{Commentarii in Epistolam D. Pauli ad Ephesios, facili et perspicua methodo conscripti. A D. Benedicto Aretio bernensi theologo. Cum indice rerum memorabilium quae in hisce continentur. Posterior haec}

by men, whether they possess the right of vocation or not. For if he had been called by Peter and those like him, he would indeed have had a vocation from men, and a legitimate one at that. Such were those new teachers, some of whom kept calling themselves disciples of the Apostles. If, however, he had come to the office of teaching having been instigated by other false teachers, he would again have had a vocation from men, but an illegitimate one. Therefore, in general, he rejects the vocation which could have been given to him by men.

Why Paul removes human vocation from himself.

First, because it could have been false; secondly, if it had been good, it still would not have been of the highest authority. For the Lord wished to arm this instrument with the supreme power of teaching. He repeats this in another form of speech: Neither through man. The former statement can be understood concerning an illegitimate vocation, which would have man as its author. This statement now concerns a legitimate one, but one which had been confirmed or procured through man. For the sentiment is: man is not the author of my vocation, nor even the medium. There, he removed the efficient cause; here, he also removes the instrument. Theos God refers both to God. For the medium of his vocation is Christ the Son of God (Acts 9), but the author is God the Father himself, who raised his Son from the dead.

Vocation is not of one kind.

1. We must observe here that vocation is not of one form. For one type is immediate, which the Apostle attributes to himself here. Such was that of the Prophets and Apostles. Another type is mediate, such as exists almost everywhere today in the ministry of the Church, and this