1 Corinthians 12:12–26

The Christian is called not to individualism but to membership in the mystical body... The very word membership is of Christian origin, but it has been taken over by the world and emptied of all meaning. In any book on logic you may see the expression "members of a class." It must be most emphatically stated that the items or particulars included in a homogeneous class are almost the reverse of what St. Paul meant by members. By members he meant what we should call organs, things essentially different from, and complimentary to, one another, things differing not only in structure and function but also in dignity. Thus, in a club, the committee as a whole and the servants as a whole may both properly be regarded as "members"; what we should call the members of the club are merely units. A row of identically dressed and identically trained soldiers set side by side, or a number of citizens listed as voters in a constituency are not members of anything in the Pauline sense. I am afraid that when we describe a man as "a member of the Church" we usually mean nothing Pauline; we mean only that he is a unit - that he is one more specimen of some kind of things as X and Y and Z. How true membership in a body differs from inclusion in a collective may be seen in the structure of a family. The grandfather, the parents, the grown-up son, the child, the dog, and the cat are true members (in the organic sense), precisely because they are not members or units of a homogenous class. They are not interchangeable. Each person is almost a species in himself. The mother is not simply a different person from the daughter; she is a different kind of person. The grown-up brother is not simply one unit in the class children; he is a separate estate of the realm. The father and grandfather are almost as different as the cat and the dog. If you subtract any one member, you have not simply reduced the family in number; you have inflicted an injury on its structure. Its unity is a unity of unliked, almost of incommensurables...

The society into which the Christian is called at baptism is not a collective but a Body. It is in fact that Body of which the family is an image on the natural level. If anyone came to it with the misconception that membership of the Church was membership in a debased modern sense - a massing together of persons as if they were pennies or counters - he would be corrected at the threshold by the discovery that the head of this Body is so unlike the inferior memberships that they share no predicate with Him save by analogy.

We are members of one body, but differentiated members, each with his own vocation. A man's upbringing, his talents, his circumstances, are usually a tolerable index of his vocation. If our parents have sent us to Oxford, if our country allows us to remain there, this is prima facie evidence that the life which we, at any rate, can best lead to the glory of God at present is the learned life.

If all experienced God in the same way and returned Him an identical worship, the song of the Church triumphant would have no symphony, it would be like an orchestra in which all the instruments played the same note. Aristotle has told us that a city is a unity of unlikes, and St. Paul that a body is a unity of different members. Heaven is a city, and a Body, because the blessed remain eternally different: a society, because each has something to tell all the others--fresh and ever fresh news of the "My God" whom each finds in Him whom all praise as "Our God". For doubtless the continually successful, yet never completed, attempt by each soul to communicate its unique vision to all others (and that by means whereof earthly art and philosophy are but clumsy imitations) is also among the ends for which the individual was created.

God can show Himself as He really is only to real men. And that means not simply to men who are individually good, but to men who are united together in a body, loving one another, helping one another, showing Him to one another. For that is what God meant humanity to be like; like players in one band, or organs in one body.

Consequently, the one really adequate instrument for learning about God is the whole Christian community, waiting for Him together. Christian brotherhood is, so to speak, the technical equipment for this science—the laboratory outfit. That is why all these people who turn up every few years with some patent simplified religion of their own as a substitute for the Christian tradition are really wasting time. Like a man who has no instrument but an old pair of field glasses setting out to put all the real astronomers right. He may be a clever chap—he may be cleverer than some of the real astronomers, but he is not giving himself a chance. And two years later everyone has forgotten all about him, but the real science is still going on.

The idea that the whole human race is, in a sense, one thing—one huge organism, like a tree—must not be confused with the idea that individual differences do not matter or that real people, Tom and Nobby and Kate, are somehow less important than collective things like classes, races, and so forth. Indeed the two ideas are opposites. Things which are parts of a single organism may be very different from one another: things which are not, may be very alike. Six pennies are quite separate and very alike: my nose and my lungs are very different but they are only alive at all because they are parts of my body and share its common life. Christianity thinks of human individuals not as mere members of a group or items in a list, but as organs in a body—different from one another and each contributing what no other could. When you find yourself wanting to turn your children, or pupils, or even your neighbours, into people exactly like yourself, remember that God probably never meant them to be that. You and they are different organs, intended to do different things. On the other hand, when you are tempted not to bother about someone else's troubles because they are 'no business of yours', remember that though he is different from you he is part of the same organism as you. If you forget that he belongs to the same organism as yourself you will become an Individualist. If you forget that he is a different organ from you, if you want to suppress differences and make people all alike, you will become a Totalitarian. But a Christian must not be either a Totalitarian or an Individualist.

The only rite which we know to have been instituted by Our Lord Himself is the Holy Communion ('Do this in remembrance of me' - 'If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you'). This is an order and must be obeyed. The other services are, I take it, traditional and might lawfully be altered. But the New Testament does not envisage solitary religion: some kind of regular assembly for worship and instruction is everywhere taken for granted in the Epistles. So we must be regular practising members of the Church.

Of course we differ in temperament. Some (like you - and me) find it more natural to approach God in solitude: but we must go to church as well. Others find it easier to approach Him through the services: but they must practice private prayer and reading as well. For the Church is not a human society of people united by their natural affinities but the Body of Christ in which all members however different (and He rejoices in their differences and by no means wishes to iron them out) must share the common life, complementing and helping and receiving one another precisely by their differences. (Re-read 1st Corinthians cap 12 and meditate on it. The word translated members would perhaps be better translated organs).

Make his mind flit to and fro between an expression like "the body of Christ" and the actual faces in the next pew. It matters very little, of course, what kind of people that next pew really contains. You may know one of them to be a great warrior on the Enemy's side. No matter. Your patient, thanks to Our Father below, is a fool. Provided that any of those neighbours sing out of tune, or have boots that squeak, or double chins, or odd clothes, the patient will quite easily believe that their religion must therefore be somehow ridiculous. At his present stage, you see, he has an idea of "Christians" in his mind which he supposes to be spiritual but which, in fact, is largely pictorial. His mind is full of togas and sandals and armour and bare legs and the mere fact that the other people in church wear modern clothes is a real--though of course an unconscious--difficulty to him. Never let it come to the surface; never let him ask what he expected them to look like. Keep everything hazy in his mind now, and you will have all eternity wherein to amuse yourself by producing in him the peculiar kind of clarity which Hell affords.

The divine apostle writes accordingly respecting us: "For now we see as through a glass; " knowing ourselves in it by reflection, and simultaneously contemplating, as we can, the efficient cause, from that, which, in us, is divine. For it is said, "Having seen thy brother, thou hast seen thy God: " methinks that now the Saviour God is declared to us. But after the laying aside of the flesh, "face to face,"-then definitely and comprehensively, when the heart becomes pure. And by reflection and direct vision, those among the Greeks who have philosophized accurately, see God. For such, through our weakness, are our true views, as images are seen in the water, and as we see things through pellucid and transparent bodies.

The great cannot subsist without the small, nor the small without the great. There is a kind of mixture in all things, and thence arises mutual advantage. Let us take our body for an example. The head is nothing without the feet, and the feet are nothing without the head; yea, the very smallest members of our body are necessary and useful to the whole body. But all work harmoniously together, and are under one common rule for the preservation of the whole body.

After soothing them from the considerations that the thing given was of free favor; that they received all from "one and the self-same Spirit;" that it was given "to profit withal," that even by the lesser gifts a manifestation was made; and withal having also stopped their mouth from the duty of yielding to the authority of the Spirit: ("for all these," saith he, "worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally even as he will;" wherefore it is not right to be over-curious:) he proceeds now to soothe them in like manner from another common example, and betakes himself to nature itself, as was his use to do.

When he was discoursing about the hair of men and women, after all the rest he drew matter thence also to correct them, saying, "Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him? but if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her?" And when he spake concerning the idol-sacrifices, forbidding to touch them, he drew an argument from the examples also of them that are without, both making mention of the Olympic games, where he saith, "they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize:" and confirming these views from shepherds and soldiers and husbandmen. Wherefore he brings forward here also a common example by which he presses on and fights hard to prove that no one was really put in a worse condition: a thing which was marvellous and surprising to be able to show, and calculated to refresh the weaker sort, I mean, the example of the body.

For nothing so consoles the person of small spirit and inferior gifts, or so persuades him not to grieve, as the being convinced that he is not left with less than his share. Wherefore also Paul making out this point, thus expresses himself: "for as the body is one and hath many members."

Seest thou his exact consideration? He is pointing out the same thing to be both one and many. Wherefore also he adds, pressing the point more vigorously, "and all the members of the one body, being many, are one body." He said not, "being many, are of one body," but "the one body itself is many:" and those many members are this one thing. If therefore the one is many, and the many are one, where is the difference? where the superiority? where the disadvantage? For all, saith he, are one: and not simply one, but being strictly considered in respect of that even which is principal, i. e., their being a body, they are found all to be one: but when considered as to their particular natures, then the difference comes out, and the difference is in all alike. For none of them by itself can make a body, but each is alike deficient in the making a body, and there is need of a coming together since when the many become one, then and not till then is there one body. Wherefore also covertly intimating this very thing, he said, "And all the members of the one body, being many, are one body." And he said not, "the superior and the inferior," but "being many," which is common to all.

And how is it possible that they should be one? When throwing out the difference of the members, thou considerest the body. For the same thing which the eye is, this also is the foot in regard of its being a member and constituting a body. For there is no difference in this respect. Nor canst thou say that one of the members makes a body of itself, but another does not. For they are all equal in this, for the very reason that they are all one body.

But having said this and having shown it clearly from the common judgment of all, he added, "so also is Christ." And when he should have said, "so also is the Church," for this was the natural consequent he doth not say it but instead of it places the name of Christ, carrying the discourse up on high and appealing more and more to the hearer's reverence. But his meaning is this: "So also is the body of Christ, which is the Church." For as the body and the head are one man, so he said that the Church and Christ are one. Wherefore also he placed Christ instead of the Church, giving that name to His body. "As then," saith he, "our body is one thing though it be composed of many: so also in the Church we all are one thing. For though the Church be composed of many members, yet these many form one body."

This, too, I may confidently say: he who has likened the unity of our body throughout its manifold and divers members to the compacting together of the various gifts of the Spirit, shows also that there is but one Lord of the human body and of the Holy Spirit.

Paul is pointing out that just as the body has many members, some of which are more important than others, so it is with the church also. But every member is necessary and useful.

And by the example of the body he comforts the one grieving over a lesser gift, proving to him that he is not deprived. For just as the body is both one and many, because it has members, so also the members are many, and yet one, because together they all compose one body. Where then is the distinction? Where is the greater? Where is the lesser? For all are one. "So," he says, "also Christ," that is, the Church of Christ. Since Christ is the head of the Church, he called the Church by the name of the head. For just as the body and the head are one person, so too, knowing that the Church and Christ, as body and head, are one, he put the name of Christ in place of the Church. Thus, he says, in the Church, although it is composed of different members, we all constitute something one.

Having set forth the distinction among graces, the Apostle now explains it by a likeness to a natural body. First, he presents the likeness in general; secondly, in more detail (v. 14). In regard to the first he does two things: first, the likeness is presented; secondly, its adaptation (v. 12b).

In regard to the first it should be noted that as it says in Metaphysics V, there are three ways in which something is said to be "one per se." In one way by indivisibility, as unity and a point. According to this way unity totally excludes not only actual multitude but potential as well. In another way something is called one by reason of continuity, as a line and a surface. Such unity excludes actual multitude but not potential. In a third way something is one by wholeness, which excludes neither actual nor potential multitude, as a house is one thing composed of various stones and types of wood. In the same way the body of a man or of any other animal is one, because its perfection is made up of various members as of diverse instruments of the soul; hence the soul is said to be the act of an organic body, i.e., one made up of various organs. The Apostle, therefore, first proposes that the unity of the body does not exclude a multitude of members, saying: As the body is one and has many members: "In one body we have many members" (Rom 12:4). Likewise, he proposes that a multitude of members does not take away the unity of the body; hence he adds: and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, which is completed by all. Hence it says in Jb (10:11): "You clothed me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews."

Then when he says: so it is with Christ, the adaptation of the likeness begins. First, he adapts the likeness, saying: So it is with Christ, namely, He is one, as it says above (8:6): "Our one Lord Jesus through whom are all things." Yet he has many and diverse members, namely, all the faithful, as it says in Rom (12:5): "Though many we are one body in Christ."

There is one work because there is one mystery, there is one baptism because there was one death for the world. There is a unity of outlook which cannot be separated.

Paul is teaching that we should not treat anyone with contempt, nor should we regard anyone as perfect.

"For ye are all the children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." There are not, then, in the same Word some "illuminated (gnostics); and some animal (or natural) men;" but all who have abandoned the desires of the flesh are equal and spiritual before the Lord. And again he writes in another place: "For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free, and we have all drunk of one cup."

There are not, then, in the same Word some "illuminated (gnostics); and some animal (or natural) men;" but all who have abandoned the desires of the flesh are equal and spiritual before the Lord. And again he writes in another place: "For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free, and we have all drunk of one cup."

There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; One who is; and there is no other besides Him, the only true [God]. For "the Lord thy God," saith [the Scripture], "is one Lord." And again, "Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? And there is also one Son, God the Word. For "the only-begotten Son," saith [the Scripture], "who is in the bosom of the Father." And again, "One Lord Jesus Christ." And in another place, "What is His name, or what His Son's name, that we may know?" And there is also one Paraclete. For "there is also," saith [the Scripture], "one Spirit," since "we have been called in one hope of our calling." And again, "We have drunk of one Spirit," with what follows. And it is manifest that all these gifts [possessed by believers] "worketh one and the self-same Spirit." There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honour.

Thus having, you see, recovered and raised up by this common example him who thought himself depreciated, again he leaves the topic of common experience, and comes to another, a spiritual one, bringing greater consolation and indicative of great equality of honor. What then is this?

"For in one Spirit, saith he, were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free."

Now his meaning is this: that which established us to become one body and regenerated us, is one Spirit: for not in one Spirit was one baptized, and another another. And not only is that which hath baptized us one, but also that unto which He baptized us, i.e., for which He baptized us, is one. For we were baptized not that so many several bodies might be formed, but that we might all preserve one with another the perfect nature of one body: i.e., that we might all be one body, into the same were we baptized.

So that both He who formed it is one, and that into which He formed it is one. And he said not, "that we might all come to be of the same body;" but, "that we might all be one body." For he ever strives to use the more expressive phrases. And well said he, "we all," adding also himself. "For not even I, the Apostle, have any more than thou in this respect," saith he. "For thou art the body even as I, and I even as thou, and we have all the same Head and have passed through the same birth-pains. Wherefore we are also the same body." "And why speak I," saith he, "of the Jews? since even the Gentiles who were so far off from us, He hath brought into the entireness of one body." Wherefore having said, "we all," he stopped not here, but added, "whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free." Now if, having before been so far off, we were united and have become one, much more after that we have become one, we can have no right to grieve and be dejected. Yea, the difference, in fact, hath no place. For if to Greeks and Jews, to bond and free, He hath vouchsafed the same blessings, how can it be that after so vouchsafing He divides them, now that He hath bestowed a greater perfection of unity by the supply of His gifts?

"And were all made to drink of one Spirit."

i.e., We are come to the same initiation, we enjoy the same Table. And why said he not, "we are nourished by the same body and drink the same blood?" Because by saying "Spirit," he declared them both, as well the flesh as the blood. For through both are we "made to drink of the Spirit."

But to me he appears now to speak of that visitation of the Spirit which takes place in us after Baptism and before the Mysteries. And he said, "We were made to drink," because this metaphorical speech suited him extremely well for his proposed subject: as if he had said respecting plants and a garden, that by the same fountain all the trees are watered, or by the same water; so also here, "we all drank the same Spirit, we enjoyed the same grace," saith he.

Now he shows how the Church is like the example of one body, and says: we all, including myself, Paul, were baptized by one and the same Spirit into one body, that is, so as to be one body. For we were not baptized by one Spirit—you by one and I by another—but by one and the same. Therefore I too have nothing greater in comparison with you. For we were baptized into one body, that is, so that Jews and Greeks, slaves and free, might be one body. And if the Spirit united those who were so far apart, how much more, after we have become one, should we not grieve, even though there is some distinction among us.

It seems he is speaking of the spiritual meal, of bread and wine; for by the words "the Spirit that gave us drink," he indicated both: the Blood and the Flesh. However, closer to the truth, he is speaking here of the coming of the Spirit upon us, which took place at the time of baptism, before the partaking of the Holy Mysteries. He said "were given to drink," borrowing the image from trees watered by one and the same spring. Thus, one Spirit gave us drink and watered us, and made us one body.

Secondly, he presents the ground of the adaptation, in which is presented a twofold ground of distinction. One ground of unity is the Holy Spirit, as it says in Eph (4:4): "One body and one Spirit." But we receive a double benefit by the power of the Holy Spirit. First, indeed, because we are reborn through Him, as it says in John (3:5): "Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit," hence he says: For by one Spirit, namely, by the power of the one Holy Spirit, we were all, who are members of Christ, baptized into one body, i.e., into the unity of the Church, which is the body of Christ, as it says in Eph (1:22): "He had made him head over all things for the Church, which is his body"; and in Gal (3:27): "As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Secondly, by the Holy Spirit we are refreshed unto salvation. Hence he adds: and all were made to drink of one Spirit, i.e., by the power of the one Holy Spirit. This drink can be understood in two ways: in one way of the inward refreshment which the Holy Spirit offers to the human heart by extinguishing the thirst for carnal desires and concupiscences. Hence Sir (15:3) says: "He will give him the water of salutary wisdom to drink"; and in John (7:38): "Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water." In another way it can be understood of a sacramental drink, which is consecrated by the Spirit: "All drank the same spiritual drink" (1 Cor 10:4).

Then he interposes two aspects of diversity: one is on the part of rites when he says: Jews or Gentiles; the other is on the part of status, when he says: slaves or free. No diversity of this kind impedes the unity of the body of Christ. Hence it says in Gal (3:28): "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

The unity of the body consists in the fact that its many members supply the things which the other parts lack.

Those who are experts in such matters say that the virtues are not separate from each other and that it is not possible to grasp one of the virtues properly without attaining to the rest of them, but where one of the virtues is present the others will necessarily follow.

"For the body is not one member, but many." i.e., We are come to the same initiation, we enjoy the same Table.

If now one Spirit both formed us and gathered us all together into one body; for this is the meaning of, "we were baptized into one body:" and vouchsafed us one table, and gave us all the same watering, (for this is the meaning of, "we were made to drink into one Spirit,") and united persons so widely separated; and if many things then become a body when they are made one: why, I pray, art thou continually tossing to and fro their difference? But if thou sayest, "Because there are many members and diverse," know that this very thing is the wonder and the peculiar excellency of the body, when the things which are many and diverse make one. But if they all were some one, they would not be a body. Wherefore, he saith, "If they were all one member, where were the body?" This however, he mentions not till afterwards; but here he points out also something more; that besides the impossibility of any one being a body, it even takes away the being of the rest.

Paul says this in order not to overlook the humbler members of the church. For even if someone is lesser by nature, he still belongs to the body of the church.

Do not be amazed, he says, that being so many we are one body; for in the human body too, with its many members, one can find one body.

Then when he says, for the body, he explains the likeness in detail. First, he describes the condition of a natural body and its members; secondly, he adapts this to the mystical body of Christ (v. 27). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he describes the completeness of a natural body; secondly, the relations of the members to each other (v. 21). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he states his intention; secondly, he explains with examples (v. 15); thirdly, he proves by leading to something awkward.

First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that all of us have been baptized into one mystical body, which represents a likeness to a natural body. For the natural body of a man is not one member but many, because its perfection is not saved in one member, but is composed of many, which of necessity must serve the various potencies and acts of the soul. Hence it says in Rom (12:4): "For as in one body we have many members and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ."

This means that a weak brother cannot say that he is not a part of the body simply because he is not strong.

This however he states last; but for the present he goes to the members themselves, saying thus:

"If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?"

"And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?"

For if the one being made inferior and the other superior, doth not allow their being of the body, the whole is done away. Do not say therefore, "I am not the body, because I am inferior." For the foot also hath the inferior post, yet is it of the body: for the being or not being part of the body, is not from the one lying in this place and the other in that; (which is what constitutes difference of place;) but from the being conjoined or separated. For the being or not being a body, arises from the having been made one or not. But do thou, I pray, mark his considerate way, how he applies their words to our members. For as he said above, "These things have I in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos," just so likewise here, to make his argument free from invidiousness and acceptable, he introduces the members speaking: that when they shall hear nature answering them, being thus convicted by experience herself and by the general voice, they may have nothing further to oppose. "For say, if you will," saith he, "this very thing, murmur as you please, you cannot be out of the body. For as the law of nature, so much more doth the power of grace guard all things and preserve them entire." And see how he kept to the rule of having nothing superfluous; not working out his argument on all the members, but on two only and these the extremes; having specified both the most honorable of all, the eye, and the meanest of all, the feet. And he doth not make the foot to discourse with the eye, but with the hand which is mounted a little above it; and the ear with the eyes. For because we are wont to envy not those who are very far above us, but those who are a little higher, therefore he also conducts his comparison thus.

He presents the members of the body as speaking and murmuring that they are diminished before the other members, in order that, having demonstrated the senselessness of the murmuring of the members, he might expose those who in the Church murmur that there are some greater than them. He puts forward two extreme members, the foot and the ear, and presents the foot as speaking not with the eye, but with the hand, which has a slight advantage over it. And the ear he presents as speaking with the eye: for we always envy usually not those who greatly surpass us, but those who are a little above us. So then, he says, if the foot should say that I am not part of the body because I do not occupy the middle place like the hand, but am below all, is it really for this reason, that is, because it is not a hand, that it does not belong to the body? For whether or not it is a member of the body depends not on its position, but on whether it is joined or not joined to the body. Likewise, if the ear should say: "since I am not an eye, I refuse entirely to be a part and member of the body," it will all the same remain in the place appointed to it from the beginning, and will fulfill its purpose. So you also, who have received, in your opinion, a lesser gift, do not murmur. For you are a member of the Church of Christ, even though you have received a lower place. But when you yourself separate from the Church and break your union with her, then you will no longer be a member. Therefore, if you wish to be a member of the Church, preserve unity with her...

Then when he says: If the foot should say, he clarifies what he had said by using certain members as examples. First, the members involved in motion, and he mentions two members: the foot as the more ignoble member in that it treads the earth and carries the weight of the entire body; but the hand is the nobler member, inasmuch as it is the organ of the organs. And this is what he says: If the foot should say: because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body, that would not make it any less a part of the body. As if to say: The perfection of the body does not consist in one member, although it be more noble, but its perfection requires even the more ignoble ones. But by the members involved in motion are designated in the Church men given to the active life, in such a way that the feet are subjects. About these it says in Ez (1:7): "Their legs were straight"; by the hands are denoted prelates, through whom others are disposed; hence in S. of S. (5:14) it says: "His hands are rounded gold, filled with hyacinth." In the Church not only the hands, i.e., prelates, but also the feet are necessary, i.e., subjects. Hence it says in Pr (14:28): "In a multitude of people is the glory of a king."

Paul is saying that the person who is slightly inferior should not for that reason think that he is unnecessary to the body. Commentary on Paul's Epistles.

Secondly, he uses as examples the members or powers which serve knowledge and he mentions the eye, which serves sight, and the ear, which serves hearing. For these two senses are the special servants of human knowledge: sight, indeed, in regard to discovery, because it reveals the many differences among things; hearing, however, in regard to doctrine, which is presented by speech. The more dignified of these senses is sight, because it is more spiritual and reveals more things; as a result the eye is more noble than the ear. He says, therefore: And if the ear, which is the more ignoble member, should say, I do not belong to the body, because I am not the eye, which is the more noble member, that would not make it any less part of the body. By the members which serve knowledge are designated in the Church those who apply themselves to the contemplative life among whom there are, as eyes, teachers who investigate truth. Hence it says in S. of S. (5:12): "His eyes are like doves beside springs of water, which live near the fullest waters." By ears are signified disciples who receive the truth by hearing their masters. Hence it says in Matt (13:9): "He that has ears to hear, let him hear." In the Church not only teachers but also disciples are necessary. Hence it says in Jb (29:11): "When the ear heard, it called me blessed."

"If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?"

Thus, because, having fallen upon the difference of the members, and having mentioned feet, and hands, and eyes, and ears, he led them to the consideration of their own inferiority and superiority: see how again he consoles them, intimating that so it was expedient: and that their being many and diverse, this especially causeth them to be a body. But if they all were some one, they would not be a body. Wherefore, he saith, "If they were all one member, where were the body?" This however, he mentions not till afterwards; but here he points out also something more; that besides the impossibility of any one being a body, it even takes away the being of the rest.

"For if the whole were hearing, where were the smelling," saith he.

Even if the body had only its most important member, it would still be useless without the others.

Since he mentioned the eye and the foot, the ear and the hand, and presented them as reasoning about elevation and degradation, and through this the Corinthians would naturally again come to grief rather than consolation, he now shows that it is useful and necessary for the gifts to be diverse. For if the whole body were one member, where would the rest of the members be? Are you not ashamed to reject so many members and exalt only yourself?

Then when he says, If the whole body were an eye, he proves by leading to two awkward conclusions, the first of which is the removal of necessary things from the body; the second is the removal of bodily completeness (v. 19).

In regard to the first he does two things: first, he presents the awkward conclusion which follows, saying: If the whole body were the eye, which is a nobler member, where would be the hearing, i.e., the organ of hearing. As if to say: If all in the Church were masters; hence it says in Jas (3:1): "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren." Again, if the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? By this can be understood those in the Church who, even though they are not capable of words of wisdom, nevertheless perceive some of its indications from afar, as an odor. Hence in S. of S. (1:3): "We run after the odor of your anointing oils."

Then because after all they were yet disturbed: that which he had done above, the same he doth also now. For as there he first alleged the expediency to comfort them and afterwards stopped their mouths, vehemently saying, "But all these worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one man severally even as He will:" so also here having stated reasons for which he showed that it was profitable that all should so be, he refers the whole again to the counsel of God, saying,

"But now God hath set the members each one of them in the body, even as it pleased Him."

Even as he said of the Spirit, "as He will," so also here, "as it pleased Him." Now do not thou seek further into the cause, why it is thus and why not thus. For though we have ten thousand reasons to give, we shall not be so able to show them that it is well done, as when we say, that as the best Artificer pleased, so it came to pass. For as it is expedient, so He wills it. Now if in this body of ours we do not curiously enquire about the members, much more in the Church. And see his thoughtfulness in that he doth not state the difference which arises from their nature nor that from their operation, but that from their local situation. For "now," saith he, "God hath set the members each one of them in the body even as it pleased Him." And he said well, "each one," pointing out that the use extends to all. For thou canst not say, "This He hath Himself placed but not that: but every one according to His will, so it is situated." So that to the foot also it is profitable that it should be so stationed, and not to the head only: and if it should invert the order and leaving its own place, should go to another, though it might seem to have bettered its condition, it would be the undoing and ruin of the whole. For it both falls from its own, and reaches not the other station.

With great force he shuts their mouths when he says that God willed it, and appointed to each individual member its proper place (for this is what "arranged" means). Neither should the foot, which occupies the lower place, grieve, for so it pleased God, and it is beneficial for it precisely to be placed below. Nor should the head, which is above, be puffed up, for this is from God and not its own doing. So also in the Church, God placed one person low, which is beneficial for him, and set another person high; the first should be content, and the last should not be puffed up.

Secondly, he asserts the contrary truth, namely, that neither sight nor hearing should be lacking, saying: But as it is God arranged, i.e., put in order, the various members. For even if the distinction of the members is a work of nature, nevertheless nature did this as an instrument of divine providence. And therefore, he assigns the first cause of the arrangement of the members when he says: God arranged the organs in the body. As if to say: He did not arrange various members in order that each of them should exist separately by itself, but that all should come together in one body. And as he willed; for the first cause of the arrangement of things is the divine will, as it says in Ps 111 (v. 2): "Great are the works of the Lord." So, too, in the Church He arranged various offices and diverse states according to His will. Hence it says in Eph (1:11): "According to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will."

If everyone in the church were equal, there would be no body, because a body is governed according to the difference in the functions of its members.

"And if they were all one member, where were the body?"

"But now are they many members, but one body."

Thus having silenced them sufficiently by God's own arrangement, again he states reasons. And he neither doth this always nor that, but alternates and varies his discourse. Since on the one hand, he who merely silences, confounds the hearer, and he, on the contrary, who accustoms him to demand reasons for all things, injures him in the matter of faith; for this cause then Paul is continually practising both the one and the other, that they may both believe and may not be confounded; and after silencing them, he again gives a reason likewise. And mark his earnestness in the combat and the completeness of his victory. For from what things they supposed themselves unequal in honor because in them there was great diversity, even from these things he shows that for this very reason they are equal in honor. How, I will tell you. "If all were one member," saith he, "where were the body?" Now what he means is, If there were not among you great variety, ye could not be a body; and not being a body, ye could not be one; and not being one, ye could not be equal in honor. Whence it follows again that if ye were all equal in honor, ye were not a body; and not being a body, ye were not one; and not being one, how could ye be equal in honor? As it is, however, because ye are not all endowed with some one gift, therefore are ye a body; and being a body, ye are all one, and differ nothing from one another in this that ye are a body. So that this very difference is that which chiefly causeth your equality in honor. And accordingly he adds, "But now they are many members, yet one body."

Note the wisdom: he shuts their mouths by the very thing that seemed to produce faintheartedness, that is, by the fact that the gifts are diverse and unequal in honor. For if there were not diverse members, there would not be one body; and if there were not one body, there would not be equal honor. But as it is, all have equal honor, precisely because all are united into one body. From the fact that there are diverse members, one body is composed; and from the fact that the body is one, equal honor belongs to them all, for the very reason that they serve the fullness of one body. For he says: there are many members, but one body.

Then when he says, If all were a single organ, he comes to another awkward conclusion, which is a lack of bodily completeness. Hence, he first posits this awkwardness, saying: if all were a single organ, where would the body be? i.e., where would the completeness of the body be? As if to say: It would not be. Thus, if all the Church were of one state and grade, it would destroy the perfection and beauty of the Church, which is described in Ps 45 (v. 14): as "adorned with many-colored robes."

The diversity in the members of the body unites for the purpose of ensuring that the body fulfills its potential.

Secondly, he asserts the contrary truth, saying: As it is there are many parts, yet one body, which is made complete by all the parts. Thus, the Church is composed of diverse orders: "Terrible as an army with banners" (S. of S. 6:10).

The person who is greater in rank or dignity cannot do without those who are lower. For there are things which a humbler person can do which an exalted one cannot, just as iron can do things which gold cannot. Because of this, the feet perform an honorable function for the head.

The church has real eyes: its teachers and leaders who see in sacred Scripture the mysteries of God.… It also has hands, effective persons who are not eyes but hands. Do they plumb the mysteries of sacred Scripture? No, but they are powerful in works. The church has feet: those who make official journeys of all kinds. The foot runs that the hand may find the work it is to do. The eye does not scorn the hand, nor do these three scorn the belly as if it were idle and unemployed.

Having checked the envy of those in lower rank, and having taken off the dejection which it was likely that they would feel from greater gifts having been vouchsafed to others, he humbles also the pride of these latter who had received the greater gifts. He had done the same indeed in his discourse also with the former. For the statement that it was a gift and not an achievement was intended to declare this. But now he doth it again even more vehemently, dwelling on the same image. For from the body in what follows, and from the unity thence arising, he proceeds to the actual comparison of the members, a thing on which they were especially seeking to be instructed. Since there was not so much power to console them in the circumstance of their being all one body, as in the conviction that in the very things wherewith they were endowed, they were not left greatly behind. And he saith, "The eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee: or again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."

For though the gift be less, yet is it necessary: and as when the one is absent, many functions are impeded, so also without the other there is a maim in the fulness of the Church. And he said not, "will not say," but "cannot say." So that even though it wish it, though it should actually say so, it is out of the question nor is the thing consistent with nature. For this cause having taken the two extremes, he makes trial of his argument in them, first in respect of the hand and the eye, and secondly, in respect of the head and feet, adding force to the example.

For what is meaner than the foot? Or what more honorable and more necessary than the head? For this, the head, more than any thing, is the man. Nevertheless, it is not of itself sufficient nor could it alone perform all things; since if this were so, our feet would be a superfluous addition.

If the eye is healthy and one can see clearly, what joy will it have if the other members of the body are missing? How would it appear to be perfect without the hands, the feet or the other parts of the body?

Having subdued those who have lesser gifts, he now turns his speech to those who have greater gifts and exalt themselves over those who do not have them. For, he says, just as the eye cannot say to the other members, "I have no need of you" (for when one member is lacking, the whole body is imperfect), so also those who have received greater gifts cannot exalt themselves over those who have received lesser gifts. For the former need the latter, since they alone by themselves cannot build up the Church. He said well, "cannot"; for one may desire even much, but in reality it will not be so.

Then when he says, the eye cannot, he compares the members with one another: first, as to need; secondly, as to the care shown to the members (v. 23); thirdly, as to mutual solicitude (v. 26). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he states that all the members of the body are necessary, although some are less honorable; secondly, he presents a comparison of their need (v. 22).

First, he shows the reason for needing the members by reason of a twofold difference. First, indeed, according to the difference of members involved in movement; hence he says, the eye, which serves knowledge and signifies contemplatives, cannot say to the hand, which serves movement and signifies those in the active life, I have no need of you. For the contemplatives need to be sustained by the labors of those in the active life. Hence, it says in Lk (10:39) that while Mary sat at the feet of Jesus listening to His words, Martha was busy with much serving. Secondly, he shows the same according to the differences of prelates signified by the head, and of subjects signified by the feet; and this is what he adds: Nor again the head, i.e., the prelates, according to 1 Sam (15:17): "You have become the head of the tribes of Israel," to the feet, i.e., the subjects, I have no need of you, because as it says in Pr (14:28): "In a multitude of people is the glory of the king."

No matter how elevated a person may be, if he has no one under him, his rank is worthless. The greatest emperor still needs an army.

"Nay, much rather those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble are necessary: And those parts of the body which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness."

In every clause adding the term "body," and thereby both consoling the one and checking the other. "For I affirm not this only," saith he, "that the greater have need of the less, but that they have also much need. Since if there be any thing weak in us, if any thing dishonorable, this is both necessary and enjoys greater honor." And he well said, "which seem," and, "which we think;" pointing out that the judgment arises not from the nature of the things, but from the opinion of the many. For nothing in us is dishonorable, seeing it is God's work. Thus what in us is esteemed less honorable than our genital members? Nevertheless, they enjoy greater honor. And the very poor, even if they have the rest of the body naked, cannot endure to exhibit those members naked. Yet surely this is not the condition of things dishonorable; but it was natural for them to be despised rather than the rest. For so in a house the servant who is dishonored, so far from enjoying greater attention, hath not even an equal share vouchsafed him. By the same rule likewise, if this member were dishonorable, instead of having greater privileges it ought not even to enjoy the same: whereas now it hath more honor for its portion: and this too the wisdom of God hath effected. For to some parts by their nature He hath given not to need it: but to others, not having granted it by their nature, He hath compelled us to yield it. Yet are they not therefore dishonorable. Since the animals too by their nature have a sufficiency, and need neither clothing nor shoes nor a roof, the greater part of them: yet not on this account is our body less honorable than they, because it needs all these things.

Yea rather, were one to consider accurately, these parts in question are even by nature itself both honorable and necessary. Which in truth Paul himself imitated, giving his judgment in their favor not from our care and from their enjoying greater honor, but from the very nature of the things.

Wherefore when he calls them "weak" and "less honorable," he uses the expression, "which seem:" but when he calls them "necessary," he no longer adds "which seem," but himself gives his judgment, saying, "they are necessary;" and very properly. For they are useful to procreation of children and the succession of our race. Wherefore also the Roman legislators punish them that mutilate these members and make men eunuchs, as persons who do injury to our common stock and affront nature herself.

But woe to the dissolute who bring reproach on the handy-works of God. For as many are wont to curse wine on account of the drunken, and womankind on account of the unchaste; so also they account these members base because of those who use them not as they ought. But improperly. For the sin is not allotted to the thing as a portion of its nature, but the transgression is produced by the will of him that ventures on it.

But some suppose that the expressions, "the feeble members," and "less honorable," and "necessary," and "which enjoy more abundant honor," are used by Paul of eyes and feet, and that he speaks of the eye as "more feeble," and "necessary," because though deficient in strength, they have the advantage in utility: but of the feet as the "less honorable:" for these also receive from us great consideration.

Now he proves that the members considered lesser are both useful and necessary; for they only seem lesser, but are not so in reality. What then are these members that appear weaker and more dishonorable, yet are necessary? Some say these are the reproductive organs, which are considered dishonorable and uncomely, yet are so necessary that without them there is no life. To them we also bestow greater honor; for a person may be naked in the whole body, but will not allow them to remain uncovered. Others call the eyes the weaker yet necessary members; for being small and much weaker than the other members, they are extremely necessary. The feet they call the more dishonorable and uncomely members. We bestow greater care upon the eyes because they are weak; we look after and care for the feet, even though they occupy a low place and seem dishonorable. One may understand in these words three orders: some members are weak and necessary, for example, the eyes; others are dishonorable, for example, the feet; others are uncomely, for example, the reproductive organs.

Then when he says, on the contrary, he compares various members to one another in regard to their necessity, saying that the members of the body that seem weaker are more necessary, as the intestine. So, too, in the Church without the functions performed by certain lowly persons, such as farmers and others of that kind, the present life could not be gone through, which, however, can be led without certain more excellent persons dedicated to contemplation and to wisdom, who serve the Church by making it more ornate and in better condition. For something is called necessary, if it is useful to an end. But the noblest things are not considered useful, but they are of themselves to be sought as ends. Therefore, it says in Jb (31:39): "If I have eaten its yield without payment, and caused the death of its owners."

Because our feet are lowly and lacking in dignity, we adorn them with shoes. It is clear that our private parts, which are thought to be shameful, cover themselves with respectability by avoiding public display, so as not to obtrude irreverently. Likewise, some of the brothers who are poor and unseemly in their dress are nevertheless not without grace, because they are members of our body. They go about in dirty little garments and barefoot. Though they may look contemptible, they are more to be honored because they usually lead a cleaner life. What men find despicable, God may find quite beautiful.

Just as it is good to use evils well, so it is honest to use the unseemly well. Not because of the beauty of the divine work, but because of the ugliness of lust, the apostle calls these members of the body unseemly. The chaste are not bound by a necessity to depravity, for they resist lust lest it compel them to commit unseemly acts. Yet not even honorable procreation can exist without lust. In this way in chaste spouses there is both the voluntary, in the procreation of offspring, and the necessary, in lust. Honesty arises from unseemliness when chaste union accepts, but does not love, lust.

For actual charity prefers inferior things, affectual prefers superior things. For indeed in a well-affected mind there is no doubt, for example, that the love of God is set before the love of man; and among men themselves, the more perfect before the weaker, heaven before earth, eternity before time, the soul before the flesh. Yet in a well-ordered action, the opposite order is often, or even always, found. For concerning care for our neighbor we are both more urgently pressed and more frequently occupied; and we attend to weaker brethren with more diligent care; and to the peace of earth rather than the glory of heaven we attend by the right of humanity and by necessity itself; and by the restlessness of temporal cares we are scarcely permitted to perceive anything of eternal things; and to the ailments of our body, with care of the soul set aside, we attend almost continuously; and indeed to our very weaker members we assign the more abundant honor, according to the judgment of the Apostle (1 Cor 12:23): by this in a certain way fulfilling the word of the Lord, concerning which you have: "The last shall be first, and the first last" (Mt 20:16). Finally, who doubts that one who prays speaks with God? Yet how often are we thence led away and torn away at the command of charity, on account of those who are in need of our work or word? How often does pious quiet piously yield to the tumult of business? How often is a book put down with good conscience, so that one may sweat at the work of the hands? How often, for the sake of administering earthly things, do we most justly abstain from celebrating the very solemnities of the Mass? The order is reversed: but necessity has no law. Actual charity therefore follows its own order according to the command of the head of the household, beginning from the last (Mt 20:8). Surely it is pious and just, for it is no respecter of persons; nor does it consider the value of things, but the necessities of men.

He will love the flesh which is, so very closely and in so many ways, His neighbour-(He will love it), although infirm, since His strength is made perfect in weakness; although disordered, since "they that are whole need not the physician, but they that are sick; " although not honourable, since "we bestow more abundant honour upon the less honourable members; " although ruined, since He says, "I am come to save that which was lost; " although sinful, since He says, "I desire rather the salvation of the sinner than his death; " although condemned, for says He, "I shall wound, and also heal.

Then when he says, and those parts of the body, he compares the members as far as external adornment is concerned: first, he mentions the different things applied to different members; secondly, he assigns the cause of the difference (v. 24b).

The external adornment applied to members pertains to two things, namely, to honor, as things used for decoration, such as necklaces and ear rings, and to modesty, as something used for clothing, such as trousers and the like. In regard to the first adornment he says first: and those parts of the body we think less honorable we invest with greater honor, i.e., more ornamentation, as ear rings on the ears, but nothing is added to the eyes, while shoes adorned with pictures and precious stones are worn on the feet: "How graceful are your feet in sandals, O queenly maiden" (S. of S. 7:1); the hands are kept bare, however. And likewise in the Church the more imperfect receive more consolations, which the more perfect do not need. Hence it says in Is (40:11): "He will gather the lambs in his arms, he will carry them in his bosom" and in 1 Pt (3:7): "Husbands, bestow honor on the woman as the weaker sex." Secondly, he continues with the ornaments of honor saying: And our baser parts are treated with greater modesty, namely, by human assiduity. Some members are called base in holy things, not on account of any baseness of sin, but on account of the disobedience of the genital parts, as a result of original sin. Or because they are directed to a base use, as the members which serve the emission of superfluities. To these a greater modesty is applied, when they are more carefully covered, which the members designed for nobler uses do not require. Hence he adds: Our more presentable parts do not require this, namely, external covering; hence no veil is used to cover the face. Likewise, in the Church those who are culpable in any matter must be admonished and guarded, as it says in Sir (42:11): "Keep strict watch over a headstrong daughter"; and in Gal (6:1): "If a man is overtaken in any sin, you who are spiritual should instruct him in a spirit of gentleness"; but those who are without guilt do not need this. It should be noted that he mentioned a triple difficulty in the members, namely, baseness, ignobility and weakness. The first of these refers to guilt in the members of the Church; the second to a servile condition; the third to the state of imperfection.

We do not have to add anything to those whose eagerness for expertise and respectability is obvious—the honor due to them is given already. But an exhortation is necessary regarding the despised and lowly, to ensure that due honor is given to them, so that they may be seen as useful. Otherwise, if these people are despised, they will become more negligent about themselves.

Aren't the hairs of your head certainly of less value than your other members? What is cheaper, more despicable, more lowly in your body than the hairs of your head? Yet if the barber trims your hair unskillfully, you become angry at him because he does not cut your hair evenly. Yet you do not maintain that same concern for unity of the members in the church.

"But our comely parts have no need:"

That is, lest any should say, "Why what kind of speech is this, to despise the honorable and pay court to the less honored?" "we do not this in contempt," saith he, "but because they 'have no need.'" And see how large a measure of praise he thus sets down in brief, and so hastens on: a thing most conveniently and usefully done. And neither is he content with this, but adds also the cause, saying, "But God tempered the body together, giving more abundant honor unto that part which lacked:"

Now if He tempered it together, He did not suffer that which is more uncomely to appear. For that which is mingled becomes one thing, and it doth not appear what it was before: since otherwise we could not say that it was tempered. And see how he continually hastens by the defects, saying, "that which lacked." He said not, "to that which is dishonorable," "to that which is unseemly," but, "to that which lacked," ("that which lacked;" how? by nature,) "giving more abundant honor." And wherefore? "That there should be no schism in the body." Thus because, though they enjoyed an endless store of consolation, they nevertheless indulged grief as if they had received less than others, he signifies that they were rather honored. For his phrase is, "Giving more abundant honor to that which lacked."

Next he also adds the reason, showing that with a view to their profit he both caused it to lack and more abundantly honored it. And what is the reason? "That there should be no schism," saith he, "in the body." (And he said not, "in the members," but, "in the body.") For there would indeed be a great and unfair advantage, if some members were cared for both by nature and by our forethought, others not even by either one of these. Then would they be cut off from one another, from inability to endure the connection. And when these were cut off, there would be harm done also to the rest. Seest thou how he points out, that of necessity "greater honor" is given to "that which lacketh?" "For had not this been so, the injury would have become common to all," saith he. And the reason is, that unless these received great consideration on our part, they would have been rudely treated, as not having the help of nature: and this rude treatment would have been their ruin: their ruin would have divided the body; and the body having been divided, the other members also would have perished, which are far greater than these.

Seest thou that the care of these latter is connected with making provision for those? For they have not their being so much in their own nature, as in their being one, by virtue of the body. Wherefore if the body perish, they profit nothing by such health as they have severally. But if the eye remain or the nose, preserving its proper function, yet when the bond of union is broken there will be no use for them ever after; whereas, suppose this remaining, and those injured, they both support themselves through it and speedily return to health.

But perhaps some one may say, "this indeed in the body hath reason, that 'that which lacketh hath received more abundant honor,' but among men how may this be made out?" Why, among men most especially thou mayest see this taking place. For so they who came at the eleventh hour first received their hire; and the sheep that had wandered induced the shepherd to leave behind the ninety and nine and run after it, and when it was found, he bore and did not drive it; and the prodigal son obtained more honor than he who was approved; and the thief was crowned and proclaimed before the Apostles. And in the case of the talents also thou mayest see this happen: in that to him that received the five talents, and to him that received two, were vouchsafed the same rewards; yea, by the very circumstance that he received the two, he was the more favored with great providential care. Since had he been entrusted with the five, with his want of ability he would have fallen from the whole: but having received the two and fulfilled his own duty, he was thought worthy of the same with him that had gained the five, having so far the advantage, as with less labor to obtain the same crown. And yet he too was a man as well as the one that traded with the five. Nevertheless, his Master doth not in any wise call him to a strict account, nor compel him to do the same with his fellow-servant, nor doth he say, "Why canst thou not gain the five?" (though he might justly have said so,) but assigned him likewise his crown.

Lest anyone should say: what reason is there to bestow care upon the uncomely and less honorable members, while leaving the comely ones in neglect? We do not, he says, despise them, but they, being by their nature comely, have no need of anything from us.

Did He not mix and arrange into one? For that which is mixed becomes one; then in one thing, where is the greater and the lesser?

He did not say "uncomely" or "dishonored," but "less perfect." For by nature no member is uncomely or dishonored. To the less perfect, he says, He gave greater honor. Therefore do not grieve, for you have been honored more than the others. Here is the reason as well: that there be no division in the body. For if some members enjoyed care from us as well, while others were neglected and left without our attention, they would become divided among themselves, being unable to maintain their union, and upon their division the remaining members would also fall into disorder, on account of the division in the body. So also you who have been deemed worthy of greater gifts, do not exalt yourselves over those who received less, lest upon their separation from you, you too should suffer harm.

Then when he says, But God has so composed, he proposes the cause of the above-mentioned care, and first he assigns the first efficient cause. For although men do take care of the members in this way, nevertheless it proceeds from the divine plan; hence he says: God has so composed the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior part. For men do this in virtue of a certain divine instinct, as it says in Jb (33:16): "Then he opens the ears of men and teaching, he instructs them in discipline."

Paul is saying that the human body is so organized that all its members are necessary, and because of this, all are concerned for one another. One cannot exist without the other, and parts which are thought to be inferior are usually more necessary. No one ought to be despised as useless.

With those among whom harmony is not secured, however, the bond of peace is not preserved, mildness of spirit is not maintained, but there is dissension, strife and rivalry. It would be a great piece of audacity to call such persons "members of Christ" or to say that they are ruled by him. It would be the expression of an honest mind to say openly that the wisdom of the flesh is master there and wields a royal sovereignty. .

"That there should be no schism in the body."

Next he also adds the reason, showing that with a view to their profit he both caused it to lack and more abundantly honored it. And what is the reason? "That there should be no schism," saith he, "in the body." (And he said not, "in the members," but, "in the body.") For there would indeed be a great and unfair advantage, if some members were cared for both by nature and by our forethought, others not even by either one of these. Then would they be cut off from one another, from inability to endure the connection. And when these were cut off, there would be harm done also to the rest. Seest thou how he points out, that of necessity "greater honor" is given to "that which lacketh?" "For had not this been so, the injury would have become common to all," saith he. And the reason is, that unless these received great consideration on our part, they would have been rudely treated, as not having the help of nature: and this rude treatment would have been their ruin: their ruin would have divided the body; and the body having been divided, the other members also would have perished, which are far greater than these.

Seest thou that the care of these latter is connected with making provision for those? For they have not their being so much in their own nature, as in their being one, by virtue of the body. Wherefore if the body perish, they profit nothing by such health as they have severally. But if the eye remain or the nose, preserving its proper function, yet when the bond of union is broken there will be no use for them ever after; whereas, suppose this remaining, and those injured, they both support themselves through it and speedily return to health.

But perhaps some one may say, "this indeed in the body hath reason, that 'that which lacketh hath received more abundant honor,' but among men how may this be made out?" Why, among men most especially thou mayest see this taking place. For so they who came at the eleventh hour first received their hire; and the sheep that had wandered induced the shepherd to leave behind the ninety and nine and run after it, and when it was found, he bore and did not drive it; and the prodigal son obtained more honor than he who was approved; and the thief was crowned and proclaimed before the Apostles. Thus also Joseph became eminent; thus Aaron the priest: the conspiracy of the envious caused God once and again to give His suffrage for him, and was the occasion of the rod's budding. Thus Jacob attained his abundant wealth and all those other blessings. Thus the envious pierce themselves through with ten thousand evils.

And in the case of the talents also thou mayest see this happen: in that to him that received the five talents, and to him that received two, were vouchsafed the same rewards; yea, by the very circumstance that he received the two, he was the more favored with great providential care. Since had he been entrusted with the five, with his want of ability he would have fallen from the whole: but having received the two and fulfilled his own duty, he was thought worthy of the same with him that had gained the five, having so far the advantage, as with less labor to obtain the same crown. And yet he too was a man as well as the one that traded with the five. Nevertheless, his Master doth not in any wise call him to a strict account, nor compel him to do the same with his fellow-servant, nor doth he say, "Why canst thou not gain the five?" (though he might justly have said so,) but assigned him likewise his crown.

Knowing these things therefore, ye that are greater, trample not on the less, lest, instead of them, ye injure yourselves. For when they are cut off, the whole body is destroyed. Since, what else is a body than the existence of many members? As also Paul himself saith, that "the body is not one member, but many." If therefore this be the essence of a body, let us take care that the many continue many. Since, unless this be entirely preserved, the stroke is in the vital parts; which is the reason also why the Apostle doth not require this only, their not being separated, but also their being closely united. For instance, having said, "that there be no schism in the body," he was not content with this, but added, "that the members should have the same care one for another." Adding this other cause also of the less enjoying more honor. For "therefore did he cause them to partake of greater honor," saith he, "that they might not meet with less care." And not from hence only, but also by all that befalls them, good and painful, are the members bound to one another.

Say not then, that such is an ordinary person, but consider he is a member of that body which holds together the whole: and as the eye, so also doth he cause the body to be a body. For where the body is builded up, there none hath anything more than his neighbor: since neither does this make a body, there being one part greater and another less, but their being many and diverse. For even as thou, because thou art greater, didst help to make up the body, so also he, because he is less. So that his comparative deficiency, when the body is to be builded up, turns out of equal value with thee unto this noble contribution: yea, he avails as much as thyself. And it is evident from hence. Let there be no member greater or less, nor more and less honorable: but let all be eye or all head: will not the body perish? Every one sees it. Again, if all be inferior, the same thing will happen. So that in this respect also the less are proved equal. Yea, and if one must say something more, the purpose of the less being less is that the body may remain. So that for thy sake he is less, in order that thou mayest continue to be great. And here is the cause of his demanding the same care from all. And having said, "that the members may have the same care one for another," he explains "the same thing" again.

It is not enough, he says, that the members not be divided, but there must be great love and harmony among them; and each one must care for and look after the least member, and care not simply, but "equally," that is, so that the least member enjoys the same care as the important one. Thus, when a thorn falls and pierces the heel of the foot, the whole body feels it and takes care: the head bends down, the back curves, the belly and thighs contract, the eyes look with great attentiveness, the hands pull out the splinter. The same happens with the rest of the members as well.

Secondly, he proposes the final cause, saying: That there be no discord in the body. Which, of course, would follow, if no help were given to the body, is openly avoided, as long as the peace of the Church is maintained by giving to each person whatever is necessary. Hence it was said above (1:10): "Let all of you agree and let there be no dissensions among you." But in regard to the members of the natural body, there would be division in the body, if the due proportion of the members were removed.

Then when he says, But that the members, he presents a comparison of the members with one another in regard to mutual care. First, he proposes it, saying: Not only the above-mentioned members work for one another, but they are also of themselves solicitous for one another, i.e., by keeping them within the unity of the body. This is clearly evident in the natural body. For each member has a natural inclination to help the other members from blows. Similarly, the other believers, who are members of the mystical body, show solicitude for one another, according to Sir (17:14): "He gave commandment to each of them concerning his neighbor"; and Gal (6:2): "Carry one another's burdens."

Far be it from us to refuse to hear what is bitter and sad to those whom we love. It is not possible for one member to suffer without the other members suffering with it.

Suppose you had a disjointed finger. Would you not tremble in all your limbs? Would you not hurry to the doctor to have the finger set? Surely, then, your body is in good condition when all its members are in agreement, the one with the other. Then you are considered healthy, and really are well.

Our sufferings are such as to have reached even to the limits of our inhabited world. When one member suffers, all the members suffer along with it.

That you bewail and grieve over the downfall of our brethren I know from myself, beloved brethren, who also bewail with you and grieve for each one, and suffer and feel what the blessed apostle said: "Who is weak," said he, "and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?" And again he has laid it down in his epistle, saying, "Whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member rejoice, all the members rejoice with it." I sympathize with you in your suffering and grief, therefore, for our brethren, who, having lapsed and fallen prostrate under the severity of the persecution, have inflicted a like pain on us by their wounds, inasmuch as they tear away part of our bowels with them,-to these the divine mercy is able to bring healing.

If we reject the repentance of those who have some confidence in a conscience that may be tolerated; at once with their wife, with their children, whom they had kept safe, they are hurried by the devil's invitation into heresy or schism; and it will be attributed to us in the day of judgment, that we have not cared for the wounded sheep, and that on account of a single wounded one we have lost many sound ones. And whereas the Lord left the ninety and nine that were whole, and sought after the one wandering and weary, and Himself carried it, when found, upon His shoulders, we not only do not seek the lapsed, but even drive them away when they come to us; and while false prophets are not ceasing to lay waste and tear Christ's flock, we give an opportunity to dogs and wolves, so that those whom a hateful persecution has not destroyed, we ruin by our hardness and inhumanity. And what will become, dearest brother, of what the apostle says: "I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ." And again: "To the weak I became as weak, that I might gain the weak." And again: "Whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member rejoice, all the members rejoice with it."

With excessive grief of mind, and not without tears, dearest, brethren, I have read your letter which you wrote to me from the solicitude of your love, concerning the captivity of our brethren and sisters. For who would not grieve at misfortunes of that kind, or who would not consider his brother's grief his own, since the Apostle Paul speaks, saying, "Whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member rejoice, all the members rejoice with it; " and in another place he says, "Who is weak, and I am not weak? " Wherefore now also the captivity of our brethren must be reckoned as our captivity, and the grief of those who are endangered is to be esteemed as our grief, since indeed there is one body of our union; and not love only, but also religion, ought to instigate and strengthen us to redeem the members of the brethren.

"And whether one member suffereth all the members suffer with it; or one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it."

"Yea, with no other view," saith he, "did He make the care He requires common, establishing unity in so great diversity, but that of all events there might be complete communion. Because, if our care for our neighbor be the common safety, it follows also that our glory and our sadness must be common." Three things therefore he here demands: the not being divided but united in perfection: the having like care for another: and the considering all that happens common. And as above he saith, "He hath given more abundant honor to that part which lacked," because it needeth it; signifying that the very inferiority was become an introduction to greater honor; so here he equalizes them in respect of the care also which takes place mutually among them. For "therefore did he cause them to partake of greater honor," saith he, "that they might not meet with less care." And not from hence only, but also by all that befalls them, good and painful, are the members bound to one another.

Thus often when a thorn is fixed in the heel, the whole body feels it and cares for it: both the back is bent and the belly and thighs are contracted, and the hands coming forth as guards and servants draw out what was so fixed, and the head stoops over it, and the eyes observe it with much care. So that even if the foot hath inferiority from its inability to ascend, yet by its bringing down the head it hath an equality, and is favored with the same honor; and especially whenever the feet are the cause of the head's coming down, not by favor but by their claim on it. And thus, if by being the more honorable it hath an advantage; yet in that, being so it owes such honor and care to the lesser and likewise equal sympathy: by this it indicates great equality. Since what is meaner than the heel? what more honorable than the head? Yet this member reaches to that, and moves them all together with itself.

Again if anything is the matter with the eyes, all complain and all are idle: and neither do the feet walk nor the hands work, nor doth the stomach enjoy its accustomed food; and yet the affection is of the eyes. Why dost thou cause the stomach to pine? why keep thy feet still? why bind thy hands? Because they are tied to the feet, and in an unspeakable manner the whole body suffers. For if it shared not in the suffering, it would not endure to partake of the care. Wherefore "that the members may have the same care one for another," he added, "whether one member suffereth, all the members suffer with it; or one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it."

"And how do they rejoice with it?" say you. The head is crowned, and the whole man is honored. The mouth speaks, and the eyes laugh and are delighted. Yet the credit belongs not to the beauty of the eyes, but to the tongue. Again if the eyes appear beautiful, the whole woman is embellished: as indeed these also, when a straight nose and upright neck and other members are praised, rejoice and appear cheerful: and again they shed tears in great abundance over their griefs and misfortunes, though themselves continue uninjured.

I am greatly grieved for Valens, who was once a presbyter among you, because he so little understands the place that was given him [in the Church]. I exhort you, therefore, that ye abstain from covetousness, and that ye be chaste and truthful. "Abstain from every form of evil." For if a man cannot govern himself in such matters, how shall he enjoin them on others? If a man does not keep himself from covetousness, he shall be defiled by idolatry, and shall be judged as one of the heathen. But who of us are ignorant of the judgment of the Lord? "Do we not know that the saints shall judge the world?" as Paul teaches. But I have neither seen nor heard of any such thing among you, in the midst of whom the blessed Paul laboured, and who are commended in the beginning of his Epistle. For he boasts of you in all those Churches which alone then knew the Lord; but we [of Smyrna] had not yet known Him. I am deeply grieved, therefore, brethren, for him (Valens) and his wife; to whom may the Lord grant true repentance! And be ye then moderate in regard to this matter, and "do not count such as enemies," but call them back as suffering and straying members, that ye may save your whole body. For by so acting ye shall edify yourselves.

But among brethren and fellow-servants, where there is common hope, fear, joy, grief, suffering, because there is a common Spirit from a common Lord and Father, why do you think these brothers to be anything other than yourself? Why flee from the partners of your own mischances, as from such as will derisively cheer them? The body cannot feel gladness at the trouble of any one member, it must necessarily join with one consent in the grief, and in labouring for the remedy. In a company of two is the church; but the church is Christ. When, then, you cast yourself at the brethren's knees, you are handling Christ, you are entreating Christ. In like manner, when they shed tears over you, it is Christ who suffers, Christ who prays the Father for mercy.

A close union makes misfortune and prosperity common. Thus, as we said, when the heel has a splinter, everything suffers. Conversely, when the head is crowned, then for the other members too there is glory and joy, the eyes become brighter, and the whole body appears beautiful.

Secondly, he specifies this solicitude: first, in regard to evil, in which it is more obvious. Hence he says: If one member suffers, namely, evil, all suffer together. This is obvious in the natural body. For if one member is ailing, the whole body, as it were, begins to ail; and spirits and humors flock to the ailing part to help it. And the same should happen among Christ's faithful, so that one suffers along with the misfortune of another, according to Jb (30:25): "I used to weep over one who was afflicted, and my soul grieved." Secondly, in good things; hence he adds: if one member is honored, i.e., is invigorated in any way, all the members rejoice. This is also noticeable in the natural body, in which the vigor of one member yields help to the other members. So, too, should it be in the members of the Church, that each should take joy in the welfare of another. "I am glad and rejoice with you all" (Phil 2:17); "Rejoice with those that rejoice; weep with those who weep" (Rom 12:15).