Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ.

“And was it not Paul himself who was there foretold, destined "to be taken away from Judah"-that is, from Judaism-for the erection of Christianity, in order "to lay that only foundation, which is Christ? " Of this work the Creator also by the same prophet says, "Behold, I lay in Sion for a foundation a precious stone and honourable; and he that resteth thereon shall not be confounded." Unless it be, that God professed Himself to be the builder up of an earthly work, that so He might not give any sign of His Christ, as destined to be the foundation of such as believe in Him, upon which every man should build at will the superstructure of either sound or worthless doctrine; forasmuch as it is the Creator's function, when a man's work shall be tried by fire, (or) when a reward shall be recompensed to him by fire; because it is by fire that the test is applied to the building which you erect upon the foundation which is laid by Him, that is, the foundation of His Christ. "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? "”

“Next he declares also the kind of contention. "That each one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas." "I say, contentions," saith he, "I mean, not about private matters, but of the more grievous sort, of the Church. And yet they were not speaking about himself, nor about Peter, nor about Apollos; but he signifies that if these were not to be leaned on, much less others. For that they had not spoken about them, he saith further on: "And these things I have transferred in a figure unto myself and Apollos, that ye may learn in us not to go beyond the things which are written." For if it were not right for them to call themselves by the name of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas, much less of any others. If under the Teacher and the first of the Apostles, and one that had instructed so much people, it were not right to enroll themselves, much less under those who were nothing. By way of hyperbole then, seeking to withdraw them from their disease, he sets down these names. Besides, he makes his argument less severe, not mentioning by name the rude dividers of the Church, but concealing them, as behind a sort of masks, with the names of the Apostles. "I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas." Not esteeming himself before Peter hath he set his name last, but preferring Peter to himself, and that greatly. He arranged his statement in the way of climax, that he might not be supposed to do this for attack, and then mentions Apollos, and then Cephas. Not therefore to magnify himself did he do this, but in speaking of wrong things he administers the requisite correction in his own person first. But that those who addicted themselves to this or that man were in error, is evident. And rightly he rebukes them, saying, "Ye do not well in that ye say, 'I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas.'" But why did he add, "And I of Christ?" For although those who addicted themselves to men were in error, not surely those who dedicated themselves unto Christ. But this was not his charge, that they called themselves by the Name of Christ, but that they did not all call themselves by that Name alone. And I think that he added this of himself, wishing to make the accusation more grievous, and to point out that by this rule Christ must be considered as belonging to one party only: although they were not so using the Name themselves. For that this was what he hinted at he declared in the sequel.”

“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*.”

“That every one of you; i.e., Whoever of you contend with one another, and foment any part of schism. (For there were among the Corinthians many others well-disposed and peaceful, unconnected with schism, and consequently with the following SCHISMS AT CORINTH 9 words) : says , in turn, alternately or respectively ; for not each one was saying, I am of Paul / of Apollos y I of Cephas , but in turn ; since one would say, I am of Paul another, I of Apollos , a third, I of Cephas . In the words “ every one,” therefore, there is a distributive and disjunctive force familiar to the Hebrews; for every one ambitiously and contentiously was saying, “ I am of Paul,” &c., I am of Paul, viz., a disciple, a catechumen ; I of Cephas, that is to say, taught or baptized by the Blessed Pontiff Peter at Antioch, at Rome, or elsewhere. For Peter bad not yet been at Corinth, as is deduced from ch. iv. 15. Whence Baronius thinks that these are the words of those who were avoiding divisions, which had properly arisen because of Paul and Apollos, as appears in ch. iii. 4, and that, to escape from them, while others were boasting of their teachers, they would declare they were the disciples neither of Paul, nor of Apollos but of Peter, the head of the Church ; as though they should say, “This man says and boasts that he is the disciple of Paul, that man of Apollos ; but I say that I am of Cephas, that is, that I am a disciple of Peter, who is the head of the Church, and the Vicar of Christ: for to him I cling, in him I glory; he converted and baptized me by Paul or Apollos or some other.” Whence another rising higher would say : “ I am of Christy who is the supreme Head of Apostles and of the Church, whose Vicar Peter is, whose ministers are Paul and Apollos.” For it is to be noted that he adds 1 am of Christ as the words of those who speak not amiss but rightly, if there is no contention and contempt of the Apostles and the Vicars of Christ, as the Anabaptists now despise Prelates; for it became all to say, “ We are of Christ,” viz., Christians ; whereas some called themselves disciples of Paul, or of Apollos, or of Cephas. So Ambrose, Theophykact, S. Thomas. The occasion of the schism seems to have been that Apollos, who was eloquent, acute, and learned in the Scriptures, was then teaching at Corinth (Acts xviil 27), and compared to him S. Paul seemed to some cold and bald, because he avoided in his preaching all display of knowledge or of rhetorical ornament, as he says himself (ch. ii. 4.) Lastly, S. Jerome (on Tit. i.) gathers from this passage that 10 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE Bishops were given jurisdiction over presbyters, so as to remove all scandals, and that the Church before this was governed by the Presbyters in common council. This opinion must be discussed when we come to the Epistle to Titus”

“Now this I say that everyone of you saith,.... This the apostle affirms not upon his own personal knowledge, but upon the credit of the report the house of Chloe had made unto him; and his meaning is not that every individual member of this church, but that many of them, and the far greater number of them, were in the following factions, some being for one minister, and some for another: one part of them said, I am of Paul; he had been instrumental in their conversion: he had baptized some of them, and first laid the foundation of a Gospel church among them; was a solid, brave, and bold preacher of the Gospel, and was set for the defence of it; wherefore he was the minister for them, and they were desirous of being called and distinguished by his name: but there was another party that said, and I of Apollos; in opposition to Paul, whom they despised, as a man whose aspect was mean; his bodily presence weak, made no figure in the pulpit; his speech low and contemptible; his discourses plain, not having that flow of words, and accuracy of expression, as Apollos had; who was an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, who coming to Corinth after the Apostle Paul, many were taken with his way of preaching; he was the preacher for them, and they chose to be called after him, and in distinction from others: whilst another company of them said, and I of Cephas; or Peter, in opposition both to Paul and Apollos; who with them were new upstart ministers, in comparison of Peter, who was with Christ from the beginning, and saw his miracles, and heard his doctrines; and, besides, had the apostleship and Gospel of the circumcision, on which account they highly valued him; for these must be supposed to be the converted Jews among them, who still retained a regard to the ceremonies of the law; wherefore they fixed on Peter as their minister, and to be called by his name: but others said, and I of Christ; which some take to be the words of the apostle, declaring who he was of, and for, and belonged unto; intimating that they, as he, should call no man father, or master, on earth, or be called by any other name than that of Christ. Others consider them as the words of the Corinthians, a small part of them who were very mean and contemptible, and therefore mentioned last, who chose to be known and called by no other name than that of Christians; but I rather think that these design a faction and party, to be condemned as the others. These were for Christ, in opposition to Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, and any other ministers of the word. They were for Christ without his ministers; they were wiser than their teachers; they were above being under any ministrations and ordinances; as the others attributed too much to the ministers of the Gospel, these detracted too much from them, and denied them to be of any use and service. Some persons may be, in such sense, for Christ, as to be blame worthy; as when they use his name to deceive men, or divide his interest.”

“Every one of you saith - It seems from this expression that the whole Church at Corinth was in a state of dissension: they were all divided into the following sects 1. Paulians, or followers of St. Paul; 2. Apollonians, or followers of Apollos; 3. Kephians, or followers of Kephas; 4. Christians, or followers of Christ. See the Introduction, Section 5. The converts at Corinth were partly Jews and partly Greeks. The Gentile part, as Dr. Lightfoot conjectures, might boast the names of Paul and Apollos; the Jewish, those of Kephas and Christ. But these again might be subdivided; some probably considered themselves disciples of Paul, he being the immediate instrument of their conversion, while others might prefer Apollos for his extraordinary eloquence. If by Kephas the apostle Peter be meant, some of the circumcision who believed might prefer him to all the rest; and they might consider him more immediately sent to them; and therefore have him in higher esteem than they had Paul, who was the minister or apostle of the uncircumcision: and on this very account the converted Gentiles would prize him more highly than they did Peter. Instead of Christ, Χριστου, some have conjectured that we should read Κρισπου, of Crispus; who is mentioned Co1 1:14. And some think that Χριστου, of Christ, is an interpolation, as it is not likely that Christ in any sense of the word could be said to be the head of a sect, or party, in his own Church; as all those parties held that Gospel, of which himself was both the author and the subject. But it is very easy to conceive that, in a Church so divided, a party might be found, who, dividing Christ from his ministers, might be led to say, "We will have nothing to do with your parties, nor with your party spirit; we are the disciples of Christ, and will have nothing to do with Paulians, Apollonians, or Kephians, as contradistinguished from Christ." The reading Κρισπου for Χριστου is not acknowledged by any MS. or version.”

“this I say--this is what I mean in saying "contentions" (Co1 1:11). every one of you saith--Ye say severally, "glorying in men" (Co1 1:31; Co1 3:21-22), one, I am of Paul; another, I am of Apollos, &c. Not that they formed definite parties, but they individually betrayed the spirit of party in contentions under the name of different favorite teachers. Paul will not allow himself to be flattered even by those who made his name their party cry, so as to connive at the dishonor thereby done to Christ. These probably were converted under his ministry. Those alleging the name of Apollos, Paul's successor at Corinth (Act 18:24, &c.), were persons attracted by his rhetorical style (probably acquired in Alexandria, Co1 3:6), as contrasted with the "weak bodily presence" and "contemptible speech" of the apostle. Apollos, doubtless, did not willingly foster this spirit of undue preference (Co1 4:6, Co1 4:8); nay, to discourage it, he would not repeat his visit just then (Co1 16:12). I of Cephas--probably Judaizers, who sheltered themselves under the name of Peter, the apostle of the circumcision ("Cephas" is the Hebrew, "Peter" the Greek name; Joh 1:42; Gal 2:11, &c.): the subjects handled in the seventh through ninth chapters were probably suggested as matters of doubt by them. The church there began from the Jewish synagogue, Crispus the chief ruler, and Sosthenes his successor (probably), being converts. Hence some Jewish leaven, though not so much as elsewhere, is traceable (Co2 11:22). Petrism afterwards sprang up much more rankly at Rome. If it be wrong to boast "I am of Peter," how much more so to boast I am of the Pope!" [BENGEL]. I of Christ--A fair pretext used to slight the ministry of Paul and their other teachers (Co1 4:8; Co2 10:7-11).”