Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

“"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.”

“Having given the greeting and prayer, here he begins to instruct them. And first there is set down instruction concerning the things that pertain commonly to all, namely concerning the things that pertain to the ecclesiastical sacraments. Second he instructs them concerning the things that pertained to certain ones, chapter XVI, *now concerning the collections that are made for the saints*, etc. Now in the sacraments three things are to be considered. First indeed the sacrament itself, as Baptism; second that which is the reality signified and contained, namely grace; third that which is the reality signified and not contained, namely the glory of the resurrection. First therefore he treats of the sacraments themselves; second of the graces themselves, chapter XII, *now concerning spiritual things I do not wish you*, etc.; third, of the glory of the resurrection, below in XV, *now I make known to you*. Concerning the first he does three things. First he determines the things that pertain to the sacrament of Baptism; second the things that pertain to the sacrament of matrimony, chapter V, there *it is heard altogether among you*, etc.; third the things that pertain to the sacrament of the Eucharist, chapter VIII, there *now concerning the things that are sacrificed to idols*. Now the Lord, Matthew last chapter, gave the disciples a command concerning doctrine together with Baptism, saying *going, teach all nations, baptizing*, etc. And therefore the apostle in the first part treats of doctrine together with Baptism. Now it is to be known that among the faithful Corinthians there was a certain dissension on account of the baptizers and teachers; for those who were instructed despised the others, as though they had received a better doctrine, and a better Baptism. Hence concerning the first he does two things. First he removes the contention; second the cause of the contention, which consisted in this, that they gloried concerning certain ones, and despised the other ministers of Christ, below in chapter III, *and I, brothers, was not able to speak to you*. Concerning the first he does three things. First he sets forth the admonition; second he shows the necessity of the admonition, there *for it has been signified to me*, etc.; third he assigns the reason for the admonition, there *is Christ divided?* etc. Concerning the first two things are to be considered. First indeed that which induces them to keep the admonition. In one way through his own humility, when he says *now I beseech you*, etc. Proverbs XVIII, 23: *the poor man speaks with entreaties*. In another way through fraternal charity, when he says *brothers*, because indeed he said this out of the affection of fraternal charity. Proverbs XVIII, 19: *a brother who is helped by a brother is like a strong city*. Third through reverence for Christ, when he says *through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ*, which is to be honored by all, and to whom all ought to be subject. Philippians II, 10: *at the name of Jesus every knee should bend*. Second it is to be considered that he induces them to three things. First indeed to concord, when he says *that you all say the same thing*, that is, that you all confess the same faith, and put forth the same judgment concerning the things that are to be done in common. Romans XV, 6: *that with one mind, with one mouth, you may honor God*. Second he forbids the vice contrary to the virtue, when he says *and that there be no schisms among you*, because ecclesiastical unity ought not to be divided, in sign of which the soldiers concerning the seamless tunic, John XIX, 24, said: *let us not tear it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be*. Now there are properly schisms when, whether on account of a diverse confession of faith, or on account of diverse judgments about what is to be done, men of one body are separated into diverse parts. Isaiah XXII, verse 9: *you shall see the breaches of the city of David, for they are multiplied*. Third he induces them to that by which they can avoid schisms, namely to perfection. For the cause of division is when each one seeks a partial good, the perfect good, which is the good of the whole, being set aside. And therefore he says *but be perfect in the same mind*, namely by which judgment is made concerning things to be done, *and in the same knowledge*, by which judgment is made concerning things to be known, as if he were to say: through these things you will be able to be perfect, if you persist in unity. Colossians III, 14: *above all things have charity, which is the bond of perfection*. Matthew V, 48: *be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect*. Then, when he says *it has been signified to me*, he shows the necessity of the aforesaid admonition, namely because they were laboring under the vice of contention, as if he were to say: therefore it is necessary to induce you to this, because it has been signified to me, my brothers, by those who are of Chloe, that is, in a certain estate subject to the jurisdiction of the Corinthians, or Chloe can be the name of a matron, in whose house many of the faithful were gathered, that there are contentions among you, against that which is said Proverbs XX, 3: *it is an honor for a man to keep himself from contentions*. And he explains the manner of the contention, adding *now this I say*, that is, I name the contention, that each one of you names himself from him by whom he was baptized and instructed, and says: *I indeed am of Paul*, because he had been baptized and instructed by Paul; another *but I am of Apollo*, who indeed had preached to the Corinthians, as is found Acts XIX, 1; another *but I am of Cephas*, namely of Peter, to whom it was said John I, verse 42: *you shall be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter*. Now this indeed they said because they thought that a better Baptism was given by a better baptizer, as though the power of the baptizer operated in those baptized. And of this the pseudo-apostles boasted, according to that Psalm XLVIII, 12: *they have called their own names in their own lands*. But another says *but I am of Christ*, who alone blessed, because the power of Christ alone operates in the Baptism of Christ. John I, 33: *upon whom you shall see the Spirit descend and remain, he it is who baptizes*. And therefore those baptized by Christ alone are named Christians, not however Paulines from Paul. Isaiah IV, 1: *only let your name be called upon us*. Now for the avoidance of this error, the Greeks are said to use this form in baptizing: *let the servant of Christ Nicholas be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit*, so that it may be given to be understood that man does not baptize inwardly, but is baptized by Christ. Because, however, man also baptizes by ministry, as a member and minister of Christ, therefore the Church uses this form in baptizing: *I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit*, which indeed is more express according to the form handed down 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*, etc., where he says that the apostles themselves are baptizing, according to which manner the minister of the sacrament says: *I baptize you*. Then, when he says *is Christ divided?* etc., he sets down the reason for the aforesaid admonition, why among them there ought not to be tearings and contentions, and first on the part of Baptism; second on the part of doctrine, there *not in wisdom of speech*, etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First he sets down the unfitting thing that follows from the aforesaid contention; second he manifests why that unfitting thing follows, there *was Paul crucified*, etc.; third he excludes a certain false suspicion, there *I give thanks to my God*, etc. He says therefore first: I said that each one of you says *I am of Paul, I of Apollo*, and from this it follows that Christ is divided. Nor does it matter whether it is read interrogatively or as a plain assertion. Now this can be understood in one way, as if he were to say: through this, that there is contention among you, Christ is divided from you, who dwells only in peace, according to that Psalm LXXV, 3: *his place has been made in peace*. Isaiah LIX, 2: *your iniquities have divided between you and your God*. But better can this be understood otherwise, so that the sense is: through this, that you believe the Baptism to be better which is given by a better baptizer, it follows that Christ, who principally and inwardly baptizes, is divided, that is, differing in his power and effect, according to the difference of ministers: which is evidently false through that which is said Ephesians IV, 5: *one Lord, one faith, one Baptism*. But still better is this understood as the apostle says: from this, that you attribute to others the things that are proper to Christ, in a certain way you divide Christ, making several christs, against that which is said Matthew XXIII, 10: *one is your master, Christ*. Isaiah XLV, verse 22: *turn to me, and you shall be saved, all the ends of the earth, for I am the Lord, and there is no other*. Now it is to be known that Christ in the sacrament of Baptism has a twofold power proper to himself. One indeed divine, by which together with the Father and the Holy Spirit he cleanses inwardly from sin, and this could be communicated to no creature. The other however is a proper power according to human nature, which is the power of excellence in the sacraments, and it consists in four things. Of which one is, that he himself instituted the sacraments; the second is that he could confer the effect of the sacraments without the sacrament; the third is that the merit of his passion operates in Baptism and the other sacraments; the fourth is that at the invocation of his name the sacraments are conferred. Now this power of excellence, and especially as to the last, he could have conferred on the ministers of Baptism, namely that Baptism should be consecrated in their names, but he was unwilling, lest a schism should arise from this in the Church, while as many Baptisms would be reckoned as there were baptizers. And this is what, according to the exposition of Augustine, John the Baptist confesses he did not know concerning Christ, namely whether he retained this power for himself. Then, when he says *was Paul*, etc., he shows the aforesaid unfitting thing to follow from their error, in that they thought the Baptism to be diverse according to the difference of the baptizers; for this would be the case, if Baptism had its efficacy from the baptizers, which indeed belongs to Christ alone. Now he shows this in two ways. First indeed on the part of the passion of Christ, in whose power Baptism operates, according to that Romans VI, 3: *whoever of us have been baptized in Christ Jesus, have been baptized in his death*. And therefore he says *was Paul crucified for you?* As if he were to say: was the passion of Paul the cause of our salvation, so that Baptism should have the power of saving according to him? As if he were to say: no. For this is proper to Christ, that by his passion and death he wrought our salvation. John XI, 50: *it is expedient that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish*. II Corinthians chapter V, 14: *one died for all*. But it seems to be against this that the apostle says Colossians I, 24: *I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up those things that are lacking of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the Church*. But it must be said that the passion of Christ was salvific for us not only by way of example, according to that I Peter II, 21: *Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example, that you should follow his steps*, but also by way of merit, and by way of efficacy, inasmuch as by his blood we are redeemed and justified, according to that Hebrews last chapter: *that he might sanctify the people by his own blood, he suffered outside the gate*. But the passion of others is salvific for us only by way of example, according to that II Corinthians I, 6: *whether we are afflicted, it is for your exhortation and salvation*. Second he shows the same thing from the power of the name of Christ, which is invoked in Baptism. Hence he adds *or were you baptized in the name of Paul?* As if he were to say: no. For as is said Acts IV, 12, *there is no other name given to men, by which we must be saved*. Hence also Isaiah XXVI, 8 it is said: *your name and your memorial is in the desire of the soul*. But it seems that men are not baptized in the name of Christ. For it says Matthew last chapter: *teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit*. But it must be said that in the primitive Church, because the name of Christ was greatly hateful, in order that it might be rendered venerable, the apostles baptized in the name of Christ by a special ordination of the Holy Spirit. Hence it is said Acts chapter VIII, 12, that in the name of Christ men and women were baptized. And yet, as Ambrose says, in the name of Christ the whole Trinity is understood. For Christ is interpreted anointed, in which is understood not only he who is anointed, who is the Son of God, but also the anointing itself, which is the Holy Spirit, and the anointer himself, who is the Father, according to Psalm XLIV, 8: *God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows*. Now, however, because the name of Christ is already great among the nations from the rising of the sun even to the setting, as is said Malachi I, 11, the Church uses the form first instituted by Christ, baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And yet whoever are baptized in this form are baptized in the name of him who is truly the Son of God, according to that I John last chapter: *that we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ*. All the faithful are also baptized in the name of Christ, that is, by faith and confession of the name of Christ, according to that Joel chapter II, 32: *whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved*. Hence those baptized are named Christians from Christ, because, as is said Galatians III, 27: *as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ*. Thus therefore, if the passion of Christ alone, if the name of Christ alone confers power on Baptism unto salvation, it is true that it is proper to Christ, that from him Baptism has the power of sanctifying. Hence he who attributes this to others, divides Christ into several. Then, when he says *I give thanks to my God*, he excludes a certain suspicion. Because there he had said: *was Paul crucified for you?* someone could believe that even if not by authority, yet by ministry he baptized several. And concerning this he does three things. First he gives thanks for this, that he baptized few; second, having named a certain few, he adds certain others, there *but I baptized*; third he assigns the reason why he did not baptize many, there *for God did not send me*. He says therefore first: I give thanks to my God, that I baptized none of you, except Crispus, concerning whom Acts XVIII, 8: *Crispus the ruler of the synagogue believed the Lord with all his house*, and Gaius, to whom the third canonical epistle of John is written. And because the giving of thanks has no place, except in benefits received, consequently the apostle shows in what manner he gives thanks for this, when he adds *lest anyone say that you were baptized in my name*. For it is desirable to holy men, that from the good things which they themselves do, others should not take occasion of their own error, or sin. And because the Corinthians had fallen into that error, that they named themselves from their baptizers, saying *I am of Paul and Apollo*, as if they had been baptized in their names, therefore he gives thanks for this, that such an error had not resulted from his ministry. And therefore he expressly says that he baptized those who were free from this error. Then, when he says *but I baptized*, etc., he sets down certain others baptized by him, lest anything less than the truth should appear in his words. Hence he says *I baptized also the house*, that is the family, *of Stephanas*, namely of a certain matron. And because concerning particular deeds the memory of men is slippery, he adds *for the rest, I do not know*, that is, I do not have in memory, *if I baptized any other*, in his own person. Then, when he says *for*, etc., he assigns the reason why he baptized few, saying *for God did not send me to baptize, but to evangelize*. Against which it seems to be that which is said Matthew last chapter: *going, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit*. But it must be said that Christ sent the apostles to both, yet in such a way that they themselves through themselves should preach, according to what they themselves said Acts VI, 2: *it is not right for us to leave the word of God, and to serve tables*. But they were to baptize through lesser ministers, and this because in Baptism neither the industry nor the power of the one baptizing operates anything: for it is indifferent whether Baptism is given through a greater or a lesser minister, but in the preaching of the Gospel the wisdom and power of the one preaching operates much, and therefore the apostles exercised the office of preaching through themselves as greater ministers, just as also concerning Christ himself it is said John IV, 2, that he himself did not baptize, but his disciples, who yet concerning himself says Luke IV, 43: *because to other cities also it behooves me to evangelize the kingdom of God, because for this I was sent*. Isaiah LXI, 1: *to announce good tidings to the meek he has sent me*.”

“Is Christ divided?.... Some read the words as an assertion, "Christ is divided"; that is, his body, the church, is divided by such factions and parties; though in some copies the note of interrogation, is put before the clause, and so to be rendered, "is Christ divided?" no; his human body was not to be divided; a bone of him was not to be broken, Joh 19:36; the seamless garment he wore was not to be rent asunder, Joh 19:23; nor is his mystical body, the church, to be torn in pieces by schisms and divisions; nor is anyone part of his Gospel different from, or opposite to another part of it; his doctrine is the same as preached by one minister and another, and is all of a piece, uniform and harmonious. Christ is not divided from his Father, not in nature; though he is to be distinguished from him, yet not to be divided; he is one in nature with him, though he is a distinct person from him; nor is he, nor can he, or will be ever separated from him; nor is he to be divided from him in his works and actions, with whom he was jointly concerned in creation, providence, and grace; and such are to be blamed as dividers of Christ from the Father, who talk of Christ to the exclusion of the Father, or to the dropping and neglect of any of his acts of grace; as his everlasting love to his chosen ones, the eternal election of them in Christ, the covenant of grace made with him, and the instance of his grace in the gift and mission of his Son: nor is Christ divided from himself, not in his nature and person; the two natures, human and divine, are united in one person; they are to be distinguished, and not to be confounded, yet not to be separated as to wake two distinct persons: nor in his offices; a whole Christ is to be received; Christ in his kingly as well as in his priestly office; to claim him as a Saviour and disown him as a King, is dishonourable to him; it is to make one end of his death void, as much as in such lies, which is, that he may be Lord of dead and living; and argues a carnal selfish spirit, and that faith in him is not right: such are to be blamed for being for Christ, and as dividers of him, who talk of being saved by him, and yet would not have him to rule over them. Nor is he divided from his Spirit, not from the person of the Spirit; he is to be distinguished from him as a person, but is one in nature with him; nor from his gifts and graces, which he has as man and Mediator without measure; nor from the work of the Spirit; for it is his grace the Spirit of God implants in the hearts of men: it comes from him, it centres in him, it makes men like him, and glorifies him; such who cry up Christ, and cry down the work of his Spirit upon the soul, are to be blamed for being for Christ, and to be reckoned dividers of them as much as in them lies: nor is Christ divided from his church and people; there is a close union between them, and he dwells in them, and among them; and they are to be blamed that talk of Christ, and never meet with his saints in public service and worship: nor is he divided from his ministers, word, and ordinances; Christ is the sum of the ministry of the word; the ordinances are instituted by him; he submitted to them himself, and is the substance of them, and has promised his presence in them to the end of the world: and what God has put together, let no man put asunder, Was Paul crucified for you? no; he had taught them another doctrine; namely, that Christ was crucified for them, that he died for their sins, and had bought them with the price of his own blood; and therefore they were not to be the servants of men, or to call any man master, or to be called by his name, or any other man's, only by Christ's, who had redeemed them by his blood; so that they were not their own, nor any other's, but his, and ought to glorify him with their souls and bodies, which were his, Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul; no; but in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The apostle did not pretend to be the author of a new revelation, or the propagator of a new religion, but was a preacher of the Gospel, and an administrator of the ordinances of Christ; wherefore he baptized not in his own name, but in the name of Christ: to whose worship and service such as are baptized are devoted, and not to the service of men, and therefore not to be called after their names.”

“Is Christ divided? - Can he be split into different sects and parties? Has he different and opposing systems? Or, is the Messiah to appear under different persons? Was Paul crucified for you? - As the Gospel proclaims salvation through the crucified only, has Paul poured out his blood as an atonement for you? This is impossible, and therefore your being called by my name is absurd; for his disciples you should be, alone, who has bought you by his blood. Were ye baptized in the name of Paul? - To be baptized in, or into the name of one, implied that the baptized was to be the disciple of him into whose name, religion, etc., he was baptized. As if he said: Did I ever attempt to set up a new religion, one founded on my own authority, and coming from myself? On the contrary, have I not preached Christ crucified for the sin of the world; and called upon all mankind, both Jews and Gentiles, to believe on Him?”

“"He does not blame them for taking their name from Christ, but he com- plains that all did not do so. And I think that he added this of himself, with a view to show the weightiness of the charge, as if Christ were thus appropriated to a party, although they did not designate themselves in this manner." St. Chry- sostom.”

“Is Christ divided?--into various parts (one under one leader, another under another) [ALFORD]. The unity of His body is not to be cut in pieces, as if all did not belong to Him, the One Head. was Paul crucified for you?--In the Greek the interrogation implies that a strong negative answer is expected: "Was it Paul (surely you will not say so) that was crucified for you?" In the former question the majesty of "CHRIST" (the Anointed One of God) implies the impossibility of His being "divided." in the latter, Paul's insignificance implies the impossibility of his being the head of redemption, "crucified for" them, and giving his name to the redeemed. This, which is true of Paul the founder of the Church of Corinth, holds equally good of Cephas and Apollos, who had not such a claim as Paul in the Corinthian Church. crucified . . . baptized--The cross claims us for Christ, as redeemed by Him; baptism, as dedicated to Him. in the name--rather, "into the name" (Gal 3:27), implying the incorporation involved in the idea of baptism.”