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

Having set down the excellence of charity over the other gifts, here the Apostle next compares the other gifts to one another, showing the excellence of prophecy over the gift of tongues. And concerning this he does two things. First he shows the excellence of prophecy over the gift of tongues; second, how the gift of tongues and of prophecy is to be used, at the words *what is it then, brothers*, etc.

Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows that the gift of prophecy is more excellent than the gift of tongues, by reasons taken on the part of unbelievers; second, on the part of believers, at the words *my brothers*, etc.

The first part is divided into two. First he shows that the gift of prophecy is more excellent than the gift of tongues as regards their use in exhortations or preachings; second, as regards the use of tongues, which is in praying. For the use of the tongue is directed to these two things, at the words *and therefore he speaks*, etc.

Concerning the first he does two things. For first he premises one thing by which he continues on to what follows, and this is what he says: it has been said that charity excels all the gifts; if therefore this is so, *pursue* — namely, with your powers — *charity*, which is the sweet and wholesome bond of minds. 1 Peter 4:8: *before all things, charity*, etc. Colossians 3:14: *but above all things have charity*, etc.

Second he adds that by which he continues on to what follows. And this is what he says: *be zealous*, etc. As if to say: although charity is greater than all the gifts, nevertheless the others are not to be despised. But *be zealous* — that is, love fervently — *the spiritual gifts* of the Holy Spirit. 1 Peter 3:13: *what is it that could harm you*, etc.

Now although zeal is sometimes taken for fervent love, and sometimes for envy, this is nevertheless not an equivocation; rather, the one proceeds from the other, for to be zealous and to be emulous designates the fervent love of some thing. Now it happens that a thing loved is loved so fervently by someone that he does not suffer a partner for himself in it, but wants it alone and singularly. And this is zeal, which according to some is an intense love, not suffering partnership in the thing loved. This, however, occurs in spiritual things, which can be most perfectly shared by many — but only in those things which cannot be shared by many. Hence in charity there is not this kind of zeal that does not suffer partnership in the thing loved, but only in corporeal things, in which it comes about that if someone else has that which one himself is zealous for, he grieves; and from this arises emulation, which is envy. As if I love dignity or riches, I grieve that someone else has them, and hence I envy him. And thus it is clear that envy arises from zeal.

When therefore it is said, *be zealous for spiritual things*, it is not to be understood of envy, since spiritual things can be possessed by many; rather he says *be zealous* so as to lead to the fervent love of God. And because among spiritual things there is a certain gradation, since prophecy exceeds the gift of tongues, he therefore says *but rather, that you may prophesy*, as if to say: among spiritual things, be more zealous for the gift of prophecy. 1 Thessalonians 5:19-20: *do not extinguish the spirit, do not despise prophecies.*

Now for the explanation of the whole chapter three things must be noted beforehand: namely, what prophecy is; in how many ways prophecy is spoken of in sacred Scripture; and what it is to speak in tongues.

Concerning the first, it must be known that a prophet is so called as one seeing from afar, and according to some he is named from *for, faris*, but he is better named from *pharos*, which is "to see." Hence in 1 Kings 9:9 it is said that he who is now called a prophet was formerly called a seer. Hence the vision of things that are afar off — whether they be future contingents, or above our reason — is called prophecy. Prophecy is therefore a vision or manifestation of future contingents, or of things exceeding human understanding.

Now for a vision of this kind four things are required. For since our knowledge comes through bodily things and through phantasms received from the senses, first it is required that there be formed in the imagination bodily likenesses of the things that are shown, as Dionysius says that it is impossible for the divine ray to shine upon us otherwise than veiled about by the variety of sacred veils. The second thing required is an intellectual light illuminating the intellect to know those things which are shown, which are above our natural knowledge. For unless there is present an intellectual light for understanding the sensible likenesses formed in the imagination, he to whom likenesses of this kind are shown is not called a prophet, but rather a dreamer. As Pharaoh, who, although he saw the ears of grain and the cows, which were indicative of certain future things, yet because he did not understand what he saw, is not called a prophet, but rather he — namely Joseph — who interpreted them. And it is likewise with Nebuchadnezzar, who saw the statue and did not understand it, wherefore he is not called a prophet, but Daniel is. And on account of this it is said, Daniel 10:1: *understanding is needed in the vision.*

The third thing required is boldness to announce the things that are revealed. For God reveals to this end, that they may be declared to others. Jeremiah 1:9: *behold, I have put my words in the mouth.*

The fourth is the working of miracles, which are for the certitude of prophecy. For unless they did certain things which exceed the working of nature, they would not be believed in those matters which transcend natural knowledge.

According to these modes of prophecy, then, some are called prophets in different ways. For sometimes someone is called a prophet who has all these four — namely, that he sees imaginative visions, and has understanding of them, and boldly announces them to others, and works miracles — and of this it is said, Numbers 12:6: *if there be among you a prophet*, etc. Sometimes, however, he is called a prophet who has only imaginative visions, but this is improper and very remote. Sometimes also he is called a prophet who has an intellectual light for explaining even imaginative visions, whether made to himself or to another, or for expounding the sayings of the prophets, or the Scriptures of the apostles. And in this way everyone is called a prophet who discerns the Scriptures of the doctors, because they are interpreted by the same spirit by which they were composed. And thus Solomon and David can be called prophets, insofar as they had an intellectual light for beholding clearly and subtly; for David's vision was only intellectual. Someone is also called a prophet solely from the fact that he declares, or expounds, or sings the sayings of the prophets in the Church, and in this way it is said in 1 Kings 19:24 that Saul was among the prophets, that is, among those singing the sayings of the prophets. Someone is also called a prophet from the working of miracles, according to that saying of Sirach 48:14, that the dead body of Elisha prophesied, that is, worked a miracle.

What therefore the Apostle says here throughout the whole chapter about prophets is to be understood of the second mode — namely, that he is said to prophesy who, through a divine intellectual light, expounds the visions made to himself and to others. And according to this, what is said here about prophets will be clear.

Concerning the second, it must be known that because in the primitive Church there were few upon whom it fell to preach the faith of Christ throughout the world, the Lord therefore, so that they might announce the word of God more conveniently and to more people, gave them the gift of tongues, by which they might preach to all. Not that, speaking in one tongue, they were understood by all, as some say, but, literally, that they spoke in the tongues of different nations — indeed of all. Hence the Apostle says, *I give thanks to God, that I speak in the tongue of you all.* And in Acts 2:4 it is said: *they were speaking in various tongues*, etc. And many obtained this gift from God in the primitive Church. The Corinthians, however, because they were curious, therefore wanted that gift more willingly than the gift of prophecy.

What therefore is here called speaking in a tongue, the Apostle wants to be understood as an unknown tongue, and one not explained — as if someone should speak in the German tongue to a Frenchman, and not expound it: this one speaks in a tongue. Or also if he speaks only visions, and does not expound them, he speaks in a tongue. Hence every speech not understood, nor explained, whatever it may be, is properly to speak in a tongue.

These things having been seen, then, let us approach the exposition of the letter, which is plain. Concerning this, then, he does two things. First he proves that the gift of prophecy is more excellent than the gift of tongues; second he excludes a certain objection, at the words *but I would have you*, etc.

That the gift of prophecy exceeds the gift of tongues, he proves by two reasons, of which the first is taken from the comparison of God to the Church; the second reason is taken from the comparison of men to the Church.

Now the first reason is this: that by which a man does things not only for the honor of God but also for the benefit of his neighbors is better than that which is done only for the honor of God; but prophecy is not only for the honor of God but also for the benefit of one's neighbor, whereas through the gift of tongues only that is done which is for the honor of God; therefore, etc.

Now he sets forth the middle term of this reason, and first as to this, that he says that he who speaks in a tongue honors only God. And this is what he says: *he who speaks in a tongue* — namely, an unknown one — *speaks not to men*, that is, to the understanding of men, *but to God*, that is, only to the honor of God. Or *to God*, because God alone understands. Wisdom 1:10: *the ear of the zeal of God hears all things*, etc. And that he does not speak to man, he adds: *for no one hears* — that is, understands. For thus "not to hear" is frequently taken for "not to understand." Matthew 13:9: *he who has ears to hear, let him hear.* But as to why he speaks only to God, he adds that God himself speaks. Hence he says: *but the spirit of God speaks mysteries* — that is, hidden things. Matthew 10:20: *for it is not you who speak*, etc. Above, 2:11: *no one knows the things that are of the Spirit of God*, etc.

Second he proves what he says, that prophecy is for the honor of God and the benefit of one's neighbors. Hence he says: *for he who prophesies*, etc. — that is, expounds visions or Scriptures — *speaks to men*, that is, to the understanding of men, and this for the edification of beginners, and for the exhortation of those making progress. 1 Thessalonians 5:14: *comfort the fainthearted.* Titus 2:15: *speak and exhort* — and for the consolation of the desolate.

Or edification pertains to spiritual affection, because there the spiritual building first begins. Ephesians 2:22: *in whom you also are built together*, etc. But exhortation is for leading to good acts, because if the affection is good, then the act is good. Titus 2:15: *these things speak, and exhort.* But consolation leads to the toleration of evils. Romans 15:4: *whatsoever things were written, were written for our instruction.* For to these three things do those who preach the divine Scripture lead.

The second reason is this: that which is useful only to the one who does it is less than that which is also profitable to others; but to speak in tongues is useful only to him who speaks, whereas to prophesy is profitable to others; therefore, etc.

Now he sets forth the middle term of this reason, and first as to the first part of the middle term, and this is what he says: *he who speaks in a tongue, himself*, etc. Psalm 38:4: *my heart grew hot within me*, etc. Second, as to the second part, and this is what he says: *but he who prophesies builds up the Church* — that is, the faithful — by instructing them. Ephesians 2:20: *built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets.*

Here the Apostle excludes an objection or false understanding which could arise concerning the foregoing. For some might believe that, since the Apostle prefers prophecy to the gift of tongues, the gift of tongues ought to be despised. Hence, to exclude this, he says, "Now I would have you," et cetera. Here he first shows what he intended to convey; second, he assigns the reason for these things, at "for greater," et cetera. He says therefore: although I have said the things that were said above, nevertheless I do not want you to despise the gift of tongues, but I want you all to speak with tongues, yet I want more that you should prophesy. Num. 11:29: "Would that all the people," et cetera. He assigns the reason for this when he says "for greater," etc., as if to say: therefore I want you rather to prophesy, because greater is..., et cetera. And the reason for this is that sometimes some are moved by the Holy Spirit to speak something mystical which they themselves do not understand; hence these have the gift of tongues. But sometimes they not only speak with tongues, but also interpret the things which they say. And therefore he says, "unless perhaps he interpret." For the gift of tongues with interpretation is better than prophecy, because, as has been said, the interpretation of anything difficult pertains to prophecy. Hence he who speaks and who interprets is a prophet and has the gift of tongues, and interprets, so that he may build up the Church of God; therefore he says "that the Church," etc., that is, not only that he himself may understand, but also that the Church may be built up. Rom. 14:19: "Let us keep to the things that are of edification to one another." And Rom. 15:2: "Let each one please his neighbor unto good, unto edification."

"But now, brethren," et cetera. Here he proves that the gift of prophecy is more excellent than the gift of tongues, by examples, and this in three ways. First, by an example taken from himself; second, by an example taken from inanimate things, at "yet things without a soul," etc.; third, by an example taken from men speaking in various ways, at "so many," et cetera. From himself, however, he argues thus: it is evident, therefore, that I have no less the gift of tongues than you; but if I were to speak to you only with tongues, and not interpret, I would profit you nothing. Therefore neither would you profit one another. And this is what he says: "But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues." This can be understood in two ways, namely either of unknown tongues, or, according to the letter, of any signs not understood. "What shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either in revelation," et cetera. Here it is to be noted that these four, namely "either in revelation," etc., can be distinguished in two ways.

In one way, according to the things they concern. And thus it should be known that the illumination of the mind for knowing is of four kinds: for it is either concerning divine things, and this illumination pertains to the gift of wisdom. For of divine things, as was said above at II, 11, there is revelation, because "the things that are of God no man knows," et cetera. And therefore he says "in revelation," namely that by which the mind is illumined to know divine things. Or it is concerning earthly things, and not concerning any whatsoever, but only concerning those which are for the edification of the faith, and this pertains to the gift of knowledge, and therefore he says "in knowledge" — not of geometry, nor of astrology, because these do not pertain to the edification of the faith — but "in the knowledge which is of the saints." Wis. 10:10: "gave him the knowledge of the saints," et cetera. Or it is concerning the outcomes of future things, and this pertains to the gift of prophecy; and therefore he says "or in prophecy." Wis. 8:8: "she knows signs and wonders before they come to be, and the outcomes of times and of ages." It should be noted, however, that prophecy is not taken here commonly, that is, according to what was said above, but is taken here particularly, insofar as it is the manifestation of future things only. And according to this it is defined by Cassiodorus: prophecy is a divine inspiration declaring future things with unshakable truth. Ecclus. 24:46: "I will yet pour out doctrine as prophecy," et cetera. Or it is concerning things to be done morally, and this pertains to doctrine; and therefore he says "or in doctrine." Rom. 12:7: "he who teaches, in doctrine." Prov. 13:15: "good doctrine shall give grace."

In another way these can be distinguished according to the different modes of acquiring knowledge. And thus it should be known that all knowledge is either from a supernatural principle, namely God, or from a natural one, namely the natural light of our intellect. But if from a supernatural principle, namely the divine light infused, this can happen in two ways: for either the knowledge is infused suddenly, and thus it is revelation; or it is infused successively, and thus it is prophecy, which the prophets did not have suddenly, but successively and by parts, as their prophecies show. But if knowledge is acquired from a natural principle, this is either through one's own study, and thus it pertains to knowledge; or it is handed down by another, and thus it pertains to doctrine.

"Yet things without a soul," et cetera. Here he shows the same thing by examples taken from inanimate things, namely by instruments which seem to have a voice. And first by instruments of joy; second by instruments of battle, at "for if the trumpet give an uncertain sound," et cetera. He says therefore: this is evident not only through the things said above, but also as regards those things which give sound without having a soul, that speaking with tongues not only does not profit others. "And things without a soul that give sound." On the contrary: voice is a sound uttered from the mouth of a living being, formed by natural instruments. Therefore things without a soul do not give voice. It must be said that although voice belongs only to living beings, nevertheless it can be spoken of by a certain likeness, namely insofar as certain things, such as instruments, have a certain consonance and melody; and therefore he makes mention of these, namely of the harp, which gives sound by touch, and the flute, which by breath. "If then these give sound without distinction, how shall it be known," et cetera. For when a man intends to express something by instruments, namely certain songs which are ordered either to weeping, or to joy — Is. 30:29: "You shall have a canticle as the sound of a sanctified solemnity, and joy of heart, as he who goes with the pipe, that he may enter into the mountain of the Lord" — or even to wantonness, it cannot be discerned to what end the flute is played, or to what end the harp, if the sound is confused and indistinct. Thus if a man speaks with tongues, and does not interpret, it cannot be known what he wishes to say.

"For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound," et cetera. Here he shows the same thing by examples of inanimate things, namely by instruments ordained for battle. And this likeness is taken from the Book of Numbers 10:1-10. For there it is read that the Lord commanded Moses to make two silver trumpets, which were for gathering the people, for moving the camps, and for fighting. And for each of these they had a certain manner of trumpeting, because they gave the sound in one way when they were to gather for council, in another way when they moved the camp, and in another way when they fought. And therefore the Apostle argues that just as, if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, that is, an indistinct one, it is not known whether they ought to prepare themselves for war, so also you, if you speak only with tongues, unless you utter a distinct speech by interpreting or by explaining, no one will be able to know what you are saying. By the trumpet the preacher can be understood. Is. 58:1: "Lift up your voice like a trumpet," et cetera. The reason, however, why it cannot be known what you are saying is that you will be speaking into the air, that is, uselessly. Above, 9:26: "so I fight, not as one beating the air," et cetera.

"So many," et cetera. Here he takes an example from those speaking in different tongues. And concerning this he does three things. First he shows the diversity of tongues; second, the uselessness of those speaking to one another in foreign tongues, at "if then I know not," etc.; third, he concludes what he intends, at "so you also, since you are zealous," et cetera. He says therefore, first: there are many and diverse tongues in the world, and anyone can speak whichever he wishes; yet if he does not speak determinately, he is not understood. And this is what he says: "so many," et cetera. This can be expounded in two ways: for it can be joined with what precedes, so that it is read: "you will be speaking into the air, and so many, for instance," etc., as if he said: therefore into the air, that is, uselessly, you speak in all tongues, because you speak without understanding — which sounds nevertheless have their own proper meanings for this purpose, that they may be understood. For nothing is without sound. Or it can be punctuated thus: "you will be speaking into the air. So many, for instance, are the kinds of tongues" — that is, in each several tongue.

"If then I know not," et cetera. Here he shows the uselessness of these. And this is what he says: if I speak in all tongues, but if I do not know the force of the sound, that is, the meaning of the sound, I shall be a barbarian to him to whom I speak. Jer. 5:15: "I will bring upon you a nation from afar, a nation whose tongue you do not know." Note that barbarians, according to some, are said to be those whose idiom differs entirely from Latin. But others say that any foreigner is a barbarian to every other foreigner, namely when he is not understood by him. But this is not true, because, according to Isidore, Barbaria is a particular nation. Col. 3:11: "in Christ Jesus there is neither barbarian nor Scythian," et cetera. But according to what is said more truly, those are properly called barbarians who are vigorous in bodily strength, deficient in the strength of reason, and are as it were outside the laws and without the rule of law. And with this Aristotle seems to agree in his Politics.

Consequently, when he says "as," etc., he concludes what he intends, and this can be construed in two ways. First, so that it is punctuated in this way, as if he said: thus I shall be a barbarian to you, if I speak without meaning and without interpretation, just as you also will be barbarians to one another; and therefore seek that you may abound, etc., and this because you are zealous, et cetera. Or, in another way, so that the whole is placed under one construction, as if he said: therefore lest you be barbarians, namely as I do, since you are zealous for spirits, that is, for the gifts of the Holy Spirit, seek from God that you may abound. Prov. 15:5: "in abundant righteousness there is the greatest strength." And this righteousness indeed is to build up others. Matt. 7:7: "Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you."

Above, the Apostle showed the excellence of the gift of prophecy over the gift of tongues by reasons taken from the side of exhortation; here, however, he shows the same thing by reasons taken from the side of prayer: for we exercise these two things through the tongue, namely prayer and exhortation. And concerning this he does two things. First, he proves the excellence of prophecy over the gift of tongues by reasons; second, by examples, at the place I thank my God, etc.

Concerning the first he does two things. First, he sets down the necessity of prayer; second, he shows how in prayer the gift of prophecy avails more than the gift of tongues, for if I pray in a tongue, etc.

He says therefore first: I have said that the gift of tongues without the gift of prophecy does not avail; and therefore, since to interpret is an act of prophecy, which is more excellent than he who speaks in a tongue unknown or foreign, or speaks certain hidden mysteries, let him pray — namely to God — that he may interpret, that is, that the grace of interpreting may be given to him. Col. 4:3: praying that God may open the door. The Gloss expounds "let him pray" otherwise. For "to pray" is said in two ways, namely either to entreat God or to persuade, as if he were saying: let him who speaks in a tongue pray, that is, let him so persuade that he may interpret. And thus the Gloss takes "to pray" here throughout the whole chapter. But this is not the intention of the Apostle, but rather for entreaty to God.

For if I pray, etc. Here he shows that in praying prophecy avails more than the gift of tongues, and this in two ways: first, by a reason taken from the side of the one praying himself; second, by a reason taken from the side of the hearer, at the place moreover, if you shall bless, etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First, he sets down the reason for showing his proposal; second, he removes an objection, at the place what then, etc.

Concerning the first it must be known that prayer is twofold. One is private, namely when someone prays within himself and for himself; the other public, when someone prays before the people and for others: and in either it happens that one uses both the gift of tongues and the gift of prophecy. And therefore he wishes to show that in either the gift of prophecy avails more than the gift of tongues.

And first in private prayer, saying that if there be some unlearned person who makes his prayer, saying a Psalm, or the Our Father, and does not understand the things he says, this one prays in a tongue, and it does not matter whether he prays in words granted to him by the Holy Spirit, or in the words of others; and if there be another who prays, and understands what he says, this one indeed prays and prophesies. It is clear that he who prays and understands gains more than he who only prays in a tongue, namely he who does not understand what he says. For he who understands is refreshed both as to intellect and as to affection; but the mind of him who does not understand is without the fruit of refreshment. Hence, since it is better to be refreshed as to affection and intellect than as to affection alone, it is clear that in prayer the gift of prophecy avails more than the gift of tongues alone.

And this is what he says: I say that he should pray, that he may interpret, for if I pray in a tongue — that is, in praying I use the gift of tongues, so that I utter certain things which I do not understand — then my spirit, that is, the Holy Spirit given to me, prays, who inclines and moves me to pray. And nonetheless I merit in that very prayer, because this very thing, that I am moved by the Holy Spirit, is a merit for me. Rom. 8:26: for what we should pray for as we ought we do not know, but the Holy Spirit himself makes us ask. Or my spirit, that is, my reason, prays, that is, dictates to me that I should speak those things which are for the good, whether in my own words or those of other saints. Or my spirit, that is, the imaginative power, prays, inasmuch as the sounds or likenesses of bodily things are only in the imagination without their being understood by the intellect; and therefore he adds: but my mind, that is, my intellect, is without fruit, because it does not understand. And therefore in prayer prophecy or interpretation is better than the gift of tongues.

But is it the case that whenever someone prays and does not understand what he says, he is without the fruit of prayer? It must be said that the fruit of prayer is twofold. One fruit is the merit which accrues to man; the other fruit is the spiritual consolation and devotion conceived from prayer. And as to the fruit of spiritual devotion, he is deprived who does not attend to the things he prays, or does not understand; but as to the fruit of merit, it must not be said that he is deprived: because otherwise many prayers would be without merit, since a man can scarcely say one Our Father without his mind being carried off to other things.

And therefore it must be said that when the one praying sometimes strays from the things he says, or when someone in one meritorious work does not continually think in each act that he does this for God's sake, he does not lose the character of merit. The reason for this is that in all meritorious acts, which are ordered to a right end, it is not required that the intention of the agent be joined to the end according to each and every act: but the first force, which moves the intention, remains throughout the whole work, even if at some point it strays in some particular; and this first force makes the whole work meritorious, unless it is interrupted by a contrary affection, which turns aside from the aforesaid end to a contrary end.

But it must be known that attention is threefold. One is to the words which a man says: and this sometimes harms, inasmuch as it impedes devotion; another is to the sense of the words, and this harms, yet is not greatly harmful; the third is to the end, and this is better and, as it were, necessary. Yet that which the Apostle says, the mind is without fruit, is understood of the fruit of refreshment.

What then is it, etc. For someone could say: since to pray in a tongue is without fruit of the mind, but nonetheless the spirit prays, must one therefore not pray in the spirit? Therefore the Apostle removes this, saying that one must pray in both ways, both in spirit and in mind: because man ought to serve God with all that he has from God; but he has from God both spirit and mind, and therefore he ought to pray with both. Ecclesiasticus 47:10: with his whole heart he will praise the Lord, etc. And therefore he says: I will pray with the spirit, I will pray also with the mind: I will sing with the spirit, etc. And thus he says I will pray and I will sing; because prayer either is for entreating God and thus he says I will pray, or for praising and thus he says I will sing. Concerning these two, James 5:13: is any among you sad? Let him pray with a calm mind, and sing. Ps. 9:12: sing to the Lord, etc. I will pray therefore with the spirit, that is, with the imagination, and with the mind, that is, with the will.

Moreover, if you shall bless, etc. Here, second, he shows that the gift of prophecy avails more than the gift of tongues, even in public prayer, which is when the priest prays publicly, where sometimes he says certain things which he does not understand, sometimes things which he understands. And concerning this he does three things. First he sets down the reason; second he expounds it, at the place how shall he say, etc.; third he proves what he had supposed, at the place for what, etc.

He says therefore: I have said that the gift of prophecy avails more in private prayer; moreover — taken for "but" — also in public, because if you shall bless — that is, if you shall give a blessing — with the spirit, that is, in a tongue which is not understood, or with the imagination, and moved by the Holy Spirit, who fills the place of the unlearned? "Unlearned" is properly said of one who knows only the tongue in which he was born; as if he were saying: who will say that which the unlearned person ought to say there? Which is, to say: amen.

And therefore he says: how shall he say it upon your blessing? Where the Gloss expounds, that is: how will he consent to the blessing made by you in the person of the Church? Is. 65:16: he who is blessed upon the earth shall be blessed in God, amen. Amen is the same as "let it be done," or "it is true"; as if he were saying: if he does not understand what you say, how will he conform himself to your words? He can indeed conform himself, even if he does not understand, but only in general, not in particular, because he cannot understand what good thing you say, except that you are blessing only.

But why are blessings not given in the vernacular, that they may be understood by the people, and that they may conform themselves more to them? It must be said that this was perhaps the case in the primitive Church, but after the faithful were instructed and know what they hear in the common office, blessings are made in Latin.

Consequently he proves why he cannot say amen, when he says for you indeed — that is: although you give thanks well to God, inasmuch as you understand, yet the other, who hears and does not understand, is not built up, inasmuch as he does not understand in particular, even though in general he may understand and be built up. Eph. 4:29: let no evil word proceed from your mouth, but if any is good for the edification of the faith. And therefore it is better that he should not only bless in tongue, but also that he should interpret and expound, although you, who give thanks, may act well.

Here the Apostle shows the excellence of the gift of prophecy over the gift of tongues by reasons taken from his own side. And concerning this he does two things. First, he gives thanks for the gift of tongues given to him by God; second, he sets himself before them as an example, at *but in the Church I wish*, etc. He says therefore *I give thanks*, etc., as if to say: I do not for this reason disparage the gift of tongues, because I say that the gift of prophecy is more excellent, but it ought to be held dear. Hence also *I give thanks*, etc. Thanks, therefore, ought to be given for all things. 1 Thess. 5:18: *in all things give thanks*, etc. Or *I give thanks*, as if to say: I do not disparage the gift of tongues as though lacking it, rather I too have it; and therefore he says *I give thanks*, etc. And lest it be understood that all were speaking in one tongue, he says that *I speak in the tongue of all of you*, Acts 2:4: *the apostles were speaking in various tongues*, etc.

*But in the Church.* Here he puts himself forward as an example, as if to say: if I have the gift of tongues just as you do, you ought to do what I do. But *I wish*, that is, I wish rather, to speak in the Church *five*, that is, few, *words with my understanding*, that is, with my intellect, namely so that I may understand and be understood, and from this instruct others, *than ten thousand*, that is, any multitude whatsoever, *words in a tongue*; which is to speak not unto understanding, in whatever way this happens, as was explained above.

Some say that he says *five* for this reason, because the Apostle seems to wish that he would rather say a single sentence with understanding than many without understanding. But a sentence, according to the grammarians, in order that it should make a complete sense, must have five things, namely the subject, the predicate, the verbal copula, the determination of the subject, and the determination of the predicate. To others it seems better that, since one must speak with understanding for this purpose, so that others may be taught, he therefore sets down *five*, because a teacher owes five things, namely: things to be believed, Titus 2:11: *speak these things and exhort*, etc.; things to be done, Mark 16:15: *going into the world*, etc.; things to be avoided, namely sins, Ecclesiasticus 21:2: *flee as from the face of a serpent*, etc.; Isaiah 58:1: *announce to my people their crimes*, etc.; things to be hoped for, namely the eternal reward, 1 Peter 1:10: *concerning which salvation they sought*, etc.; things to be feared, namely eternal punishments, Matthew 25:21: *go, ye cursed, into the everlasting fire*, etc. *My brothers, do not*, etc.

Here he shows the excellence of the gift of prophecy over the gift of tongues, by reasons taken from the side of unbelievers. And concerning this he does two things. First he stirs up attention, and renders them attentive; second he argues to his proposition, at *what is written in the law?* Concerning the first, the Apostle seems to exclude the cloak of excuse of some who for this reason teach certain crude and superficial things, as if to show themselves willing to live in simplicity, and therefore not caring about subtleties which in truth of the matter they do not attain, having for this the word of the Lord, Matthew 18:3: *unless you be converted and become as little children*, etc. But the Apostle excludes this, when he says *do not become children in understanding*, that is, do not speak and teach childish and useless and foolish things. Above, 13:11: *when I was a child*, etc. But how ought you to become children? In affection, not in intellect. And therefore he says *but in malice*. Here it must be known that little children fail in thinking evil things, and thus we ought to become little children, and therefore he says *but in malice be children*, and they fail in thinking good things, and thus we ought not to be children, but rather perfect men, and therefore he says *but in understanding be perfect*, etc., that is, be perfect in the discernment of good and evil. Hence Hebrews 5:14: *solid food is for the perfect*, etc. Therefore it is not the simplicity that is opposed to prudence that is praised in you, but the simplicity that is opposed to cunning. And therefore the Lord says, Matthew 10:16: *be prudent as serpents*. Romans 16:19: *I wish you to be wise in what is good, and simple in what is evil*.

Consequently, when he says *what is written in the law?* he argues to his proposition. Here it must be known that this argument, as is clear through the Gloss, is distinguished in many ways; but according to the intention of the Apostle it does not seem that more than one reasoning is to be attended to in this passage. And his reasoning for proving that the gift of prophecy is more excellent than the gift of tongues is this: everything that avails more for that to which another is principally ordered is better than that other thing ordered to this; but both the gift of prophecy and the gift of tongues are ordered to the conversion of unbelievers; but prophecies avail more for this than the gift of tongues; therefore prophecy is better. Concerning this reasoning, therefore, he does two things. First he shows to what the gift of tongues is ordered, and to what the gift of prophecy is ordered; second, that the gift of prophecy avails more, at *if therefore the whole come together*, etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he brings in an authority; second from the authority he argues to his proposition, at *therefore tongues*, etc.

Concerning the first it must be known that this saying, *what is written in the law?*, can be read either interrogatively, as if to say: you ought not to become children in understanding, but perfect, and this is to see and know the law. Hence if you are perfect in understanding, you should know, namely, the law, and what is written in the law concerning tongues? Which are sometimes useless for that to which they are ordered, because although I speak in various tongues, namely to the people of the Jews, nevertheless the man does not hear, etc. It can also be read as a reference back, *what is written in the law*. As if to say: do not be moved like children toward desiring something, not discerning whether what you desire is good or less good, and prefer it to a better good, but be perfect in understanding, that is, discern between good things and better things, and so desire accordingly. And this happens if you consider what is written in the law, that in other tongues, etc., Wisdom 6:16: *to think, therefore, upon her is perfect understanding*.

And he says *in the law*, not taking the law strictly for the five books of Moses only, as it is taken in Luke, last chapter: *it is necessary that all things be fulfilled which are written of me in the law*, etc.; but for the whole Old Testament, as it is taken in John 15:25: *that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law: that they hated me without cause*, which nevertheless is written in Psalm 24:19. This authority, however, is taken from Isaiah 28:11, where our text has: *in the speech of the lip and another tongue he will speak to this people*. This, then, is written: that in other tongues, that is, in diverse kinds of tongues, and lips, that is, in diverse idioms and manners of pronouncing, I will speak to this people, namely the Jewish, because this sign was given specially for the conversion of the Jewish people. And even so they will not hear, namely because, the signs having been seen, they did not believe. Isaiah 6:10: *blind the heart of this people*, etc.

But why did God give them signs, if they were not to be converted? There are two reasons for this. One reason is, that although not all were converted, nevertheless some were converted, because the Lord does not cast off his people, etc. The other reason is, that their damnation might appear more just, while their wickedness appears more manifest. John 15:22: *if I had not come, and had not spoken to them*, etc.

Consequently, when he says *therefore tongues*, etc., from the authority brought in he argues to his proposition, as if to say: from this it plainly appears that the gift of tongues was given not to believers for believing, because they already believe, John 4:42: *not because of your speech*, etc., but to unbelievers, that they may be converted. But in the Gloss two expositions of Ambrose are set down at this place, which are not literal; of which one is that it should be said: just as in the Old Testament I spoke to the people of the Jews through tongues, that is, through figures, and through lips, that is, by promising temporal goods, so, still in the New Testament, I will speak to this people in other tongues, that is, openly and clearly, and other lips, that is, spiritual ones, and yet even so they will not hear me, namely as regards their multitude. Therefore tongues were given not to believers, but to unbelievers, namely to manifest their unbelief. The other is: in other tongues, that is, obscurely and in parables, I will speak, because they are unworthy. They will not hear, that is, they will not understand.

Consequently he shows to what prophecy is ordered, namely to the instruction of believers, who already believe. And therefore that prophecies are given not to unbelievers, who do not believe, Isaiah 53:1: *Lord, who has believed our report?* but to believers, that they may believe and be instructed. Ezekiel 3:17: *son of man, I have given you as a watchman*, etc. Proverbs 29:18: *when prophecy shall fail*, etc., *the people will be scattered*.

The Gloss holds that here another argument begins to show the point at hand. But according to what has been said, only one argument is set down, and this is, as it were, a clarification of the middle term of that same argument, namely that prophecy is of more worth for that to which the gift of tongues is especially ordered.

Hence concerning this he does two things. First he shows the unfitting result that follows, as regards unbelievers, from the gift of tongues, at the words but if all with tongues. Second he shows the good that follows from the gift of prophecy, also for unbelievers, at the words but if all.

The unfitting result that follows from the gift of tongues without prophecy, even as regards unbelievers, is that those who thus speak with tongues alone are reckoned insane, whereas the gift of tongues is ordered to the conversion of unbelievers, as is already clear. And this is what he says, but if all, etc., as if to say: from this it is clear that tongues are not to be preferred to prophecies, because, if all the faithful, coming together into one, not only in body but also in mind — Acts 4:32: of the multitude of believers there was a heart, etc. — and all who have thus come together speak with tongues, that is, literally, in foreign tongues, or speak things unknown and obscure, and, while they thus speak confusedly, some unlearned person enters, that is, one who understands only his own tongue, or an unbeliever, for whose sake tongues were given, will they not say to these who speak thus, what, are you mad? For what is not understood is reckoned a kind of madness.

But if the tongue is understood, nonetheless what they speak is hidden; yet it is bad if it is not explained, because they will be able to believe of you, if you speak hidden things, what is believed of the gentiles, who used to hide what they did in their rite, on account of the shamefulness of it. And this too is a kind of madness.

On the contrary: it is the same thing to speak in tongues and to speak in a literal language, as far as the unlearned are concerned; since therefore all speak in a literal language in the Church, because everything is said in Latin, it seems that likewise there would be madness. To this it must be said that there was madness in the primitive Church for this reason, that they were unlearned in ecclesiastical rite, and so did not know what was being done there, unless it were explained to them. But now all are instructed; hence although everything is said in Latin, they nonetheless know what is done in the Church.

Then, when he says but if all prophesy, he shows that good follows from the gift of prophecy. And concerning this he does three things. First he shows what good follows through prophecy, as regards unbelievers; second he shows how this follows, at the words for the hidden things, etc.; third he adds what effect thereupon comes, at the words and thus falling on his face, et cetera.

He says therefore: it is established that unbelievers are not convinced by the gift of tongues; but if — si autem taken for but — if those who come together prophesy, that is, all speak intelligibly, or expound the Scriptures or even interpret revelations made to them (I say all, not at once, but one after another prophesying thus) — but if there enters, namely into the Church, some unlearned person, that is, one having only his mother tongue, this is the good that follows from it, that he is convinced of some error, which is shown to him. Jeremiah 31:19: after you showed me, I was confounded. He is judged by all who prophesy — as if to say: he is shown to be blameworthy on account of his evil ways and vices. 1 Corinthians 2:15: the spiritual man, that is, the teacher, judges all things, et cetera. For prophecy avails for these two things, namely for the confirmation of faith, and the instruction of morals.

But how this good follows from the gift of prophecy, he adds when he says for the hidden things of the heart. This can be understood in three ways.

In one way, and this according to the letter, that some in the primitive Church had the grace to know the secrets of hearts and the sins of men. Hence it is read of Peter, Acts 5:1ff., that he condemned Ananias for having defrauded the price of the field. And according to this one reads for the hidden things, etc., as if to say: he is convinced for this reason, that the hidden things, that is, his secret sins, are made manifest by those who reveal them.

In another way, from the fact that sometimes one in preaching touches upon many things which men carry in their heart, as is evident in the books of blessed Gregory, where anyone can find nearly all the movements of his own heart. And according to this one reads the hidden things of the heart, as if to say: they are convinced for this reason, that the hidden things of their heart, that is, what they carry in their heart — Proverbs 27:19: as the face of those who look shines in the waters, so the hearts of men are manifest to the prudent — are made manifest, that is, are touched upon by them.

In another way, because sometimes the hidden thing of the heart is said to be that which is doubtful to someone and cannot be made certain of itself. And according to this one reads the hidden things of his heart, that is, those things about which he was in doubt in his heart and which he did not believe, are made manifest, namely while going frequently to the Church they become manifest to him, just as Augustine says of himself that he used to go to the Church only for the singing, and yet there many things about which he had doubted, and on account of which he had not gone, were made manifest to him. For from this reverence followed, because being convinced he revered God.

And this is what he says, and thus falling, that is, since he was thus convinced and the hidden things of his heart were made manifest, falling on his face he will adore God — Matthew 2:11: falling down they adored him, which is a sign of reverence. But of the reprobate it is read that they fall backward. Proverbs 4:19: the way of the wicked is dark, they do not know where they will fall. But the elect falls upon his face, because he sees where he is prostrating himself, which is a sign of reverence. Matthew 2:11, and Leviticus 9:24: they praised God falling upon their faces. Psalm 71:9: before him the Ethiopians shall fall down.

And he will show reverence not only to God but also to the Church, because declaring he will say that truly God is in you, who prophesy in the Church. Zechariah 8:23: we will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you. It appears therefore that the gift of prophecy is more useful as regards unbelievers.

What then is it, brothers? Here he directs them to the use of the aforesaid gifts. And concerning this he does two things. First he shows how they ought to conduct themselves in the use of these gifts; second he concludes his principal intention, at the words therefore, brothers, be zealous to prophesy, et cetera.

Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows how they ought to conduct themselves in an orderly way in the use of the aforesaid gifts; second he expresses their presumption, at the words or, from you, the word, et cetera.

Concerning the first he does three things. First he shows in general how they ought to conduct themselves in all the gifts; second how they should conduct themselves as regards the gift of tongues, at the words or if anyone speaks in a tongue, etc.; third he shows how they should conduct themselves as regards the gift of prophecy, at the words let two or three prophesy, et cetera.

He says therefore: to prophesy is better than to speak with tongues. What then, brothers, is to be done? This, namely, is to be done: for, when you come together, it is established that one person does not have all the gifts, and therefore none of you ought to use all the gifts, but that gift which he has received more specially from God and which is better for edification. For each one of you has some special gift: one has a psalm, that is, a song for praising the name of God, or he expounds the Psalms. Habakkuk 3:19: he will lead me upon my high places, et cetera. But another has a doctrine, that is, he has preaching for the instruction of morals, or an exposition and spiritual sense. Proverbs 12:8: by his doctrine a man is known. Another has a revelation, that is, a revelation, either in dreams, or in some vision. Daniel 2:28: there is a God in heaven revealing mysteries, et cetera. Another has a tongue, that is, the gift of tongues, or of reading prophecies. Acts 2:4: and they began to speak with various tongues, et cetera. Another has interpretation — above, 12:10: to another the interpretation of speeches, et cetera.

These, however, are ordered thus, because they are either from natural ingenuity, or from God alone. If they are from natural ingenuity alone, they are either for the praise of God, and thus he says he has a psalm, or for the instruction of one's neighbor, and thus he says he has a doctrine. If they are from God alone, then in two ways: either they are certain things hidden inwardly, and thus he says he has a revelation, or hidden outwardly, and thus he says he has a tongue. And for the manifestation of these there is a third, namely interpretation. And it must be done so that all things be done unto edification. Romans 15:2: let each one of you please his neighbor unto good, unto edification.

Here the Apostle directs them how they should conduct themselves regarding the use of the gift of tongues, and concerning this he does two things. First he shows how they ought to use the gift of tongues; second, when they ought to cease from its use, at the place "but if there is not," etc. He says therefore, first, that the manner of using the gift of tongues should be such among you, that if anyone — that is, if someone — speaks in a tongue — that is, tells visions or dreams — such speech should not be done by many, on account of the occupation of time in tongues, lest no place remain for prophecies and confusion be generated, but according to two — that is, by two — and, if it should be necessary, at most three, so that three should suffice. Deut. 17:6: "by the mouth of two or three," etc. But it should be noted that this custom is still partly kept in the Church. For we have readings and epistles and Gospels in place of tongues, and therefore in the Mass the "according to two" is kept, because only two things are said which pertain to the gift of tongues, namely the epistle and the Gospel. In matins it is done according to many, namely with three readings said in one nocturn. For anciently the nocturns were said separately, according to the three watches of the night, but now they are said together.

But not only should order be kept as to the number of speakers, but also as to the manner, and this is what he says, "and by parts" — that is, that those who speak should succeed one another in turn, namely that one speak after another. Or "by parts," that is, interruptedly, namely that he should speak one part of a vision, or of an instruction, and expound it, and afterward another part, and expound that too, and so on in succession; which manner preachers are accustomed to keep, when they preach to men through interpretation of an unknown tongue, and therefore he says, "and let one interpret."

Next, when he says "but if there is not," etc., he shows when tongues are not to be used, saying that speech should be by parts and one ought to interpret. But if there is no interpreter — that is, one who might interpret — let him who has the gift of tongues be silent in the church — that is, let him not speak or preach to the multitude in an unknown tongue, because he is not understood by them — but let him speak to himself, because he understands himself, and this silently, praying or meditating. Job 10:1: "I will speak in the bitterness of my soul, I will say to God," etc.

But prophets: two, etc. Here the Apostle directs them how they should conduct themselves regarding the use of prophecy. And concerning this he does two things. First he shows how the gift of prophecy is to be used, both as to number and as to order; second he shows to whom the use of prophecy is forbidden, at the place "women in the church," etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First he teaches the order of using the gift of prophecy; second he assigns the reason for this, at the place "for you can all," etc.; third he excludes an objection, at the place "the spirits of the prophets," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he settles the number of those using the said gift; second he teaches the manner or order of using it, at the place "but if to another," etc.

Concerning the first it should be known that the use of prophecy, according as the Apostle seems here to take it, is to set forth a word of exhortation to the people, by expounding the sacred Scriptures. And because in the primitive Church there were many who had this gift from God, and the faithful had not yet been multiplied, therefore, lest there be confusion and tedium, the Apostle wills that not all who know how to expound prophecies and sacred Scripture should prophesy, but some, and determined ones. And this is what he says, "let the prophets," etc., as if he were to say: I do not wish that all who come together, but only two, or, at most, three, according as the necessity of speaking requires, should speak — that is, exhort. And this also accords with Scripture. Above, 17:6, and Matt. 18:16: "by the mouth of two or three," etc. But let the rest — namely, those who ought not [to speak] — judge the things that are put forth by these, namely whether they are said well or badly: approving what is said well, and causing what is said badly to be retracted. Above 2:15: "the spiritual man judges all things."

An order is also to be kept in using the said gift, such that if to another of those who were sitting and keeping silent and judging, something better was revealed than to him who is exhorting and stands first, then that one who stands ought to sit down, and the one to whom something better was revealed ought to rise up and exhort. And this is what he says: "but if to another," sitting, "something has been revealed" — namely through the Holy Spirit — let the one who stood first be silent and yield to him. Rom. 12:10: "in honor anticipating one another." And the reason for this is, because according to this manner "you can," successively, "prophesy one by one" — that is, all of you, namely — so that thus "all" — that is, the greater — "may learn," and "all" — that is, the lesser — "may be exhorted." Prov. 1:5: "the wise man hearing," etc.

And if someone should say: O Apostle, I cannot be silent while another prophesies, or yield to the one sitting, once I have begun, because I cannot hold back the spirit that speaks in me, according to that word of Job 4:2: "who can hold back a conceived speech?" Therefore the Apostle removes this when he says "and the spirits of the prophets," etc., as if he were to say: on the contrary, he can well be silent or sit, because "the spirits of the prophets" — that is, the spirit that gives prophecies, and he puts it in the plural number on account of the many revelations instilled in them — "are subject to the prophets," indeed as to knowledge, because, as Gregory says, the spirit of prophecy is not always present to the prophets. Hence it is not a habit, as knowledge is. For thus it would follow that it would also be subject to them as to knowledge, and they could use it when they wished, and not use it: but it is a certain force or impression from God, illuminating and touching the hearts of the prophets, and only then, when they are thus touched, do they know. Hence it is not thus subject to them.

Nor is the word of the Apostle understood according to this, but the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets as to pronouncement, because namely it is in their power to pronounce the things that are revealed to them when they wish, and not to pronounce them. And thus the excuse is worth nothing, because the spirit does not compel you such that you cannot be silent. And that this is true, he proves when he says "for it is not... of dissension," etc. And he makes such an argument. God never compels toward that from which strife or dissension arises, because God is not of dissension but of peace; but if the spirit of prophecy compelled men to speak, then it would be a cause of dissension, because thus he would always wish to speak or teach or not be silent while another was speaking, at which the others would be disturbed. Therefore the Holy Spirit does not compel men to speak. 2 Corinthians, last chapter: "the God of peace and love will be with you," etc.

Nevertheless, because someone might still object that he would not do this, because he was commanding these things only to them, and not to other churches, whence it might also seem burdensome, the Apostle therefore adds that he teaches this not only among them, but also in all the churches. And this is what he says: "as I teach in all the churches of the saints" — namely concerning the use of tongues and prophecy. Above 1:10: "that you all say the same thing."

Here the Apostle sets down the persons to whom he forbids the use of prophecy. Concerning this he does two things. First, he shows to whom the use of prophecy is forbidden; second, he removes an objection, at "But if they wish anything," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First, he sets down the command about the prohibition; second, he assigns the reason for this, at "for it is not permitted," etc. He says therefore: I wish that men use the gift of prophecy in this manner, but I do not wish women to speak in the Church; but let them keep silent in the churches, 1 Tim 2:12: "I do not permit a woman to teach in the Church." And Chrysostom assigns the reason for this, saying that a woman spoke once and overturned the whole world. But against this it seems, because it is read of many women that they prophesied, as of the Samaritan woman, John 4:39, and of Anna the wife of Phanuel, Luke 2:36, and of Deborah, Judges 4:4, and of Holdama the prophetess, the wife of Sellum, 4 Kings 22:14, and of the daughters of Philip, Acts 21:9. Above also it is said "every woman praying or prophesying," etc.

Response. It must be said that in prophecy there are two things, namely revelation and the manifestation of the revelation, but women are not excluded from revelation, but many things are revealed to them just as to men. But the announcing is twofold. One public, and from this they are excluded; the other private, and this is permitted to them, because it is not preaching, but announcing. And he assigns the reason for this, saying "for it is not permitted to them to speak," namely by the authority of the Church, but this is their office, that they be subject to men. Hence, since to teach implies preeminence and presiding, it is not fitting for those who are subject. But the reason why they are subject and do not preside is that they are deficient in reason, which is most necessary to one who presides. And therefore the Philosopher says, in his Politics, that it is a corruption of government when government comes to women.

Consequently, when he says "But if they wish anything," etc., because some might say that at least concerning doubtful matters they can ask in the Church, therefore the Apostle excludes this, and concerning this he does two things. For first he removes the objection, second he assigns the reason, at "it is shameful," etc. He says therefore: I say that women are to keep silent in the Church, but if there is something about which they are in doubt, and they wish to learn it, let them ask their husbands at home. 1 Tim 2:11: "Let a woman learn in silence with all," etc. But the reason for this is that it is shameful, not merely unbecoming: for in women modesty is commended. Ecclesiasticus 26:19: "Grace upon grace," etc. If therefore she should ask and dispute in public, it would be a sign of immodesty, and this is shameful for her. And hence it is also that in law the office of advocacy is forbidden to women.

Consequently, when he says "Or did the word come forth from you," etc., he refutes those who contradict. And because all might contradict at once, or at least the wise among them, therefore concerning this he does two things. For first he refutes them as regards their whole church; second as regards the wise only, at "But if any man seem," etc. Concerning the first it must be known that the cause why a people is accustomed to contradict its lord, or ruler, is singularity. For singularity can be caused either from priority in some good, or from excellence. And therefore the Apostle, wishing to refute the contradicting Corinthians, first excludes from them priority, when he says "Or did the word of God proceed from you?" As if he were to say: No, but from the Jews. Isaiah 2:3: "Out of Zion shall go forth the law," etc. As if he were to say: if in the church of the Jews I were to make some ordinances against their ordinances, they could contradict, because they had the word of God first, but you cannot, because the word of God did not proceed from you. Second, he excludes from them excellence, "or unto you only," etc., as if he were to say: not only have you believed, but others also. Hence you do not excel them, Psalm 18:5: "Their sound has gone forth into all the earth," and therefore you ought to do as others do.

Consequently, when he says "But if any man seem," etc., he refutes in particular the greater ones. Concerning this he does two things. First he refutes them; second he responds to a certain tacit objection, at "But if any man know not," etc. He says therefore: granted that the whole church does not contradict, but someone who seems to be a prophet, etc. And he says "seems," because if he contradicts he is not truly a prophet or wise or spiritual, since he would not contradict. He also says "prophet" and "spiritual," because many are spiritual who are not prophets, although all prophets are spiritual. This one, I say, who thus seems to be a prophet and spiritual, let him not contradict, but let him acknowledge, that is, let him know that the things which I write to you are the commandments of God and not only mine. As if he were to say: since no one has dared to contradict the commandments of the Lord, and the things which I write are the commandments of God, let no one dare to contradict. 2 Cor, last chapter: "Do you seek a proof," etc. And from this we can gather that the words of the apostles are from the familiar revelation of the Holy Spirit and of Christ, and therefore are to be kept as the precepts of Christ. Hence also the Apostle notably distinguishes those things which he commands of himself, when he says "But concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord." But someone might say: O Apostle, how am I to know that these are the commandments of God? I cannot know this. The Apostle excludes this, saying: this does not avail you, because you ought not to be ignorant. Why? Because "whoever is ignorant," etc. Matthew 25:12: "Amen I say to you: I know you not." From which it is clear that all are bound to know those things which are of necessity for salvation, which he himself first commands, and the apostles and prophets.

Or otherwise: "if any man seem," etc., so that it may be a confirmation of the preceding, as if he were to say: thus I write, but you cannot recognize these things on account of their difficulty, and because you are simple; but so that you may know that the things which I write are just and honest, I wish to bring forward the testimony of the prophets and spiritual men who are among you. And therefore he says "But if any man," etc. Above, 2:15: "The spiritual man judges all things." And lest anyone say: we do not care to know these things, he adds that they are bound to know, because "whoever is ignorant," etc. Isaiah 5:13: "Therefore led captive," etc. Psalm 81:5: "They have not known nor understood," etc.

"Therefore, my brothers," etc. Here the Apostle concludes the general admonition. Concerning this he does three things. First he admonishes them to the desire of all the gifts, saying: therefore both to speak in tongues and to prophesy is good. "Be zealous," that is, may you desire, "to prophesy." The reason for this is, because, as it is said Proverbs 29:18, "when prophecy fails, the people will be scattered." And "to prophesy" is taken here according as the whole chapter has been expounded. And yet, although you may desire to prophesy, do not forbid speaking in tongues, lest dissension arise. Second, he leads them to the due manner, when he says "But let all things be done decently," namely that while one is speaking, the others keep silent, and women not speak in the Church, and the like. Romans 13:13: "As in the day, let us walk decently," etc. Third, he leads them to a fitting order, when he says "and according to order," namely that first one, and afterward another, may speak, and by parts, and the like, which have been said. Judges 5:20: "The stars, remaining in their order and course, fought against Sisara."