John Calvin Commentary Acts 10:25

"And when it came to pass that Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him." — Acts 10:25 (ASV)

Falling down at his feet, he worshipped. Here is the word προσεκυνησεν, which signifies to testify honor or worship, either by bowing the knee or bowing down the head, or by any other gesture. Now, the question is, whether Peter refutes this worship for modesty’s sake only, or he disallows it as a thing altogether unlawful?

It appears that Cornelius’ act displeased Peter, by the reason which is soon added, Arise, for even I am a man. For we may gather that there was some divine element in that worship, because he ascribed to mortal man the honor which is due to God alone.

But we must not think that Cornelius considered Peter to be God; for if he transferred God’s honor to mortal man, where is that godliness and religion, with the title of which he was recently adorned? Therefore, I think that he by no means intended to rob God of his lawful worship, that he might give it to man; but because he meant to give singular honor to the prophet and apostle of Christ, he fell into an immoderate display of reverence, and so he offended in excess.

For it can scarcely be expressed in words how prone men are to fall into superstition when that honor is given to the ministers of Christ which has even a slight appearance of divine worship. We easily and unknowingly fall into that which we hardly considered.

There would be less danger with a king or with the chief rulers of this world, for he who falls down before a king keeps himself within the bounds of earthly and civil honor.

But the case is different with the ministers of Christ. For as their office is spiritual, so if any man falls down at their feet to worship them, this honor has in it something spiritual.

We must make a distinction between civil worship, which men use among themselves regarding civil order, and that under which is contained religion, or which directly concerns the honor of God; and also between laws made for temporal government and those which bind the conscience.

For certain foolish men are greatly mistaken, who think that kneeling is here condemned simply and in itself. But this is what I said: Cornelius does not here salute his proconsul, or the emperor, in any civil manner; but being struck with wonder when he saw Peter, he honors him as he would have honored God, if he had been present. Thus, he gives man more than is proper, having, as it were, forgotten himself.

He by no means intended (as I have already said) to rob God of any part of his honor, that he might give to man what he took from him. But when the worship which is given to man has something which is, as it were, linked with the honor of God, men fall into error contrary to their hope and expectation, so that they extol man above his proper station, and give him the worship which is due to God.

The Papists, omitting that distinction, seize upon only one part, because they deal with religious worship only. So that they may ascribe some part of it, under some plausible pretext, to creatures, they subdivide it into latria, dulia, and hyperdulia. They give latria to God alone, as if to say that adoration is due to him alone.

They apply dulia to the dead and their bones, to images and pictures. They assign their hyperdulia to the Virgin Mary, and to the cross on which Christ hanged. To say nothing of the fact that they babble through childish ignorance, how many of them understand that rotten distinction?

Nor do I speak only of the common people, but of the leaders. Therefore, all their forms of worship must necessarily be infected and corrupt with wicked superstition, since they unwisely pair creatures with God. But Luke does not say here that Cornelius gave Peter latria (or the honor due to God); he uses only the general word “worshipped,” and he adds, nevertheless, that he was reproved because he wickedly extolled man higher than was proper for him.

Surely, if that new opinion concerning the adoration which is called dulia had any validity, Peter ought to have admonished Cornelius that he should not go beyond dulia.

But because no worship offered to any man whatsoever, to which religion is attached and which concerns God’s honor, leaves God’s honor untouched, Peter is therefore content with this single reason: that he is a man.

Moreover, I would gladly ask the Papists whether they think that John was so blockish that he would take the honor due to God, which they call latria, and give it to the angel? Surely, there was nothing else that caused him to worship the angel except only excessive and preposterous reverence, and that in honor of God, whose glory shone in the angel; nevertheless, his act is condemned.

Therefore, so that we may give God what is his own, let spiritual worship, under which religion is comprehended, remain whole and exclusively for him.