they were schisms, then that first One was gone. For that 1 COR. which is entire within itself not only does not become many 1.10,11. by division into many parts, but rather the original One is

[2.] In the next place, because he had sharply dealt with them by so applying 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 however on all subjects, therefore he added this, That ye may be perfectly joined together. For he that is united in one thing, but in another falls apart1, is no longer perfectly joined, nor fitted dia. in to complete accordance. There is also such a thing as Bened. harmony of opinions, where there is not yet harmony of x, sentiments; for instance, when having the same faith we are ance. not joined together in love: for thus, in opinions we are one, (for we think the same things,) but in sentiments 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.

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

Ver. 11. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them that are of the house 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 declared, lest he might seem to blame on their authority: neither does

χίων.

at vari

24

Sectarian Use of the Names of Apostles:

HOMIL. he omit all mention of them, lest he should seem to speak only from himself.

III.

And again, he styles them brethren; for although the fault be plain, there is nothing against calling people brethren still. 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.

[4.] What was declared? That there are contentions among you. Thus, when he is rebuking them, he saith, That there be no schisms among you; but when he is reporting the statements of others, he doth it more gently; saying, For it hath been declared unto me ...that there are contentions among you; in order that he might not bring trouble upon the informants.

Next he declares also the kind of contention.

mean,

Ver. 12. That every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas. "I say, contentions," saith he, "I not about private matters, but of the more grievous sort." That every one of you saith; for the corruption pervaded not a part, but the whole 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 think above what is 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 enrol themselves, much less under those who were nothing. In the very strongest way then, withdrawing them from their disease, he sets down these names in haste. 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 name of Apostles.

and of our Lord's own Name.

25

1.12,13.

(2.)

I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas. Not esteem-1 COR. ing himself before Peter hath he set his name last, but preferring Peter to himself, and that greatly. He hath arranged his statement in the way of climax', that he might not be sup-xarà αὔξησιν. posed to do this for envy; or, for spiteful jealousy's sake, to be detracting from the other's honour. Wherefore also he hath put his own name first. For he who puts himself foremost to be rejected, doth so not for love of honour, but for extreme contempt of this sort of reputation. He puts himself, you see, in the way of the whole attack, and then he mentions Apollos, and then Cephas. Not therefore to magnify himself hath he done this, but in speaking of wrong things he administers the requisite correction in his own person first.

2

του

Bened.

[5.] 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. 2 .ïd. But this was not his charge, that they called themselves by the Name of Christ, but that they did not all call themselves by nwov 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 his secret meaning he hath declared in the sequel, saying,

Ver. 3. 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 proving 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 labours to overthrow this absurdity, saying, Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? Observe his Christ-loving mind; how thenceforth he brings the

Savil.

26

St. Paul's Care to hinder his Name

HOMIL. whole matter to a point in his own name, shewing, and more III. than shewing, that this honour 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 in all ways. 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 flowed from guardian love in excess,-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 Bárias. you?" but was Paul crucified? setting down also the kind of death.

1 της συγ

κατα

Or were ye baptized in 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 called unto 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 2 Rom. latter: for having said, He that spared not His own Son, he

8.32.

b This seems to allude to the words of the ancient Oriental Creed, as preserved by S. Cyril of Jerusalem, "I believe in one Baptism of Repentance,

for the Remission of Sins;" (see Bp. Bull, Jud. Eccl. Cath. c. vi. §. 4. &c.) into which Creed, in all probability, the people of Antioch had been baptized.

from having a sectarian Use made of it.

27

14-16. 1 Rom.

adds, How shall He not with Him also freely give us all 1 Cor. 1. things? And again, 1For if when we were enemies we were reconciled unto God by the death of His Son, much more, 5. 10. being reconciled, we shall be saved. This was one reason for his not adding what I just mentioned: and also because the one they had not as yet, but of the other they had already made trial. The one were in promise; the other had already come to pass.

μικώς.

[6.] Ver. 14. 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 oixoswelling 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 shewing 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 called to the Baptism: since to baptize is nothing as regards man's labour, 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 labour.

Lest

Ver. 15. He states also the reason, why he giveth thanks, that he had baptized no one. What then is this reason? any one should say that ye were baptized in my own name. Why, did he mean to say that so it was 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 some, 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.

Ver.16. By this reason, then, having abashed those who were unsound, and subjoining, I baptized also the house of Stephanas, he again tacitly exposes their pride, saying, as to the rest, I know not whether I baptized any other. For by this