1 Corinthians 14

Paul says that prophecy is the highest gift after love because it is to the benefit and advantage of the church, since by it everybody learns the principles of God's law.

If now so great is the virtue of love, with good reason doth he add and say, "Follow after love." For there is surely need of "following," and a kind of vehement running after her: in such sort doth she fly from us, and so many are the things which trip us up in that direction. Wherefore we have ever need of great earnestness in order to overtake her. And to point out this, Paul said not, "follow love," but, "pursue" her; stirring us up, and inflaming us to lay hold on her.

Thus, inasmuch as he had with exactness rehearsed unto them all the excellence of love, he exhorts them in what follows, with alacrity to lay hold of it. Wherefore also he said, "Follow after:" for he that is in chase beholds that only which is chased, and towards that he strains himself, and leaves not off until he lay hold of it. He that is in chase, when by himself he cannot, by those that are before him he doth overtake the fugitive, beseeching those who are near with much eagerness to seize and keep it so seized for him until he shall come up. This then let us also do. When of ourselves we do not reach unto love, let us bid them that are near her to hold her, till we come up with her, and when we have apprehended, no more let her go, that she may not again escape us. For continually she springs away from us, because we use her not as we ought, but prefer all things unto her. Therefore we ought to make every effort, so as perfectly to retain her. For if this be done, we require not henceforth much labor, nay rather scarce any; but taking our ease, and keeping holidays, we shall march on in the narrow path of virtue. Wherefore he saith, "Follow after her."

Then that they might not suppose that for no other end he brought in the discourse of charity, except that he might extinguish the gifts, he subjoins as follows: "Yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts; but rather that ye may prophesy."

Lest they think that he exalted love with the aim of disparaging the gifts, he adds: "desire spiritual gifts," that is, the charisms, but especially prophecy. He said this against the fact that the Corinthians were puffed up by the gift of tongues.

Having shown that love is a great gift, he next encourages the pursuit of it. He did not say: seek love, but "pursue love," demanding intense effort. For it flees from us, and one must run far to overtake it.

Having stated that charity excels the other gifts, the Apostle then compares the other gifts to each other, showing the excellence of prophecy over the gift of tongues. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows that prophecy excels the gift of tongues; secondly, how the gifts of tongues and prophecy should be used (v. 26). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that the gift of prophecy is more excellent than the gift of tongues with reasons taken on the part of unbelievers; secondly, on the part of believers (v. 20). The first part is divided into two: first, he shows that the gift of prophecy is more excellent than the gift of tongues as to their use in exhortations or sermons; secondly, as to the use of tongues in praying. For the use of the tongue is ordained to these two (v. 13).

In regard to the first he does two things: first, he mentions one thing by which he connects the preceding to the following; and this is what he says: It has been stated that charity excels all the gifts; if, therefore, that is so, make love your aim, for it is a sweet and healthful bond of minds: "Above all, hold unfailing your love for one another" (1 Pt 4:8); "Above all these things put on love which is the bond of perfection." (Col 3:4).

Secondly, he adds that through which he connects himself with what follows. And this is what he says: earnestly desire the spiritual gifts. As if to say: Although charity is greater than all gifts, nevertheless the others are not to be despised. But earnestly desire, i.e., fervently love the spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit: "Now who is there to harm you, if you are zealous for what is right"? (1 Pt 3:13).

Although earnestly desire is sometimes taken for fervent love and sometimes for envy, it is not equivocation; indeed, one proceeds from the other. For to be zealous and to be earnestly desirous designate a fervent love for something. It happens, however, that the thing loved is loved so fervently by someone that he does not permit a sharer, but wants it alone and by himself. And this is zeal which, according to some, is intense love not allowing a participation in the one loved. Yet this occurs not in spiritual things, which can be shared most perfectly by others, but only in those which cannot be shared by many. Hence in charity there is not this sort of zeal which does not allow a participation in the one loved, but only in bodily things, in which it comes about that if anyone else has that for which I am zealous, I am sad; and from this arises earnest desire, which is envy. Just as if I love dignity or riches, I grieve if someone else has them; hence I envy him. And so it is clear that from zeal arises envy. Therefore, when it is said: earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, it is not understood of envy, because spiritual things can be possessed by many; but he says: desire to induce them to love God fervently.

And because among spiritual things there is a gradation, for prophecy exceeds the gift of tongues, he says: especially that you may prophecy. As if to say: Among spiritual gifts be more zealous for the gift of prophecy: "Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophesying" (1 Th 5:19).

To explain the entire chapter three things must be mentioned beforehand, namely, what is prophecy; in how many ways is prophecy mentioned in Scripture, and what it is to speak in tongues. In regard to the first it should be noted that prophecy is said to be "seeing from afar," and according to some it is named after speaking afar, but it is better to say that it is from pharos, which is to see. Hence in 1 Sam (9:9): "He who is now called a prophet was formerly called a seer." Hence the sight of things far off, whether they be future contingents or beyond human reason, is called prophecy. Prophecy, therefore, is the sight or manifestation of future contingents or of things transcending human understanding. For such a sight four things are required. For since our knowledge is through bodily things and phantasms received from sensible things, it is first required that in the imagination be formed the bodily likeness of things which are shown, as Denis says that it is impossible otherwise for the divine ray to shine in us, unless surrounded by the variety of sacred veils. The second thing required is an intellectual light enlightening the intellect for knowing things shown beyond our natural knowledge. For unless an intellectual light be present for understanding the sensible likenesses formed in the imagination, the one to whom these likenesses are shown in not called a prophet but a dreamer. Thus, Pharaoh, who, although he saw ears of corn and cattle, which indicated future events, did not understand what he saw, is not called a prophet, but rather Joseph, who interpreted it. The same is true of Nebuchadnezzar, who saw a statue but did not understand it; hence, neither is he a prophet, but Daniel. For this reason it says in Dan (10:1): "Understanding is needed in a vision." The third thing required is the courage to announce the things revealed. For God reveals in order that it be announced to others: "Behold, I have put my words in your mouth" (Jer 1:9). The fourth thing is the working of miracles, which lend certitude to the prophecy. For unless they did things which exceed the works of nature, they would not be believed in matters that transcend natural knowledge.

Therefore, according to these modes of prophecy some are called prophets in various ways. For sometimes one is called a prophet, because he possesses all four, namely, that he sees imaginary visions, and has an understanding of them and he boldly announces to others and he works miracles. Concerning such a one it says in Num. (12:6): "If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, will appear to him in a dream, or will speak to him by means of a dream." But sometimes one who has solely imaginary visions is called a prophet, but in an improper sense and very remotely so. Again, one is called a prophet, if he has the intellectual light to explain even imaginary visions made to himself or someone else, or for explaining the sayings of the prophets or the Scriptures of the apostles. In this way a prophet is anyone who discerns the writings of the Doctors, because they have been interpreted in the same spirit as they were edited; and so Solomon and David can be called prophets, inasmuch as they had the intellectual light to understand clearly and subtly. For the vision of David was intellectual only. Someone is even called a prophet merely because he announces the statements of prophets or explains them or sings in the church. This is the way Saul was counted among the prophets, i.e., among those singing the words of the prophets. (1 Sam 19:24). Someone is also called a prophet from working miracles, as it says in Sir (48:14) that "the dead body of Elijah prophesied, i.e., worked a miracle." Therefore, what the Apostle says through this chapter of the prophets must be understood in the second mode, namely, that one is said to prophesy who through a divine intellectual light explains visions made to him and others. According to this, what is said here about prophets will be plain.

At this point he makes a comparison between the gifts, and lowers that of the tongues, showing it to be neither altogether useless, nor very profitable by itself. For in fact they were greatly puffed up on account of this, because the gift was considered to be a great one. And time of building the tower the one tongue was divided into many; so then the many tongues frequently met in one man, and the same person used to discourse both in the Persian, and the Roman, and the Indian, and many other tongues, the Spirit sounding within him: and the gift was called the gift of tongues because he could all at once speak divers languages. See accordingly how he both depresses and elevates it. Thus, by saying, "He that speaketh with tongues, speaketh not unto men, but unto God, for no man understandeth," he depressed it, implying that the profit of it was not great; but by adding, "but in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries" he again elevated it, that it might not seem to be superfluous and useless and given in vain.

He compares tongues with prophecy and shows that they are not completely useless in themselves; for they speak not to men, but to God, that is, they do not speak what is easily understood and clear to men, but by the Holy Spirit they speak mysteries. Therefore, as those who speak from the Spirit, they are a great thing, but as unprofitable to men, they are inferior to prophecy. For prophecy is both from the Spirit and very profitable; it edifies the unsteady, exhorts and rouses the negligent, and comforts the fainthearted. Thus, Paul everywhere places highest that which is more profitable.

In regard to the second it should be noted that because there were few in the early Church assigned to preaching faith of Christ throughout the world, the Lord enabled them to proclaim the word to more people by giving them the gift of tongues, by which they could all preach to all. Not that they spoke in one language and were understood by all, as some say, but that they spoke the languages of different nations and, indeed, of all. Hence the Apostle says: "I thank God that I speak in the languages of all of you," and in Ac (2:4) it says: "They began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Furthermore, many received this gift from God in the early church. But the Corinthians, being inquisitive, were more desirous of this gift than the gift of prophecy. Therefore, when the Apostle mentions here about speaking in a tongue, he means an unknown language not interpreted; as when one might speak German to a Frenchman without an interpreter, he is speaking in a tongue. Hence, all speech not understood not explained, no matter what it is, is properly called speaking in a tongue.

Having mentioned these things, let us return to the text, which is clear. In regard to this he does two things: first, he proves that the gift of prophecy is greater than the gift of tongues; secondly, he excludes an objection (v. 5b).

That the gift of prophecy is more excellent than the gift of tongues he proves with two reasons: the first is based on the relationship of God with the Church; the second on the relationship of men with the Church.

The first reason is this: That through which man does things which are not only for the glory of God but for the benefit of his neighbors is better than that which is done only for the glory of God. But prophecy is not only for the honor of God but also useful to our neighbor, whereas by the gift of tongues something is done solely for the honor of God. He presents the middle term of this reasoning: first, inasmuch as he says that one who speaks in a tongue only honors God. And this is what he says: One who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men, i.e., not to the human intellect, but to God, i.e., only to the honor of God. Or to God, because God alone understands: "The zealous ear of God hears all things" (Wis 1:10). That he does not speak to man is indicated when he says: For no one hears him, i.e., understands. For it often happens that not to hear means not to understand: "He who has ears to hear, let him hear" (Matt 13:9). Why he speaks only to God he indicates, when he says that God Himself is speaking; hence he says: But he utters mysteries in the Spirit, i.e., hidden things: "For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father" (Matt 10:20); "No one understands the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God" (1 Cor 2:11).

A person is built up when he finds out the answer to disputed points. Encouragement comes to him when he is enabled to endure. He is consoled when he continues in hope even when others are viewing his discipline with contempt. Knowledge of the law strengthens his soul and encourages him to hope for better things.

"But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men edification, and exhortation, and comfort."

Seest thou by what he signifies the choice nature of this gift? i.e., by the common benefit? and how every where he gives the higher honor to that which tends to the profit of the many? For do not the former speak unto men also? tell me. But not so much "edification, and exhortation, and comfort." So that the being powered by the Spirit is common to both, as well to him that prophesieth, as to him that speaketh with tongues; but in this, the one (he, I mean, who prophesieth) hath the advantage in that he is also profitable unto the hearer. For they who with tongues were not understood by them that had not the gift.

Secondly, he proves his statement that prophecy is for the honor of God and the benefit of our neighbors. Hence he says, He who prophesies, i.e., explains visions or Scriptures, speaks to men, i.e., to the human intellect for the upbuilding of beginners and encouragement of the proficient and the consolation of the desolate. "Comfort the fainthearted (1 Th 5:14); "Speak and persuade" (Titus 2:15), for the consolation of the desolate. Or upbuilding pertains to spiritual affection, because one's spiritual edifice first begins there: "In whom you are also built into it" (Eph 2:22). But exhortation pertains to inducement to good acts, because if the will is good, then the act is good: "Declare and exhort these things" (Titus 2:15). Consolation on the other hand induces one to tolerate evils: "Whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction" (Rom 15:4). Those who preach the divine scriptures induce people to these three things.

Paul is saying that prophets are interpreters of the Scriptures.

What then? Did they edify no man? "Yes," saith he, "themselves alone:" wherefore also he adds, "He that speaketh in tongue edifieth himself."

And how, if he know not what he saith? Why, for the present, he is speaking of them who understand what they say; understand it themselves, but know not how to render it unto others.

"But he that prophesieth edifieth the Church." Now as great as is the difference between a single person and the Church, so great is the interval between these two. Seest thou his wisdom, how he doth not thrust out the gift and make nothing of it, but signifies it to have some advantage, small though it be, and such as to suffice the possessor only?

Many who spoke in tongues could not explain what they themselves were saying. Therefore they were useful only to themselves. But the one who prophesies is useful to all listeners. Therefore, as great as the distance between benefit to one person and benefit to the Church, so great is the distance between tongues and prophecy.

The second reason is this: that which is useful only to the doer is less than that which also profits others. But to speak in tongues is useful only to the speaker, whereas to prophesy benefits others. He presents the middle term of this reasoning: first, in regard to its first part and he says: he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself: "My heart became hot within me" (Ps. 39:3). Secondly, in regard to the second part he says: But he who prophecies edifies the church, i.e., believers, by instructing them: "Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph 2:20).

Paul could not forbid speaking in tongues, because this is a gift of the Holy Spirit, but the pursuit of prophecy is more acceptable because it is more useful.

Next, lest they should suppose that in envy to them he depresses the tongues, (for the more part had this gift,) to correct their suspicion he saith, "I would have you all speak with tongues, but rather that ye should prophesy: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the Church may receive edifying."

But "rather" and "greater," do not mark opposition, but superiority. So that hence also it is evident that he is not disparaging the gift, but leading them to better things, displaying both his carefulness on their behalf, and a spirit free from all envy. For neither did he say, "I would that two or three," but, "that ye all spake with tongues" and not this only, but also, "that ye prophesied;" and this rather than that; "for greater is he that prophesieth." For since he hath established and proved it, he next proceeds also to assert it; not however simply, but with a qualification. Accordingly he adds, "except he interpret;" since if he be able to do this, I mean the interpreting, "he hath become equal unto the prophet," so he speaks, "because then there are many who reap the advantage of it;" a thing to be especially observed, how this throughout, before all else, is his object.

The prophet, he says, is greater; but greater than the one who only speaks in tongues and does not know how to interpret. But if he also knows how to interpret, then he is equal to the prophet. For through the interpretation of what he speaks unclearly in a tongue, he edifies the Church. Interpretation was also a gift, and to some of those who spoke in tongues it was given, while to others it was not given.

Since many among the Corinthians spoke in tongues, lest they think that he disparages tongues out of envy, he says: I wish that you "all" spoke in tongues, not just one or two; even more I wish that you would prophesy, because this is much more beneficial.

Here the Apostle excludes an objection or false understanding, which could occur in respect to the foregoing. For some might believe that since the Apostle prefers prophecy to the gift of tongues, the latter should be scorned. Hence, to exclude this he says: Now I want you, where he shows what he intends to insinuate; secondly, he gives the reason (v. 5b).

He says, therefore: I said the things stated above, I do not wish to spurn the gift of tongues, but I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy: "Would that the Lord's people were prophets" (Num. 11:29).

He assigns the reason for this when he says: He who prophecies is greater. As if to say: the reason I wish that you would prophesy more is that it is greater. The reason for this is that some are sometimes moved by the Holy Spirit to speak something mystical, which they do not understand. Hence, they have the gift of tongues. But sometimes they not only speak in tongues, but also interpret what they say. Hence he says: unless someone interprets. For the gift of tongues with interpretation is better than prophecy, because as has been said, the interpretation of anything arduous pertains to prophecy. Hence, one who speaks and interprets is a prophet and had the gift of tongues and he interprets in order to edify the Church. Hence he says, that the Church may be edified, i.e., that he not only understand himself but also edify the Church: "Let us pursue what makes for mutual edification" (Rom 14:19); "Let each of you please the neighbor for his good to edify him." (Rom 15:2).

"The generation of those that seek Him" is the elect race, devoted to inquiry after knowledge. Wherefore also the apostle says, "I shall profit you nothing, unless I speak to you, either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophecy, or by doctrine." Although even by those who are not Gnostics some things are done rightly, yet not according to reason; as in the case of fortitude. For some who are naturally high-spirited, and have afterwards without reason fostered this disposition, rush to many things, and act like brave men, so as sometimes to succeed in achieving the same things; just as endurance is easy for mechanics. But it is not from the same cause, or with the same object; not were they to give their whole body. "For they have not love," according to the apostle.

"But now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either by way of revelation, or of knowledge, or of prophesying, or of teaching?"

"And why speak I," saith he, "of the rest? Nay, let the person who speaketh with tongues be Paul: for not even so will any good come to the hearers" And these things he saith to signify that he is seeking their profit, not beating any grudge against them that have the gift; since not even in his own person doth he shrink from pointing out its unprofitableness. And indeed it is his constant way to work out the disagreeable topics in his own person: as in the beginning of the Epistle he said, "Who then is Paul? and who is Apollos? and who is Cephas?" This same then he doth also here, saying, "Not even I shall profit you, except I speak to you either by way of revelation, or of prophesying, or of knowledge, or of teaching." And what he means is, "if I say not somewhat that can be made intelligible to you and that may be dear, but merely make display of my having the gift of tongues;-tongues which ye do not understand, ye will go away with no sort of profit. For how should you profit by a voice which ye understand not?"

Do you want to know that tongues without interpretation are useless? Let me, Paul, your teacher, speak in tongues; even in this case there will be no benefit to the hearers unless I explain something "by revelation," that is, as those who have received revelation from God usually speak; for this too is a form of prophecy, when in the presence of many the thoughts of each are disclosed. "Or by knowledge," that is, as those who have knowledge can speak, explaining to the hearers the mysteries of God. "Or by prophecy," that is, when someone speaks about the past, the present, and the future. For prophecy is broader than revelation. "Or by teaching," that is, in the form of a teaching word, when the discourse concerns now virtue, now dogmas. For teaching too is for the benefit of the hearers. Others understood the word "revelation" as follows: to say something easily understood, clear, and evident, and "knowledge" as saying something that can be known.

Then when he says: Now, brethren, he proves by examples that the gift of prophecy is more excellent than the gift of tongues, and this in three ways: first, by giving an example taken from himself; secondly, by an example taken from inanimate things (v. 17); thirdly by an example taken from men speaking different language (v. 10).

Using himself as an example he argues this: Consequently, it is clear that I do not have the gift of tongues less than you. But if I were to speak to you only in tongues and did not interpret, you would not profit at all. Therefore, neither would you from one another. And this is what he says: Now brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues. This can be understood in two ways, namely, either by an unknown language, or literally, by whatever sign that is not understood.

How shall I benefit you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? It should be noted that those four things, namely, revelation, knowledge, prophecy, teaching, can be distinguished in two ways: in one way according to the things they concern. In this way, it should be noted that the illumination of the mind for understanding concerns four things, because it is either about divine things, and this illumination of the mind pertains to the gift of wisdom. For, as was stated above, revelation is concerned with divine things, because "the things of God no one knows except the spirit of God" (1 Cor 2:11). Therefore, he says: in revelation, by which the mind is enlightened to know divine things. Or it is about earthly things, not just any but only about those which pertain to the building up of faith: and this pertains to the gift of knowledge. Therefore he says: in knowledge, not geometry or astronomy, because these do not pertain to the building up of the faith, but in knowledge of holy things: "He gave them knowledge of holy things" (Wis 10:10). Or it is about future events, and this pertains to the gift of prophecy: hence he says: or in prophecy: "She has foreknowledge of signs and wonders and of the outcome of seasons and of times" (Wis 8:8). It should be noted that prophecy is not taken here as it is generally used and was explained above, but it is taken here in a special sense, as a manifestation of future events only. In this sense it is defined by Cassiodorus: "Prophecy is divine inspiration announcing with infallible truth the future of things." "I will again pour out teaching like prophecy" (Sir 24:33). Or is it is about moral acts, and this pertaining to teaching; therefore he says: Or teaching: "He that teaches, in teaching" (Rom 12:7); "Good teaching wins favor" (Pr 13:15).

They can be distinguished in another way according to the various ways that knowledge is from a supernatural source, namely, God, or from a natural, i.e., the natural light of the intellect. If it is from a supernatural principle, namely, by a divinely infused light, it can happen in two ways: because it is either infused by sudden knowledge, and then it is revelation; or it is infused successively, and then it is prophecy, which the prophets did not have suddenly but successively and by parts, as their prophecies show. But if the knowledge is acquired by a natural principle, this is either through one's own study and then it pertains to knowledge, or it is presented by someone else, and then it pertains to teaching.

"Even things without life, giving a voice, whether pipe or harp, if they give not a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped?"

"And why do I say," saith he, "that in our case this is unprofitable, and that only useful which is dear and easy to be apprehended by the hearers? Since even in musical instruments without life one may see this: for whether it be pipe or harp, yet if it be struck or blown confusedly and unskilfully, without proper cadence or harmony, it will captivate none of the hearers. For even in these inarticulate sounds there is need of some distinctness: and if thou strike not or breathe into the pipe according to art, thou hast done nothing. Now if from things without life we require so much distinctness, and harmony, and appropriateness, and into those inarticulate sounds we strive and contend to infuse so much meaning, much more in men indued with life and reason, and in spiritual gifts, ought one to make significancy an object.

And what, he says, am I saying — that what is unclear among us is useless, while what is clear is useful? If even with inanimate instruments the sounds do not "produce distinct tones," that is, clear ones, but everything is mixed together, then it is impossible either to recognize what is being played or to receive pleasure and joy.

Here he shows the same thing with examples taken from inanimate things, namely, instruments which seem to have a voice: first, with instruments of joy; secondly, the instruments of battle (v. 8).

He says, therefore: that speaking in tongues does not benefit others is shown not only from what has been said above but also by lifeless things which seem to have a sound. Against this, a voice is a sound uttered from the mouth of an animal. Therefore, lifeless things do not give forth a voice. The answer is that although a voice is found only in animals, yet in virtue of a likeness it can be said that certain things, such as musical instruments, have a definite consonance and melody. That is why he mentions them, namely, the harp, which gives forth a voice through touch, and the flute through blowing. If even lifeless instruments do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know with is played? For since man intends to express something through musical instruments, namely, songs which are directed to sorrow or to joy: "You shall have a song in the night, when a holy feast is kept; and gladness of heart, as when one set out to the sound of the flute to go to the mountain of the Lord" (Is 30:29), or even to wantonness, one cannot tell what the flute is playing or the harp, if the sound is confused and not distinct. So if a man speaks in tongues, and he does not interpret, no one knows what he wants to say.

"For if the trumpet give an uncertain voice, who shall prepare himself for war?"

Thus from things merry ornamental he carries on his argument to those which are more necessary and useful; and saith that not in the harp alone, but in the trumpet also one may see this effect produced. For in that also there are certain measures; and they give out at one time a warlike note, and at another one that is not so; and again sometimes it leads out to line of battle and at others recalls from it: and unless one know this, there is great danger. Which is just what he means, and the mischief of it what he is manifesting, when he saith, "who shall prepare himself for war?" So then, if it have not this quality, it is the ruin of all.

The trumpet is a sign of war. Therefore, when the soul perceives itself armed with so many and such important virtues, it necessarily goes forth to the war it has against principalities and powers and against the world rulers.

If it is uncertain whether the bugle is sounding for relaxation or for war, nobody will get ready for battle. The latter is how your own words should be understood, for they are meant to prepare soldiers for spiritual warfare.

From things not necessary he passed to the most necessary, mentioned the trumpet, and says that from it too there come orderly sounds, some preparing for war, and others drawing away from war. If it produces an unclear and indeterminate sound, then the soldiers will not be ready, and what is the use of an unclear sound?

Here he shows the same thing with another lifeless thing, namely, the instrument ordained to battle. This likeness is taken from Num. (10:1-10), where it says that the Lord commanded Moses to make two silver trumpets to be used for summoning all the people, for moving their camps and for battle. For each of these three things there was a different way of sounding the trumpet, because when they moved their camps it sounded one way; and another, when they were to assemble; and still another, when they were to do battle. And so the Apostle argues that just as if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, it is not known whether they should prepare for battle, so you, if you only speak in tongues, unless you make your speech clear by interpreting or explaining, no one will know what you are saying. By "bugle" can also be understood "preachers." "Lift up your voice like a trumpet" (Is 58:1).

You see that the barbarian philosophy professes deeds, not words. The apostle thus speaks: "So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue a word easy to be understood, how shall ye know what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kind of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me." And, "Let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret."

"So also ye, unless ye utter by the tongue, speech easy to be understood, ye will be speaking into the air:" i. e., calling to nobody, speaking unto no one. Thus every where he shows its unprofitableness.

"But if it be unprofitable, why was it given?" saith one. So as to be useful to him that hath received it. But if it is to be so to others also, there must be added interpretation. Now this he saith, bringing them near to one another; that if a person himself have not the gift of interpretation, he may take unto him another that hath it, and make his own gift useful through him. Wherefore he every where points out its imperfection, that so he may bind them together. Any how, he that accounts it to be sufficient for itself, doth not so much commend it as disparage it, not suffering it to shine brightly by the interpretation. For excellent indeed and necessary is the gift, but it is so when it hath one to explain what is spoken. Since the finger too is a necessary thing, but when you separate it from the other members, it will not be equally useful: and the trumpet is necessary, but when it sounds at random, it is rather an annoyance. Yea, neither shall any art come to light, without matter subject to it; nor is matter put into shape, if no form be assigned to it. Suppose then the voice to be as the subject-matter, but the distinctness as that form, which not being present, there will be no use in the material.

Lest they should say: "what relation does the example of the flute and trumpet have to us?", he says: if you too, by the gift of tongues, do not utter words that are intelligible, that is, clear, then you speak in vain and into the wind, because no one understands; for all the power lies in the gift being useful — for what purpose was it given? Surely not so that only the one who received it would benefit? But if he wished to be useful to others as well, then he should have either prayed to God and through a pure life received the gift of interpretation, or turned to someone who can explain. Paul says this in order to unite them with one another, and so that they would not consider themselves sufficient for themselves, but would receive those who can also interpret: for then the gift will be more useful.

But the reason why it cannot be known what you are saying is that you will be speaking into the air, i.e., uselessly: "I do not box as one beating the air" (1 Cor 9:26).

"There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and no kind is without signification:" i. e., so many tongues, so many voices of Scythians, Thracians, Romans, Persians, Moors, Indians, Egyptians, innumerable other nations.

"If then I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian." "For suppose not," saith he, "that this happens only in our case; rather in all one may see this taking place: so that I do not say this to disparage the voice, but to signify that to me it is useless, as long as it is not intelligible." Next, that he may not render the accusation unpalatable, he makes his charge alike for the two, saying, "He shall be unto me a barbarian, and I to him." Not from the nature of the voice, but from our ignorance. Seest thou how by little and little he draws men to that which is akin to the subject. Which is his use to do, to fetch his examples from afar, and to end with what more properly belongs to the matter. For having spoken of a pipe and harp, wherein is much that is inferior and unprofitable, he comes to the trumpet, a thing more useful; next, from that he proceeds to the very voice itself. So also before, when he was discounting to show that it was not forbidden the Apostles to receive, beginning first with husbandmen, and shepherds, and soldiers, then he brought the discourse on to that which is nearer to the subject, the priests in the old covenant.

But do thou, I pray, consider, how every where he hath given diligence to free the gift from censure, and to bring round the charge to the receivers of it. For he said not, "I shall be a barbarian," but, "unto him that speaketh, a barbarian." And again, he did not say, "he that speaketh shall be a barbarian," but "he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me."

There is no language without meaning because all languages are human.

That is, so many languages appeared in the world—Scythian, Indian, Thracian, and those of other peoples—and all tribes say something, for they are not without language.

Here he uses the examples of the various human languages. In regard to this he does three things: first, he points out the diversity of tongues; secondly, that it is useless for one to speak to others in a language they do not understand (v. 11); thirdly, he concludes what he intended (v. 12).

First, therefore, he says: The languages of the world are many and diverse, and anyone can speak in whichever one he wants; but if he does not speak precisely, he is not understood. And this is what he says: There are doubtless many languages in the world. This can be explained in two ways, for it can be connected with the preceding as saying: you will be speaking uselessly in all languages, because you speak without understanding, whereas words have a definite meaning in all languages to be understood. For nothing exists without its "voice." Or it can be punctuated thus: you will be speaking into the air. So many, for example, are the kinds of languages, i.e., individual languages.

Any language we cannot understand we look down on as barbaric.

If I do not understand the meaning of the words, then the speaker will seem to me a foreigner, that is, one speaking unintelligibly; and I will seem the same to him, not because of the poorness of the words, but because of our lack of understanding.

Here he shows their uselessness. And this is what he says: "If I have spoken in all tongues," but did not know the meaning of the words, I will be a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker a foreigner to me. Note that barbarians according to some are those whose idiom completely disagrees with Latin. But others say that any foreigner is a barbarian to every other foreigner, namely, when he is not understood by him. But this is not true, because according to Isidore, "Barbaria" is a special nation: "In Christ Jesus there is neither barbarian nor Scythian" (Col 3:11). But it is closer to the truth to say that barbarian is the name for those who are strong in body and weak in reasoning and exist, as it were, outside the law and without the rule of law. And Aristotle seems to agree with this in his Politics.

The soul is stirred and rejoices when it learns something more about the Scriptures. The more it tends in this direction, the more it abandons vices. It is for these reasons that Paul advises that one should make efforts to communicate clearly.

"What then must be done?" saith he. Why, so far from disparaging, one ought to recommend and to teach it; as indeed himself also doth. Since after he had accused and rebuked it and shown its unprofitableness, he proceeds to counsel them; saying, "So also ye, since as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may abound unto the edifying of the Church."

Seest thou his aim every where, how he looks to one thing continually and in all cases, the general utility, the profiting the Church; laying this down as a kind of rule? And he did not say, "that ye may obtain the gifts" but, "that ye may abound," i.e., that ye may even possess them in great plenitude. Thus, so far am I from wishing you not to possess them, that I even wish you to abound in them, only so that ye handle them with a view to the common advantage. And how is this to be done? ...

Some, after the words "so also you," place a period, and explain: so also you, speaking in tongues things unintelligible, appear as foreigners to the listeners; then they begin again and read: "zealous for spiritual gifts." But Saint John Chrysostom reads without the division. Since, he says, you are zealous for spiritual gifts, I also desire this, and I accept it, as I said before; only strive to abound in them "for edification," that is, for the benefit of the Church. For I not only do not hinder you from speaking in tongues, but I desire that you abound in this gift, provided only that you use it for the common benefit.

Then when he says: So with yourselves, he concludes to what he intended; and this can be constructed in two ways: first, so that it is punctuated as if he were saying: Therefore, I will be a barbarian to you, if I speak without meaning and interpretation, just as you will be barbarians to one another; and, therefore, seek to abound. And this, because you will be eager for manifestations of the Spirit. Or in another way, so that it is all put under a distinction. As if to say: Therefore, do not be barbarians, but because you are eager for the manifestations of the Spirit, i.e., of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, do as I do and seek them from God, that you may abound: "In abundant justice is virtue the greatest" (Pr 12:5). This justice consists in edifying others: "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you" (Matt 7:7).

You see that the barbarian philosophy professes deeds, not words. The apostle thus speaks: "So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue a word easy to be understood, how shall ye know what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kind of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me." And, "Let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret."

"Wherefore let him that speaketh in a tongue pray that he may interpret."

Here he shows that it is in their power to obtain the gift. For, "let him pray," saith he, i.e., "let him contribute his own part," since if thou ask diligently, thou wilt surely receive. Ask accordingly not to have the gift of tongue only, but also of interpretation, that thou mayest become useful unto all, and not shut up thy gift in thyself alone.

If the one who speaks in tongues does not have the power to interpret them, others will not understand, but he will know what he was moved by the Spirit to say. When this is understood by others as well, there will be fruit from it. Here as elsewhere, we are taught to seek the common good of the church.

He points out the way to make this gift useful for many. He says: let the one who speaks in tongues pray, so that he may also receive the gift of interpretation. So they themselves are to blame for not receiving the gift of interpretation, because they do not ask God for it.

Having shown that the gift of prophecy excels the gift of tongues with reasons taken on the part of exhortation, the Apostle now shows the same thing with reasons taken on the part of prayer; for we perform these two things with the tongue, namely, prayer and exhortation. In regard to this he does two things: first, he proves that prophecy excels the gift of tongues with reasons; secondly, with examples (v. 18). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the necessity of prayer; secondly, how in prayer the gift of prophecy is more powerful than the gift of tongues (v. 14).

First, therefore, he says: I have said that the gift of tongues without the gift of prophecy has no value, because interpretation is an act of prophecy, which is more excellent than speaking in tongue. One who speaks in a tongue, unknown or foreign, certain hidden mysteries, should pray, namely, to God, for the power to interpret, i.e., that the grace to interpret be given him: "Praying that God may open to us a door" (Col 4:3). A Gloss exposits pray differently. For 'to pray' is said to be twofold, namely either to beseech God or to prevail upon him; as if he says: he who speaks in a tongue, let him pray, i.e., let him prevail upon God, so that he may interpret. And so the Gloss understands 'to pray' here for the whole chapter. But this is not the meaning of the Apostle, but rather it is 'to beseech God'.

What can a person achieve if he does not know what he is saying?

For he speaks thus, when that which is said is not understood, because it cannot even be uttered, unless the images of corporeal sounds precede the oral sounds by the thought of the spirit.

"For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful."

"What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also; I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also."

Seest thou how by degrees bringing his argument to a point, he signifies that not to others only is such an one useless, but also to himself; if at least "his understanding is unfruitful?" For if a man should speak only in the Persian, or any other foreign tongue, and not understand what he saith, then of course to himself also will he be thenceforth a barbarian, not to another only, from not knowing the meaning of the sound. For there were of old many who had also a gift of prayer, together with a tongue; and they prayed, and the tongue spake, praying either in the Persian or Latin language, but their understanding knew not what was spoken. Wherefore also he said, "If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth," i.e., the gift which is given me and which moves my tongue, "but my understanding is unfruitful."

What then may that be which is best in itself, and doth good? And how ought one to act, or what request of God? To pray, "both with the spirit," i.e., the gift, and "with the understanding." Wherefore also he said, "I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also."

He signifieth the same thing here also, that both the tongue may speak, and the understanding may not be ignorant of the things spoken. For except this be so, there will also be another confusion.

If you have brought a word in praise of God, not new and fresh from the learning of the spirit, from the teaching of God's grace, your mouth indeed offers "a sacrifice of praise," but your mind is accused on account of the sterility of yesterday's flesh.

In ancient times, some received the gift of prayer together with the gift of tongues, and they uttered Persian or Roman words, but the mind did not understand what they were saying. Paul says that "my spirit," that is, the gift that moves the tongue, "prays," but "my mind" remains without fruit, since it understands nothing of what is spoken. See then how he gradually proved that one who speaks only in a tongue is useless even to himself. Thus Saint John explains this passage. But some understand it this way: if I speak in a tongue but do not interpret, then "my spirit," that is, my soul, receives benefit in itself, but my mind remains without fruit, because it does not bring benefit to others. Those who understand this saying in this way, in my opinion, feared the error of Montanus: for he introduced such a heresy that the prophets absolutely did not understand their own words, but being possessed by the Spirit they spoke something, yet what they spoke they did not understand. But this is irrelevant here. For the apostle said this—that is, that they do not understand their own words—not about the prophets, but about those speaking in tongues, and of them not about all, but about some.

Here he shows that in praying, prophecy is more valuable than the gift of tongues in two ways: first, with a reason based on the one praying; secondly, on the one hearing (v. 16). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he presents a reason showing the truth of his proposition; secondly, he removes an objection (v. 15).

In regard to the first it should be noted that prayer is of two kinds: one is private, namely, when one prays in himself and for himself; the other is public, when one prays before the people and for others. In both cases one can use the gift of tongues and the gift of prophecy. Hence he wants to show that in both cases the gift of prophecy is more valuable than the gift of tongues. First, in private prayer, if an outsider says his own prayer, saying a Psalm or "our Father" and he does not understand what he says, he prays with the tongue and it does not concern him whether he is praying with words granted him by the Holy Spirit or with someone else's words: and if another prays and understands what he is saying, he, indeed, both prays and prophesies. It is evident that one who prays and understands accomplishes more than one who prays only in a tongue, namely, who does not understand what he is saying. For the one who understands is refreshed both in intellect and affections, but the mind of one who does not understand receives no fruit of refreshment. Hence, since it is better to be refreshed in mind and affections than in affections only, it is obvious that in prayer the gift of prophecy is more valuable than the gift of tongues.

And this is what he says: I say that he should pray for the power to interpret, for if I pray in a tongue, i.e., use the gift of tongues in praying, so that I utter what I do not understand; then my spirit, i.e., the Holy Spirit given to me, prays, Who inclines and moves me to pray. Nevertheless, I merit in that prayer, because the very fact that I am moved by the Spirit is merit for me: "We do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself makes us ask" (Rom 8:26). Or my spirit, i.e., my reason, prays, i.e., tells me that I should ask for things which are good, either in my own words or those of other saints. Or my spirit, i.e., the imagination, prays in the sense that words of the likenesses of bodily things are only in the imagination without being understood by the intellect. Therefore, he adds: but my mind, i.e., my intellect, is unfruitful, because it does not understand. Therefore, prophecy or interpretation is better in prayer than is the gift of tongues.

But is it true that whenever anyone prays and does not understand what he is saying, he obtains no fruit? The answer is that the fruit of prayer is twofold: one fruit is the merit the person obtains; the other fruit is the spiritual consolation and devotion produced by the prayer. In regard to the fruit of spiritual devotion, one is deprived of it, if he does not attend to what he is praying, or does not understand; but in regard to the fruit of merit, one is not necessarily deprived of it. For many prayers would be without merit, since a man can scarcely say the "Our Father" without his mind wandering to other things. Therefore, it must be said that when the one praying is sometimes diverted from what he is saying, or when a person engaged in one meritorious work does not continually think at each step that he is doing this for God, he does not lose the reason for merit. The reason for this is that in all meritorious acts ordained to the right end, it is not required that the intention of the performer be united to the end in every act: but the first influence, which moves the intention, remains in the entire work, even if in some particular it be distracted; and this first influence makes the entire work meritorious, unless it is interrupted by a contrary affection which turns one from the original and to a contrary end.

But it should be noted that attention is threefold: one is to the words the man is saying: and this is harmful sometimes, inasmuch as it impedes devotion; another is to the sense of the words, and this is harmful, but not very much; the third is to the end, and this is better and, as it were, necessary. Nevertheless, when the Apostle says that the mind is unfruitful, it is understood of the fruit of refreshment.

It is in spirit and mind that one should pray and sing to God. Paul does not say anything about the tongue. The reason is that this spiritual prayer is not offered up or prayed by the tongue, for it is deeper than the lips and the tongue, more interiorized than any composite sounds, lying beyond psalmody and wisdom.

The prayer of those who sing is acceptable to God only if a pure heart carries the same message which the words of the hymn unfold.

Worshiping and praying in the Spirit seem to me to be simply the Spirit presenting prayer and worship to himself.

For our mind would not even be able to pray unless the Spirit prayed for it as if obeying it, so that we cannot even sing and hymn the Father in Christ with proper rhythm, melody, measure and harmony unless the Spirit who searches everything, even the depths of God, first praises and hymns him whose depths he has searched out and has understood as far as he is able.

We are the true adorers and the true priests, who, praying in spirit, sacrifice, in spirit, prayer,-a victim proper and acceptable to God, which assuredly He has required, which He has looked forward to for Himself! This victim, devoted from the whole heart, fed on faith, tended by truth, entire in innocence, pure in chastity, garlanded with love, we ought to escort with the pomp of good works, amid psalms and hymns, unto God's altar, to obtain for us all things from God.

What then, he says, is more beneficial? And what should one ask of God? That one should pray "with the spirit," that is, with the gift, and also "with the mind," that is, to consciously understand the words of the prayer with one's thought. Likewise also concerning singing.

Because someone could say: inasmuch as prayer in a tongue is without fruit to the mind, but the spirit prays, should one then not pray in the spirit. Therefore, the Apostle answers this objection, saying that one should pray in both ways, in the spirit and in the mind; because man should serve God with all the things he has from God. But from God he has spirit and mind; therefore, he should pray with both: "With all his heart he will praise God" (Sir 47:8). Therefore, he says: I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. And so he says that he will pray and sing; because prayer is the beseeching of God, and so he says, I will pray, or it is praising Him, and so he says I will sing. Concerning these two Jas (5:13) says: "Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing." "Sing praises to the Lord" (Ps 9:11). I will pray, therefore, in the spirit, i.e., imagination, and with the mind, i.e., the will.

The confirmation of the prayer comes about when people say "Amen" to it. The words spoken are confirmed in the minds of the hearers by the confession of truth.

This teacher declares that the restitution of all things will take place, when all these, mixing into one letter, shall utter one and the same sound. He imagines that the emblem of this utterance is found in Amen, which we pronounce in concert. The diverse sounds (he adds) are those which give form to that Aeon who is without material substance and unbegotten, and these, again, are the forms which the Lord has called angels, who continually behold the face of the Father.

"Else," saith he, "if thou bless with the spirit, how shall he that filleth the place of the unlearned say the Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he knoweth not what thou sayest?"

"For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified."

Observe how again here he brings his stone to the plumb-line every where seeking the edification of the Church. Now by the "unlearned" he means the laymen, and signifies that he also suffers no little loss when he is unable to say the Amen. And what he saith is this: "if thou shalt bless in a barbarian tongue, not knowing what thou sayest, nor able to interpret, the layman cannot respond the Amen. For not hearing the words, 'forever and ever,' which are at the end, he doth not say the Amen." Then again, comforting him concerning this, that he might not seem to hold the gift too cheap; the same kind of remark as he made above, that "he speaketh mysteries," and "speaketh unto God," and "edifieth himself," and "prayeth with the spirit," intending no little comfort from these things, this also he utters here, saying, "for thou indeed givest thanks well," since thou speakest being moved by the Spirit: but the other hearing nothing nor knowing what is said, stands there, receiving no great advantage by it.

Paul is thinking here of laypeople, who do not hold office in the church.

When, he says, you sing, if you bless "in the spirit," that is, by a spiritual gift through a tongue, then the one occupying the place of the unlearned, that is, the layman — how will he say "amen" to your prayer? For you spoke the words "forever and ever" unclearly and in a language unfamiliar to him, and he did not understand, and therefore receives no benefit.

Here, secondly, he shows that the gift of prophecy is more valuable than the gift of tongues, even in public prayer, which is when a priest prays in public, where he sometimes says things he does not understand and sometimes things he does understand. In regard to this he does three things: first, he presents a reason, secondly, he explains; thirdly, he proves what he had presupposed.

He says, therefore: I have said that the gift of prophecy in private prayer is more beneficial, but also in public, because if you bless, i.e., if you give a blessing in the spirit, i.e., in a tongue not understood, or with the imagination, and moved by the Holy Spirit, who supplies the place of the ignorant man (who knows only the tongue in which he was born). As if to say: you will say what he should say there to the ignorant man; for what he should say there is Amen.

Therefore, he says: how can he say Amen to your blessing, where a Gloss says, i.e., how shall he consent to the blessing given by you in the name of the Church? "He that is blessed on the earth will be blessed in God. Amen." (Is 55:16). Amen is the same as "let it be done," or "it is so." As if to say: if he does not know what you are saying, how shall he conform himself to your utterances? He could conform, even if he does not understand, but only in a general way, because he cannot understand what good thing you are saying, but only that you are blessing.

But why are blessings not given in the vernacular, so that they will be understood by the people and conform themselves to them more? The answer is that this probably happened in the early Church, but later the faithful were instructed and know what they hear in the common office, where blessings are given in Latin.

Here Paul explains what he said above, which is that a believer should be a blessing to everyone.

You might think he is completely disparaging the gift of tongues, but he says: you, for your part, give thanks well, but since there is no benefit to your neighbor in this, your thanksgiving is useless.

Then he proves why he cannot say, "Amen," when he says: For you may give thanks well enough to God, inasmuch as you understand, but the other man, who hears and does not understand, is not edified, for he does not understand in detail, even if he understands in a general way and is edified: "Let no evil thought come out of your mouth, but only such as is good for edifying" (Eph 4:29). Consequently, it is better not only to bless in a tongue, but also to interpret and explain, although you who give thanks do well.

Further, because he had run down the possessors of this gift, as though they had no such great thing; that he might not seem to hold them cheap, as being himself destitute of it, see what he saith: "I thank God, speaking with tongues more than ye all."

And this he doth also in another place intending, namely, to take away the advantages of Judaism and to show that henceforth they are nothing, he begins by declaring that himself had been endowed with them, yea, and that in very great excess; and then he calls them "loss," thus saying, "If any man thinketh to have confidence in the flesh, I more: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; as touching zeal, persecuting the Church; as touching the righteousness which is the law, found blameless." And then, having signified himself to have the advantage of all, he saith, "Howbeit what things were gain to me, those have I counted loss for Christ." So also he doth here, saying, "I speak with tongues more than ye all." Do not ye therefore glory as though ye only had the gift. For I also possess it, yea more than ye.

Lest they think that he disparages this gift because he himself does not possess it, he says: I speak in tongues more than all of you.

Here the Apostle shows that the gift of prophecy excels the gift of tongues with reasons taken on his own part. In regard to this he does two things: first, he gives thanks for the gift of tongues given him by God; secondly, he proposes himself to them as an example (v. 19).

He says, therefore, I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all. As if to say: I do not belittle the gift of tongues, because I say that the gift of prophecy is more excellent, but it ought to be cherished. Hence, I, too, thank God. Therefore, thanks should be given for all things: "In all things give thanks" (1 Th 5:18). Or I thank God. As if to say: I do not belittle the gift of tongues, as though lacking it; rather I have it. Therefore, he says: I thank God. But lest it be understood that all speak in one tongue, he says: that I speak in tongues more than you: "They spoke in various tongues" (Ac 2:4).

"Howbeit in the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I might instruct others also."

What is that, "speak with my understanding, that I might instruct others also?" "Understanding what I say," and "words which I can both interpret to others, and speak intelligently, and teach the hearers. Than ten thousand words in a tongue." Wherefore? "That I may instruct others," saith he. For the one hath but display only; the other, great utility: this being what he everywhere seeks, I mean the common profit. And yet the gift of tongues was strange, but that of prophecy familiar and ancient and heretofore given to many; this on the contrary then first given: howbeit it was not much cared for by him. Wherefore neither did he employ it; not because he had it not, but because he always sought the more profitable things: being as he was free from all vain-glory, and considering one thing only, how he might render the hearers better.

Paul wants to speak with a clear mind and in a normal language.

"With my mind," that is, understanding and being conscious of my words, and being able to explain them, so as to bring benefit to others as well. "Than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue," that is, when I cannot interpret them; for in such a case the benefit is limited to me alone. And "five words" are spoken by every teacher who applies the proper remedy to each of our five senses.

Here he presents himself as an example. As if to say: If I have the gift of tongues, just as you, you should do as I do. But I would rather speak five words in the church, i.e., a few words, with my mind and understand and be understood, in order to instruct others than ten thousand, i.e., any number of words in a tongue; which is not to speak to the mind in any way, as explained above.

Some say that he says, five, because the Apostle seems to prefer to say one prayer with understanding than many without understanding. But according to the grammarians, if a statement is to have perfect sense, it should have five things: a subject, predicate, verbal copula, a modifier of the subject and a modifier of the predicate. To others it seems better to say, that because we speak with the intellect in order that others be taught, he mentions five, because the teacher should teach five things, namely: things to be believed: "Declare and exhort these things" (Titus 2:11); things to be done: "Go into the whole world and preach the Gospel, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you" (Mk 16:15); things to be avoided, i.e., sins: "Flee from sin as from a snake" (Sir 21:2); "Declare to my people their transgressions, to the house of Jacob their sins" (Is 58:1); things to be hoped for, i.e., the eternal reward: "They searched and inquired about this salvation" (1 Pt 1:10); things to be feared, i.e., eternal punishments: "Depart, you accursed into everlasting fire" (Matt 25:21).

Paul wants them to be mature intellectually so they will grasp accurately what is needed for the upbuilding of the church. In this way they will leave behind malice and errors, striving instead for the things which are conducive to the good of the brotherhood.

Truly, then, are we the children of God, who have put aside the old man, and stripped off the garment of wickedness, and put on the immortality of Christ; that we may become a new, holy people by regeneration, and may keep the man undefiled. And a babe, as God's little one, is cleansed from fornication and wickedness. With the greatest clearness the blessed Paul has solved for us this question in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, writing thus: "Brethren, be not children in understanding; howbeit in malice be children, but in understanding be men." And the expression, "When I was a child, I thought as a child, I spoke as a child," points out his mode of life according to the law, according to which, thinking childish things, he persecuted, and speaking childish things he blasphemed the Word, not as having yet attained to the simplicity of childhood, but as being in its folly. "When I became a man," again Paul says, "I put away childish things." It is not incomplete size of stature, nor a definite measure of time, nor additional secret teachings in things that are manly and more perfect, that the apostle, who himself professes to be a preacher of childishness, alludes to when he sends it, as it were, into banishment; but he applies the name "children" to those who are under the law, who are terrified by fear as children are by bugbears; and "men" to us who are obedient to the Word and masters of ourselves, who have believed, and are saved by voluntary choice, and are rationally, not irrationally, frightened by terror.

Hence Paul says: "Do not become children in understanding." Behold, we have heard of the prudence of the serpent; now let us be admonished about the simplicity of the dove: "But in malice be infants." Hence it is said of blessed Job: "He was a simple and upright man." But what is uprightness without simplicity, or what is simplicity without uprightness? Therefore, because this Spirit teaches both uprightness and simplicity, He had to be shown both in fire and in a dove, so that every heart touched by His grace may become both tranquil with the gentleness of meekness and inflamed with zeal for justice.

To whom, then, is there the savour of death unto death, unless to those who believe not neither are subject to the Word of God? And who are they that did even then give themselves over to death? Those men, doubtless, who do not believe, nor submit themselves to God. And again, who are they that have been saved and received the inheritance? Those, doubtless, who do believe God, and who have continued in His love; as did Caleb [the son] of Jephunneh and Joshua [the son] of Nun, and innocent children, who have had no sense of evil. But who are they that are saved now, and receive life eternal? Is it not those who love God, and who believe His promises, and who "in malice have become as little children? "

As might be expected, after his long argument and demonstration he adopts a more vehement style and abundance of rebuke; and mentions an example suited to the subject. For children too are wont to gape after trifles and to be fluttered, but of things very great they have not so much admiration. Since then these also having the gift of tongues, which has the lowest of all, thought they had the whole; therefore he saith, "Be not children," i. e., be not without understanding where ye ought to be considerate, but there be ye childlike and simple, where unrighteousness is, where vain-glory, where pride. For he that is a babe in wickedness ought also to be wise. Since as wisdom with wickedness would not be wisdom, so also simplicity with folly would not be simplicity, it being requisite both in simplicity to avoid folly, and in wisdom wickedness. For as neither bitter nor sweet medicines in excess do good, so neither doth simplicity by itself, nor wisdom: and this is why Christ enjoining us to mix both said, "Be ye wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

But what is it to be a babe in wickedness? Not even to know what wickedness is: yea, such he willed them to be. Wherefore also he said, "It is actually reported that there is fornication among you." He said not, "is done," but is "reported:" as if he said, "ye are not without knowledge of the thing; ye have heard of it some time." I say, he would have them both to be men and children; the one however in wickedness, but the other in wisdom. For so even the man may become a man, if he be also a child: but as long as he is not a child in wickedness, neither will he be a man. For the wicked, instead of being mature, will be but a fool.

The apostle, too, bids us to "become children again" towards God, " to be as children in malice" by our simplicity, yet as being also "wise in our practical faculties." At the same time, with respect to the order of development in Wisdom, I have admitted that it flows from simplicity.

Having shown what place the gift of tongues occupies, he finally employs stern speech and rebukes them for thinking like children. For truly it is characteristic of children to marvel at small things, because they can astonish, such as tongues, and to neglect great things, because they reveal nothing new, such as prophecies. So here he urges them not to be puffed up, and not even to know what evil is, just as children do not know, but to be mature in mind, that is, to discern which gifts are higher and more beneficial. And in another sense: "in evil be an infant" means one who does no evil to anyone, but is innocent like a child, while mature in mind is one who, while doing no evil to anyone, also brings benefit, and not only avoids evil but also attains virtue, and preserves himself unharmed from temporal things. This instruction is similar to the following: "be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves" (Matt. 10:16).

Here he shows that the gift of prophecy excels the gift of tongue with reasons taken on the part of unbelievers. In regard to this he does two things: first, he gets their attention and makes them attentive; secondly, he argues to his point (v. 21).

In regard to the first the Apostle seems to remove the mantle of excuse from those who teach certain rude and superficial things, as if to show that they wish to live in simplicity, and not caring about subtleties to which they really do not attain; and for this they appeal to the Lord's words in Matt (18:3): "Unless you be converted and become as little children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." But the Apostle rejects this, when he says: Do not be children in your thinking, i.e., do not speak and teach childish and useless and foolish things: "When I was a child, I spoke as a child" (1 Cor 13:11). But how should you become children? In affection, not in understanding. Therefore he says: But in evil. Here it should be noted that children are not wont to think evil, and therefore he says: in evil be children. And they are not accustomed to think of the good. In this sense, we should not become children but perfect men. Therefore, he says: but in thinking be mature, i.e., be perfect in discerning good and evil. Hence it says in Heb (5:14): "Solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained to distinguish good from evil." Therefore, what is praised in you is not the simplicity opposed to prudence but the simplicity opposed to craftiness: "Be wise as serpents" (Matt 10:16); "I would have you wise as to what is good and guileless as to what is evil" (Rom 16:19).

The Lord said this about those whom he knew in advance would not believe in the Savior. For to speak in other tongues and with other lips is to preach the New Testament.

These gifts were first bestowed on us the apostles when we were about to preach the Gospel to every creature, and afterwards were of necessity afforded to those who had by our means believed; not for the advantage of those who perform them, but for the conviction of the unbelievers, that those whom the word did not persuade, the power of signs might put to shame: for signs are not for us who believe, but for the unbelievers, both for the Jews and Gentiles. For neither is it any profit to us to cast out demons, but to those who are so cleansed by the power of the Lord; as the Lord Himself somewhere instructs us, and shows, saying: "Rejoice not because the spirits are subject unto you; but rejoice, because your names are written in heaven." [Luke 10:20] Since the former is done by His power, but this by our good disposition and diligence, yet (it is manifest) by His assistance. It is not therefore necessary that every one of the faithful should cast out demons, or raise the dead, or speak with tongues; but such a one only who is vouchsafed this gift, for some cause which may be advantage to the salvation of the unbelievers, who are often put to shame, not with the demonstration of the world, but by the power of the signs; that is, such as are worthy of salvation: for all the ungodly are not affected by wonders; and hereof God Himself is a witness, as when He says in the law: "With other tongues will I speak to this people, and with other lips, and yet will they by no means believe." [Isaiah 28:11; 1 Corinthians 14:21] For neither did the Egyptians believe in God, when Moses had done so many signs and wonders; nor did the multitude of the Jews believe in Christ, as they believed Moses, who yet had healed every sickness and every disease among them.

Yet surely it is no where written in the Law, but as I said before, he calls always the whole of the Old Testament, the Law: both the prophets and the historical books And he brings forward his testimony from Esaias the prophet, again covertly detracting from the glory of the gift, for their profit; nevertheless, even thus he states it with praise. For the expression, "not even thus," hath force to point out that the miracle was enough to astonish them; and if they did not believe, the fault was theirs. And wherefore did God work it, if they were not to believe? That He might in every case appear to do His part.

Note that Paul refers to the prophetic writings also as the "law." In this passage he is quoting Isaiah [28:11] according to Aquila's translation, and not according to the Septuagint.

When he mentions the fact that "it is written in the law," how that the Creator would speak with other tongues and other lips, whilst confirming indeed the gift of tongues by such a mention, he yet cannot be thought to have affirmed that the gift was that of another god by his reference to the Creator's prediction. In precisely the same manner, when enjoining on women silence in the church, that they speak not for the mere sake of learning (although that even they have the right of prophesying, he has already shown when he covers the woman that prophesies with a veil), he goes to the law for his sanction that woman should be under obedience.

Again he compares prophecy with tongues and shows the superiority of the former, and wherein it consists is evident from what is said further. By "the Law" he customarily means the entire Old Testament. Therefore now too he says that the words written at the end of the book of Isaiah (Isa. 28:11–12) are written in the Law. By the words "but even then they will not listen to Me" he shows that the miracle could astonish them, but if they were not persuaded, the fault is theirs. For God always does His part and manifests His providence, even though He knows that people will not submit—so that they may be without excuse.

Then when he says: it is written in the law, he argues to his proposition. Here it should be noted that this argument, as is clear from a Gloss, is distinguished by many things; but according to the Apostle's intent, it does not seem that in this place attention is paid to more than one reason. The argument proving that the gift of prophecy excels the gift of tongues is this: Whatever contributes more to that to which another is principally ordained is better than the latter; but the gift of prophecy and the gift of tongues are both ordained to the conversion of unbelievers, although the gift of prophecy contributes more to this than does the gift of tongues. Therefore, prophecy is better.

In regard to this reason he does two things: first, he shows to what the gift of tongues is ordained, and to what the gift of prophecy is ordained; secondly, that the gift of prophecy contributes more (v. 22).

In regard to the first it should be noted that this question: What is written in the law can be taken as an interrogation, as though he were saying: you should not become children in sense but mature, and this is to see and know the Law. Hence, if you are mature in your senses, you should know the Law and what has been written in the Law about tongues, which are useless at times for that to which they are ordained, because although I should speak in various tongues, namely, to the Jewish people, nevertheless man does not hear. It can also be taken in a remissive sense, as if he were saying: Do not be enticed as children to desire something, not discerning whether you are being attracted to good or evil and preferring the good to the better; but be mature in sense, i.e., distinguish between the good and the better, and thus be attracted. And this happens, if you reflect on what has been written in the Law: by men of strange tongues will I speak to this people: "To fix one's thought on her is perfect understanding" (Wis 6:15). He says, in the law, not taking "law" exclusively for the five books of Moses, as it is taken in Lk (24:44): "Everything written about me in the law of Moses must be fulfilled," but for the entire Old Testament, as it is taken in John (15:25): "It is to fulfill the word that is written in their law, 'They hated me without cause,'" which was written in Ps 25 (v. 19). This, therefore, was written: in strange tongues, i.e., in various kinds of tongues, and by the lips of foreigners, i.e., in various idioms and modes of pronunciation, I will speak to this people, namely, the Jews, because this sign was specially given for the conversion of the people of Israel. And even then they will not listen to me, because although they saw the sign, they did not believe: "Blind the heart of this people and make their ears heavy" (Is 6:10).

But why would God give them signs, if they were not to be converted? To this there are two answers: one is that although not all were converted, some were; for God did not reject His people. The other is in order that their damnation appear more just, while their guilt appears more clearly: "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin" (Jn. 15:22).

The utterances of God are hidden beneath the veil of an unknown tongue, so that they should not be seen by unbelievers. Paul was saying that tongues are useful for hiding ideas from unbelievers.

What then, my brethren, because you do not these signs, do you not believe? But these things were necessary in the beginning of the Church. For that faith might grow, it needed to be nourished by miracles, because we also, when we plant shrubs, pour water on them only until we see that they have taken root in the ground; and once they have fixed their roots, we cease watering. Hence it is that Paul says: Tongues are for a sign, not to believers, but to unbelievers.

Having shown then even from the prophecy, that the sign in question is not of great use, he adds, "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the unbelieving: but prophesying is for a sign not to the unbelieving, but to them that believe."

Great in this place is the difficulty which one seems to find arising from what is said. For if tongues are for a sign to them that believe not, how saith he, if they that believe not should see you speaking with tongues, they will say that "ye are mad?" And if prophecy be "not for the unbelieving, but for them that believe," how shall also the unbelievers gain thereby?

And not only this, but also after this another question hence springs up: since the tongue will appear on the contrary greater than the prophecy. For if the tongues are for a sign to the unbelieving, but prophecy to them that believe, that which draws in aliens and makes of the household, is greater than that which regulates those of the household. What then is the meaning of that expression? Nothing difficult nor obscure, nor contrary to what went before, but rather very agreeable to it, if we give heed: viz., that prophecy is suitable to both, but then tongue not so. Wherefore having said of the tongue, "it is for a sign," he adds, "not to them that believe, but to the unbelievers," and to them "for a sign," i. e., for astonishment, not so much for instruction.

"But in the case of prophecy too," saith some one, "he did the very same thing, saying, 'but prophesying serveth not for the unbelieving, but for them which believe.' For the believer hath no need to see a sign, but requires only teaching and catechizing. How then sayest thou," saith he," that prophecy is of use to both, when Paul saith 'not to the unbelieving, but to them which believe?'" If thou wilt accurately examine, thou wilt understand what is said. For he said not, "prophecy is not useful to them unbelieving," but, "is not for a sign," as the tongue," i.e., a mere sign without profit: nor is the tongue any way useful to believers; for its only work is to astonish and to confound; the word "sign" bring one of those which may be taken two ways.

Tongues are a miracle in themselves. Prophecy, however, is a miracle in the substance of what it contains but not in the way in which it is uttered.

Prophecy, he says, is useful for believers, because it instructs them. But does prophecy also serve for unbelievers? How then does he say (1 Cor. 14:24) that if all prophesy, and someone "unbelieving" enters? Behold, prophecy is also for unbelievers. To this one can answer: the apostle did not say that prophecy is useless for unbelievers, but that it does not serve as a useless sign, like tongues. In short: tongues serve as a sign for unbelievers, that is, only for their astonishment, while prophecy is useful for both believers and unbelievers, convicting them, though it is not called a sign for them.

A sign amazes, but does not instruct and does not bring benefit, and often even harms, like a tongue without interpretation, which is why further on (1 Cor. 14:23) he also says: "will they not say that you are mad?" Moreover, signs were also given for unbelievers, for believers have no need of them, because they already believe.

Then when he says: Therefore, tongues are a sign not for believers, but for unbelievers, he argues to his conclusion by using the authority quoted. As if to say: from this it is clearly evident that the gift of tongues was given not for believers to bring them to belief, because they already believe: "It is no longer because of your words that we believe" (Jn. 4:42), but for unbelievers to be converted.

In a Gloss two non-literal explanations by Ambrose are presented in this place. One of these says: just as in the Old Testament I spoke to the Jewish people in tongues, i.e., through figures, and with lips, i.e., by promising temporal goods, so, even in the New Testament I will speak to this people in other tongues, i.e., openly and clearly, and with other lips, i.e., spiritual things; yet they will not listen to me, namely, as to their multitude. Therefore tongues were given not for believers but unbelievers, namely, to manifest their unbelief. The other is in other tongues, i.e., dimly and in parables I will speak, because they are unworthy. They will not listen, i.e., not understand. Then he shows what prophecy is ordained to, namely, to the instruction of believers, because they already understand. Therefore, prophecies are not for unbelievers, who do not believe: "Lord, who has believed our hearing" (Is 53:1); but for believers, that they believe and be instructed: "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel" (Ex 3:17); "Where there is no prophecy, the people cast off restraint" (Pr 29:18).

Even if a stranger should address his inquiries through ignorance to some other person and although he who is questioned by mistake is able to make a satisfactory reply, yet, for the sake of good order, he should keep silence and direct the stranger to him whose function it is, as the apostles did when the Lord was present. In this way, speech will be employed in a well-ordered and fitting manner.

And to show thee that he introduced the term "sign" here, not as a thing which of course did some good, he added that which resulted from it. And what was this? "They will say," saith he, "that ye are mad" This however not from the nature of the sign, but from their folly. But when thou hearer of unbelievers, do not suppose that the same persons are in every case intended, but at one time they which are incurably diseased and abide uncorrected, and at another they which may be changed; such as were they who in the times of the Apostles admire the mighty things of God which they hear of; such as in the case of Cornelius. His meaning accordingly is this; that prophecy avails both among the unbelieving and among them that believe: as to the tongue, when heard by the unbelieving and inconsiderate, instead of profiting by it, they rather deride the utterers as madmen. For, in fact, it is to them but for a sign, i.e., in order to astonish them merely; whereas they who had understanding used also to profit by it: with a view to which the sign was given. Even as then there were not only certain who accused them of drunkenness, but many also admired them as relating the wonderful works of God. It appears then that the mockers were those without understanding. Wherefore also Paul did not simply say, "they will say that ye are mad," but added, "unlearned and unbelievers."

Having said then, that a tongue profited not, and having again qualified this statement by turning the charge upon the Jews, he proceeds to signify that it even doth injury. "And wherefore was it given?" That it might go forth with interpretation: since without this, it hath even the contrary effect among them that are without understanding. "For if," saith he, "all speak with tongues, and there come in unbelievers or unlearned, they will say that ye are mad;" as indeed even the Apostles incurred the suspicion of being drunken: for "these men," it saith, "are filled with new wine;" but it is not the fault of the sign, but of their unskilfulness; therefore he added, "unlearned and unbelievers," to show that the notion belongs to their ignorance and want of faith; for, as I before said, his object is to rank that gift not among things that are disparaged, but among those which do not greatly profit, and this, in order to repress them, and bring them to a necessity of seeking for an interpreter.

On the day of Pentecost the Jews said that the apostles were full of new wine. It is more or less the same thing here.

He explains in a veiled manner that the gift of tongues without the gift of interpretation becomes an occasion even for harm. He says this with the aim of humbling their pride. They thought that the gift of tongues made them an object of admiration; Paul, on the contrary, proves that it turns to their dishonor, giving occasion to consider them mad. And lest you think that it depends on the gift itself that the one possessing it is covered with dishonor, he says: the senseless will say that you are out of your minds. "The uninstructed," he says, "or the unbelievers," such as were those who said of the apostles that they were full of new wine (Acts 2:13). But the sensible receive benefit even from the gift of tongues, as for example those present with the apostles marveled that they were speaking of the great deeds of God (Acts 2:11).

A Gloss suggests that another argument proving his proposition begins here. But in the light of what has been said, there is only one proposition, already proved. Here he clarifies the middle term of that argument, namely, that prophecy contributes more to that to which the gift of tongues is especially ordained. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows what undesirable effects follows from the gift of tongues as far as unbelievers are concerned; secondly, he shows the good which follows from the gift of prophecy, even in regard to unbelievers (v. 24).

The undesirable effect which follows from the gift of tongues without prophecy, even in regard to unbelievers, is that those who speak only in tongues are considered mad, whereas the gift of tongues should be ordained to the conversion of unbelievers, as is already clear. And this is what he says: If you speak in tongues. As if to say: that tongues are not preferable to prophecy is clear from the fact that if they assemble, namely, all the faithful, in one place not only in body but also in mind: "Now the company of believers were of one heart and soul" (Ac 4:22), and all speak in tongues, i.e., strange, or speak unknown and obscure things and, while they are thus confusedly speaking, an outsider enter, i.e., one who understands only his own tongue, or an unbeliever for whose benefit tongues were given, will they not say to those so speaking that you are mad? For what is not understood is considered madness. But if a tongue is understood and nevertheless the things said are secret, if they are not explained, it is evil because they could believe of you, (if you speak secret things), what they believe of the gentiles, who made secret what they did in their rites, so base were they. And this is also a form of madness.

On the other hand, to those who do not know the language it is the same thing to speak in tongues and to speak literally; therefore, since all speak literally in the church (for all is spoken in Latin), it seems that there is madness here, too. I answer that there was madness in the early Church, because they were uninstructed in the Church's rite, since they did not know what was going on unless it was explained to them. But now all are instructed; hence, although all is said in Latin, they, nevertheless, know what is being done in the Church.

But prophecy is not for a sign merely, but is also suitable and useful for faith and for profit unto both classes. And this, if not directly, yet in the sequel he more clearly explained, saying, "he is reproved by all. For, if all prophesy," saith he, "and there come in one unbelieving or unlearned, he is reproved by all; he is judged by all; and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so he will fall down on his face and worship God, declaring that God is among you indeed."

So that not in this only is prophecy greater, in its availing with each class, but also in its attracting the more shameless of the unbelievers. For it was not the same wonder, when Peter convicted Sapphira, which was a work of prophecy, and when he spake with tongues: but in the former case all shrank into themselves; whereas, when he spake with tongues, he got the credit of being even beside himself.

This then he doth in respect of the tongues, showing that they not only deprive of glory, but also bring shame upon those who have them in the eyes of the unbelievers. But prophecy, on the contrary, is both free from reproach among the unbelievers, and hath very great credit and usefulness. For none will say in regard to prophesying, "they are mad;" nor will any one deride them that prophesy; but, on the contrary, will be astonished at and admire them. For "he is reproved by all," i. e., the things which he hath in his heart, are brought forward and shown unto all: now it is not the same thing for any one to come in and see one speaking in Persian and another in Syriac, and to come in and hear the secrets of his own mind; as whether he cometh in as a tempter and with evil mind, or sincerely; or that such and such a thing hath been done by him, and such another designed. For this is much more awful and more profitable than the other. For this cause therefore, whereas of the tongues he saith, "ye are mad;" not however affirming this of himself, but of their judgment: i. e., "they will say," saith he, "that ye are mad;" here, on the contrary, he makes use both of the verdict of the facts, and that of those who are the objects of the benefit. "For he is reproved by all," saith he, "he is judged by all; and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so he will fall down on his face and worship God, declaring that God is around you indeed. Seest thou that this is not capable of two interpretations: how in the former case what is done may be doubted of, and here and there an unbeliever might ascribe it to madness? whereas here there will be no such thing, but he will both wonder and worship, first making a confession by his deeds, and then by his words also. Thus also Nebuchadnezzar worshipped God, saying, "Of a truth, your God, He is the God that revealeth secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret." Seest thou the might of prophecy, how it changed that savage one and brought him under instruction and introduced him to faith?

The unbeliever is convicted when his conscience is struck by the teaching being given.

Do you see how prophecy is more useful, how, by revealing the secrets of the heart, it compels the unbeliever to acknowledge God, to fall down and worship, and to confess: "Truly God is among you"? God did something similar with Nebuchadnezzar as well. For when Daniel revealed to him the meaning of the dream, he said: "Truly your God is the God who reveals mysteries" (Dan. 2:47). Learn from this the meaning of what was said above as well: "by revelation" (1 Cor. 14:6). For behold, revelation is one of the forms of prophecy. Note also that the Spirit is God. For he says: "Truly God is among you." Yet in the prophets, it is undoubtedly the Spirit who acts. For above (1 Cor. 12:10–11) he said that prophecies are given by the Spirit.

Then when he says, But if all prophesy, he shows that good follows from the gift of prophecy. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows what follows through the good of prophecy, as to unbelievers; secondly, he shows how this follows (v. 25); thirdly, he infers which effect arises from this (v. 25b).

He says, therefore: It is clear that unbelievers are not convinced by the gift of tongues; but if all who assemble prophecy, i.e., all speak to the intellect revelations made to them (I say "all" not at once, but one after the other prophesy in this way), then if an outsider enters the church, i.e., knowing only his mother tongue, what follows is good, because he is convicted by all of his error, which is pointed out to him: "After I was instructed, I was ashamed" (Jer 31:19). He is called to account by all who are prophesying. As if to say: he is shown to be condemnable for his evil morals and his vices: "The spiritual man judges all things" (1 Cor 2:15). For prophecy avails for these two things, namely, strengthening the faith and teaching morals.

When he sees that God is being praised and that Christ is being adored and that nothing is disguised or being done in secret, as happens among pagans, he will understand clearly that this is true religion.

Let Marcion then exhibit, as gifts of his god, some prophets, such as have not spoken by human sense, but with the Spirit of God, such as have both predicted things to come, and have made manifest the secrets of the heart; let him produce a psalm, a vision, a prayer -only let it be by the Spirit, in an ecstasy, that is, in a rapture, whenever an interpretation of tongues has occurred to him; let him show to me also, that any woman of boastful tongue in his community has ever prophesied from amongst those specially holy sisters of his.

Note that here the Holy Spirit is directly called God.

How this good follows from the gift of prophecy is mentioned when he says: the secrets of his heart. This can be understood in three ways: in one way, and this is literal, that some in the early Church had the grace to know the secrets of the heart and the sins of men. Hence it said of Peter (Ac 5:1 ff) that he condemned Ananias for fraud regarding the price of a field. And according to this it says: for the secrets of his heart are disclosed. As if to say: He is convinced, because the secrets, i.e., his secret sins, were disclosed by those who revealed them. In another way, from the fact that sometimes someone in preaching touches on many things which men carry in the heart, as is clear from the books of Gregory, where each one can find almost all the movements of the heart. And according to this he says, secrets of his heart; as if to say: They are convicted, because the secrets of their heart, i.e., things they carry in their heart: (Pr 27:19): "As in water face answers to face, so the mind of man reflects the man," are disclosed, i.e., touched on by them. In another way, because sometimes the secret of the heart is said to be that which is doubtful to someone and he cannot become certain by himself. According to this it is read: the secrets of his heart, i.e., things about which he doubted in his heart and which he did not believe, are disclosed, namely, when going to a church frequently they are made clear to him, as Augustine says about himself that he went to the church only for the chant and yet many things about which he doubted and for the sake of which he had not come were clarified for him there. For from this followed reverence, because, being convinced, he revered God.

And this is what he says: and so, i.e., inasmuch as he was convinced in this way and the secrets of his heart were manifested, falling on his face, he will worship God: "Falling down, they adored him" (Matt 2:11), which is a sign of reverence. Of the reprobate, however, it says that they fall backward: "The way of the wicked is deep darkness, they do not know over what they stumble" (Pr 4:19). But the elect fall on their face, because they see where they should prostrate themselves, which is a sign of reverence. "They praised God and fell on their faces" (Lev 9:24); "May all kings fall down before him" (Ps 72:11). And he will show reverence not only to God but also to the Church, because he will declare that God is really among you who prophesy in the church: "We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you" (Zech 8:23). It appears, therefore, that the gift of prophecy is more useful in regard to unbelievers.

Particular effort should be made to ensure that unlearned people will benefit. Nothing should be done to hide things from them because of their lack of learning.

"What is it then, brethren? When ye come together, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying."

Seest thou the foundation and the rule of Christianity? how, as it is the artificer's work to build, so it is the Christian's to profit his neighbors in all things.

But since he had vehemently run down the gift; lest it might seem to be superfluous, for with a view to pull down their pride and no more, he did this:-again he reckons it with the other gifts, saying, "hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a tongue." For of old they used also to make psalms by a gift and to teach by a gift. Nevertheless, "let all these look to one thing," saith he, "the correction of their neighbor: let nothing be done at random. For if thou comest not to edify thy brother, why dost thou come here at all? In fact, I do not make much account of the difference of the gifts. One thing concerns me, one thing is my desire, to do all things "unto edifying." Thus also he that hath the lesser gift will outrun him that hath the greater, if this be not wanting. Yea, therefore are the gifts bestowed, that each might be edified; since unless this take place, the gift will rather turn to the condemnation of the receiver. For what, tell me, is the use of prophesying? What is the use of raising the dead, when there is none who profits by it? But if this be the end of the gifts, and if it be possible to effect it in another way without gifts, boast not thyself on the score of the signs, nor do thou bewail thyself to whom the gifts are denied.

Let Marcion then exhibit, as gifts of his god, some prophets, such as have not spoken by human sense, but with the Spirit of God, such as have both predicted things to come, and have made manifest the secrets of the heart; let him produce a psalm, a vision, a prayer -only let it be by the Spirit, in an ecstasy, that is, in a rapture, whenever an interpretation of tongues has occurred to him; let him show to me also, that any woman of boastful tongue in his community has ever prophesied from amongst those specially holy sisters of his.

In antiquity, psalms too were composed by gift, and for teaching a gift was bestowed. By "revelation" he means prophecy, giving the genus the name of the species. He mentions the gift of tongues as well, lest they consider this gift entirely contemptible and not even belonging among the ranks of gifts. Let all these things, he says, be for edification. For the distinguishing characteristic of a Christian is to edify, to bring benefit. How then can one who possesses only the gift of tongues edify, bring benefit? In this way: if he comes together with one who has the gift of interpretation, and they exercise their gifts in concert.

Here he tells them how to use these gifts. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows how they should act in regard to the use of these gifts; secondly, he concludes to his main proposition (v. 39). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows how orderly they should behave in the use of these gifts; secondly, he expresses their presumption (v. 36). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he shows in general how they should behave in all gifts; secondly, in regard to the gift of tongues (v. 27); thirdly, as to the gift of prophecy (v. 29).

He says, therefore: to prophesy is better than to speak in tongues. What then, brethren is to be done? This is to be done. For when you come together, it is obvious that one does not have all the gifts, and therefore none of you should use all the gifts, but that gift which he had more specially received from God and which is better for edification. For each one has some special gift: one has a psalm, i.e., a song to praise the Lord's name, or to explain psalms: "He makes me tread upon my high places" (Hab 3:19); another has a lesson, i.e., some preaching to instruct them in morals, or an explanation and a spiritual sense: "A man is known by his teaching" (Pr 12:8); another has a revelation obtained either in dreams or in a vision: "God is in heaven revealing mysteries" (Dan 2:28); another has a tongue, i.e., the gift of tongues or he reads prophecies: "And they began to speak in tongues" (Ac 2:4); another has an interpretation: "To another the interpretation of tongues" (1 Cor 12:10).

But these are so arranged, because they derive either from human talent or from God alone. If they are solely from human talent, they are either to the praise of God, and so he says, one has a psalm, or to the instruction of the neighbor, and so he says, one has a teaching. If they are from God alone, they are either inward secrets, and so he says, one has a revelation, or outwardly hidden, and so he says, one has a tongue. For manifesting these there is a third thing, and so he says, an interpretation. And, of course, all should be done for edification: "Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to edify him" (Rom 15:2).

Paul does not want these people to take up the whole day and leave insufficient time for expounding the Scriptures.

"And if any man speaketh in a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that in turn; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the Church; and let him speak to himself, and to God."

What sayest thou, tell me? Having spoken so much of tongues, that the gift is a thing unprofitable, a thing superfluous, if it have no interpreter, dost thou command again to speak with tongues? I do not command, saith he, neither do I forbid; as when he saith, "if any of them that believe not bid you to a feast and ye be disposed to go," he saith it not laying down a law for them to go, but not hindering them: so likewise here. "And let him speak. to himself and to God." If he endure not to be silent, saith he, but is so ambitious and vain-glorious, "let him speak by himself." And thus, by the very fact of so permitting, he greatly checked and put them to shame. Which he doth also elsewhere, discoursing of converse with a wife and saying, "But this I say because of your incontinency." But not so did he speak, when he was discoursing of prophecy. How then? In a tone of command and legislation: "Let the prophets speak, two or three." And he no where here seeks the interpreter, nor doth he stop the mouth of him that prophesies as under the former head, saying, "If there be no interpreter, let him keep silence;" because in fact he who speaks in a tongue is not sufficient of himself. Wherefore if any hath both gifts, let him speak. But if he hath not, yet wish to speak, let him do so with the interpreter's aid. For the prophet is an interpreter, but of God; whereas thou art of man. "But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence:" for nothing ought to be done superfluously, nothing for ambition. Only "let him speak to himself and to God;" i.e., mentally, or quietly and without noise: at least, if he will speak. For this is surely not the tone of one making a law, but it may be of one who shames them more even by his permission; as when he saith, "but if any hunger, let him eat at home:" and seeming to give permission, he touches them hereby the more sharply. "For ye come not together for this purpose," saith he, "that ye may show that ye have a gift, but that ye may edify the hearers;" which also he before said, "Let all things be done unto edifying."

I do not forbid speaking in tongues, but let it not be without interpretation. And let few speak in tongues, lest there be confusion and disorder; "and that in turn," that is, successively. But, in any case, there must be an interpreter.

Here the Apostle instructs them on how to behave in regard to using the gift of tongues, and he does two things: first, he shows how they should use the gift of tongues: secondly, when they should stop using it (v. 28).

First, therefore he says: the way the gift of tongues should be used among you is that if anyone speaks in a tongue, i.e., talks of visions or dreams, such speaking should not be done by many on account of so much time being devoted to tongues, there is not room for prophecies, and confusion is generated, but let there be only two, and if necessary, at most three; so that three should be enough: "On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses" (Dt 17:6). But it should be noted that this custom is still partly observed in the Church. For we have readings and epistles and gospels in place of tongues, and therefore in the Mass only two are said, which pertain to the gift of tongues, namely, the epistle and the gospel. In Matins many are said, namely, three readings in one nocturn. For at an earlier time nocturnes were said according to the night watches, but now they are said at one time. Not only should order as to the number of speakers be observed, but also as to the method, and this is what he says: and each in turn, i.e., that those who speak follow one another, so that one speaks after the other. Or each in turn, i.e., interruptedly, namely, that one speak one part of the vision or of the instruction and explain it, and then another and explain it, and so on. This was the method followed by preachers, when they preach by interpreting to men of an unknown tongue; and therefore he says: and let one interpret.

The person who speaks in the Holy Spirit speaks when he chooses to do so and then can be silent, like the prophets. But those who are possessed by an unclean spirit speak even when they do not want to. They say things that they do not understand.

If he does not have an interpreter, let him not speak in the church, lest he appear as a foreigner uttering what is incomprehensible and unintelligible to many. But if he is so vainglorious that he does not wish to be silent, then let him speak to himself and to God, that is, without noise and secretly, to himself, so that his words are heard by God alone, and not by people. See how he seems to permit, yet at the same time forbids.

Then when he says: But if there is no one to interpret, he shows when tongues should not be used, saying that they should speak in parts and one should interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, one who has the gift of tongues, should keep silence in the church, i.e., should not speak or preach to the multitude in a strange tongue, because he is not understood by them, but should speak to himself or to God, because he understands himself; and this in silence by praying or meditating: "I will speak in the bitterness of my soul. I will say to God: Do not condemn me." (Jb 10:1).

Paul allowed others to ask questions about ambiguous matters, so that they might be elucidated by clearer discussion.

Neither must we prescribe this from custom, but overcome opposite custom by reason. For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything; so as to say that he held the primacy, and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those lately come. Nor did he despise Paul because he had previously been a persecutor of the Church, but admitted the counsel of truth, and easily yielded to the lawful reason which Paul asserted, furnishing thus an illustration to us both of concord and of patience, that we should not obstinately love our own opinions, but should rather adopt as our own those which at any time are usefully and wholesomely suggested by our brethren and colleagues, if they be true and lawful. Paul, moreover, looking forward to this, and consulting faithfully for concord and peace, has laid down in his epistle this rule: "Moreover, let the prophets speak two or three, and let the rest judge. But if anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace." In which place he has taught and shown that many things are revealed to individuals for the better, and that each one ought not obstinately to contend for that which he had once imbibed and held; but if anything has appeared better and more useful, he should gladly embrace it. For we are not overcome when better things are presented to us, but we are instructed, especially in those matters which pertain to the unity of the Church and the truth of our hope and faith; so that we, priests of God and prelates of His Church, by His condescension, should know that remission of sins cannot be given save in the Church, nor can the adversaries of Christ claim to themselves anything belonging to His grace.

But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire.

"Let the prophets speak by two or three, and let the others discern."

No where hath he added, "at the most," as in the case of the tongues. And how is this, one saith? For he makes out that neither is prophesy sufficient in itself, if at least he permitteth the judgment to others. Nay, surely it is quite sufficient; and this is why he did not stop the mouth of the prophet, as of the other, when there is no interpreter; nor, as in his case he said, "if there be no interpreter let him keep silence," so also in the case of the prophet, "if there be none to discern, let him not prophesy;" but he only secured the hearer; since for the satisfaction of the hearers he said this, that no diviner might throw himself in among them. For of this also at the beginning he bade them beware, when he introduced a distinction between divination and prophecy, and now he bids them discriminate and spy out the matter, so that no Satanic teacher might privily enter.

Among the prophets, sorcerers also hid themselves. Therefore he says: let the others judge concerning them, so that a sorcerer might not secretly escape notice. For as was said above (1 Cor. 12:10), there was also the gift of "discerning of spirits" for distinguishing false and true prophets. He commands "two" or "three" to prophesy, for the sake of maintaining good order and so that sorcerers might not hide among a multitude.

Here the Apostle instructs them on how to use the gift of prophecy. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows how the gift of prophecy is to be used both as to number and to order; secondly, to whom the use of prophecy is prohibited (v. 34). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he teaches the order in which to use the gift of prophecy; secondly, the reason for this (v. 31); thirdly, he excludes an objection (v. 32). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he fixes on the number using this gift; secondly, he teaches the method or order of using it (v. 30).

In regard to the first it should be noted that the use of prophecy according to what the Apostle says here is to propose a word of instruction to the people, by explaining the Sacred Scripture. And because in the early Church there were many who had this gift from God and the number of the faithful was not very great, then in order to avoid confusion and boredom, the Apostle desires that not all who can explain a prophecy and Sacred Scripture should prophesy, but certain definite ones. And this is what he says: Let two or three prophets speak. As if to say: I do not want all who assemble, but two only or at most three, as the need to speak exists, should speak, i.e., exhort. This is in keeping with the Scriptures: "By the evidence of two or three witnesses" (Matt 18:16). Let the others, namely, those who should not prophesy, weigh the things proposed to them, whether something good or something bad has been said; approving what is good and making them retract what was wrong: "The spiritual man judges all things" (1 Cor 2:15).

"Seven thunders uttered their voices." The seven thunders uttering their voices signify, the Holy Spirit of sevenfold power, who through the prophets announced all things to come, and by His voice John gave his testimony in the world; but because he says that he was about to write the things which the thunders had uttered, that is, whatever things had been obscure in the announcements of the Old Testament; he is forbidden to write them, but he was charged to leave them sealed, because he is an apostle, nor was it fitting that the grace of the subsequent stage should be given in the first. "The time," says he, "is at hand." For the apostles, by powers, by signs, by portents, and by mighty works, have overcome unbelief. After them there is now given to the same completed Churches the comfort of having the prophetic Scriptures subsequently interpreted, for I said that after the apostles there would be interpreting prophets.

For the apostle says: "And he placed in the Church indeed, first, apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers," and the rest. And in another place he says: "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge." And he says: "Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered, dishonoureth her head" And when he says, "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge," he is not speaking in respect of the Catholic prophecy of things unheard and unknown, but of things both announced and known. But let them judge whether or not the interpretation is consistent with the testimonies of the prophetic utterance. It is plain, therefore, that to John, armed as he was with superior virtue, this was not necessary, although the body of Christ, which is the Church, adorned with His members, ought to respond to its position.

In particular, the higher-ranking person should give way to the lower. It is simply not the case that every privilege can be granted to a single individual. Nor can it be that anyone, however low in the hierarchy, should have nothing given to him. No one is without the grace of God.

But it happens, by a love of presumption and of obstinacy, that one would rather maintain his own evil and false position, than agree in the right and true which belongs to another. Looking forward to which, the blessed Apostle Paul writes to Timothy, and warns him that a bishop must not be "litigious, nor contentious, but gentle and teachable." Now he is teachable who is meek and gentle to the patience of learning. For it behoves a bishop not only to teach, but also to learn; because he also teaches better who daily increases and advances by learning better; which very thing, moreover, the same Apostle Paul teaches, when he admonishes, "that if anything better be revealed to one sitting by, the first should hold his peace." But there is a brief way for religious and simple minds, both to put away error, and to find and to elicit truth. For if we return to the head and source of divine tradition, human error ceases; and having seen the reason of the heavenly sacraments, whatever lay hid in obscurity under the gloom and cloud of darkness, is opened into the light of the truth. If a channel supplying water, which formerly flowed plentifully and freely, suddenly fail, do we not go to the fountain, that there the reason of the failure may be ascertained, whether from the drying up of the springs the water has failed at the fountainhead, or whether, flowing thence free and full, it has failed in the midst of its course; that so, if it has been caused by the fault of an interrupted or leaky channel, that the constant stream does not flow uninterruptedly and continuously, then the channel being repaired and strengthened, the water collected may be supplied for the use and drink of the city, with the same fertility and plenty with which it issues from the spring? And this it behoves the priests of God to do now, if they would keep the divine precepts, that if in any respect the truth have wavered and vacillated, we should return to our original and Lord, and to the evangelical and apostolical tradition; and thence may arise the ground of our action, whence has taken rise both our order and our origin.

"But if a revelation he made to another sitting by, let the first keep silence. For ye all can prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted."

What may this be which is spoken? "If when thou prophesiest," saith he, "and art speaking, the spirit of another stir him up, be silent thenceforth." For that which he said in the case of the tongues, this also here he requires, that it should be done "in turn," only in a diviner way here. For he made not use of the very expression, "in turn?" but "if a revelation be made to another." Since what need was there further, that when the second was moved to prophesy the first should speak? Ought they then both? Nay, this were profane and would produce confusion. Ought the first? This too were out of place. For to this end when the one was speaking, the Spirit moved the other, in order that he too might say somewhat.

So then, comforting him that had been silenced, he saith, "For ye all can prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted." Seest thou how again he states the reason wherefore he doeth all things? For if him that speaks with tongues he altogether forbid to speak, when he hath not an interpreter, because of the unprofitableness; reasonably also he bids restrain prophecy, if it have not this quality, but createth confusion and disturbance and unseasonable tumult.

Here he teaches good order and humility of mind. When, he says, the Spirit stirs up another, you, the first one, be silent. For if it had pleased the Spirit for you to speak, then "you can all prophesy one by one," that is, do not grieve, for both you, and another, and all can prophesy individually and in succession. For this gift is not confined to one person alone, but is given to all, so that the whole Church may be instructed and receive encouragement toward virtue.

The order to be observed in using this gift is that if one of those who sat and kept silence and judged had received a better revelation, then one who is exhorting and standing should sit down and the one to whom a better revelation has been made should rise and exhort. And this is what he says: If a revelation has been made to another sitting by, namely, by the Holy Spirit, let the first be silent and yield to him: "Anticipate one another with honor" (Rom 12:10).

It is a tradition of the synagogue which Paul is asking us to follow, whereby the people dispute while seated in chairs, on benches or on the floor, according to their rank. If a revelation has been given to someone sitting on the floor, he should be allowed to speak and not be despised because of his low rank.

Clearly the prophet builds up the church when through the function of his foretelling he makes wholly clear matters exceedingly vital which were unknown. Those who have been granted the ability to understand well and to interpret the divine Scriptures are obviously not excluded from the gift of prophecy.

This rule is still applied in the church today, in that preachers take turns to teach the people.

The reason for this is that according to this method you can successively prophesy one after the other, so that all, i.e., the greater, may learn and all, i.e., the lesser, may be encouraged. "The wise man may also hear and increase in learning" (Pr 1:5).

The Spirit is said to be subject so that he may facilitate the good efforts which he prompts.

"And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets."

Seest thou how he put him to shame earnestly and fearfully? For that the man might not strive nor be factious, he signifies that the gift itself was under subjection. For by "spirit" here, he means its actual working. But if the spirit be subject, much more thou its possessor canst not justly be contentious.

If the gift is subject to the prophets, how can it not also be subject to you, so that you may keep quiet when you are meant to?

Walk in them, and exhort your hearers that their repentance may be pure during the remainder of their life. Fulfil carefully this ministry which I now entrust to you, and you will accomplish much.

To be sure, an amender of that Gospel, which had been all topsy-turvy from the days of Tiberius to those of Antoninus, first presented himself in Marcion alone-so long looked for by Christ, who was all along regretting that he had been in so great a hurry to send out his apostles without the support of Marcion! But for all that, heresy, which is for ever mending the Gospels, and corrupting them in the act, is an affair of man's audacity, not of God's authority; and if Marcion be even a disciple, he is yet not "above his master; " if Marcion be an apostle, still as Paul says, "Whether it be I or they, so we preach; " if Marcion be a prophet, even "the spirits of the prophets will be subject to the prophets," for they are not the authors of confusion, but of peace; or if Marcion be actually an angel, he must rather be designated "as anathema than as a preacher of the gospel," because it is a strange gospel which he has preached.

And this is as a consolation to him who was commanded to be silent. These words have the following meaning: do not object, do not resist. For the Spirit Himself, that is, the gift that is in you, and the operation of the Spirit that is in you, is subject to the gift of another who has been stirred to prophecy; and if the Spirit is subject, then all the more you yourself, who have received the Spirit, ought not to object. Some, however, understood it thus: the pagan oracles, once a demon seized them, could not be silent even if they wished; but our holy prophets are not like that—rather, it depends on their own will whether to be silent or to speak. This is what the words mean: "the spirits of the prophets," that is, the gifts, "are subject to the prophets" and to the will of the prophets to be silent or not to be silent. Lest the one possessing this gift should say, "How can I, at your command, be silent when I speak by the impulse of the Spirit?"—he says that this Spirit who impels you is subject to you, and it is already within your power to be silent, and therefore do not appeal to the Spirit in vain.

If any should say: O Apostle, I cannot be silent while another prophesies or yield to one sitting from the time he began, because I cannot hold back the Spirit Who speaks in me, as it says in Jb (4:2): "Who can keep from speaking"? Therefore, the Apostle rejects this when he says: The spirits of prophets. As if to say: yes, he can easily be quiet and sit down, because the spirit of prophets, i.e., the spirit who gives prophecies (and he puts it in the plural on account of the many revelations inspired in them) is subject to prophets; some as to knowledge, because as Gregory says: "The spirit of prophecy is not always present to the prophets. Hence it is not a habit, as knowledge is. For then it would follow that even as to knowledge he would be subject to them and they could use it or not use it when they willed; but it is a force or impression from God inclining and teaching the hearts of the prophets and they know only when they are so touched. Hence, he is not subject to them." But this is not the way to understand the Apostle's words, but the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets as to declaring, namely, because it is in their power to declare when they wish or not to declare the things revealed. And so the excuse is worthless, because the Spirit does not compel you in such a way that you cannot keep silence.

Those who are called in peace ought to aim for patience, so that the laws of peace are not broken.

For you know undoubtedly that those that are by us named bishops, and presbyters, and deacons, were made by prayer, and by the laying on of hands; and that by the difference of their names is showed the difference of their employments. For not every one that will is ordained, as the case was in that spurious and counterfeit priesthood of the calves under Jeroboam; [1 Kings 13:33] but he only who is called of God. For if there were no rule or distinction of orders, it would suffice to perform all the offices under one name. But being taught by the Lord the series of things, we distributed the functions of the high-priesthood to the bishops, those of the priesthood to the presbyters, and the ministration under them both to the deacons; that the divine worship might be performed in purity. For it is not lawful for a deacon to offer the sacrifice, or to baptize, or to give either the greater or the lesser blessing. Nor may a presbyter perform ordination; for it is not agreeable to holiness to have this order perverted. For "God is not the God of confusion," [1 Corinthians 14:33] that the subordinate persons should tyrannically assume to themselves the functions belonging to their superiors, forming a new scheme of laws to their own mischief, not knowing that "it is hard for them to kick against the pricks;" [Acts 26:14] for such as these do not fight against us, or against the bishops, but against the universal Bishop and the High Priest of the Father, Jesus Christ our Lord. High priests, priests, and Levites were ordained by Moses, the most beloved of God.

The Church is a union of rational men united in harmonious and uniform adherence to divine peace. For the Church in return loves itself. And love is born of obedience to the Law. And so it is fitting that those who obey the Law be loving also. "By this will all men know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." And the Apostle writes: "For God is a God of peace, not of disorder."

Then he signifies that this is pleasing also to God, subjoining and saying, "For God is not a God of confusion, but of peace, as [I teach] in all the Churches of the saints."

Seest thou by how many reasons he leads him to silence and soothes him, in the act of giving way to the other? By one thing and that the chief, that he was not shut up by such a proceeding; "for ye all can prophesy," saith he, "one by one." By a second, that this seems good to the Spirit Himself; "for the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." Besides these, that this is according to the mind of God; "for God," saith he, "is not a God of confusion, but of peace:" and by a fourth, that in every part of the world this custom prevails, and no strange thing is enjoined upon them. For thus, saith he, "I teach in all the Churches of the saints."

What now can be more awful than these things? For in truth the Church was a heaven then, the Spirit governing all things, and moving each one of the rulers and making him inspired. But now we retain only the symbols of those gifts. For now also we speak two or three, and in turn, and when one is silent, another begins. But these are only signs and memorials of those things. Wherefore when we begin to speak, the people respond, "with thy Spirit," indicating that of old they thus used to speak, not of their own wisdom, but moved by the Spirit. But not so now: (I speak of mine own case so far.) But the present Church is like a woman who hath fallen from her former prosperous days, and in many respects retains the symbols only of that ancient prosperity; displaying indeed the repositories and caskets of her golden ornaments, but bereft of her wealth: such an one doth the present Church resemble. And I say not this in respect of gifts: for it were nothing marvelous if it were this only: but in respect also of life and virtue.

He shows that this is also pleasing to God, that the first should be silent; because God is not a God of disorder and confusion (and there would be confusion if no one were silent, but all prophesied), but of peace. This peace is observed in all the Churches among the saints, that is, the believers. For there are churches of the Hellenes and Greeks. Be ashamed, you too, to conduct yourselves differently than how all the churches conduct themselves.

That this is true he proves when he says, God is not a God of confusion. And he formulates this reason: God never compels one to something from which arise quarrels or dissension, because He is not a God of dissension, but of peace. But if the Spirit of prophecy compelled them to speak, he would be a cause of dissension, because He would always want to speak or not to teach or to be silent, while another is speaking something about which the others are disturbed. Therefore, the Holy Spirit does not compel men to speak: "May the God of love and peace be with you" (2 Cor 13:11). Yet because he could still object that he would not do this, because he commanded this only of them and not of the other Churches; and hence it could seem a burden, the Apostle says that he teaches this not only to them but to all the churches. And this is what he says: as in all the churches of the saints, namely, about the use of tongues and of prophecy: "Appeal to you that all of you agree" (1 Cor 1:10).

Now, as to women's baptizing, we let you know that there is no small peril to those that undertake it. Therefore we do not advise you to it; for it is dangerous, or rather wicked and impious. For if the "man be the head of the woman," [1 Corinthians 11:3] and he be originally ordained for the priesthood, it is not just to abrogate the order of the creation, and leave the principal to come to the extreme part of the body. For the woman is the body of the man, taken from his side, and subject to him, from whom she was separated for the procreation of children. For says He, "He shall rule over you." [Genesis 3:16] For the principal part of the woman is the man, as being her head. But if in the foregoing constitutions we have not permitted them to teach, how will any one allow them, contrary to nature, to perform the office of a priest? For this is one of the ignorant practices of the Gentile atheism, to ordain women priests to the female deities, not one of the constitutions of Christ. For if baptism were to be administered by women, certainly our Lord would have been baptized by His own mother, and not by John; or when He sent us to baptize, He would have sent along with us women also for this purpose. But now He has nowhere, either by constitution or by writing, delivered to us any such thing; as knowing the order of nature, and the decency of the action; as being the Creator of nature, and the Legislator of the constitution.

We do not permit our "women to teach in the Church," [1 Corinthians 14:34] but only to pray and hear those that teach; for our Master and Lord, Jesus Himself, when He sent us the twelve to make disciples of the people and of the nations, did nowhere send out women to preach, although He did not want such. For there were with us the mother of our Lord and His sisters; also Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Martha and Mary the sisters of Lazarus; Salome, and certain others. For, had it been necessary for women to teach, He Himself had first commanded these also to instruct the people with us. For "if the head of the wife be the man," [1 Corinthians 11:3] it is not reasonable that the rest of the body should govern the head.

That a woman ought to be silent in the church. In the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: "Let women be silent in the church. But if any wish to learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home." Also to Timothy: "Let a woman learn with silence, in all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to be set over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not seduced, but the woman was seduced."

The serpent is crippled and bound by the curse, while Eve's mouth is sealed with a silence that is beneficial, but she will also serve again as a harp to sing the praises of the Creator.

Further, because they supposed this to be an ornament to them, I mean their speaking in public; again he brings round the discourse to the opposite point, saying, "For it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church." That is, first he made this out from the law of God, then from common reason and our received custom; even when he was discoursing with the women about long hair, he said, "Doth not even nature herself teach you?" (1 Cor. 11:14.) And everywhere thou mayest find this to be his manner, not only from the divine Scriptures, but also from the common custom, to put them to shame.

Having abated the disturbance both from the tongues and from the prophesyings; and having made a law to prevent confusion, that they who speak with tongues should do this in turn, and that they who prophesy should be silent when another begins; he next in course proceeds to the disorder which arose from the women, cutting off their unseasonable boldness of speech: and that very opportunely. For if to them that have the gifts it is not permitted to speak inconsiderately, nor when they will, and this, though they be moved by the Spirit; much less to those women who prate idly and to no purpose. Therefore he represses their babbling with much authority, and taking the law along with him, thus he sews up their mouths; not simply exhorting here or giving counsel, but even laying his commands on them vehemently, by the recitation of an ancient law on that subject. For having said, "Let your women keep silence in the churches;" and "it is not permitted unto them to speak, but let them be in subjection;" he added, "as also saith the law." And where doth the law say this? "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16) Seest thou the wisdom of Paul, what kind of testimony he adduced, one that not only enjoins on them silence, but silence too with fear; and with as great fear as that wherewith a maid servant ought to keep herself quiet. Wherefore also having himself said, "it is not permitted unto them to speak," he added not, "but to be silent," but instead of "to be silent," he set down what is more, to wit, "the being in subjection." And if this be so in respect of husbands, much more in respect of teachers, and fathers, and the general assembly of the Church. "But if they are not even to speak," saith one, "nor ask a question, to what end are they to be present?" That they may hear what they ought; but the points which are questioned let them learn at home from their husbands.

If this was the case, what are we to make of the fact that Philip had four daughters who prophesied? If they could do it, why can we not let our own prophetesses speak? We may answer this question as follows. First, if our prophetesses have spoken, show us the signs of prophecy in them. Second, even if the daughters of Philip did prophesy, they did not do so inside the church. Likewise in the Old Testament, although Deborah was reputed to be a prophetess, there is no indication that she ever corporately addressed the people in the way that Isaiah or Jeremiah did. The same is true of Huldah..

In precisely the same manner, when enjoining on women silence in the church, that they speak not for the mere sake of learning (although that even they have the right of prophesying, he has already shown when he covers the woman that prophesies with a veil), he goes to the law for his sanction that woman should be under obedience. Now this law, let me say once for all, he ought to have made no other acquaintance with, than to destroy it.

By the Romans, however, the rudiments of learning are wont to be called elements.

For how credible would it seem, that he who has not permitted a woman even to learn with over-boldness, should give a female the power of teaching and of baptizing! "Let them be silent," he says, "and at home consult their own husbands."

It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the church; but neither (is it permitted her) to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say (in any) sacerdotal office.

Having established good order in everything concerning the gift of tongues and prophets—namely, that few should prophesy, and from this no confusion or disorder should arise—he now eliminates the disorder that came from women, and says that they must be silent in church. Then he says something greater, namely, that it is more fitting for them to be in submission. For submission means silence from fear, as is the case with female slaves. By "the Law" he means the book of Genesis, in which it is written: "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Gen. 3:16). If the wife is appointed to be in submission to her husband, how much more so to the spiritual teachers in church.

Here the Apostle mentions the persons to whom the use of prophecy is forbidden. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows to whom the use of prophecy is forbidden; secondly, he removes an objection (v. 35). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he mentions the command to forbid; secondly he gives a reason for this (v. 34b).

He says, therefore: I will that men use the gift of prophecy in this manner, but I do not want women to speak in the church, so that the women should keep silence in the church: "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men" (1 Tim 2:12). And Chrysostom assigns the reason for this, saying: woman has spoken once and subverted the entire world. But on the other hand it seems that many women are recorded to have prophesied, as the Samaritan woman (Jn. 4:39) and Anna, the wife of Phanuel (Lk 2:36) and Deborah (Jg 4:4) and Huldah, the prophetess (2 Kgs 22:14) and the daughter of Philip the evangelist (Ac 21:9). Above, it also says (11:5): "Any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head." The answer is that there are two things in prophecy, namely, revelation and its manifestation; but women are not excluded from revelation, for many things are revealed to them as to men. But manifestation is of two kinds: one is public and from this they are excluded; the other is private and this is permitted to them, because it is not preaching but manifesting.

He assigns the reason for this, saying: for they are not permitted to speak, namely, by the authority of the Church, but their function is to be subject to men. Hence, since teaching implies prelacy and presiding, it is not suited to those who are subjects. The reason they are subject and not in the forefront is that they are deficient in reasoning, which is especially necessary for those who preside. Therefore, the Philosopher says in his Politics that corruption of rule occurs, when the rule comes to women.

It is shameful because it is contrary to discipline for them to presume to speak about the law in the house of God, who has taught that they are subject to their husbands, when they know that men have the primacy there and that for them it is more fitting to be free to pray while holding their tongues. If they dare to speak in church, it is a disgrace, because they are veiled in order to appear humble. Moreover, women like this show that they are immodest, which is a disgrace to their husbands too. For when women are insolent, their husbands receive the blame as well.

I wish to see each man's earnestness and each woman's devotion. Burn out impiety from your mind, put your soul on the anvil and your stubborn infidelity under the hammer.… Then let the gate of paradise be opened to each man and each woman among you.

"And if they would learn any thing, let them ask their own husbands at home."

Thus, "not only, as it seems, are they not allowed to speak," saith he, "at random, but not even to ask any question in the church." Now if they ought not to ask questions, much more is their speaking at pleasure contrary to law. And what may be the cause of his setting them under so great subjection? Because the woman is in some sort a weaker being and easily carried away and light minded. Here you see why he set over them their husbands as teachers, for the benefit of both. For so he both rendered the women orderly, and the husbands he made anxious, as having to deliver to their wives very exactly what they heard.

The virgins of men go about, in opposition to the virgins of God, with front quite bare, excited to a rash audacity; and the semblance of virgins is exhibited by women who have the power of asking somewhat from husbands, not to say such a request as that (forsooth) their rivals-all the more "free" in that they are the "hand-maids" of Christ alone -may be surrendered to them. "We are scandalized," they say, "because others walk otherwise (than we do); "and they prefer being "scandalized" to being provoked (to modesty).

Perhaps they were showing off with spiritual conversations in the church; but he, on the contrary, says that this is inglorious and shameful for them.

Lest someone say: if they will not speak, then how will they learn what they do not know? he answers that they must learn at home from their husbands. This will make them modest, and their husbands more attentive, since they will have to accurately convey to their wives, in response to their questions, what they heard in church. Note then that wives are not permitted to speak in church even about matters that are necessary and beneficial to the soul.

Then when he says, if there is anything they desire to know, because some might say that at least they can ask the Church about their doubts, he excludes this and does two things: first, he removes an objection; secondly, he assigns the reason (v. 35b). He says, therefore: I say that women should be silent in the church, but if they wish to learn the things about which they doubt, let them ask their husbands at home: "Let women learn in silence" (1 Tim 2:11). The reason for this is that it is shameful for a woman to speak in Church and not only unbecoming; for in women the natural feeling of shame is commended. If therefore they ask and dispute in public, it would be a sign of shamelessness, and this is shameful to them. Hence it also follows that in law the office of advocate is forbidden to women.

Paul issued the Corinthians with this reproof because they were so elated with vanity. The suggestion was that if they did not obey the words of the faith, there would be no one who would believe.

But besides these things, he also shames them by consideration of what all agreed on, and what was every where prescribed; which topic also here he hath set down, saying,

"What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone?"

Thus he brings in the other Churches also as holding this law, both abating the disturbance by consideration of the novelty of the thing, and by the general voice making his saying acceptable. Wherefore also elsewhere he said, "Who shall put you in remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in all the Churches." (1 Cor. 4:17) And again, "God is not a God of confusion, but of peace, as in all the Churches of the saints." (1 Cor. 14:33.) And here, "What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone?" i.e., "neither first, nor alone are ye believers, but the whole world." Which also writing to the Colossians he said, "even as it is bearing fruit and increasing in all the world," (Col. 1:6) speaking of the Gospel.

But he turns it also at another time to the encouragement of his hearers; as when he saith that theirs were the first fruits, and were manifest unto all. Thus, writing to the Thessalonians he said, "For from you hath sounded forth the word of God," and, "in every place your faith to God-ward is gone forth." (1 Thess. 1:8) And again to the Romans, "Your faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world." For both are apt to shame and stir up, as well the being commended of others, as that they have others partakers in their judgment. Wherefore also here he saith; "What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you only?" "For neither can ye say this," saith he; "we were made teachers to the rest, and it cannot be right for us to learn of others;" nor, "the faith remained in this place only, and no precedents from other quarters ought to be received." Seest thou by how many arguments he put them to shame? He introduced the law, he signified the shamefulness of the thing, he brought forward the other Churches.

The speech is addressed to someone who has, as it were, objected to him. What are you saying, you resist and do not acknowledge it as good that wives should be silent in the churches? Is it not because you are teachers, and from you the preaching passed to the rest? Has the faith been established among you alone, and must you not accept what has been accepted by others? You are believers, but not the first, not the only ones. Therefore you too must willingly accept what is pleasing to the whole Church.

Then when he says: What? Did the word of God originate with you?, he answers those who contradict him. And because they could all contradict at once or at least the wise among them, he does two things in regard to this: first, he refutes them as to their entire church; secondly, as to the wise only (v. 37).

In regard to the first it should be noted that the reason the people were wont to contradict the Lord or a ruler is singularity. For singularity can be caused by either a priority in some good or excellence. Therefore, the Apostle, wishing to refute the contradicting Corinthians, first excludes priority from their church, when he says: Did the word of God originate with you? As if to say: if I made some rules in the church of the Jews against their rules, they could contradict, because they had the word of God before you, for the word of God did not originate from you. Secondly, he excludes excellence from them, saying: or are you the only one it has reached? As if to say: you are not the only ones who have believed, but others also. Hence you do not excel them: "Their sound went forth in all the earth" (Ps 19:5), and therefore, you ought to do as the others do.

Paul is alluding to the false apostles mentioned above, by whom they had been misled. They were teaching things which people wanted to hear but which were not of God. By saying that he was handing on nothing of his own, Paul was trying to indicate that what he was saying came from God and not from men. He therefore preaches consistently, with a clear conscience because he does not desire to please men but God.

Next, what is strongest of all he puts last, saying, "God ordains these things even at this time by me."

"If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you that they are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant."

And wherefore did he add this? Intimating that he is not using violence nor contention, which is a sign of them who wish not to set up their own things, but aim at what is profitable to others. Wherefore also in another place he saith, "But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom." (1 Cor. 11:16) But he doth not this everywhere, but only where the offences are not very great, and then rather as putting them to shame. Since when he discourses of other sins, he speaks not thus. But how? "Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor effeminate, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor. 6:9-10) And again, "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing." (Gal. 5:2.) But here, since his discourse was of silence, he doth not very keenly inveigh against them, by this very thing attracting them the more.

He placed at the end what is strongest of all, namely, that God commands this through me, and this is undoubtedly recognized by the one who among you is regarded as a prophet or as having some other spiritual gift, for example, the gift of knowledge.

Then when he says: If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or spiritual, he refutes the greater ones in particular. In regard to this he does two things: first, he refutes them; secondly, he answers a tacit objection (v. 38).

He says, therefore: Suppose that the entire Church does not contradict, except someone who seems to be a prophet. He says, seems, because, if he contradicts, he is not really a prophet or wise or spiritual, because many are spiritual who are not prophets, although all prophets are spiritual. He, I say, who so seems to be a prophet and spiritual does not contradict, but should know, i.e., should recognize that the things I am writing to you are commands of the Lord and not mine only. As if to say: From the fact that no one had dared to contradict the commands of the Lord, and the things I write are the commands of the Lord, no one should dare to contradict them: "Do you desire proof that Christ is speaking"? (2 Cor 13:3). And from this we can gather that the Apostle's words are from a familiar revelation of the Holy Spirit and of Christ and, therefore, are to be obeyed as commands of Christ. Hence the Apostle is careful to distinguish things he commands of himself, when he says: "About virgins I have no command of the Lord."

That is to say: I have spoken; whoever wishes, let him believe. Such a tone of speech shows a man who is not striving to fulfill his own desire, but who has in view the common benefit. This is what Paul usually does when it is not very necessary to argue. For what need has Paul to resist and insist that his words are commandments of God, when he is speaking to his own disciples, and has already said that whoever is spiritual will recognize their divine character? Obviously, everyone will hasten to call them divine, in order to appear spiritual.

But they could say: O Apostle, how am I to know that these are commands of God? I am unable to know this. The Apostle excludes this, saying: This is of no value to you, because you should not be ignorant. Why? Because anyone who does not recognize this, he is not recognized: "Amen, I say to you: I know you not" (Matt 25:12), from which it is clear that all are bound to know the things necessary for salvation, which he previously commanded, as well as the apostles and prophets. Or in another way: if anyone thinks he is a prophet, as confirmation of the preceding. As if to say: So I write; but you cannot recognize them on account of their difficulty and because you are simple; but in order that you may know that the things I write are just and honest, I wish to adduce the testimony of prophets and spiritual men, who live among you. And therefore he says: If anyone thinks that he is a prophet: "The spiritual man judges all things" (1 Cor 2:15). And lest anyone should say: we are not instructed in knowing such things, he adds that they are bound to know, because anyone who does not recognize this will not be recognized: "My people go into exile for want of knowledge" (Is 5:13); "They have neither knowledge nor understanding; they walk in darkness" (Ps 82:5).

In order to console them after all his rebukes, Paul calls them brothers and encourages them to have a desire to prophesy, so that by frequent discussion and exposition of the divine law they may become better equipped to be able to learn that what the false apostles were teaching was perverse.

Anyone who does not recognize that what the apostle says is from God will not be recognized on the day of judgment.

Then, as he is ever wont to do, unto the former subject whence he digressed to say these things, he brings back his discourse as follows:

"Wherefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues."

For this too is his wont, not only to work out what is before him, but also starting from that to set right whatever seems to him in any way akin to it, and again to return to the former, so as not to appear to wander from the subject. For so when he was discoursing of their concord in their banquets, he digressed to their Communion in the Mysteries, and having thence put them to shame, he returns again to the former, saying, "Wherefore, when ye come together to eat, wait one for another." (1 Cor. 11:33)

And here, accordingly, having discoursed of good order in their gifts, and of its being a duty neither to faint in the lesser, nor to be puffed up on account of the greater; then having made an excursion from thence to the sobriety becoming women and having established it, he returns again to his subject, saying, "Wherefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues." Seest thou how to the end he preserved the difference of these? And how he signifies that the one is very necessary, the other not so? Wherefore of the one he saith, "desire earnestly," but of the other, "forbid not."

Having spoken about the gifts, he inserted a word about women: now he speaks again about the gifts, and gives first place to the gift of prophecy, saying: "desire earnestly," and second place to the gift of tongues. He did not say: permit, but: "do not forbid." This is how we usually speak about matters that are not necessary, neither permitting nor forbidding.

Here the Apostle concludes the general admonition. In regard to this he does three things: first, he admonishes them to desire all the gifts, saying: therefore, to speak in tongues is good. But earnestly desire to prophesy. The reason for this, as it says in Pr (29:18): "Where there is no prophecy, the people cast off restraint." And "prophecy" is taken here as explained in this entire chapter. And yet, although you may desire to prophesy, do not forbid speaking in tongues, lest dissension arise.

Something is done decently when it is done peacefully and with discipline.

Those who make dissensions and disturbances in the church are the ones who seem to be what they are not. Letter , To Euodius.

Paul is referring to the decent and well-ordered way of life in the society of the faithful, where the relationship which obtains among the members of the body is maintained.

If we take a closer look at the origin of sin, I think that it is nothing else than the inordinate love by a rational creature of the things set in order by God.

Then, as in brief summary, setting all things right, he adds the words,

"Let all things be done decently and in order."

Again giving a blow to them who chose to behave themselves unseemly without cause, and to incur the imputation of madness; and who keep not their proper rank. For nothing doth so build up as good order, as peace, as love; even as their contraries tend to pull down. And not only in things spiritual, but also in all others one may observe this. Thus whether it be in a dance, or a ship, or in a chariot, or a camp, if thou shouldest confound the order, and casting the greater out of their proper place, shouldest bring in the lesser into their rank, thou destroyest all, and thus things are turned upside down. Neither let us then destroy our order, nor place the head below and the feet above: now this is done when we cast down right reason, and set our lusts, passions, and pleasure, over the rational part: whence violent are the billows, and great the confusion, and intolerable the tempest, all things being wrapt in darkness.

Therefore he wants all these to be set in order by you, nothing disordered, nothing restless, nothing indecent.… Therefore, now our true high priest, Christ, also wants his hands to be filled "with finely composed incense.".

For it is required of the man of God, that in all his words and works he be perfect, and that in his life he be adorned with all exemplary and well-ordered behaviour, and do all his deeds in righteousness, as a man of God.

Law and order come first. Let us also dedicate ourselves to this principle as members of the fellowship of the great Lawgiver.

As if correcting everything at once — both what pertained to those speaking in tongues, and what pertained to women speaking in church, and in general everything that was happening among them in a disorderly manner. All things will be done decently and in order when those speaking in tongues speak with interpretation and not like those who are possessed, when prophets yield to one another, and when women keep silent.

Secondly, he urges them to adopt the correct method, when he says: but all things should be done decently, namely, that when one is speaking, the others should be silent, and that women should not speak in the church, and so on: "Let us conduct ourselves becomingly as in the day" (Rom 13:13). Thirdly, he urges them to correct order, when he says: and in order, namely, that one speak and then another and by parts and the other things I have said: "From the heavens fought the stars, from their courses they fought against Sisera" (Jg 5:20).