1 Corinthians 9:1

"Am I not an Apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?" Inasmuch as he had said, "If meat make my brother to stumble I will eat no flesh forever;" a thing which he had not yet done, but professed he would do if need require: lest any man should say, "Thou vauntest thyself at random, and art severe in discourse, and utterest words of promise, a thing easy to me or to any body; but if these sayings come from thy heart, shew by deeds something which thou hast slighted in order to avoid making thy brother stumble:" for this cause, I say, in what follows he is compelled to enter on the proof of this also, and to point out how he was used to forego even things permitted that he might not give offence, although without any law to enforce his doing so. And we are not yet come to the admirable part of the matter: though it be admirable that he abstain even from things lawful to avoid offence: but it is his habit of doing so at the cost of so much trouble and danger "For why," saith he, "speak of the idol sacrifices? Since although Christ had enjoined that those who preach the Gospel should live at the charge of their disciples, I did not so, but chose, if need were, to end my life with famine and die the most grievous of deaths, so I might avoid receiving of those whom I instruct." Not because they would otherwise be made to stumble, but because his not receiving would edify them: a much greater thing for him to do. And to witness this he summons themselves, among whom he was used to live in toil and in hunger, nourished by others, and put to straits, in order not to offend them. And yet there was no ground for their taking offence, for it would but have been a law which he was fulfilling. But for all this, by a sort of supererogation he used to spare them. "Am I not an Apostle?" For besides all that hath been said, this also makes no small difference that Paul himself is the person thus conducting himself. As thus: To prevent their alleging, "You may taste of the sacrifices, sealing at the same time:" for a while he withstands not that statement, but argues, "Though it were lawful, your brethren's harm should keep you from doing so;" and afterwards he proves that it is not even lawful. In this particular place, however, he establishes the former point from circumstances relating to himself. And intending presently to say that he had received nothing from them, he sets it not down at once, but his own dignity is what he first affirms: "Am I not an Apostle? am I not free?" Thus, to hinder their saying, "True; thou didst not receive, but the reason thou didst not was its not being lawful;" he sets down therefore first the causes why he might reasonably have received, had he been willing to do so. Further: that there might not seem to be any thing invidious in regard of Peter and such as Peter, in his saying these things, (for they did not use to decline receiving;) he first shows that they had authority to receive, and then that no one might say, "Peter had authority to receive but thou hadst not," he possesses the hearer beforehand with these encomiums of himself. And perceiving that he must praise himself, (for that was the way to correct the Corinthians,) yet disliking to say any great thing of himself, see how he hath tempered both feelings as the occasion required: limiting his own panegyric, not by what he knew of himself, but by what the subject of necessity required. For he might have said, "I most of all had a right to receive, even more than they, because 'I labored more abundantly than they.'" But this he omits, being a point wherein he surpassed them; and those points wherein they were great and which were just grounds for their receiving, those only he sets down. "Am I not an Apostle? am I not free?" i.e. "have I not authority over myself? am I under any, to overrule me and forbid my receiving?" "But they have an advantage over you, in having been with Christ." "Nay, neith