“For the preaching of the cross, etc.]” Not of the Christian’s cross, which he is to take up and bear for the sake of Christ; though this is a doctrine taught by Christ, and his apostles, and found to be true by the saints in all ages; and is what is had in great aversion and contempt, being very disagreeable to the natural man: but of the cross of Christ, the doctrine of salvation by a crucified Christ; or the doctrine of peace and reconciliation by the blood of his cross, and of righteousness, pardon, atonement, and satisfaction by the offering up of himself upon it as a sacrifice for sin, is here intended; and which “is foolishness” In the esteem of many; and that…

“For Christ sent me not to baptize, etc.]” Some think the apostle refers to his particular mission from Christ, (Acts 26:16) in which no mention is made of his administering the ordinance of baptism; but no doubt he had the same mission the rest of the apostles had, which was to baptize as well as preach; and indeed, if he had not been sent at all to baptize, it would have been unlawful for him to have administered baptism to any person whatever; but his sense is, that baptism was not the chief and principal business he was sent about; this was to be done mostly by those preachers of the word who travelled with him, or followed after him: he was not sent so…

“And I also baptized the household of Stephanas, etc.]” The same name with “Stephanios”, or “Stephanio” in Pliny. Before he says he had baptized none but Crispus and Gaius; but recollecting things, he corrects himself, and observes, that he had also baptized the household of Stephanas, who by the Greek writers is thought to be the same with the jailer baptized by the apostle at Philippi, but was now removed from thence to Corinth, and was become a famous and useful man there. No argument can be formed from the baptism of his household in favour of infant baptism, since it must be first proved that he had any infants in his family, and that these were baptized; and if his household and the jailer’s…

“Lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name.]” The Alexandrian copy, and some others, and the Vulgate Latin version, read, “lest anyone should say that ye were baptized in my name”; and the Ethiopic version renders it, “that ye might not say we have been baptized in his name”. This gives the true reason why the apostle was so thankful he had baptized no more of the members of this church, lest either some should reproach him, as having done it in his own name, and as seeking his own honour and interest; or lest others should affect, from their being baptized by him, to be called by his name, as if he was the author and patron of a new…

“I thank God that I baptized none of you, etc.]” 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…

“Is Christ divided? etc.]” Some read the words as an assertion, “Christ is divided”; that is, his body, the church, is divided by such factions and parties; though in some copies mh, the note of interrogation, is put before the clause, and so to be rendered, “is Christ divided?” no; his human body was not to be divided; a bone of him was not to be broken, (John 19:36; Psalm 34:20); the seamless garment he wore was not to be rent asunder, (John 19:23,24); nor is his mystical body, the church, to be torn in pieces by schisms and divisions; nor is anyone part of his Gospel different from, or opposite to another part of it; his doctrine is the same as preached by one…