1. This will be the third. He goes on to reprove still farther the insolence of those of whom he had been speaking, some of whom living in profligacy and licentiousness, and others, carrying on contentions and strifes among themselves, cared nothing for his reproof. For his discourse did not apply to the entire body of the Church, but to certain diseased and half-rotten members of it. Hence he now, with greater freedom, uses sharpness, because he has to do with particular individuals, not with the whole body of the people, and besides this, it was with persons of such a stamp, that he perceived, that he would do them no good by kindness, and mild remedies. After having spent a year and a half among them, (Acts 18:11,) he had visited them a second time. Now he forewarns them, that he will come to them a third time, and he says, that his three comings to them will be in the place of three witnesses. He quotes the law as to the authority of witnesses; not in the natural and literal sense, as it is termed, but by accommodation, ^{943943     “}Anagogen ” or similitude, applying it to his particular purpose.

“The declaration of the law,” says he, “is, that we must rest on the testimony of two or three witnesses for putting an end to disputes.” ^{944944     “}This is only an allusion: it is taken, with a trifling abridgement, from the Alexandrine copy of the Septuagint, which is an exact translation of the Hebrew.” — Horne’s Introduction, (Lond. 1823,) volume 2 — Ed. (Deuteronomy 19:15.)

For the word established means that a decision is pronounced respecting a matter, that the strife may cease. “I, indeed, am but one individual, but coming a third time I shall have the authority of three witnesses, or, my three comings will be in the place of three testimonies.” For the threefold effort that was made for their welfare, and perseverance, as made trial of on three different occasions, might, with good reason, be held equivalent to three persons.

2. I told you before, and foretell you. The friendly and agreeable admonitions, that he had addressed to them so frequently, had been of no advantage. He, accordingly, betakes himself to a more severe remedy, with which he had previously threatened them in words when present with them. When we see him act with so much strictness, we need have no doubt, that they were surprisingly ungovernable and obstinate; for it appears from his writings, what mildness, and what unwearied patience he was otherwise prepared to manifest. As, however, it is the part of a good parent to forgive and bear with many things, so it is the part of a foolish parent, and one that has no proper regard for the welfare of his children, to neglect to use severity, when there is occasion for it, and to mingle strictness with mildness. We are well aware, that nothing is more hurtful than excessive indulgence ^{945945     “}Vn abandon desmesure, et douceur trop grande;” — “Excessive indulgence, and too great sweetness.” Let us, therefore, use mildness, when we can safely do so, and that too, dignified and properly regulated: let us act with greater severity, when necessity requires.

It is asked, however, why it was, that the Apostle allowed himself to expose the particular faults of individuals in so open a manner, as in a manner to point his finger at the very persons? I answer, that he would never have done so, if the sins had been hid, but as they were manifest to all, and matter of notoriety, so as to furnish a pernicious example, it was necessary that he should not spare the authors of a public scandal. ⁹⁴⁶⁹⁴⁶     It might almost seem as if Baxter must have had this passage of Calvin in his eye, when penning his celebrated apology for animadverting so freely on the faults of the ministers of religion in his times. “If it should be objected, that I should not have spoken so plainly and sharply against the sins of the ministry, or that I should not have published it to the view of the world, or, at least, that I should have done it in another tongue, and not in the ears of the vulgar. When the sin is open in the sight of the world, it is in vain to attempt to hide it; and when the sin is public, the confession should also be public. If the ministers of England had sinned only in Latin, I would have made shift to have admonished them in Latin, or else should have said nothing to them. But if they will sin in English, they must hear of it in English.” — Baxter’s Reformed Pastor, (Glasgow, 1829,) pp. 60, 61. — Ed.

It is asked, secondly, what kind of chastisement he threatens to inflict upon them, as he could scarcely chastise them more severely in words. I have no doubt that he means, that he will inflict punishment upon them by excommunication. For what is more to be dreaded, than being cut off from the body of Christ, expelled from the kingdom of God, and delivered over to Satan for destruction, (1 Corinthians 5:5,) unless you repent?

3. Since ye seek a proof A twofold meaning may be drawn from these words. The first is, “Since you wish to try me, whether I speak of myself, or whether Christ speaks by me;” and in this way Chrysostom, and Ambrose, explain it. I am rather inclined, however, to understand him as declaring, that it does not so much concern himself as Christ, when his authority is detracted from — that when his admonitions are despised, Christ’s patience is tried. “It is Christ that speaks by me; when therefore, you bring my doctrine under your lash, it is not so much to me as to him that you do injury.”

Some one, however, will object thus: “What! Will a man’s doctrine, then, be exempted from all investigation, so soon as he makes it his boast, that he has Christ as his authority? And what false prophet will not make this his boast? What distinction, then, will there be between truth and falsehood, and what will, in that case, become of that injunction:

Try the spirits, whether they are of God.” (1 John 4:1.)

Every objection of this nature Paul anticipates, when he says that Christ has wrought efficaciously in them by his ministry. For these two clauses, Christ speaking in me, and, who is mighty in you, not weak, must be read in connection, in this sense: “Christ, by exercising his power towards you in my doctrine, has declared that he spoke by my mouth, so that you have no excuse on the ground of ignorance.”

We see, that he does not merely boast in words, but proves in reality that Christ speaks in him, and he convinces the Corinthians, before requiring them to give him credit. Whoever, then, will speak in the Church, whatever be the title that he claims for himself, it will be allowable to inquire as to his doctrine, until Christ has manifested himself in him, and thus it will not be of Christ that judgment will be formed, but of the man. When, however, it is apparent, that it is the word of God that is advanced, what Paul says holds good — that it is God himself who is not believed ^{947947     “}Que si on ne la recoit, cest oster a Dieu son authorite;” — “That if this is not received, that is to take from God the authority, which belongs to him.” Moses spake with the same confidence. (Numbers 16:11.)

What are we — I and Aaron? You are tempting God.

In like manner, Isaiah:

Is it too small a thing that you grieve men,
unless you grieve my God also? (Isaiah 7:13.)

For there is no more room for shuffling, when it has been made apparent, that it is a minister of God that speaks, and that he discharges his office faithfully. I return to Paul. As the confirmation of his ministry had been so decided among the Corinthians, inasmuch as the Lord had shown himself openly, it is not to be wondered, if he takes it so much amiss, that he meets with resistance. On good grounds, truly, ^{948948     “}Tant y a qu’il auoit bonne occasion et droict;” — “To such an extent had he good occasion and right.” might he throw back upon them, as he does, the reproach, that they were rebels against Christ.

4. For though he was crucified. He speaks, with particular intention, of Christ’s abasement, with the view of intimating indirectly, ^{949949     “}Afin de donner taeitement & entendre;” — “That he may tacitly give them to understand.” that nothing was despised in him, but what they would have been prepared to despise, also, in Christ himself, inasmuch as he

emptied himself, even to the death of the cross.
(Philippians 2:8.)

He shows, however, at the same time, how absurd it is to despise in Christ ^{950950     “}En nostre Seigneur Iesus;” — “In our Lord Jesus.” the abasement of the cross, inasmuch as it is conjoined with the incomparable glory of his resurrection. “Shall Christ be esteemed by you the less, because he showed signs of weakness in his death, as if his heavenly life, that he leads subsequently to his resurrection, were not a clear token of his Divine power?” For as the term flesh here means Christ’s human nature, ^{951951     “}Car comme que par infirmite, est yet signifiee l’humanite de Christ;” — “For as by weakness is here meant the humanity of Christ.” so the word God is taken here to denote his Divinity.

Here, however, a question arises — whether Christ labored under such infirmity as to be subjected to necessity against his will; for, what we suffer through weakness, we suffer from constraint, and not from our own choice. As the Arians of old abused this pretext for effectually opposing the divinity of Christ, the orthodox Fathers gave this explanation of it — that it was effected by appointment, inasmuch as Christ so desired, and not from his being constrained by any necessity. This answer is true, provided it be properly understood. There are some, however, that mistakenly extend the appointment to Christ’s human will — as if this were not the condition of his nature, but a permission contrary to his nature. For example: “His dying,” they say, “did not happen because his humanity was, properly speaking, liable to death, but by appointment, because he chose to die.” I grant, indeed, that he died, because he chose to do so; but, whence came this choice, but from this — that he had, of his own accord, clothed himself with a mortal nature ^{952952     “}Nostre nature mortelle;” — “Our mortal nature.” If, however, we make Christ’s human nature so unlike ours, the main support of our faith is overturned. Let us, therefore, understand it in this way — that Christ suffered by appointment, not by constraint, because, being in the form of God he could have exempted himself from this necessity, but, nevertheless, he suffered through weakness, because he emptied himself (Philippians 2:6.)

We are weak in him. To be weak in Christ means here to be a partaker of Christ’s weakness. Thus he makes his own weakness glorious, because in it he is conformed to Christ, and he no longer shrinks back from the disgrace, that he has in common with the Son of God; but, in the mean time, he says that he will live towards them after Christ’s example. “I also,” says he, “will be a partaker of Christ’s life, after I shall have been exempted from weakness.” ^{953953     “}Apres que mon infirmite aura comme fait son temps;” — “After my weakness shall have, as it were, served its time.” To weakness he opposes life, and, accordingly, he understands by this term a condition that is flourishing, and full of honor. ^{954954     “}Ascauoir quand vn homme est en estime et reputation;” — “That is, when a man is held in esteem and reputation.” The clause towards you may also be taken in connection with the power of God, but it is of no importance, as the meaning always remains the same — that the Corinthians, when they began to judge aright, would have respectful and honorable views of the power of God, which was in Paul, and would no longer despise outward infirmity.