The commentaries of M. John Calvin upon the Acts of the Apostles, faithfully translated…The commentaries of M. Iohn Caluin vpon the Actes of the Apostles, faithfully translated…

5 I knew not brethren. Those who think that this excuse of Paul hath in it no figure, do not well mark the contrary objections wherewith their error is refuted. They say that Paul knew not the high priest, because he had bin absent long time. As if he were ignorant, that he was chief priest, who is the chief in the counsel, and hath the uppermost room. Neither was Ananias so base and obscure, that Paul was ignorant of his degree. But his words cut off all occasion of disputation, when as he chideth him, because occupying the place of a judge under colour of the law, he doth in his rage that which is contrary to law. Therefore Paul knew what place he had, when he said that he abused his power. Othersome invent a more subtle answer, that he spake not here of the man, but of the office and public person. But first the exposition is far fet, because if Paul did reverence the priesthood, he must needs have given some honour to the man which had the same. And now it is not to be thought (forasmuch as the majesty of the priesthood was abolished by the coming of Christ, & that there followed such filthy profanation,) that Paul did honour those as he was wont (as if their perfect & lawful authority did continue) who under the title of the high priests did reign as Lords without any law or right. Therefore subscribing to Augustine, I do not doubt but that this is a taunting excuse. Neither doth that any whit hinder because plain speech becometh the ministers of the word. For seeing there be 2. sorts of Ironies, one which is covered, with subtlety & means to deceive, another which doth so figuratively note out the thing which is in hand, that it doth prick sorer: in this second there is nothing which doth not well beseem the servants of Christ. Therefore this is the meaning of the words, Brethren, I acknowledge nothing in this man, which belongeth to the priest. Also he addeth a testimony of the 22. chap. of Exod.¹ in which place though Moses speak of judges, yet the sentence is extended properly unto any lawful order. Therefore all dignity which is appointed for maintenance of civil government, ought to be reverenced & had in honour. For whosoever he be that rebelleth against or resisteth the magistrate & those who are appointed to rule, and are promoted unto honour, he would have no government. And such desire ten death to the disturbing of order.

5 I knew not brethren. Those who thinke that this excuse of Paul hath in it no figure, doe not well marke the contrarie obiections wherewith their errour is refuted. They say that Paul knew not the high priest, because he had bin absent long time. As if he were ignoraunt, that he was chiefe priest, who is the chiefe in the counsel, and hath the vppermost roome. Neither was Ananias so base and obscure, that Paul was ignorāt of his degree. But his wordes cut off all occasion of disputation, when as he chideth him, because occupying the place of a iudge vnder colour of the lawe, he doth in his rage that which is contrary to law. Therfore Paul knew what place he had, whē he said that he abused his power. Othersome inuent a more subtil answere, that he spake not here of the man, but of the office and publike person. But first the exposition is farre fet, because if Paul did reuerence the priesthood, he must needs haue giuen some honour to the man which had the same. And now it is not to be thought (forasmuch as the maiesty of the priesthood was abolished by the comming of Christ, & that there folowed such filthy profanatiō,) that Paul did honor those as he was woont (as if their perfect & lawfull authority did continue) who vnder the title of the high priests did reign as Lords without any law or right. Therfore subscribing to Augustine, I doe not doubt but that this is a tanting excuse. Neither doth that anye whit hinder because plain speech becōmeth the ministers of the word. For seeing there be 2. sorts of Ironiaes, one which is couered, with subtletie & meanes to deceiue, another which doth so figuratiuely note out the thing which is in hand, that it doth prick sorer: in this secōd there is nothing which doth not wel beseem the seruāts of Christ. Therfore this is the meaning of the words, Brethren, I acknowledge nothing in this man, which belōgeth to the priest. Also he addeth a testimony of the 22. chap. of Exod.