Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.

“It is therefore befitting that you should in every way glorify Jesus Christ, who hath glorified you, that by a unanimous obedience "ye may be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, and may all speak the same thing concerning the same thing," and that, being subject to the bishop and the presbytery, ye may in all respects be sanctified.”

“Moreover, when he blames dissensions and schisms, which undoubtedly are evils, he immediately adds heresies likewise. Now, that which he subjoins to evil things, he of course confesses to be itself an evil; and all the greater, indeed, because he tells us that his belief of their schisms and dissensions was grounded on his knowledge that "there must be heresies also." For he shows us that it was owing to the prospect of the greater evil that he readily believed the existence of the lighter ones; and so far indeed was he from believing, in respect of evils (of such a kind), that heresies were good, that his object was to forewarn us that we ought not to be surprised at temptations of even a worse stamp, since (he said) they tended "to make manifest all such as were approved; " in other words, those whom they were unable to pervert. In short, since the whole passage points to the maintenance of unity and the checking of divisions, inasmuch as heresies sever men from unity no less than schisms and dissensions, no doubt he classes heresies under the same head of censure as he does schisms also and dissensions. And by so doing, he makes those to be "not approved," who have fallen into heresies; more especially when with reproofs he exhorts men to turn away from such, teaching them that they should "all speak and think the selfsame thing," the very object which heresies do not permit. Besides which, it must have followed, that, for the man to whom he committed the ministration of the gospel, he would add the injunction that it be not ministered in all places, and without respect to persons, in accordance with the Lord's saying, "Not to cast one's pearls before swine, nor that which is holy unto dogs." Openly did the Lord speak, without any intimation of a hidden mystery. He had Himself commanded that, "whatsoever they had heard in darkness" and in secret, they should "declare in the light and on the house-tops." He had Himself fore-shown, by means of a parable, that they should not keep back in secret, fruitless of interest, a single pound, that is, one word of His. He used Himself to tell them that a candle was not usually "pushed away under a bushel, but placed on a candlestick," in order to "give light to all who are in the house." These things the apostles either neglected, or failed to understand, if they fulfilled them not, by concealing any portion of the light, that is, of the word of God and the mystery of Christ. Of no man, I am quite sure, were they afraid,-neither of Jews nor of Gentiles in their violence; with all the greater freedom, then, would they certainly preach in the church, who held not their tongue in synagogues and public places. Indeed they would have found it impossible either to convert Jews or to bring in Gentiles, unless they "set forth in order" that which they would have them believe. Much less, when churches were advanced in the faith, would they have withdrawn from them anything for the purpose of committing it separately to some few others. Although, even supposing that among intimate friends, so to speak, they did hold certain discussions, yet it is incredible that these could have been such as to bring in some other rule of faith, differing from and contrary to that which they were proclaiming through the Catholic churches, -as if they spoke of one God in the Church, (and) another at home, and described one substance of Christ, publicly, (and) another secretly, and announced one hope of the resurrection before all men, (and) another before the few; although they themselves, in their epistles, besought men that they would all speak one and the same thing, and that there should be no divisions and dissensions in the church, seeing that they, whether Paul or others, preached the same things. Moreover, they remembered the words): "Let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil; " so that they were not to handle the gospel in a diversity of treatment.”

“Who, then, is so wicked and faithless, who is so insane with the madness of discord, that either he should believe that the unity of God can be divided, or should dare to rend it-the garment of the Lord-the Church of Christ? He Himself in His Gospel warns us, and teaches, saying, "And there shall be one flock and one shepherd." And does any one believe that in one place there can be either many shepherds or many flocks? The Apostle Paul, moreover, urging upon us this same unity, beseeches and exhorts, saving, "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that ye be joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."”

“Be of one mind, O you bishops, one with another, and be at peace with one another; sympathize with one another, love the brethren, and feed the people with care; with one consent teach those that are under you to be of the same sentiments and to be of the same opinions about the same matters, "that there may be no schisms among you; that you may be one body and one spirit, perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment," [1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:4] according to the appointment of the Lord. And let the deacon refer all things to the bishop, as Christ does to His Father. But let him order such things as he is able by himself, receiving power from the bishop, as the Lord did from His Father the power of creation and of providence. But the weighty matters let the bishop judge; but let the deacon be the bishop's ear, and eye, and mouth, and heart, and soul, that the bishop may not be distracted with many cares, but with such only as are more considerable, as Jethro did appoint for Moses, and his counsel was received.”

“What I have continually been saying, that we must frame our rebukes gently and gradually, this Paul doth here also; in that, being about to enter upon a subject full of many dangers and enough to tear up the Church from her foundations he uses very mild language. His word is that he "beseeches" them, and beseeches them "through Christ;" as though not even he were sufficient alone to make this supplication, and to prevail. The emphatic force of the word "schism," I mean the name itself, was a sufficient accusation. For it was not that they had become many parts, each entire within itself, but rather the One Body which originally existed had perished. For had they been entire Churches, there might be many of them; but if they were divisions, in the next place, because he had sharply dealt with them by using the word "schism," he again softens and soothes them, saying, "That ye may be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." That is; since he had said, "That ye may all speak the same thing;" "do not suppose," he adds, "that I said concord should be only in words; I seek for that harmony which is of the mind." But since there is such a thing as agreement in words, and that hearty, not consenting, is no longer "perfected," nor fitted in to complete accordance. There is also such a thing as harmony of opinions, where there is not yet harmony of sentiment; for instance, when having the same faith we are not joined together in love: for thus, in opinions we are one, (for we think the same things,) but in sentiment not so. And such was the case at that time; this person choosing one leader, and that, another. For this reason he saith it is necessary to agree both in "mind" and in "judgment." For it was not from any difference in faith that the schisms arose, but from the division of their judgment through human contentiousness.”

“Having given the greeting and prayer, here he begins to instruct them. And first there is set down instruction concerning the things that pertain commonly to all, namely concerning the things that pertain to the ecclesiastical sacraments. Second he instructs them concerning the things that pertained to certain ones, chapter XVI, *now concerning the collections that are made for the saints*, etc. Now in the sacraments three things are to be considered. First indeed the sacrament itself, as Baptism; second that which is the reality signified and contained, namely grace; third that which is the reality signified and not contained, namely the glory of the resurrection. First therefore he treats of the sacraments themselves; second of the graces themselves, chapter XII, *now concerning spiritual things I do not wish you*, etc.; third, of the glory of the resurrection, below in XV, *now I make known to you*. Concerning the first he does three things. First he determines the things that pertain to the sacrament of Baptism; second the things that pertain to the sacrament of matrimony, chapter V, there *it is heard altogether among you*, etc.; third the things that pertain to the sacrament of the Eucharist, chapter VIII, there *now concerning the things that are sacrificed to idols*. Now the Lord, Matthew last chapter, gave the disciples a command concerning doctrine together with Baptism, saying *going, teach all nations, baptizing*, etc. And therefore the apostle in the first part treats of doctrine together with Baptism. Now it is to be known that among the faithful Corinthians there was a certain dissension on account of the baptizers and teachers; for those who were instructed despised the others, as though they had received a better doctrine, and a better Baptism. Hence concerning the first he does two things. First he removes the contention; second the cause of the contention, which consisted in this, that they gloried concerning certain ones, and despised the other ministers of Christ, below in chapter III, *and I, brothers, was not able to speak to you*. Concerning the first he does three things. First he sets forth the admonition; second he shows the necessity of the admonition, there *for it has been signified to me*, etc.; third he assigns the reason for the admonition, there *is Christ divided?* etc. Concerning the first two things are to be considered. First indeed that which induces them to keep the admonition. In one way through his own humility, when he says *now I beseech you*, etc. Proverbs XVIII, 23: *the poor man speaks with entreaties*. In another way through fraternal charity, when he says *brothers*, because indeed he said this out of the affection of fraternal charity. Proverbs XVIII, 19: *a brother who is helped by a brother is like a strong city*. Third through reverence for Christ, when he says *through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ*, which is to be honored by all, and to whom all ought to be subject. Philippians II, 10: *at the name of Jesus every knee should bend*. Second it is to be considered that he induces them to three things. First indeed to concord, when he says *that you all say the same thing*, that is, that you all confess the same faith, and put forth the same judgment concerning the things that are to be done in common. Romans XV, 6: *that with one mind, with one mouth, you may honor God*. Second he forbids the vice contrary to the virtue, when he says *and that there be no schisms among you*, because ecclesiastical unity ought not to be divided, in sign of which the soldiers concerning the seamless tunic, John XIX, 24, said: *let us not tear it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be*. Now there are properly schisms when, whether on account of a diverse confession of faith, or on account of diverse judgments about what is to be done, men of one body are separated into diverse parts. Isaiah XXII, verse 9: *you shall see the breaches of the city of David, for they are multiplied*. Third he induces them to that by which they can avoid schisms, namely to perfection. For the cause of division is when each one seeks a partial good, the perfect good, which is the good of the whole, being set aside. And therefore he says *but be perfect in the same mind*, namely by which judgment is made concerning things to be done, *and in the same knowledge*, by which judgment is made concerning things to be known, as if he were to say: through these things you will be able to be perfect, if you persist in unity. Colossians III, 14: *above all things have charity, which is the bond of perfection*. Matthew V, 48: *be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect*. Then, when he says *it has been signified to me*, he shows the necessity of the aforesaid admonition, namely because they were laboring under the vice of contention, as if he were to say: therefore it is necessary to induce you to this, because it has been signified to me, my brothers, by those who are of Chloe, that is, in a certain estate subject to the jurisdiction of the Corinthians, or Chloe can be the name of a matron, in whose house many of the faithful were gathered, that there are contentions among you, against that which is said Proverbs XX, 3: *it is an honor for a man to keep himself from contentions*. And he explains the manner of the contention, adding *now this I say*, that is, I name the contention, that each one of you names himself from him by whom he was baptized and instructed, and says: *I indeed am of Paul*, because he had been baptized and instructed by Paul; another *but I am of Apollo*, who indeed had preached to the Corinthians, as is found Acts XIX, 1; another *but I am of Cephas*, namely of Peter, to whom it was said John I, verse 42: *you shall be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter*. Now this indeed they said because they thought that a better Baptism was given by a better baptizer, as though the power of the baptizer operated in those baptized. And of this the pseudo-apostles boasted, according to that Psalm XLVIII, 12: *they have called their own names in their own lands*. But another says *but I am of Christ*, who alone blessed, because the power of Christ alone operates in the Baptism of Christ. John I, 33: *upon whom you shall see the Spirit descend and remain, he it is who baptizes*. And therefore those baptized by Christ alone are named Christians, not however Paulines from Paul. Isaiah IV, 1: *only let your name be called upon us*. Now for the avoidance of this error, the Greeks are said to use this form in baptizing: *let the servant of Christ Nicholas be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit*, so that it may be given to be understood that man does not baptize inwardly, but is baptized by Christ. Because, however, man also baptizes by ministry, as a member and minister of Christ, therefore the Church uses this form in baptizing: *I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit*, which indeed is more express according to the form handed down by Christ, who said to the disciples: *teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit*, etc., where he says that the apostles themselves are baptizing, according to which manner the minister of the sacrament says: *I baptize you*. Then, when he says *is Christ divided?* etc., he sets down the reason for the aforesaid admonition, why among them there ought not to be tearings and contentions, and first on the part of Baptism; second on the part of doctrine, there *not in wisdom of speech*, etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First he sets down the unfitting thing that follows from the aforesaid contention; second he manifests why that unfitting thing follows, there *was Paul crucified*, etc.; third he excludes a certain false suspicion, there *I give thanks to my God*, etc. He says therefore first: I said that each one of you says *I am of Paul, I of Apollo*, and from this it follows that Christ is divided. Nor does it matter whether it is read interrogatively or as a plain assertion. Now this can be understood in one way, as if he were to say: through this, that there is contention among you, Christ is divided from you, who dwells only in peace, according to that Psalm LXXV, 3: *his place has been made in peace*. Isaiah LIX, 2: *your iniquities have divided between you and your God*. But better can this be understood otherwise, so that the sense is: through this, that you believe the Baptism to be better which is given by a better baptizer, it follows that Christ, who principally and inwardly baptizes, is divided, that is, differing in his power and effect, according to the difference of ministers: which is evidently false through that which is said Ephesians IV, 5: *one Lord, one faith, one Baptism*. But still better is this understood as the apostle says: from this, that you attribute to others the things that are proper to Christ, in a certain way you divide Christ, making several christs, against that which is said Matthew XXIII, 10: *one is your master, Christ*. Isaiah XLV, verse 22: *turn to me, and you shall be saved, all the ends of the earth, for I am the Lord, and there is no other*. Now it is to be known that Christ in the sacrament of Baptism has a twofold power proper to himself. One indeed divine, by which together with the Father and the Holy Spirit he cleanses inwardly from sin, and this could be communicated to no creature. The other however is a proper power according to human nature, which is the power of excellence in the sacraments, and it consists in four things. Of which one is, that he himself instituted the sacraments; the second is that he could confer the effect of the sacraments without the sacrament; the third is that the merit of his passion operates in Baptism and the other sacraments; the fourth is that at the invocation of his name the sacraments are conferred. Now this power of excellence, and especially as to the last, he could have conferred on the ministers of Baptism, namely that Baptism should be consecrated in their names, but he was unwilling, lest a schism should arise from this in the Church, while as many Baptisms would be reckoned as there were baptizers. And this is what, according to the exposition of Augustine, John the Baptist confesses he did not know concerning Christ, namely whether he retained this power for himself. Then, when he says *was Paul*, etc., he shows the aforesaid unfitting thing to follow from their error, in that they thought the Baptism to be diverse according to the difference of the baptizers; for this would be the case, if Baptism had its efficacy from the baptizers, which indeed belongs to Christ alone. Now he shows this in two ways. First indeed on the part of the passion of Christ, in whose power Baptism operates, according to that Romans VI, 3: *whoever of us have been baptized in Christ Jesus, have been baptized in his death*. And therefore he says *was Paul crucified for you?* As if he were to say: was the passion of Paul the cause of our salvation, so that Baptism should have the power of saving according to him? As if he were to say: no. For this is proper to Christ, that by his passion and death he wrought our salvation. John XI, 50: *it is expedient that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish*. II Corinthians chapter V, 14: *one died for all*. But it seems to be against this that the apostle says Colossians I, 24: *I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up those things that are lacking of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the Church*. But it must be said that the passion of Christ was salvific for us not only by way of example, according to that I Peter II, 21: *Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example, that you should follow his steps*, but also by way of merit, and by way of efficacy, inasmuch as by his blood we are redeemed and justified, according to that Hebrews last chapter: *that he might sanctify the people by his own blood, he suffered outside the gate*. But the passion of others is salvific for us only by way of example, according to that II Corinthians I, 6: *whether we are afflicted, it is for your exhortation and salvation*. Second he shows the same thing from the power of the name of Christ, which is invoked in Baptism. Hence he adds *or were you baptized in the name of Paul?* As if he were to say: no. For as is said Acts IV, 12, *there is no other name given to men, by which we must be saved*. Hence also Isaiah XXVI, 8 it is said: *your name and your memorial is in the desire of the soul*. But it seems that men are not baptized in the name of Christ. For it says Matthew last chapter: *teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit*. But it must be said that in the primitive Church, because the name of Christ was greatly hateful, in order that it might be rendered venerable, the apostles baptized in the name of Christ by a special ordination of the Holy Spirit. Hence it is said Acts chapter VIII, 12, that in the name of Christ men and women were baptized. And yet, as Ambrose says, in the name of Christ the whole Trinity is understood. For Christ is interpreted anointed, in which is understood not only he who is anointed, who is the Son of God, but also the anointing itself, which is the Holy Spirit, and the anointer himself, who is the Father, according to Psalm XLIV, 8: *God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows*. Now, however, because the name of Christ is already great among the nations from the rising of the sun even to the setting, as is said Malachi I, 11, the Church uses the form first instituted by Christ, baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And yet whoever are baptized in this form are baptized in the name of him who is truly the Son of God, according to that I John last chapter: *that we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ*. All the faithful are also baptized in the name of Christ, that is, by faith and confession of the name of Christ, according to that Joel chapter II, 32: *whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved*. Hence those baptized are named Christians from Christ, because, as is said Galatians III, 27: *as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ*. Thus therefore, if the passion of Christ alone, if the name of Christ alone confers power on Baptism unto salvation, it is true that it is proper to Christ, that from him Baptism has the power of sanctifying. Hence he who attributes this to others, divides Christ into several. Then, when he says *I give thanks to my God*, he excludes a certain suspicion. Because there he had said: *was Paul crucified for you?* someone could believe that even if not by authority, yet by ministry he baptized several. And concerning this he does three things. First he gives thanks for this, that he baptized few; second, having named a certain few, he adds certain others, there *but I baptized*; third he assigns the reason why he did not baptize many, there *for God did not send me*. He says therefore first: I give thanks to my God, that I baptized none of you, except Crispus, concerning whom Acts XVIII, 8: *Crispus the ruler of the synagogue believed the Lord with all his house*, and Gaius, to whom the third canonical epistle of John is written. And because the giving of thanks has no place, except in benefits received, consequently the apostle shows in what manner he gives thanks for this, when he adds *lest anyone say that you were baptized in my name*. For it is desirable to holy men, that from the good things which they themselves do, others should not take occasion of their own error, or sin. And because the Corinthians had fallen into that error, that they named themselves from their baptizers, saying *I am of Paul and Apollo*, as if they had been baptized in their names, therefore he gives thanks for this, that such an error had not resulted from his ministry. And therefore he expressly says that he baptized those who were free from this error. Then, when he says *but I baptized*, etc., he sets down certain others baptized by him, lest anything less than the truth should appear in his words. Hence he says *I baptized also the house*, that is the family, *of Stephanas*, namely of a certain matron. And because concerning particular deeds the memory of men is slippery, he adds *for the rest, I do not know*, that is, I do not have in memory, *if I baptized any other*, in his own person. Then, when he says *for*, etc., he assigns the reason why he baptized few, saying *for God did not send me to baptize, but to evangelize*. Against which it seems to be that which is said Matthew last chapter: *going, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit*. But it must be said that Christ sent the apostles to both, yet in such a way that they themselves through themselves should preach, according to what they themselves said Acts VI, 2: *it is not right for us to leave the word of God, and to serve tables*. But they were to baptize through lesser ministers, and this because in Baptism neither the industry nor the power of the one baptizing operates anything: for it is indifferent whether Baptism is given through a greater or a lesser minister, but in the preaching of the Gospel the wisdom and power of the one preaching operates much, and therefore the apostles exercised the office of preaching through themselves as greater ministers, just as also concerning Christ himself it is said John IV, 2, that he himself did not baptize, but his disciples, who yet concerning himself says Luke IV, 43: *because to other cities also it behooves me to evangelize the kingdom of God, because for this I was sent*. Isaiah LXI, 1: *to announce good tidings to the meek he has sent me*.”

“Here the apostle enters on his subject. I. He extorts them to unity and brotherly love, and reproves them for their divisions. He had received an account from some that wished them well of some unhappy differences among them. It was neither ill-will to the church, nor to their ministers, that prompted them to give this account; but a kind and prudent concern to have these heats qualified by Paul's interposition. He writes to them in a very engaging way: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; if you have any regard to that dear and worthy name by which you are called, be unanimous. Speak all the same thing; avoid divisions or schisms" (as the original is), "that is, all alienation of affection from each other. Be perfectly joined together in the same mind, as far as you can. In the great things of religion be of a mind: but, when there is not a unity of sentiment, let there be a union of affections. The consideration of being agreed in greater things should extinguish all feuds and divisions about minor ones." II. He hints at the origin of these contentions. Pride lay at the bottom, and this made them factious. Only of pride cometh contention, Pro 13:10. They quarrelled about their ministers. Paul and Apollos were both faithful ministers of Jesus Christ, and helpers of their faith and joy: but those who were disposed to be contentious broke into parties, and set their ministers at the head of their several factions: some cried up Paul, perhaps as the most sublime and spiritual teacher; others cried up Apollos, perhaps as the most eloquent speaker; some Cephas, or Peter, perhaps for the authority of his age, or because he was the apostle of the circumcision; and some were for none of them, but Christ only. So liable are the best things in the world to be corrupted, and the gospel and its institutions, which are at perfect harmony with themselves and one another, to be made the engines of variance, discord, and contention. This is no reproach to our religion, but a very melancholy evidence of the corruption and depravity of human nature. Note, How far will pride carry Christians in opposition to one another! Even so far as to set Christ and his own apostles at variance, and make them rivals and competitors. III. He expostulates with them upon their discord and quarrels: "Is Christ divided? No, there is but one Christ, and therefore Christians should be on one heart. Was Paul crucified for you? Was he your sacrifice and atonement? Did I ever pretend to be your saviour, or any more than his minister? Or, were you baptized in the name of Paul? Were you devoted to my service, or engaged to be my disciples, by that sacred rite? Did I challenge that right in you, or dependence from you, which is the proper claim of your God and Redeemer?" No; ministers, however instrumental they are of good to us, are not to be put in Christ's stead. They are not to usurp Christ's authority, nor encourage any thing in the people that looks like transferring his authority to them. He is our Saviour and sacrifice, he is our Lord and guide. And happy were it for the churches if there were no name of distinction among them, as Christ is not divided.”

“Now I beseech you, brethren,.... The apostle having observed the many favours and blessings bestowed on this church, proceeds to take notice of the divisions and contentions which were fomented in it; and in the most kind and tender manner entreats them to take every proper step to prevent schisms among them: he does not use his apostolical power and authority, or lay his injunctions and commands upon them, which he might have done, but most affectionately beseeches them; styling them brethren, as they were in a spiritual relation, being children of the same Father, members of the same body, and partakers of the same grace, and is a reason why they should not fail out by the way: and this obsecration is made by the name of the Lord Jesus; which he wisely judged must have its weight and influence on many of them, to whom that name must be dear and precious, and which they called upon and were called by; and shows, that he was not acting in his own name, and seeking his own profit; but was concerned in and for the name of Christ, and for his honour and interest, which lay at stake by their contentions. His earnest request to them is, that ye speak the same thing; profess the same truths, and express them in the same words; which shows the lawfulness, yea, necessity and usefulness, of confessions and articles of faith, being made and agreed to by members of churches; and which should be drawn up in a form of sound words, and abode by; for the introducing of new words and phrases is often the means of bringing in new doctrines, and of raising great contentions and animosities; wherefore using the same words to express truth by is a very proper and prudent expedient to prevent them: and that there be no divisions, or schisms among you; which are generally made by innovations in doctrine, or worship; by forming new schemes of religion, new articles of faith, and modes of discipline: but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment; which regards not only the sameness of love and affection, to one another, being, as the first Christians were, of one heart and of one soul; but their agreement in their judgments and sentiments, of both doctrine and discipline; and such an entire harmony and symmetry among them, as in the members of the body, where each member and bone being in their proper place, exactly answer to, and tally with each other; and which is the most effectual way to speak the same things, and so bar against all schisms and divisions; and such an agreement is absolutely necessary to the peace, comfort, and well being of a church; for how should "two", and much less more, "walk together", unless they are "agreed?" Amo 3:3.”

“Now I beseech you, brethren - The apostle having finished his introduction comes to his second point, exhorting them to abstain from dissensions, that they might be of the same heart and mind, striving together for the hope of the Gospel. By the name of our Lord Jesus - By his authority, and in his place; and on account of your infinite obligations to his mercy in calling you into such a state of salvation. That ye all speak the same thing - If they did not agree exactly in opinion on every subject, they might, notwithstanding, agree in the words which they used to express their religious faith. The members of the Church of God should labor to be of the same mind, and to speak the same thing, in order to prevent divisions, which always hinder the work of God. On every essential doctrine of the Gospel all genuine Christians agree: why then need religious communion be interrupted? This general agreement is all that the apostle can have in view; for it cannot be expected that any number of men should in every respect perfectly coincide in their views of all the minor points, on which an exact conformity in sentiment is impossible to minds so variously constituted as those of the human race. Angels may thus agree, who see nothing through an imperfect or false medium; but to man this is impossible. Therefore men should bear with each other, and not be so ready to imagine that none have the truth of God but they and their party.”

“&c. That there is no schisms….contentions, &c. To hinder these, was the chief design of this letter; one saying, I am of Paul, &c. each party bragging of their master by whom they had been baptized, and made Christians. I am of Apollo, the eloquent preacher, and I of Cephas, the head of the apostles, and of the whole Church; whilst others, the only party not to be blamed, contented themselves with saying, and I am of Christ. — Is Christ divided? Is not your salvation, is not your justification in baptism, and all gifts from him? (Witham)”

“Now--Ye already have knowledge, utterance, and hope, maintain also love. brethren--The very title is an argument for love. by . . . Christ--whom Paul wishes to be all in all to the Corinthians, and therefore names Him so often in this chapter. speak . . . same thing--not speaking different things as ye do (Co1 1:12), in a spirit of variance. divisions--literally, "splits," "breaches." but--"but rather." perfectly joined together--the opposite word to "divisions." It is applied to healing a wound, or making whole a rent. mind . . . judgment--the view taken by the understanding, and the practical decision arrived at [CONYBEARE and HOWSON], as to what is to be done. The mind, within, refers to things to be believed: the judgment is displayed outwardly in things to be done [BENGEL]. Disposition--opinion [ALFORD].”