Admonition in its own nature tends to be offensive, particularly when it is addressed to an older man, and when it proceeds from a young man, too, there is an intensified impression of forwardness. By the manner and mildness of it, therefore, one had best soften it. For it is possible to correct without offense, if one will only make a point of this: it requires great discretion, but it may be done.

Among our negligent and sluggish brothers there is generally something requiring correction by a sterner show of authority. But the correction should be applied so as not to destroy charity. Hence, also, the blessed apostle Paul, instructing Timothy in the government of the church, says, Do not rebuke an elderly man, but exhort him as you would a father, and young men as brothers, elderly women as mothers, younger women as sisters in all chastity. If, by the apostle’s direction, this moderation is to be shown to any members of lesser rank, how much more should it be displayed without offense toward our brothers and fellow bishops?

The preacher of almighty God, Paul the apostle, says, Do not rebuke an older man. This rule is to be observed in cases where the fault of an older man does not draw the hearts of the younger into ruin through his example. But when an elder sets an example to the young for their ruin, he is to be confronted with severe rebuke. For of him it is written, You are all a snare to the young.^[1]

So, then, a widow is not only marked off by bodily abstinence but is distinguished by virtue. It is not I who give this command but the apostle. I am not the only person to do them honor, but the teacher of the Gentiles did so first, when he said, Honor widows that are widows indeed. But if any widow has children or nephews, let her first learn to govern her own house and to take care of her parents. Thus we encourage every inclination of affection in a widow to love her children and to do her duty to her parents. So when discharging her duty to her parents she is teaching her children and is rewarded herself by her own compliance with duty, in that what she performs for others benefits herself.

[Paul] is training a church still untaught in Christ and making provision for people of all stations but especially for the poor, the charge of whom has been committed to himself and Barnabas.^[1] Thus he wishes only those to be supported by the exertions of the church who cannot labor with their own hands and who are widows indeed, approved by their years and by their lives.

In order to be a virgin, it is not enough merely to avoid sex. Many other things are necessary: blamelessness and perseverance. Similarly the loss of a husband does not constitute a true widow, but rather patience, with chastity and distance from all men. Such widows he justly bids us honor, and indeed support. For they need support, being left desolate and having no husband to stand up for them.

Paul’s intention is precisely not to give honor to women who have given only a promise of widowhood but rather to give honor to those who have clearly fulfilled the promise by their action.

Those faithful widows who have no other support must have churchly assistance.

Observe the discretion of Paul, how often he urges us to attend to human considerations. For he does not here lay down any great and lofty motive but one that is easy to be understood: to requite their parents. Why? For bringing them up and educating them. It is as if he should say, you have received from them great care. They are departed. You cannot compensate them. For you did not bring them forth or nourish them. Compensate them in their descendants. Repay the debt through the children.

It is the children and grandchildren who should learn their religious duties, namely, to care for widowed forebears, and not the widows who are to learn, for it is precisely they who are worthy of assistance, partly because they have no children.

To whom is this said? To those who have no children, because they are more highly approved and have a greater opportunity of pleasing God, because all their chains are loosened to them. There is no one to hold them fast, no one to compel them to drag their chains after them. You are separated from your husband but are united to God. You have not a fellow servant for your associate, but you have your Lord.

But if any one has no children, he means, she is desolate. Her he especially consoles, saying that she is most truly a widow who has lost not only the consolation of a husband but that arising from children, yet she has God in the place of all.

And you, O widow, find those who will pray for you. If as a true widow and desolate you hope in God, continue constant in supplications. Persist in prayers. Treat your body as dying daily, that by dying you may live again. Avoid pleasures, that you, too, being sick, may be healed.

A widow who has ceased to have a husband to please, and who in the apostle’s language is a widow indeed, needs nothing more earnestly than perseverance. Remembering past enjoyments, she knows what gave her pleasure and what she has now lost. By rigid fasting and vigils she must quench the fiery darts of the devil.^[1]

When the Lord exhorted us to pray always and not to faint,^[1] he told of the widow whose continuous appeal brought a wicked and impious judge, who scorned both God and man, to hear her cause. From this it can be easily understood how widows, beyond all others, have the duty of applying themselves to prayer, since an example was taken from widows to encourage us all to develop a love of prayer. But, in a practice of such importance, what characteristic of widows is singled out but their poverty and desolation? Therefore, insofar as every soul understands that it is poor and desolate in this world, as long as it is absent from the Lord,^[2] it surely commends its widowhood, so to speak, to God its defender, with continual and most earnest prayer.

The church is called Christ’s widow, because she is stripped of all worldly help and places her hope solely in the Lord. Like a widow, she suffers the shameful actions of evil men, the most cruel plunderings of the wicked. Like a woman deprived of a husband’s aid, she always grieves and is always worn out, yet she enjoys the unchanging steadfastness of a most chaste mind. . . . She is called a widow because she is bereft of worldly protection and has placed her hope in her heavenly Bridegroom, who has transformed her swarthiness into beauty, her error into uprightness, her cruelty into devotion and her frailty into total constancy.

To live in luxury does not seem in itself to be a manifest and admitted crime. But then it brings forth in us great evils—drunkenness, violence, extortion and plunder. For the prodigal and sumptuous liver, bestowing extravagant service on the belly, is often compelled to steal, and to seize the property of others and to use extortion and violence. If, then, you avoid luxurious living, you remove the foundation of extortion, and plunder, and drunkenness, and a thousand other evils, cutting away the root of iniquity from its extremity. Hence Paul says that she who lives in pleasure is dead while she lives.

It is not possible, not possible at all, for those who enjoy an easy life and freedom from want in this world, who continually indulge themselves in every way, who live randomly and foolishly, to enjoy honor in the other world. For if poverty does not trouble them, still desire troubles them and they are afflicted because of this, which brings more than a little pain. If disease does not threaten them, still their temper grows hot, and it requires more than an ordinary struggle to overcome anger. If trials do not come to test them, still evil thoughts continually attack. It is no common task to bridle foolish desire, to stop vain glory, to restrain presumption, to refrain from luxury, to persevere in austerity. A person who does not do these things and others like them cannot be saved. As testimony that those who live luxuriously cannot be saved, hear what Paul says about the widow: she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives.

It is difficult, or rather impossible, when we are swimming in luxury or pleasure, not to think of what we are doing. And it is an idle pretense which some put forward that they can take their fill of pleasure with their faith and purity and mental uprightness unimpaired. It is a violation of nature to revel in pleasure, and the apostle gives a caution against this very thing when he says, She that gives herself to pleasure is dead while she lives. The bodily senses are like horses madly racing, but the soul like a charioteer holds the reins. And as the horses without a driver go at breakneck speed, so the body, if it be not governed by the reasonable soul, rushes to its own destruction.

But there is a kind of death that the apostle detests when he says of the widow, But she that lives in pleasures is dead while she is living. Hence, the soul which was impious but has now become pious is said to have come back to life from the dead and to live on account of justification by faith. The body, on the contrary, is not only said to be about to die on account of the departure of the soul, which will come to pass, but, in a certain number of passages, it is even spoken of as already dead on account of the great weakness of flesh and blood, as where the apostle says, The body, it is true, is dead on account of sin, the spirit is life on account of justice.^[1]

No one—not even though he call himself a Christian or a monk a thousand times over—confesses God while he is sinning. No one remembers God while he allows what the Lord hates. It is like pretending he is a faithful servant while he takes no notice of his master’s commands. St. Paul says of a widow, She that gives herself to pleasure is dead while she lives. This is the kind of death he means. Many whose bodies are alive are dead and in hell and cannot praise God. And many whose bodies are dead bless and praise God together in the spirit. . . . In the Apocalypse the souls of the martyrs are described as praying to God as well as praising him.

May God avert from us the sentence which will be in hard pursuit of those who indulge in any kind of wickedness, who are adorned with the most precious ornaments for the sake of vanity and worldly pomp. Such persons seize the property of another, are filled even to the point of vomiting with many delicacies, bury themselves in excessive drinking and store up by almsgiving little or nothing for heaven. It is of these persons that the apostle says, The soul which gives herself up to pleasures is dead while she is still alive.

And what will be said, if instructing others, someone neglects his own family, though he has greater capacities and a higher obligation to benefit those near? Will it not be said: Aha! These ‘Christians’ are affectionate indeed, who neglect their own relatives! He is worse than an infidel. So what? One who does not benefit those far away benefits even less those nearer. What is meant is this: The law of God and of nature is violated by him who does not provide for his own family.

Now God, our master, teaches two chief precepts: love of God and love of neighbor. In them one finds three objects for his love: God, himself and his neighbor. One who loves God is not wrong in loving himself. It follows, therefore, that he will be concerned also that his neighbor should love God, since he is told to love his neighbor as himself. And the same is true of his concern for his wife, his children, for the members of his household, and for all others, so far as is possible. And, for the same end, he will wish his neighbor to be concerned for him, if he happens to need that concern. For this reason he will be at peace, as far as in him lies, with all. In that peace he will live in ordered harmony. The basis of this order is the observance of two rules: first, to do no harm to anyone, and, second, to help everyone whenever possible. To begin with, therefore, one has a responsibility for his own household—obviously, both in the order of nature and in the framework of human society. He has easier and more immediate contact with them.

It is possible to be a widow and not be enrolled in the rank of widows, as when a woman has not as yet accepted this way of life. . . . Paul allows the uncommitted woman to remarry if she so desires. But he strongly admonishes the one who has professed perpetual widowhood to God but then has later gotten married, because she has treated superficially her commitment to God.

What is said here applies only to the order of widows and not to deaconesses, as some believe.

What is being said here applies in particular to the women who are being considered for ordination as deaconesses.

Not only fornication but also a second marriage excludes someone from office in the church. Anyone twice married may be neither a bishop nor a presbyter nor a deacon nor a widow.

So far as we can, let us love the opportunity of continence. As soon as it offers itself, let us resolve to accept it, so that what one may not have had the strength to follow in matrimony one may now follow in widowhood. Continence in widowhood transcends the command that has previously been necessary for marriage. How detrimental to faith, how obstructive to holiness, second marriages are. The discipline of the church and the prescription of the apostle also declare this, when he does not permit men twice married to preside over a church. The same is true when he would not grant a widow admittance into an order unless she had been the wife of one man.

But why does he discourage second marriages? Is the thing condemned? By no means. That is heretical. Only he would have her henceforth occupied in spiritual things, transferring all her care to virtue. For marriage is not an impure state but one of much occupation. He speaks of their having leisure, not of their being more pure by remaining unmarried.

The teaching that a widow should be the wife of only one man is an encouragement to chastity within marriage, not a forbidding of second marriages.

It is not that old age alone makes the widow. Rather the virtues of the widow may become the duties of old age. For she certainly is the more prone to virtue who represses the heat of youth and the impetuous ardor of youthful age, coveting neither the tenderness of a husband nor the abundant delights of children. She rises above one who, now worn out in body, cold in age, of ripe years, can neither grow warm with pleasures nor hope for offspring.

Observe, the hospitality here spoken of is not merely a friendly reception but one given with zeal and alacrity, with readiness, and going about it as if one were receiving Christ himself.

It is possible, however, that even one who is a saint needs the washing of feet, since even the widow who is enrolled into ecclesiastical honor is examined, along with her other good works, also about this, If she has washed the feet of saints. . . . Consequently, the faithful are obliged to do this in whatever station of life they happen to be, whether bishops and presbyters, who seem to be in ecclesiastical prominence, or even those in other positions of honor in the world. This means that the master comes to wash the feet of the believing servant, and parents the feet of their son.

In emphasizing hospitality and the care of the saints as important qualifications for the widow, Paul’s goal is not to focus on a certain quantity of virtuous activity but rather on a quality of mind.

The title of true widow is not a title of calamity but of honor, even of the greatest honor. . . . Heavens, cried a sophist teacher [of Chrysostom as a young man], what women there are among the Christians. So great is the admiration and praise enjoyed by widowhood not only among ourselves but also among those who are outside the church. And being aware of all this, the blessed Paul said, Let not a widow be enrolled under threescore years of age. And even after this great qualification of age he does not permit her to be ranked in this sacred society but mentions some additional requisites. She must be well reported of for good works, if she has brought up children, if she has lodged strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has relieved the afflicted, if she has diligently followed every good work. Heavens! What testing and scrutiny! How much virtue does he demand from the widow, and how precisely does he define it! He would not have done this had he not intended to entrust to her a position of honor and dignity.

Paul himself has condemned women who chose widowhood but then do not desire to abide by their decision.

Why then, you ask, did Paul forbid young women to remain as widows even if they were willing? . . . Do you not see that it is not those who wish to keep their widowhood but rather those who prefer to marry after being widowed whom he forbids to remain as widows and to be appointed to that holy company? And he does so very wisely. For if you should intend to engage in second marriages, he says, do not profess widowhood. For breaking a promise is much worse than not promising at all.

When the apostle says elsewhere, I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, rule their households, he recommends the good of marriage with wisdom and apostolic authority. He does not impose the duty of bearing children. It is not to be treated as it were a law to be observed, at least in the case of those who have chosen the state of continence. Finally, he makes it clear why he has said this, by adding, Give the adversary no occasion for abusing us. For already some have turned aside after Satan. By these words he wishes us to understand that for the young widows whom he thought it fitting to be married, continence would have been better than marriage, but that it was better for them to marry than to turn aside after Satan, that is, by looking back to former things after having chosen the excellent state of chastity in virginity or widowhood, to abandon it and to perish.

The apostle, in concluding his discussion of marriage and virginity, is careful to observe a right balance in discriminating between them. Turning neither to the right hand nor to the left, he keeps to the King’s highway^[1] and thus fulfills the injunction, Be not righteous overmuch.^[2] . . . Do we not clearly show by this language^[3] what is typified in the Holy Scriptures by the terms right and left, and also what we take to be the meaning of the words Be not righteous overmuch? We turn to the left if, following the lust of Jews and Gentiles, we burn for sexual intercourse. We turn to the right if, following the error of the Manichaeans, we under a pretense of chastity entangle ourselves in the meshes of unchastity. But we keep to the King’s highway if we aspire to virginity yet refrain from condemning marriage. Can anyone, moreover, be so unfair in his criticism of my poor treatise as to allege that I condemn first marriages, when he reads my opinion of second ones as follows, The apostle, it is true, allows second marriages, but only to such women as are bent upon them, to such as cannot contain,^[4] lest ‘when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ they marry, having condemnation because they have rejected their first faith,’ and he makes this concession because many ‘are turned aside after Satan.’ But they will be happier if they abide as widows.

The apostle mentions evil, unmarried women who are gossipers and busybodies and says that this vice springs from idleness. And further, he says, being idle, they learn to go about from house to house, and are not only idle, but gossipers as well as busybodies, mentioning things they ought not. He had previously said of these, But refuse younger widows, for when they have wantonly turned away from Christ, they wish to marry and are to be condemned because they have broken their first pledge, that is, they did not persevere in what they had first vowed. However, he does not say They marry but They wish to marry, for it is not the love of their noble vow which prevents many of them from marrying but fear of outright indecency. This itself springs from pride by which human displeasure is more dreaded than the divine displeasure.

Paul speaks of idle persons and busybodies, whether virgins or widows, such as go from house to house calling on married women. They display an unblushing effrontery greater than that of a stage parasite. Cast them from you as you would the plague. For evil communications corrupt good manners,^[1] and women like these care for nothing but their lowest appetites. They will often urge you, saying, My dear creature, make the best of your advantages, and live while life is yours, and, Surely you are not laying up money for your children. Given to wine and wantonness, they instill all manner of mischief into people’s minds and induce even the most austere to indulge in enervating pleasures.

It is true that in writing to Timothy the apostle from fear of fornication is forced to countenance second marriage. . . . He is offering not a crown to those who stand but a helping hand to those who are down. What must a second marriage be if it is looked on merely as an alternative to the brothel!

Marriage is a good in all the things which are proper to the married state. And these are three: it is the ordained means of procreation, it is the guarantee of chastity, it is the bond of union. In respect of its ordination for generation the Scripture says, I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house. As regards its guaranteeing chastity, it is said of it, The wife has not power over her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband has not power over his own body, but the wife.^[1] And considered as the bond of union, What God has joined together, let no one put asunder.^[2]

It is likely that many widows at that time had lived more recklessly and arrogantly after the death of their husbands, as if freed from some constraining tyranny of their husbands over them; and so some earn a bad reputation for themselves because of their audacity. Drawing them away from this ruinous freedom, Paul leads them back to their former yoke. He says that if a widow intends to secretly cheapen and dishonor herself, it is much better to marry and give our enemies no occasion to speak ill of us. Thus, because he did not want to furnish opportunities for rebuke or want the widow to live the wanton life of a harlot, he permitted second marriages.

But if it is praiseworthy to have one’s soul free from this failing of greed, how much more glorious is it to gain the love of the people by liberality. This should be neither too freely shown to those who are unsuitable, nor too sparingly bestowed upon the needy. . . . There is also another kind of liberality which the apostle teaches, If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her assist them. Let the church not be burdened so that it may assist those who are real widows. Useful, then, is liberality of this sort.

But none of those reclining at table understood why he said this to him. For some thought that, because Judas held the purse, Jesus says to him, ‘Buy the things that we need for the feast,’ or that he should give something to the poor.^[1] Therefore, the Lord, too, had a purse. Keeping safe the offerings from the faithful, he distributed both to the needs of his people and to others in need. The paradigm for handling church money was thereby established: We should understand that his teaching that one must not take thought of tomorrow^[2] was taught for this purpose, that no money should be kept by the saints, but that God should not be served for money and that justice should not be abandoned because of a fear of need. For the apostle too, looking ahead to the future, said, If any believing woman has widowed relatives, let her provide sufficiently for them so that the church not be burdened, in order that it can have enough for true widows.

The apostle has given them double honor as being both brothers and officers.

The honor of which he here speaks is attention to them and the supply of their necessities. . . . But what is double support? Double that of the widows, or of the deacons, or simply liberal support.

Effective presbyters should be rewarded not only with sublime honor but with earthly as well, that they not be burdened with poverty.

Preaching really entails hard work. This fact Paul made plain when he said, Let the presbyters who rule well be held worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in teaching. But you are responsible for making this toil light or heavy. If you despise my words or, though you do not despise them, do not embody them in your deeds, my toil will be heavy, because I am laboring fruitlessly and in vain. But if you pay attention and make my words manifest in your deeds, I shall not even be aware of the perspiration, for the fruit produced by my work will not permit me to feel the laboriousness of the toil.

For this is the ultimate aim of their teaching: to lead their disciples, both by what they do and what they say, into the way of that blessed life which Christ commanded. Example alone is not sufficient instruction. And this statement is not mine but the Savior’s. For he says, Whoever shall do and teach, he shall be called great.^[1] Now if to do were the same as to teach, the second word would be superfluous. It would have been enough to say, Whosoever shall do. But in fact by distinguishing these two he shows that example is one thing and instruction another. Each requires the other for perfect edification.

May we then receive an accusation against a younger man or against any one at all without witnesses? Ought we not in all cases to come to our judgments with the greatest exactness? What then does he mean? Do not do this, he means, with any, but especially in the case of an elder. For he speaks of an elder not with respect to office but to age, since the young more easily fall into sin than their elders.

It is the duty of the presbyter to function as the common father of both the men and women of the congregation; because the care of both sexes involves seeing and speaking discreetly with the women, pastoral work must be done with great reverence. Furthermore, the duty of presbyters involves the administration of penitential discipline on admitted sinners and the exercise of oversight where such discipline is substandard. For both reasons the presbyters are vulnerable to charges.

When a man is advanced in years, you must not be too ready to believe evil of him. His past life is itself a defense, and so also is his rank as an elder. Still, since we are human and sometimes in spite of the ripeness of our years fall into the sins of youth, if I do wrong and you wish to correct me, accuse me openly of my fault. Do not backbite me secretly.

Do not, he says, hastily cut them off, but carefully inquire into all the circumstances. When you have thoroughly informed yourself, then proceed against the offender with rigor, that others may take warning. For as it is wrong to condemn hastily and rashly, so not to punish manifest offenses is to open the way to others, and embolden them to offend. . . . Let us therefore love God with fear . . . as I have ever said, the threatenings of hell show the care of God for us no less than the promises of heaven.

And here is a dilemma which often occurs: If you punish a man, you may ruin him. If you leave him unpunished, you may ruin another. I admit that I make mistakes in this matter every day.

Who is the hired hand?^[1] One who sees the wolf coming and flees. One who seeks his own things, not those of Jesus Christ. He does not dare openly to accuse the sinner. Suppose someone has sinned, and sinned grievously. He ought to be reproached and perhaps excommunicated. But if he is excommunicated, you imagine, he will be an enemy, he will make plots, he will do harm when he can. Now consider one who seeks his own things, not those of Jesus Christ. He does not lose what he is pursuing, the advantage of a human friendship. He does not incur the distress of human enmities—he is quiet; he does not correct. Look, the wolf seizes the sheep’s throat. The devil has persuaded a believer to commit adultery. You are silent; you do not scold. O hired hand, you saw the wolf coming and you fled.

A feigned kindness to the wicked is a betrayal of the truth, an act of treachery to the community and a means of habituating oneself to indifference to evil. . . . Them that sin, reprove before all, says the apostle, and he immediately adds the reason, saying, that the rest also may have fear.

Baptism is not rashly to be administered. . . . Similarly, this precept is rather to be looked at carefully. . . . Lay not hands easily on any; share not other men’s sins.

What does Paul say? If one who I have ordained has sinned, do I share his blame and punishment? Yes, says he. One who authorizes evil is blameworthy. It is just as in the case of any one entrusting into the hands of a raging and insane person a sharply pointed sword, with which the madman commits murder, that one who gave the sword incurs the blame. So anyone that gives the authority that arises from this office to a man living in evil, draws down on his own head all the fire of that man’s sins and audacity.

For the peace and order of the Lord’s whole household will be shaken, if what is required in the body be not found in the head. What is it to lay on hands hastily but to confer the priestly dignity on unproved men before the proper age, before there has been time to test them?

If the church partakes of the sins which were forbidden by the apostle, then it must be considered to consent to them.

The apostle writes to Timothy: Practice self-control. It’s a command; it’s an order; it has to be listened to; it has to be carried out. But unless God comes to our help, we get stuck. We try, indeed, to do it by willpower, and the will makes some effort. It shouldn’t, though, rely on its ability unless it is assisted in its debility.

“To the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi.” Since it was likely that the Jews too would call themselves “saints” from the first oracle, when they were called a “holy people, a people for God’s own possession” [Ex 19:6; Dt 7:6, etc.]; for this reason he added, “to the saints in Christ Jesus.” For these alone are holy, and those henceforward profane. “To the fellow bishops and deacons.” What is this? Were there several bishops of one city? Certainly not; but he called the presbyters so. For then they still interchanged the titles, and the bishop was called a deacon. For this reason in writing to Timothy, he said, “Fulfill your ministry,” when he was a bishop. For that he was a bishop appears by his saying to him, “Lay hands hastily on no man” [1 Tm 5:22]. And again, “Which was given you with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery” [1 Tm 4:14]. Yet presbyters would not have laid hands on a bishop.

A widow is not ordained; yet if she has lost her husband a great while and has lived soberly and blamelessly and has taken extraordinary care of her family, as Judith and Anna—those women of great reputation—let her be chosen into the order of widows.

If one who had practiced fasting to such an extent and used only water, so long that he had brought on infirmities and frequent infirmities, is thus commanded to be chaste and does not refuse the admonition, much less ought we to be offended when we receive an admonition from anyone. . . . For the miracles Timothy wrought were enough to have rendered him arrogant. For this reason he is left to be subject to the rules of medicine, that he may be humbled and others may not be offended but may learn that they who performed such excellent actions were men of the same nature as themselves. . . . Paul does not however allow him to indulge freely in wine, but as much as was for health and not for luxury.

But if he, the bishop, takes care of his body that he may minister to you, if he attends to his health that he may be useful, ought he for this to be accused? Do you not know that bodily infirmity no less than infirmity of soul injures both us and the church? . . . For if we could practice virtue with the soul alone, we need not take care of the body. And why then were we born at all? But if this has contributed a great share, is it not the extreme of folly to neglect it?

And is not temperance in harmony with nature and that divine law which in the beginning of all things gave the springs for drink and the fruits of trees for food? After the flood, the just man found wine a source of temptation to him.^[1] Let us, then, use the natural food of temperance, and would that we all could do so! But, because not all are strong, the apostle therefore says, Use a little wine for your frequent infirmities. We must drink it not for our pleasure but for our infirmity, sparingly as a remedy, not excessively as a gratification.

Notice the reasons why wine is allowed: it is to cure pain in the stomach and to relieve a frequent infirmity and hardly then. And lest perchance we should indulge ourselves on the ground of illness, Paul recommends that but a little wine should be taken, advising rather as a physician than as an apostle—although indeed an apostle is a spiritual physician.

Because of the necessary activities of this life, health is not to be despised until this mortal shall put on immortality,^[1] and that is the true and perfect and unending health which is not refreshed by corruptible pleasure when it fails through earthly weakness but is maintained by heavenly strength and made young by eternal incorruptibility. The apostle himself says, Make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscence,^[2] because our care of the flesh must be in view of the exigencies of salvation. For no man ever hated his own flesh.^[3]

Thus, many Christians do not eat meat, yet they do not superstitiously consider it unclean. And the same individuals who abstain when healthy take meat without qualm when sick, if it be required as a cure. Many do not drink wine. Nevertheless, they do not think it would defile them. In fact, they show great sympathy and good judgment in seeing that it is provided for those who tend to be listless and for all who cannot maintain bodily health without it.

Even as legislators have overlooked punishments for the guilty though they be established by law, so too our Lord Jesus Christ by punishing one or two sinners sets down like an inscription on a bronze stele their punishment and uses their experiences as a warning to all. It says that even if those who dare the same sins do not suffer a similar penalty now, they will suffer a more rigorous one in the future.

When it is clear with what intention they are committed, he calls them manifest sins, and these sins precede judgment. This means that if judgment follows them at once, it will not be rash judgment. But concealed sins follow judgment, because not even these will remain hidden in their proper time. And this is to be understood about good works as well. . . . On things that are manifest, therefore, let us pass judgment, but with regard to hidden things, let us leave the judgment to God. For, whether the works themselves be bad or good, they cannot remain hidden when the time comes for them to be revealed.

The words mean this: Certain persons sin so deliberately and flagrantly that you no sooner see them than you know them at once to be sinners. But the defects of others are so cunningly concealed that we only learn them from subsequent information. Similarly the good deeds of some people are public property, while those of others we come to know only through long intimacy with them.

So take these as an example, beloved Dracontius, and do not say, or believe those who say, that the bishop’s office is an occasion of sin, or that it gives rise to temptations to sin. For it is possible for a bishop to hunger and thirst [Phil 4:12], as Paul did. You can drink no wine, like Timothy [1 Tm 5:23], and fast constantly too, like Paul [2 Cor 11:27], in order that after their example you may feed others with your words, and while thirsting for lack of drink, water others by teaching. Let not your advisers, then, allege these things. For we know bishops who fast, and monks who eat. We know bishops who drink no wine, and monks who do. We know bishops who work wonders, and monks who do not.