1 Corinthians 1:26–29

Still more manifestly is that talk of theirs concerning their seed proved to be false, and that in a way which must be evident to every one, by the fact that they declare those souls which have received seed from the Mother to be superior to all others; wherefore also they have been honoured by the Demiurge, and constituted princes, and kings, and priests. For if this were true, the high priest Caiaphas, and Annas, and the rest of the chief priests, and doctors of the law, and rulers of the people, would have been the first to believe in the Lord, agreeing as they did with respect to that relationship; and even before them should have been Herod the king. But since neither he, nor the chief priests, nor the rulers, nor the eminent of the people, turned to Him [in faith], but, on the contrary, those who sat begging by the highway, the deaf, and the blind, while He was rejected and despised by others, according to what Paul declares, "For ye see your calling, brethren, that there are not many wise men among you, not many noble, not many mighty; but those things of the world which were despised hath God chosen." Such souls, therefore, were not superior to others on account of the seed deposited in them, nor on this account were they honoured by the Demiurge.

Again; he proved at the same time that the thing is not new, but ancient, as it was presignified and foretold from the beginning. For, "It is written," saith he, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise." Withal he shews that it was neither inexpedient nor unaccountable for things to take this course: (for, "seeing that in the wisdom of God the world," saith he, "knew not God, God was well pleased through the foolishness of preaching to save them which believe:") and that the Cross is a demonstration of ineffable power and wisdom, and that the foolishness of God is far mightier than the wisdom of man. And this again he proves not by means of the teachers, but by means of the disciples themselves. For, "Behold your calling," saith he: that not only teachers of an untrained sort, but disciples also of the like class, were objects of His choice; that He chose "not many wise men" (that is his word) "according to the flesh." And so that of which he is speaking is proved to surpass both in strength and wisdom, in that it convinces both the many and the unwise: it being extremely hard to convince an ignorant person, especially when the discourse is concerning great and necessary things. However, they did work conviction. And of this he calls the Corinthians themselves as witnesses. For, "behold your calling, brethren," saith he: consider; examine: for that doctrines so wise, yea, wiser than all, should be received by ordinary men, testifies the greatest wisdom in the teacher.

But what means, "according to the flesh?" According to what is in sight; according to the life that now is; according to the discipline of the Gentiles. Then, lest he should seem to be at variance with himself, (for he had convinced both the Proconsul, and other wise men, too, we have seen coming over to the Gospel;) he said not, No wise man, but, "Not many wise men." For he did not designedly call the ignorant and pass by the wise, but these also he received, yet the others in much larger number. And why? Because the wise man according to the flesh will not cast away his corrupt doctrine. And as in the case of a physician who might wish to teach certain persons the secrets of his art, those who know a few things, having a bad and perverse mode of practicing the art which they make a point of retaining, would not endure to learn quietly, but they who knew nothing would most readily embrace what was said: even so it was here. The unlearned were more open to conviction, for they were free from the extreme madness of accounting themselves wise. For indeed the excess of folly is in these more than any, these, I say, who commit unto reasoning things which cannot be ascertained except by faith. Thus, suppose the smith by means of the tongs drawing out the red-hot iron; if any one should insist on doing it with his hand, we should vote him guilty of extreme folly: so in like manner the philosophers who insisted on finding out these things for themselves disparaged the faith. And it was owing to this that they found none of the things they sought for.

"Not many mighty, not many noble;" for these also are filled with pride. And nothing is so useless towards an accurate knowledge of God as arrogance, and being nailed down to wealth: for these dispose a man to admire things present, and make no account of the future; and they stop up the ears through the multitude of cares: but "the foolish things of the world God chose:" which thing is the person one meets in the market more of a philosopher than themselves. Wherefore also he said himself, "That He might put to shame the wise." And not in this instance alone hath he done this, also in the case of the other advantages of life. For, to proceed, "the weak things" He chose; not foolish sons only, but needy also, and contemptible and obscure He called, that He might humble those who were in high places.

It is well known that the Apostles were the simplest of men, and it was for this reason Jesus chose them, that by their simplicity He might mock at the wisdom of the world, and that by their ignorance He might make manifest the emptiness of the learning of the wise and learned. And Paul said to certain men of his disciples who were boasting in the knowledge of the world, "Observe also your calling, my brethren, for there are not many among you who are wise according to the flesh."

What am I to fasten on as the cause of this madness, except the weakness of faith, ever prone, to the concupiscences of worldly joys?-which, indeed, is chiefly found among the wealthier; for the more any is rich, and inflated with the name of "matron," the more capacious house does she require for her burdens, as it were a field wherein ambition may run its course. To such the churches look paltry. A rich man is a difficult thing (to find) in the house of God; and if such an one is (found there), difficult (is it to find such) unmarried.

Paul did not say that there was nobody like this in the church, only that there were not many.

Consider, he says, and examine those called to the faith, and you will find that "not many of you are wise according to the flesh," that is, in outward appearance, in a manner suited to the present life. He did not say: there is not a single wise person, but: "not many," because there were believers even among the wise, for example, the Areopagite, the proconsul, and others whose names are now unknown; some from among the powerful and noble also believed. Therefore he said of all: "not many." So then, behold the power of the preaching, how it taught such wise doctrines to uneducated people, and how worldly wisdom proved to be useless.

After showing that the method of teaching according to eloquent wisdom does not suit Christian doctrine by reason of its subject matter, the cross of Christ, the Apostle now shows that the same method is not suitable for Christian teaching by reason of the teachers according to Pr (26:7): "A parable is unseemly in the mouth of fools" and Sirach (20:22): "A parable out of a fool's mouth shall be rejected." Therefore, because the first teachers of the faith were not wise in carnal wisdom, it was not suitable for them to teach according to eloquent wisdom. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows how the first teachers of the faith were not versed in carnal wisdom and suffered from a defect in human affairs; secondly, how this defect was made up for them by Christ (v. 27); thirdly, he assigns the reason (v. 29).

He says, therefore: It has been stated that "the foolishness of God is wiser than men" and you can consider this in your own life; for consider carefully your call, brethren, i.e., how you were called: for you did not approach him by yourselves but you were called by him: "Whom he predestined he also called" (Rom 8:30); "He called you out of the darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Pt 2:9). But he urges them to ponder the manner of their calling by considering the ones by whom they were called, as Is (51:2) says: "Look unto Abraham your father, and to Sarah that bore you." From these ministers of our calling he first of all excludes wisdom when he says: Not many of those by whom you were called were wise according to worldly standards, i.e., in carnal and earthly wisdom: "For this is not wisdom descending from above: but earthly, sensual, devilish" (Jas 3:15); "The children of Hagar also, that search after the wisdom that is of the earth" (Bar 3:23). He says, not many, because some few had been instructed even in worldly wisdom, as he himself and Barnabas, or in the Old Testament Moses, of whom Ac (7:22) says that he had been instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. Secondly, he excludes worldly power when he says: not many powerful, namely, according to the world; hence it says in Jn (7:48): "Have any of the authorities or of the Pharisees believed in him?" Thirdly, he excludes lofty birth when he says: not many were of noble birth. Yet some of them were noble, as Paul himself, who said that he had been born in a Roman city (Ac 22:25), and others referred to in Rom (16:7): "They are men of note among the apostles."

The two most "foolish things of the world" are in particular the virgin birth of Christ and his resurrection from the dead. The wise are confounded because they see that what a few of them deny, the many profess to be true. There is no doubt that the opinions of the many faithful take precedence over those of a small number. Likewise, those who are mighty in this world can easily see the so-called weak things of Christ overturning demons and performing miracles. To the world the injuries and sufferings of the Savior are weak things, because the world does not understand that they have become the source of power through Christ who submitted to suffering in order to overcome death.

[Describing Wallie, a simple Roman Catholic farmer in his World War I battalion who was the butt of every joke for his gullibility]

Perhaps the best of us all was our butt, Wallie. Wallie was a farmer, a Roman Catholic, a passionate soldier (the only man I met who really longed for fighting) and gullible to any degree by the rawest subaltern. ... Mortals must not judge; but I doubt whether any man fought in France who was more likely to go straight to Heaven if he were killed. I would have been better employed cleaning his boots than laughing at him.

The modern world, when it praises its little Caesars, talks of being strong and brave: but it does not seem to see the eternal paradox involved in the conjunction of these ideas. The strong cannot be brave. Only the weak can be brave; and yet again, in practice, only those who can be brave can be trusted, in time of doubt, to be strong. The only way in which a giant could really keep himself in training against the inevitable Jack would be by continually fighting other giants ten times as big as himself. That is by ceasing to be a giant and becoming a Jack. Thus that sympathy with the small or the defeated as such, with which we Liberals and Nationalists have been often reproached, is not a useless sentimentalism at all, as Mr. Wells and his friends fancy. It is the first law of practical courage. To be in the weakest camp is to be in the strongest school.

The truth is that the tradition of Christianity (which is still the only coherent ethic of Europe) rests on two or three paradoxes or mysteries which can easily be impugned in argument and as easily justified in life. One of them, for instance, is the paradox of hope or faith—that the more hopeless is the situation the more hopeful must be the man. Stevenson understood this, and consequently Mr. Moore cannot understand Stevenson. Another is the paradox of charity or chivalry that the weaker a thing is the more it should be respected, that the more indefensible a thing is the more it should appeal to us for a certain kind of defence. Thackeray understood this, and therefore Mr. Moore does not understand Thackeray.

We are always ready to make a saint or prophet of the educated man who goes into cottages to give a little kindly advice to the uneducated. But the medieval idea of a saint or prophet was something quite different. The mediaeval saint or prophet was an uneducated man who walked into grand houses to give a little kindly advice to the educated. The old tyrants had enough insolence to despoil the poor, but they had not enough insolence to preach to them. It was the gentleman who oppressed the slums; but it was the slums that admonished the gentleman.

If you wish to find the past preserved, follow the million feet of the crowd. At the worst the uneducated only wear down old things by sheer walking. But the educated kick them down out of sheer culture.

And then the higher culture. I know that culture. I would not set any man free for it if I could help it. The effect of it on the rich men who are free for it is so horrible that it is worse than any of the other amusements of the millionaire—worse than gambling, worse even than philanthropy. It means thinking the smallest poet in Belgium greater than the greatest poet of England. It means losing every democratic sympathy. It means being unable to talk to a navvy about sport, or about beer, or about the Bible, or about the Derby, or about patriotism, or about anything whatever that he, the navvy, wants to talk about. It means taking literature seriously, a very amateurish thing to do. It means pardoning indecency only when it is gloomy indecency. Its disciples will call a spade a spade; but only when it is a grave-digger's spade. The higher culture is sad, cheap, impudent, unkind, without honesty and without ease. In short, it is "high." That abominable word (also applied to game) admirably describes it.

But the real historic strength of England, physical and moral, has never had anything to do with this athletic specialism; it has been rather hindered by it. Somebody said that the Battle of Waterloo was won on Eton playing-fields. It was a particularly unfortunate remark, for the English contribution to the victory of Waterloo depended very much more than is common in victories upon the steadiness of the rank and file in an almost desperate situation. The Battle of Waterloo was won by the stubbornness of the common soldier—that is to say, it was won by the man who had never been to Eton. It was absurd to say that Waterloo was won on Eton cricket-fields. But it might have been fairly said that Waterloo was won on the village green, where clumsy boys played a very clumsy cricket. In a word, it was the average of the nation that was strong, and athletic glories do not indicate much about the average of a nation. Waterloo was not won by good cricket-players. But Waterloo was won by bad cricket-players, by a mass of men who had some minimum of athletic instincts and habits.

If there is one class of men whom history has proved especially and supremely capable of going quite wrong in all directions, it is the class of highly intellectual men. I would always prefer to go by the bulk of humanity; that is why I am a democrat.

All Joan's wisdom and energy, it seems, came from a certain priest, of whom there is not the tiniest trace in all the multitudinous records of her life. The only foundation I can find for this fancy is the highly undemocratic idea that a peasant girl could not possibly have any ideas of her own. It is very hard for a freethinker to remain democratic. The writer seems altogether to forget what is meant by the moral atmosphere of a community. To say that Joan must have learnt her vision of a virgin overthrowing evil from _a_ priest, is like saying that some modern girl in London, pitying the poor, must have learnt it from _a_ Labour Member. She would learn it where the Labour Member learnt it—in the whole state of our society.

It is only we who play badly who love the Game itself. You love glory; you love applause; you love the earthquake voice of victory; you do not love croquet. ... It is we the bunglers who adore the occupation in the abstract. ... Our play is called amateurish; and we wear proudly the name of amateur, for amateurs is but the French for Lovers. ... The good painter has skill. It is the bad painter who loves his art. The good musician loves being a musician, the bad musician loves music. With such a pure and hopeless passion do I worship croquet.

Our civilisation has decided, and very justly decided, that determining the guilt or innocence of men is a thing too important to be trusted to trained men. It wishes for light upon that awful matter, it asks men who know no more law than I know, but who can feel the things that I felt in the jury box. When it wants a library catalogued, or the solar system discovered, or any trifle of that kind, it uses up specialists. But when it wishes anything done which is really serious, it collects twelve of the ordinary men standing round. The same thing was done, if I remember right, by the Founder of Christianity.

This especially is true of the toy theatre; that, by reducing the scale of events it can introduce much larger events. Because it is small it could easily represent the earthquake in Jamaica. Because it is small it could easily represent the Day of Judgment. Exactly in so far as it is limited, so far it could play easily with falling cities or with falling stars. Meanwhile the big theatres are obliged to be economical because they are big. When we have understood this fact we shall have understood something of the reason why the world has always been first inspired by small nationalities. The vast Greek philosophy could fit easier into the small city of Athens than into the immense Empire of Persia. In the narrow streets of Florence Dante felt that there was room for Purgatory and Heaven and Hell. He would have been stifled by the British Empire. Great empires are necessarily prosaic; for it is beyond human power to act a great poem upon so great a scale. You can only represent very big ideas in very small spaces.

It is remarkable that in so many great wars it has been the defeated who have won. The people who were left worst at the end of the war were generally the people who were left best at the end of the whole business. For instance, the Crusades ended in the defeat of the Christians. But they did not end in the decline of the Christians; they ended in the decline of the Saracens. That huge prophetic wave of Moslem power which had hung in the very heavens above the towns of Christendom, that wave was broken, and never came on again. The Crusaders had saved Paris in the act of losing Jerusalem. The same applies to that epic of Republican war in the eighteenth century to which we Liberals owe our political creed. The French Revolution ended in defeat: the kings came back across a carpet of dead at Waterloo. The Revolution had lost its last battle; but it had gained its first object. It had cut a chasm. The world has never been the same since. No one after that has ever been able to treat the poor merely as a pavement.

Democracy means getting those people to vote who would never have the cheek to govern: and (according to Christian ethics) the precise people who ought to govern are the people who have not the cheek to do it.

Behold, he who clings to earthly substance more than is right refuses to come to the Lord's supper; he who sweats at the labor of curiosity disdains the prepared nourishments of life; he who serves carnal desires rejects the feasts of the spiritual banquet. Therefore, because the proud refuse to come, the poor are chosen. Why is this? Because, according to Paul's words, God chooses the weak things of the world to confound the strong. But it must be noted how those who are called to the supper and come are described: the poor and the feeble. They are called poor and feeble who in their own judgment are weak in their own eyes. For there are poor who are as if strong, who even when placed in poverty are proud. The blind, indeed, are those who have no light of understanding. The lame also are those who do not have right steps in their conduct. But since vices of character are signified in the weakness of the limbs, it is certainly clear that just as those were sinners who when called refused to come, so also these are sinners who are invited and come. But proud sinners are rejected, so that humble sinners may be chosen.

It is well known that the Apostles were the simplest of men, and it was for this reason Jesus chose them, that by their simplicity He might mock at the wisdom of the world, and that by their ignorance He might make manifest the emptiness of the learning of the wise and learned, even as Paul saith, "God chose the fools of this world to put its wise men to shame."

Now, what is that "foolishness of God which is wiser than men," but the cross and death of Christ? What is that "weakness of God which is stronger than men," but the nativity and incarnation of God? If, however, Christ was not born of the Virgin, was not constituted of human flesh, and thereby really suffered neither death nor the cross there was nothing in Him either of foolishness or weakness; nor is it any longer true, that "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; "nor, again, hath "God chosen the weak things of the world to confound the mighty; "nor "the base things" and the least things "in the world, and things which are despised, which are even as nothing" (that is, things which really are not), "to bring to nothing things which are" (that is, which really are). For nothing in the dispensation of God is found to be mean, and ignoble, and contemptible. Such only occurs in man's arrangement.

But (once for all) let Marcion know that the principle term of his creed comes from the school of Epicurus, implying that the Lord is stupid and indifferent; wherefore he refuses to say that He is an object to be feared. Moreover, from the porch of the Stoics he brings out matter, and places it on a par with the Divine Creator. He also denies the resurrection of the flesh,-a truth which none of the schools of philosophy agreed together to hold. But how remote is our (Catholic) verity from the artifices of this heretic, when it dreads to arouse the anger of God, and firmly believes that He produced all things out of nothing, and promises to us a restoration from the grave of the same flesh (that died) and holds without a blush that Christ was born of the virgin's womb! At this, philosophers, and heretics, and the very heathen, laugh and jeer. For "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise" -that God, no doubt, who in reference to this very dispensation of His threatened long before that He would "destroy the wisdom of the wise."

But, Marcion, consider well this Scripture, if indeed you have not erased it: "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world, to confound the wise." Now what are those foolish things? Are they the conversion of men to the worship of the true God, the rejection of error, the whole training in righteousness, chastity, mercy, patience, and innocence? These things certainly are not "foolish." Inquire again, then, of what things he spoke, and when you imagine that you have discovered what they are will you find anything to be so "foolish" as believing in a God that has been born, and that of a virgin, and of a fleshly nature too, who wallowed in all the before-mentioned humiliations of nature? But some one may say, "These are not the foolish things; they must be other things which God has chosen to confound the wisdom of the world." And yet, according to the world's wisdom, it is more easy to believe that Jupiter became a bull or a swan, if we listen to Marcion, than that Christ really became a man.

Now, when you contend that the flesh will still have to undergo the same sufferings, if the same flesh be said to have to rise again, you rashly set up nature against her Lord, and impiously contrast her law against His grace; as if it were not permitted the Lord God both to change nature, and to preserve her, without subjection to a law. How is it, then, that we read, "With men these things are impossible, but with God all things are possible; " and again, "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise? " Let me ask you, if you were to manumit your slave (seeing that the same flesh and soul will remain to him, which once were exposed to the whip, and the fetter, and the stripes), will it therefore be fit for him to undergo the same old sufferings? I trow not. He is instead thereof honoured with the grace of the white robe, and the favour of the gold ring, and the name and tribe as well as table of his patron. Give, then, the same prerogative to God, by virtue of such a change, of reforming our condition, not our nature, by taking away from it all sufferings, and surrounding it with safeguards of protection. Thus our flesh shall remain even after the resurrection-so far indeed susceptible of suffering, as it is the flesh, and the same flesh too; but at the same time impassible, inasmuch as it has been liberated by the Lord for the very end and purpose of being no longer capable of enduring suffering.

Who also can be unaware that "the things which are impossible with men are possible with God? " The foolish things also of the world hath God chosen to confound the things which are wise." We have read it all. Therefore, they argue, it was not difficult for God to make Himself both a Father and a Son, contrary to the condition of things among men. For a barren woman to have a child against nature was no difficulty with God; nor was it for a virgin to conceive. Of course nothing is "too hard for the Lord." But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations, we may then make out God to have done anything we please, on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. We must not, however, because He is able to do all things suppose that He has actually done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it. God could, if He had liked, have furnished man with wings to fly with, just as He gave wings to kites. We must not, however, run to the conclusion that He did this because He was able to do it. He might also have extinguished Praxeas and all other heretics at once; it does not follow, however, that He did, simply because He was able. For it was necessary that there should be both kites and heretics; it was necessary also that the Father should be crucified.

Incredulity, on the other hand, wonders, but does not believe: for the simple acts it wonders at, as if they were vain; the grand results, as if they were impossible. And grant that it be just as you think sufficient to meet each point is the divine declaration which has fore-run: "The foolish things of the world hath God elected to confound its wisdom; " and, "The things very difficult with men are easy with God." For if God is wise and powerful (which even they who pass Him by do not deny), it is with good reason that He lays the material causes of His own operation in the contraries of wisdom and of power, that is, in foolishness and impossibility; since every virtue receives its cause from those things by which it is called forth.

For in other respects, too, injustice in proportion to the enmity it displays against righteousness affords occasion for attestations of that to which it is opposed as an enemy, that so righteousness may be perfected in injustice, as strength is perfected in weakness. For the weak things of the world have been chosen by God to confound the strong, and the foolish things of the world to confound its wisdom. Thus even injustice is employed, that righteousness may be approved in putting unrighteousness to shame.

Indeed, for the Greeks it is the greatest shame to see that a common craftsman surpasses them in philosophy, and that the weak and despised humbles the strong and wealthy.

Then when he says, But God chose, he shows that they were lowly according to worldly standards. First, he shows that they lacked wisdom when he says: what is foolish in the world, i.e., those whom the world would consider foolish, God chose for the offices of preaching, namely, ignorant fishermen: "Understanding that they were illiterate and ignorant men, they wondered" (Ac 4:13); "Where is the learned? Where is he that ponders the words of the law?" (Is 33:18). And this to shame the wise, i.e., those who trusted in the wisdom of the world, whereas they themselves did not know the truths revealed to the simple: "Thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes" (Matt 11:25); "Where then are your wise men? Let them tell you what the Lord of hosts has purposed" (Is 19:12).

Secondly, he shows that they lacked power, saying: what is weak in the world, i.e., men with no power in the world, such as peasants, plebeians, God chose for the office of preaching: "I will deliver them into your hand by the servants of the governors of the districts" (1 Kgs 20:13); and in Pr (9:3) it says that "wisdom has sent out her maids to call from the highest places in the town." Weakness is designated by both of these shortcomings in the first preachers; and this to shame the strong, i.e., the powerful of this world: "The haughtiness of man shall be humbled, and the pride of men shall be brought low" (Is 2:17).

God chose ignoble and contemptible things to exalt. It is not that they are really ignoble and contemptible; this is how the world sees them. By believing in Christ they have overturned worldly reasoning. God did this in order to destroy things which are really ignoble and contemptible, because those who judged were more deserving of judgment and condemnation. Their teaching was asserted in words but not demonstrated in power, and so it was destroyed. Our teaching is proved true not only by words but by power as well.

"And the base things of the world, and the things that are despised, and the things that are not?" Those persons who are considered to be nothing because of their great insignificance. Thus hath He shown forth His great power, casting down the great by those who seem to be nothing. The same elsewhere he thus expresses, "My strength is made perfect in weakness:" such as never applied themselves to any branch of learning, how all at once to discourse wisely on the things which are above the heavens. For suppose a physician, an orator, or any one else: we then most admire him, when he convinces and instructs those completely uneducated. Now, if to instil into an uneducated man the rules of art be a very wonderful thing, much more things which pertain to so high philosophy.

But not for the wonder's sake only, neither to shew His own power, hath He done this, but to check also the arrogant. And therefore he both said before, "That he might confound the wise and the strong, that He might bring to nought the things which are..."

Paul uses the expression "things that are not" differently here from the way he uses it in his epistle to the Romans. Here it means simply that which is vile and contemptible, as opposed to "things that are," which are beautiful, powerful and respected.

He calls "things that are not" those who were regarded as nothing, and "things that are" those who seemed to be something. So then, in order to show these latter to be vain and useless people, God chose those who were regarded as nothing. And when you hear "chose," do not think that He necessarily wanted to choose the despised and reject the distinguished; no, but since the distinguished were puffed up by their own wisdom and therefore did not accept the preaching, God found more capable of receiving it those who had nothing to boast of.

Thirdly, he mentions a defect of splendor of rank, which is implied in the word "nobility." Opposed to these he says: and despised in the world, i.e., men looked down upon by the world: "We have become a taunt to our neighbors, mocked and derided by those round about us" (Ps 79:4), God has chosen for the office of preaching. Thirdly, the grand opinion men have of the nobility. Opposed to this he says: and things that are not, i.e., men who seem to be nothing in the world: "The strength of whose hands was to me as nothing, and they were thought unworthy of life itself" (Jb 30:2), has God chosen for the office of preaching. This He did to bring to naught things that are, i.e., those who seem to be something in this world: "The Lord of hosts had purposed it, to defile the pride of all glory, to dishonor all the honored of the earth" (Is 23:9).

Under the judgment of God the wisdom of the flesh can only blush at its miscalculations.

Paul's intention is perfectly clear—to accost the pride of man, that no one should take glory in human works and that no one should glory in himself.

...so also, from the beginning, did God permit man to be swallowed up by the great whale, who was the author of transgression, not that he should perish altogether when so engulphed; but, arranging and preparing the plan of salvation, which was accomplished by the Word, through the sign of Jonah, for those who held the same opinion as Jonah regarding the Lord, and who confessed, and said, "I am a servant of the Lord, and I worship the Lord God of heaven, who hath made the sea and the dry land." [This was done] that man, receiving an unhoped-for salvation from God, might rise from the dead, and glorify God, and repeat that word which was uttered in prophecy by Jonah: "I cried by reason of mine affliction to the Lord my God, and He heard me out of the belly of hell;" [Jonah 2:2] and that he might always continue glorifying God, and giving thanks without ceasing, for that salvation which he has derived from Him, "that no flesh should glory in the Lord's presence;" [1 Corinthians 1:29] and that man should never adopt an opposite opinion with regard to God, supposing that the incorruptibility which belongs to him is his own naturally, and by thus not holding the truth, should boast with empty superciliousness, as if he were naturally like to God. For he (Satan) thus rendered him (man) more ungrateful towards his Creator, obscured the love which God had towards man, and blinded his mind not to perceive what is worthy of God, comparing himself with, and judging himself equal to, God.

"That no flesh should glory in the presence of God." For God doeth all things to this end, to repress vainglory and pride, to pull down boasting. "Do you, too," saith he, "employ yourselves in that work." He doth all, that we may put nothing to our own account; that we may ascribe all unto God. And have ye given yourselves over unto this person or to that? And what pardon will ye obtain?

For God Himself hath shown that it is not possible we should be saved only by ourselves: and this He did from the beginning. For neither then could men be saved by themselves; but it required their compassing the beauty of the heaven, and the extent of the earth, and the mass of creation besides; if so they might be led by the hand to the great artificer of all the works. And He did this, repressing beforehand the self-conceit which was after to arise. Just as if a master who had given his scholar charge to follow wheresoever he might lead, when he sees him forestalling, and desiring to learn all things of himself, should permit him to go quite astray; and when he hath proved him incompetent to acquire the knowledge, should thereupon at length introduce to him what himself has to teach: so God also commanded in the beginning to trace Him by the idea which the creation gives; but since they would not, He, after showing by the experiment that they are not sufficient for themselves, conducts them again unto Him by another way. He gave for a tablet, the world; but the philosophers studied not in those things, neither were willing to obey Him, nor to approach unto Him by that way which Himself commanded. He introduces another way more evident than the former; one that might bring conviction that man is not of himself alone sufficient unto himself. For then scruples of reasoning might be started, and the Gentile wisdom employed, on their part whom He through the creation was leading by the hand; but now, unless a man become a fool, that is, unless he dismiss all reasoning and all wisdom, and deliver up himself unto the faith, it is impossible to be saved. You see that besides making the way easy, he hath rooted up hereby no trifling disease, namely, in forbidding to boast, and have high thoughts: "that no flesh should glory:" for hence came the sin, that men insisted on being wiser than the laws of God; not willing so to obtain knowledge as He had enacted: and therefore they did not obtain it at all. So also was it from the beginning. He said unto Adam, "Do such a thing, and such another thou must not do." He, as thinking to find out something more, disobeyed; and even what he had, he lost. He spake unto those that came after, "Rest not in the creature; but by means of it contemplate the Creator." They, forsooth, as if making out something wiser than what had been commanded, set in motion windings innumerable. Hence they kept dashing against themselves and one another, and neither found God, nor concerning the creature had any distinct knowledge; nor had any meet and true opinion about it. Wherefore again, with a very high hand, lowering their conceit, He admitted the uneducated first, showing thereby that all men need the wisdom from above. And not only in the matter of knowledge, but also in all other things, both men and all other creatures He hath constituted so as to be in great need of Him; that they might have this also as a most forcible motive of submission and attachment, lest turning away they should perish. For this cause He did not suffer them to be sufficient unto themselves. For if even now many, for all their indigency, despise Him, were the case not so, whither would they not have wandered in haughtiness? So that He stayed them from boasting as they did, not from any grudge to them, but to draw them away from the destruction thence ensuing.

The very Old Testament of the Creator itself, it is possible, no doubt, to charge with foolishness, and weakness, and dishonour and meanness, and contempt. What is more foolish and more weak than God's requirement of bloody sacrifices and of savoury holocausts? What is weaker than the cleansing of vessels and of beds? What more dishonourable than the discoloration of the reddening skin? What so mean as the statute of retaliation? What so contemptible as the exception in meats and drinks? The whole of the Old Testament, the heretic, to the best of my belief, holds in derision. For God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound its wisdom. Marcion's god has no such discipline, because he does not take after (the Creator) in the process of confusing opposites by their opposites, so that "no flesh shall glory; but, as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." In what Lord? Surely in Him who gave this precept.

Boasting, even if it is of good works, harms the soul of the boaster. Anyone who boasts of worldly achievements is highly worldly himself.

If Paul had chosen only the most eloquent and gifted people as preachers they would have gloried in their own abilities and been damned for it, whether they preached the truth or not.

So that no flesh should boast before Him. For this reason, he says, God acted in this way, to bring down the pride and boasting of those who were thinking about worldly things, and to convince them that they should ascribe everything received from Him to Him and not boast before Him. How then do you, Corinthians, take pride in this? Note in passing, we did not say without reason that those who were rejected were not deemed worthy of the preaching because of their pride.

Then he reveals the cause of all this, saying: He has not chosen the great but the lowly, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God, i.e., that no one may glory in his own worldly greatness as compared with the Lord: "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, let not the mighty man glory in his might, and let not the rich man glory in his riches" (Jer 9:23). For inasmuch as God did not subject the world to His faith by employing the great ones of the world but the lowly ones, man cannot boast that the world was saved by employing worldly greatness. However, since it might appear that worldly greatness did not originate from God, if He never employed it for His purposes, God employed a few and later a great number of the worldly great for the office of preaching. Hence a Gloss says that if the faithful fisherman had not come first, the humble orator could not have come later. Furthermore, it pertains to God's glory to draw the great of the world by means of the lowly.