(1) The third question is of civil judgments. Whether it is lawful for one of the faithful to draw another of the faithful before the judgment seat of an infidel? He answers that is not lawful because it is an offence for the faithful to do this, for it is not evil in itself that a matter be brought before the judgment seat, even of an infidel.

(a) As if he said, Have you become so impudent, that you are not ashamed to make the Gospel a laughing stock to profane men?

(b) Before the unjust.

(2) He adds that he does not forbid that one neighbour may go to law with another, if need so require, but yet under holy judges.

(3) He gathers by a comparison that the faithful cannot seek to be judged by infidels, without great injury done to the saints, seeing that God himself will make the saints judges of the world, and of the devils, with his Son Christ. Much more ought they to judge these light and final causes which may be by equity, and good conscience determined.

(4) The conclusion, in which he prescribes a remedy for this wrong: that is, if they end their private affairs between themselves by chosen arbiters out of the Church: for which matter and purpose, the least of you, he says, is sufficient. Therefore he does not condemn judgment seats, but shows what is expedient for the circumstance of the time, and that without any diminishing of the right of the magistrate. For he does not speak of judgments, which are practised between the faithful and the infidels, neither of public judgments, but of controversies which may be ended by private arbiters.

(c) Courts and places of judgments.

(d) Even the most abject among you.

(5) He applies the general proposition to a particular, always calling them back to this, to take away from them the false opinion of their own excellency from where all these evils sprang.

(6) Now he goes further also, and even though by granting them private arbiters out of the congregation of the faithful, he does not simply condemn, but rather establishes private judgments, so that they are exercise without offence. Yet he shows that if they were such as they ought to be, and as it were to be wished, they should not need to use that remedy either.

(e) A weakness of mind which is said to be in those that allow themselves to be overcome by their lusts, and it is a fault that differs greatly from temperance and moderation: so that he nips those who could not endure an injury done to them.

(7) This pertains chiefly to the other part of the reprehension, that is, that they went to law even under infidels, whereas they should rather have suffered any loss, than to have given that offence. But yet this is generally true, that we ought rather to depart from our right, than try the uttermost of the law hastily, and upon an affection to revenge an injury. But the Corinthians cared for neither, and therefore he says that they must repent, unless they will be shut out of the inheritance of God.

(8) Now he prepares himself to pass over to the fourth treatise of this epistle, which concerns other matters, concerning this matter first, how men may well use a woman or not. And this question has three parts: fornication, matrimony, and a single life. As for fornication, he utterly condemns it. And marriage he commands to some, as a good and necessary remedy for them: to others he leaves is free. And others he dissuades from it, not as unlawful, but as inconvenient, and that not without exception. As for singleness of life (under which also I comprehend virginity) he enjoins it to no man: yet he persuades men to it, but not for itself, but for another respect, neither to all men, nor without exception. And being about to speak against fornication, he begins with a general reprehension of those vices, with which that rich and riotous city most abounded: warning and teaching them earnestly, that repentance is inseparable joined with forgiveness of sins, and sanctification with justification.

(f) In Jesus.

(9) Secondly, he shows that the Corinthians offend in small matters. First, because they abused them. Next, because they used indifferent things, without any discretion, seeing the use of them ought to be brought to the rule of charity. And that he does not use them correctly, who immoderately abuses them, and so becomes a slave to them.

(g) Whatever: but this general word must be restrained to things that are indifferent.

(h) He is in subjection to things that are indifferent, whoever he is that thinks he may not be without them. And this is a flattering type of slavery under a pretence of liberty, which seizes upon such men.

(10) Secondly, because they counted many things as indifferent which were of themselves unlawful, as fornication, which they numbered among mere natural and lawful desires, as well as food and drink. Therefore the apostle shows that they are utterly unlike: for foods, he says, were made for the necessary use of man's life which is not perpetual: for both foods, and all this manner of nourishing, are quickly abolished. But we must not so think of the uncleanness of fornication, for which the body is not made, but on the other hand is ordained to purity, as appears by this, that is consecrated to Christ, even as Christ also is given us by his Father to enliven our bodies with that power with which he also rose again.

(11) A declaration of the former argument by opposites, and the application of it.

(12) A proof of the same argument: a harlot and Christ are completely contrary, so are the flesh and the Spirit. Therefore he that is one with a harlot (which is done by sexual intercourse with their bodies) cannot be one with Christ, which unity is pure and spiritual.

(i) Moses does not speak these words about fornication, but about marriage: but seeing that fornication is the corruption of marriage, and both of them are a carnal and fleshly copulation, we cannot say that the apostle abuses his testimony. Again, Moses does not have this word two, but it is very well expressed both here and in Mt 19:5, because he speaks only of man and wife: whereupon the opinion of those that vouch it to be lawful to have many wives is overthrown: for he that companies with many, is broken as it were into many parts.

(13) Another argument why fornication is to be avoided, because it defiles the body with a peculiar type of filthiness.

(14) The third argument: because a fornicator is sacrilegious, because our bodies are consecrated to God.

(15) The fourth argument: because we are not our own men, to give ourselves to any other, much less to Satan and the flesh, seeing that God himself has bought us, and that with a great price, to the end that both in body and soul, we should serve to his glory.