1 Corinthians 1:11

But they roll back an objection from that apostle himself, in that he said, “For Christ sent me not to baptize;” as if by this argument baptism were done away! For if so , why did he baptize Gaius, and Crispus, and the house of Stephanas? However, even if Christ had not sent him to baptize, yet He had given other apostles the precept to baptize. But these words were written to the Corinthians in regard of the circumstances of that particular time; seeing that schisms and dissensions were agitated among them, while one attributes everything to Paul, another to Apollos. For which reason the “peace-making” apostle, for fear he should seem to claim all gifts for himself, says that he had been sent “not to baptize, but to preach.” For preaching is the prior thing, baptizing the posterior. …

14. Just as though their party gained the power of generation in virtue of what constitutes its division, and not from what causes its union with the Church. For it is severed from the bond of peace and charity, but it is joined in one baptism. And so there is one Church which alone is called Catholic; and whenever it has anything of its own in these communions of different bodies which are separate from itself, it is most certainly in virtue of this which is its own in each of them that it, not they, has the power of generation. For neither is it their separation that generates, but what they have retained of the essence of the Church; and if they were to go on to abandon this, they would lose the power of generation. …

Ver. 11 . “For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them which are of the household 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 signified,” lest he might seem to blame on their authority: neither does he omit all mention of them, lest he should seem to speak only from himself. And again, he styles them “brethren;” for although the fault be plain, there is nothing against calling people brethren still. …

When he was discoursing about their divisions, he did not indeed at once address them vehemently, but more gently at first; and afterwards, he ended in accusation, saying thus, ( c. 1. xi .) “For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them which are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.” But in this place, not so; but he lays about him immediately and makes the reproach of the accusation as general as possible. For he said not, “Why did such an one commit fornication?” but, “It is reported that there is fornication among you;” that they might as persons altogether aloof from his charge take it easily; but might be filled with such anxiety as was natural when the whole body was wounded, and the Church had incurred reproach. …

And he saith not, “For fear that you do not sup together in common;” “for I hear that you feast in private, and not with the poor:” but what was most calculated thoroughly to shake their minds, that he set down, the name of division, which was the cause of this mischief also: and so he reminded them again of that which was said in the beginning of the Epistle, and was “signified by them of the house of Chloe.” (c. i. 11 .) “And I partly believe it.”