All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful to me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

“No doubt, if any one is unwilling to follow the Gospel itself, it is in his power [to reject it], but it is not expedient. For it is in man's power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good; but [such conduct] brings no small amount of injury and mischief. And on this account Paul says, "All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient;" referring both to the liberty of man, in which respect "all things are lawful," God exercising no compulsion in regard to him; and [by the expression] "not expedient" pointing out that we "should not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness, for this is not expedient. And again he says, "Speak ye every man truth with his neighbour." And, "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor scurrility, which are not convenient, but rather giving of thanks." And, "For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord; walk honestly as children of the light, not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in anger and jealousy. And such were some of you; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified in the name of our Lord." If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things, and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God.”

“"Wherefore," he says, "ye are justified in the name of the Lord." Ye are made, so to speak, by Him to be righteous as He is, and are blended as far as possible with the Holy Spirit. For "are not all things lawful to me? yet I will not be brought under the power of any," so as to do, or think, or speak aught contrary to the Gospel. "Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats, which God shall destroy," -that is, such as think and live as if they were made for eating, and do not eat that they may live as a consequence, and apply to knowledge as the primary end.”

“Here he glances at the gluttons. For since he intends to assail the fornicator again, and fornication arises from luxuriousness and want of moderation, he strongly chastises this passion. It cannot be that he speaks thus with regard to things forbidden, such not being "lawful:" but of things which seem to be indifferent. To illustrate my meaning: "It is lawful," he says, "to eat and to drink; but it is not expedient with excess." And so that marvellous and unexpected turn of his, which he is often wont to adopt; bringing his argument clear round to its contrary, this he manages to introduce here also; and he signifies that to do what is in one's power not only is not expedient, but even is not a part of power, but of slavery. And first, he dissuades them on the ground of the inexpediency of the thing, saying, "they are not expedient:" in the next place, on that of its contrariety to itself, saying, "I will not be brought under the power of any." This is his meaning: "You are at liberty to eat," says he; "well then, remain in liberty, and take heed that you do not become a slave to this appetite: for he who uses it properly, he is master of it; but he that exceeds the proper measure is no longer its master but its slave, since gluttony reigns paramount within him." Do you perceive how, where the man thought he had authority Paul points out that he is under authority? For this is his custom, as I was saying before, to give all objections a turn the contrary way. It is just this which he has done here. For mark; each of them was saying, "I have power to live luxuriously." He replies, "In doing so, thou art not so much acting as one who had power over a thing, but rather as being thyself subject to some such power. For thou hast not power even over thine own belly, so long as thou art dissolute, but it hath power over thee." And the same we may say both of riches and of other things.”

“And that a free man is not fettered by a lust for anything he sheweth by his freedom, and in that he hath the power and doth not make use thereof, he doubleth readily the freedom thereof, and he preserveth it from being dissipated, even as Paul writeth concerning this freedom, saying, "I have power to do everything, but not everything edifieth." And that thou mayest learn that it is thus with all other things, and especially in the matter of eating and not eating, he maketh known the power of his freedom and saith immediately after these words, "Meats of the belly, and the belly of meats, but God will bring both of them to nought."”

“After the Apostle rebuked the Corinthians for going to law before unbelieving judges, he here rebukes them concerning the judgments themselves. And about this he does two things. First he sets down in what they were sinning concerning judgments; second he makes plain what he had said, at the words *or do you not know*, etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he rebukes in them, concerning judgments, that which is lawful but not expedient; second, that which is altogether unlawful, at the words *but you*, etc. Concerning the first he does two things: first he sets down the rebuke; second he removes the excuse, at the words *why do you not rather*, etc. He says therefore first: it was said, that brother goes to law with brother, that it is not only evil that you contend before unbelievers, but *now indeed*, after your conversion, it is altogether *a fault among you*, that is, it is reckoned to you as a fault, *that you have lawsuits with one another*, among whom, that is, there ought to be peace: because, as it is said in 2 Tim. 2:24, *the servant of the Lord must not quarrel, but be gentle toward all*. It appears, however, from this, as the Gloss of Augustine says here, that it is a sin to have a lawsuit against anyone; but this seems to be false: because if it is a sin to have a lawsuit, it seems to follow that it is likewise a sin to appoint judges, since this would be to give occasion to those who have lawsuits, whereas it is said in Deut. 1:16: *hear them, and judge what is just*, and afterward it is added, *because it is the judgment of God*. This is resolved in the Gloss: that it is permitted to the weak to seek back their own goods in a lawsuit, but not to the perfect: to whom it is permitted to seek their own goods, but not in a lawsuit. Now here it must be known that a certain thing is unlawful to the perfect, and a certain thing to all. The perfect indeed have no property of their own, according to Matt. 19:21: *if you wish to be perfect, go and sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and come, follow me*; and therefore it is not lawful for them to seek things back in a lawsuit as their own, since it is not lawful for them to have anything as their own, though it is lawful for them to seek back in a lawsuit those things which are common. For in doing this they do not sin, but rather merit. For it is a work of charity to defend or recover the goods of the poor, according to Ps. 81:4: *rescue the poor, and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner*. But a lawsuit against someone is unlawful to all as regards three things. First indeed as regards the cause from which someone has a lawsuit, namely from cupidity and avarice. Whence, in Luke 12:13, when a certain man from the crowd had said to the Lord: *tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me*, the Lord said: *who has appointed me a judge to divide between you?* Afterward he adds: *see and beware of all covetousness*. Second, as regards the manner of the lawsuit, namely because they pursue the lawsuit with contention and to the detriment of peace; for as it is said in James 3:16, *where there is envy and contention, there is instability and every evil work*. And this the Apostle appears to rebuke in them, as is clear from what he said above: *brother goes to law with brother*. Third, from the perversity of the judgment, as when someone proceeds unjustly and fraudulently in a lawsuit, according to Is. 10:2: *that they might oppress the poor, and do violence to the cause of the humble of my people*. And this too the Apostle rebukes in them, as is clear from what he adds: *but you do injury*. Fourth, on account of the scandal that follows. Whence the Lord also commands, in Matt. 5:40: *he who wishes to contend with you at law, and take away your tunic, let go to him your cloak also*. From charity, however, it is lawful to seek back one's own goods in a lawsuit. Whence Gregory says in the Morals: *when necessity imposes on us care of goods, some, while they seek them back, are only to be tolerated: some, however, while charity is preserved, are to be prevented*, namely lest, seizing what is not their own, they destroy themselves. Then when he says *why do you not rather*, etc., he removes the excuse. For they could say: necessity leads us to have lawsuits, namely so that we may resist the injuries and frauds of others; but he excludes this, adding, as regards the first, *why do you not rather accept injury*, namely manifest injury, that is, by patiently enduring it, according to what the Lord says, Matt. 5:39: *if anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer him the other also*. But as regards the second he adds *why do you not rather suffer fraud*, that is, deceitful seduction, according to Matt. 5:41: *if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two more*. But, as Augustine says in the book On the Sermon of the Lord on the Mount, these precepts of the Lord are not always to be observed in the execution of the deed, but are always to be held in the preparation of the mind, namely that we be ready rather to do or endure this, than to do anything against fraternal charity. Then when he says *but you*, etc., he rebukes in them that which is altogether unlawful. And first he charges them with manifest injustice, when he says *but you do injury*, namely by speaking manifestly against the justice of others, either in a lawsuit or outside a lawsuit. Ecclus. 9:17: *let not the injury of the unjust be pleasing to you*. Second, deceitful deception, when he adds *and you defraud*, Prov. 12:5: *the counsels of the wicked are deceitful*. Third, he aggravates both, when he adds *and this to brothers*, that is, to the faithful, to whom we ought most of all to do good, according to Gal. ult.: *while we have time, let us work good to all; but especially to those of the household of the faith*. And therefore against certain ones it is said in Jer. 9:4: *every brother will utterly supplant, and every friend will walk deceitfully*. Then, when he says *or do you not know*, etc., he makes plain what he had said. And first, as regards that which is altogether unlawful; second, as regards that which is lawful but not expedient, at the words *all things are lawful for me*. Concerning the first he does two things. First he raises the question; second he settles it, at the words *do not err*, etc. He says therefore first: I said that you do injury, and defraud, which is to commit iniquity, but *do you not know that the unjust will not possess the kingdom of God*? As if to say: you seem not to know this, since you do not depart from iniquity, whereas nevertheless it is said in Ps. 6:9 and Matt. 7:23: *depart from me, all you who work iniquity*. Then, when he says *do not err*, etc., he settles the truth. And first he shows the danger that threatens the unjust; second he shows how they themselves escaped this danger, so that they might fear to fall into it again, at the words *and this indeed you were once*, etc. He says therefore first: *do not err*, which he says pointedly, because concerning the impunity of sins some erred in many ways, according to Wis. 2:21: *and they thought, and they erred*. For some philosophers erred, believing that God has no care of human affairs, according to Zeph. 1:12: *the Lord will not do good, and he will not do evil*. Some, however, believing that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, according to John 11:26: *he who believes in me shall not die forever*. Some, however, believing that they are saved through the sacraments of Christ alone, on account of what is said in Mark ult.: *he who believes and is baptized shall be saved*, and John 6:55: *he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life*. Some, however, on account of works of mercy alone, think that they sin with impunity, on account of what is said in Luke 11:41: *give alms, and behold all things are clean for you*. Nor do they understand that all these things without charity do not profit, according to what is said below in 13:2 ff.: *if I have all faith, and distribute all my goods to feed the poor, but have not charity, it profits me nothing*. And therefore he adds that sins contrary to charity exclude from the kingdom of God, into which charity alone introduces, saying *neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers* (of whom it is said in Heb. ult.: *fornicators and adulterers God will judge*), *nor the effeminate*, that is, men suffering womanish things, *nor those who lie with males*, as regards those acting in that vice, of whom it is said in Gen. 13:13: *the men of Sodom were most wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly*, *nor the covetous, nor thieves* (of whom it is said in Zech. 5:3: *every thief, as it is written, shall be judged*), *nor the drunken, nor the reviling, nor the rapacious shall possess the kingdom of God*. For it is said in Is. 35:8: *it shall be called the holy way, the unclean shall not pass through it*. And Apoc. 21:27: *nothing defiled, or that works abomination, shall enter into it*. And it is to be noted that here he enumerates the same vices which he had set down in the preceding chapter. He adds, however, certain ones under the genus of lust, namely adultery and the vice against nature, and under the genus of injustice, theft. Then, when he says *and these indeed*, etc., he shows how they escaped the aforesaid danger. And first he recalls their past state, saying *and indeed you were once*, namely fornicators and serving idols, etc., and therefore he specially recalls these vices, because they had abounded in them, according to Eph. 5:8: *for you were once darkness, but now light in the Lord*. Second he shows how they were inwardly freed from these, saying *but you are washed*, namely by the power of the blood of Christ in Baptism, according to Apoc. 1:5: *he washed us from our sins in his own blood*. But *you are sanctified*, consecrated by grace through the power of the blood of Christ, according to Heb. ult.: *Jesus, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered outside the gate*. But *you are justified*, unto the state of justice and virtue, according to Rom. 8:30: *whom he called, these he also justified*. The cause of these benefits, however, is added. And first on the part of the humanity of Christ, when he says *in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ*, that is, in faith and invocation of the name of Christ, according to Acts 4:12: *there is no other name given under heaven to men, in which we must be saved*. Second on the part of the divinity, when he adds *and in the Spirit of our God*, according to Ezek. 37:5: *behold I will send into you the spirit, and you shall live*. Because therefore you have been freed by so powerful a power, you ought not to return to the same things. Then, when he says *all things are lawful for me*, etc., he makes plain what he had said about the prohibition of judgment, showing in what sense he rebuked it, namely that he did not rebuke it as altogether unlawful, but as inexpedient and harmful. And about this he does two things. First he proposes what he intends; second he assigns the reason, at the words *food for the belly*, etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he proposes what he had rebuked as being lawful, but not expedient, saying *all things are lawful for me*. Now those things are called lawful which a man is not prohibited from doing; but prohibition is twofold, one of coercion, the other of precept, and according to this some have understood that those things are lawful which are not forbidden by any compelling necessity; and therefore, since the free choice of man is by nature free from coercion, they understood the Apostle to say in this sense: *all things are lawful for me*, namely because they are subject to the free choice of man, whether they be good or whether they be evil, according to Ecclus. 15:18: *before man is good and evil, life and death, whatever he shall choose shall be given to him*. But this manner of speaking is foreign to sacred Scripture, in which it is said that those things are not lawful which are forbidden by divine law, according to Matt. 14:4: *it is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife*. And therefore what the Apostle here says, *all things are lawful for me*, cannot be understood absolutely, but is to be taken as a fitting distribution under this sense: all things are lawful for me, namely those which are not forbidden by divine law. And this can be referred to three things: first indeed to what he had said about lawsuits, namely that it is lawful for each one to seek back all his own goods in a lawsuit, since this is not forbidden by divine law. In another way it can be referred to what he is about to say below in 8:8 about the indifferent use of foods, so that the sense is: it is lawful for me to eat all foods, according to Titus 1:15: *all things are clean to the clean*. Third it can be referred to what he is about to say below in 9:4 ff., about receiving expenses, so that the sense is: *all things are lawful for me*, namely to receive for the necessity of life, just as to my fellow apostles. He adds, however, *but not all things are expedient*. Now that is said to be expedient which is without impediment to the attaining of the end. But it happens that something does not totally exclude the end, yet brings some impediment, just as marriage does not exclude a man from the kingdom of God, yet it brings an impediment, because, namely, as he says below in 7:34, *the woman who is under a husband thinks how she may please her husband*. Whence, in Matt. 19:10, the disciples say: *if the case of a man with his wife is so, it is not expedient to marry*. Thus therefore to fornicate is neither lawful nor expedient, because it totally excludes the end, which is eternal life; but marriage is lawful, but not expedient. According, therefore, to this manner, to seek back one's own goods in a lawsuit, to use all foods indifferently, to receive expenses from those to whom one preaches, is indeed lawful, because it is not against justice, nor is it forbidden by any law; yet it is not expedient, either because peace toward one's neighbor is impeded, or some scandal is generated for the weak, or some occasion of reviling is afforded; whence Ecclus. 37:31: *not all things are expedient for all*. In another way it can be understood not absolutely, but under a condition, so that the sense is: I said that neither fornicators, etc., will possess the kingdom of God, and therefore they are not lawful, because they exclude the end; but if all things were lawful for me, not all things are expedient, because through them an impediment is afforded to human life. Whence in the person of the wicked it is said in Wis. 5:7: *we were wearied in the way of iniquity and perdition, and we walked difficult ways*. Second he shows that what he rebuked above is harmful, saying *all things are lawful for me*, as was explained above, *but I will not be brought under the power of any*, namely of man. For he who uses that which is not expedient, whether lawful or unlawful, is in a certain way brought under the power of some thing, or of some man. Of a thing indeed, because he who loves some thing too much becomes in a certain way the slave of that thing, according to Rom. ult.: *such as these do not serve Christ the Lord, but their own belly*. But of a man, because while someone does what is not expedient, he is in a certain way subjected to the judgment of others, and especially he who seeks back his own goods in a lawsuit is subjected to the power of a judge. Below in 10:29: *for why is my liberty judged by another's conscience?* Then, when he says *food for the belly*, etc., he assigns the reason for what he had said. And first why all things are lawful, saying *food for the belly*, namely is owed, so that, namely, being digested in the belly, it may pass into nourishment for the whole body. *And the belly for foods*, namely it serves for receiving and digesting them. Since, therefore, by God's ordination the belly is intent on receiving foods, and foods are appointed for this, that they be placed in the belly, according to Gen. 1:29 f.: *behold I have given you every food, and to all living things, that they may have it to eat*, it is not unlawful that a man seek back his own goods, or that a preacher receive wages on account of the necessity of food, or even that a man use all foods. Second, at the words *but God*, etc., he assigns the reason why not all things are expedient. For it is not expedient that a man suffer any detriment in that which is never corrupted, namely in the heavenly kingdom, on account of that which is corrupted; and this happens with food and the belly. For after this life the use of foods and of the belly will cease, because the bodies of those rising again will be preserved without food, God bringing this about. And this is what he means: *but God will destroy*, that is, will cause to cease, *this*, namely the belly, not indeed as regards its essence, but as regards the effect which it now has; *and these*, namely foods, as far as they pertain to man's use, because in the resurrection men will be like the Angels in heaven, as it is said in Matt. 22:30.”

“All things are lawful unto me , but all things are not expedient All things, say Theodoret and (Ecumenius, are through tree- will lawful unto me, are in my power, e.g., to commit fornication, to rob, to be drunken, and all the other sins mentioned above. But they are not expedient for the salvation of my soul, inasmuch as they are sins. But this rendering is rightly condemned by Ambrose, who says : “How can that be lawful which is forbidden? for surely if all things are lawful there can be nothing unlawful” In other words he says that that is said to be lawful which no law forbids. The word lawful does not apply to that which it is in the power of the will to do or leave undone. The meaning, therefore, of this passage is, all indifferent things, all not forbidden by any law, are lawful to me. So Chrysostom, who with Theophylact refers these words to the next verse. Digitized by v^,ooQle 112 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE”

“The twelfth verse and former part of the thirteenth seem to relate to that early dispute among Christians about the distinction of meats, and yet to be prefatory to the caution that follows against fornication. The connection seems plain enough if we attend to the famous determination of the apostles, Acts 15, where the prohibition of certain foods was joined with that of fornication. Now some among the Corinthians seem to have imagined that they were as much at liberty in the point of fornication as of meats, especially because it was not a sin condemned by the laws of their country. They were ready to say, even in the case of fornication, All things are lawful for me. This pernicious conceit Paul here sets himself to oppose: he tells them that many things lawful in themselves were not expedient at certain times, and under particular circumstances; and Christians should not barely consider what is in itself lawful to be done, but what is fit for them to do, considering their profession, character, relations, and hopes: they should be very careful that by carrying this maxim too far they be not brought into bondage, either to a crafty deceiver or a carnal inclination. All things are lawful for me, says he, but I will not be brought under the power of any, Co1 6:12. Even in lawful things, he would not be subject to the impositions of a usurped authority: so far was he from apprehending that in the things of God it was lawful for any power on earth to impose its own sentiments. Note, There is a liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, in which we must stand fast. But surely he would never carry this liberty so far as to put himself into the power of any bodily appetite. Though all meats were supposed lawful, he would not become a glutton nor a drunkard. And much less would he abuse the maxim of lawful liberty to countenance the sin of fornication, which, though it might be allowed by the Corinthian laws, was a trespass upon the law of nature, and utterly unbecoming a Christian. He would not abuse this maxim about eating and drinking to encourage any intemperance, nor indulge a carnal appetite: "Though meats are for the belly and the belly for meats (Co1 6:13), though the belly was made to receive food, and food was originally ordained to fill the belly, yet if it be not convenient for me, and much more if it be inconvenient, and likely to enslave me, if I am in danger of being subjected to my belly and appetite, I will abstain. But God shall destroy both it and them, at least as to their mutual relation. There is a time coming when the human body will need no further recruits of food." Some of the ancients suppose that this is to be understood of abolishing the belly as well as the food; and that though the same body will be raised at the great day, yet not with all the same members, some being utterly unnecessary in a future state, as the belly for instance, when the man is never to hunger, nor thirst, nor eat, nor drink more. But, whether this be true or no, there is a time coming when the need and use of food shall be abolished. Note, The expectation we have of being without bodily appetites in a future life is a very good argument against being under their power in the present life. This seems to me the sense of the apostle's argument; and that this passage is plainly to be connected with his caution against fornication, though some make it a part of the former argument against litigious law-suits, especially before heathen magistrates and the enemies of true religion. These suppose that the apostle argues that though it may be lawful to claim our rights yet it is not always expedient, and it is utterly unfit for Christians to put themselves into the power of infidel judges, lawyers, and solicitors, on these accounts. But this connection seems not so natural. The transition to his arguments against fornication, as I have laid it, seems very natural: But the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body, Co1 6:13. Meats and the belly are for one another; not so fornication and the body. I. The body is not for fornication, but for the Lord. This is the first argument he uses against this sin, for which the heathen inhabitants of Corinth were infamous, and the converts to Christianity retained too favourable an opinion of it. It is making things to cross their intention and use. The body is not for fornication; it was never formed for any such purpose, but for the Lord, for the service and honour of God. It is to be an instrument of righteousness to holiness (Rom 6:19), and therefore is never to be made an instrument of uncleanness. It is to be a member of Christ, and therefore must not be made the member of a harlot, Co1 6:15. And the Lord is for the body, that is, as some think, Christ is to be Lord of the body, to have property in it and dominion over it, having assumed a body and been made to partake of our nature, that he might be head of his church, and head over all things, Heb 2:5, Heb 2:18. Note, We must take care that we do not use what belongs to Christ as if it were our own, and much less to his dishonour. II. Some understand this last passage, The Lord is for the body, thus: He is for its resurrection and glorification, according to what follows, Co1 6:14, which is a second argument against this sin, the honour intended to be put on our bodies: God hath both raised up our Lord, and will raise us up by his power (Co1 6:14), by the power of him who shall change our vile body, and make it like to his glorious body by that power whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself, Phi 3:21. It is an honour done to the body that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead: and it will be an honour to our bodies that they will be raised. Let us not abuse those bodies by sin, and make them vile, which, if they be kept pure, shall, notwithstanding their present vileness, be made like to Christ's glorious body. Note, The hopes of a resurrection to glory should restrain Christians from dishonouring their bodies by fleshly lusts. III. A third argument is the honour already put on them: Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Co1 6:15. If the soul be united to Christ by faith, the whole man is become a member of his mystical body. The body is in union with Christ as well as the soul. How honourable is this to the Christian! His very flesh is a part of the mystical body of Christ. Note, It is good to know in what honourable relations we stand, that we may endeavour to become them. But now, says the apostle, shall I take the members of Christ, and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid. Or, take away the members of Christ? Would not this be a gross abuse, and the most notorious injury? Would it not be dishonouring Christ, and dishonouring ourselves to the very last degree? What, make a Christ's members the members of a harlot, prostitute them to so vile a purpose! The thought is to be abhorred. God forbid. Know you not that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with hers? For two, says he, shall be one flesh. But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit, Co1 6:16, Co1 6:17. Nothing can stand in greater opposition to the honourable relations and alliances of a Christian man than this sin. He is joined to the Lord in union with Christ, and made partaker by faith of his Spirit. One spirit lives and breathes and moves in the head and members. Christ and his faithful disciples are one, Joh 17:21, Joh 17:22. But he that is joined to a harlot is one body, for two shall be one flesh, by carnal conjunction, which was ordained of God only to be in a married state. Now shall one in so close a union with Christ as to be one spirit with him yet be so united to a harlot as to become one flesh with her? Were not this a vile attempt to make a union between Christ and harlots? And can a greater indignity he offered to him or ourselves? Can any thing be more inconsistent with our profession or relation? Note, The sin of fornication is a great injury in a Christian to his head and lord, and a great reproach and blot on his profession. It is no wonder therefore that the apostle should say, "Flee fornication (Co1 6:18), avoid it, keep out of the reach of temptations to it, of provoking objects. Direct the eyes and mind to other things and thoughts." Alia vitia pugnando, sola libido fugiendo vincitur - Other vices may be conquered in fight, this only by flight; so speak many of the fathers. IV. A fourth argument is that it is a sin against our own bodies. Every sin that a man does is without the body; he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body (Co1 6:18); every sin, that is, every other sin, every external act of sin besides, is without the body. It is not so much an abuse of the body as of somewhat else, as of wine by the drunkard, food by the glutton, etc. Nor does it give the power of the body to another person. Nor does it so much tend to the reproach of the body and render it vile. This sin is in a peculiar manner styled uncleanness, pollution, because no sin has so much external turpitude in it, especially in a Christian. He sins against his own body; he defiles it, he degrades it, making it one with the body of that vile creature with whom he sins. He casts vile reproach on what he Redeemer has dignifies to the last degree by taking it into union with himself. Note, We should not make our present vile bodies more vile by sinning against them. V. The fifth argument against this sin is that the bodies of Christians are the temples of the Holy Ghost which is in them, and which they have of God, Co1 6:19. He that is joined to Christ is one spirit. He is yielded up to him, is consecrated thereby, and set apart for his use, and is hereupon possessed, and occupied, and inhabited, by his Holy Spirit. This is the proper notion of a temple - a place where God dwells, and sacred to his use, by his own claim and his creature's surrender. Such temples real Christians are of the Holy Ghost. Must he not therefore be God? But the inference is plain that hence we are not our own. We are yielded up to God, and possessed by and for God; nay, and this is virtue of a purchase made of us: You are bought with a price. In short, our bodies were made for God, they were purchased for him. If we are Christians indeed they are yielded to him, and he inhabits and occupies them by his Spirit: so that our bodies are not our own, but his. And shall we desecrate his temple, defile it, prostitute it, and offer it up to the use and service of a harlot? Horrid sacrilege! This is robbing God in the worst sense. Note, The temple of the Holy Ghost must be kept holy. Our bodies must be kept as his whose they are, and fit for his use and residence. VI. The apostle argues from the obligation we are under to glorify God both with our body and spirit, which are his, Co1 6:20. He made both, he bought both, and therefore both belong to him and should be used and employed for him, and therefore should not be defiled, alienated from him, and prostituted by us. No, they must be kept as vessels fitted for our Master's use. We must look upon our whole selves as holy to the Lord, and must use our bodies as property which belongs to him and is sacred to his use and service. We are to honour him with our bodies and spirits, which are his; and therefore, surely, must abstain from fornication; and not only from the outward act, but from the adultery of the heart, as our Lord calls it, Mat 5:28. Body and spirit are to be kept clean, that God may be honoured by both. But God is dishonoured when either is defiled by so beastly a sin. Therefore flee fornication, nay, and every sin. Use your bodies for the glory and service of their Lord and Maker. Note, We are not proprietors of ourselves, nor have power over ourselves, and therefore should not use ourselves according to our own pleasure, but according to his will, and for his glory, whose we are, and whom we should serve, Act 27:23.”

“All things are lawful unto me,.... That is, which are of an indifferent nature; otherwise everything is not lawful to be done: but all things are not expedient; when the doing of them destroys the peace, comfort, and edification of others; when it stumbles and grieves weak minds, and causes offence to them; see Co1 10:23 all things are lawful for me; which is repeated for the sake of saying the following words: but I will not be brought under the power of any; which would be very inexpedient, should any by the use of liberty in things indifferent, on the one hand, offend his brethren, and, on the other, bring himself into bondage to those very things he has the free use of; and therefore the apostle determines, that these shall not have the mastery over him, that he will use them, or not use them, at his pleasure. It is somewhat difficult to know what in particular he has respect unto, whether to what he had been treating of before, concerning going to law before unbelievers; and his sense be, that however lawful this might be in itself, yet it was not expedient, since it was exposing of themselves to ungodly persons, and a putting themselves under their power to judge and determine as they pleased; or whether to the use of meats forbidden under the law, or offered to idols; which though in themselves lawful to be eaten, every creature of God being good, and not to be refused and accounted common and unclean; yet it was not expedient to use this liberty, if a weak brother should be grieved, or a man himself become a slave to his appetite.”

“All things are lawful unto me - It is likely that some of the Corinthians had pleaded that the offense of the man who had his father's wife, as well as the eating the things offered to idols, was not contrary to the law, as it then stood. To this the apostle answers: Though such a thing be lawful, yet the case of fornication, mentioned Co1 5:1, is not expedient, ου συμφερει - it is not agreeable to propriety, decency, order, and purity. It is contrary to the established usages of the best and most enlightened nations, and should not be tolerated in the Church of Christ. They might also be led to argue in favor of their eating things offered to idols, and attending idol feasts, thus: - that an idol was nothing in the world; and as food was provided by the bounty of God, a man might partake of it any where without defiling his conscience, or committing sin against the Creator. This excuse also the apostle refers to. All these things are lawful, taken up merely in the light that none of your laws is against the first; and that, on the ground that an idol is nothing in the world, there can be no reason against the last; But I will not be brought under the power of any - Allowing that they are all lawful, or at least that there is no law against them, yet they are not expedient; there is no necessity for them; and some of them are abominable, and forbidden by the law of God and nature, whether forbidden by yours or not; while others, such as eating meats offered to idols, will almost necessarily lead to bad moral consequences: and who, that is a Christian, would obey his appetite so far as to do these things for the sake of gratification? A man is brought under the power of any thing which he cannot give up. He is the slave of that thing, whatsoever it be, which he cannot relinquish; and then, to him, it is sin.”

“All things are lawful to me. We cannot take the words in the obvious sense, St. Paul having just before declared, that unjust dealers, fornicators, drunkards, shall not possess the kingdom of God. Some expound the words, as if he said, I have free-will and liberty to do what I will. Others think that the apostle speaks not of all things in general, but with this or the like limitation, all things that are indifferent of their own nature, or all things that are not forbidden by the law of God, and this seems agreeable enough to what he had said of going to judges that were infidels, which, though not a thing unlawful in itself, was not expedient. It may also be connected with what follows of meats, to signify that in the new law any meats may be eaten; (see chap. viii.) but it may be expedient to abstain, when it would be a scandal to the weak. — But I will not be brought under the power of any. It does not appear by the Latin or Greek text, whether the construction be under the power of any person or of any thing. There are divers interpretations; the most probable seems to be, that these words are again to be taken as connected with what went before, and with what follows, to wit, that though it be not unlawful in itself to go before judges that are infidels, or to eat any kind of meats, yet I will not permit my love of money, nor my sensual appetite, to make me a slave to such passions, so as to do things that are not convenient, much less to do things unlawful. (Witham) — All things are lawful, &c. That is, all indifferent things are indeed lawful, inasmuch as they are not prohibited; but oftentimes they are not expedient; as in the case of law-suits, &c. And much less would it be expedient to be enslaved by an irregular affection to any thing, how indifferent soever. (Challoner)”

“REFUTATION OF THE ANTINOMIAN DEFENSE OF FORNICATION AS IF IT WAS LAWFUL BECAUSE MEATS ARE SO. (Co1 6:12-20) All things are lawful unto me--These, which were Paul's own words on a former occasion (to the Corinthians, compare Co1 10:23, and Gal 5:23), were made a pretext for excusing the eating of meats offered to idols, and so of what was generally connected with idolatry (Act 15:29), "fornication" (perhaps in the letter of the Corinthians to Paul, Co1 7:1). Paul's remark had referred only to things indifferent: but they wished to treat fornication as such, on the ground that the existence of bodily appetites proved the lawfulness of their gratification. me--Paul giving himself as a sample of Christians in general. but I--whatever others do, I will not, &c. lawful . . . brought under the power--The Greek words are from the same root, whence there is a play on the words: All things are in my power, but I will not be brought under the power of any of them (the "all things"). He who commits "fornication," steps aside from his own legitimate power or liberty, and is "brought under the power" of an harlot (Co1 6:15; compare Co1 7:4). The "power" ought to be in the hands of the believer, not in the things which he uses [BENGEL]; else his liberty is forfeited; he ceases to be his own master (Joh 8:34-36; Gal 5:13; Pe1 2:16; Pe2 2:19). Unlawful things ruin thousands; "lawful" things (unlawfully used), ten thousands.”