Teaching Christianity (continued)
does not diminish the greatness of justice.
36. In any case, when the apostle was talking about secular judgments and lawsuits (what kind, to be sure, if not ones to do with money?), he said, Does any of you dare, when he has a case against another, to seek a judgment from the wicked, and not have recourse to the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is being judged by you, are you unfit to pass judgment on trifling matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels, let alone secular matters? If therefore you have secular lawsuits, set those who are contemptible in the Church, yes set them to judge them. I say it to your shame. So, is there really nobody among you wise enough to be able to judge between his brothers? But brother goes for judgment against brother, and this before unbelievers. It is already indeed a serious fault that you have lawsuits among yourselves at all. Why not rather put up with injustice? Why not rather let yourselves be cheated? You, though, act unjustly and cheat, and your own brothers at that. Or do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? (1 Cor 6:1–9).
Why is it that the apostle is waxing so indignant, so censorious, so vehemently reproachful, so threatening? Why is it that he shows the intensity of his feelings by such frequent and such harsh changes of tone? Why is it, finally, that he speaks so grandly about minimal matters? Did secular lawsuits merit such treatment from him? Surely not. But he is taking this line on account of justice, of charity, of mutual respect, which nobody of sound and sober mind will doubt are great things, however trifling and minimal the matters they are concerned with.
37. Certainly, if we were advising people how they should conduct their secular business, whether on their own account or that of their clients, before ecclesiastical judges, we would rightly advise them to present it calmly, as a minor matter.[43] But when we are discussing the proper style of speaking for the man whom we wish to be a teacher of the truths by which we are delivered from eternal evils and conducted to eternal good things, wherever these are being presented, whether to the people, or privately to one person or several, whether to friends or enemies, whether in unbroken discourse or in conversation, whether in treatises or in books, whether in letters either lengthy or brief—they are great matters.
Unless, of course, because a cup of cold water is a trifling thing, and worth practically nothing, this means that the Lord was saying something trifling and and worthless, when he said that whoever gives one to a disciple of his shall not lose his reward (Mt 10:42); or that when this teacher gives a sermon on this point in church, he should reckon he is talking about a minor matter, and therefore should not speak either in the grand manner or even moderately, but only calmly. Is it not the case that when we have happened to speak to the people on this point, and God has helped us to say something suitable, it's as though a flame has leapt up out of that cold water, and fired even people with the coldest of hearts to perform works of mercy out of hope of a heavenly reward?
19, 38. And yet, while this teacher ought always to be setting forth great matters, he does not always have to say them in the grand manner. But he should do it calmly when he is teaching, moderately when he has something to blame or praise. But when it is something to be done, and we are addressing people who ought to do it, and yet are not willing to, that is when great matters are to be uttered in the grand manner, and in a way suited to swaying minds and hearts. And sometimes one and the same great matter is spoken of calmly if it is being taught, moderately if it is being proclaimed and preached,[44] and grandly if spirits that have turned away from it are being urged to turn back and be converted.
What, after all, could be greater than God himself? Does that mean that we cannot learn about him? Or that someone who is teaching the unity of the Trinity ought to discuss the matter other than calmly, so that a subject involving such difficult distinctions may as far as God may grant be understood? Is it rhetorical flourishes that are required here, and not rather instructive models? Does the hearer have to be persuaded and swayed to do something, and not rather assisted to learn something? But when God is being praised, either in himself or in his works, what a vast prospect of beautiful and glowing language will occur to the speaker, in order to praise as best he can the one whom nobody can praise as befits him, nobody can fail to praise somehow or other! But if he is not being worshiped, or if idols or demons, or any creatures are being worshiped together with him or instead of him, then of course the grand manner is called for, to declare how wrong and wicked this is, and to turn people back from this wickedness.
Further examples of different styles
20, 39. There is an example of the calm manner in the apostle Paul, to illustrate the point more clearly, where he says: Tell me, you that wish to be under the law, have you not heard the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a maidservant, one by a free woman; but the one by the maidservant was born according to the flesh, while the one by the free woman through a promise; which is all an allegory. For these are the two testaments, one indeed bringing forth from Mount Sinai into slavery, and that is Hagar. For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, which is linked to this Jerusalem that now is, and is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem which is above is free, which is our mother, etc. (Gal 4:21–26).
And again, where he is presenting an argument and says,
Brethren, I speak in merely human terms; still, nobody can invalidate or supersede a man's will and testament, once it has been probated. The promises were made to Abraham and his seed. It does not say "and seeds," as in the plural, but as in the singular, "and to your seed," which is Christ. But what I say is this: a law made four hundred and thirty years later cannot annul a testament probated by God, and make the promises void. For if the inheritance is by law, it is no longer by promise. But God granted it to Abraham by a promise (Gal 3:15–18). And because the thought could occur to someone hearing this, "So why was the law given, if the inheritance is not settled by it?" he put this objection to himself, and as if questioning himself said, Why then the law? Then he answered, It was laid down because of transgression, until the seed should come, arranged by angels in the hand of a mediator, to which the promise had been made. But a mediator is not of one, while God is one. And here the objection occurred to him, which he stated himself: Is the law therefore against the promises of God? And he answered, Surely not, and gave his reason, saying, For if a law had been given which could bring to life, then justice would certainly have come from the law. But scripture locked all things up under sin, so that the promise from faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe (Gal 3:19–22), and the rest, or if there is anything in the same vein.
So it is part of the teacher's responsibility, not only to open closed doors and to unravel knotty problems, but also while this is being done to meet other problems that may perhaps arise, in case what we say should be called in question or refuted by them, provided, that is, that the solution of these problems occurs to us at the same time, or we may start something we cannot dispose of. It does happen, though, that when other problems intruding upon a problem, and then further problems intruding upon these