I give God thanks, that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Caius;

“But they roll back an objection from that apostle himself, in that he said, "For Christ sent me not to baptize; " , as if by this argument baptism were done away! For if so, why did he baptize Gaius, and Crispus, and the house of Stephanas? However, even if Christ had not sent him to baptize, yet He had given other apostles the precept to baptize. But these words were written to the Corinthians in regard of the circumstances of that particular time; seeing that schisms and dissensions were agitated among them, while one attributes everything to Paul, another to Apollos. For which reason the "peace-making" apostle, for fear he should seem to claim all gifts for himself, says that he had been sent "not to baptize, but to preach." For preaching is the prior thing, baptizing the posterior. Therefore the preaching came first: but I think baptizing withal was lawful to him to whom preaching was.”

“"I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius." "Why are you elate at having baptized, when I for my part even give thanks that I have not done so!" Thus saying, by a kind of divine art he does away with their swelling pride upon this point; not with the efficacy of the baptism, (God forbid,) but with the folly of those who were puffed up at having been baptizers: first, by showing that the Gift is not theirs; and, secondly, by thanking God therefore. For Baptism truly is a great thing: but its greatness is not the work of the person baptizing, but of Him who is invoked in the Baptism: since to baptize is nothing as regards man's labor, but is much less than preaching the Gospel. Yea, again I say, great indeed is Baptism, and without baptism it is impossible to obtain the kingdom. Still a man of no singular excellence is able to baptize, but to preach the Gospel there is need of great labor. He states also the reason, why he giveth thanks that he had baptized no one. What then is this reason? "Lest anyone should say that ye were baptized into my own name." Why, did he mean that they said this in those other cases? Not at all; but, "I fear," saith he, "lest the disease should proceed even to that. For if, when insignificant persons and of little worth baptize, a heresy ariseth, had I, the first announcer of Baptism, baptized many, it was likely that they forming a party, would not only call themselves by my name, but also ascribe the Baptism to me." For if from the inferiors so great an evil arose, from those of higher order it would perhaps have gone on to something far more grievous.”

“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 gives an account of his ministry among them. He thanks God he had baptized but a few among them, Crispus, who had been a ruler of a synagogue at Corinth (Act 18:8), Gaius, and the household of Stephanas, besides whom, he says, he did not remember that he had baptized any. But how was this a proper matter for thankfulness? Was it not a part of the apostolical commission to baptize all nations? And could Paul give thanks to God for his own neglect of duty? He is not to be understood in such a sense as if he were thankful for not having baptized at all, but for not having done it in present circumstances, lest it should have had this very bad construction put upon it - that he had baptized in his own name, made disciples for himself, or set himself up as the head of a sect. He left it to other ministers to baptize, while he set himself to more useful work, and filled up his time with preaching the gospel. This, he thought, was more his business, because the more important business of the two. He had assistants that could baptize, when none could discharge the other part of his office so well as himself. In this sense he says, Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel - not so much to baptize as to preach. Note, Ministers should consider themselves sent and set apart more especially to that service in which Christ will be most honoured and the salvation of souls promoted, and for which they are best fitted, though no part of their duty is to be neglected. The principal business Paul did among them was to preach the gospel (Co1 1:17), the cross (Co1 1:18), Christ crucified, Co1 1:23. Ministers are the soldiers of Christ, and are to erect and display the banner of the cross. He did not preach his own fancy, but the gospel - the glad tidings of peace, and reconciliation to God, through the mediation of a crucified Redeemer. This is the sum and substance of the gospel. Christ crucified is the foundation of all our joys. By his death we live. This is what Paul preached, what all ministers should preach, and what all the saints live upon.”

“I thank God that I baptized none of you,.... The Alexandrian copy and the Syriac version read, "I thank my God"; not that the apostle disliked the ordinance of baptism, or the administration of it; and much less that he thought it criminal, or an evil in him to perform it; nor was he at any time displeased at the numbers of persons who desired it of him; but on the contrary rejoiced where proper subjects of it were brought to a submission to it; but inasmuch as some persons in the church at Corinth made such an ill use of his having baptized them, he was greatly thankful that it was so ordered in providence, that the far greater part of them were baptized by other ministers, either by those who were with him, or came after him; and that he baptized none of them with his own hands, but Crispus and Gaius. The former of these was the chief ruler of the Jewish synagogue at Corinth, who hearing the apostle, and believing in Christ, was baptized by him, Act 18:8 and the latter was a very liberal and hospitable man, and was the apostle's host, whilst he was at Corinth; see Rom 16:23.”

“I thank God that I baptized none of you - None of those who now live in Corinth, except Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, Act 18:8. And Gaius, the same person probably with whom Paul lodged, Rom 16:23 (note). Dr. Lightfoot observes: "If this be Gaius, or Caius, to whom the third epistle of John was written, which is very probable when the first verse of that epistle (Jo3 1:1) is compared with Rom 16:23, then it will appear probable that John wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians. I wrote, says he, unto the Church - What Church? Certainly it must have been some particular Church which the apostle has in view, and the Church where Gaius himself resided. And if this be true, we may look for Diotrephes (Jo3 1:9) in the Corinthian Church; and the author of the schism of which the apostle complains. See the Introduction, Section 8.”

“I give God thanks that I baptized none of you, but, &c. It is strange that Quakers should from hence pretend, that St. Paul condemned baptism, when he only tells them, he is glad they were baptized by some other, rather than by him, lest they should say, they were baptized in his name, or think that baptism had a greater virtue, when given by a minister of greater sanctity; whereas it is Christ only, who is the chief minister, who gives grace in baptism, and in the other sacraments. This makes him say, was Paul crucified for you, &c. He tells them the occasion why he baptized few, because he was sent chiefly to preach and to be their apostle, whereas other inferior ministers were employed in baptizing. (Witham)”

“I thank God's providence now, who so ordered it that I baptized none of you but Crispus (the former ruler of the synagogue, Act 18:8) and Gaius (written by the Romans Caius, the host of Paul at Corinth, and of the church, Rom 16:23; a person therefore in good circumstances). Baptizing was the office of the deacons (Act 10:48) rather than of the apostles, whose office was that of establishing and superintending generally the churches. The deacons had a better opportunity of giving the necessary course of instruction preparatory to baptism. Crispus and Gaius were probably among the first converts, and hence were baptized by Paul himself, who founded the church.”