expression here employed: — “Christ the Passover — i e the paschal
   lamb. The lamb was called the passover. The sign for the thing
   signified by it. 2 Chronicles 35:11. And they killed the passover, i e
   the lamb; for the passover was properly the angel’s passing over
   Israel, when he was sent as an executioner of God’s wrath upon the
   Egyptians So Matthew 26:17. Where shall we prepare for thee to eat the
   passover? i e the paschal lamb. Our passover, i e our paschal lamb. He
   is called God’s lamb, John 1:29 God’s in regard of the author, ours in
   regard of the end: God’s lamb in regard of designation, ours in regard
   of acceptation Our passover, i e not only of the Jews, but of the
   Gentiles. That was restrained to the Israelitish nation, this extends,
   in the offers of it, to all, and belongs to all that are under the new
   administration of the covenant of grace. For us, (huper hēmōn,) i e not
   only for our good, but in our stead, to free us from eternal death — to
   purchase for us eternal life.” — Charnock’s Works, volume 2. — Ed

   [292] “I1 ne reste plus sinon que nous en soyons nourris;” — “Nothing
   remains, but that we be nourished by it.”

   [293] Our author most probably alludes to Exodus 12:14, “And this day
   shall be unto you for a memorial,” etc. The term used in the Septuagint
   is mnēmosunon, answering to the Hebrew term זכרון. — Ed
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 5:9-13

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

   9. Scripsi vobis in Epistola, Ne commisceamini scortatoribus:

   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.

   10. Neque in universum scortatoribus mundi hujus, vel avaris, vel
   rapacibus, vel idololatris: quandoquidem debuissetis ex hoc mundo
   exire.

   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 idolater
   or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not
   to eat.

   11. Nunc autem scripsi vobis, Ne commisceamini: si is qui frater
   nominatur, vel scortator sit, vel avarus, vel idololatra, vel
   maledicus, vel ebriosus, vel rapax: cum tali ne cibum quidem sumatis.

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

   12. Quid enim mea refert extraneos iudicare? an non eos qui intus sunt
   iudicatis?

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

   13. Extraneos vero Deus iudicat: eiicite scelestum ex vobis ipsis.


   9. I wrote to you in an epistle. The epistle of which he speaks is not
   at this day extant. Nor is there any doubt that many others are lost.
   It is enough, however, that those have been preserved to us which the
   Lord foresaw would suffice. But this passage, in consequence of its
   obscurity, has been twisted to a variety of interpretations, which I do
   not think it necessary for me to take up time in setting aside, but
   will simply bring forward what appears to me to be its true meaning. He
   reminds the Corinthians of what he had already enjoined upon them —
   that they should refrain from intercourse with the wicked. For the word
   rendered to keep company with, means to be on terms of familiarity with
   any one, and to be in habits of close intimacy with him. [294] Now, his
   reminding them of this tends to expose their remissness, inasmuch as
   they had been admonished, and yet had remained inactive.

   He adds an exception, that they may the better understand that this
   refers particularly to those that belong to the Church, as they did not
   require to be admonished [295] to avoid the society of the world. In
   short, then, he prohibits the Corinthians from holding intercourse with
   those who, while professing to be believers, do, nevertheless, live
   wickedly and to the dishonor of God. “Let all that wish to be reckoned
   brethren, either live holily and becomingly, or be excommunicated from
   the society of the pious, and let all the good refrain from intercourse
   and familiarity with them. It were superfluous to speak as to the
   openly wicked, for you ought of your own accord to shun them, without
   any admonition from me.” This exception, however, increases the
   criminality of remissness, inasmuch as they cherished in the bosom of
   the Church an openly wicked person; for it is more disgraceful to
   neglect those of your own household than to neglect strangers.

   10. Since you would have required. It is as to this clause especially
   that interpreters are not agreed. For some say, “You must sooner quit
   Greece.” Ambrose, on the other hand, says, “You must rather die.”
   Erasmus turns it into the optative, as if Paul said, “Would that it
   were allowable for you to leave the world altogether; [296] but as you
   cannot do this, you must at least quit the society of those who falsely
   assume the name of Christians, and in the meantime exhibit in their
   lives the worst example.” Chrysostom’s exposition has more appearance
   of truth. According to him, the meaning is this: “When I command you to
   shun fornicators, I do not mean all such; otherwise you would require
   to go in quest of another world; for we must live among thorns so long
   as we sojourn on earth. This only do I require, that you do not keep
   company with fornicators, who wish to be regarded as brethren, lest you
   should seem by your sufferance to approve of their wickedness.” Thus
   the term world here, must be taken to mean the present life, as in John
   17:15

   I pray not, Father, that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but
   that thou shouldest deliver them from the evil.

   Against this exposition a question might be proposed by way of
   objection: “As Paul said this at a time when Christians were as yet
   mingled with heathens, and dispersed among them, what ought to be done
   now, when all have given themselves to Christ in name? For even in the
   present day we must go out of the world, if we would avoid the society
   of the wicked; and there are none that are strangers, when all take
   upon themselves Christ’s name, and are consecrated to him by baptism.”
   Should any one feel inclined to follow Chrysostom, he will find no
   difficulty in replying, to this effect: that Paul here took for granted
   what was true — that, where there is the power of excommunication,
   there is an easy remedy for effecting a separation between the good and
   the bad, if Churches do their duty. As to strangers, the Christians at
   Corinth had no jurisdiction, and they could not restrain their
   dissolute manner of life. Hence they must of necessity have quitted the
   world, if they wished to avoid the society of the wicked, whose vices
   they could not cure.

   For my own part, as I do not willingly adopt interpretations which
   cannot be made to suit the words, otherwise than by twisting the words
   so as to suit them, I prefer one that is different from all these,
   taking the word rendered to go out as meaning to be separated, and the
   term world as meaning the pollutions of the world “What need have you
   of an injunction as to the children of this world, (Luke 16:8,) for
   having once for all renounced the world, it becomes you to stand aloof
   from their society; for the whole world lieth in the wicked one.” [297]
   (1 John 5:19.) If any one is not satisfied with this interpretation,
   here is still another that is probable: “I do not write to you in
   general terms, that you should shun the society of the fornicators of
   this world, though that you ought to do, without any admonition from
   me.” I prefer, however, the former; and I am not the first contriver of
   it, but, while it has been brought forward previously by others, I have
   adapted it more fully, if I mistake not, to Paul’s thread of discourse.
   There is, then, [298] a sort of intentional omission, when he says that
   he makes no mention of those that are without, inasmuch as the
   Corinthians ought to be already separated from them, that they may know
   that even at home [299] they required to maintain this discipline of
   avoiding the wicked.

   11. If he who is called a brother In the Greek there is a participle
   [300] without a verb. [301] Those that view this as referring to what
   follows, bring out here a forced meaning, and at variance with Paul’s
   intention. I confess, indeed, that that is a just sentiment, [302] and
   worthy of being particularly noticed — that no one can be punished by
   the decision of the Church, but one whose sin has become matter of
   notoriety; but these words of Paul cannot be made to bear that meaning.
   What he means, then, is this: “If any one is reckoned a brother among
   you, and at the same time leads a wicked life, and such as is
   unbecoming a Christian, keep aloof from his society.” In short, being
   called a brother, means here a false profession, which has no
   corresponding reality. Farther, he does not make a complete enumeration
   of crimes, but merely mentions five or six by way of example, and then
   afterwards, under the expression such an one, he sums up the whole; and
   he does not mention any but what fall under the knowledge of men. For
   inward impiety, and anything that is secret, does not fall within the
   judgment of the Church.

   It is uncertain, however, what he means by an idolater For how can he
   be devoted to idolatry who has made a profession of Christ? Some are of
   opinion that there were among the Corinthians at that time some who
   received Christ but in half, and in the mean time were involved,
   nevertheless, in corrupt superstition, as the Israelites of old, and
   afterwards the Samaritans maintained a kind of worship of God, but at
   the same time polluted it with wicked superstitions. For my part, I
   rather understand it of those who, while they held idols in contempt,
   gave, nevertheless, a pretended homage to the idols, with the view of
   gratifying the wicked. Paul declares that such persons ought not to be
   tolerated in the society of Christians; and not without good reason,
   inasmuch as they made so little account of trampling God’s glory under
   foot. We must, however, observe the circumstances of the case — that,
   while they had a Church there, in which they might worship God in
   purity, and have the lawful use of the sacraments, they came into the
   Church in such a way as not to renounce the profane fellowship of the
   wicked. I make this observation, in order that no one may think that we
   ought to employ equally severe measures against those who, while at
   this day dispersed under the tyranny of the Pope, pollute themselves
   with many corrupt rites. These indeed, I maintain, sin generally in
   this respect, and they ought, I acknowledge, to be sharply dealt with,
   and diligently urged, [303] that they may learn at length to consecrate
   themselves wholly to Christ; but I dare not go so far as to reckon them
   worthy of excommunication, for their case is different. [304]

   With such an one not even to take food. In the first place, we must
   ascertain whether he addresses here the whole Church, or merely
   individuals. I answer, that this is said, indeed, to individuals, but,
   at the same time, it is connected with their discipline in common; for
   the power of excommunicating is not allowed to any individual member,
   but to the entire body. When, therefore, the Church has excommunicated
   any one, no believer ought to receive him into terms of intimacy with
   him; otherwise the authority of the Church would be brought into
   contempt, if each individual were at liberty to admit to his table
   those who have been excluded from the table of the Lord. By partaking
   of food here, is meant either living together, or familiar association
   in meals. For if, on going into an inn, I see one who has been
   excommunicated sitting at table, there is nothing to hinder me from
   dining with him; for I have not authority to exclude him. What Paul
   means is, that, in so far as it is in our power, we are to shun the
   society of those whom the Church has cut off from her communion.

   The Roman antichrist, not content with this severity, has burst forth
   into interdicts, prohibiting any one from helping one that has been
   excommunicated to food, or fuel, or drink, or any other of the supports
   of life. [305] Now, that is not strictness of discipline, but
   tyrannical and barbarous cruelty, that is altogether at variance with
   Paul’s intention. For he means not that he should be counted as an
   enemy, but as a brother, (2 Thessalonians 3:15;) for in putting this
   public mark of disgrace upon him, the intention is, that he may be
   filled with shame, and brought to repentance. And with this dreadful
   cruelty, if God is pleased to permit, do they rage even against the
   innocent. [306] Now, granting that there are sometimes those who are
   not undeserving of this punishment, I affirm, on the other hand, that
   this kind of interdict [307] is altogether unsuitable to an
   ecclesiastical court.

   12. For what have I to do to judge them that are without? There is
   nothing to hinder us from judging these also — nay more, even devils
   themselves are not exempt from the judgment of the word which is
   committed to us. But Paul is speaking here of the jurisdiction that
   belongs peculiarly to the Church. “The Lord has furnished us with this
   power, that we may exercise it upon those who belong to his household.
   For this chastisement is a part of discipline which is confined to the
   Church, and does not extend to strangers. We do not therefore pronounce
   upon them their condemnation, because the Lord has not subjected them
   to our cognizance and jurisdiction, in so far as that chastisement and
   censure are concerned. We are, therefore, constrained to leave them to
   the judgment of God.” It is in this sense that Paul says, that God will
   judge them, because he allows them to wander about [308] unbridled like
   wild beasts, because there is no one that can restrain their
   wantonness.

   13. Put away that wicked person. This is commonly explained as
   referring to the person who was guilty of an illicit connection with
   his mother-in-law. For as to those who understand the expression to
   mean — “Put away evil or wickedness,” they are refuted by the Greek
   words made use of by Paul, the article (ton) being in the masculine
   gender, But what if you should view it as referring to the devil, who,
   undoubtedly in the person of a wicked and unprincipled man, [309] is
   encouraged to establish his throne among us? For ho ponēros (the wicked
   one) taken simply and without any addition, denotes the prince of all
   crimes, [310] rather than some wicked man. If this meaning is approved
   of, Paul shows how important it is [311] not to tolerate wicked
   persons, as by this means Satan is expelled from his kingdom which he
   keeps up among us, when indulgence is given to the wicked. [312] If any
   one, however, prefers to understand it as referring to a man, I do not
   oppose it. Chrysostom compares the rigor of the law with the mildness
   of the gospel, inasmuch as Paul was satisfied with excommunication in
   case of an offense for which the law required the punishment of death,
   but for this there is no just ground. For Paul is not here addressing
   judges that are armed with the sword, but an unarmed multitude [313]
   that was allowed merely to make use of brotherly correction.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [294] The original word, sunanamignusthai, literally means to be mixed
   up together with It is the rendering of the Septuagint for the Hebrew
   word יתבולל, in Hosea 7:8 Ephraim hath mixed himself among the people.
   — Ed

   [295] “Ce seroit vne chose superflue de les admonester,” etc.; — “It
   were a superfluous thing to admonish them,” etc.

   [296] “The rendering of Erasmus is as follows: “Alioqui utinam
   videlicet e mundo exissetis;” — “Otherwise I would, truly, that you had
   departed out of the world.”

   [297] “Car tout le monde est mis a mal;” — “For the whole world is
   addicted to evil.”

   [298] “En ceste sentence;” — “In this sentence.”

   [299] “C’est a dire, entr’eux;” — “That is to say, among themselves.”

   [300] “Au texte Grec il y a de mot a mot, Si aucun frere nomme,” etc.;
   — “In the Greek text it literally, If any one, called a brother,” etc.

   [301] It is so according to the common reading, which is as follows: —
   eán tis, adelphos onomazomenos, hē pornos, hē pleonektēs, k. t. l..”
   If any one, called a brother — either a fornicator, or covetous,” etc.;
   but, as stated by Bloomfield, “seven MSS., and many versions, and
   Fathers, the Ed. Princ., and those of Beza, Schmid., and Beng., have ē,
   (before pornos,) which is approved by Wets., and Matth., and edited by
   Griesb., Knapp., Vat., and Tittm.;” and, in Bloomfield’s opinion,
   “rightly.” — Ed

   [302] “Qu’ils en tirent;” — “Which they draw from it.”

   [303] “Il les faut redarguer auec seuerite, et les soliciter
   continuellement par admonitions;” — “They ought to be reproved with
   severity, and plied perseveringly with admonitions.”

   [304] “Car leur condition n’est pas telle comme estoit celle des
   Corinthiens;” — “For their condition is not like that of the
   Corinthians.”

   [305] “Est venu furieusement jusques aux defenses et menaces, Que nul
   ne fust si hardi de donner a boire ou a manger, ou de feu a celuy qui
   seroit excommunier, ou de luy aider aucunement des choses necessaires a
   la vie presente;” — “Has in his fury gone so far as to issue forth
   prohibitions and threatenings — ‘Let no one be so daring as to give
   meat, or drink, or fuel, to the man who has been excommunicated, or to
   help him in any way with the things necessary for the present life.’”

   [306] “Et ces bourreaux encore exercent ceste cruaute extreme, mesme
   contre les innocens;” — “And these hangmen do, besides, exercise this
   extreme cruelty even against the innocent.”

   [307] “Telle facon d’excommunier;” — “Such a method of
   excommunication.”

   [308] “Et courir a trauers champs;” — “And run across the fields.”

   [309] “Quand on supporte un homme meschant et mal-vivant;” — “When a
   wicked and unprincipled man is allowed to continue.” — Ed.

   [310] It is well observed by Witsius in his Dissertations on the Lord’s
   Prayer, (Biblical Cabinet, No. 24,) that the appellation of the evil
   One is properly applied to Satan, “because he does nothing but what is
   evil — because all the evil that exists in the universe originated with
   him — because in doing evil, and in persuading others to do evil, he
   finds his only delight, the wicked and malignant solace of his
   desperate misery.” — Ed.

   [311] “Combien il est utile et necessaire;” — “How useful it is and
   necessary.”

   [312] “Quand il y a vne license de malfaire, et les meschans sont
   soufferts;” — “When there is a license to do evil, and the wicked are
   tolerated.”

   [313] “Desnuee de puissance externe;” — “Destitute of external power.”
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER 6
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 6:1-8

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

   1. Audet aliquis vestrum, negotium habens cum altero, litigare sub
   iniustis, et non sub sanctis?

   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?

   2. An nescitis, quod sancti mundum iudicabunt? quodsi in vobis
   iudicatur mundus, indigni estis minimis iudiciis?

   3. Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things pertain
   to this life?

   3. An nescitis, quod angelos iudicabimus, nedum ad victum pertinentia?

   4. If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set
   them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.

   4. Iudicia ergo de rebus ad victum pertinentibus si habueritis, qui
   contemptibiles sunt in Ecclesia, [314] eos constituite.

   5. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among
   you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

   5. Ad erubescentiam vestram dico: adeo non est inter vos sapiens, ne
   unus quidem, qui possit iudicare inter fratres?

   6. But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the
   unbelievers.

   6. Sed frater cum fratre litigat, idque sub infidelibus.

   7. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to
   law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not
   rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?

   7. Jam quidera omnino delictum in vobis est, quod iudicia habetis inter
   vos: cur non potius iniuriam sustinetis? [315]

   8. Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

   8. Sed vos infertis iniuriam, et fraudatis, et quidem fratres.


   Here, he begins to reprove another fault among the Corinthians — an
   excessive fondness for litigation, which took its rise from avarice.
   Now, this reproof consists of two parts. The first is, that by bringing
   their disputes before the tribunals of the wicked, they by this means
   made the gospel contemptible, and exposed it to derision. The second
   is, that while Christians ought to endure injuries with patience, they
   inflicted injury on others, rather than allow themselves to be
   subjected to any inconvenience. Thus, the first part is particular: the
   other is general.

   1. Dare any of you This is the first statement — that, if any one has a
   controversy with a brother, it ought to be decided before godly judges,
   and that it ought not to be before those that are ungodly. If the
   reason is asked, I have already said, that it is because disgrace is
   brought upon the gospel, and the name of Christ is held up as it were
   to the scoffings of the ungodly. For the ungodly, at the instigation of
   Satan, are always eagerly on the watch [316] for opportunities of
   finding occasion of calumny against the doctrine of godliness. Now
   believers, when they make them parties in their disputes, seem as
   though they did on set purpose furnish them with a handle for reviling.
   A second reason may be added — that we treat our brethren disdainfully,
   when we of our own accord subject them to the decisions of unbelievers.

   But here it may be objected: “As it belongs to the office of the
   magistrate, and as it is peculiarly his province to administer justice
   to all, and to decide upon matters in dispute, why should not even
   unbelievers, who are in the office of magistrate, have this authority,
   and, if they have it, why are we prevented from maintaining our rights
   before their tribunals?” I answer, that Paul does not here condemn
   those who from necessity have a cause before unbelieving judges, [317]
   as when a person is summoned to a court; but those who, of their own
   accord, bring their brethren into this situation, and harass them, as
   it were, through means of unbelievers, while it is in their power to
   employ another remedy. It is wrong, therefore, to institute of one’s
   own accord a law-suit against brethren before unbelieving judges. If,
   on the other hand, you are summoned to a court, there is no harm in
   appearing there and maintaining your cause.

   2. Know ye not that the saints. Here we have an argument from the less
   to the greater; for Paul, being desirous to show that injury is done to
   the Church of God when judgments on matters of dispute connected with
   earthly things are carried before unbelievers, as if there were no one
   in the society of the godly that was qualified to judge, reasons in
   this strain: “Since God has reckoned the saints worthy of such honor,
   as to have appointed them to be judges of the whole world, it is
   unreasonable that they should be shut out from judging as to small
   matters, as persons not qualified for it.” Hence it follows, that the
   Corinthians inflict injury upon themselves, in resigning into the hands
   of unbelievers the honor [318] that has been conferred upon them by
   God.

   What is said here as to judging the world ought to be viewed as
   referring to that declaration of Christ:

   When the Son of Man shall come, ye shall sit, etc.
   (Matthew 19:28.)

   For all power of judgment has been committed to the Son,
   (John 5:22,)

   in such a manner that he will receive his saints into a participation
   with him in this honor, as assessors. Apart from this, they will judge
   the world, as indeed they begin already to do, because their piety,
   faith, fear of the Lord, good conscience, and integrity of life, will
   make unbelievers altogether inexcusable, as it is said of Noah, that by
   his faith he condemned all the men of his age. (Hebrews 11:7.) But the
   former signification accords better with the Apostle’s design, for
   unless you take the judging here spoken of in its proper acceptation,
   the reasoning will not hold.

   But even in this sense [319] it may seem not to have much weight, for
   it is as if one should say’ “The saints are endowed with heavenly
   wisdom, which immeasurably transcends all human doctrines: therefore
   they can judge better as to the stars than astrologers.” Now this no
   one will allow, and the ground of objection is obvious — because piety
   and spiritual doctrine do not confer a knowledge of human arts. My
   answer here is this, that between expertness in judging and other arts
   there is this difference, that while the latter are acquired by
   acuteness of intellect and by study, and are learned from masters,
   [320] the former depends rather on equity and conscientiousness.

   But [321] “lawyers will judge better and more confidently than an
   illiterate Christian: otherwise the knowledge of law is of no
   advantage.” I answer, that their advice is not here excluded, for if
   the determination of any obscure question is to be sought from a
   knowledge of the laws, the Apostle does not hinder Christians from
   applying to lawyers. [322] What he finds fault with in the Corinthians
   is simply this, that they carry their disputes before unbelieving
   judges, as if they had none in the Church that were qualified to pass
   judgment, and farther, he shows how much superior is the judgment that
   God has assigned to his believing people.

   The words rendered in you mean here, in my opinion, among you. For
   whenever believers meet in one place, under the auspices of Christ,
   [323] there is already in their assembly a sort of image of the future
   judgment, which will be perfectly brought to light on the last day.
   Accordingly Paul says, that the world is judged in the Church, because
   there Christ’s tribunal is erected, from which he exercises his
   authority. [324]

   3. Know ye not that we shall judge angels? This passage is taken in
   different ways. Chrysostom states that some understood it as referring
   to priests, [325] but this is exceedingly far-fetched. Others
   understand it of the angels in heaven, in this sense — that the angels
   are subject to the judgment of God’s word, and may be judged by us, if
   need be, by means of that word, as it is said in the Epistle to the
   Galatians —

   If an angel from heaven bring any other gospel, let him be accursed.
   (Galatians 1:8.)

   Nor does this exposition appear at first view unsuitable to the thread
   of Paul’s discourse; for if all whom God has enlightened by his word
   are endowed with such authority, that through means of that word they
   judge not only men but angels too, how much more will they be prepared
   to judge of small and trivial matters? As, however, Paul speaks here in
   the future tense, as referring to the last day, and as his words convey
   the idea of an actual judgment, (as the common expression is,) it were
   preferable, in my opinion, to understand him as speaking of apostate
   [326] angels. For the argument will be not less conclusive in this way:
   “Devils, who sprang from so illustrious an origin, and even now, when
   they have fallen from their high estate, are immortal creatures, and
   superior to this corruptible world, shall be judged by us. What then?
   Shall those things that are subservient to the belly be exempted from
   our judgment?

   4. If you have judgments then as to things pertaining to this life We
   must always keep in view what causes he is treating of; for public
   trials are beyond our province, and ought not to be transferred to our
   disposal; but as to private matters it is allowable to determine
   without the cognizance of the magistrate. As, then, we do not detract
   in any degree from the authority of the magistrate by having recourse
   to arbitration, it is not without good reason that the Apostle enjoins
   it upon Christians to refrain from resorting to profane, that is,
   unbelieving judges. And lest they should allege that they were deprived
   of a better remedy, he directs them to choose out of the Church
   arbiters, who may settle causes agreeably and equitably. Farther, lest
   they should allege that they have not a sufficient number of qualified
   persons, he says that the meanest is competent to discharge this
   office. There is, therefore, no detracting here from the dignity of the
   office of magistrates, when he gives orders that their office be
   committed to contemptible persons, for this (as I have already said) is
   stated by anticipation, as though he had said: “Even the lowest and
   meanest among you will discharge this office better than those
   unbelieving judges to whom you have recourse. So far are you from
   necessity in this way.”

   Chrysostom comes near this interpretation, though he appends to it
   something additional; for he is of opinion, that the Apostle meant to
   say, that, even though the Corinthians should find no one among
   themselves who had sufficient wisdom for judging, they must
   nevertheless make choice of some, of whatever stamp they were. Ambrose
   touches neither heaven nor earth. [327] I think I have faithfully
   brought out the Apostle’s intention — that the lowest among believers
   was preferred by him to unbelievers, as to capacity of judging. There
   are some that strike out a quite different meaning, for they understand
   the word kathizete to be in the present tense — You set them to judge,
   and by those that are least esteemed in the Church they understand
   profane persons. [328] This, however, is more ingenious than solid, for
   that were a poor designation of unbelievers. [329] Besides, the form of
   expression, if you have, would not suit so well with a reproof, for the
   expression would have required rather to be while you have, for that
   condition takes away from the force of it. Hence I am the more inclined
   to think, that a remedy for the evil is here prescribed.

   That this statement, however, was taken up wrong by the ancients,
   appears from a certain passage in Augustine. For in his book — “On the
   Work of Monks,” where he makes mention of his employments, he declares
   that among his numerous engagements, the most disagreeable of all was,
   that he was under the necessity of devoting a part of the day to
   secular affairs, but that he at the same time endured it patiently,
   because the Apostle [330] had imposed upon him this necessity. From
   this passage, and from a certain epistle, it appears that the bishops
   were accustomed to sit at certain hours to settle disputes, as if the
   Apostle had been referring to them here. As, however, matters always
   become worse, there sprang from this error, in process of time, that
   jurisdiction which the officials of the bishops assume to themselves in
   money matters. In that ancient custom there are two things that are
   deserving of reproof — that the bishops were involved in matters that
   were foreign to their office; and that they wronged God in making his
   authority and command a pretext for turning aside from their proper
   calling. The evil, however, was in some degree excusable, but as for
   the profane custom, which has come to prevail in the Papacy, it were
   the height of baseness to excuse or defend it.

   5. I speak to your shame The meaning is — “If other considerations do
   not influence you, let it at least be considered by you, how
   disgraceful it is to you that there is not so much as one among you who
   is qualified to settle an affair amicably among brethren — an honor
   which you assign to unbelievers Now this passage is not inconsistent
   with the declaration which we met with above, when he stated that he
   did not make mention of their faults with the view of shaming them, (1
   Corinthians 4:14,) for instead of this, by putting them to shame in
   this manner, he calls them back from disgrace, [331] and shows that he
   is desirous to promote their honor. He does not wish them, then, to
   form so unfavorable an opinion of their society, as to take away from
   all their brethren an honor which they allow to unbelievers

   7. Now indeed there is utterly a fault. Here we have the second part of
   the reproof, which contains a general doctrine; for he now reproves
   them, not on the ground of their exposing the gospel to derision and
   disgrace, but on the ground of their going to law with each other.
   This, he says, is a fault We must, however, observe the propriety of
   the term which he employs. For hēttēma in Greek signifies weakness of
   mind, as when one is easily broken down [332] by injuries, and cannot
   bear anything it comes afterward to be applied to vices of any kind, as
   they all arise from weakness and deficiency in fortitude. [333] What
   Paul, then, condemns in the Corinthians is this — that they harassed
   one another with law-suits. He states the reason of it — that they were
   not prepared to bear injuries patiently. And, assuredly, as the Lord
   commands us (Matthew 5:44; Romans 12:21) not to be overcome by evils,
   but on the contrary to overcome injuries by acts of kindness, it is
   certain, that those who cannot control themselves so as to suffer
   injuries patiently, commit sin by their impatience. If contention in
   law-suits among believers is a token of that impatience, it follows
   that it is faulty

   In this way, however, he seems to discard entirely judgments as to the
   affairs of individuals. “Those are altogether in the wrong who go to
   law. Hence it will not be allowable in any one to maintain his rights
   by having recourse to a magistrate.” There are some that answer this
   objection in this way — that the Apostle declares that where there are
   law-suits there is utterly a fault, because, of necessity, the one or
   the other has a bad cause. They do not, however, escape by this
   sophistry, because he says that they are in fault, not merely when they
   inflict injury, but also when they do not patiently endure it. For my
   own part, my answer is simply this — having a little before given
   permission to have recourse to arbiters, he has in this shown, with
   sufficient clearness, that, Christians are not prohibited from
   prosecuting their rights moderately, and without any breach of love.
   Hence we may very readily infer, that his being so severe was owing to
   his taking particularly into view the circumstances of the case. And,
   undoubtedly, wherever there is frequent recourse to law-suits, or where
   the parties contend with each other pertinaciously with rigor of law,
   [334] it is in that case abundantly plain, that their minds are
   immoderately inflamed with wrong dispositions, and are not prepared for
   equity and endurance of wrongs, according to the commandment of Christ.
   To speak more plainly, the reason why Paul condemns law-suits is, that
   we ought to suffer injuries with patience. Let us now see whether any
   one can carry on a law-suit without impatience; for if it is so, to go
   to law will not be wrong in all cases, but only epi to polu — for the
   most part. I confess, however, that as men’s manners are corrupt,
   impatience, or lack of patience (as they speak) is an almost
   inseparable attendant on lawsuits. This, however, does not hinder your
   distinguishing between the thing itself and the improper accompaniment.
   Let us therefore bear in mind, that Paul does not condemn law-suits on
   the ground of its being a wrong thing in itself to maintain a good
   cause by having recourse to a magistrate, but because it is almost
   invariably accompanied with corrupt dispositions; as, for example,
   violence, desire of revenge, enmities, obstinacy, and the like.

   It is surprising that this question has not been more carefully handled
   by ecclesiastical writers. Augustine has bestowed more pains upon it
   than the others, and has come nearer the mark; [335] but even he is
   somewhat obscure, though there is truth in what he states. Those who
   aim at greater clearness in their statements tell us that we must
   distinguish between public and private revenge; for while the
   magistrate’s vengeance is appointed by God, those who have recourse to
   it do not rashly take vengeance at their own hand, but have recourse to
   God as an Avenger. [336] This, it is true, is said judiciously and
   appropriately; but we must go a step farther; for if it be not
   allowable even to desire vengeance from God, then, on the same
   principle, it were not allowable to have recourse to the magistrate for
   vengeance.

   I acknowledge, then, that a Christian man is altogether prohibited from
   revenge, so that he must not exercise it, either by himself, or by
   means of the magistrate, nor even desire it. If, therefore, a Christian
   man wishes to prosecute his rights at law, so as not to offend God, he
   must, above all things, take heed that he does not bring into court any
   desire of revenge, any corrupt affection of the mind, or anger, or, in
   fine, any other poison. In this matter love will be the best regulator.
   [337]

   If it is objected, that it very rarely happens that any one carries on
   a law-suit entirely free and exempt from every corrupt affection, I
   acknowledge that it is so, and I say farther, that it is rare to find a
   single instance of an upright litigant; but it is useful for many
   reasons to show that the thing is not evil in itself, but is rendered
   corrupt by abuse: First, that it may not seem as if God had to no
   purpose appointed courts of justice; Secondly, that the pious may know
   how far their liberties extend, that they may not take anything in hand
   against the dictates of conscience. For it is owing to this that many
   rush on to open contempt of God, when they have once begun to
   transgress those limits; [338] Thirdly, that they may be admonished,
   that they must always keep within bounds, so as not to pollute by their
   own misconduct the remedy which the Lord has permitted them to employ;
   Lastly, that the audacity of the wicked may be repressed by a pure and
   uncorrupted zeal, which could not be effected, if we were not allowed
   to subject them to legal punishments.

   8. But ye do injury. Hence we see for what reason he has inveighed
   against them with so much bitterness — because there prevailed among
   them such a base desire of gain, that they did not even refrain from
   injuring one another. He premised a little before, with the view of
   exposing the magnitude of the evil, that those are not Christians who
   know not to endure injuries. There is, then, an amplification here,
   founded on a comparison: for if it is wrong not to bear injuries
   patiently, how much worse is it to inflict them?

   And that your brethren Here is another aggravation of the evil; for if
   those are doubly culpable who defraud strangers, it is monstrous for
   brother to be cheated or despoiled by brother Now all of us are
   brethren that call upon one Father in heaven (Matthew 23:9.) At the
   same time, if any one acts an unprincipled part towards strangers, Paul
   does not palliate the crime; but he teaches that the Corinthians were
   utterly blinded in making sacred brotherhood a matter of no moment.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [314] “De moindre estime en l’Eglise, ou, de nulle estime, assauoir au
   pris des autres;” — “Of least esteem in the Church, or of no esteem;
   that is, in comparison with others.”

   [315] “Pourquoy plustost n’endurez-vous l’injure? Pourqaoy plustost ne
   receuez-vous dommage?” — “Why, do you not rather suffer injury? Why do
   you not rather submit to loss?

   [316] “Espient incessamment et d’vne affection ardente;” — “Watch
   incessantly and with eager desire.”

   [317] “Qui sont necessairement contraints de maintenir et plaider leurs
   causes sous iuges infideles;” — “Who are from necessity shut up to
   maintain and defend their law-suits before unbelieving judges.”

   [318] “L’honneur et la prerogatiue;” — “The honor and the prerogative.”

   [319] “Mais, dira quelqu’vn, encore a le prendre ainsi;” — “But, some
   one will say, even taking it in this way.”

   [320] “Sous precepteurs et maistres;” — “Under preceptors and masters.”

   [321] “Mais, dira quelqu’vn:” — “But, some one will say.”

   [322] “Ne defend point aux Chrestiens d’aller demander conseil aux
   Legistes;” — “Does not hinder Christians from going to ask the advice
   of lawyers.”

   [323] “Au nom de Christ;” — “In the name of Christ.”

   [324] “Auquel estant comme assis, il exerce sa iurisdiction;” — “On
   which being as it were seated, he exercises his authority.”

   [325] “Des prestres et ministres;” — “Of priests and ministers.”

   [326] “Apostats et rebelles;” — “Apostate and rebellious.”

   [327] “Sainct Ambrose ne touche ne ciel ne terre (cornroe on dit) en
   l’exposition de ces mots;” — “St. Ambrose touches neither heaven nor
   earth (as the expression is) in the exposition of these words.” — Our
   Author’s meaning seems to be that Ambrose hangs in suspense, or gives
   no decided opinion. — Ed.

   [328] “Les gens profanes et infideles;” — “Profane and unbelieving
   persons.”

   [329] “Car ce seroit vne facon de parler bien maigre et de peu de
   grace, d’appeler ainsi les infideles;” — “For it were a very meager and
   awkward way of speaking, to describe unbelievers in this manner.”

   [330] “Sainct Paul;” — “Saint Paul.”

   [331] “Il les garde de tomber en reproche;” — “He guards them against
   falling into reproach.”

   [332] “Aiseement abbatu et irrite;” — “Easily hurt and irritated.”

   [333] The Greek term hēttēma is supposed by some to be derived
   originally from the Hebrew verb חתת to be broken, (which is rendered by
   hēttaomai, in various instances in the Septuagint.) Our author had
   probably an eye to this when stating the original meaning of the term
   to be “weakness of mind, as when one is easily broken down by
   injuries.” The term properly denotes defect It is instructive to
   observe, that a disposition to “go to law with brethren,” rather than
   “suffer wrong,” is represented by the Apostle as indicative of a
   defect, that is, in Christian meekness or brotherly love; while the
   opposite disposition, recommended by the Apostle, would, according to
   the standard of the world’s morality, discover defect, in respect of
   want of spirit. — Ed

   [334] “Et qu’ils veulent veoir le bout du proces; (comme on dit;)“ —
   “And are desirous to see the issue of the case, (as the expression
   is.)”

   [335] Our Author, when treating at some length of the same subject in
   the Institutes, (volume 3, p. 543,) makes a particular reference to
   Augustine. (Ep. 5. ad Marcell.) — Ed.

   [336] “Se retirent a Dieu comme a celuy a qui appartient la vengeance;”
   — “They have recourse to God, as to him to whom vengeance belongeth.”
   (Psalm 94:1.)

   [337] “Pour estre bien gouuerne en ceci, il faut estre gaeni d’vne
   vraye charite;” — “To be properly regulated in this, we must be adorned
   with true love.”

   [338] “Plusieurs tombent en ceste malediction, de mepriser Dieu
   ouuertement;” — “Many fall into that curse of openly contemning God.”
   (Psalm 10:13.)
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 6:9-11

   9. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of
   God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
   adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

   9. An nescitis, quod iniusti regenum Dei hereditate non obtinebunt? Ne
   erretis, neque scortatores, neque idololatrae, neque moechi, neque
   molles, neque paederastse.

   10. Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
   extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

   10. Neque fures, neque avari, neque ebriosi, neque maledici, neque
   rapaces regnum Dei hereditate obtinebunt.

   11. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are
   sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by
   the Spirit of our God.

   11. Et haec fuistis, [339] sed abluti estis, sed sanctificati estis,
   sed iustificati estis in nomine Domini Jesu, et in Spiritu Dei nostri.


   9. Know ye not, etc. By unrighteousness here you may understand what is
   opposed to strict integrity. The unrighteous, then, that is, those who
   inflict injury on their brethren, who defraud or circumvent others,
   who, in short, are intent upon their own advantage at the expense of
   injuring others, will not inherit the kingdom of God That by the
   unrighteous here, as for example adulterers, and thieves and covetous,
   and revilers, he means those who do not repent of their sins, but
   obstinately persist in them, is too manifest to require that it should
   be stated. The Apostle himself, too, afterwards expresses this in the
   words employed by him, when he says that the Corinthians formerly were
   such The wicked, then, do inherit the kingdom of God, but it is only in
   the event of their having been first converted to the Lord in true
   repentance, and having in this way ceased to be wicked. For although
   conversion is not the ground of pardon, yet we know that none are
   reconciled to God but those who repent. The interrogation, however, is
   emphatic, for it intimates that he states nothing but what they
   themselves know, and is matter of common remark among all pious
   persons.

   Be not deceived He takes occasion from one vice to speak of many. I am
   of opinion, however, that he has pointed out those vices chiefly which
   prevailed among the Corinthians. He makes use of three terms for
   reproving those lascivious passions which, as all historical accounts
   testify, reigned, nay raged, to an extraordinary height in that city.
   For it was a city that abounded in wealth, (as has been stated
   elsewhere.) It was a celebrated mart, which was frequented by merchants
   from many nations. Wealth has luxury as its attendant — the mother of
   unchastity and all kinds of lasciviousness. In addition to this, a
   nation which was of itself prone to wantonness, was prompted to it by
   many other corruptions.

   The difference between fornicators and adulterers is sufficiently well
   known. By effeminate persons I understand those who, although they do
   not openly abandon themselves to impurity, discover, nevertheless,
   their unchastity by blandishments of speech, by lightness of gesture
   and apparel, and other allurements. The fourth description of crime is
   the most abominable of all — that monstrous pollution which was but too
   prevalent in Greece.

   He employs three terms in reproving injustice and injuries. He gives
   the name of thieves to those who take the advantage of their brethren
   by any kind of fraud or secret artifice. By extortioners, he means
   those that violently seize on another’s wealth, or like harpies [340]
   drew to themselves from every quarter, and devour. With the view of
   giving his discourse a wider range, he afterwards adds all covetous
   persons too. Under the term drunkards you are to understand him as
   including those who go to excess in eating. He more particularly
   reproves revilers, because, in all probability, that city was full of
   gossip and slanders. In short, he makes mention chiefly of those vices
   to which, he saw, that city was addicted.

   Farther, that his threatening may have more weight, he says, be not
   deceived; by which expression he admonishes them not to flatter
   themselves with a vain hope, as persons are accustomed, by extenuating
   their offenses, to inure themselves to contempt of God. No poison,
   therefore, is more dangerous than those allurements which encourage us
   in our sins. Let us, therefore, shun, not as the songs of the Sirens,
   [341] but as the deadly bites of Satan, the talk of profane persons,
   when turning the judgment of God and reproofs of sins into matter of
   jest. Lastly, we must also notice here the propriety of the word
   klēronomein — to inherit; which shows that the kingdom of heaven is the
   inheritance of sons, and therefore comes to us through the privilege of
   adoption.

   11. And such were ye. Some add a term of speciality: Such were some of
   you, as in Greek the word tines is added; but I am rather of opinion
   that the Apostle speaks in a general way. I consider that term to be
   redundant, in accordance with the practice of the Greeks, who
   frequently make use of it for the sake of ornament, not by way of
   restriction. We must not, however, understand him as putting all in one
   bundle, so as to attribute all these vices to each of them, but he
   simply means to intimate, that no one is altogether free from these
   vices, until he has been renewed by the Spirit. For we must hold this,
   that man’s nature universally contains the seed of all evils, but that
   some vices prevail and discover themselves more in some than in others,
   according as the Lord brings out to view the depravity of the flesh by
   its fruits.

   Thus Paul, in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, piles up
   many different kinds of vices and crimes, which flow from ignorance of
   God, and that ingratitude, of which he had shown all unbelievers to be
   guilty, (Romans 1:21-32) — not that every unbeliever is infected with
   all these vices, but that all are liable to them, and no one is exempt
   from them all. For he who is not an adulterer, sins in some other way.
   So also in the third chapter he brings forward as applicable to the
   sons of Adam universally those declarations —

   their throat is an open sepulcher: their feet are swift to shed blood:
   their tongue is deceitful or poisonous, (Romans 3:13-15)

   — not that all are sanguinary and cruel, or that all are treacherous or
   revilers; but that, previously to our being formed anew by God, one is
   inclined to cruelty, another to treachery, another to impurity, another
   to deceit; so that there is no one in whom there does not exist some
   trace of the corruption common to all; and we are all of us, to a man,
   by an internal and secret affection of the mind, liable to all
   diseases, unless in so far as the Lord inwardly restrains them from
   breaking forth openly. [342] The simple meaning, therefore, is this,
   that prior to their being regenerated by grace, some of the Corinthians
   were covetous, others adulterers, others extortioners, others
   effeminate, others revilers, but now, being made free by Christ, they
   were such no longer.

   The design of the Apostle, however, is to humble them, by calling to
   their remembrance their former condition; and, farther, to stir them up
   to acknowledge the grace of God towards them. For the greater the
   misery is acknowledged to be, from which we have escaped through the
   Lord’s kindness, so much the more does the magnitude of his grace shine
   forth. Now the commendation of grace is a fountain [343] of
   exhortations, because we ought to take diligent heed, that we may not
   make void the kindness of God, which ought to be so highly esteemed. It
   is as though he had said: “It is enough that God has drawn you out of
   that mire in which you were formerly sunk;” as Peter also says,

   “The time past is sufficient to have fulfilled the lusts
   of the Gentiles.” (1 Peter 4:3.)

   But ye are washed He makes use of three terms to express one and the
   same thing, that he may the more effectually deter them from rolling
   back into the condition from which they had escaped. Hence, though
   these three terms have the same general meaning, there is,
   nevertheless, great force in their very variety. For there is an
   implied contrast between washing and defilement — sanctification and
   pollution — justification and guilt. His meaning is, that having been
   once justified, they must not draw down upon themselves a new
   condemnation — that, having been sanctified, they must not pollute
   themselves anew — that, having been washed, they must not disgrace
   themselves with new defilements, but, on the contrary, aim at purity,
   persevere in true holiness, and abominate their former pollutions. And
   hence we infer what is the purpose for which God reconciles us to
   himself by the free pardon of our sins. While I have said that one
   thing is expressed by three terms, I do not mean that there is no
   difference whatever in their import, for, properly speaking, God
   justifies us when he frees us from condemnation, by not imputing to us
   our sins; he cleanses us, when he blots out the remembrance of our
   sins. Thus these two terms differ only in this respect, that the one is
   simple, while the other is figurative; for the term washing is
   metaphorical, Christ’s blood being likened to water. On the other hand,
   he sanctifies by renewing our depraved nature by his Spirit. Thus
   sanctification is connected with regeneration. In this passage,
   however, the Apostle had simply in view to extol, with many
   commendations, the grace of God, which has delivered us from the
   bondage of sin, that we may learn from this how much it becomes us to
   hold in abhorrence everything that stirs up against us God’s anger and
   vengeance.

   In the name of the Lord Jesus, etc With propriety and elegance he
   distinguishes between different offices. For the blood of Christ is the
   procuring cause of our cleansing: righteousness and sanctification come
   to us through his death and resurrection. But, as the cleansing
   effected by Christ, and the attainment of righteousness, are of no
   avail except to those who have been made partakers of those blessings
   by the influence of the Holy Spirit, it is with propriety that he makes
   mention of the Spirit in connection with Christ. Christ, then, is the
   source of all blessings to us from him we obtain all things; but Christ
   himself, with all his blessings, is communicated to us by the Spirit.
   For it is by faith that we receive Christ, and have his graces applied
   to us. The Author of faith is the Spirit.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [339] “Et telles choses auez-vous este,” ou “este aucuns;” — “And such
   things were you,” or “were some of you.”

   [340] “Comme bestes rauissantes;” — “Like ravenous beasts.” The
   harpies, it is well known, were fabulous monsters, proverbial for
   rapacity. It deserves to be noticed that their name harpuiai, and the
   term made use of by Paul to denote extortioners, (harpages) are both of
   them derived from harpazō, to seize upon, or take by violence. — Ed

   [341] The Sirens were a kind of marine monsters, which were supposed to
   inhabit certain rocky islands on the south-west coast of Italy, and
   decoyed, it was alleged, by their enchanting music, mariners to their
   destruction. Homer in his Odyssey (8. 45) speaks of their melodious
   song (ligurō aoidō.) Our Author, it will be observed, in the connection
   in which he alludes to “the songs of the Sirens,” strongly expresses
   his belief of the reality of Satanic influence, as contrasted with what
   is merely fabulous. — Ed

   [342] “Suiets a toutes sortes de vices, sinon entant que le Seigneur
   les reprime au dedans, afin qu’ils ne sortent dehors, et vienent “a
   estre mis en effet;” — “Liable to all kinds of vices, unless in so far
   as the Lord inwardly restrains them, that they may not break forth
   outwardly, and come to be put in practice.”

   [343] “Vne fontnine abondante;” — “An abundant fountain.”
     __________________________________________________________________

   1 Corinthians 6:12-20

   12. All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient:
   all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power
   of any.

   12. Omnium mihi est potestas, at non omnia conducunt: omnium mihi est
   potestas, sed ego sub nullius [344] redigar potestatem.

   13. Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy
   both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the
   Lord; and the Lord for the body.

   13. Escae ventri, et venter escis: Deus vero et has et ilium destruet.
   Corpus autem non scortationi, sed Domino, et Dominus corpori.

   14. And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by
   his own power.

   14. Porro Deus et Dominum suscitavit, et nos suscitabit per potentiam
   suam.

   15. Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I
   then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an
   harlot? God forbid.

   15. An nescitis, quod corpora vestra membra sunt Christi? tolthen lens
   igiturmembra Christi, faclam membra meretricis? Absit.

   16. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body?
   for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

   16. An nescitis, quod qui adhaeret meretrici, unum corpus est? erunt
   enim, inquit, duo in carnem unam.

   17. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

   17. Qui antera Domino adhaeret,unus spiritus est.

   18. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body;
   but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

   18. Fugite scortationem. Omne peccatum quod commiserit homo, extra
   corpus est: qui autem scortatur, in proprium corpus peccat.

   19. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost
   which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

   19. An nescitis, quod corpus vestrum templum est Spiritus sancti, qui
   in vobis est, quem habetis a Deo, et non estis vestri?

   20. For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body,
   and in your spirit, which are God’s.

   20. Empti enim estis pretio: glorificate iam Deum in corpore vestro et
   in spiritu vestro, quae Dei sunt.


   12. All things are lawful for me. Interpreters labor hard to make out
   the connection of these things, [345] as they appear to be somewhat
   foreign to the Apostle’s design. For my own part, without mentioning
   the different interpretations, I shall state what, in my opinion, is
   the most satisfactory. It is probable, that the Corinthians even up to
   that time retained much of their former licentiousness, and had still a
   savor of the morals of their city. Now when vices stalk abroad with
   impunity, [346] custom is regarded as law, and then afterwards vain
   pretexts are sought for by way of excuse; an instance of which we have
   in their resorting to the pretext of Christian liberty, so as to make
   almost everything allowable for themselves to do. They reveled in
   excess of luxury. With this there was, as usual, much pride mixed up.
   As it was an outward thing, they did not think that there was any sin
   involved in it: nay more, it appears from Paul’s words that they abused
   liberty so much as to extend it even to fornication. Now therefore,
   most appropriately, after having spoken of their vices, he discusses
   those base pretexts by which they flattered themselves in outward sins.

   It is, indeed, certain, that he treats here of outward things, which
   God has left to the free choice of believers, but by making use of a
   term expressive of universality, he either indirectly reproves their
   unbridled licentiousness, or extols God’s boundless liberality, which
   is the best directress to us of moderation. For it is a token of
   excessive licentiousness, when persons do not, of their own accord,
   restrict themselves, and set bounds to themselves, amidst such manifold
   abundance. And in the first place, he limits liberty [347] by two
   exceptions; and secondly, he warns them, that it does not by any means
   extend to fornication. These words, All things are lawful for me, must
   be understood as spoken in name of the Corinthians, kat '
   anthupophoran, (by anticipation,) as though he had said, I am aware of
   the reply which you are accustomed to make, when desirous to avoid
   reproof for outward vices. You pretend that all things are lawful for
   you, without any reserve or limitation.

   But all things are not expedient Here we have the first exception, by
   which he restricts the use of liberty — that they must not abandon
   themselves to licentiousness, because respect must be had to
   edification. [348] The meaning is, “It is not enough that this or that
   is allowed us, to be made use of indiscriminately; for we must consider
   what is profitable to our brethren, whose edification it becomes us to
   study. For as he will afterwards point out at greater length, (1
   Corinthians 10:23, 24,) and as he has already shown in Romans 14:13,
   etc., every one has liberty inwardly [349] in the sight of God on this
   condition, that all must restrict the use of their liberty with a view
   to mutual edification.

   I will not be brought under the power of anything Here we have a second
   restriction — that we are constituted lords of all things, in such a
   way, that we ought not to bring ourselves under bondage to anything; as
   those do who cannot control their appetites. For I understand the word
   tinos (any) to be in the neuter gender, and I take it as referring, not
   to persons, but to things, so that the meaning is this: “We are lords
   of all things; only we must not abuse that lordship in such a way as to
   drag out a most miserable bondage, being, through intemperance and
   inordinate lusts, under subjection to outward things, which ought to be
   under subjection to us.” And certainly, the excessive moroseness of
   those who grudge to yield up anything for the sake of their brethren,
   has this effect, that they unadvisedly put halters of necessity around
   their own necks.

   13. Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats Here he shows what use
   ought to be made of outward things — for the necessity of the present
   life, which passes away quickly as a shadow, agreeably to what, he says
   afterwards. (1 Corinthians 7:29.) We must use this world so as not to
   abuse it And hence, too, we infer, how improper it is for a Christian
   man to contend for outward things. [350] When a dispute, therefore,
   arises respecting corruptible things, a pious mind will not anxiously
   dwell upon these things; for liberty is one thing — the use of it is
   another. This statement accords with another — that

   The kingdom of God is not meat and drink.
   (Romans 14:17.)

   Now the body is not for fornication Having mentioned the exceptions, he
   now states still farther, that our liberty ought not by any means to be
   extended to fornication For it was an evil that was so prevalent at
   that time, that it seemed in a manner as though it had been permitted;
   as we may see also from the decree of the Apostles, (Acts 15:20,)
   where, in prohibiting the Gentiles from fornication, they place it
   among things indifferent; for there can be no doubt that this was done,
   because it was very generally looked upon as a lawful thing. Hence Paul
   says now, There is a difference between fornication and meats, for the
   Lord has not ordained the body for fornication, as he has the belly for
   meats And this he confirms from things contrary or opposite, inasmuch
   as it is consecrated to Christ, and it is impossible that Christ should
   be conjoined with fornication. What he adds — and the Lord for the
   body, is not without weight, for while God the Father has united us to
   his Son, what wickedness there would be in tearing away our body from
   that sacred connection, and giving it over to things unworthy of
   Christ. [351]

   14. And God hath also raised up the Lord He shows from Christ’s
   condition how unseemly fornication is for a Christian man; for Christ
   having been received into the heavenly glory, what has he in common
   with the pollutions of this world? Two things, however, are contained
   in these words. The first is, that it is unseemly and unlawful, that
   our body, which is consecrated to Christ, should be profaned by
   fornication, inasmuch as Christ himself has been raised up from the
   dead, that he might enter on the possession of the heavenly glory. The
   second is, that it is a base thing to prostitute our body [352] to
   earthly pollutions, while it is destined to be a partaker [353] along
   with Christ of a blessed immortality and of the heavenly glory. There
   is a similar statement in Colossians 3:1, If we have risen with Christ,
   etc., with this difference, that he speaks here of the last
   resurrection only, while in that passage he speaks of the first also,
   or in other words, of the grace of the Holy Spirit, by which we are
   fashioned again to a new life. As, however, the resurrection is a thing
   almost incredible (Acts 26:8) to the human mind, when the Scripture
   makes mention of it, it reminds us of the power of God, with the view
   of confirming our faith in it. (Matthew 22:29.)

   15. Know ye not that our bodies are the members, etc. Here we have an
   explanation, or, if you prefer it, an amplification of the foregoing
   statement. For that expression, the body is for the Lord, might, owing
   to its brevity, be somewhat obscure. Hence he says, as if with the view
   of explaining it, that Christ is joined with us and we with him in such
   a way, that we become one body with him. Accordingly, if I have
   connection with an harlot, I tear Christ in pieces, so far as it is in
   my power to do so; for it is impossible for me to draw Him into
   fellowship with such pollution. [354] Now as that must be held in
   abhorrence, [355] he makes use of the expression which he is accustomed
   to employ in reference to things that are absurd — God forbid [356]
   Observe, that the spiritual connection which we have with Christ
   belongs not merely to the soul, but also to the body, so that we are
   flesh of his flesh, etc (Ephesians 5:30.) Otherwise the hope of a
   resurrection were weak, if our connection were not of that nature —
   full and complete.

   16. Know ye not that he that is joined to an harlot He brings out more
   fully the greatness of the injury that is done to Christ by the man
   that has intercourse with an harlot; for he becomes one body, and hence
   he tears away a member from Christ’s body. It is not certain in what
   sense he accommodates to his design the quotation which he subjoins
   from Genesis 2:24. For if he quotes it to prove that two persons who
   commit fornication together become one flesh, he turns it aside from
   its true meaning to what is quite foreign to it. For Moses speaks there
   not of a base and prohibited cohabitation of a man and a woman, but of
   the marriage connection which God blesses. For he shows that that bond
   is so close and indissoluble, that it surpasses the relationship which
   subsists between a father and a son, which, assuredly, can have no
   reference to fornication. This consideration has led me sometimes to
   think, that this quotation is not brought forward to confirm the
   immediately preceding statement, but one that is more remote, in this
   way — “Moses says, that by the marriage connection husband and wife
   become one flesh, but he that is jointed to the Lord becomes not merely
   one flesh, but one spirit with him.” [357] And in this way the whole of
   this passage would tend to magnify the efficacy and dignity of the
   spiritual marriage which subsists between us and Christ.

   If, however, any one does not altogether approve of this exposition, as
   being rather forced, I shall bring forward another. For as fornication
   is the corruption of a divine institution, it has some resemblance to
   it; and what is affirmed respecting the former, may to some extent be
   applied to the latter; not that it may be honored with the praises due
   to the former, [358] but for the purpose of expressing the more fully
   the heinousness of the sin. The expression, therefore, that they two
   become one flesh, is applicable in the true and proper sense to married
   persons only; but it is applied to fornicators, who are joined in a
   polluted and impure fellowship, meaning that contagion passes from the
   one to the other. [359] For there is no absurdity in saying that
   fornication bears some resemblance to the sacred connection of
   marriage, as being a corruption of it, as I have said; but the former
   has a curse upon it, and the other a blessing. Such is the
   correspondence between things that are contrasted in an antithesis. At
   the same time, I would prefer to understand it, in the first instance,
   of marriage, and then, in an improper sense, [360] of fornication, in
   this way — “God pronounces husband and wife to be one flesh, in order
   that neither of them may have connection with another flesh; so that
   the adulterer and adulteress do, also, become one flesh, and involve
   themselves in an accursed connection. And certainly this is more
   simple, and agrees better with the context.

   17. He that is joined to the Lord. He has added this to show that our
   connection with Christ is closer than that of a husband and wife, and
   that the former, accordingly, must be greatly preferred before the
   latter, so that it must be maintained with the utmost chastity and
   fidelity. For if he who is joined to a woman in marriage ought not to
   have illicit connection with an harlot, much more heinous were this
   crime in believers, who are not merely one flesh with Christ, but also
   one spirit Thus there is a comparison between greater and less.

   18. Flee fornication Every sin, etc. Having set before us honorable
   conduct, he now shows how much we ought to abhor fornication, setting
   before us the enormity of its wickedness and baseness. Now he shows its
   greatness by comparison — that this sin alone, of all sins, puts a
   brand of disgrace upon the body. The body, it is true, is defiled also
   by theft, and murder, and drunkenness, in accordance with those
   statements —

   Your hands are defiled with blood. (Isaiah 1:15.)

   You have yielded your members instruments of iniquity unto sin,
   (Romans 6:19,)

   and the like. Hence some, in order to avoid this inconsistency,
   understand the words rendered against his own body, as meaning against
   us, as being connected with Christ; but this appears to me to be more
   ingenious than solid. Besides, they do not escape even in this way,
   because that same thing, too, might be affirmed of idolatry equally
   with fornication. For he who prostrates himself before an idol, sins
   against connection with Christ. Hence I explain it in this way, that he
   does not altogether deny that there are other vices, in like manner, by
   which our body is dishonored and disgraced, but that his meaning is
   simply this — that defilement does not attach itself to our body from
   other vices in the same way [361] as it does from fornication My hand,
   it is true, is defiled by theft or murder, my tongue by evil speaking,
   or perjury, [362] and the whole body by drunkenness; but fornication
   leaves a stain impressed upon the body, such as is not impressed upon
   it from other sins. According to this comparison, or, in other words,
   in the sense of less and more, other sins are said to be without the
   body — not, however, as though they do not at all affect the body,
   viewing each one by itself.

   19. Know ye not that your body He makes use of two additional
   arguments, in order to deter us from this filthiness. First, That our
   bodies are temples of the Spirit; and, secondly, that the Lord has
   bought us to himself as his property. There is an emphasis implied in
   the term temple; for as the Spirit of God cannot take up his abode in a
   place that is profane, we do not give him a habitation otherwise than
   by consecrating ourselves to him as temples It is a great honor that
   God confers upon us when he desires to dwell in us. (Psalm 132:14.)
   Hence we ought so much the more to fear, lest he should depart from us,
   offended by our sacrilegious actings. [363]

   And ye are not your own. Here we have a second argument — that we are
   not at our own disposal, that we should live according to our own
   pleasure. He proves this from the fact that the Lord has purchased us
   for himself, by paying the price of our redemption. There is a similar
   statement in Romans 14:9

   To this end Christ died and rose again, that he might be Lord of the
   living and the dead.

   Now the word rendered price may be taken in two ways; either simply, as
   we commonly say of anything that it has cost a price, [364] when we
   mean that it has not been got for nothing; or, as used instead of the
   adverb timiōs at a dear rate, as we are accustomed to say of things
   that have cost us much. This latter view pleases me better. In the same
   way Peter says,

   Ye are redeemed, not with gold and silver, but with the precious [365]
   blood of the Lamb, without spot. (1 Peter 1:18,19.)

   The sum is this, [366] that redemption must hold us bound, and with a
   bridle of obedience restrain the lasciviousness of our flesh.

   20. Glorify God From this con