1 Corinthians 1:10–18

Paul prays that the Corinthians will all think one thing, namely, that those who have been born again are children of God. He wants them to be perfectly united in the teaching which he had given to them. He challenges them to think this way and to defend his teaching.

Be of one mind, O you bishops, one with another, and be at peace with one another; sympathize with one another, love the brethren, and feed the people with care; with one consent teach those that are under you to be of the same sentiments and to be of the same opinions about the same matters, "that there may be no schisms among you; that you may be one body and one spirit, perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment," [1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:4] according to the appointment of the Lord. And let the deacon refer all things to the bishop, as Christ does to His Father. But let him order such things as he is able by himself, receiving power from the bishop, as the Lord did from His Father the power of creation and of providence. But the weighty matters let the bishop judge; but let the deacon be the bishop's ear, and eye, and mouth, and heart, and soul, that the bishop may not be distracted with many cares, but with such only as are more considerable, as Jethro did appoint for Moses, and his counsel was received.

Who, then, is so wicked and faithless, who is so insane with the madness of discord, that either he should believe that the unity of God can be divided, or should dare to rend it-the garment of the Lord-the Church of Christ? He Himself in His Gospel warns us, and teaches, saying, "And there shall be one flock and one shepherd." And does any one believe that in one place there can be either many shepherds or many flocks? The Apostle Paul, moreover, urging upon us this same unity, beseeches and exhorts, saving, "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that ye be joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

That a schism must not be made, even although he who withdraws should remain in one faith, and in the same tradition. In Ecclesiasticus, in Solomon: "He that cleaveth firewood shall be endangered by it if the iron shall fall off." Also in Exodus: "In one house shall it be eaten: ye shall not cast forth the flesh abroad out of the house." Also in the cxxxiid Psalm: "Behold how good and how pleasant a thing it is that brethren should dwell in unity!" Also in the Gospel according to Matthew: "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth." Also in the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: "But I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all say the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that ye be all joined together in the same mind and in the same opinion." Also in the sixty-seventh Psalm: "God, who maketh men to dwell with one mind in a house."

It is therefore befitting that you should in every way glorify Jesus Christ, who hath glorified you, that by a unanimous obedience "ye may be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, and may all speak the same thing concerning the same thing," and that, being subject to the bishop and the presbytery, ye may in all respects be sanctified.

I therefore, yet not I, out the love of Jesus Christ, "entreat you that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment." For there are some vain talkers and deceivers, not Christians, but Christ-betrayers, bearing about the name of Christ in deceit, and "corrupting the word" of the Gospel; while they intermix the poison of their deceit with their persuasive talk, as if they mingled aconite with sweet wine, that so he who drinks, being deceived in his taste by the very great sweetness of the draught, may incautiously meet with his death. One of the ancients gives us this advice, "Let no man be called good who mixes good with evil." For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power.

What I have continually been saying, that we must frame our rebukes gently and gradually, this Paul doth here also; in that, being about to enter upon a subject full of many dangers and enough to tear up the Church from her foundations he uses very mild language. His word is that he "beseeches" them, and beseeches them "through Christ;" as though not even he were sufficient alone to make this supplication, and to prevail.

The emphatic force of the word "schism," I mean the name itself, was a sufficient accusation. For it was not that they had become many parts, each entire within itself, but rather the One Body which originally existed had perished. For had they been entire Churches, there might be many of them; but if they were divisions, in the next place, because he had sharply dealt with them by using the word "schism," he again softens and soothes them, saying, "That ye may be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." That is; since he had said, "That ye may all speak the same thing;" "do not suppose," he adds, "that I said concord should be only in words; I seek for that harmony which is of the mind." But since there is such a thing as agreement in words, and that hearty, not consenting, is no longer "perfected," nor fitted in to complete accordance. There is also such a thing as harmony of opinions, where there is not yet harmony of sentiment; for instance, when having the same faith we are not joined together in love: for thus, in opinions we are one, (for we think the same things,) but in sentiment not so. And such was the case at that time; this person choosing one leader, and that, another. For this reason he saith it is necessary to agree both in "mind" and in "judgment." For it was not from any difference in faith that the schisms arose, but from the division of their judgment through human contentiousness.

The visible church is a mixed body, consisting of both righteous and unrighteous people. This is why Paul praises some of its members and criticizes others. The person who agrees with the right doctrine and the church's teaching concerning the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as well as with the dispensation concerning us, with resurrection and judgment, and who follows the rules of the church is not in schism.

Moreover, when he blames dissensions and schisms, which undoubtedly are evils, he immediately adds heresies likewise. Now, that which he subjoins to evil things, he of course confesses to be itself an evil; and all the greater, indeed, because he tells us that his belief of their schisms and dissensions was grounded on his knowledge that "there must be heresies also." For he shows us that it was owing to the prospect of the greater evil that he readily believed the existence of the lighter ones; and so far indeed was he from believing, in respect of evils (of such a kind), that heresies were good, that his object was to forewarn us that we ought not to be surprised at temptations of even a worse stamp, since (he said) they tended "to make manifest all such as were approved; " in other words, those whom they were unable to pervert. In short, since the whole passage points to the maintenance of unity and the checking of divisions, inasmuch as heresies sever men from unity no less than schisms and dissensions, no doubt he classes heresies under the same head of censure as he does schisms also and dissensions. And by so doing, he makes those to be "not approved," who have fallen into heresies; more especially when with reproofs he exhorts men to turn away from such, teaching them that they should "all speak and think the selfsame thing," the very object which heresies do not permit.

Besides which, it must have followed, that, for the man to whom he committed the ministration of the gospel, he would add the injunction that it be not ministered in all places, and without respect to persons, in accordance with the Lord's saying, "Not to cast one's pearls before swine, nor that which is holy unto dogs." Openly did the Lord speak, without any intimation of a hidden mystery. He had Himself commanded that, "whatsoever they had heard in darkness" and in secret, they should "declare in the light and on the house-tops." He had Himself fore-shown, by means of a parable, that they should not keep back in secret, fruitless of interest, a single pound, that is, one word of His. He used Himself to tell them that a candle was not usually "pushed away under a bushel, but placed on a candlestick," in order to "give light to all who are in the house." These things the apostles either neglected, or failed to understand, if they fulfilled them not, by concealing any portion of the light, that is, of the word of God and the mystery of Christ. Of no man, I am quite sure, were they afraid,-neither of Jews nor of Gentiles in their violence; with all the greater freedom, then, would they certainly preach in the church, who held not their tongue in synagogues and public places. Indeed they would have found it impossible either to convert Jews or to bring in Gentiles, unless they "set forth in order" that which they would have them believe. Much less, when churches were advanced in the faith, would they have withdrawn from them anything for the purpose of committing it separately to some few others. Although, even supposing that among intimate friends, so to speak, they did hold certain discussions, yet it is incredible that these could have been such as to bring in some other rule of faith, differing from and contrary to that which they were proclaiming through the Catholic churches, -as if they spoke of one God in the Church, (and) another at home, and described one substance of Christ, publicly, (and) another secretly, and announced one hope of the resurrection before all men, (and) another before the few; although they themselves, in their epistles, besought men that they would all speak one and the same thing, and that there should be no divisions and dissensions in the church, seeing that they, whether Paul or others, preached the same things. Moreover, they remembered the words): "Let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil; " so that they were not to handle the gospel in a diversity of treatment.

Paul was right to add the name of Christ here, because that is what the Corinthians were really rejecting.

"I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." Intending to speak to them more sternly, he first declares that he beseeches them by Christ. I, he says, cannot ask you alone, but I take to my aid the name of the Lord, from whose name you are called Christians and which you have insulted by wishing to be called by the names of men. Let this bring you to shame!

"That you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you." What do I beseech you about? That you all be in agreement and not be divided. For that which is divided, although it may seem to become many instead of one, in reality does not become many (for what use is a body cut into many parts?): in it unity has perished. Thus, he very expressively called what was happening among them "divisions"; by this word he clearly shows how calamitous their condition was.

"But that you be joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." Above he said: "that you all speak the same thing." Therefore, lest they think that agreement consists only in words, he adds: "in one spirit," that is, I beseech you to be in agreement also in your thoughts. But many think alike about one subject, yet differently about another; therefore he added: "joined together in one spirit." Furthermore, many are in agreement in their way of thinking, but diverge in the disposition of their will (for when we have one and the same faith, but are not united with one another by love, then although we think alike, we diverge in the disposition of our will). Therefore, having said: "in one spirit," he added: "and in one mind," that is, so that they would disagree neither regarding faith nor regarding the disposition of their will.

After the greeting the Apostle begins to instruct them. First, he instructs them about things pertaining to all generally, namely, about the sacraments. Secondly, about things pertaining to some of them (c. 16). In the sacraments three things should be considered: first, the sacrament itself, as baptism; secondly, the reality signified and contained, namely, grace: thirdly, the reality signified but not contained, namely, the glory of the resurrection. First, therefore, he discusses the sacraments themselves; secondly, the graces (c. 12); thirdly, the glory of the resurrection (c. 15). In regard to the first he does three things: first he determines what pertains to baptism; secondly, what pertains to the sacrament of matrimony (c. 5); thirdly, what pertains to the sacrament of the Eucharist (c. 8).

In the first part the Apostle deals with doctrine along with baptism; thus he follows the example of the Lord, Who gave the disciples the injunction to teach and to baptize in one command: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt 28:19). Now it should be noted that there was dissension among the Corinthian believers, because those who had been instructed assumed that they had received the better teaching and a better baptism and began to look down on the others.

Hence the Apostle does two things: first, he ends the strife; secondly he attacks the cause of the strife, namely, that they glory in some of Christ's ministers and look down on the other ones (c. 3). As to the first he does three things: first, he gives a friendly warning; secondly, he shows the need for the warning (v. 11); thirdly, the reason for it (v. 13).

In regard to the first, two things should be considered. First, he uses humble language as one way of inducing them to heed his warning; hence he says: I appeal to you; the second way is by brotherly love when he says: brethren, because this warning came from the warmth of his fraternal charity: "A brother helped by a brother is like a strong city" (Pr 18:19). The third way is by appealing to their reverence for Christ when he says: by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who should be honored by all and to Whom all should be subject: "In the name of Jesus every knee should bend" (Phil 2:10).

The second thing to be considered is that he urges them to three things. First, to concord when he says: that you all agree, i.e., that all confess the same faith and hold the same opinion in matters that must be done in common: "That together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 15:6). Secondly, he forbids a vice contrary to virtue when he says: that there be no dissensions (schisms) among you, because ecclesial unity must not be fragmented. As a sign of this unity the soldiers said of the coat without seam: "Let us not cut it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be" (Jn. 19:24). Properly speaking, there are schisms, when the members of one group separate into various factions according to their various beliefs or according to their various opinions about conduct: "You shall see the breaches of the city of David" (Is 22:9). Thirdly, he urges them to seek perfection, which is the good of the whole. Therefore, he says: but that you be united in the same mind, which judges about conduct, and in the same judgment, which judges about belief. As if to say: These things will enable you to be perfect, if you continue in unity: "Over all these things have charity, which is the bond of perfection" (Col 3:14); "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt 5:48).

Some people think that "Chloe's people" are those who remain faithful and bear fruit in the faith of Christ. Others think that Chloe is a place, as if one were to say "Antioch's people," for example. But others think that she was a woman devoted to God, in whose company there were many faithful worshipers.

But seeing that whoso is blamed is unabashed so long as he hath no witnesses, observe how, not permitting them to deny the fact, he adduces some to bear witness.

"For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them which are of the household of Chloe." Neither did he say this at the very beginning, but first he brought forward his charge; as one who put confidence in his informants. Because, had it not been so, he would not have found fault: for Paul was not a person to believe lightly. Neither then did he immediately say, "it hath been signified." Consider also his prudence in not speaking of any distinct person, but of the entire family; so as not to make them hostile towards the informer: for in this way he both protects him, and fearlessly opens the accusation. For he had an eye to the benefit not of the one side only, but of the other also. Wherefore he saith not, "It hath been declared to me by certain," but he indicates also the household, lest they might suppose that he was inventing.

What was "declared?" "That there are contentions among you." Thus, when he speaks, he relies upon the informants.

But they roll back an objection from that apostle himself, in that he said, "For Christ sent me not to baptize; " , as if by this argument baptism were done away! For if so, why did he baptize Gaius, and Crispus, and the house of Stephanas? However, even if Christ had not sent him to baptize, yet He had given other apostles the precept to baptize. But these words were written to the Corinthians in regard of the circumstances of that particular time; seeing that schisms and dissensions were agitated among them, while one attributes everything to Paul, another to Apollos. For which reason the "peace-making" apostle, for fear he should seem to claim all gifts for himself, says that he had been sent "not to baptize, but to preach." For preaching is the prior thing, baptizing the posterior. Therefore the preaching came first: but I think baptizing withal was lawful to him to whom preaching was.

Perhaps there was a family at Corinth called Chloe, but Paul does not give any details so as not to reveal their identity and start more quarreling.

"For it has been made known to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of the household of Chloe." Lest they begin to deny it, he brings forward witnesses, and lest it seem as though he is inventing them, he names them, saying: "from the household of Chloe" (there was a house in Corinth called Chloe's). He also calls them "brethren": for although their sin was evident, nothing prevented him from calling them brethren. However, he did not say who exactly informed him, but pointed to the whole household in general, so as not to arm them against those who had informed.

"That there are contentions among you." Revealing what he has heard from others, he uses a softer expression — "contentions," but when he speaks in his own person, he calls the same thing "divisions" (1 Cor. 1:10), which is much worse than "contentions."

Then when he says, It has been reported, he shows why it was necessary to warn them, namely, because they were burdened with the vice of contention. As if to say: It is necessary to induce you to this, because it has been reported to me, my brethren, by Chloe's people, i.e., from a certain villa subject to the jurisdiction of the Corinthians. Or Chloe might be the name of a matron in whose home many believers assembled: that there is quarreling among you contrary to what is said in Pr (20:24): "It is an honor for a man to separate himself from quarrels."

Paul exposes their error without mentioning the names of the people responsible. The men whom he names here were all good teachers, but by alluding to them in this way he is really getting at the false apostles. For if the Corinthians were not to boast of their devotion to any of these men, how much more would this be true in the case of false teachers, whose corrupt doctrine he refers to next?

Inspired by God, Paul wrote to you concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because even then you were given to faction. But that factiousness involved you in less guilt, because then you were partisans of highly reputed apostles and of those commended by them.

Next he declares also the kind of contention. "That each one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas." "I say, contentions," saith he, "I mean, not about private matters, but of the more grievous sort, of the Church. And yet they were not speaking about himself, nor about Peter, nor about Apollos; but he signifies that if these were not to be leaned on, much less others. For that they had not spoken about them, he saith further on: "And these things I have transferred in a figure unto myself and Apollos, that ye may learn in us not to go beyond the things which are written." For if it were not right for them to call themselves by the name of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas, much less of any others. If under the Teacher and the first of the Apostles, and one that had instructed so much people, it were not right to enroll themselves, much less under those who were nothing. By way of hyperbole then, seeking to withdraw them from their disease, he sets down these names. Besides, he makes his argument less severe, not mentioning by name the rude dividers of the Church, but concealing them, as behind a sort of masks, with the names of the Apostles.

"I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas." Not esteeming himself before Peter hath he set his name last, but preferring Peter to himself, and that greatly. He arranged his statement in the way of climax, that he might not be supposed to do this for attack, and then mentions Apollos, and then Cephas. Not therefore to magnify himself did he do this, but in speaking of wrong things he administers the requisite correction in his own person first.

But that those who addicted themselves to this or that man were in error, is evident. And rightly he rebukes them, saying, "Ye do not well in that ye say, 'I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas.'" But why did he add, "And I of Christ?" For although those who addicted themselves to men were in error, not surely those who dedicated themselves unto Christ. But this was not his charge, that they called themselves by the Name of Christ, but that they did not all call themselves by that Name alone. And I think that he added this of himself, wishing to make the accusation more grievous, and to point out that by this rule Christ must be considered as belonging to one party only: although they were not so using the Name themselves. For that this was what he hinted at he declared in the sequel.

And was it not Paul himself who was there foretold, destined "to be taken away from Judah"-that is, from Judaism-for the erection of Christianity, in order "to lay that only foundation, which is Christ? " Of this work the Creator also by the same prophet says, "Behold, I lay in Sion for a foundation a precious stone and honourable; and he that resteth thereon shall not be confounded." Unless it be, that God professed Himself to be the builder up of an earthly work, that so He might not give any sign of His Christ, as destined to be the foundation of such as believe in Him, upon which every man should build at will the superstructure of either sound or worthless doctrine; forasmuch as it is the Creator's function, when a man's work shall be tried by fire, (or) when a reward shall be recompensed to him by fire; because it is by fire that the test is applied to the building which you erect upon the foundation which is laid by Him, that is, the foundation of His Christ. "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? "

In reality the Corinthians called themselves after other teachers, but Paul uses his own name and that of Apollos and Peter in order to make his point. By adding the name of Christ to the rest, he showed them how ridiculous the whole conflict was.

Not some say this, but "among you." The Corinthians, however, did not actually say this, but the apostle gives such a turn of phrase, wishing to show that if it is unforgivable to call oneself followers of Paul and of Cephas, then all the more so of the names of others. "I am of Cephas." He mentioned Peter after himself not in order to exalt himself, but showing him greater preference, just as he mentioned Christ after. In general, in matters that ought not to be, he mentions his own person first. "And I am of Christ." He does not reproach them for saying "I am of Christ," but for the fact that not all say this; or rather, he added this on his own, wishing to make the rebuke stronger and to show that in such a case even Christ is appropriated by one party, although the Corinthians did not actually do this.

Then he specifies the nature of the contention when he says: What I mean is, i.e., the contention consists in this, that every one of you gives himself a name derived from the person by whom he was baptized and instructed, and says: I belong to Paul, because he had been baptized and instructed by Paul; another says: I belong to Apollos, who had preached to the Corinthians (Ac 19); still another says: and I belong to Cephas, i.e., Peter, to whom it had been said: "You shall be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter" (Jn. 1:42). Now they made these statements, because they thought that they received a better baptism from a better baptizer, as though the virtue of the minister had an influence on the one baptized. Finally, others say: I belong to Christ, Who alone gives grace, because the grace of Christ alone works in Christ's baptism: "He upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, he it is that baptizes with the Holy Spirit" (Jn. 1:33). Accordingly, the baptized are called Christians from Christ alone and not Paulians from Paul: "Only let us be called by your name" (Is 4:1).

In order to avoid this error the Greeks are said to have used the following formula in baptism: "Let Christ's servant, Nicholas, be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," to show that a man is not baptized interiorly, unless he is baptized by Christ. But because a man also baptizes, as a minister and member of Christ, the Church uses this formula in baptizing: "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," which is more in keeping with the formula given by Christ, Who said to the disciples: "Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt 28:19), where He also calls the apostles baptizers. It is according to this command that the minister says: "I baptize you."

By believing different things about Christ, the people have divided him. One person thought that Christ was a mere man, another that he was only God. One says that he was foretold by the prophets, while another denies it.Paul starts with himself, so that nobody will think that he is disparaging the status of others. If Christ died for us, how can we attribute his grace and blessing to men, thereby doing him a grave injustice?

"Is Christ divided?" What he saith comes to this: "Ye have cut in pieces Christ, and distributed His body." Here is anger! here is chiding! here are words full of indignation! For whenever instead of arguing he interrogates only, his doing so implies a confessed absurdity.

But some say that he glanced at something else, in saying, "Christ is divided:" as if he had said, "He hath distributed to men and parted the Church, and taken one share Himself, giving them the other." Then in what follows, he labors to overthrow this absurdity, saying, "Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?" Observe his Christ-loving mind; how thenceforth he brings the whole matter to a point in his own name, shewing, and more than shewing, that this honor belongs to no one. And that no one might think it was envy which moved him to say these things, therefore he is constantly putting himself forward. Observe, too, his considerate way, in that he saith not, "Did Paul make the world? did Paul from nothing produce you into being?" But only those things which belonged as choice treasures to the faithful, and were regarded with great solicitude - those he specifies, the Cross, and Baptism, and the blessings following on these. For the loving-kindness of God towards men is shewn by the creation of the world also: in nothing, however, so much as by the condescension through the Cross. And he said not, "did Paul die for you?" but, "was Paul crucified?" setting down also the kind of death.

"Or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?" Again, he saith not, "did Paul baptize you?" For he did baptize many: but this was not the question, by whom they had been baptized, but, into whose name they had been baptized! For since this also was a cause of schisms, their being called after the name of those who baptized them, he corrects this error likewise saying, "Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?" "Tell me not," saith he, "who baptized, but into whose name. For not he that baptizeth, but he who is invoked in the Baptism, is the subject of enquiry. For this is He who forgives our sins."

And at this point he stays the discourse, and does not pursue the subject any further. For he saith not, "Did Paul declare to you the good things to come? Did Paul promise you the kingdom of heaven?" Why, then, I ask, doth he not add these questions also? Because it is not all as one, to promise a kingdom and to be crucified. For the former neither had danger nor brought shame; but the latter, all these. Moreover, he proves the former from the latter: for having said, (Romans 8:32) "He that spared not His own Son," he adds, "How shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?" And again, (Romans 5:10) "For if when we were enemies we were reconciled unto God by the death of His Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved." This was one reason for his not adding what I mentioned. The one were in promise; the other had already come to pass.

"Is Christ divided?" Why have you divided Christ? Why have you torn apart His body? A speech filled with anger. Some, however, understood the words "is Christ divided?" in this way: has Christ divided the Church from the people and taken one part for Himself, while giving the other part to them?

"Was Paul crucified for you?" By this he refutes their unreasonable behavior, and mentions his own name, so that they would not think he mentioned the names of others out of envy. He did not say: did Paul create or bring you from non-being into being? But, what is much more, showing the ineffable love of Christ for mankind, he speaks of the cross. He also did not say: "did Paul die," but: "was crucified," pointing thereby to the supposed dishonor of the death.

"Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" And I, he says, baptized many, but in the name of Christ. He speaks of baptism because the cause of the division was also that they called themselves by the names of those who baptized them. But the point is not who baptized, but in whose name one baptizes; for it is Christ who forgives sins, not the one who baptizes.

Then when he says, Is Christ divided, he gives the reason for this warning that there should be no schisms and contentions among them: first, on the part of baptism; secondly, on the part of doctrine (v. 17b). As to the first he does three things: first, he mentions the mistake which follows from their contention; secondly, why that mistake follows (v. 13b); thirdly, he dismisses a false surmise (v. 14).

He says, therefore: I have said that everyone of you says, I belong to Paul; from which it follows that Christ is divided.

This can be understood in one way as though he were saying: Inasmuch as there is contention among you, Christ is divided from you, because He dwells only in peace: "His place is in peace" (Ps 76:3); "Your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God" (Is 59:2). But it is better understood of him as saying: Inasmuch as you believe that a baptism performed by a better minister is better, it follows that Christ, Who principally and interiorly baptizes, is divided, i.e., differs in His power and effect, depending on the differing ministers. But this is false, because it says in Eph (4:5): "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." An even better interpretation is to understand the Apostle as saying that inasmuch as you attribute to others the things that are exclusively Christ's, you divide Christ by forming many Christs, which is contrary to what is stated in Matt (23:10): "One is your master, Christ"; "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God and there is no other" (Is 45:22).

For it should be noted that there are two powers proper to Christ in the sacrament of baptism: One is the divine power, by which He and the Father and the Holy Spirit cleanse from sin interiorly. This cannot be communicated to any creature. The other is the power proper to His human nature, which is the power of excellence in the sacraments and consists of four things: one is that He instituted the sacraments; the second is that He can produce the effect of the sacraments without the sacraments; the third is that the merit of His passion works in baptism and the other sacraments; the fourth is that the sacraments are conferred by calling on His name. Now he could have shared this power of excellence with His ministers and particularly the fourth, namely, that baptism be consecrated in their names, but He reserved it for Himself; otherwise schism would arise in the Church, for people would suppose that there are as many baptisms as baptizers. According to Augustine this is why John the Baptist confessed that he did not know whether Christ would keep this power for Himself.

Then when he says, Was Paul crucified, he shows that their mistake follows from their error of supposing that there are diverse baptisms, depending on the different baptizers; for this would be so, if baptism derived its power from the baptizers and not from Christ alone.

He shows this in two ways. First, on the part of Christ's passion, in virtue of which baptism works, as it says in Rom (6:3): "Know you not that all who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death?" Accordingly, he says: Was Paul crucified for you? As if to say: Were Paul's sufferings the cause of our salvation, so that baptism depends on him for its saving power? As if to say: Certainly not. For Christ alone is the one by Whose sufferings and death our salvation is wrought: "It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish" (Jn. 11:50); "One has died for all" (2 Cor 5:14).

On the other hand, the Apostle seems to say the opposite in Col (1:24): "I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, the church." I answer that Christ's sufferings benefited us not only by their example: "Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps" (1 Pt 2:21), but also by their merit and efficacy, inasmuch as we have been redeemed and sanctified by his blood: "So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood" (Heb 13:12). But the sufferings of others benefit us only as an example: "If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation" (2 Cor 1:6).

Secondly, he shows the same thing from the power of Christ's name invoked in baptism; hence he adds: or were you baptized in the name of Paul? As if to say: No. For as it is stated in Ac (4:12): "There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." Hence, too, Is (26:8) says: "Your name and your remembrance are the desire of the soul."

But it seems that men are not baptized in Christ's name, for it is commanded in Matt (28:19): "Teach all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The answer is that in the early Church, because Christ's name was much hated, the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit to baptize in the name of Christ. Yet, as Ambrose says, the whole Trinity is understood in the name of Christ. For "Christ" means anointed, which implies not only the Son Who is anointed, but the anointing itself, which is the Holy Spirit, and the one who anoints, namely, the Father as Ps 45 (v.8) says: "God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows." But now that Christ's name is great among the Gentiles from the rising of the sun to its setting (Mal 1:11), the Church uses the formula first instituted by Christ, baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, everyone baptized in this form is baptized in the name of Him Who is truly Son of God: "That we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ" (1 Jn. 5:30). Furthermore, all faithful are baptized in the name of Christ; hence they are called Christians, for "as many of you as have been baptized in Christ alone, have put on Christ" (Gal 3:27). Therefore, if the sufferings of Christ alone [si solius Christi passio], if the name of Christ alone [si solius Christi nomen], confers the power to be saved on the baptized, then it is from Christ alone [verum esse proprium esse Christo] that baptism has the power to sanctify. Consequently, anyone who attributes this to others divides Christ into many parts.

These Corinthians were like the Novatianists and the Donatists of today, who claim baptism for themselves and do not recognize anybody else's. Those who are so baptized glory in the names of Novatian and Donatus, having been deprived of the name of Christ. Crispus and Gaius are called as witnesses, because although they were baptized by Paul, they never suggested that he should be given any glory because of it.

"I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius." "Why are you elate at having baptized, when I for my part even give thanks that I have not done so!" Thus saying, by a kind of divine art he does away with their swelling pride upon this point; not with the efficacy of the baptism, (God forbid,) but with the folly of those who were puffed up at having been baptizers: first, by showing that the Gift is not theirs; and, secondly, by thanking God therefore. For Baptism truly is a great thing: but its greatness is not the work of the person baptizing, but of Him who is invoked in the Baptism: since to baptize is nothing as regards man's labor, but is much less than preaching the Gospel. Yea, again I say, great indeed is Baptism, and without baptism it is impossible to obtain the kingdom. Still a man of no singular excellence is able to baptize, but to preach the Gospel there is need of great labor.

He states also the reason, why he giveth thanks that he had baptized no one. What then is this reason? "Lest anyone should say that ye were baptized into my own name." Why, did he mean that they said this in those other cases? Not at all; but, "I fear," saith he, "lest the disease should proceed even to that. For if, when insignificant persons and of little worth baptize, a heresy ariseth, had I, the first announcer of Baptism, baptized many, it was likely that they forming a party, would not only call themselves by my name, but also ascribe the Baptism to me." For if from the inferiors so great an evil arose, from those of higher order it would perhaps have gone on to something far more grievous.

But they roll back an objection from that apostle himself, in that he said, "For Christ sent me not to baptize; " , as if by this argument baptism were done away! For if so, why did he baptize Gaius, and Crispus, and the house of Stephanas? However, even if Christ had not sent him to baptize, yet He had given other apostles the precept to baptize. But these words were written to the Corinthians in regard of the circumstances of that particular time; seeing that schisms and dissensions were agitated among them, while one attributes everything to Paul, another to Apollos. For which reason the "peace-making" apostle, for fear he should seem to claim all gifts for himself, says that he had been sent "not to baptize, but to preach." For preaching is the prior thing, baptizing the posterior. Therefore the preaching came first: but I think baptizing withal was lawful to him to whom preaching was.

For I offer you withal, for your investigation, this very question: Whether there were in the first Epistle others, too, who "wholly saddened" the apostle by "acting disorderly," and "were wholly saddened" by him, through incurring (his) "rebuke," according to the sense of the second Epistle; of whom some particular one may in that (second Epistle) have received pardon. Direct we, moreover, our attention to the entire first Epistle, written (that I may so say) as a whole, not with ink, but with gall; swelling, indignant, disdainful, comminatory, invidious, and shaped through (a series of) individual charges, with an eye to certain individuals who were, as it were, the proprietors of those charges? For so had schisms, and emulations, and discussions, and presumptions, and elations, and contentions required, that they should be laden with invidiousness, and rebuffed with curt reproof, and filed down by haughtiness, and deterred by austerity. And what kind of invidiousness is the pungency of humility? "To God I give thanks that I have baptized none of you, except Crispus and Gaius, lest any say that I have baptized in mine own name."

Why, he says, do you boast that you baptize, when I thank God that I did not baptize? He says this not in order to diminish the importance of baptism, but in order to restrain the Corinthians, who boasted of baptism. For baptism is an important matter, but to baptize is not an important one.

Then when he says, I am thankful, he dismisses a false surmise. For since he had said, Was Paul then crucified for you, someone might suppose that though he had not baptized in his own name, he did baptize many people as a minister. In regard to this he does three things: first, he gives thanks for having baptized only a few; secondly, after naming the few, he adds certain others (v. 16); thirdly, he gives the reason why he did not baptize many (v. 17).

He says, therefore: I give God thanks that I baptized none of you but Crispus. "Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue believed in the Lord with all his house" (Ac 18:8) and Gaius, to whom John's third epistle is written.

I say this not because it was actually so, but out of fear that the disease might reach such a degree. For if division arose when baptism was performed by insignificant people, then if I, who preached baptism, had baptized, some would certainly have agreed to attribute the baptism to me.

But because thanksgiving has no place except for blessings received, the Apostle shows why he gives thanks in this case when he continues: lest anyone should say that you were baptized in my name. For holy men desire that their good deeds not be taken as an occasion of error or sin by others. And because the Corinthians had fallen into the error of naming themselves from the baptizer and saying, I belong to Paul and to Apollos, he thanked God that such an error had not been occasioned by his ministry. That is why he was careful to say that he had baptized those who were immune from this error.

Then, having abashed those who were unsound in this respect and subjoining, "I baptized also the house of Stephanas," he again drags down their pride, saying besides, "I know not whether I baptized any other." For by this he signifies that neither did he seek much to enjoy the honor accruing hereby from the multitude, nor did he set about this work for glory's sake.

"I also baptized the household of Stephanas." That is, all who were in the house of Stephanas. He was a great and most illustrious man in Corinth.

"And whether I baptized anyone else, I do not know." For me, he says, it is so unflattering to baptize that I do not even remember whether I baptized anyone else. So how can you take pride in baptism?

Then when he says, I baptized also, he mentions the others he had baptized, lest anything less than the truth appear in his words; hence he adds: I baptized also the household of Stephanas. Then because man's memory is unreliable in regard to particular facts, he adds: Beyond that, I do not know, i.e., do not recall, whether I baptized anyone else.

Because it is a greater thing to preach the gospel than to baptize, Paul says that he was sent to do the former, not the latter. Not everyone who baptizes is competent to preach the gospel, for the words used at baptism are an established formula. When Cornelius became a believer, the apostle Peter gave orders that he should be baptized along with his household, but he did not bother to do it himself when he had his assistants standing by. It was because Christian preaching does not need elaborate refinement of verbal expression that fishers, who were uneducated, were chosen to preach the gospel. In that way the truth of the message would be its own recommendation, and it would not depend on the cleverness or ingenuity of human wisdom. The false apostles were doing just that, and moreover they were omitting the things which the world does not believe, like the virgin birth of Christ and his resurrection from the dead.

That the kingdom of God is not in the wisdom of the world, nor in eloquence, but in the faith of the cross, and in virtue of conversation. In the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: "Christ sent me to preach, not in wisdom of discourse, lest the cross of Christ should become of no effect. For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who perish; but to those who are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will reprove the prudence of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? Since indeed, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. Because the Jews desire signs, and the Greeks seek for wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews indeed a stumbling-block, and to the Gentiles foolishness; but to them that are called, Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." And again "Let no man deceive himself. If any man think that he is wise among you, let him become a fool to this world, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, Thou shall rebuke the wise in their own craftiness." And again: "The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are foolish."

And not by these only, but also by the next words, he greatly represses their pride. And therefore it was that Paul had it put into his hand.

And why, not being sent to baptize, did he baptize? Not in contention with Him that sent him, but in this instance laboring beyond his task. For he saith not, "I was forbidden" but, "I was not sent for this, but for that which was of the greatest necessity." For preaching the Gospel is a work perhaps for one or two; but baptizing, for everyone endowed with the priesthood. For a man being instructed and convinced, to take and baptize him is what any one whatever might do: for the rest, it is all effected by the will of the person drawing near, and the grace of God. But when unbelievers are to be instructed, there must be great labor, great wisdom. And at that time there was danger also annexed. In the former case the whole thing is done, and he is convinced, who is on the point of initiation: and it is no great thing when a man is convinced, to baptize him. But in the latter case the labor is great, to change the deliberate will, to alter the turn of mind, and to tear up error by the roots, and to plant the truth in its place.

Not that he speaks out all this, neither doth he argue in so many words that Baptism has no labor, but that preaching has. For he knows how always to subdue his tone, whereas in the comparison with heathen wisdom he is very earnest, the subject enabling him to use more vehemency of language.

Not therefore in opposition to Him that sent him did he baptize; but, as in the case of the widows, though the apostles had said, (Acts 6:2) "it is not fit that we should leave the Word of God and serve tables," he discharged the office of a deacon, "Let the Elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and in teaching." For as to teach the wrestlers in the games is the part of a spirited and skilful trainer, but to place the crown on the conquerors head may be that of one who cannot even wrestle, (although it be the crown which adds splendor to the conqueror,) so also in Baptism. It is impossible to be saved without it, yet it is no great thing which the baptizer doth, finding the will ready prepared.

"Not in wisdom of words, lest the Cross of Christ should be made of none effect."

Having brought down the swelling pride of those who were arrogant because of their baptizing, he changes his ground afterwards to meet those who boasted about heathen wisdom, and against them he puts on his armor with more vehemency. For to those who were puffed up with baptizing he said, "I give thanks that I baptized no one;" and, "for Christ sent me not to baptize." He speaks neither vehemently nor argumentatively, but, having just hinted his meaning in a few words, passeth on quickly. But here at the very outset he gives a severe blow, saying, "Lest the Cross of Christ be made void." Why then pride thyself on a thing which ought to make thee hide thy face? Since, if this wisdom is at war with the Cross and fights with the Gospel, it is not meet to boast about it, but to retire with shame. For this was the cause why the Apostles were not wise; not through any weakness of the Gift, but lest the Gospel preached suffer harm. The sort of people therefore above mentioned were not those employed in advocating the Word: rather they were among its defamers. The unlearned men were the establishers of it. This was able to check vain glory, this to repress arrogance, this to enforce moderation.

"But if it was 'not by wisdom of speech,' why did they send Apollos who was eloquent?" It was not, he replies, through confidence in his power of speech, but because he was (Acts 18:24, 29) "mighty in the Scriptures," and "confuted the Jews." And besides the point in question was that the leaders and first disseminators of the word were not eloquent; since these were the very persons to require some great power, for the expulsion of error in the first instance; and then, namely at the very outset, was the abundant strength needed. Now He who could do without educated persons at first, if afterwards some being eloquent were admitted by Him, He did so not because He wanted them, but because He would make no distinctions. For as he needed not wise men to effect whatever He would, so neither, if any were afterwards found such, did He reject them on that account.

Paul did not usurp the functions of the lower offices when he was able to exercise the higher ones. It would be as if nowadays a bishop or even a priest were to do the work of a deacon.

But they roll back an objection from that apostle himself, in that he said, "For Christ sent me not to baptize; " , as if by this argument baptism were done away! For if so, why did he baptize Gaius, and Crispus, and the house of Stephanas? However, even if Christ had not sent him to baptize, yet He had given other apostles the precept to baptize. But these words were written to the Corinthians in regard of the circumstances of that particular time; seeing that schisms and dissensions were agitated among them, while one attributes everything to Paul, another to Apollos. For which reason the "peace-making" apostle, for fear he should seem to claim all gifts for himself, says that he had been sent "not to baptize, but to preach." For preaching is the prior thing, baptizing the posterior. Therefore the preaching came first: but I think baptizing withal was lawful to him to whom preaching was.

Anyone can baptize if he is a priest, but preaching is a gift given to few, and it must not be confused with mere eloquence, which is purely superficial.

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." Preaching the Gospel is far more difficult and required an especially steadfast soul; for to persuade a person and turn him away from ancestral traditions, and moreover amid dangers, is the work of a great and courageous soul. But to receive one prepared for baptism and baptize him, anyone who held the priesthood could do. But if he was not sent to baptize, then how did he baptize? He was not sent for this as his primary purpose; but neither was he forbidden to baptize. He was sent for a more important work; yet he was not forbidden to perform the less important one as well.

"Not in the wisdom of word, lest the cross of Christ be made void." Having overthrown the arrogance of those who boasted in baptism, he now turns to those who were puffed up with worldly wisdom, and says: (Christ) sent me to preach the gospel "not in wisdom of speech," that is, not with eloquence and refined words, lest the cross or the preaching of the cross should suffer harm and degradation; for what does "lest it be made void" mean? That is, lest it prove useless and vain. Indeed, if the apostles had preached with wisdom of speech, some might have said that they persuaded by the power of words, and not by the power of what was preached; and this would have been a degradation and harm to the Crucified One. But now, preaching with simplicity, they show that the power of the Crucified One accomplishes everything. The cross is also made void in another way. For example, a Greek asks me about something divine that surpasses our understanding. If I try to prove it to him by means of syllogisms and worldly wisdom, I will prove weak; for no intellect can adequately represent divine things. Thus my weakness will appear to be the weakness of the preaching, and by this the cross itself will be made void, because it will appear futile and vain.

Then when he says, For Christ did not, he gives the reason why he baptized so few, saying: For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel.

But this seems to be in opposition to the Lord's command: "Teach all nations; baptizing them" (Matt 28:19). The answer is that Christ sent the apostles to do both, but in such a way that they preached in person, as they said in Ac (6:2): "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables." But they baptized through their ministers, and they did this because the diligence or virtue of the baptizer contributes nothing in baptism, for it is indifferent whether baptism be given by a greater or lesser personage. But in the preaching of the gospel the wisdom and virtue of the preacher contributes a great deal; consequently, the apostles, being better qualified, exercised the office of preaching in person. In the same way it is said of Christ (Jn. 4:2) that He Himself did not baptize but His disciples did; of Him it says in Lk (4:43): "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for the purpose," and in Is (61:1): "The Lord has anointed me to bring good tidings to the afflicted."

After condemning their strife with a reason based on baptism, the Apostle disapproves of it again with a reason based on doctrine. For some of the Corinthians gloried in the doctrine of false apostles, who corrupt the truth of the faith with elegant words and reasons born of human wisdom. First, therefore, the Apostle says that this method is not suited for teaching the faith; secondly, he shows that he did not employ this method of teaching, when he was among them (c. 2). As to the first he does two things: first, he states his proposition; secondly, he explains it (v. 17b).

He says, therefore: I have stated that Christ sent me to preach the Gospel, but not to preach it with eloquent wisdom, i.e., the worldly wisdom which makes men verbose, inasmuch as it inclines them to employ many vain reasons: "The more words, the more vanity" (Ec 6:11); "Mere talk tends only to want" (Pr 14:23). Or by eloquent wisdom he means rhetoric, which teaches elegant speech by which men are sometimes drawn to assent to error and falsity: "By fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded" (Rom 16:18); and under the figure of a harlot, which stands for heretical doctrine, it is said: "You will be saved from the adventuress with her smooth words" (Pr 2:16).

But on the other hand it says in Is (33:19): "You will see no more the insolent people," namely, in the Catholic Church, "the people of an obscure speech which you cannot comprehend." But because the Greek version has logos, which signifies reason and speech, it might be more fitting to interpret eloquent wisdom of human reason, because the things of faith transcend human reason: "Matters too great for human understanding have been shown you" (Sir 3:25).

But the fact that many teachers in the Church have used human reason and human wisdom as well as elegant words would seem to be contrary to this. For Jerome says in a letter to Magnus, a Roman orator, that all the teachers of the faith have crammed their books with an elegant portion of philosophical doctrines and sciences, so that one is at a loss whether to admire their worldly learning more or their knowledge of the Scriptures. And Augustine in the book On Christian Doctrine says: "There are churchmen who have treated of divine matters not only with wisdom but with elegance." The answer is that it is one thing to teach in eloquent wisdom, however you take it, and another to use it to teach eloquent wisdom in teaching. A person teaches in eloquent wisdom, when he takes the eloquent wisdom as the main source of his doctrine, so that he admits only those things which contain eloquent wisdom and rejects the others which do not have eloquent wisdom: and this is destructive of the faith. But one uses eloquent wisdom, when he builds on the foundations of the true faith, so that if he finds any truths in the teachings of the philosophers, he employs them in the service of the faith. Hence Augustine says in the book On Christian Doctrine that if philosophers have uttered things suited to our faith, they should not be feared but taken from them as from an unjust possessor for our use. Again, in the same book he says: "Since the faculty of eloquent speech which has great power to win a person over to what is base or to what is right, why not use it to fight for the truth, if evil men misuse it for sin and error?"

Then when he says, lest the cross of Christ, he proves his statement. First, on the part of the matter; secondly, of those who teach (v. 26). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he shows that the method of teaching by eloquent wisdom is not suited to the Christian faith; secondly, he proves something he had presupposed (v. 18); thirdly, he clarifies the proof (v. 22).

As to the first point it should be noted that even in philosophical doctrines the same method does not suit every doctrine; hence the forms of speech must fit the material, as it says in Ethics I. Now a particular method of teaching is unsuited to the subject matter, when that method destroys the chief element in the subject matter; for example, in purely intelligible matters to employ metaphorical proofs, which do not go beyond the imagination and leave the hearer stranded in images, as Boethius says in the book On the Trinity. But the chief element in the doctrines of the Catholic faith is salvation effected by the cross of Christ; hence in (2:2) he says: "For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." On the other hand, a person who depends chiefly on eloquent wisdom when he teaches, to that extent makes the cross of Christ void. Therefore, to teach in eloquent wisdom is not suited to the Christian faith. Consequently, he says: lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power, i.e., lest in trying to preach in eloquent wisdom, faith in the power of Christ's cross be made void: "Then is the stumbling block of the cross made void" (Gal 5:11); "Remember how they said, 'Rase it, rase it!' Down to its foundation" (Ps 137:7).

The Cross is more poetical than the Union Jack, because it is simpler. The more simple an idea is, the more it is fertile in variations. Francis Thompson could have written any number of good poems on the Cross, because it is a primary symbol. The number of poems which Mr. Rudyard Kipling could write on the Union Jack is, fortunately, limited, because the Union Jack is too complex to produce luxuriance.

My spirit bows in adoration to the cross, which is a stumbling-block to those who do not believe, but is to you for salvation and eternal life.

They show, further, that that Horos of theirs, whom they call by a variety of names, has two faculties,-the one of supporting, and the other of separating; and in so far as he supports and sustains, he is Stauros, while in so far as he divides and separates, he is Horos. They then represent the Saviour as having indicated this twofold faculty: first, the sustaining power, when He said, "Whosoever doth not bear his cross (Stauros), and follow after me, cannot be my disciple;" and again, "Taking up the cross follow me;" but the separating power when He said, "I came not to send peace, but a word." They also maintain that John indicated the same thing when he said, "The fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge the floor, and will gather the wheat into His garner; but the chaff He will burn with fire unquenchable." By this declaration He set forth the faculty of Horos. For that fan they explain to be the cross (Stauros), which consumes, no doubt, all material objects, as fire does chaff, but it purifies all them that are saved, as a fan does wheat. Moreover, they affirm that the Apostle Paul himself made mention of this cross in the following words: "The doctrine of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God." And again: "God forbid that I should glory in anything save in the cross of Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I unto the world."

To the sick and gasping even wholesome meats are unpleasant, friends and relations burdensome; who are often times not even recognized, but are rather accounted intruders. Much like this often is the case of those who are perishing in their souls. For the things which tend to salvation they know not; and those who are careful about them they consider to be troublesome. Now this ensues not from the nature of the thing, but from their disease. And just what the insane do, hating those who take care of them, and besides reviling them, the same is the case with unbelievers also. But as in the case of the former, they who are insulted then more than ever compassionate them, and weep, taking this as the worst symptom of the disease in its intense form, when they know not their best friends; so also in the case of the Gentiles let us act; yea more than for our wives let us wail over them, because they know not the common salvation. For not so dearly ought a man to love his wife as we should love all men, and draw them over unto salvation; be a man a Gentile, or be he what he may. For these then let us weep; for "the word of the Cross is to them foolishness," being itself Wisdom and Power. For, saith he, "the word of the Cross to them that perish is foolishness."

For since it was likely that they, the Cross being derided by the Greeks, would resist and contend by aid of that wisdom, which came (forsooth) of themselves, as being disturbed by the expression of the Greeks; Paul comforting them saith, think it not strange and unaccountable, which is taking place. This is the nature of the thing, that its power is not recognized by them that perish. For they are beside themselves, and behave as madmen; and so they rail and are disgusted at the medicines which bring health.

But what sayest thou, O man? Christ became a slave for thee. "having taken the form of a slave," and was crucified, and rose again. And when thou oughtest for this reason to adore Him risen and admire His loving kindness; because what neither father, nor friend, nor son, did for thee, all this the Lord wrought for thee, the enemy and offender-when, I say, thou oughtest to admire Him for these things, callest thou that foolishness, which is full of so great wisdom? Well, it is nothing wonderful; for it is a mark of them that perish not to recognize the things which lead to salvation. Be not troubled, therefore, for it is no strange nor unaccountable event, that things truly great are mocked at by those who are beside themselves. Now such as are in this mind you cannot convince by human wisdom. Nay, if you want so to convince them, you do but the contrary. For the things which transcend reasoning require faith alone. Thus, should we set about convincing men by reasonings, how God became man, and entered into the Virgin's womb, and not commit the matter unto faith, they will but deride the more. Therefore they who inquire by reasonings, it is they who perish.

And why speak I of God? for in regard of created things, should we do this, great derision will ensue. For suppose a man, wishing to make out all things by reasoning; and let him try by thy discourse to convince himself how we see the light; and do thou try to convince him by reasoning, Nay, thou canst not: for if thou sayest that it suffices to see by opening the eyes, thou hast not expressed the manner, but the fact. For "why see we not," one will say, "with our hearing, and with our eyes hear? And why hear we not with the nostril, and with the hearing smell?" If then, he being in doubt about these things, and we unable to give the explanation of them, he is to begin laughing, shall not we rather laugh him to scorn? "For since both have their origin from one brain, since the two members are near neighbors to each other, why can they not do the same work?" Now we shall not be able to state the cause nor the method of the unspeakable and curious operation; and should we make the attempt, we should be laughed to scorn. Wherefore, leaving this unto God's power and boundless wisdom, let us be silent.

Just so with regard to the things of God; should we desire to explain them by the wisdom which is from without, great derision will ensue, not from their infirmity, but from the folly of men. For the great things of all no language can explain.

Now observe: when I say, "He was crucified;" the Greek saith, "And how can this be reasonable? Himself He helped not when undergoing crucifixion and sore trial at the moment of the Cross: how then after these things did He rise again and help others? For if He had been able, before death was the proper time to display His power: and actually in the midst of horrors He should have shewn Himself above all horrors; and being in the enemy's hold should have overcome; this cometh of Infinite Power. For as in the case of the fish, to suffer no harm from the monster, than if he had not been swallowed at all;-so also in regard of Christ; His not dying would not have been so inconceivable, as that having died He should loose the bands of death. Say not then, "why did He not help Himself on the Cross?" for he was hastening on to close conflict with death himself. He descended not from the Cross, not because He could not, but because He would not. For Him Whom the tyranny of death restrained not, how could the nails of the Cross restrain?

But these things, though known to us, are not so as yet to the unbelievers. Wherefore he said that "the word of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness; but to us who are saved it is the power of God."

Who was capable of destroying the plague of ignorance, darkness and destruction? Not a prophet, nor an apostle, nor any other righteous man. Rather there had to be a divine power coming down from heaven, capable of dying on behalf of us all, so that by his death there might be a defense against the devil.

Now, both the people (of Israel) by their transgression of His laws, and the whole race of mankind by their neglect of natural duty, had both sinned and rebelled against the Creator. Marcion's god, however, could not have been offended, both because he was unknown to everybody, and because he is incapable of being irritated. What grace, therefore, can be had of a god who has not been offended? What peace from one who has never experienced rebellion? "The cross of Christ," he says, "is to them that perish foolishness; but unto such as shall obtain salvation, it is the power of God and the wisdom of God." And then, that we may known from whence this comes, he adds: "For it is written, `I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.' " Now, since these are the Creator's words, and since what pertains to the doctrine of the cross he accounts as foolishness, therefore both the cross, and also Christ by reason of the cross, will appertain to the Creator, by whom were predicted the incidents of the cross.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing." There were in Corinth unbelievers who subjected the cross to mockery and said: truly, it is foolish to preach a crucified God, for if He were God, He would not have allowed Himself to be crucified; and since He could not escape death, how could He have risen from the dead? The faithful, it seems, opposed them with their own wisdom, indignant that those people were blaspheming the cross. Therefore he also says: do not consider this strange; for that which is given by God for salvation seems foolishness to those who are perishing. By "the word of the cross" he means the preaching of the cross, or of Christ crucified.

"For us who are being saved, it is the power of God." For us, he says, who are not perishing but being saved, it is the power of God. But the cross also shows wisdom. It shows power in that by death He destroyed death, for if the one who has fallen conquers, this is a sign of the greatest power; and wisdom — in that He saved the perishing in precisely this manner.

Then when he says, for the word of the cross, he proves that the cross of Christ is made void by the method of teaching which consists in eloquent wisdom. First he gives the proof; secondly, he gives the reason for his statements (v. 19).

He says, therefore: The reason I have said that the cross of Christ is made void, if the teachings of the faith are presented in eloquent wisdom is that the word of the Cross, i.e., the announcing of Christ's cross is folly, i.e., it appears foolish, to them that are perishing, i.e., to unbelievers, who consider themselves wise according to the world, for the preaching of the cross of Christ contains something which to worldly wisdom seems impossible; for example, that God should die or that Omnipotence should suffer at the hands of violent men. Furthermore, that a person not avoid shame when he can, and other things of this sort, are matters which seem contrary to the prudence of this world. Consequently, when Paul was preaching such things, Festus said: "Paul, you are beside yourself: much learning makes you mad" (Ac 26:24). And Paul himself says below that the word of the Cross actually does contain foolishness; he adds: but to us that are being saved, namely, Christ's faithful who are saved by Him: "He will save his people from their sins" (Matt 1:21), it is the power of God, because they recognize in the cross of Christ God's power, by which He overcame the devil and the world: "The Lion of the tribe of Judah, has conquered" (Rev. 5:5), as well as the power they experience in themselves, when together with Christ they die to their vices and concupiscences, as it says in Gal (5:24): "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." Hence it says in Ps (110:10): "The Lord sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter"; "Virtue went out of him and healed all" (Lk 6:19).