Homilies on First Corinthians

“Have we no right to eat and to drink? Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer?” Why, how are these sayings a defence? “Because, when it appears that I abstain even from things which are allowed, it cannot be just to look suspiciously on me as a deceiver or one acting for gain.”

Wherefore, from what was before alleged and from my having instructed you and from this which I have now said, I have matter sufficient to make my defence to you: and all who examine me I meet upon this ground, alleging both what has gone before and this which follows: Have we no right to eat and to drink? Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer? “Yet for all this, having it I abstain?”

What then? Did he not use to eat or to drink? It were most true to say that in many places he really did not eat nor drink: for “in hunger,” says he, “and in thirst, and in nakedness” we were abiding. Here, however, this is not his meaning; but what? “We eat not nor drink, receiving of those whom we instruct, though we have a right so to receive.”

“Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” Observe his skilfulness. The leader of the choir stands last in his arrangement: since that is the time for laying down the strongest of all one's topics. Nor was it so wonderful for one to be able to point out examples of this conduct in the rest, as in the foremost champion and in him who was entrusted with the keys of heaven. But neither does he mention Peter alone, but all of them: as if he had said, Whether you seek the inferior sort or the more eminent, in all you find patterns of this sort.

For the brethren too of the Lord, being freed from their first unbelief, had come to be among those who were approved, although they attained not to the Apostles. And accordingly the middle place is that which he has assigned to them, setting down those who were in the extremes before and after.