Commentary on 1 Corinthians (Super I Epistolam ad Corinthios Lectura)

Above, the Apostle removed from the faithful that which is contrary to the sacrament of the Eucharist, namely participation in the table of idols; but now he instructs the faithful concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist itself. And first he sets forth a certain general admonition; second he comes to his proposed topic, at the place "But I would have you know," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth the admonition; second he shows how the Corinthians stood with regard to the aforesaid admonition, at the place "Now I praise you, brothers," etc.

Concerning the first it must be considered that the natural order of things is such, that those things which are lower among beings imitate, according to their capacity, those things which are higher. Hence also a natural agent, as being superior, assimilates to itself the thing acted upon. Now the primordial principle of the whole procession of things is the Son of God, according to that which is said in John 1:3: "All things were made through him." And he is therefore the primordial exemplar, which all creatures imitate as the true and perfect image of the Father. Hence it is said in Colossians 1:15: "who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature, because in him all things were created." In a certain special way, however, he is the exemplar of spiritual graces, by which spiritual creatures are illumined, according to what is said in Psalm 109:3 to the Son: "In the splendors of the saints, from the womb before the daystar I begot thee," because indeed he was begotten before every creature through a shining grace, having in himself, exemplarily, the splendors of all the saints. But this exemplar of God was previously very remote from us, according to that which is in Ecclesiastes 2:12: "What is man, that he can follow the king his maker?" And therefore he willed to become man, that he might offer men a human exemplar. Hence Augustine says, in "On the Christian Combat": "From what perversity would he not be free, who loves to behold and follows the sayings and deeds of that man, in whom the Son of God offered himself to us as an example of life?" And just as the exemplar of his divinity is imitated first by the Angels, and secondarily by the rest of creatures, as Dionysius says in chapter 10 of the Angelic Hierarchy, so the exemplar of his humanity is set forth to be imitated principally by the prelates of the Church, as being superiors. Hence the Lord also says to the apostles in John 13:15: "I have given you an example, that as I have done, so you also should do." Secondarily, the prelates themselves, formed by the example of Christ, are set forth as an exemplar of life to their subjects, according to that in 1 Peter, last chapter: "made a pattern of the flock from the heart"; and 2 Thessalonians 3:9: "that we might give ourselves as a pattern to you, for you to imitate us."

And therefore the Apostle says pointedly: "I have said that you should be without offense to all," and indeed you will be able to do this, if you keep what I say. "Be imitators of me, as I also am of Christ," namely, I am an imitator. For he imitated him, first indeed in devotion of mind. Galatians 2:20: "I live, now not I, but Christ lives in me." Second, in solicitude for his subjects. Hence he said in Philippians 2:17: "If I am sacrificed upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I rejoice and congratulate you all," just as Christ also offered himself for us, as is said in Ephesians 5:2. Third, as to the endurance of suffering. 2 Corinthians 4:10: "always bearing about in the body the mortification of Jesus." And Galatians, last chapter: "I bear the marks of the Lord Jesus in my body." Now it must be noted that he does not say simply, "be imitators of me," but adds "as I also am of Christ," because indeed subjects ought not to imitate their prelates in all things, but in those things in which they imitate Christ, who is the unfailing exemplar of holiness.

Then, when he says "Now I praise you, brothers," he shows how the Corinthians stood with regard to the aforesaid admonition. Concerning which it must be considered that subjects follow their prelates in two ways, namely as to deeds and as to words. As to deeds indeed, when subjects imitate the examples of their prelates, hence it is said in James 5:10: "Take, my brothers, the example of the prophets, who spoke in the name of the Lord." But as to words, when they obey their precepts. Proverbs 4:4: "Keep my precepts and you shall live." Now in these things the Corinthians were failing, and especially as to the greater multitude, and therefore the Apostle, addressing them, says "Now I praise you, brothers," as if he were to say: in this respect you ought to show yourselves worthy of praise, but you do not do so — "in that you are mindful of me in all things," as if for imitating my examples. For we cannot imitate the examples of those of whom we have no memory. Hence it is said in Hebrews 13:7: "Remember your leaders, and considering the outcome of their conduct, imitate their faith." But as to words, he adds "and as I delivered them to you, you keep my precepts," as if he were to say: you observe them in the same manner in which I delivered them; for he says this because they had fallen away from the observance of his precepts. John 15:20: "If they have kept my word, they will keep yours also."

But this manner of speaking seems not to be fitting to the truth of sacred Scripture, which admits nothing of falsehood, according to that which is in Proverbs 8:8: "All my words are just, and there is nothing crooked or perverse in them." But it must be said that ironic speech is one of the figurative modes of speech, in which the truth is not regarded according to the sense that the words make, but according to that which the speaker intends to express, whether by likeness, or by its contrary, or by any other manner. And therefore in ironic speech the truth is regarded according to the contrary of what the words sound, just as in metaphorical speech, according to likeness.

Then, when he says "But I would have you know, brothers," etc., he comes to his proposed topic, instructing the faithful, namely, concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist. And concerning this he does three things. First he reproves their errors concerning the rite of this sacrament; second he shows the dignity of this sacrament, at the place "For I have received from the Lord," etc.; third he teaches the fitting rite, at the place "Therefore, my brothers." Concerning the first he does three things. First he reproves their error, by which, namely, they erred in dress, because women came to the sacred mysteries with head unveiled; second he argues against an error in the assembly, because, namely, while they came together to the sacred mysteries they gave themselves over to contentions, at the place "Now this I command, not praising," etc.; third, as to a certain food, because, namely, having already eaten, they approached to receive the sacred mysteries, at the place: "But when you come together," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth a certain teaching, from which the reason for the following admonition is drawn; second he sets down the admonition, at the place "But every man praying," etc.

Concerning the first he sets down a threefold comparison, of which the first is of God to man, saying: I have said that you hold my precepts — by way of contrary; but that it may appear that you are acting unreasonably, I want you to know, as a necessary matter, according to that which is in Isaiah 5:13: "My people is led captive, because it had not knowledge," that Christ is the head of every man, which indeed is said according to the likeness of a natural head, in which four things are considered.

First indeed perfection, since while the other members have only one sense, namely touch, in the head all the senses flourish; and likewise in other men individual graces are found, according to what is said below in chapter 12:8: "To one is given, through the Spirit, the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge," etc.; but in the man Christ there is the fullness of all graces. For God does not give him the Spirit by measure, as is said in John 3:34. Second, in the head is found sublimity, because just as, namely in man, it is above all the members, so also Christ is supereminent not only over all men, but also over all Angels, according to that in Ephesians 1:20 and following: "setting him at his right hand in the heavenly places, above every principality and power," and below: "and gave him to be head over all the Church." Third, in the head is found influence, because indeed it in a certain manner pours forth sense and motion into the other members, so from Christ the head into the other members of the Church, spiritual motion and sense is derived, according to that in Colossians 2:19: "not holding the head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands being supplied and joined together, grows with the increase of God." Fourth, in the head is found conformity of nature to the other members, and likewise in Christ to other men, according to that in Philippians 2:7: "made in the likeness of men, and found in condition as a man."

He sets down the second comparison, of man to man, when he says "but the head of the woman is the man." This also is verified according to the four aforesaid points. For first indeed the man is more perfect than the woman, not only as to body, because, as the Philosopher says in the book On the Generation of Animals, the female is a defective male, but also as to vigor of soul, according to that in Ecclesiastes 7:29: "One man among a thousand I have found; a woman among them all I have not found." Second, because the man naturally is preeminent over the woman, according to that in Ephesians 5:22 and following: "Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord, because the man is the head of the woman." Third, because the man exerts influence by governing the woman, according to that in Genesis 3:16: "Thou shalt be under the power of the man, and he shall have dominion over thee." Fourth, man and woman are alike in nature, according to that in Genesis 2:18: "Let us make him a help like unto himself."

He sets down the third comparison, of God to the Lord, when he says "but the head of Christ is God." Now it must be considered that this name "Christ" signifies the aforesaid person by reason of the human nature: and thus this name "God" does not stand for the person of the Father alone, but for the whole Trinity, from which, into the humanity of Christ, as from that which is more perfect, all good things are derived, and to which the humanity of Christ is subjected. It can be understood in another way, according as this name "Christ" stands for the said person by reason of the divine nature: and thus this name "God" stands only for the person of the Father, who is called the head of the Son, not indeed according to greater perfection, or according to any supposition, but only as to origin and according to conformity of nature, as it is said in Psalm 2:7: "The Lord said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee."

These things can, however, be taken mystically, inasmuch as in the soul there is a certain spiritual marriage. For sensuality is compared to the woman, but reason to the man, by whom sensuality ought to be ruled. Hence he is also called its head. Or rather, the lower reason, which cleaves to the disposing of temporal things, is compared to the woman; but to the man the higher reason, which is free for the contemplation of eternal things, which is called the head of the lower reason: because temporal things are to be disposed according to eternal reasons, according to that in Exodus 25:40: "Look and make according to the pattern that was shown to thee on the mountain." But Christ is called the head of man, because reason alone, according to its higher part, cleaves to God.

Having set forth the teaching, he adds an admonition, the reason for which is taken from the aforesaid teaching. And concerning this he does two things. First, he sets down the admonition on the part of the man; second, on the part of the woman, where he says, *but every woman*, etc.

He says therefore first: it has been said that the head of the woman is the man; but every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraces his head. Concerning which it must be considered that anyone standing before a judge ought to declare his condition or dignity, and especially one standing before God, who is the judge of all; and therefore those who stand before God ought to conduct themselves in the most orderly and fitting way, according to that saying of Ecclesiastes 4:17: keep your foot when you enter the house of God.

Now man stands before God in two ways. In one way, referring human things to God, which indeed happens by praying, according to that saying of Ecclesiasticus 39:6f: he will make supplication in the sight of the Most High, he will open his mouth in prayer, and will make supplication for his sins. In the other way, bringing divine things to men, which indeed happens by prophesying, according to that saying of Joel 2:28: I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons shall prophesy. Hence the Apostle pointedly says, *man praying and prophesying*. For in these two ways man stands before God as before a judge, or a lord.

Now one is said to prophesy in two ways. In one way, insofar as a man announces to others the things that are divinely revealed to him, according to that saying of Luke 1:67f: Zechariah his father was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying: blessed be the Lord God of Israel, etc. In the other way a man is said to prophesy, insofar as he utters those things which have been revealed to others; hence those who in the Church speak prophecies, or read other sacred Scriptures, are said to be prophesying. And it is taken in this way below in chapter 14:4: he who prophesies, builds up the Church; and it is also taken in this way here.

Now it pertains to the dignity of the man (as will be clear below) to be without a covering on his head, and therefore he says that every man praying, or prophesying with his head covered, disgraces his head, that is, does something unfitting to himself. For just as in the body beauty is said to consist in the due proportion of the members with a fitting brightness or color, so in human acts beauty is said to consist in the due proportion of words or deeds, in which the light of reason shines forth. Hence, conversely, disgrace is understood, when something is done contrary to reason, and the due proportion is not observed in words and deeds. Hence above, in chapter 7:36, it was said: if any man thinks that he seems dishonored, concerning his virgin, that she is overmature.

But against this an objection is raised: for many pray in the Church with head covered without any disgrace, wishing to pray more secretly. But it must be said that prayer is twofold. One private, namely that which someone offers to God in his own person; the other public, which someone offers to God in the person of the whole Church, as is clear in the prayers which are said in the Church by the priests, and it is of such prayers that the Apostle here speaks.

Likewise an objection is raised concerning what the Gloss says, that one is said to prophesy who unlocks the Scriptures, and according to this, he who preaches, prophesies. But bishops preach with head covered by a miter. But it must be said that he who preaches or teaches in the schools speaks in his own person. Hence also the Apostle, in Romans 2:16, calls it his Gospel, namely on account of the diligence which he employed in preaching the Gospel; but he who recites sacred Scripture in the Church, for instance by reading the lesson, or the epistle, or the Gospel, speaks in the person of the whole Church. And it is of such a one prophesying that what the Apostle says here is understood. But then the objection remains concerning those who sing the Psalms in choir with head covered. But it must be said that the Psalms are not sung as though by one person singularly presenting himself to God, but as it were by the whole multitude.

Then, when he says *but every woman*, etc., he sets down the admonition as regards women, saying but every woman praying, or prophesying, as above, with head not covered, which is repugnant on account of her condition, disgraces her head, that is, does something unfitting concerning the uncovering of her head. But against this an objection is raised, because the Apostle says in 1 Timothy 2:12: I do not permit women to teach in the Church. How then is it fitting for a woman to pray, or to prophesy by public prayer, or by teaching? But it must be said that this is to be understood of the prayers and readings which women utter in their own communities.

Then, when he says *for it is one and the same*, etc., he proves the aforesaid admonition. And first he brings forward the proof, second he commits the judgment of the proof to the hearers, where he says, *judge you yourselves*, etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he brings forward the proof, second he excludes an objection, where he says, *but yet neither is the man*, etc. Concerning the first he sets down a threefold proof, of which the first is taken by comparison to human nature; the second by comparison to God, where he says, *the man indeed ought not*, etc.; the third by comparison to the Angels, when he says, *and because of the Angels*.

Concerning the first it must be considered that nature, which provided the other animals with aids sufficient for life, furnished these to men in imperfect form, so that by reason, by art, by use, by hand, they might perfect them for themselves; just as it gave horns to bulls for defense, but men prepare for themselves the arms of defense by the manual craft of reason. And hence it is that art imitates nature, and perfects those things which nature cannot do. Thus therefore, for the covering of the head, nature gave man hair. But because this covering is insufficient, man prepares for himself by art another covering. The same reasoning therefore holds concerning the natural covering of the hair, and the artificial covering.

Now it is natural to woman that she nourish her hair. For she has a natural disposition to this, and moreover a certain inclination is present in women toward nourishing their hair. For in most cases this happens, that women are more devoted to nourishing their hair than men. It seems fitting therefore to the condition of women, that they make more use of an artificial covering of the head, than men.

Concerning this therefore he does three things. First he sets down the fittingness of the natural and the artificial covering, saying: it has been said that a woman not covering her head disgraces her head, for it is one, namely of one and the same reasoning, to be deprived of the artificial covering, as if she were made bald, that is, as if she were deprived of the natural covering of hair, which is foretold as a punishment to certain ones in Isaiah 3:17: the Lord will make bald the crown of the daughters of Zion, and will lay bare their hair.

Second he leads to an unfitting conclusion, saying for if a woman is not covered, let her be shorn, as if to say: if she casts off the artificial covering, let her by equal reasoning cast off also the natural, which is unfitting. But against this it seems to be, that nuns are shorn. To which it can be answered in two ways: first indeed, because from this very fact that they take up the vow of widowhood or virginity, being espoused by Christ, they are advanced into a manly dignity, as being freed from subjection to men, and joined immediately to Christ. Second, because they take up the lament of penitence, entering religious life. Now it is the custom for men, that in time of mourning they nourish their hair, as though this were fitting to their condition; women, on the contrary, in time of mourning lay aside their hair. Hence it is said in Jeremiah 7:29: shear your hair, and cast it away, and take up a straightforward lamentation.

Third he concludes his proposition, saying but if it is disgraceful, that is, unbecoming, for a woman to be shorn or made bald, that is, to be deprived of her natural covering, by art, or by nature, let her cover her head, making use, namely, of an artificial covering.

Then, when he says *the man indeed*, etc., he sets down the second proof, which is taken by comparison to God. And first he leads into the proof, second he proves what he had presupposed, where he says, *for the man is not*, etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets down the reasoning of that which is on the part of the man, second that which is on the part of the woman, where he says, *but the woman*, etc.

He says therefore first: it has been said that it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn, just as also not to be covered; but for a man it is not disgraceful, the reason for which is this: the man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God. Now by this, that he says he is the image of God, the error of certain persons is excluded, who say that man is only unto the image of God, but is not the image, the contrary of which the Apostle says here. Now they said that the Son alone is the image, according to that saying of Colossians 1:15: who is the image of the invisible God.

It must therefore be said that man is said to be the image of God, and also unto the image. For he is an imperfect image: but the Son is said to be the image, not unto the image, because he is the perfect image. For the clarification of which it must be considered that there are two things belonging to the notion of image in common. First indeed likeness, not in just anything whatsoever, but either in the very species of the thing, as a son-man is made like to his father, or in something that is a sign of the species, as figure in corporeal things — hence those who depict the figure of a horse are said to paint its image. And this is what Hilary says in the book *On the Synods*, that an image is an undifferentiated species. Second, origin is required: for of two men, who are alike in species, one is not said to be the image of the other, unless he arise from him, as a son from a father; for an image is named from an exemplar. Third, for the notion of a perfect image, equality is required.

Because therefore man is made like to God according to the memory, understanding, and will of the mind, which pertains to the species of intellectual nature, and this he has from God, he is said to be the image of God; but because equality is lacking, he is an imperfect image of God. And therefore he is said to be unto the image, according to that saying of Genesis 1:26: let us make man unto our image and likeness. But the Son, who is equal to the Father, is a perfect image, but not unto the image.

It must also be considered that the glory of God is spoken of in two ways. In one way, that by which God is glorious in himself, and in this way man is not the glory of God, but rather God is the glory of man, according to that saying of Psalm 3:4: you, O Lord, are my protector, and my glory. In the other way, the glory of God is said to be his brightness derived from him, according to that saying in the last chapter of Exodus: the glory of the Lord filled it. And in this way it is said here, that the man is the glory of God, insofar as the brightness of God shines forth immediately upon the man, according to that saying of Psalm 4:7: the light of your countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us.

Then, when he says *but the woman*, etc., he sets down that which is on the part of the woman, saying but the woman is the glory of the man, etc., because the brightness of the woman is derived from the man, according to that saying of Genesis 2:23: this one shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man.

But against this an objection is raised, because the image of God is considered in man according to the spirit, in which there is no difference of male and female, as is said in Colossians 3:11. It ought not therefore be said any more that the man is called the image of God, than the woman. But it must be said that the man is here said to be specially the image of God according to certain exterior things, namely because the man is the principle of his whole kind, just as God is the principle of the whole universe, and because from the side of Christ sleeping on the cross flowed the sacraments of blood and water, from which the Church was fashioned. It can also be said, as to interior things, that the man is more specially said to be the image of God according to the mind, insofar as reason is more vigorous in him. But it is better to say that the Apostle speaks pointedly. For of the man he said that the man is the image and glory of God: but of the woman he did not say that she was the image and glory of the man, but only that she is the glory of the man, so that it may be given to understand that to be the image of God is common to man and woman: but to be the glory of God immediately is proper to the man.

It remains, however, to be considered why the man ought not to cover his head, but the woman should. Which indeed can be taken in two ways. First indeed, because the covering, which is placed over the head, designates the power of another over the one whose head it is, by the order of nature: and therefore the man, existing under God, ought not to have a covering upon his head, so as to show that he is immediately subject to God, but the woman ought to have a covering, so as to show that she is naturally subject, besides God, to another. Hence the objection concerning the slave and the subject ceases: because this subjection is not natural. Second, to show that the glory of God is not to be hidden, but revealed: but the glory of man is to be hidden; hence in Psalm 113:9f it is said: not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name give glory.

He had said beforehand that woman is the glory of man, which he intends to prove here. And concerning this he does three things. First, he sets forth the proof; second, he assigns the reason for what he had said, at the place *for man was not created*, etc.; third, he draws the intended conclusion, at the place *therefore ought*, etc.

Concerning the first, it must be considered that, as was said above, woman is called the glory of man by a certain derivation, and therefore, to prove this, he adds *for not* — namely, in the first establishment of things — *was man from woman*, that is, formed, *but woman from man*. For it is said in Genesis 2:22, that the Lord God built the rib, which he had taken from Adam, into a woman. But of man it is said, the Lord God formed man from the slime of the earth.

Then, when he says *for indeed*, etc., he assigns the reason for what he had said. For the evidence of this, such an order of the perfect and the imperfect must be considered, that in one and the same subject the imperfect is prior in time to the perfect. For a man is first a boy before he is a man; yet simply speaking the perfect is prior to the imperfect, in time and in nature. For a boy is produced by a man. This, then, is the reason why woman was produced from man: because he is more perfect than woman, which the Apostle proves from this, that the end is more perfect than that which is for the end; but man is the end of woman. And this is what he says: *for man was not created for woman, but woman for man*, namely, for the help of generation: just as the patient is for the sake of the agent, and matter for the sake of form. Hence it is said in Genesis 2:18: *it is not good for man to be alone, let us make him a help like to himself*.

Then, when he says *therefore ought*, etc., he draws the intended conclusion, saying *therefore* — namely, because man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man — *woman ought to have a covering upon her head*, namely, when she assists God by praying or prophesying, so that by this it may be shown that she is not immediately subject to God, but is subjected also to man under God; for this is what the covering signifies, which is placed upon the head. Hence another text has it that woman ought to have *power* over her head, and the sense is the same: for the covering is a sign of power, according to what is said in Psalm 65:12: *you have placed men over our heads*.

Then, when he says *and because of the Angels*, etc., he assigns a third reason, which is taken from the side of the Angels, saying that woman also ought to have a covering upon her head because of the Angels. This indeed can be understood in two ways. In one way, of the heavenly Angels themselves, who are believed to visit the assemblies of the faithful, especially when the sacred mysteries are celebrated. And therefore then both women and men ought to conduct themselves honestly and in order out of reverence for them, according to that saying in Psalm 137:1: *in the sight of the Angels I will sing to you*. In another way it can be understood, according as priests are called Angels, inasmuch as they announce divine things to the people, according to that saying in Malachi 2:7: *the lips of the priest keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law from his mouth, because he is the Angel of the Lord of hosts*.

Woman, therefore, ought always to have a covering in the Church because of the Angels, that is, because of the priests, for a twofold reason. First indeed, because of reverence for them, to which it pertains that women conduct themselves honestly in their presence. Hence it is said in Ecclesiasticus 7:33: *honor God with all your soul, and his priests*. Second, because of caution for them, namely lest, from the sight of unveiled women, they be provoked to concupiscence. Hence it is said in Ecclesiasticus chapter 9:5: *do not gaze upon a virgin, lest perhaps you be scandalized by her beauty*.

But Augustine explains the foregoing differently. For he shows that both woman and man are to the image of God, through this, that it is said in Ephesians 4:23f: *be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, who is renewed in the knowledge of God according to the image of him who created him*, where there is not male and female. And thus it is clear that the image of God is attended to in man according to the spirit, in which there is no difference of male and female; and therefore woman is the image of God just as man is. For it is expressly said in Genesis 1:27, that God created man to his own image, *male and female he created them*: and therefore Augustine says that this must be understood in the spiritual marriage which is in our soul, in which (as was said above) sensuality, or also the lower reason, has itself after the manner of woman, but the higher reason after the manner of man, in which the image of God is attended to. And according to this, woman is from man and for man, because the administration of temporal or sensible things, to which the lower reason or also sensuality attends, ought to be derived from the contemplation of eternal things, which pertain to the higher reason, and to be ordered to it. And therefore woman is said to have a covering, or power, over her head, to signify that concerning the dispensing of temporal things, man ought to have a certain restraint and reining-in, lest man go forward beyond measure in loving them. This restraint, indeed, ought not to be applied concerning the love of God, since it is commanded in Deuteronomy 6:5: *you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart*. For concerning the desire of the end, no measure is set, which it is necessary to set concerning those things which are for the end. For a physician brings about health as perfect as he can, yet he does not give medicine as great as he can, but according to a determined measure. Thus man ought not to have a covering upon his head. And she ought to have this because of the holy Angels: for, as is said in the Gloss, a sacred and pious signification is pleasing to the holy Angels. Hence Augustine also says in the City of God, that demons are enticed by certain sensible things, not as animals by food, but as spirits by signs.

Then, when he says *nevertheless neither is man*, etc., he excludes a doubt which could arise from what has been said. For because he had said that man is the glory of God, but woman is the glory of man, someone could believe either that woman was not from God, or that she did not have power in grace. Hence he first excludes this, saying: although woman is the glory of man, who is the glory of God, nevertheless *neither is man in the Lord*, that is, produced by the Lord, without woman, *nor woman without man*; for God made each, according to that saying in Genesis 1:27: *male and female he created them*. Or otherwise: neither is man without woman in the Lord, namely in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor woman without man, because each is saved through the grace of God, according to that saying in Galatians 3:27: *as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ*. And afterward he adds: *there is not male, neither female*, namely, differing in the grace of Christ.

Second, he assigns the reason, saying: for just as in the first institution of things woman was formed from man, so also in the subsequent generations, man has been produced through woman, according to that saying in Job 14:1: *man born of woman*. For the first production of man was without man and woman, when God formed man from the slime of the earth, as is said in Genesis. But the second was from man without woman, when he formed Eve from the rib of man, as is read in the same place. But the third is from man and woman, just as Abel was born from Adam and Eve, as is read in Genesis 4:2. But the fourth is from woman without man, as Christ from the virgin, according to that saying in Galatians 4:4: *God sent his son, made from a woman*.

Third, he shows the reason to be fitting, saying *but all things are from God*, namely because both this very fact, that woman was first from man, and this, that afterward man is from woman, is from divine operation. Hence both man and woman pertain to God. Hence it is said in Romans XL, 36: *from him, and through him, and in him are all things*.

Then, when he says *judge for yourselves*, etc., he commits the judgment of what he had said to his hearers. And concerning this he does two things. First, he commits the judgment to reasonable hearers; second, he restrains contentious hearers, at the place *but if anyone seems*, etc.

Concerning the first he does four things. First, he commits to his hearers the judgment of what he had said, in the manner of one who is confident that he has sufficiently proved it, saying *judge for yourselves*, etc. For it pertains to a good hearer to judge concerning the things heard. Hence it is said in Job 6:29: *speaking, judge that which is just*. And 12:11: *does not the ear discern words?*

Second, he sets forth under question that concerning which the judgment ought to be, saying *is it fitting for a woman, unveiled, to pray to God?* This is prohibited in 1 Peter 3:3, where it is said: *let not their braiding of hair be outward*.

Third, he shows from where they ought to take their judgment, namely from nature itself, and this is what he says: *nor does nature itself teach you*. And here he calls nature itself the natural inclination, which is in women to nourish their hair, which is a natural covering, but not in men. This inclination, indeed, is shown to be natural, because it is found in the majority. But it is fitting to be taught by nature itself, because it is the work of God: just as in a painting someone is instructed by the skill of the painter. And therefore against certain persons it is said in Isaiah 24:5: *they have transgressed the laws, they have changed the right, they have broken the everlasting covenant*, that is, the natural right.

Fourth, however, he takes his reason from nature; and first he sets forth that which is on the part of man, saying that *if a man indeed nourish his hair*, after the manner of a woman, *it is a disgrace to him*, that is, it is reckoned to him as a disgrace among most men, because by this he seems to be womanish. And therefore it is said in Ezekiel 44:20: *let the priests not nourish their hair*. Nor is there an objection concerning certain persons who in the old law nourished their hair, because this was a sign, which then was placed upon the reading of the old testament, as is said in 2 Corinthians 3:14.

Second, he sets forth that which is on the part of woman, saying that *if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her*, because it seems to pertain to her adornment. Hence it is said in Canticles 7:5: *the hair of her head like the purple of a king*. And consequently he assigns the reason, when he says *because hair has been given to her*, namely to woman, *for a covering*; and therefore the same reason holds for the nourishing of hair, and for the applying of an artificial covering. Canticles 4:1: *your hair like a flock of goats*, etc.

Then, when he says *but if anyone seems*, etc., he restrains contentious hearers, saying *but if anyone seems to be contentious*, namely so as not to acquiesce in the aforesaid reasons, but to assail the truth with the confidence of clamor, which pertains to contention, as Ambrose says, against what is said in Job chapter 6:29: *answer, I beseech you, without contention*; and Proverbs 20:3: *it is an honor for a man to separate himself from contentions*. Let this suffice to restrain such a person: *that we* — Jews believing in Christ — *have no such custom*, namely, that women should pray with head unveiled, *nor* even *the whole Church of God* spread through the nations. Hence, even if there were no reason, this alone ought to suffice, lest anyone act against the common custom of the Church. For it is said in Psalm 67:7: *who makes those of one manner to dwell in a house*. Hence Augustine says in his letter to Casulanus that in all matters in which sacred Scripture defines nothing certain, the custom of the people of God, and the institutions of the elders, are to be held as law.

Where the Apostle had rebuked the Corinthians for their error in dress — namely, that women were coming to the sacred mysteries with head unveiled — he next argues against their error concerning the divisions in their assembly, namely, that while they were coming together for the sacred mysteries, they were engaging in contentions. And first he touches on their fault in general; second, in particular, where he says, first indeed, etc.

He says therefore first: This, however — that which was said above, that women should be veiled in the churches — I command, so that in this way he might induce them to this observance in a threefold manner: first indeed by reason, second by custom, third by precept, which alone, without the others, would induce necessity. Proverbs 4:4: Keep my precepts, and you shall live. And Ecclesiastes 4:12 says: A threefold cord is broken with difficulty. Not praising, but rather blaming, that you come together into the Church, not for the better, as it ought to be, but for the worse, through your own fault.

For all gregarious animals, for instance doves, cranes, sheep, come together into one by natural instinct, so that it may be better for them bodily. Hence man too, since he is a gregarious or social animal, as the Philosopher proves in Book I of the Politics, ought to act according to reason, so that many may come together into one for the sake of some good, just as in secular affairs many come together into the unity of a city, so that it may be better for them in secular terms, namely on account of the security and sufficiency of life. And therefore the faithful ought to come together into one for the sake of some spiritual good, according to Psalm 101:23: In the gathering together of peoples into one, and of kings, that they may serve the Lord. And elsewhere: In the council of the just and in the congregation, great are the works of the Lord. But these men were coming together for the worse, on account of the faults which they were committing while they came together. Isaiah 1:13: Your assemblies are wicked. Ecclesiasticus 21:10: The synagogue of sinners is gathered tow.

Then, when he says, first indeed, etc., he sets down in particular how they were coming together for the worse. And first he sets down the judgment of the fault, saying, first indeed — that is, among other things, namely that you come together for the worse — when you come together in the Church, I hear that there are divisions among you, namely through the contentions which they were carrying on. This indeed does not befit the Church, which is constituted in unity, according to Ephesians 4:4: One body and one spirit, as you are called in one hope of your calling. This, moreover, is foretold in Isaiah 22:9: You shall see the breaches of the city of David, because they are multiplied. The Gloss says, moreover, that by saying first, he shows that the first evil is dissension, from which the rest arise. For where there is dissension, nothing is right.

But this seems to be otherwise, according to what is said in Ecclesiasticus 10:15: The beginning of all sin is pride; and 1 Timothy, the last chapter: The root of all evils is covetousness. It must be said, however, that these authorities speak with respect to the personal sins of individual men, of which the first is pride on the side of aversion, and covetousness on the side of conversion. But the Gloss here is speaking of the sins of a multitude, among which the first is dissension, through which the rigor of discipline is dissolved. Hence it is said in James 3:16: Where there is envy and contention, there is inconstancy and every evil work.

Second, he sets down the credibility of the hearers, when he says, and in part I believe — that is, with respect to some of you, who were prone to contention, according to what he had said above in chapter 1, verses 11 and following: There are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you says: I indeed am of Paul, I of Apollo, I of Cephas. But others were not contentious, in whose person it is added there: But I am of Christ. Hence also Canticles 2:2 says: As the lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters — that is, the good among the wicked.

Third, he assigns the reason for his belief, saying, for there must be — not only any divisions whatsoever, but even heresies too. Here two things must be considered: first, what heresy is; second, how it is necessary that there be heresies.

Concerning the first, it must be known that, as Jerome says on the Epistle to the Galatians, heresy in Greek is named from choice — namely because each one chooses for himself that teaching which he thinks to be better; from which two things can be gathered. First indeed, that it belongs to the nature of heresy that someone follow a private teaching, as it were by his own choice, and not the public teaching, which is handed down divinely. Second, that someone adhere obstinately to this teaching. For choice implies a firm adherence; and therefore he is called a heretic who, spurning the teaching of the faith which is handed down divinely, obstinately follows his own error.

Now something pertains to the teaching of the faith in two ways. In one way directly, as the articles of faith, which are proposed to be believed in themselves. Hence error concerning these of itself makes one a heretic, if obstinacy be present. Now they cannot be excused from such error on account of any simplicity, especially with regard to those things which the Church solemnizes, and which are commonly on the lips of the faithful, such as the mystery of the Trinity, of the birth of Christ, and other such things. But certain things pertain indirectly to the teaching of the faith, namely insofar as they themselves are not proposed to be believed for their own sake, but from the denial of them something contrary to the faith follows — as if it were denied that Isaac was the son of Abraham, something contrary to the faith would follow, namely that sacred Scripture contains something false. From such things, however, no one is judged a heretic, unless he persevere so obstinately that he does not withdraw from the error, even when he has seen what follows from it. Thus, therefore, the obstinacy by which someone refuses, in those things which belong to the faith directly or indirectly, to submit to the judgment of the Church, makes a man a heretic. Such obstinacy, however, proceeds from the root of pride, by which someone prefers his own opinion to the whole Church. Hence the Apostle says in 1 Timothy 6:3-4: If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but languishing about questions and strifes of words.

Second, it must be considered how it is necessary that there be heresies. For if it is opportune that there be heretics, it seems that they would be commendable, and not to be uprooted. But it must be said that it is said in two ways of something that it is necessary for it to be. In one way from the intention of him who does this, as for instance if we should say that it is necessary that there be judgments — namely because judges, in carrying out judgments, intend to establish justice and peace in human affairs. In another way from the intention of God, who orders even evils toward good, just as he ordered the persecution of tyrants toward the glory of the martyrs. Hence Augustine says in the Enchiridion that God is so good that he would in no way permit any evil to be done, unless he were so powerful that he could draw good out of any evil whatsoever. And according to this it is said in Matthew 18:7: It must needs be that scandals come, nevertheless woe to that man through whom the scandal comes. And according to this the Apostle here says that there must be heresies, from the fact that God ordered the malice of heretics toward the good of the faithful.

And this he says, first indeed, for the greater manifestation of the truth. Hence Augustine says, in the City of God, Book XVI, as found in the Gloss: A question raised by an adversary becomes an occasion for learning; for many things pertaining to the Catholic faith, while they are thought out on account of the crafty disquiet of heretics, so that they may be defended against them, are considered more diligently, and understood more clearly, and preached more insistently. Hence also Proverbs 27:17: Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend. Second, to manifest the weakness of faith in those who believe rightly. And this is what the Apostle adds here: that they too who are approved — that is, approved by God — may be made manifest in you, that is, among you. Wisdom 3:6: As gold in the furnace he has proved them.

Then, when he says, when you come together, therefore, etc., he rebukes them for a third offense, namely because they were sinning in the manner and order of receiving the body of Christ. And all that follows can be expounded in two ways.

Now according to the first exposition, they are rebuked for this: that they were receiving the body of Christ after having already dined. Concerning this, therefore, he does four things. First he sets down the detriment which they were incurring; second, he sets down the fault, at the place, for each one, etc.; third, he inquires into the cause of the fault, at the place, have you not houses, etc.; fourth, he concludes with their reproach, at the place, what shall I say to you, etc.

He says, therefore, first, thus: when you come together, there are divisions among you; therefore when you come together into one, in body, not in soul, you have now arrived at this, that it is not — that is, it is not permitted or does not befit you — to eat the Lord's supper, that is, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord gave to his disciples at the supper. For this sacrament, as Augustine says on John, is the sacrament of unity and charity. And therefore it does not befit those who are at variance. Canticles 5:1: Eat, O friends, and drink, and be inebriated, dearly beloved.

Or it can better be referred to what follows, so that the sense is: not only are there divisions among you when you come together, but it now falls to you, coming together, that is, at present you have this determined, that it is not — that is, it is not permitted to you — to eat the Lord's supper, to which you come having already dined. For because the Lord handed down this sacrament to his disciples after supper, as is read in Matthew 26:26, the Corinthians also wished to receive the body of Christ after a common meal.

But the Lord did this reasonably, on account of three things. First indeed, because in fitting order the figure precedes the truth. Now the paschal lamb was the figure, or shadow, of this sacrament. And therefore after the supper of the paschal lamb, Christ gave this sacrament. For it is said in Colossians 2:17, concerning all the things of the law, that they are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. Second, so that from this sacrament he might pass immediately to the passion, of which this sacrament is a memorial. And therefore he said to the disciples, Arise, let us go hence — namely, to the passion. Third, so that this sacrament might be more closely impressed on the hearts of the disciples, to whom he handed it down in his final departure.

But out of reverence for so great a sacrament, the Church afterward instituted that it be received only by those who are fasting, from which the sick are excepted, who, in a case of necessity, which has no law, can receive the body of Christ without fasting. But because water does not break the fast, some have judged that after drinking water someone could receive this sacrament, especially because, as they say, water does not nourish, no more than does any other simple element. But although water in itself does not nourish, and on this account does not break the fast of the Church, according to which some are said to be fasting, nevertheless when mixed with other things it does nourish, and therefore it breaks the fast of nature. And according to this some are said to be fasting, namely those who on the same day have taken nothing, neither food nor drink. And because the remnants of food which remain in the mouth are taken in the manner of saliva, this does not prevent some from being fasting. Likewise it also does not prevent some from being fasting, if they have not slept at all through the night, or even if they have not fully digested, provided that on that same day they have taken absolutely nothing of food or drink. Hence, because the beginning of the day is to be reckoned, according to the usage of the Church, from midnight, therefore whoever after midnight has taken anything, however small, of food or drink, cannot on that same day receive this sacrament.

Then, when he says, for each one, etc., he sets down the fault, and first insofar as they were sinning against God; second, insofar as they were sinning against their neighbor, at the place, and one indeed, etc. He says therefore first: I say this, that it is not lawful for you to eat the Lord's supper, because each one of you takes before — that is, takes in advance — his own supper, namely of common foods, to eat. For each of them was carrying prepared dishes to the church, and each one was eating separately before he received the sacred mysteries. Hosea 4:18: Their banquet is separated, now they shall perish. Ecclesiasticus 11:19 it is said in the person of the miserly: I have found rest for myself, and I ate of my own goods alone.

Then, when he says, and one indeed, etc., he argues their fault, insofar as it was against their neighbor. For the rich were eating sumptuously in the church, and drinking even to drunkenness, but they were giving nothing to the poor, so that they remained hungry. And this is what is said: and one indeed is hungry, namely the poor man, who did not have the means to prepare for himself, while another is drunk, namely the rich man, who ate and drank to excess, contrary to what is said in Nehemiah 8:10: Eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions to them that have not prepared for themselves. Job 31:17: If I have eaten my morsel alone, and the fatherless has not eaten of it.

Then, when he says, have you not houses, etc., he inquires into the cause of this fault. And first he excludes the cause by which they might have been excused. For it is not lawful to apply the house of God, which is set apart for sacred uses, to common uses. Hence also the Lord, in John 2:16, casting out the buyers and sellers from the temple, said: My house shall be called the house of prayer, but you have made it a house of trading. And Augustine says in the Rule: In the oratory let no one do anything except that for which it was made, whence also it received its name. Nevertheless, on account of necessity, namely when someone could not find another house, he could lawfully use the church for eating, or for other such lawful uses. This excuse, therefore, the Apostle excludes, saying, have you not houses, namely your own, to eat and to drink in? So that on this account you might be excused, if you celebrate feasts in the church which you ought to hold in your own houses. Hence also in Luke 5:29 it is said that Levi made a great feast for Christ in his own house.

Second, when he says, or the Church of God, etc., he asserts the cause which renders them inexcusable, of which the first is contempt of the Church of God. And this he sets down, saying, or do you despise the Church of God? And therefore in the church you presume to eat your own supper. And here Church can be taken both for the congregation of the faithful, and for the sacred house, which is not to be despised, according to Psalm 92:5: Holiness becomes your house; and Jeremiah 7:11: Is this house, in which my name has been called upon in your eyes, become a den of robbers? But these men were despising both, since, in the presence of the assembly of the faithful, they were celebrating feasts in the sacred place.

Second, he sets down contempt for their neighbors in that which is added: and you put to shame them that have not. For in this the poor were made to blush, that they themselves were hungry in the sight of the whole multitude, while others were eating and drinking sumptuously. Now it is said in Proverbs 17:5: He that despises the poor reproaches his Maker. And Ecclesiasticus 4:2: Do not despise a hungry soul.

Then, when he says, what shall I say, etc., he concludes with their reproach, saying: What shall I say to you from the consideration of the things aforesaid? Shall I praise you? And he answers: and if in other deeds I praise you, yet in this deed I do not praise you. And it must be noted that above, while he was speaking about the dress of women, he at least ironically praised them, saying: I praise you, that in all things of me, etc. But here he does not wish to praise them even ironically, because in more grave offenses sinners are in no way to be handled gently. Hence also in Psalm 9:3 it is said: because the sinner is praised in the desires of his soul, and the unjust man is blessed. The sinner has provoked the Lord. And Isaiah 3:12: O my people, they that call you blessed, the same deceive you.

But according to the other exposition, they are accused of another fault. For in the primitive Church the faithful used to offer bread and wine, which were consecrated into the blood and body of Christ; and when these had already been consecrated, the rich, who had offered much, would claim back the same for themselves, and thus they themselves received abundantly, while the poor, who had offered nothing, received nothing. Of this fault, therefore, the Apostle here reproves them, saying: for when you come together into one, it is now not — that is, it does not happen among you — to eat the Lord's supper. For the Lord's supper is common to the whole family; but each one of you receives it, not as common, but as his own, since he wishes to claim for himself what he offered to God; and this is what he adds: each one takes before — that is, presumptuously attempts — to eat the supper, namely of the Lord, that is, the consecrated bread and wine, as his own — that is, claiming as his own property, namely those things which have been consecrated to the Lord, for his own uses. And so it follows that one, namely the poor man who offered nothing, is hungry, taking nothing of the consecrated things, while another, namely the rich man who offered much, is drunk; literally, on account of this, that he took too much of the consecrated wine, which he demanded back as it were his own.

But this seems to be impossible, that anyone should be made drunk from the consecrated wine, or even be nourished from the bread, since after the consecration nothing remains under the species of bread and wine except the substance of the body and blood of Christ, which cannot be converted into the body of a man, so that he might be nourished from them, or be made drunk. Some therefore say that this does not happen through any conversion, but only through an alteration of a man's senses by the accidents of bread and wine, which remain after the consecration. For men are accustomed to be strengthened merely by the odor of foods, and to be stupefied and, as it were, made drunk by a great deal of the odor of wine. But the strengthening or stupefaction, which arises only from an alteration of the senses, lasts for a short time; whereas after the consecration of bread or wine, if wine or bread were taken in a great quantity, a man would be sustained for a long time on account of the bread, or would be stupefied on account of the wine. And moreover it is clear that the consecrated bread can be converted into another substance, from the fact that through putrefaction it is dissolved into dust, or through burning into ashes. Hence there is no reason why it should be denied that it can nourish, since for nourishing nothing else is required except that the food be converted into the substance of the one nourished.

Some, therefore, have held that the consecrated bread or wine can be converted into something else, and thus nourish, because the substance of bread or wine remains there together with the substance of the body and blood of Christ. But this is contrary to the words of Scripture. For it would not be true, what the Lord says in Matthew 26:26: For this is my body, because this, which is pointed to, would be bread — but rather it would have to be said, here, that is, in this place, is my body. And moreover the body of Christ does not begin to be in this sacrament through a change of place, because then it would cease to be in heaven. Hence it remains that it begins to be there through the conversion of something else, namely of the bread, into itself; hence it cannot be that the substance of bread remains.

And therefore others have said that the substantial form of bread remains there, to which the operation of the thing pertains, and therefore it nourishes, just as bread would nourish. But this cannot be, because to nourish is to be converted into the substance of the one nourished, which does not belong to the nourishment by reason of the form, whose function is to act, but rather by reason of the matter, whose function is to be acted upon. Hence if the substantial form alone were there, the bread could not nourish.

But others said that the surrounding air is converted either into the substance of the one nourished, or into whatever else of this kind; but this could not happen without a great condensation of the air, which could not escape the senses. And therefore others have said that, by divine power, so that the sacrament may not be detected in conversions of this kind, the substance of bread and wine returns. But this seems to be impossible, because, since the substance of bread has been converted into the body of Christ, it does not seem that the substance of bread could return, unless conversely the body of Christ were converted into bread. And moreover, if the substance of bread returns, either this happens with the accidents of bread remaining — and thus there would be at the same time there the substance of bread and the substance of the body of Christ, which was disproved above; for the substance of the body of Christ is there for as long as the species remain. Or it returns with the species not remaining, which is also impossible, because thus the substance of bread would be without its own accidents — unless perhaps it be understood that God, at the term of the conversion, would cause there a certain matter which would be the subject of this conversion.

But it is better to say that, just as by the power of consecration it is miraculously conferred on the species of bread and wine that they subsist without a subject after the manner of a substance, so also it is miraculously conferred on them, as a consequence, that they act and are acted upon in whatever way the substance of bread or wine could act or be acted upon, if it were present. And for this reason those species of bread and wine can nourish and inebriate, just as if the substance of bread and wine were there. The rest is not changed from the first exposition.

After the Apostle rebuked the disorders of the Corinthians, which they were committing by coming together to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, here he treats of the sacrament itself. And first he treats of the dignity of this sacrament; second he leads the faithful to receive it reverently, there "therefore whoever shall eat," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he commends the authority of the teaching which he is about to give; second he sets forth the teaching on the dignity of this sacrament, there "for our Lord," etc.

Concerning the first he does two things. First he commends the authority of the teaching on the part of the author, who is Christ, saying: I said that it is now not for you to eat the Lord's supper — calling the sacrament of the Eucharist the Lord's supper — "for I received from the Lord," namely Christ, who is the author of this teaching, not from some mere man. Gal. 1, 1: "Paul an apostle, not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ." Hebr. 2, 3: "which having received its beginning to be declared through the Lord," etc. Second he commends the authority of the teaching on the part of the minister, who is Paul himself, when he adds "which also I delivered to you." Is. 21, 10: "what I have heard from the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, I have announced to you." Wis. 7, 13: "which I have learned without pretense, and communicate without envy."

Then when he says "for the Lord Jesus," he commends the dignity of this sacrament, handing on its institution. And first he sets down the institution; second the time of the institution, when he says "in the night in which he was being handed over," etc. Third the manner of instituting, there "he took bread," etc.

Now the institutor of the sacrament is Christ himself. Hence he says "for our Lord Jesus Christ," etc. For it was said above, when treating of Baptism, that Christ has in the sacraments a power of excellence, to which four things pertain. First, that his power and merit operate in the sacraments; second, that the sacrament is sanctified in his name; third, that he can bestow the effect of the sacrament without the sacrament; fourth, the institution of a new sacrament. Yet it was specially fitting that he himself should institute this sacrament in his own person, in which his body and blood are communicated. Hence he himself says, Jn. 6, 52: "the bread which I shall give you is my flesh, for the life of the world."

Then when he says "in the night in which he was being handed over," he describes the time of the institution of this sacrament, which indeed was fitting, first as to the quality of the time. For it was in the night. For by the power of this sacrament the soul is illumined. Hence in 1 Kings 14, 27 it is said that Jonathan dipped his rod into the honeycomb, and turned his hand to his mouth, and his eyes were enlightened; on account of which also in Ps. 138, v. 11 it is said: "night is my illumination amid my delights." Second, as to the business that was being carried on at that time, namely that when he was being handed over to the passion, through which he passed over to the Father, he instituted this sacrament, which is a memorial of the passion. Hence it is said in Eccli. 29, 33: "pass over, guest, and adorn the table, and feed others with what you have in hand."

Then when he says "he took bread," etc., he shows the manner of the institution. And first he sets down what Christ did and said in instituting this sacrament; second he expounds it, there "for as often as," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he treats of the institution of this sacrament as to the body of Christ; second as to his blood, there "likewise also the cup," etc.

Concerning the first, before the exposition of the letter, it is necessary first to consider the necessity of the institution of this sacrament. Now it must be known that the sacraments were instituted on account of the necessity of the spiritual life. And because bodily things are certain likenesses of spiritual things, it is necessary that the sacraments be proportioned to those things which are necessary for the bodily life. In which, first, generation is found, to which Baptism is proportioned, through which someone is regenerated into the spiritual life. Second, growth is required for the bodily life, through which someone is brought to perfect quantity and strength: and to this the sacrament of confirmation is proportioned, in which the Holy Spirit is given for strength. Third, nourishment is required for the bodily life, by which the body of man is sustained, and likewise the spiritual life is refreshed by the sacrament of the Eucharist, according to that word of Ps. 22, 2: "in a place of pasture there he has placed me, upon the water of refreshment he has brought me up."

Now it must be noted that the begetter is not joined to the begotten according to substance but only according to power, whereas food is joined to the one nourished according to substance. Hence in the sacrament of Baptism, by which Christ regenerates unto salvation, Christ himself is not present according to his substance, but only according to his power. But in the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is spiritual nourishment, Christ is present according to his substance.

He is contained, however, under another species on account of three things. First indeed, lest it should be horrible to the faithful receiving this sacrament, if in its own species they should eat the flesh of a man, and drink blood; second, lest this itself should be a matter of derision to unbelievers; third, that the merit of faith might increase, which consists in this, that those things are believed which are not seen.

Now this sacrament is handed on under a twofold species on account of three things. First indeed on account of its perfection, because, since it is a spiritual refreshment, it ought to have spiritual food and spiritual drink. For even bodily refreshment is not perfected without drink and food. Hence also above, 10, 3f., it was said that all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink; for even bodily refreshment is not perfected without food and drink. Second, on account of its signification. For it is a memorial of the Lord's passion, through which the blood of Christ was separated from the body; and therefore in this sacrament the blood is offered separately from the body. Third, on account of the saving effect of this sacrament. For it avails for the health of the body, and therefore the body is offered; and it avails for the health of the soul, and therefore the blood is offered. For the soul is in the blood, as is said in Gen. 9, 4ff.

Now this sacrament is specially offered under the species of bread and wine. First indeed, because men more commonly use bread and wine for their refreshment. And therefore these are taken up in the sacrament, just as water for washing in Baptism, and oil for anointing. Second, on account of the power of this sacrament. For bread strengthens the heart of man, while wine gladdens it. Third, because bread, which is made from many grains, and wine from many grapes, signify the unity of the Church, which is constituted from many faithful. And this Eucharist is specially the sacrament of unity and charity, as Augustine says on John.

Now these things having been seen concerning the exposition of the letter, first it must be considered what Christ did; second what he said, there "and said," etc. Now he does three things. The first indeed is designated when he says "he took bread," by which two things can be signified: first indeed, that he voluntarily accepted the passion, of which this sacrament is a memorial, according to that word of Is. 53, 7: "he was offered because he himself willed it." Second it can be signified that he received from the Father the power of perfecting this sacrament, according to that word of Matth. 11, 27: "all things have been delivered to me by my Father." The second he touches on when he says "and giving thanks." In which an example is given to us of giving thanks for all things which are divinely given to us, according to that word of 1 Thess., last chapter: "in all things give thanks." The third he touches on when he says "he broke." Is. 58, v. 7: "break your bread to the hungry."

But this seems to be contrary to the usage of the Church, according to which the body of Christ is first consecrated, and afterward broken: but here it is said that he first broke it, and afterward brought forth the words of consecration. And therefore some have said that Christ first consecrated with other words, and afterward brought forth the words with which we consecrate. But this cannot be, because the priest, while he consecrates, does not bring forth these words as it were from his own person but as it were from the person of Christ consecrating. Hence it is manifest that Christ also consecrated with the same words with which we consecrate. And therefore it must be said that what is here said, "and said," is not to be taken consecutively, as though Christ had taken bread, and giving thanks had broken it, and afterward said the words that follow, but concomitantly: that while he took the bread by itself, giving thanks, he broke it and spoke. And therefore, since it is said in Matth. 26, 26 that Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, the Apostle did not care to make mention here of the blessing, understanding that blessing to be nothing other than this, that the Lord said "this is my body."

Then when he says "and said," he shows what Christ said in instituting this sacrament. Now in the words, first he enjoined the use of the sacrament; second he expressed the truth of the sacrament; third he taught the mystery. He enjoined the use of the sacrament, saying "take." As if he were to say: it is not from human power or merit that the use of this sacrament belongs to you, but from the eminent benefit of God. Wis. 16, 20: "you have nourished your people, Lord, with the food of angels." Above, 4, 7: "what do you have that you have not received?" And he determines the kind of use, when he says "and eat." Jn. 6, 54: "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man." Job 31, 31: "if the men of my tabernacle have not said: who will give of his flesh, that we may be satisfied?"

It must be known, however, that these words are not part of the form of consecration. For there is this difference between this and the other sacraments, that the other sacraments are perfected not indeed in the consecration of the matter, but in the use of the consecrated matter, as in the washing with water, or in the anointing with oil or chrism. And this is because in the matters of the other sacraments there is no rational nature which is receptive of sanctifying grace; and therefore in the form of the other sacraments mention is made of the use of the sacrament, as when it is said: "I baptize you," or "I confirm you with the chrism of salvation," etc. But this sacrament is perfected in the very consecration of the matter, in which Christ himself is contained, who is the end of all sanctifying grace. And therefore the words which pertain to the use of the sacrament are not of the substance of the form, but only those which contain the truth and content of the sacrament, which he consequently sets down, adding "this is my body."

Concerning these words three things must be considered. First indeed concerning the thing signified by these words, namely that the body of Christ is there; second concerning the truth of this expression; third whether this is a fitting form for this sacrament.

Concerning the first it must be considered that some have said that the body of Christ is not in this sacrament according to truth, but only as in a sign, expounding thus what is said here — "this is my body," that is, this is the sign and figure of my body — just as above, 10, 4, it was said: "now the rock was Christ," that is, a figure of Christ. But this is heretical, since the Lord expressly says, Jn. 6, 56: "my flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink." Hence others have said that the body of Christ is truly there, but together with the substance of bread, which is impossible, as was shown above. Hence others have said that only the body of Christ is there, the substance of bread not remaining, which is annihilated, or resolved into the pre-existing matter. But this cannot be, because, as Augustine says in the book of Eighty-Three Questions: "God is not the author of tending into non-being." Second, because also by this position it is taken away that the substance of bread is converted into the body of Christ, and thus, since the body of Christ does not begin to be in this sacrament through the conversion of another thing into it, it remains that it begins to be there through local motion, which is impossible, as was said above.

It must therefore be said that the body of Christ is truly in this sacrament through the conversion of the bread into it. It must be considered, however, that this conversion differs from all conversions that occur in nature. For the action of nature presupposes matter, and therefore its action does not extend except to changing something according to form, whether substantial or accidental. Hence every natural conversion is said to be formal. But God, who effects this conversion, is the author of matter and form, and therefore the whole substance of bread, the matter not remaining, can be converted into the whole substance of the body of Christ. And because matter is the principle of individuation, this whole designated individual, which is a particular substance, is converted into another particular substance, on account of which this conversion is called substantial, or transubstantiation.

There occurs, therefore, in this conversion the contrary of what happens in natural conversions, in which, the subject remaining, a transmutation sometimes occurs regarding the accidents. But here, the substance having been changed, the accidents remain without a subject, by divine power, which as first cause sustains them without a material cause — which is the caused substance — so that the body and blood of Christ may be taken under an alien species, for the reasons stated above. And because the accidents are referred to the substance in a certain order, therefore the dimensions remain without a subject, and the other accidents remain in the dimensions themselves, as in a subject.

But if under those dimensions no substance remains except the body of Christ, a doubt can arise concerning the breakings of the consecrated host, since the body of Christ is glorified, and consequently unbreakable. Hence it cannot underlie this breaking, but neither can something else be feigned to subsist, because no fiction befits the sacrament of truth. Hence nothing is perceived by sense in this sacrament that is not there according to truth. For the sensible things are per se qualities, which indeed remain, just as they had been before, in this sacrament, as has been said. And therefore others have said that there is indeed a certain breaking there without a subject, so that nothing is broken there. But neither can this be said, because since breaking is in the genus of passion, which has a weaker being than quality, it cannot exist in this sacrament without a subject, any more than quality can. Hence it remains to be said that that breaking is founded, as in a subject, in the remaining dimensions of the bread and wine. But the body of Christ is not touched by this kind of breaking, because the whole remains under each part of the divided dimensions.

This indeed can be considered in this way. For the body of Christ is in this sacrament from the conversion of the substance of bread into it. But the conversion does not occur by reason of the dimensions. For the dimensions of the bread remain, but the conversion occurs only by reason of the substance. Hence the body of Christ is there also by reason of its substance, but not by reason of its dimensions, although its dimensions are there consequently, inasmuch as they are not separated from its substance. But as far as pertains to the nature of substance, the whole is under each part of the dimensions. Hence just as before consecration the whole truth of the substance and nature of the bread was under each part of the dimensions, so after consecration the whole body of Christ is under each part of the divided bread.

Now the division of the consecrated host signifies, first indeed, the passion of Christ, through which his body was broken by wounds, according to that word of Ps. 21, 17: "they have dug my hands and my feet." Second, the distribution of the gifts of Christ proceeding from him, according to that word below, 12, 4: "there are divisions of graces." Third, the diverse parts of the Church. For of those who are members of Christ, some still journey as pilgrims in this world; some live in glory with Christ, both as to soul and as to body; and some await the final resurrection at the end of the world, and this the division of the host into three parts signifies.

Second, it must be considered concerning the truth of this expression. For this expression seems to be false: "this is my body." For the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ occurs at the end of the utterance of these words. For then the signification of this expression is completed. For the forms of the sacraments effect by signifying; and therefore it follows that at the beginning of the expression, when it is said that the body of Christ is not yet there, but only the substance of bread, which is pointed to by this pronoun "this," when it is demonstrative of substance — "this," therefore, is the same, when it is said "this is my body," as if he were to say "the substance of bread is my body," which is manifestly false.

Some have therefore said that the priest utters these words materially and recitatively from the person of Christ, and therefore the demonstration of this pronoun is not referred to the present matter, so that the expression should thereby be rendered false, according to how the objection proceeded. But this cannot stand. First indeed, because if this expression is not applied to the present matter, it will do nothing concerning it, which is false. For Augustine says on John: "the word comes to the element, and it becomes a sacrament." Hence it is necessary to say that these words are taken formally, referring them to the present matter. Now the priest utters them from the person of Christ, from whom they took their power, to show that they now have the same efficacy as when Christ uttered them. For the power conferred on these words does not vanish, either through diversity of time, or through variety of ministers. Second, because the same difficulty remains concerning the first utterance by which Christ uttered them.

Therefore others say that the sense of this "this is my body" is: this bread designates my body, so that the word "this" designates what is at the beginning of the expression. But this also cannot be, because since sacraments effect what they figure, these words would effect nothing except what they signify. Second, because from this it would follow that by these words nothing would be effected, except that the body of Christ should be there, as under a sign — which was disproved above.

And therefore others say that the word "this" makes a demonstration to the understanding, and points to what will be at the end of the expression, namely the body of Christ. But neither does this seem to be fittingly said, because according to this the sense would be "my body is my body," which is not brought about by these words, since this was true even before the words of consecration.

And therefore it must be said otherwise, that the forms of the sacraments are not only significative, but also effective: for they effect by signifying. But in every making, something common must underlie as a principle. Now the common thing in this conversion is not some substance, but the accidents, which both existed before and afterward remain; and therefore on the part of the subject in this expression, a noun is not put which signifies a certain species of substance, but a pronoun is put, which signifies substance without a determinate species. The sense therefore is: "this," that is, that which is contained under these accidents, is my body. And this is what is brought about by the words of consecration. For before consecration, that which was contained under these accidents was not the body of Christ, which nevertheless becomes the body of Christ through consecration.

Third, it must be considered how this is a fitting form for this sacrament. For this sacrament, as has been said, does not consist in the use of the matter, but in its consecration. Now consecration does not occur through this, that the consecrated matter only receives some spiritual power, but through this, that it is transubstantiated according to being into the body of Christ; and therefore no other word had to be used, except a substantive verb, so that it should be said "this is my body." For by this is signified that which is the end, which is brought about by signifying.

Then when he says "which shall be delivered up for you," he touches on the mystery of this sacrament. For it is a sacrament representative of the divine passion, through which he delivered his body to death for us, according to that word of Is. l, 6: "I have given my body to those who strike"; and Eph. 5, 2: "he delivered himself up for us." And to show the reason for frequenting this mystery, it is added: "do this in remembrance of me," namely by recalling so great a benefit, for which I delivered myself to you in death. Hence also in Thren. 3, 19 it is said: "remember my poverty, the wormwood and the gall." And in Ps. 110, 4: "the merciful and compassionate Lord has made a memorial of his wonderful works; he has given food to those who fear him."

After the apostle has set forth the institution of this sacrament as regards the consecration of the body, here he sets forth its institution as regards the consecration of the blood. And first he sets forth the order of the institution; second, the words, when he says this cup, etc. Now the order is attended to as regards two things. First, as regards the concomitance of both species, when he says likewise also the cup. For each belongs to the perfection of this sacrament, both on account of the perfection of the refreshment, and on account of the representation of the passion, and on account of the effecting of the salvation of soul and body, as was said above. But if the body of Christ is consecrated first in this sacrament, and afterward the blood, it seems to follow that before the consecration of the blood, the body of Christ in this sacrament is bloodless: which some, judging this unfitting, said that the two forms wait upon one another in their effecting, in such a way, namely, that the first form, the consecration of the body, does not attain its effect until the form of the consecration of the blood is completed; just as it was also said, that the words which are uttered in the consecration of the body do not attain their effect until the end of the utterance of the words. But this is not alike. For the signification of the words by which the body of Christ is consecrated is not completed except at the end of their utterance. And because sacramental words effect by signifying, therefore they cannot have their effect before the end of the utterance. But they have their full signification then, even before the words of the consecration of the blood are uttered, and therefore it is necessary that even then they have their effect. Otherwise the priest would sin immediately after the words of consecration, in proposing to the people for adoration a host not consecrated, unless the body of Christ were already there, since he would be leading the people into idolatry. It must therefore be said that before the consecration of the blood, the body of Christ is in this sacrament, not without blood. For it is to be known that something is in this sacrament in two ways. In one way by force of the consecration, namely that into which the conversion of the bread and wine is terminated, as is signified by the form of consecration, and thus under the species of bread is the body of Christ. In another way something is in this sacrament by real concomitance, just as the divinity of the Word is in this sacrament on account of its indissoluble union to the body of Christ, although the substance of bread is in no way converted into the divinity. And likewise the soul is there, which is really joined to that body itself. But if in the three days of Christ's death the body of Christ had been consecrated by any of the apostles, the soul would not have been there, which was then really separated from the body. And the same must be said of the blood. For under the species of bread, by force of the consecration, is the body of Christ, into which the substance of bread is converted. But the blood is there by real concomitance, because at that time the blood of Christ is not really separated from his body. And, by the same reasoning, under the species of wine is the blood of Christ by force of the consecration, but the body by real concomitance, so that under either species is the whole Christ. But if at the time of the passion, when the blood of Christ was poured out from the body, this sacrament had been completed by one of the apostles, under the species of bread there would have been only the body of Christ, bloodless, and under the species of wine there would have been only the blood of Christ.

Second, the order is attended to by comparison to the material foods which had preceded, where he adds after he had supped, which he seems to have added deliberately. For Christ handed over his body during supper. Hence Matt. 26 it is said that as they were supping Jesus took bread, etc. But he gave the blood expressly after supper. Hence also Lk. 22:20 it is said likewise also the cup after he had supped, saying, etc. The reason for this is that the body of Christ represents the mystery of the incarnation, which took place while the legal observances still had their standing, among which the chief was the supper of the paschal lamb. But the blood of Christ in the sacrament directly represents the passion, through which it was poured out and through which all legal observances were brought to an end. Hence Heb. 9:12 it is said that through his own blood he entered once into the holies, eternal redemption having been found.

Then he sets forth the words, saying this cup, etc. And first he demonstrates the truth of this sacrament; second he enjoins its use, at do this, etc. As to the first, then, he says this cup, etc. This can indeed be taken in two ways. In one way metonymically, namely so that the container is put for the contained, as if he were to say: what is contained in this cup; which is more fittingly put in the consecration of wine, which on account of its humidity needs other terms to contain it, than in the consecration of bread, which on account of its dryness is contained by its own terms. In another way it can be taken metaphorically, so that the sense is: as a cup inebriates and disturbs, so also does the passion. Hence Matt. 20:22 he says: can you drink the cup that I am about to drink? And Matt. 26:39: let this cup pass from me. The sense here is therefore this cup, that is, what is contained in this cup, or this my passion, is the new testament in my blood. Hence it is to be considered that testament is taken in two ways in the Scriptures. In one way commonly for any pact whatsoever, which indeed is confirmed by witnesses, and thus it is to be considered that God entered into a pact with the human race in two ways. In one way by promising temporal goods and freeing from temporal evils: and this is called the old testament, or pact. In another way by promising spiritual goods and freeing from the opposed evils: and this is called the new testament. Hence it is said Jer. 31:31: I will make with the house of Israel and the house of Judah a new covenant, not according to the covenant which I made with your fathers, that I might lead them out of the land of Egypt, but this shall be the covenant: I will give my law in their inward parts, and I will be to them for a God. Now it is to be considered that among the ancients there was a custom that they would pour out the blood of some victim for the confirmation of a pact. Hence Gen. 31:54 it is read, that after Laban and Jacob entered into a covenant, victims having been sacrificed on the mountain, he called his brothers. Hence also Ex. 24:8 it is read, that Moses took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people, and said: this is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you. Just as, then, the old testament or pact was confirmed by the figural blood of bulls, so the new testament or pact is confirmed in the blood of Christ, who through the passion was poured out. And in this cup the sacrament is contained in such a manner.

In another way testament is taken more strictly for the disposition of an inheritance to be received, which according to the laws must be confirmed by a fixed number of witnesses. But testament taken in this way is not confirmed except by death, because, as the apostle says Heb. 9:17, a testament is confirmed in the dead, otherwise it is not yet valid, while he who made the testament lives. Now God had first indeed made a disposition concerning the eternal inheritance to be received, but under the figure of temporal goods, which pertains to the old testament; but afterward he made the new testament, expressly promising the eternal inheritance, which indeed was confirmed by the blood of Christ's death. And therefore the Lord says of this: this cup is the new testament in my blood; as if he were to say: by what is contained in the cup is commemorated the new testament confirmed through the blood of Christ.

Now it is to be noted that the same words which the apostle sets down here are found in Lk. 22:20, except that there is added: which shall be poured out for you. For Luke was a disciple of Paul and followed him in the writing of the Gospel. But Matt. 26:28 it is said for this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be poured out for many unto the remission of sins. The same words are set down in Mk. 14:24. Some therefore say that whatever forms of these words are uttered, which are written in the canon, suffice for consecration. But it seems more probable to say that consecration is accomplished only by those words which the Church uses from the tradition of the apostles, structured. For the evangelists intended to recount the Lord's words insofar as pertains to the account of the history, not, however, according as they are ordered to the consecration of the sacraments, which they kept hidden in the primitive Church, on account of unbelievers. Hence Dionysius says in the last chapter of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: it is not lawful to expound the perfective invocations in the Scriptures, nor to bring forth their mystical power, wrought beforehand in them from God, out of hiddenness into the common. But concerning those words which the Church uses in the consecration of the blood, some are of the opinion that not all of them are of the necessity of the form but only what is said this is the cup of my blood, and not the remainder which follows: of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be poured out for you and for many unto the remission of sins. But this does not seem to be fittingly said. For all of that which follows is a certain determination of the predicate. Hence it also pertains to the sense or signification of the same locution. And because, as has often been said, the forms of the sacraments effect by signifying, the whole pertains to the effective power of the form. Nor does the reason which they bring forward stand in the way, namely that in the consecration of the body it suffices that it be said this is my body, because the blood consecrated separately specially represents the passion of Christ, by which his blood was separated from the body. And therefore in the consecration of the blood it was fitting to express the power of Christ's passion, which is attended to, first indeed, with respect to our fault, which the passion of Christ abolishes, according to that Apoc. 1:5: he washed us from our sins in his own blood, and, as to this, he says which shall be poured out for you and for many unto the remission of sins. For the blood was indeed poured out for the remission of sins, not only for many, but also for all, according to that 1 Jn. 2:2: he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. But because some render themselves unworthy to receive such an effect, as to its efficacy it is said to have been poured out for many, in whom the passion of Christ has its effect. Now he says deliberately for you and for many, because this sacrament avails unto the remission of sins for those who receive it by way of sacrament, which is noted deliberately, when it is said for you, to whom he had said take. It also avails by way of sacrifice for many who do not receive it, for whom it is offered; which is signified when it is said: and for many.

Second, its power is considered by comparison to the life of justice, which it effects through faith, according to that Rom. 3:24: justified freely by his grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom he set forth as a propitiation through faith in his blood. And as to this, he says: mystery, that is, hidden, of faith, because indeed the faith of Christ's passion was hidden in all the sacrifices of the old testament, as truth in a sign. Now the Church has this from the tradition of the apostles, since it is not found in the canon of Scripture.

Third, its power is attended to as regards the life of glory, into which it is introduced through the passion of Christ, according to that Heb. 10:19: having confidence for entrance into the holies in the blood of Christ. And as to this, he says: of the new and eternal testament. Eternal indeed, because it is a disposition concerning the eternal inheritance. New, however, in contrast to the old, because it promised temporal things. Hence Heb. 9:15 it is said: therefore he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death intervening, they who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Then when he says do this, etc., he enjoins the use of this sacrament, saying do this, as often as you receive it, in my commemoration, namely in memory of my passion. Hence also Lam. 3:20 the prophet says: with remembrance I will remember, and my soul will languish within me. And Is. 63:7: I will remember the mercies of the Lord.

Now it is to be noted that in the cup wine ought chiefly to be put, for the reasons said above. But water also ought to be added. For it is probable that Christ at the supper gave the disciples mixed wine, on account of the custom of that land, in which, in order to temper the strength of the wine, wine mixed with water is drunk by all. Hence also Prov. 9:5 Wisdom says: drink the wine which I have mixed for you. Nevertheless, water mixed with wine signifies the Christian people joined to Christ through the passion, according to that Apoc. 17:15: the waters are peoples and nations. And the participation of the blood of Christ by the faithful pertains to the use of the sacrament, which is not of the necessity of this sacrament. But wine can be consecrated without water, although he who so consecrates sins, not observing the rite of the Church. And therefore if the priest before the consecration of the wine notices that water has not been added to the cup, he ought to add it. But if he notices after the consecration, he ought not to add it, but ought to complete the sacrament. For nothing after the consecration is to be mixed with the blood of Christ, because such a mixture could not be without some corruption of the consecrated wine, which pertains to the crime of sacrilege. Some, however, say that since blood and water flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross, as is read Jn. 19:34, just as the wine is converted into blood, so the water into water. But this does not fit, because in that water is figured the washing which is through Baptism. And therefore others say that, the conversion of the wine into blood having taken place, the water remains in its own substance, and is surrounded by the accidents of the wine. But this does not fit, because the water is mixed with the wine before the consecration, when it does not differ from other wine. Hence it does not remain apart, but is mixed together. And therefore it is to be said that the water is converted into wine and thus the whole is converted into the blood of Christ. On account of which the custom is to add a little water, and especially if the wine is weak, which cannot convert into itself more than a little water.

Then when he says as often as, etc., he expounds the words of the Lord which he had said, do this in my commemoration, saying for as often as you shall eat this bread, etc. And he says bread, on account of the remaining species. But he says this, on account of the same body in number signified and contained. And the cup, namely this, you shall drink, you shall announce the death of the Lord, namely representing it through this sacrament. And this, until he come, that is, until his final coming, in which it is given to understand, that this rite of the Church will not cease until the end of the world, according to that Matt. ult.: behold I am with you even to the consummation of the age. And Lk. 21:32: this generation shall not pass away, namely of the Church, until all things come to pass.

After the apostle has shown the dignity of this sacrament, he here rouses the faithful to receive it reverently: and first he sets forth the danger that threatens those who receive it unworthily; second he applies a saving remedy, at the words *let a man prove*, etc. He says therefore first, *therefore* — since that which is eaten sacramentally is the body of Christ and that which is drunk is the blood of Christ — *whoever shall eat this bread, or drink the cup, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord*. In these words, first, it must be considered how someone eats and drinks unworthily: which indeed, according to the Gloss, happens in three ways. First, with regard to the celebration of this sacrament, namely because someone celebrates the sacrament of the Eucharist otherwise than it was handed down by Christ: for instance if he should offer in this sacrament some other bread than wheaten, or some other liquid than wine from the vine. Whence it is said in Lev. 10, that Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron, *offered before the Lord strange fire, which had not been commanded them: and fire came out from the Lord, and devoured them*. Second, from the fact that someone approaches the Eucharist without a devout mind. Now this lack of devotion is sometimes venial: for instance when someone, with mind distracted toward secular affairs, approaches this sacrament while habitually retaining due reverence toward it; and such a lack of devotion, although it impedes the fruit of this sacrament, which is spiritual refreshment, nevertheless does not make one guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, as the apostle speaks here. But a certain lack of devotion is a mortal sin, namely when it is joined with contempt for this sacrament, as it is said in Malachi 1:12: *you have polluted my name in that you say: the table of the Lord is defiled, and that which is set upon it is contemptible*. And the Gloss speaks of this kind of lack of devotion. Third, someone is called unworthy from the fact that he approaches the Eucharist with the will to sin mortally. For it is said in Lev. 21:23: *let him not approach the altar who has a blemish*. Someone is understood to have the blemish of sin for as long as he is in the will to sin, which however is removed through penance. By contrition indeed, which removes the will to sin, together with the resolve to confess and make satisfaction, as regards the remission of guilt and of eternal punishment; but by confession and satisfaction, as regards the total remission of punishment and reconciliation to the members of the Church. And therefore in a case of necessity indeed, for instance when someone cannot have the opportunity of confession, contrition suffices for the reception of this sacrament. But as a rule, confession ought to precede, along with some satisfaction. Whence in the book on Ecclesiastical Dogmas it is said: *let one about to communicate make satisfaction with tears and prayers, and, trusting in the Lord, let him approach the Eucharist clean, undismayed and secure. But this I say of him whom capital and mortal sins do not weigh down. For as to him whom mortal crimes committed after Baptism press down, I exhort him first to make satisfaction by public penance, and thus, reconciled by the judgment of the priest, to be joined to communion, if he does not wish to receive the Eucharist unto condemnation*. But it seems that sinners do not approach this sacrament unworthily. For in this sacrament Christ is received, who is the spiritual physician, who says of himself in Matt. 9:12: *they that are well have no need of a physician, but they that are sick*. But it must be said that this sacrament is spiritual nourishment, just as Baptism is spiritual birth. Now someone is born so that he may live, but he is not nourished unless he is already alive. And therefore this sacrament does not belong to sinners, who do not yet live by grace: but Baptism does belong to them. And moreover, the Eucharist is the sacrament of charity and of ecclesiastical unity, as Augustine says on John. Since therefore the sinner lacks charity, and is deservedly separated from the unity of the Church, if he approaches this sacrament, he commits a falsehood, while he signifies that he has charity, which he does not have. Yet because a sinner sometimes has the faith of this sacrament, it is lawful for him to look upon this sacrament, which is altogether denied to unbelievers, as Dionysius says in chapter 3 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. Second, it must be considered how he who unworthily receives this sacrament is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. This indeed is explained in the Gloss in three ways. In one way materially: for he incurs guilt from the sin committed regarding the body and blood of the Lord, insofar as it is contained in this sacrament, which he unworthily receives, and from this his guilt is aggravated. For his guilt is the graver, the greater is he against whom it is sinned. Heb. 10:29: *how much more, do you think, does he deserve worse punishments, who has trodden underfoot the Son of God, and has esteemed the blood of the covenant polluted?* Second, it is explained by way of a similitude, so that the sense is: *he shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord*, and shall pay the penalties of the Lord's death, that is, as if he had killed Christ, he shall be punished, according to that word of Heb. 6:6: *crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and holding him up to derision*. But according to this it seems that the sin of those who unworthily receive the body of Christ is most grave. But it must be said that a sin has gravity in two ways. In one way from the very species of the sin, which is taken from the object, and according to this the sin that is committed against the divinity is graver, for instance unbelief, blasphemy, or something of this kind, than what is committed against the humanity of Christ. Whence the Lord himself says in Matt. 12:32, that *whoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him*. And again, a sin committed against the humanity in its own proper species is graver than one committed under the species of the sacrament. In another way the gravity of sin is considered on the part of the sinner. Now he sins more who sins out of hatred or envy or out of any malice, as those sinned who crucified Christ, than he who sins out of weakness, as those sometimes sin who unworthily receive this sacrament. It is not therefore understood by this that the sin of those unworthily receiving this sacrament is compared to the sin of those killing Christ according to equality, but according to likeness of species: because both concern the same Christ. Third, *he shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord* is explained thus, that is, the body and blood of the Lord will make him guilty. For a good thing badly received harms, just as an evil thing which someone uses well profits him, as the sting of Satan profited Paul. By these words moreover the error of certain persons is excluded who say that as soon as this sacrament is touched by the lips of a sinner, the body of Christ ceases to be under it. Against which is what the apostle says: *whoever shall eat this bread, or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily*. For according to the aforesaid opinion no unworthy person would eat or drink at all. But the aforesaid opinion is contrary to the truth of this sacrament, according to which the body and blood of Christ remain in the sacrament for as long as the species remain, in whatever place they may be.

Then, when he says *but let a man prove*, etc., he applies the remedy against the aforesaid danger. And first he sets forth the remedy; second he assigns the reason, at *for he that eats*, etc.; third he manifests the reason by a sign, at *therefore among you*, etc. He says therefore first: because he who unworthily receives this sacrament incurs such great guilt, it is therefore necessary that a man first prove himself, that is, diligently examine his conscience, lest there be in him the will to sin mortally, or some past sin for which he has not sufficiently repented. And thus, secure after diligent examination, let him eat of that bread, and drink of the cup, because to those who receive it worthily it is not poison, but medicine. Gal. ult.: *but let every one prove his own work*. 2 Cor. 13:5: *if you are in the faith of Christ, prove yourselves*. Then, when he says *for whoever shall eat*, etc., he assigns the reason for the aforesaid remedy, saying: therefore proof is required beforehand, for he who unworthily eats and drinks, eats and drinks *judgment*, that is, condemnation, to himself, as it is said in John 5:29: *they that have done evil things shall rise again unto the resurrection of judgment*. *Not discerning the body of the Lord*, that is, from the fact that he does not distinguish the body of the Lord from other things, taking it indifferently as he does other food. Lev. 22:3: *every man that shall approach to those things that are consecrated, in whom there is uncleanness, shall perish before the Lord*. But against this it seems to be what is said in John 6:58: *he that eats me, lives because of me*. But it must be said that there is a twofold way of eating this sacrament, namely spiritual and sacramental. Some therefore eat sacramentally and spiritually, namely those who so receive this sacrament that they also partake of the reality of the sacrament, namely charity, through which there is ecclesiastical unity. And of such the word of the Lord brought forward is understood: *he that eats me, lives because of me*. But some eat sacramentally only, namely those who so receive this sacrament that they do not have the reality of the sacrament, that is, charity, and of such it is understood what is said here: *he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself*. Now besides the two ways in which this sacrament is received, there is a third way of receiving, by which it is eaten accidentally, namely when it is received not as a sacrament, which indeed happens in three ways. In one way, as when some believer receives a consecrated host which he does not believe to be consecrated; for such a one has the habit of using this sacrament, but does not use it in the act, as a sacrament. In another way, as when some unbeliever receives a consecrated host, who has no faith in this sacrament; for such a one does not have the habit of using this sacrament, but only the potency. In a third way, as when a mouse or any brute animal eats a consecrated host, which also does not have the potency of using this sacrament. From this, therefore, that those who receive this sacrament spiritually acquire life, some are drawn to receive this sacrament frequently. But from this, that those who receive it unworthily acquire judgment for themselves, many are deterred, so that they receive it more rarely: and each course seems commendable. For we read in Luke 19:6, that Zacchaeus received Christ rejoicing into his house, in which his charity is commended. It is also read in the same, 7:6, that the centurion said to Christ: *I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof*. In which his honor and reverence toward Christ is commended. Yet because love is preferred to fear, speaking of itself, it seems more commendable that someone should receive more frequently than more rarely. Yet because what is in itself more eligible can be less eligible with regard to this or that person: each one ought to consider in himself what effect the frequent reception of this sacrament has in him. For if someone feels himself to progress in fervor of love toward Christ and in strength to resist sins, which mostly follow upon men, he ought to receive frequently. But if from frequent reception someone feels in himself less reverence for this sacrament, he should be advised to receive more rarely. Whence also in the book on Ecclesiastical Dogmas it is said: *to receive the Eucharist daily, I neither praise nor blame*.

Then, when he says *therefore among you*, etc., he manifests the aforesaid reason by a sign. And first he sets forth the sign; second he assigns the cause of that sign, at *for if we would judge ourselves*, etc. Concerning the first it must be considered that, as Augustine says in Book 1 of the City of God, chapter 8: *if God should now openly punish every sin with punishment, it would be thought that nothing was reserved for the last judgment*. Again, if he should now punish no sin, it would be believed that there is no divine providence. As a sign therefore of the future judgment, God even in this world temporally punishes some for sin, which seems to have been especially observed at the beginning of legislation, both the new and the old. For we read in Exodus 32:28, that on account of the sin of the golden calf that was worshipped, many thousands of men were slain. Again it is read in Acts 5:1-11, that on account of the sin of lying and theft, Ananias and Sapphira perished. Whence also on account of the sin of this sacrament unworthily received, some in the primitive Church were punished by God with bodily infirmity or even with death. Whence he says *therefore*, namely as a sign of the future judgment, *among you*, many who unworthily receive the body of Christ *are weak* in body. Ps. 15:4: *their infirmities are multiplied*. And *feeble*, that is, laboring under long infirmity, *and many sleep*, namely by bodily death, according to which sleep is understood in 1 Thess. 4:12: *we would not have you ignorant concerning them that are asleep*.

Then, when he says *for if we would judge ourselves*, etc., he assigns a twofold reason for the aforesaid sign, of which the first is taken on our part, the second on the part of God, at *but whilst we are judged*, etc. Now on our part the cause of the divine punishment is from negligence, because we neglect to punish sins committed in ourselves. Whence he says that *if we would judge ourselves*, by reproving and punishing our sins, *we should not indeed be judged*, that is, we would not be punished by the Lord, neither afterward in the future, nor even in the present. But against this is what was said above in 4:3: *but neither do I judge my own self*, and it is said in Rom. 14:22: *blessed is he who does not judge himself*. But it must be said that someone can judge himself in three ways: in one way by discussing, and thus someone ought to judge himself both as regards past works and as regards future ones, according to that word of Gal. ult.: *let every one prove his own work*. In another way by absolving himself in his own verdict, as it were judging himself innocent as regards past things, and according to this no one ought to judge himself, namely so as to judge himself innocent, according to that word of Job 9:20: *if I would justify myself, my own mouth shall condemn me: if I would show myself innocent, it shall prove me wicked*. In a third way by reproving, namely so that he does something which he himself judges to be evil. And in this way is understood what has been brought forward: *blessed is he who does not judge himself in that which he approves*. But as regards those things which he has already done, everyone ought to judge himself, reproving and punishing himself for his misdeeds. Whence it is said in Job 13:15: *I will argue my ways in his sight*, and 23:4: *I will set judgment before him, and I will fill my mouth with reproofs*. And concerning this judgment Augustine says in the book on Penance, and it is brought forward here in the Gloss: *let the image of the future judgment be turned before our eyes, and let a man rise up against himself before his own face, and, with judgment established in the heart, let accusing thought be present, and conscience as witness, and the heart as executioner. Thence indeed let the blood of the confessing soul flow forth through tears, and finally let such a sentence be uttered by the mind itself, that a man judge himself unworthy to be a partaker of the body and blood of the Lord*.

Then, when he says *but whilst we are judged*, etc., he sets forth the cause which is on the part of God, saying: *but whilst we are judged, by the Lord*, that is, we are punished in this world, *we are corrected*, that is, this is done for our correction, namely so that each one, on account of the punishment he has undergone, may withdraw from sin. Whence also Job 5:17 says: *blessed is the man whom the Lord corrects*. And Prov. 3:12: *whom the Lord loves, he corrects*. Or also, while by the punishment of one, another ceases to sin, Prov. 19:25: *the pestilent man being scourged, the fool will become wiser*, and this to the end *that we be not condemned*, with eternal damnation in the future, *with this world*, that is, with worldly men.

Then, when he says *therefore, my brethren*, etc., he brings them back to due observance: and first is set forth what he now ordains, second is set forth the promise concerning future ordinance, at *and the rest*. Concerning the first he does three things. First he sets forth his ordinance, saying *therefore, my brethren*, etc., lest each one presume to take his own supper for eating, *when you come together*, namely in the Church, *to eat*, namely the body of Christ, *wait for one another*, so that you may all receive at the same time. Whence Exodus 12:6 says: *the whole multitude of the children of Israel shall sacrifice the kid*. Second he excludes an excuse, saying *if any man be hungry*, etc., and cannot wait so long, *let him eat at home*, namely common food, not being about to receive the Eucharist afterward. Ecclus. 36:20: *the belly will eat any food*. Third he assigns the reason, saying *that you come not together unto judgment*, that is, unto your condemnation. Then the promise is set forth, when he says *the rest*, namely those things which are not of such great danger, *when I come*, in person, *I will set in order*, namely how you ought to keep them. From this it is clear that the Church has many things from the ordinance of the apostles, which are not contained in Sacred Scripture. Ecclus. 10:3: *cities shall be inhabited*, that is, churches shall be ordered, *by the sense of the prudent*, namely of the apostles.