of feeling. For that which is whatever it is by why do we, the most part, deceive ourselves in nature, can never fall away from such its natural vain with heartless pretexts and excuses, bringing condition. No one, for example, ever changed not only no pardon, but even punishment intolfrom sleeping to not sleeping: no one from a erable? When we ought to keep before our state of corruption unto incorruption: no one eyes that fearful day, and to give heed to virtue; from hunger to the perpetual absence of that and after a little labor, obtain the incorruptisensation. Wherefore neither are these things ble crowns? For these words will be no defence matters of accusation, nor do we reproach our-to us; rather our fellow-servants, and those who selves for them; nor ever did any one, meaning have practised the contrary virtues, will conto blame another, say to him, "O thou, corrup- demn all who continue in sin: the cruel man tible and subject to passion: " but either adultery will be condemned by the merciful; the evil, or fornication, or something of that kind, we by the good; the fierce, by the gentle; the always lay to the charge of those who are respon- grudging, by the courteous; the vain-glorious, sible; and we bring them before judges, who by the self-denying; the indolent, by the seriblame and punish, and in the contrary cases ous; the intemperate, by the sober-minded. award honors. Thus will God pass judgment upon us, and will [11] Since then both from our conduct set in their place both companies; on one towards one another, and from others' conduct | bestowing praise, on the other punishment. But to us when judged, and from the things about God forbid that any of those present should be which we have written laws, and from the things among the punished and dishonored, but wherein we condemn ourselves, though there be no one to accuse us; and from the instances of our becoming worse through indolence, and better through fear; and from the cases wherein we see others doing well and arriving at the height of self-command, (çtloogias) it is quite clear that we also have it in our power to do well:

rather among those who are crowned and the winners of the kingdom. Which may God grant us all to obtain through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ; with Whom unto the Father and the Holy Ghost be glory, power, honor, now and ever, and unto everlasting ages. Amen.

HOMILY III.

I COR. i. 10.

Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our you make a man fierce and impudent: but if Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak of the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind

and in the same judgment.

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:

But what is this, "I beseech you through Christ?" "I take Christ to fight on my side, and to aid me, His injured and insulted Name." An awful way of speaking indeed! lest they should prove hard and shameless: for sin makes men restless. Wherefore if at once(ἂν μὲν εὐθέως ἐπιπλήξης Savil. ἂν μὴ Ben.) you sharply rebuke

you put him to shame, you bow down his neck, you check his confidence, you make him hang down his head. Which object being Paul's also, he is content for a while to beseech them through the Name of Christ. And what, of all things, is the object of his request?

"That ye may all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions [schisms] among you." 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, then that first One was gone. For that which is entire within itself not only does not become many by division into many parts, but even the original One is lost. Such is the nature of divisions.

i. e. the bodies formed by separation.

[2.] In the next place, because he had is rebuking them, he saith, "That there be no sharply dealt with them by using the word divisions among you;" but when he is report"schism," he again softens and soothes them, ing the statements of others, he doth it more saying, "That ye may be perfectly joined gently; saying, "For it hath been declared together in the same mind and in the same judg- unto me... that there are contentions among ment. That is; since he had said, "That ye you; in order that he might not bring trouble may all speak the same thing; "do not sup- upon the informants. pose," he adds, "that I said concord should be Next he declares also the kind of contention. only in words; I seek for that harmony which is Ver. 12. "That each one of you saith, I am of the mind." But since there is such a thing of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas." as agreement in words, and that hearty, not "I say, contentions," saith he, "I mean, not however on all subjects, therefore he added this, about private matters, but of the more grievous That ye may be perfected together." For he sort. "That each one of you saith;" for the that is united in one thing, but in another dis- corruption pervaded not a part, but the whole sents, is no longer "perfected," nor fitted in to of the Church. And yet they were not speakcomplete accordance. There is also such a ing about himself, nor about Peter, nor about thing as harmony of opinions, where there is Apollos; but he signifies that if these were not not yet harmony of sentiment; for instance, to be leaned on, much less others. For that when having the same faith we are not joined they had not spoken about them, he saith furtogether in love: for thus, in opinions we are ther on: "And these things I have transferred one, (for we think the same things,) but in sen- in a figure unto myself and Apollos, that ye may timent not so. And such was the case at that learn in us not to go beyond the things which time; this person choosing one [leader], and are written." For if it were not right for them that, another. For this reason he saith it is to call themselves by the name of Paul, and of necessary to agree both in "mind" and in Apollos, and of Cephas, much less of any "judgment." For it was not from any differ- others. If under the Teacher and the first of the ence in faith that the schisms arose, but from Apostles, and one that had instructed so much the division of their judgment through human people, it were not right to enroll themselves, contentiousness. much less under those who were nothing. By

66

[3] But seeing that whoso is blamed is way of hyperbole then, seeking to withdraw unabashed so long as he hath no witnesses, them from their disease, he sets down these observe how, not permitting them to deny the names. Besides, he makes his argument less fact, he adduces some to bear witness. severe, not mentioning by name the rude Ver. 11. For it hath been signified unto dividers of the Church, but concealing them, as me concerning you, my brethren, by them behind a sort of masks, with the names of the which are of the household of Chloe." Neither Apostles. did he say this at the very beginning, but first "I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of he brought forward his charge; as one who put Cephas. Not esteeming himself before Peter confidence in his informants. Because, had it hath he set his name last, but preferring Peter not been so, he would not have found fault: for to himself, and that greatly. He arranged his Paul was not a person to believe lightly. statement in the way of climax, (zarà av‡y612) Neither then did he immediately say, "it hath that he might not be supposed to do this for been signified," lest he might seem to blame on envy; or, from jealousy, to be detracting from the their authority: neither does he omit all men- honor of others. Wherefore also he put his own tion of them, lest he should seem to speak only name first. For he who puts himself foremost to from himself. And again, he styles them be rejected, doth so not for love of honor, but for "brethren;" for although the fault be plain, extreme contempt of this sort of reputation. He there is nothing against calling people brethren puts himself, you see, in the way of the whole still. Consider also his prudence in not speak-attack, and then mentions Apollos, and then ing of any distinct person, but of the entire Cephas. Not therefore to magnify himself did family; so as not to make them hostile towards he do this, but in speaking of wrong things he the informer for in this way he both protects administers the requisite correction in his own him, and fearlessly opens the accusation. For person first. 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

[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 (oude Roυ Bened. où ônоυ Savil.) 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, saying,

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 Ver. 3. "Is Christ divided What he saith the latter: for having said, (Rom. viii. 32.) comes to this: "Ye have cut in pieces Christ, "He that spared not His own Son," he adds, and distributed His body." Here is anger!"How shall He not with Him also freely give here is chiding! here are words full of indigna- us all things? And again, (Rom. v. 10.) tion! For whenever instead of arguing he in- For if when we were enemies we were terrogates only, his doing so implies a confessed reconciled unto God by the death of His Son, absurdity. much more 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.

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. 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 (rs ovɣrataßánews) 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

66

66

[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 (olzovopizās) 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. 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.

For

Ver. 15. 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

1 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.

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.

con, not in opposition to them, but as something beyond his task: so also here. For even now, we commit this matter to the simpler sort of presbyters, but the word of doctrine unto the wiser for there is the labor and the sweat. Ver. 16. Then, having abashed those who Wherefore he saith himself, (1 Tim. v. 17.) were unsound in this respect and subjoining, "I"Let the Elders who rule well be counted baptized also the house of Stephanas," he again worthy of double honor, especially they who drags down their pride, saying besides, "I know labor in the word and in teaching." For as to not whether I baptized any other." For by this teach the wrestlers in the games is the part of a he signifies that neither did he seek much to spirited and skilful trainer, but to place the enjoy the honor accruing hereby from the crown on the conqueror's head may be that of multitude, nor did he set about this work for one who cannot even wrestle, (although it be the glory's sake. 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.

Ver. 17. And not by these only, but also by the next words, he greatly represses their pride, saying, "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel :" for the more laborious part, and that which needed much toil and a soul of iron, and that on which all depended, was this. And therefore it was that Paul had it put into

his hand.

[7.] "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 And why, not being sent to baptize, did he those who boasted about heathen wisdom, and baptize? Not in contention with Him that sent against them he puts on his armor with more him, but in this instance laboring beyond his vehemency. For to those who were puffed up task. For he saith not, "I was forbidden," with baptizing he said, "I give thanks that I bapbut, "I was not sent for this, but for that which tized no one;" and, "for Christ sent me not to was of the greatest necessity." For preaching baptize." He speaks neither vehemently nor the Gospel is a work perhaps for one or two; argumentatively, but, having just hinted his but baptizing, for everyone endowed with the meaning in a few words, passeth on quickly. priesthood. For a man being instructed and But here at the very outset he gives a severe convinced, to take and baptize him is what any blow, saying, "Lest the Cross of Christ be made one whatever might do: for the rest, it is all void." Why then pride thyself on a thing which effected by the will of the person drawing near, ought to make thee hide thy face? Since, if and the grace of God. But when unbelievers this wisdom is at war with the Cross and fights are to be instructed, there must be great labor, with the Gospel, it is not meet to boast about great wisdom. And at that time there was dan-it, but to retire with shame. For this was the ger also annexed. In the former case the whole cause why the Apostles were not wise; not thing is done, and he is convinced, who is on through any weakness of the Gift, but lest the the point of initiation: and it is no great thing Gospel preached suffer harm. The sort of peowhen a man is convinced, to baptize him. But ple therefore above mentioned were not those in the latter case the labor is great, to change employed in advocating the Word: rather they the deliberate will, to alter the turn of mind, were among its defamers. The unlearned men and to tear up error by the roots, and to plant were the establishers of it. This was able to the truth in its place. check vain glory, this to repress arrogance, this to enforce moderation.

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. vi. 2.) "it is not fit that we should leave the Word of God and serve tables," he discharged the office (Acts xii. 25. Tùy deaxovíav) of a dea

1 Perhaps the allusion is to such places as Acts 11. 30; 24. 17;

1 Cor. 16. 4; &c.

"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 xviii. 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.

Wherefore, lest we fall into the same error, and be laughed to scorn, arguing thus with Greeks whenever we have a controversy with them; let us charge the Apostles with want of learning; for this same charge is praise. And when they say that the Apostles were rude, let us follow up the remark and say that they were also untaught, and unlettered, and poor, and vile, and stupid, and obscure. It is not a slander on the Apostles to say so, but it is even a glory that, being such, they should have outshone the whole world. For these untrained, and rude, and illiterate men, as completely vanquished the wise, and powerful, and the tyrants, and those who flourished in wealth and glory and all outward good things, as though they had not been men at all: from whence it is manifest that great is the power of the Cross; and that these things were done by no human strength. For the results do not keep the course of nature, rather what was done was above all nature. Now when any thing takes place above nature, and exceedingly above it, on the side of rectitude and utility; it is quite plain that these things are done by some Divine power and cooperation. And observe; the fisherman, the tentmaker, the publican, the ignorant, the unlettered, coming from the far distant country of

[8.] But prove to me that Peter and Paul were eloquent. Thou canst not: for they were "unlearned and ignorant men!" As therefore Christ, when He was sending out His disciples into the world, having shewn unto them His power in Palestine first, and said, (St. Luke xxii. 35. úrodyjátos, rec. text óñodquat.) "When I sent you forth without purse and wallet and shoe, lacked ye any thing?" permitted them from that time forward to possess both a wallet and a purse; so also He hath done here: for the point was the manifestation of Christ's power, not the rejection of persons from the Faith on account of their Gentile wisdom, if they were drawing nigh. When the Greeks then charge the disciples with being uneducated, let us be even more forward in the charge than they. Nor let any one say, "Paul was wise;" but while we exalt those among them who were great in wisdom and admired for their excellency of speech, let us allow that all on our side were uneducated; for it will be no slight overthrow which they will sustain from us in that respect Palestine, and having beaten off their own also and so the victory will be brilliant indeed. I have said these things, because I once heard a Christian disputing in a ridiculous manner with a Greek, and both parties in their mutual fray ruining themselves. For what things the Christian ought to have said, these the Greek asserted; and what things it was natural to expect the Greek would say, these the Christian pleaded for himself. As thus: the dispute being about Paul and Plato, the Greek endeavord to show that Paul was unlearned and ignorant; but the Christian, from simplicity, was anxious to prove that Paul was more eloquent than Plato. And so the victory was on the side of the Greek, this argument being allowed to prevail. For if Paul was a more considerable person than Plato, many probably would object that it was not by grace, but by excellency of speech that he prevailed; so that the Christian's assertion made for the Greek. And what the Greek said made for the Christian's; for if Paul was uneducated and yet overcame Plato, the victory, as I was saying, was brilliant; the disciples of the latter, in a body, having been attracted by the former, unlearned as he was, and convinced, and brought over to his side. From whence it is plain that the Gospel was a result not of human wisdom, but of the grace of God.

ground the philosophers, the masters of oratory, the skilful debaters, alone prevailed against them in a short space of time; in the midst of many perils; the opposition of peoples and kings, the striving of nature herself, length of time, the vehement resistance of inveterate custom, demons in arms, the devil in battle array and stirring up all, kings, rulers, peoples, nations, cities, barbarians, Greeks, philosophers, orators, sophists, historians, laws, tribunals, divers kinds of punishments, deaths innumerable and of all sorts. But nevertheless all these were confuted and gave way when the fisherman spake; just like the light dust which cannot bear the rush of violent winds. Now what I say is, let us learn thus to dispute with the Greeks; that we be not like beasts and cattle, but prepared concerning "the hope which is in us." (1 St. Pet. iii. 15.) And let us pause for a while to work out this topic, no unimportant one; and let us say to them, How did the weak overcome the strong; the twelve, the world? Not by using the same armor, but in nakedness contending with men in arms.

For say, if twelve men, unskilled in matters of war, were to leap into an immense and armed host of soldiers, themselves not only unarmed but of weak frame also; and to receive no harm from them, nor yet be wounded, though assailed with ten thousand weapons; if while the darts were striking them, with