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…

6 And when Paul knew. The policy of Paul whereof Luke maketh mention, doeth seem not to beseem the servant of Christ. For the subtlety which he used, was inwrapped in dissimulation, which was not far from a lye. He saith that the state of his cause did consist in the resurrection of the dead. But we know that the strife arose about other matters. Because he disannulled the ceremonies, because he admitted the Gentiles into the covenant of salvation. I answer, that, though these things be true, yet did not he lye. For he doth neither deny that he was accused of other matters, neither doth this make the whole controversy to consist in one point: but he saith truly that the Sadducees were therefore offended with him, because he did hold the resurrection of the dead. He knew that those who had conspired together against him, were enemies also one to another. He knew that his own conscience was clear: and it had been an easy matter for him to prove his cause good before just judges. Yet because he seeth them cry out on him clamorously, and that he had no place granted to defend himself, he setteth his enemies together by the ears. Whereby it doeth also appear, that they were carried away through ignorance and blind zeal. Therefore we must note that Paul did so begin, as that he was desirous truly and plainly to unfold the whole matter: and that he did not craftily refuse to make a pure and sound confession, such as the servants of ⟨p. 527⟩Christ ought to make: but because the way was stopped before him, neither could he be heard, he used the last remedy, to declare that his adversaries were carried headlong with blind hatred. For the end doth show, that those are not guided with reason or judgement, who are carried out of the way by mutual discord. Now if any man which darkeneth the light of doctrine, excuse his craft, by the example of Paul, he is easily refuted. For it is one thing for a man to provide for him self alone with the loss of trueth: and another, to lead the professed enemies of Christ from resisting him, that they may strive among themselves.

6 And when Paul knewe. The pollicie of Paule whereof Luke maketh mention, doeth seeme not to beseeme the seruant of Christ. For the subtilty which he vsed, was inwrapped in dissimulation, which was not farre from a lye. He saith that the state of his cause did consist in the resurrection of the dead. But wee knowe that the strife arose about other matters. Because hee disanulled the ceremonies, because hee admitted the Gentiles into the couenaunt of saluation. I aunsweare, that, though these thinges be true, yet did not he lye. For he doth neyther denie that hee was accused of other matters, neither doth this make the whole controuersie to consist in one point: but hee saith truely that the Sadduces were therefore offended with hym, because he did holde the resurrection of the dead. He knewe that those who had conspyred together agaynst him, were enemies also one to another. Hee knewe that his owne conscience was cleere: and it had beene an easie matter for him to prooue his cause good before iust iudges. Yet because he seeth them crie out on him clamorously, and that he had no place graunted to defend himselfe, he setteth his enemies together by the eares. Whereby it doeth also appeare, that they were carried away through ignoraunce and blinde zeale. Therefore we must note that Paul did so beginne, as that he was desirous truelie and plainly to vnfold the whole matter: and that he did not craftily refuse to make a pure and sounde confession, such as the seruauntes of