Homilies on Second Corinthians: Homily XV
[3.] Ver. 12. “So although I wrote unto you,” I wrote “not for his cause that did the wrong, nor for his cause that suffered the wrong.” For that they might not say, Why then dost thou rebuke us if we were “clear in the matter?” setting himself to meet this even further above, and disposing of it beforehand, he said what he said, namely, “I do not regret, though I did regret.” ‘For so far,’ says he, ‘am I from repenting now of what I wrote then, that I repented then more than I do now when ye have approved yourselves.’ Seest thou again his vehemence and earnest contention, how he has turned around what was said unto the very opposite. For what they thought would have made him recant in confusion as having rebuked them hastily, by reason of their amendment; that he uses as a proof that it was right in him to speak freely. For neither does he refuse afterwards to humor them fearlessly, when he finds he can do this. For he that said farther above such things as these, “He that is joined to an harlot is one body,” (1 Cor. vi. 16.) and, “Deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,” (1 Cor. v. 5.) and, “Every sin that a man doeth is without the body,” (1 Cor. vi. 18.) and such like things; how saith he here, “Not for his cause that did the wrong, nor for his cause that suffered the wrong?” Not contradicting, but being even exceedingly consistent with himself. How consistent with himself? Because it was a very great point with him to show the affection he bore towards them. He does not therefore discard concern for him, but shows at the same time, as I said, the love he had for them, and that a greater fear agitated him, [namely] for the whole Church. For he had feared lest the evil should eat further, and advancing on its way should seize upon the whole Church. Wherefore also he said, “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” (1 Cor. v. 6.) This however he said at the time; but now that they had well done, he no longer puts it so but differently: and implies indeed the same thing, but manages his expressions more agreeably, saying,
“That our care for you might appear unto you. ”
That is, ‘that ye might know how I love you.’ Now this is the same thing as the former, but being differently expressed seemed to convey another meaning. For [to convince thyself] that it is the same, unfold his conception and thou wilt perceive the difference to be nothing. ‘For because I love you exceedingly,’ saith he, ‘I was afraid lest ye should suffer any injury from that quarter, and yourselves succeed to that sorrow.’ As therefore when he says, “Doth God take care for oxen?” (1 Cor. ix. 9.) he doth not mean that He careth not, (for it is not possible for any existing thing to consist if deserted by the Providence of God:) but that He did not legislate primarily for oxen, so also here he means to say, ‘I wrote first indeed on your account, but secondly on his also. And I had indeed that love in myself,’ he says, ‘even independently of mine Epistle: but I was desirous of showing it both to you, and in a word to all, by that writing.’
Ver. 13. “Therefore we have been comforted.”
Since we both showed our care for you and have been wholly successful. As he said also in another place, “Now we live, if ye stand fast in the Lord;” (1 Thess. iii. 8.) and again, “For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? are not even ye?” (ib. ii. 19.) For this is life, this comfort, this consolation to a teacher possessed of understanding; the growth of his disciples.
[4.] For nothing doth so declare him that beareth rule as paternal affection for the ruled. For begetting alone constitutes not a father; but after begetting, also loving. But if where nature is concerned there is so great need of love, much more where grace is concerned. In this way were all the ancients distinguished. As many, for instance, as obtained a good report amongst the Hebrews, by this were made manifest. So was Samuel shown to be great, saying, “But God forbid that I should sin against God in ceasing to pray for you:” (1 Sam. xii. 23.) so was David, so Abraham, so Elijah, and so each one of the righteous, those in the New Testament and those in the Old. For so Moses for the sake of those he ruled left so great riches and treasures untold, “choosing to suffer affliction with the people of God,” (Heb. xi. 25.) and before his appointment was leader of the people by his actions. Wherefore also very foolishly did that Hebrew say to him, “Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?” (Exod. ii. 14.) What sayest thou? Thou seest the actions and doubtest of the title? Just as if one seeing a physician using the knife excellently well, and succoring that limb in the body which was diseased, should say, ‘Who made thee a physician and ordered thee to use the knife?’ ‘Art, my good Sir, and thine own ailment.’ So too did his knowledge make him (i.e., Moses,) what he claimed to be. For ruling is an art, not merely a dignity, and an art above all arts. For if the rule of those without is an art and science superior to all other, much more this. For this rule is as much better than that, as that than the rest; yea, rather, even much more. And, if ye will, let us examine this argument more accurately. There is an art of agriculture, of weaving, of building; which are both very necessary and tend greatly to preserve our life. For others surely are but ancillary to these; the coppersmith’s, the carpenter’s, the shepherd’s. But further, of arts themselves the most necessary of all is the agricultural, which was even that which God first introduced when He had formed man. For without shoes and clothes it is possible to live; but without agriculture it is impossible. And such they say are the Hamaxobii, the Nomads amongst the Scythians, and the Indian Gymnosophists. For these troubled not themselves with the arts of housebuilding, and weaving, and shoemaking, but need only that of agriculture. Blush ye that have need of those arts that be superfluous, cooks, confectioners, embroiderers, and ten thousand other such people, that ye may live; blush ye that introduce vain refinements into life; blush ye who are unbelievers, before those barbarians who have no need of art. For God made nature exceedingly independent, needing only a few things.
However, I do not compel you nor lay it down for law that ye should live thus; but as Jacob asked. And what did he ask? “If the Lord will give me bread to eat and raiment to put on.” (Gen. xxviii. 20.) So also Paul commanded, saying, “And having food and covering let us be therewith content.” (1 Tim. vi. 8.) First then comes agriculture; second, weaving; and third after it, building; and shoemaking last of all; for amongst us at any rate there are many both servants and laborers who live without shoes. These, therefore, are the useful and necessary arts.
Come, then, let us compare them with that of ruling. For I have therefore brought forward these that are of all most important, that when it shall have been seen to be superior to them, its victory over the rest may be unquestioned. Whereby then shall we show that it is more necessary than all? Because without it there is no advantage in these. And if you think good, let us leave mention of the rest and bring on the stage that one which stands higher and is more important than any, that of ruling. Where then will be the advantage of the many hands of your laborers, if they are at war with one another and plunder one another’s goods? For, as it is, the fear of the ruler restrains them and protects that which is wrought by them; but if thou take this away, in vain is their labor. But if one examine accurately, he will find yet another rule which is the parent and bond of this. What then may this be? That according to which it behoveth each man to control and rule himself, chastising his unworthy passions, but both nourishing and promoting the growth of all the germs of virtue with all care.
For there are [these] species of rule; one, that whereby men rule peoples and states, regulating this the political life; which Paul denoting said, “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; for there is no power but of God.” (Rom. xiii. 1, 4.) Afterwards to show the advantage of this, he went on to say, that the ruler “is a minister of God for good;” and again, “he is a minister of God, and avenger to execute wrath on him that doeth evil.”
A second there is whereby every one that hath understanding ruleth himself; and this also the Apostle further denoted, saying, “Wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good;” (Rom. xiii. 3 .) speaking of him that ruleth himself.
[5.] Here, however, there is yet another rule, higher than the political rule. And what is this? That in the Church. And this also itself Paul mentions, saying, “Obey them that have the rule over you and submit to them; for they watch in behalf of your souls as they that shall give account.” (Heb. xiii. 17.) For this rule is as much better than the political as heaven is than earth; yea rather, even much more. For, in the first place, it considers principally not how it may punish sins committed, but how, they may never be committed at all; next, when committed, not how it may remove the diseased [member], but how they may be blotted out. And of the things of this life indeed it maketh not much account, but all its transactions are about the things in heaven. “For our citizenship is in heaven.” (Philip. iii. 20.) And our life is there. “For our life,” saith he, “is hid with Christ in God.” (Col. iii. 3.) And our prizes are there, and our race is for the crowns that be there. For this life is not dissolved after the end, but then shineth forth the more. And therefore, in truth, they who bear this rule have a greater honor committed to their hands, not only than viceroys but even than those themselves who wear diadems, seeing that they mould men in greater, and for greater, things. But neither he that pursueth political rule nor he that pursueth spiritual, will be able well to administer it, unless they have first ruled themselves as they ought, and have observed with all strictness the respective laws of their polity. For as the rule over the many is in a manner twofold, so also is that which each one exerts over himself. And again, in this point also the spiritual rule transcends the political, as what we have said proved.