“For even Jesus Christ does all things according to the will of the Father, as He Himself declares in a certain place, "I do always those things that please Him." Wherefore it behoves us also to live according to the will of God in Christ, and to imitate Him as Paul did. For, says he, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ."”

“And openly and expressly the apostle, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians says, "Be ye followers of me, as also I am of Christ," in order that that may take place. If ye are of me, and I am of Christ, then ye are imitators of Christ, and Christ of God. Assimilation to God, then, so that as far as possible a man becomes righteous and holy with wisdom, he lays down as the aim of faith, and the end to be that restitution of the promise which is effected by faith.”

“But if any one should venture to oppose this statement, and reply, that the apostle teaches that we hate not only the evil which is in thought, but that we do that which we will not, and we hate it even in the very act of doing it, for he says, "The good which I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do;" if he who says so speaks the truth, let us ask him to explain what was the evil which the apostle hated and willed not to do, but did; and the good which he willed to do, but did not; and conversely, whether as often as he willed to do good, so often he did not do the good which he willed, but did the evil which he willed not? And how he can say, when exhorting us to shake off all manner of sin, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ?" Thus he meant the things already mentioned which he willed not to do, not to be done, but only to be thought of. For how otherwise could he be an exact imitation of Christ?”

“What, then, is it? Truly religion is the cultivation of the truth, but superstition of that which is false. And it makes the entire difference what you worship, not how you worship, or what prayer you offer. But because the worshippers of the gods imagine themselves to be religious, though they are superstitious, they are neither able to distinguish religion from superstition, nor to express the meaning of the names.”

“If, indeed, the goal of Christianity is the imitation of Christ according to the measure of his incarnation, insofar as is conformable with the vocation of each individual, they who are entrusted with the guidance of many others are obliged to animate those still weaker than themselves, by their assistance, to the imitation of Christ.”

“"Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ." This is a rule of the most perfect Christianity, this is a landmark exactly laid down, this is the point that stands highest of all; viz. the seeking those things which are for the common profit: which also Paul himself declared, by adding, "even as I also am of Christ." For nothing can so make a man an imitator of Christ as caring for his neighbors. Nay, though thou shouldest fast, though thou shouldest lie upon the ground, and even strangle thyself, but take no thought for thy neighbor; thou hast wrought nothing great, but still standest far from this Image, while so doing. However, in the case before us, even the very thing itself is naturally useful, viz; the abstaining from idol-sacrifices. But "I," saith he, "have done many of those things which were unprofitable also: e.g., when I used circumcision, when I offered sacrifice; for these, were any one to examine them in themselves, rather destroy those that follow after them and cause them to fall from salvation: nevertheless, I submitted even to these on account of the advantage therefrom: but here is no such thing. For in that case, except there accrue a certain benefit and except they be done for others' sake, then the thing becomes injurious: but in this, though there be none made to stumble, even so ought one to abstain from the things forbidden. But not only to things hurtful have I submitted, but also to things toilsome. For, "I robbed other Churches," saith he, "taking wages of them; and when it was lawful to eat and not to work, I sought not this, but chose to perish of hunger rather than offend another." This is why he says, "I please all men in all things." "Though it be against the law, though it be laborious and hazardous, which is to be done, I endure all for the profit of others. So then, being above all in perfection, he became beneath all in condescension."”

“Do not take the words "as I imitate Christ" as an expression of pride; they are said with the purpose of more strongly urging toward imitation. For if, he says, I imitated Christ, who did not spare His own life so that you might live, can you not all the more imitate me? For I am not as much better than you as He is better than me: He incomparably surpasses all.”

“Having eliminated from the believers a practice contrary to the sacrament of the Eucharist, namely, partaking of food offered to idols, the Apostle now instructs them about the sacrament of the Eucharist itself. First, he gives a general admonition; secondly, he develops his proposition (v. 3). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he presents the admonition; secondly, he signifies how the Corinthians regarded that admonition (v. 2). In regard to the first it should be noted that the natural order of things is so arranged, that lower beings imitate higher beings, as far as it is possible. Hence even a natural agent, being superior, makes the thing it acts on similar to itself. Now the primordial principle of the production of things is the Son of God, as it says in John (1:3): "All things were made through him." He is, therefore, the primordial exemplar, which all creatures imitate as the true and perfect image of God. Hence it says in Col (1:15); "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature, for in him all things were created." But in a special way He is the exemplar of spiritual graces, with which spiritual creatures are endowed, as is said to the Son in Ps 110 (v. 3): "In the splendors of the saints before the morning star I begot you," namely, because He was begotten before every creature through resplendent grace, having in Himself as exemplar the splendors of all the saints. But this exemplar of God has been very remote from us at first, as it says in Ec (2:12); "What is man that he could follow the king, his Maker?" And therefore He willed to become man, that He might offer humans a human exemplar. Hence Augustine says in the Christian Combat: "This perversity he does not lack who loves to inspect and imitate that man's words and actions, in which the Son of God offered Himself to us as an example of living." Just as angels were first to imitate the exemplar of His divinity, but secondarily the other creatures, as Denis says in the Angelic Hierarchy, so the exemplar of humanity is chiefly proposed to be imitated by the prelates of the church, as being higher. Hence the Lord says in John (13:15): "I have given you an example that as I have done, so do you." Secondly, however, the prelates informed by the example of Christ are proposed to their subjects as exemplars of living: "Being examples to the flock" (1 Pt 5:3); "To give you in our conduct an example to imitate" (2 Th 3:9). Therefore, the Apostle expressly says: I have said that you should be without offense to anyone. And this, of course, you can do, if you take note of what I say: Be imitators of me as I am of Christ, i.e., an imitator. For he imitated Him, first, in devotion of mind: "I live, now not I, but Christ lives in me" (Gal 2:20). Secondly, in anxiety for his subjects: "Even if I am to be poured as a libation upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all" (Phil 2:17); Jesus Christ also offered himself for us, as it says in Eph (5:2). Thirdly, as to tolerating suffering: "Always carrying in the body the death of Jesus" (2 Cor 4:10); "I bear on my body the marks of Jesus" (Gal 6:17). But it must be noted that he does not merely say, Be imitators of me, but he adds, as I am of Christ, namely, because subjects ought not imitate their prelates in everything but in those things in which they imitate Christ, Who is the unfailing exemplar of holiness.”

“It is normal that we should imitate those whom God has set over us as teachers. For if they imitate God, why should we not imitate them? For just as God the Father sent Christ as the teacher and author of life, so Christ sent the apostles to be our teachers, so that we should imitate them, for we are unable to imitate him directly.”

“Cassian told this story about John, who was the father of a community because he was great in his way of life. When he was dying, he was cheerful, and his mind was set upon the Lord; his brothers stood around him and asked for a sentence that would sum up the way to salvation, which he could give them as a legacy by which they might rise to the perfection that is in Christ. With a sigh he said 'I have never obeyed my own will, and I never taught anyone to do anything which I did not do myself first.'”

“In vain do you labour to seem adorned: in vain do you call in the aid of all the most skilful manufacturers of false hair. God bids you "be veiled." I believe (He does so) for fear the heads of some should be seen! And oh that in "that day" of Christian exultation, I, most miserable (as I am), may elevate my head, even though below (the level of) your heels! I shall (then) see whether you will rise with (your) ceruse and rouge and saffron, and in all that parade of headgear: whether it will be women thus tricked out whom the angels carry up to meet Christ in the air If these (decorations) are now good, and of God, they will then also present themselves to the rising bodies, and will recognise their several places.”

“Although I know, dearest brother, that very many of the bishops who are set over the churches of the Lord by divine condescension, throughout the whole world, maintain the plan of evangelical truth, and of the tradition of the Lord, and do not by human and novel institution depart from that which Christ our Master both prescribed and did; yet since some, either by ignorance or simplicity in sanctifying the cup of the Lord, and in ministering to the people, do not do that which Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, the founder and teacher of this sacrifice, did and taught, I have thought it as well a religious as a necessary thing to write to you this letter, that, if any one is still kept in this error, he may behold the light of truth, and return to the root and origin of the tradition of the Lord. Nor must you think, dearest brother, that I am writing my own thoughts or man's; or that I am boldly assuming this to myself of my own voluntary will, since I always hold my mediocrity with lowly and modest moderation. But when anything is prescribed by the inspiration and command of God, it is necessary that a faithful servant should obey the Lord, acquitted by all of assuming anything arrogantly to himself, seeing that he is constrained to fear offending the Lord unless he does what he is commanded. Know then that I have been admonished that, in offering the cup, the tradition of the Lord must be observed, and that nothing must be done by us but what the Lord first did on our behalf, as that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be offered mingled with wine. For when Christ says, "I am the true vine." the blood of Christ is assuredly not water, but wine; neither can His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened appear to be in the cup, when in the cup there is no wine whereby the blood of Christ is shown forth, which is declared by the sacrament and testimony of all the Scriptures.”

“Having finished therefore all the discourses concerning all these things, he next proceeds also to another accusation. And what was this? Their women used both to pray and prophesy unveiled and with their head bare, (for then women also used to prophesy;) but the men went so far as to wear long hair as having spent their time in philosophy, and covered their heads when praying and prophesying, each of which was a Grecian custom. Since then he had already admonished them concerning these things when present, and some perhaps listened to him and others disobeyed; therefore in his letter also again, he foments the place, like a physician, by his mode of addressing them, and so corrects the offence. For that he had heretofore admonished them in person is evident from what he begins with. Why else, having said nothing of this matter any where in the Epistle before, but passing on from other accusations, doth he straightway say, "Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you?" Thou seest that some obeyed, whom he praises; and others disobeyed, whom he corrects by what comes afterwards, saying, "Now if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom." For if after some had done well but others disobeyed, he had included all in his accusation, he would both have made the one sort bolder, and have caused the others to become more remiss; whereas now by praising and approving the one, and rebuking the other, he both refreshes the one more effectually, and causes the other to shrink before him. For the accusation even by itself was such as might well wound them; but now that it takes place in contrast with others who have done well and are praised, it comes with a sharper sting. However, for the present he begins not with accusation, but with encomiums and great encomiums, saying, "Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things." For such is the character of Paul; though it be but for small matters he weaves a web of high praise; nor is it for flattery that he doth so: far from it; how could he so act to whom neither money was desirable, nor glory, nor any other such thing? but for their salvation he orders all his proceedings. And this is why he amplifies the encomium, saying, "Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things." "That ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you." It appears then that he used at that time to deliver many things also not in writing, which he shows too in many other places. But at that time he only delivered them, whereas now he adds an explanation of their reason: thus both rendering the one sort, the obedient, more steadfast, and pulling down the others' pride, who oppose themselves.”

“Having finished the discourse on the eating of food offered to idols, a grave sin, he now corrects a somewhat lighter sin. For it is his custom to insert less important matters between grave sins. What then was this? It was that women both prayed and prophesied (for at that time women also prophesied) with uncovered heads, while men, even during prophecy, covered their heads, as those who occupied themselves with philosophy (φιλοσοφία). This was a Greek custom. The Apostle had already remarked on this, perhaps during his stay among them; but some of them obeyed, while others did not. Of the obedient ones he says: I praise you, that you remember my teachings. Although he had in mind only the one thing, that men should not cover their heads, nevertheless he says: "you remember all my teachings." For it is his constant custom to prudently praise those whom praise could encourage toward greater perfection. From this it is evident that both Paul and the other apostles taught much even without writing.”

“Then when he says, I commend you, brethren, he shows how the Corinthians were acting in regard to the above admonition. In regard to this it should be observed that subjects follow their prelates in two ways: namely, as to their deeds and words. In regard to deeds, when they imitate the example of their prelates; hence it says in Jas (5:10): "As an example take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord." In regard to deeds, when they obey their precepts: "Keep my commandments and live" (Pr 4:4). But the Corinthians failed in these things and especially the greater majority; consequently, the Apostle addressed them thus: I commend you, brethren. As if to say: You should offer yourselves to be praised on this point, but you do not, because you remember me in everything, so as it imitate my example. For we cannot imitate examples of ones we do not remember. Hence it says in Heb (13:7): "Remember your leaders; consider the outcome of their life and imitate their faith." As to words he adds: You maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. As if to say: You observe them in the same tenor as I delivered them to you: for he says this, because he had not departed from observing the commandments: "If they keep my word, they will also keep yours" (Jn. 15:20). But this seems to be a manner of speaking not suited to the truth of the Sacred Scripture, which contains no falsity, as it says in Pr (8:8): "All the words of my mouth are righteous; and there is nothing twisted or crooked in them." The answer is that irony is one of the figures of speech, in which one does not pay attention to the sense which the words make in order to get the truth, but what the speaker intends to express by a similar or contrary or other way. Therefore, in irony the truth is really the contrary of what the words indicate, as in a metaphor the truth consists in a similarity.”

“Here the chapter ought to begin. ye remember me in all things--in your general practice, though in the particular instances which follow ye fail. ordinances--Greek, "traditions," that is, apostolic directions given by word of mouth or in writing (Co1 11:23; Co1 15:3; Th2 2:15). The reference here is mainly to ceremonies: for in Co1 11:23, as to the LORD'S SUPPER, which is not a mere ceremony, he says, not merely, "I delivered unto you," but also, "I received of the Lord"; here he says only, "I delivered to you." Romanists argue hence for oral traditions. But the difficulty is to know what is a genuine apostolic tradition intended for all ages. Any that can be proved to be such ought to be observed; any that cannot, ought to be rejected (Rev 22:18). Those preserved in the written word alone can be proved to be such.”

“But additions of other people's hair are entirely to be rejected, and it is a most sacrilegious thing for spurious hair to shade the head, covering the skull with dead locks. For on whom does the presbyter lay his hand? Whom does he bless? Not the woman decked out, but another's hair, and through them another head. And if "the man is head of the woman, and God of the man," how is it not impious that they should fall into double sins? For they deceive the men by the excessive quantity of their hair; and shame the Lord as far as in them lies, by adorning themselves meretriciously, in order to dissemble the truth. And they defame the head, which is truly beautiful.”

“What sort of garland, however, I pray you, did He who is the Head of the man and the glory of the woman, Christ Jesus, the Husband of the church, submit to in behalf of both sexes? Of thorns, I think, and thistles,—a figure of the sins which the soil of the flesh brought forth for us, but which the power of the cross removed, blunting, in its endurance by the head of our Lord, death's every sting.”

“Scripture states: "And the two shall be but one flesh," so that what was once one may become one again.… The head matches its own limbs and the limbs their own head, a natural bond uniting both in complete harmony, lest the closeness of the divine covenant be shattered by some sort of discord arising from the division of members.… Husbands are to love their wives even as Christ loved the church, and wives are to love their husbands as the church loves Christ.”

“"And His head and His hairs were white as it were white wool, and as it were snow." On the head the whiteness is shown; "but the head of Christ is God." in the white hairs is the multitude of abbots like to wool, in respect of simple sheep; to snow, in respect of the innumerable crowd of candidates taught from heaven. "His eyes were as a flame of fire." God's precepts are those which minister light to believers, but to unbelievers burning.”

“This is a warning that no one ought to rely on oneself. She who was made as a helper needs the protection of the stronger. In this sense "the head of the woman is the man." Yet while he believed that he would have the assistance of his wife, he fell because of her. Hence no one ought to entrust himself lightly to another unless he has first put that person's virtue to the test. Neither should he claim for himself in the role of protector one whom he believes is lesser to his strength. Rather, each one should share his special grace with the other. Especially is this true of the man, who is in the position of greater strength, who plays the part of protector.”

“"But I would have ye know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." This is his account of the reason of the thing, and he states it to make the weaker more attentive. He indeed that is faithful, as he ought to be, and steadfast, doth not require any reason or cause of those things which are commanded him, but is content with the ordinance alone. But he that is weaker, when he also learns the cause, then both retains what is said with more care and obeys with much readiness. Wherefore neither did he state the cause until he saw the commandment transgressed. What then is the cause? "The head of every man is Christ." Is He then Head of the Gentile also? In no wise. For if "we are the Body of Christ, and severally members thereof," and in this way He is our head, He cannot be the head of them who are not in the Body and rank not among the members. So that when he says, "of every man," one must understand it of the believer. Perceivest thou how every where he appeals to the hearer's shame by arguing from on high? Thus both when he was discoursing on love, and when on humility, and when on alms-giving, it was from thence that he drew his examples. "But the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." Here the heretics rush upon us with a certain declaration of inferiority, which out of these words they contrive against the Son. But they stumble against themselves. For if "the man be the head of the woman," and the head be of the same substance with the body, and "the head of Christ is God," the Son is of the same substance with the Father. "Nay," say they, "it is not His being of another substance which we intend to show from hence, but that He is under subjection." What then are we to say to this? In the first place, when any thing lowly is said of him conjoined as He is with the Flesh, there is no disparagement of the Godhead in what is said, the Economy admitting the expression. However, tell me how thou intendest to prove this from the passage? "Why, as the man governs the wife, saith he, "so also the Father, Christ." Therefore also as Christ governs the man, so likewise the Father, the Son. "For the head of every man," we read, "is Christ." And who could ever admit this? For if the superiority of the Son compared with us, be the measure of the Fathers' compared with the Son, consider to what meanness thou wilt bring Him. So that we must not try all things by like measure in respect of ourselves and of God, though the language used concerning them be similar; but we must assign to God a certain appropriate excellency, and so great as belongs to God. For should they not grant this, many absurdities will follow. As thus; "the head of Christ is God:" and, "Christ is the head of the man, and he of the woman." Therefore if we choose to take the term, "head," in the like sense in all the clauses, the Son will be as far removed from the Father as we are from Him. Nay, and the woman will be as far removed from us as we are from the Word of God. And what the Son is to the Father, this both we are to the Son and the woman again to the man. And who will endure this? But dost thou understand the term "head" differently in the case of the man and the woman, from what thou dost in the case of Christ? Therefore in the case of the Father and the Son, must we understand it differently also. "How understand it differently?" saith the objector. According to the occasion. For had Paul meant to speak of rule and subjection, as thou sayest, he would not have brought forward the instance of a wife, but rather of a slave and a master. For what if the wife be under subjection to us? it is as a wife, as free, as equal in honor. And the Son also, though He did become obedient to the Father, it was as the Son of God, it was as God. For as the obedience of the Son to the Father is greater than we find in men towards the authors of their being, so also His liberty is greater. Since it will not of course be said that the circumstances of the Son's relation to the Father are greater and more intimate than among men, and of the Father's to the Son, less. For if we admire the Son that He was obedient so as to come even unto death, and the death of the cross, and reckon this the great wonder concerning Him; we ought to admire the Father also, that He begat such a son, not as a slave under command, but as free, yielding obedience and giving counsel. For the counsellor is no slave. But again, when thou hearest of a counsellor, do not understand it as though the Father were in need, but that the Son hath the same honor with Him that begat Him. Do not therefore strain the example of the man and the woman to all particulars. For with us indeed the woman is reasonably subjected to the man: since equality of honor causeth contention. And not for this cause only, but by reason also of the deceit which happened in the beginning. Wherefore you see, she was not subjected as soon as she was made; nor, when He brought her to the man, did either she hear any such thing from God, nor did the man say any such word to her: he said indeed that she was "bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh:" but of rule or subjection he no where made mention unto her. But when she made an ill use of her privilege and she who had been made a helper was found to be an ensnarer and ruined all, then she is justly told for the future, "thy turning shall be to thy husband."”

“He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the cloth that had been over his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up separately in one place. What do we believe it means, brothers, that the cloth from the Lord's head is not found with the linen cloths in the tomb, except that, as Paul attests, God is the head of Christ, and the incomprehensible mysteries of his divinity are separated from the knowledge of our weakness, and his power transcends the nature of creation?”

“Based on the flow of the speech, he apparently continues the conversation with those whom he praises for keeping what he had taught them; but in reality he is correcting the disobedient. When you hear that Christ is the head of every man, understand: of every faithful man. For we, the believers, are His body, and not the pagans, which is why Christ is not their head. A husband is the head of the wife because he has authority over her. God is the head of Christ because He is His cause, as Father of the Son. What is said about the head should not be understood in the same sense with regard to Christ. Christ is our head both because He is our Creator and because we are His body, while the Father is the head of Christ as His cause. But if you understand the Father being called the head of Christ also according to His humanity, in the same sense in which Christ Himself is called our head, there will be nothing impious in this. For the Father is also called the God of Christ according to His humanity (John 20:17). Since He willed to become like us and called Himself both our brother and our head, there is nothing strange if He also accepts names of humility, and has His Father by Divinity as His head according to humanity, as His King and His God.”

“St Paul says: "God is the head of Christ," so in speaking of Christ we may understand the head as referring to his divinity, and it is beyond doubt that he who offers thanks anoints the head, because he makes contact with God, not man. I do not mean that he who is God is not also man, for the one Christ is both God and man; I mean that all things which are good, even those of which man is the agent, really come from God rather than man.”

“The Scriptures call Christ sometimes the Center, sometimes the Head. He is called the Head because all the senses and spiritual motions and charismatic graces flow from Him. This He pours in as being united to the members. For "the head of Christ is God," that is, in so far as He is God; but "the head of every man is Christ," in so far as He is God and man. Hence He pours the Holy Spirit into the members of the Church united to Him, not separated from Him. And since in the human body there is no diffusion from the head to the members unless the members are united to the head, so it is with the Mystical Body.”

“Then when he says, But I want you to understand, brethren, he proceeds to his intention of instructing believers in the sacrament of the Eucharist. In regard to this he does three things: first, he reproves their errors regarding the rite of this sacrament; secondly, he shows the dignity of this sacrament (v. 23); thirdly, he teaches the correct rite (v. 27). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he refutes their error, by which they erred in clothing, namely, because the women gathered for the sacred mysteries with heads uncovered; secondly, he corrects them in their gathering, because, when they came together for the sacred mysteries, they indulged in quarrels (v. 17); thirdly, as to food, because they approach to take the sacred mysteries, after they had just eaten (v. 20). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he lays down a teaching from which is drawn the reason for the next admonition; secondly, he gives an admonition (v. 4). In regard to the first he mentions three comparisons, the first of which is of God to man, saying: I have said you hold my precepts, by irony, but in order that you may see how unreasonably you act, I want you to know as something necessary and in keeping with Is (5:13): "My people went into exile for want of knowledge," that the head of every man is Christ. This is said according to a likeness of a natural head, in which four things are considered. First, perfection, because while the other members have but one sense, namely, touch, all the senses flourish in the head; and similarly in other men are found single graces, as it says in 1 Cor (12:8): "To one is given the spirit of utterance of wisdom, to another the spirit of knowledge," but in Christ alone is found the fullness of all graces. For it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit, as is said in John (3:34). Secondly, in the head is found sublimity, because as in a man it is superior to all the members, so Christ is super-eminent not only over all men but also all angels, as it says in Eph (1:20): "He made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places far above all power and dominion" and below (5:22): "Christ is the head of the Church." Thirdly, in the head is found outflowing power, namely, because in some way it imparts sensation and movement to the other members; so from Christ is derived movement and sense to the other members of the Church according to Col (2:19): "not holding fast to the head from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together, grows with a growth that is from God." Fourthly, in the head is found a conformity of nature to the other members; likewise in Christ relative to other men, as it says in Phil (2:7): "Taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of man." The second comparison he presents is of man to man, when he says: The head of a woman is her husband. This is verified according to the four comparisons mentioned above. For, first of all, man is more perfect than woman not only in regard to the body, because, as the Philosopher says in the book On Generation of Animals, "the female is an occasioned male," but also in regard to the soul's vigor, as it says in Ec (7:29): "One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found." Secondly, because man is naturally superior to the female, as it says in Eph (5:22): "Wives, be subject to your husband as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife." Thirdly, because the man exerts an influence by governing the wife, as it says in Gen (3:16): "Your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." Fourthly, the man and the woman are alike in nature, as it says in Gen (2:18): "I will make him a helper like to him." The third comparison he makes is of God to the Lord, when he says: The head of Christ is God. Here it should be noted that this name, "Christ," signifies the person mentioned by reason of His human nature: and so this name, "God," does not refer only to the person of the Father but the whole Trinity, from which as from the more perfect all goods in the humanity of Christ are derived and to which the humanity of Christ is subjected. It can be understood in another way, so that this name, "Christ," stands for that person by reason of his divine nature; then this name, "God," stands only for the person of the Father, Who is called the head of the Son not by reason of a greater perfection or by reason of any supposition, but only according to origin and conformity of nature; as it says in Ps 2 (v. 7): "The Lord said to me: you are my Son; today I have begotten you." But these can be taken mystically, inasmuch as there is in the soul a certain spiritual union. For sensibility is compared to the female, but reason to the man, by whom sensibility ought to be ruled. Hence he is called her head. Or: the lower reason, which is interested in disposing of and arranging temporal things, is compared to the women. To the man is compared the higher reason, which occupies itself with contemplating eternal things and is called the head of the lower reason, because temporal things should be disposed according to eternal reasons, as it says in Ex (25:9): "Make it according to the pattern I showed you on the mountain." But Christ is called the head of the man, because reason alone according to its superior part belongs to God.”

“The head of the woman is the man, &c. To have the head covered at public meetings, is, according to St. Paul, a mark of subjection: The man was created to be head over the woman, who was made subject to the man, being made of him, of his rib, and the woman made for him, not he for the woman. The man in a special manner, is the image of God, not only by his immortal soul, in which sense also the woman was made to God’s image, and likeness, but inasmuch as God gave him a power over all creatures, and so he is called, the glory of God. For these reasons, as well as from a received custom, St. Paul tells every woman, that in prayer or prophesying in public meetings, she must have her head veiled, and covered in testimony of her subjection to man, her head, otherwise she dishonours herself, and her head. This is what he tells her, (ver. 10.) that she ought to have a power over her head, [1] that is, to have a veil or covering, as a mark of man’s power over her: and because of the angels, that is, out of a respect to the angels there present. Some understand the priests and ministers of God, called angels, particularly in the Apocalypse. St. Paul adds, that nature[2] having given to women long hair, designed it to be as a natural veil. In fine, he appeals to them, to be judges, whether it be not unbecoming in women to pray without a veil. But he will have men to be uncovered, and not to bear such a mark of subjection, as a veil is, by which a man would dishonour his head, that is, himself, and Christ, who is his head, and who appointed him, when he created him, to be head over the woman. He looks upon it as a dishonour and a disgrace for men to nourish their hair, as women should do. He also calls God the head of Christ, that is, of Christ, as man. Lest he should seem to lessen the condition of women more than necessary, he adds, that the propagation of mankind now depends on the woman, as well as on the man, seeing every man is by the woman. (Witham)”

“The Corinthian women, on the ground of the abolition of distinction of sexes in Christ, claimed equality with the male sex, and, overstepping the bounds of propriety, came forward to pray and prophesy without the customary head-covering of females. The Gospel, doubtless, did raise women from the degradation in which they had been sunk, especially in the East. Yet, while on a level with males as to the offer of, and standing in grace (Gal 3:28), their subjection in point of order, modesty, and seemliness, is to be maintained. Paul reproves here their unseemliness as to dress: in Co1 14:34, as to the retiring modesty in public which becomes them. He grounds his reproof here on the subjection of woman to man in the order of creation. the head--an appropriate expression, when he is about to treat of woman's appropriate headdress in public. of every man . . . Christ-- (Eph 5:23). of . . . woman . . . man-- (Co1 11:8; Gen 3:16; Ti1 2:11-12; Pe1 3:1, Pe1 3:5-6). head of Christ is God-- (Co1 3:23; Co1 15:27-28; Luk 3:22, Luk 3:38; Joh 14:28; Joh 20:17; Eph 3:9). "Jesus, therefore, must be of the same essence as God: for, since the man is the head of the woman, and since the head is of the same essence as the body, and God is the head of the Son, it follows the Son is of the same essence as the Father" [CHRYSOSTOM]. "The woman is of the essence of the man, and not made by the man; so, too, the Son is not made by the Father, but of the essence of the Father" [THEODORET, t. 3, p. 171].”

“Let the wife be obedient to her own proper husband, because "the husband is the head of the wife." [1 Corinthians 11:3] But Christ is the head of that husband who walks in the way of righteousness; and "the head of Christ is God," even His Father. Therefore, O wife, next after the Almighty, our God and Father, the Lord of the present world and of the world to come, the Maker of everything that breathes, and of every power; and after His beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom glory be to God, do thou fear thy husband, and reverence him, pleasing him alone, rendering thyself acceptable to him in the several affairs of life, that so on thy account thy husband may be called blessed, according to the Wisdom of Solomon, which thus speaks: "Who can find a virtuous woman? for such a one is more precious than costly stones. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her..."”

“Others, again (the Montanists), that they may set at nought the gift of the Spirit, which in the latter times has been, by the good pleasure of the Father, poured out upon the human race, do not admit that aspect [of the evangelical dispensation] presented by John's Gospel, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete; but set aside at once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit. Wretched men indeed! who wish to be pseudo-prophets, forsooth, but who set aside the gift of prophecy from the Church; acting like those (the Encratitae) who, on account of such as come in hypocrisy, hold themselves aloof from the communion of the brethren. We must conclude, moreover, that these men (the Montanists) can not admit the Apostle Paul either. For, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, he speaks expressly of prophetical gifts, and recognises men and women prophesying in the Church. Sinning, therefore, in all these particulars, against the Spirit of God, they fall into the irremissible sin.”

“What is "every woman, but woman of every age, of every rank, of every condition? By saying" every" he excepts nought of womanhood, just as he excepts nought of manhood either from not being covered; for just so he says, "Every man." As, then, in the masculine sex, under the name of" man" even the" youth" is forbidden to be veiled; so, too, in the feminine, under the name of "woman," even the "virgin" is bidden to be veiled. Equally in each sex let the younger age follow the discipline of the elder; or else let the male "virgins," too, be veiled, if the female virgins withal are not veiled, because they are not mentioned by name. Let "man" and "youth" be different, if "woman" and "virgin" are different. For indeed it is "on account of the angels" that he saith women must be veiled, because on account of "the daughters of men" angels revolted from God.”

“Thus much in answer to the heretics: but we must also orderly go over the whole passage. For perhaps some one might here have doubt also, questioning with himself, what sort of a crime it was for the woman to be uncovered, or the man covered? What sort of crime it is, learn now from hence. Symbols many and diverse have been given both to man and woman; to him of rule, to her of subjection: and among them this also, that she should be covered, while he hath his head bare. If now these be symbols, you see that both err when they disturb the proper order, and transgress the disposition of God, and their own proper limits, both the man falling into the woman's inferiority, and the woman rising up against the man by her outward habiliments. For if exchange of garments be not lawful, so that neither she should be clad with a cloak, nor he with a mantle or a veil: ("for the woman," saith He, "shall not wear that which pertaineth to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garments:") much more is it unseemly for these things to be interchanged. For the former indeed were ordained by men, even although God afterwards ratified them: but this by nature, I mean the being covered or uncovered. But when I say Nature, I mean God. For He it is Who created Nature. When therefore thou overturnest these boundaries, see how great injuries ensue. And tell me not this, that the error is but small. For first, it is great even of itself: being as it is disobedience. Next, though it were small, it became great because of the greatness of the things whereof it is a sign. However, that it is a great matter, is evident from its ministering so effectually to good order among mankind, the governor and the governed being regularly kept in their several places by it. So that he who transgresseth disturbs all things, and betrays the gifts of God, and casts to the ground the honor bestowed on him from above; not however the man only, but also the woman. For to her also it is the greatest of honors to preserve her own rank; as indeed of disgraces, the behavior of a rebel. Wherefore he laid it down concerning both, thus saying, "Every man praying or prophesying having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled. dishonoreth her head." For there were, as I said, both men who prophesied and women who had this gift at that time, as the daughters of Philip, as others before them and after them: concerning whom also the prophet spake of old: "your sons shall prophesy, and your daughters shall see visions." Well then: the man he compelleth not to be always uncovered, but only when he prays. "For every man," saith he, "praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head." But the woman he commands to be at all times covered. Wherefore also having said, "Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head unveiled, dishonoreth her head," he stayed not at this point only, but also proceeded to say, "for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven." But if to be shaven is always dishonorable, it is plain too that being uncovered is always a reproach. And not even with this only was he content, but added again, saying, "The woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels." He signifies that not at the time of prayer only but also continually, she ought to be covered. But with regard to the man, it is no longer about covering but about wearing long hair, that he so forms his discourse. To be covered he then only forbids, when a man is praying; but the wearing long hair he discourages at all times. Wherefore, as touching the woman, he said, "But if she be not veiled, let her also be shorn;" so likewise touching the man, "If he have long hair, it is a dishonor unto him." He said not, "if he be covered" but, "if he have long hair." Wherefore also he said at the beginning, "Every man praying or prophesying, having any thing on his head, dishonoreth his head." He said not, "covered," but "having any thing on his head;" signifying that even though he pray with the head bare, yet if he have long hair, he is like to one covered. "For the hair," saith he, "is given for a covering."”

“There is a difference between ancient and recent prophets, as follows. The ancients prophesied about the redemption of Israel, the calling of the Gentiles and the incarnation of Christ, whereas recent prophets prophesy about particular things or people, as Peter prophesied about Ananias, for example..”

“He forbids the man to have a covered head not always, but only during prayer and prophecy. He also did not simply say: with a covered head, but: having upon the head (κατά κεφαλής ἔχων), in order to abolish the covering of the head not only with clothing, but also with hair. For he who has grown out his hair also has upon his head, namely, this hair. Why then does he dishonor his head? Because he has been appointed as ruler and authority, yet he makes himself a subordinate. For the covering of the head signifies the imposition of authority upon the head; the veil on the head takes the place of a ruler and serves as a sign of subjection. Or thus: he disgraces his head — Christ — by degrading himself and losing his freedom. For just as a puny body disgraces the head, so too he who was created by God as free and self-governing, yet degrades himself as a subordinate, disgraces Christ, who is his head, as of a body. It is worthy of investigation why the apostle presents this as a sin. To the man and the woman, to one as a sign of authority and to the other of subjection, much else has been given, and among other things, that the one should have an uncovered head and the other a covered one. How then is it not a sin to transgress the boundaries of nature, for the man to adorn himself with hair and for the woman not to cover herself? He uproots this practice as a sign of willfulness, which is exceedingly destructive in church affairs. For heresies too come from this — from the fact that each person oversteps the boundaries of what has been established.”

“Having set forth the doctrine, he adds the admonition, the reason for which is taken from the doctrine mentioned. In regard to this he does two things: first, he gives the admonition on the man's part; secondly, on the woman's (v. 5). First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that the head of the woman is the man, but any man praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonors his head. In regard to this it should be noted that any man assisting a judge should display a condition or dignity, and especially assisting God, Who is judge of all. Therefore, those who assist God should conduct themselves in the best behaved and suitable way, as it says in Ec (5:1): "Guard your steps, when you go to the house of God." Now man assists God in two ways: in one way by relating human things to God, and that is done by praying: "He will make supplication before the Most High; he will open his mouth in prayer, and make supplication for his sins" (Sir 39:5); in another way by bringing things down from God to men, and that is done by prophesying, according to Jl (2:28): "I will pour out my spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy." Hence the Apostle is careful to say, man praying or prophesying. For in these two ways man assists God as Judge, or he assists the Lord. He is said to prophesy in two ways: in one way, inasmuch as man announces to others what has been divinely revealed to him, as it says in Lk (1:67): "And his father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying: 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel...'" A man prophesies in another way, inasmuch as he utters things which have been revealed to others; hence, those who read the prophecies or other sacred scriptures are said to be prophesying. It is taken in this sense below (14:4): "He who prophesies edifies the Church"; it is also taken in that sense here. But it pertains to man's dignity (as will be clear below) not to wear a covering on his head; consequently, he says that every man praying or prophesying with his head covered disgraces his head, i.e., does something unbecoming a man. For as in a body, beauty depends on due proportion of the members, on proper light and color, so in human acts beauty depends on due proportion of words or deeds, in which the light of reason shines forth. Hence in an opposite way ugliness is present when something is done against reason and due proportion is not observed in words and deeds. Hence it was said above (7:36): "If someone regards himself as base in regard to his virgin, because she is over age." The following objection is raised: For many with heads covered pray in church without any disgrace, as they wish to pray more secretly. The answer is that prayer is twofold: one is private and is offered to God in one's own person; the other is public and is offered to God in the person of the entire Church, as is clear from the prayers said in the church by priests. It is these latter prayers that the Apostle has in mind here. There is also an objection against a Gloss which states that prophesying is called unlocking the Scriptures. According to this, anyone who preaches prophesies. But bishops preach with their head covered with a miter. The answer is that one who preaches or teaches in the schools speaks from his own person. Hence even the Apostle (Rom 2:16) calls the gospel his own, namely, on account of the energy he used in preaching it. But one who recites Sacred Scripture in the church, for example, by reading a lesson or an epistle or a gospel, speaks from the person of the whole church. This is the kind of prophesying that the Apostle understands here. Then there is an objection about those who chant psalms in choir with their head covered. The answer is that psalms are not chanted as by one singly presenting himself to God, but as by the whole multitude.”

“Praying or prophesying. By prophesying, in this place is meant, reading publicly in the Church, or singing, or explaining some part of the Scripture. To have the head covered, or uncovered, is in itself a thing very indifferent. Amongst the Greeks it was the custom always to sacrifice to their idols with heads uncovered; amongst the Romans, the opposite was the fashion, and among the Jews, as well formerly as at present, they always appear in their synagogues with heads covered. (Calmet)”

“praying--in public (Co1 11:17). prophesying--preaching in the Spirit (Co1 12:10). having--that is, if he were to have: a supposed case to illustrate the impropriety in the woman's case. It was the Greek custom (and so that at Corinth) for men in worship to be uncovered; whereas the Jews wore the Talith, or veil, to show reverence before God, and their unworthiness to look on Him (Isa 6:2); however, MAIMONIDES [Mishna] excepts cases where (as in Greece) the custom of the place was different. dishonoureth his head--not as ALFORD, "Christ" (Co1 11:3); but literally, as "his head" is used in the beginning of the verse. He dishonoreth his head (the principal part of the body) by wearing a covering or veil, which is a mark of subjection, and which makes him look downwards instead of upwards to his Spiritual Head, Christ, to whom alone he owes subjection. Why, then, ought not man to wear the covering in token of his subjection to Christ, as the woman wears it in token of her subjection to man? "Because Christ is not seen: the man is seen; so the covering of him who is under Christ is not seen; of her who is under the man, is seen" [BENGEL]. (Compare Co1 11:7).”

“"Seven thunders uttered their voices." The seven thunders uttering their voices signify, the Holy Spirit of sevenfold power, who through the prophets announced all things to come, and by His voice John gave his testimony in the world; but because he says that he was about to write the things which the thunders had uttered, that is, whatever things had been obscure in the announcements of the Old Testament; he is forbidden to write them, but he was charged to leave them sealed, because he is an apostle, nor was it fitting that the grace of the subsequent stage should be given in the first. "The time," says he, "is at hand." For the apostles, by powers, by signs, by portents, and by mighty works, have overcome unbelief. After them there is now given to the same completed Churches the comfort of having the prophetic Scriptures subsequently interpreted, for I said that after the apostles there would be interpreting prophets. For the apostle says: "And he placed in the Church indeed, first, apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers," and the rest. And in another place he says: "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge." And he says: "Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered, dishonoureth her head" And when he says, "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge," he is not speaking in respect of the Catholic prophecy of things unheard and unknown, but of things both announced and known. But let them judge whether or not the interpretation is consistent with the testimonies of the prophetic utterance. It is plain, therefore, that to John, armed as he was with superior virtue, this was not necessary, although the body of Christ, which is the Church, adorned with His members, ought to respond to its position.”

“There were, as I said, women too with the gift of prophecy, for example, the daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9) and many others. How then does she disgrace her head? By declaring the head to be some kind of outcast, having renounced the authority entrusted to her by God. Know also that he forbids the man to be covered, as stated, during the time of prayer and prophecy, but he forbids the woman to be uncovered not only during that time, but at all times. For this is what he means when he says: "for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven." Just as being shaven is always shameful for her, so too being uncovered is always shameful. Hair serves in place of a covering. Therefore, she who removes her covering is like one who has removed her hair.”

“Then when he says, but every woman, he gives an admonition as it applies to women, saying: But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled (which is unbecoming, considering her condition) disgraces her head, i.e., does something unsuitable in regard to covering her hair. But against this is the Apostle's statement in 1 Tim (2:12): "I permit no woman to teach in church." How, then, does it befit a woman to pray or prophesy in public prayer or in doctrine. The answer is that this must understood of prayers and readings which women say in their own groups. Then when he says, it is the same as if, he proves the above admonition. First, he induces a proof; secondly, he submits judgment of the proof to his hearers (v. 13). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he induces a proof; secondly, he excludes an objection (v. 11). In regard to the first he presents three proofs: the first is taken by a comparison to human nature; the second by a comparison to God (v. 7); the third by a comparison to angels (v. 10b). In regard to the first it should be noted that nature, which provides the other animals with aids sufficient for life, offers them to man imperfectly, so that through reason, art and use, man with his hands provides those things for himself, as it gave bulls horns for defense; whereas men prepare for themselves arms for defense by reason's direction of the hands. Hence it is that art imitates nature and produces things which nature cannot make. Thus, for the covering of the head, nature gave man hair. But because this covering is not sufficient, man through art prepares for himself another covering. The same explanation is true in regard to the natural covering and the artificial. But it is natural for a woman to have long hair. For she has a natural disposition to this, and further a definite inclination is present in women to take care of their hair. For this is true in the majority of cases that women take more pains with their hair than men. Therefore, it seems to be a condition suitable to women that they use an artificial covering for the head more than men. In regard to this he does three things: first, he mentions the suitability of a natural and artificial covering, saying: It has been stated that a woman not covering her head dishonors her head, for it is the same, namely, the same thing to be deprived of an artificial covering, as if she were bald, i.e., as if she were deprived of the natural covering of hair, which is predicted as punishment for certain people: "The Lord will smite with a scab the heads of the daughters of Zion and the Lord will lay bare their secret parts" (Is 3:17).”

“woman . . . prayeth . . . prophesieth--This instance of women speaking in public worship is an extraordinary case, and justified only by the miraculous gifts which such women possessed as their credentials; for instance, Anna the prophetess and Priscilla (so Act 2:18). The ordinary rule to them is: silence in public (Co1 14:34-35; Ti1 2:11-12). Mental receptivity and activity in family life are recognized in Christianity, as most accordant with the destiny of woman. This passage does not necessarily sanction women speaking in public, even though possessing miraculous gifts; but simply records what took place at Corinth, without expressing an opinion on it, reserving the censure of it till Co1 14:34-35. Even those women endowed with prophecy were designed to exercise their gift, rather in other times and places, than the public congregation. dishonoureth . . . head--in that she acts against the divine ordinance and the modest propriety that becomes her: in putting away the veil, she puts away the badge of her subjection to man, which is her true "honor"; for through him it connects her with Christ, the head of the man. Moreover, as the head-covering was the emblem of maiden modesty before man (Gen 24:65), and conjugal chastity (Gen 20:16); so, to uncover the head indicated withdrawal from the power of the husband, whence a suspected wife had her head uncovered by the priest (Num 5:18). ALFORD takes "her head" to be man, her symbolical, not her literal head; but as it is literal in the former clause, it must be so in the latter one. all one as if . . . shaven--As woman's hair is given her by nature, as her covering (Co1 11:15), to cut it off like a man, all admit, would be indecorous: therefore, to put away the head-covering, too, like a man, would be similarly indecorous. It is natural to her to have long hair for her covering: she ought, therefore, to add the other (the wearing of a head-covering) to show that she does of her own will that which nature itself teaches she ought to do, in token of her subjection to man.”

“If they are so weak in their hearing as not to be able to hear through a covering, I pity them. Let them know that the whole head constitutes "the woman." Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be encircled. For it is they which must be subjected, for the sake of which "power" ought to be "had on the head:" the veil is their yoke.”

“"But if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled." Thus, in the beginning he simply requires that the head be not bare: but as he proceeds he intimates both the continuance of the rule, saying, "for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven," and the keeping of it with all care and diligence. For he said not merely covered, but "covered over," meaning that she be carefully wrapped up on every side. And by reducing it to an absurdity, he appeals to their shame, saying by way of severe reprimand, "but if she be not covered, let her also be shorn." As if he had said, "If thou cast away the covering appointed by the law of God, cast away likewise that appointed by nature." But if any say, "Nay, how can this be a shame to the woman, if she mount up to the glory of the man?" we might make this answer; "She doth not mount up, but rather falls from her own proper honor." Since not to abide within our own limits and the laws ordained of God, but to go beyond, is not an addition but a diminution. For as he that desireth other men's goods and seizeth what is not his own, hath not gained any thing more, but is diminished, having lost even that which he had, (which kind of thing also happened in paradise:) so likewise the woman acquireth not the man's dignity, but loseth even the woman's decency which she had. And not from hence only is her shame and reproach, but also on account of her covetousness. Having taken then what was confessedly shameful, and having said, "but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven," he states in what follows his own conclusion, saying, "let her be covered." And he said not, "let her have long hair," but, "let her be covered," ordaining both these to be one, and establishing them both ways, from what was customary and from their contraries: in that he both affirms the covering and the hair to be one, and also that she again who is shaven is the same with her whose head is bare. "For it is one and the same thing," saith he, "as if she were shaven." But if any say, "And how is it one, if this woman have the covering of nature, but the other who is shaven have not even this?" we answer, that as far as her will goes, she threw that off likewise by having the head bare. And if it be not bare of tresses, that is nature's doing, not her own. So that as she who is shaven hath her head bare, so this woman in like manner. For this cause He left it to nature to provide her with a covering, that even of it she might learn this lesson and veil herself.”

“Secondly, he leads to something unacceptable, saying: For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair. As if to say: If she throws aside the artificial covering, let her for the same reason cast aside the natural covering; which is unacceptable. But against this seems to be the fact that nuns are shaved. To this there are two answers: first, because from the very fact that they take a vow of virginity or widowhood with Christ as their spouse, they are promoted to the dignity of men, being freed from subjection to men and joined to Christ Himself. Secondly, because they assume a garb of penance, when they enter religion. Now it is custom of men that in time of sorrow they take care of their hair. Hence it says in Jer (7:21): "Cut off your hair and cast it away, raise a lamentation on the bare heights." Thirdly, he concludes his proposition, saying: But if it is disgraceful, i.e., unbecoming, for a woman to be shorn or shaven, i.e., be deprived of her natural covering by art or by nature, let her wear a veil.”

“Therefore, too, the Lord demanded that the money should be shown Him, and inquired about the image, whose it was; and when He had heard it was Caesar's, said, "Render to Caesar what are Caesar's, and what are God's to God; "that is, the image of Caesar, which is on the coin, to Caesar, and the image of God, which is on man, to God; so as to render to Caesar indeed money, to God yourself.”

“And he asks what will be the appearance of the risen body, when this human form, as according to him useless, shall wholly disappear; since it is the most lovely of all things which are combined in living creatures, as being the form which the Deity Himself employs, as the most wise Paul explains: "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; "”

“Then he states also a cause, as one discoursing with those who are free: a thing which in many places I have remarked. What then is the cause? "For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God." This is again another cause. "Not only," so he speaks, "because he hath Christ to be His Head ought he not to cover the head, but because also he rules over the woman." For the ruler when he comes before the king ought to have the symbol of his rule. As therefore no ruler without military girdle and cloak, would venture to appear before him that hath the diadem: so neither do thou without the symbols of thy rule, (one of which is the not being covered,) pray before God, lest thou insult both thyself and Him that hath honored thee. And the same thing likewise one may say regarding the woman. For to her also is it a reproach, the not having the symbols of her subjection. "But the woman is the glory of the man." Therefore the rule of the man is natural.”

“[The Manichaeans say]: "The devil should not have been allowed to approach the woman." On the contrary, she should not have allowed the devil to approach her. She was made so that, if she were unwilling, she could have prevented his approach. Then they say: "Maybe the woman should not even have been made." This would be to admit that something good should not have been made. For there can be no doubt that the woman is good—so good that the apostle says that she is the glory of man and that all things are from God. .”

“From this we learn that man is not the image of God because of his soul or because of his body. If that were the case, woman would be the image of God in exactly the same way as man, because she too has a soul and a body. What we are talking about here is not nature but a relationship. For just as God has nobody over him in all creation, so man has no one over him in the natural world. But a woman does—she has man over her.”

“The first reason he put forward was that the man has Christ as his head, and therefore should not be covered. Now he presents another reason as well, that he is "the glory of God," that is, God's representative and His image. Therefore the representative of the authority of the King of all must appear before Him with the signs of this authority, that is, with an uncovered head. For it serves as a sign that the man is not subject to anyone on earth, but himself rules over all, as the image of God. That is, she is subject to her husband. Therefore she ought to appear with a sign of subjection, and such a sign is — to have her head covered.”

“Then when he says, For a man, he presents the second proof, which is taken from a comparison to God. First, he induces to the proof; secondly, he proves what he had supposed (v. 8). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he lays down the reason for that which is on man's part; secondly, on the woman's part (v. 7). First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn, just as it is for her not to be veiled; for a man, however, it is not disgraceful, the reason being that a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God. In saying that he is the image of God, the error is excluded of those who say that man is only made to the image of God, but is not the image; the opposite of which the Apostle says here. For they said that the Son alone is image, because it says in Col (1:15): "He is the image of the invisible God." Therefore, one must say that man is said to be the image of God and to His image. For he is an imperfect image, but the Son is said to be the image but not to the image, because He is the perfect image. To clarify this it should be noted that two things are generally involved in the notion of an image. First, a likeness, not in just any way, but in the very species of a thing, as a human son is similar to this father. Or in something which is a sign of the species, as the shape, in bodily things. Hence one who draws the shape of a horse is said to depict his image. And this is what Hilary says in the book, On Synods, that an image is an indifferent species. Secondly, origin is required. For one of two men who are similar in species is not the image of the other, unless he sprang from him, as a son from the father. Thirdly, the notion of a perfect image requires equality. Therefore, because man is similar to God in memory, intelligence and will, which pertain to the species of an intellectual nature and he has this from God, he is said to be God's image; but because equality is lacking, he is an imperfect image of God. For this reason he is said to be God's image, as in Gen (1:26): "Let us make man to our image and likeness." It should also be noted that the glory of God is spoken of in two ways: in one way the glory by which God is glorious in Himself; this is not how man is God's glory, but rather God is man's glory, according to Ps 3 (v. 3): "But thou, O Lord, art a shield about me, my glory." In another way the glory of God is His splendor derived from Him: "The glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle" (Ex 40:34). This is the way it says here that man is the glory of God, inasmuch as God's splendor shines on man, as it says in Ps 4 (v. 6): "The light of your countenance has been signed upon us, O Lord." Then when he says, but woman, he presents that which is on the part of the woman, saying: But woman is the glory of man, because, as it says in Gen (2:23): "She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man." Some object that because the image of God in man is regarded with respect to the spirit, in which there is no difference between male and female, as it says in Gal (3:28). Therefore, there is no more reason why man is called the image of God than a woman is. The answer is that man is here called the image of God in a special way, namely, because man is the principle of his entire race, as God is the principle of the entire universe and because from the side of Christ dying on the cross flowed the sacraments of blood and water, from which the Church has been organized. Furthermore, in regard to what is within, man is more especially called the image of God, inasmuch as reason is more vigorous in him. But it is better to say that the Apostle speaks clearly here. For he said of man that he is the image and glory of God; but he did not say of the woman that she is the image and glory of man, but only that she is the glory of the man. This gives us to understand that it is common to man and woman to be the image of God; but it is immediately characteristic of man to be the glory of God. We must consider why man should not veil his head, but the woman. This can be taken in two ways: first, because a veil put on the head designates the power of another over the head of a person existing in the order of nature. Therefore, the man existing under God should not have a covering over his head to show that he is immediately subject to God; but the woman should wear a covering to show that besides God she is naturally subject to another. Hence a stop is put to the objection about servant and subject, because this subjection is not natural. Secondly, to show that the glory of God should not be concealed but revealed; but man's glory is to be concealed. Hence it says in Ps. 113:9: "Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to thy name give the glory."”

“Argument, also, from man's more immediate relation to God, and the woman's to man. he is . . . image . . . glory of God--being created in God's "image," first and directly: the woman, subsequently, and indirectly, through the mediation of man. Man is the representative of God's "glory" this ideal of man being realized most fully in the Son of man (Psa 8:4-5; compare Co2 8:23). Man is declared in Scripture to be both the "image," and in the "likeness," of God (compare Jam 3:9). But "image" alone is applied to the Son of God (Col 1:15; compare Heb 1:3). "Express image," Greek, "the impress." The Divine Son is not merely "like" God, He is God of God, "being of one substance (essence) with the Father." [Nicene Creed]. woman . . . glory of . . . man--He does not say, also, "the image of the man." For the sexes differ: moreover, the woman is created in the image of God, as well as the man (Gen 1:26-27). But as the moon in relation to the sun (Gen 37:9), so woman shines not so much with light direct from God, as with light derived from man, that is, in her order in creation; not that she does not in grace come individually into direct communion with God; but even here much of her knowledge is mediately given her through man, on whom she is naturally dependent.”

“For a man ought not to cover his head, being the image and glory of God; thus expressly declaring that man was made for the glory of God, and, in accordance with this, calling him His image, as man alone is capable of knowing that there is one Creator of the universe, even God, who formed man as the only living creature in whose composition are found all the natural qualities.”

“For even if women among them [the Montanists] are appointed to the office of bishop and presbyter by appealing to Eve, they hear the Lord saying: "Your resort shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you." And the apostolic word has also escaped their notice: "I do not permit a woman to teach in such a way as to exercise authority over men. She is to preserve the virtue of quietness." And again, "For man is not from woman, but woman from man."”

“Then, having affirmed his point, he states again other reasons and causes also, leading thee to the first creation, and saying thus: "For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man." But if to be of any one, is a glory to him of whom one is, much more the being an image of him. "For neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man." This is again a second superiority, nay, rather also a third, and a fourth, the first being, that Christ is the head of us, and we of the woman; a second, that we are the glory of God, but the woman of us; a third, that we are not of the woman, but she of us; a fourth, that we are not for her, but she for us.”

“He sets forth the reasons why the husband has preeminence over the wife, namely: the wife was created from his rib, and he was not created for her, but she for him. For it is said: "Let us make him a helper" (Gen. 2:18). How then should the husband cover himself, when he has been so honored by God? In that case he would seize for himself a woman's garment, and would do the same as if, having received a diadem, he cast it from his head and put on the clothing of a slave.”

“Having stated that the woman is the glory of man, the Apostle now prepares to prove it. In regard to this he does three things: first, he presents the proof; secondly, he assigns a reason for what he had said (v. 9); thirdly, he draws the conclusion intended (v. 10). In regard to the first it should be noted that, as was stated above, the woman is called the glory of man through something derived. Consequently, to prove this he says: For man in the original condition of things was not made from woman, but woman from man. For it says in Gen (2:22): "And the rib from with the Lord God had taken from the man He made into a woman." About man it is said that "The Lord formed man of dust from the ground" (Gen 2:7).”

“is of . . . of--takes his being from ("out of") . . . from: referring to woman's original creation, "taken out of man" (compare Gen 2:23). The woman was made by God mediately through the man, who was, as it were, a veil or medium placed between her and God, and therefore, should wear the veil or head-covering in public worship, in acknowledgement of this subordination to man in the order of creation. The man being made immediately by God as His glory, has no veil between himself and God [FABER STAPULENSIS in BENGEL].”

“Since then he is the image of the Creator (for He, when looking on Christ His Word, who was to become man, said, "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness" ), how can I possibly have another head but Him whose image I am? For if I am the image of the Creator there is no room in me for another head But wherefore "ought the woman to have power over her head, because of the angels? " If it is because "she was created for the man," and taken out of the man, according to the Creator's purpose, then in this way too has the apostle maintained the discipline of that God from whose institution he explains the reasons of His discipline.”

“Then when he says, Neither, he assigns the reason for what he had said. To understand this it should be noted that the order of the perfect and of the imperfect is such that in one and the same subject the imperfect precedes the perfect in the order of time. For one is a boy, before he is a man. Absolutely speaking, however, the perfect precedes the imperfect in the order of time and of nature. For a boy is produced from the man. This, therefore, is the reason why the woman was produced from the man, because he is more perfect than the woman, which the Apostle proves from the fact that the end is more perfect than that which is for the end; but man is the woman's end. And this is what he says: For man was not created for woman, but woman for the sake of man, as a helper, namely, in reproduction, as the patient is for the sake of the agent and matter for the sake of form: "It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a helper like unto him" (Gen 2:18).”

“Neither--rather, "For also"; Another argument: The immediate object of woman's creation. "The man was not created for the sake of the woman; but the woman for the sake of the man" (Gen 2:18, Gen 2:21-22). Just as the Church, the bride, is made for Christ; and yet in both the natural and the spiritual creations, the bride, while made for the bridegroom, in fulfilling that end, attains her own true "glory," and brings "shame" and "dishonor" on herself by any departure from it (Co1 11:4, Co1 11:6).”

“Again, the coming of the Saviour with His attendants to Achamoth is declared in like manner by him in the same Epistle, when he says, "A woman ought to have a veil upon her head, because of the angels." Now, that Achamoth, when the Saviour came to her, drew a veil over herself through modesty, Moses rendered manifest when he put a veil upon his face.”

“"For this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head" "For this cause:" what cause, tell me? "For all these which have been mentioned," saith he; or rather not for these only, but also "because of the angels." "For although thou despise thine husband," saith he, "yet reverence the angels." It follows that being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. For it induces her to look down and be ashamed and preserve entire her proper virtue. For the virtue and honor of the governed is to abide in his obedience. Again: the man is not compelled to do this; for he is the image of his Lord: but the woman is; and that reasonably. Consider then the excess of the transgression when being honored with so high a prerogative, thou puttest thyself to shame, seizing the woman's dress. And thou doest the same as if having received a diadem, thou shouldest cast the diadem from thy head, and instead of it take a slave's garment.”

“For this reason, he says, the wife ought to have a sign of her subordination, that is, if nothing else, then a covering on her head, out of reverence before the angels, so as not to appear shameless even before them. For just as by covering her head and lowering her eyes downward a wife demonstrates her respectfulness and faithfulness to her subordinate position, so by an uncovered head she displays shamelessness, from which even the angels who attend the faithful turn away. Clement, however, the author of the book "Stromateis," understood by angels quite subtly the righteous men of the Church. A wife, he says, ought to be covered, so as not to tempt them into fornication.”

“Then when he says, That is why, he draws the intended conclusion, saying: That is why, namely, because man is the image and glory of God, but woman the glory of man, a woman ought to have a veil on her head, when she places herself before God by praying or prophesying. In this way it is shown that she is not immediately under God, but is also subjected to man under God. For the veil put on the head signifies this. Hence another translation has it that the woman ought to have power over her head, but the sense is the same. For a veil is a sign of power, according to Ps 66 (v. 4): "Thou didst let men ride over our heads." Then when he says, because of the angels, he gives a third reason, which is taken on the part of the angels, saying: A woman ought to have a veil on her head because of the angels. This can be understood in two ways: in one way about the heavenly angels who are believed to visit congregations of the faithful, especially when the sacred mysteries are celebrated. And therefore at that time women as well as men ought to present themselves honorably and ordinately as reverence to them according to Ps 138 (v. 1): "Before the angels I sing thy praise." In another way it can be understood in the sense that priests are called angels, inasmuch as proclaim divine things to the people according to Mal (2:7): "For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the angel of the Lord of hosts." Therefore, the woman should always have a covering over her head because of the angels, i.e., the priests, for two reasons: first, as reverence toward them, to which it pertains that women should behave honorably before them. Hence it says in Sir (7:30): "With all your might love your maker and do not forsake his priests." Secondly, for their safety, lest the sight of a woman not veiled excite their concupiscence. Hence it says in Sir (9:5): "Do not look intently at a virgin, lest you stumble and incur penalties for her." Augustine explains the above in another way. For he shows that both man and woman are made to the image of God, according to what is said in Eph (4:23): "Be renewed in the spirit of your minds and put on the new man created after the likeness of God according to the image of him who created him," where considered according to the spirit, in which there is no difference between male and female; consequently, the woman is the image of God, just as the male. For it is expressly stated in Gen (1:27) that "God created man to his own image, male and female he created them." Therefore, Augustine says that this must be understood in a spiritual union, which is in our soul, in which the sensibility or even the lower reason has itself after the manner of the woman, but the superior reason after the manner of the man, in whom the image of God is considered to be. And according to this the woman is from the man and for the sake of the man, because the administration of temporal or sensible things, in which the lower reason or even the sensibility is adept, ought to be deduced from the contemplation of eternal things, which pertain to the higher reason and is ordained to it. Therefore, the woman is said to have a veil or power over her own head, in order to signify that in regard to dispensing temporal things man should apply a certain restraint, lest he transgress the limits in loving them. This restraint should not be applied to the love of God, since it is commanded in Dt (6:5): "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart." For no limit is placed in regard to loving the end, although one is placed in regard to the means to the end. For a doctor produces as much health as he can, but he does not give as much medicine as he can, but in a definite amount. Thus a man should not have a covering on his head. And this on account of the angels, because, as is said in a Gloss: "Sacred and pious signification is pleasing to the holy angels." Hence Augustine also says in The City of God, that the demons are attracted by certain sensible things, not as animals to food but as spirits to signs.”

“power on her head--the kerchief: French couvre chef, head-covering, the emblem of "power on her head"; the sign of her being under man's power, and exercising delegated authority under him. Paul had before his mind the root-connection between the Hebrew terms for "veil" (radid), and "subjection" (radad). because of the angels--who are present at our Christian assemblies (compare Psa 138:1, "gods," that is, angels), and delight in the orderly subordination of the several ranks of God's worshippers in their respective places, the outward demeanor and dress of the latter being indicative of that inward humility which angels know to be most pleasing to their common Lord (Co1 4:9; Eph 3:10; Ecc 5:6). HAMMOND quotes CHRYSOSTOM, "Thou standest with angels; thou singest with them; thou hymnest with them; and yet dost thou stand laughing?" BENGEL explains, "As the angels are in relation to God, so the woman is in relation to man. God's face is uncovered; angels in His presence are veiled (Isa 6:2). Man's face is uncovered; woman in His presence is to be veiled. For her not to be so, would, by its indecorousness, offend the angels (Mat 18:10, Mat 18:31). She, by her weakness, especially needs their ministry; she ought, therefore, to be the more careful not to offend them."”

“Be not ashamed of servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them. Do not hold women in abomination, for they have given thee birth, and brought thee up. It is fitting, therefore, to love those that were the authors of our birth (but only in the Lord), inasmuch as a man can produce no children without a woman. It is right, therefore, that we should honour those who have had a part in giving us birth. "Neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man," except in the case of those who were first formed. For the body of Adam was made out of the four elements, and that of Eve out of the side of Adam. And, indeed, the altogether peculiar birth of the Lord was of a virgin alone. [This took place] not as if the lawful union [of man and wife] were abominable, but such a kind of birth was fitting to God. For it became the Creator not to make use of the ordinary method of generation, but of one that was singular and strange, as being the Creator.”

“"Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord." Thus, because he had given great superiority to the man, having said that the woman is of him and for him and under him; that he might neither lift up the men more than was due nor depress the women, see how he brings in the correction, saying, "Howbeit neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord." "Examine not, I pray," saith he, "the first things only, and that creation. Since if thou enquire into what comes after, each one of the two is the cause of the other; or rather not even thus each of the other, but God of all." Wherefore he saith, "neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord." "For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman." He said not, "of the woman," but he repeats the expression, "of the man." For still this particular prerogative remains entire with the man. Yet are not these excellencies the property of the man, but of God. Wherefore also he adds, "but all things of God." If therefore all things belong to God, and he commands these things, do thou obey and gainsay not.”

“However, he says this because he gave more preeminence to the husband, having proved that the wife is from him, and for him, and under his authority. Lest he exalt husbands beyond what is proper, and humiliate wives, he says that in the original creation the wife was indeed made from the husband, but now the husband also is not born without the wife. Nevertheless, "in the Lord," that is, God does all things, and gives life to the seed and strengthens the womb.”

“Then when he says, Nevertheless, he excludes a doubt which could arise from these statements. For because he had said that man is God's glory and the woman man's glory, someone might believe either that the woman was not from God or that she should not have power in grace. Hence he excludes the first, saying: although the woman is the glory of man, who is the glory of God, nevertheless, neither the man is in the Lord, i.e., produced by the Lord, without the woman nor the woman without the man; Or in another way: neither the man is without the woman in the Lord, namely, in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor the woman without the man, because both are saved by God's grace, according to Gal (3:27): "For as many of you as were baptized have put on Christ," and then he adds: "There is neither male nor female," namely, differing in the grace of Christ.”

“Yet neither sex is insulated and independent of the other in the Christian life [ALFORD]. The one needs the other in the sexual relation; and in respect to Christ ("in the Lord"), the man and the woman together (for neither can be dispensed with) realize the ideal of redeemed humanity represented by the bride, the Church.”

“Concerning the male and female sexes, what has the son of perdition to say? That the two sexes are not from God but from the devil? What has the vessel of election to say about this? "For as the woman is from the man, so also is the man through the woman— but all things are from God." What does the devil say through the mouths of the Manichaeans about the flesh? That it is an evil substance, a creature not of God but of the enemy.”

“The wife, he says, is from the husband. For until now the husband retains that distinction, that the wife is from him. And "the husband through the wife," that is, the wife serves in the bearing of a person, but the greater action lies in the seed. Therefore, of the husband it cannot be said in full strictness that he is "from" the wife, but "from" his father "through" the wife, as one who served in the bearing. But concerning the Lord, Paul did not speak thus, but: "born of (ἐκ) a woman" (Gal. 4:4). He was afraid to use the preposition διά, lest he give heretics occasion to say that the Lord passed through the Virgin as through a channel — or because no husband participated in His birth, but He was the fruit of the womb of Her alone. This perfection is not of the husband, but of God. If everything is accomplished by the power of God, and He Himself established the order of relations between husbands and wives, then do not argue, but obey.”

“Secondly, he assigns the reason, saying: For as in the first condition of things, woman was formed from the man, so in subsequent generations man was produced through woman, as Job says: "Man born of a woman" (Jb 14:1). For the first production of man took place without man or woman, when "God formed man from the dust of the earth" (Gen 2:7). The second was from man without the woman, when He formed Eve from Adam's rib, as it says in the same place. But the third is from man and woman, as Abel was born from Adam and Eve, as it says in Gen (4:2). But the fourth was from the woman without the man, as Christ from the virgin, as it says in Gal (4:4): "God sent forth his Son born of woman." Thirdly, he shows that the reason is apt, saying: And all things are from God, namely, because even the fact that the woman was first from the man, and afterwards man is from the woman, is the result of God's action. Hence both man and woman pertain to God. Hence it says in Rom (11:36): "For from him and through him and in him are all things."”

“"Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God veiled?" Again he places them as judges of the things said, which also he did respecting the idol-sacrifices. For as there he saith, "judge ye what I say:" so here, "judge in yourselves:" and he hints something more awful here. For he says that the affront here passes on unto God: although thus indeed he doth not express himself, but in something of a milder and more enigmatical form of speech: "is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled?"”

“Then when he says, Judge for yourselves, he submits to his bearers' judgment the things he had said. In regard to this he does two things: first, he submits the judgment to his rational hearers; secondly, he subdues the impudent ones. In regard to the first he does four things: first, he submits to his hearers to judge what he had said, after the manner of one who is confident that he has sufficiently proved his point, saying: Judge for yourselves. For it pertains to a good hearer to judge what is heard. Hence it says in Jb (6:29): "Judge, speaking what is just" and in (12:11): "Does not the ear judge words?" Secondly, he proposes in the form of a question that about which they should judge, saying: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? This is forbidden in 1 Pt (3:3): "Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair."”

“The Word prohibits us from doing violence to nature by boring the lobes of the ears. For why not the nose too?-so that, what was spoken, may be fulfilled: "As an ear-ring in a swine's nose, so is beauty to a woman without discretion." For, in a word, if one thinks himself made beautiful by gold, he is inferior to gold; and he that is inferior to gold is not lord of it. But to confess one's self less ornamental than the Lydian ore, how monstrous!”

“If you demand a divine law, you have that common one prevailing all over the world, written on the tablets of nature, to which also St. Paul is accustomed to appeal. Thus he says concerning the veiling of women: "Does not nature teach you this?" Again, in saying in his letter to the Romans that the Gentiles do by nature what the law prescribes, he hints at the existence of natural law and a nature founded on law.”

“"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor unto him?" "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her for a covering." His constant practice of stating commonly received reasons he adopts also in this place, betaking himself to the common custom, and greatly abashing those who waited to be taught these things from him, which even from men's ordinary practice they might have learned. For such things are not unknown even to Barbarians: and see how he every where deals in piercing expressions: "every man praying having his head covered dishonoreth his head;" and again, "but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled:" and here again, "if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him; but if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering." "And if it be given her for a covering," say you, "wherefore need she add another covering?" That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection. For that thou oughtest to be covered nature herself by anticipation enacted a law. Add now, I pray, thine own part also, that thou mayest not seem to subvert the very laws of nature; a proof of most insolent rashness, to buffet not only with us, but with nature also. This is why God accusing the Jews said, "Thou hast slain thy sons and thy daughters: this is beyond all thy abominations." And again, Paul rebuking the unclean among the Romans thus aggravates the accusation, saying, that their usage was not only against the law of God, but even against nature. "For they changed the natural use into that which is against nature." For this cause then here also he employs this argument signifying this very thing, both that he is not enacting any strange law and that among Gentiles their inventions would all be reckoned as a kind of novelty against nature. So also Christ, implying the same, said, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye also so them;" showing that He is not introducing any thing new.”

“What is the reason, I wonder, why men wear their hair long contrary to the precept of the apostle? Is it to furnish greater leisure to the barbers? Or is it because they wish to imitate the birds of the gospel? Maybe they fear being plucked so that they might be unable to fly? I refrain from saying more concerning this habit, because of certain long-haired brothers whom, in almost all other respects, we hold in high esteem. But in proportion as we love them the more in Christ, to that degree do we advise them the more earnestly.”

“How is it not a dishonor for a man to grow long hair, when through this he takes on the appearance of a woman and, being appointed for dominion, takes on the sign of subjection? But for a woman, growing long hair is an honor, because she preserves in this case her own rank, and the preservation of one's rank is an honor for everyone. Then why is it necessary to put on yet another covering, if the hair serves as a garment? In order to express her subjection not by nature alone, but also by free choice.”

“Thirdly, he shows whence they should derive their judgment, namely, from nature itself; and this is what he says: Does not nature itself teach you? By "nature" he means the "natural inclination" in women to take care of their hair, which is a natural covering, but not in men. This inclination is shown to be natural, because it is found in the majority. But it is taught by nature, because it is a work of God; just as in a picture one is instructed about the skill of the artist. Therefore, Isaiah (24:5) says against certain people: "They have transgressed the law, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant," i.e., the natural law. Fourthly, he takes a reason from nature: first, he presents that which is on the part of the man, saying: That for a man to wear long hair like a woman is degrading to him. The majority of men regard this as degrading, because it makes the man seem feminine. Therefore, it says in Ez (44:20): "They shall not let their locks grow long." It is no argument that some in the Old Law grew long hair, because this was a sign presented in the reading of the Old Testament, as it says in 2 Cor (3:14).”

“But additions of other people's hair are entirely to be rejected, and it is a most sacrilegious thing for spurious hair to shade the head, covering the skull with dead locks. For on whom does the presbyter lay his hand? Whom does he bless? Not the woman decked out, but another's hair, and through them another head. And if "the man is head of the woman, and God of the man," how is it not impious that they should fall into double sins? For they deceive the men by the excessive quantity of their hair; and shame the Lord as far as in them lies, by adorning themselves meretriciously, in order to dissemble the truth. And they defame the head, which is truly beautiful.”

“Secondly, he presents that which is on the part of the woman, saying: But if a woman has long hair, it is her glory, because it seems to pertain to her adornment. Hence it says in S. of S. (7:5): "Your flowing locks are like purple." Then he assigns the reason when he says: For her hair is given her for a covering. Consequently, the same reason applies to growing long hair and to wearing an artificial covering: "Your hair is like a flock of goats" (S. of S. 4:1).”

“Why do we partly acknowledge the definition of the apostle, as absolute with regard to "every man," without entering upon disquisitions as to why he has not withal named the boy; but partly prevaricate, though it is equally absolute with regard to "every woman? ""If any," he says, "is contentious, we have not such a custom, nor (has) the Church of God." He shows that there had been some contention about this point; for the extinction whereof he uses the whole compendiousness (of language): not naming the virgin, on the one hand, in order to show that there is to be no doubt about her veiling; and, on the other hand, naming "every woman," whereas he would have named the virgin (had the question been confined to her).”

“For what is there either in peace so suitable, or in a war of persecution so necessary, as to maintain the due severity of the divine rigour? Which he who resists, will of necessity wander in the unsteady course of affairs, and will be tossed hither and thither by the various and uncertain storms of things; and the helm of counsel being, as it were, wrenched from his hands he will drive the ship of the Church's safety among the rocks; so that it would appear that the Church's safety can be no otherwise secured, than by repelling any who set themselves against it as adverse waves, and by maintaining the ever-guarded rule of discipline itself as if it were the rudder of safety in the tempest. Nor is it now but lately that this counsel has been considered by us, nor have these sudden appliances against the wicked but recently occurred to us; but this is read of among us as the ancient severity, the ancient faith, the ancient discipline, since the apostle would not have published such praise concerning us, when he said "that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world" unless already from thence that vigour had borrowed the roots of faith from those times; from which praise and glory it is a very great crime to have become degenerate. For it is less disgrace never to have attained to the heraldry of praise, than to have fallen from the height of praise; it is a smaller crime not to have been honoured with a good testimony, than to have lost the honour of good testimonies; it is less discredit to have lain without the announcement of virtues, ignoble without praise, than, disinherited of the faith, to have lost our proper praises. For those things which are proclaimed to the glory of any one, unless they are maintained by anxious and careful pains, swell up into the odium of the greatest crime.”

“"But if any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God." It is then contentiousness to oppose these things, and not any exercise of reason. Notwithstanding, even thus it is a measured sort of rebuke which he adopts, to fill them the more with self-reproach; which in truth rendered his saying the more severe. "For we," saith he, "have no such custom," so as to contend and to strive and to oppose ourselves. And he stopped not even here, but also added, "neither the Churches of God;" signifying that they resist and oppose themselves to the whole world by not yielding. However, even if the Corinthians were then contentious, yet now the whole world hath both received and kept this law. So great is the power of the Crucified.”

“Truly, to contradict in such matters is a thing of contentiousness, not of reflection and understanding. Since perhaps the Corinthians, wishing to philosophize, launched into arguments to prove the indifference of this matter, the apostle says that we have no such custom, that is, either to argue, or for a man to grow his hair long, or for a woman not to cover herself; "nor" the other "churches." Therefore you are opposing not us alone, but also the entire Church. This should show the listeners — to do nothing beyond the apostolic custom.”

“Then when he says, If anyone, he silences the impudent hearers, saying: If anyone is disposed to be contentious and not acquiesce in the above reason but would attack the truth with confident clamoring, which pertains to contentiousness, as Ambrose says, contrary to Jb (6:29): "Respond, I pray, without contentiousness"; (Pr 20:3): "It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife." Let this suffice, then, to silence them that we Jews believing in Christ do not have such a practice, namely, of women praying with their heads uncovering, nor do the churches of God dispersed among the Gentiles. Hence if there were no reason, this alone should suffice, that no one should act against the common custom of the Church: "He makes those of one outlook to dwell in their house" (Ps 68:7). Hence Augustine says: "In all cases in which Sacred Scripture has defined nothing definite, the customs of the people of God and the edicts of superiors must be regarded as the law."”

“A summary close to the argument by appeal to the universal custom of the churches. if any . . . seem--The Greek also means "thinks" (fit) (compare Mat 3:9). If any man chooses (still after all my arguments) to be contentious. If any be contentious and thinks himself right in being so. A reproof of the Corinthians' self-sufficiency and disputatiousness (Co1 1:20). we--apostles: or we of the Jewish nation, from whom ye have received the Gospel, and whose usages in all that is good ye ought to follow: Jewish women veiled themselves when in public, according to TERTULLIAN [ESTIUS]. The former explanation is best, as the Jews are not referred to in the context: but he often refers to himself and his fellow apostles, by the expression, "we--us" (Co1 4:9-10). no such custom--as that of women praying uncovered. Not as CHRYSOSTOM, "that of being contentious." The Greek term implies a usage, rather than a mental habit (Joh 18:39). The usage of true "churches (plural: not, as Rome uses it, 'the Church,' as an abstract entity; but 'the churches,' as a number of independent witnesses) of God" (the churches which God Himself recognizes), is a valid argument in the case of external rites, especially, negatively, for example, Such rites were not received among them, therefore, ought not to be admitted among us: but in questions of doctrine, or the essentials of worship, the argument is not valid [SCLATER] (Co1 7:17; Co1 14:33). neither--nor yet. Catholic usage is not an infallible test of truth, but a general test of decency.”

“IT is necessary in considering the present charge to state also first the occasion of it. For thus again will our discourse be more intelligible. What then is this occasion? As in the case of the three thousand who believed in the beginning, all had eaten their meals in common and had all things common; such also was the practice at the time when the Apostle wrote this: not such indeed exactly; but as it were a certain outflowing of that communion which abode among them descended also to them that came after. And because of course some were poor, but others rich, they laid not down all their goods in the midst, but made the tables open on stated days, as it should seem; and when the solemn service was completed, after the communion of the Mysteries, they all went to a common entertainment, the rich bringing their provisions with them, and the poor and destitute being invited by them, and all feasting in common. But afterward this custom also became corrupt. And the reason was, their being divided and addicting themselves, some to this party, and others to that, and saying, "I am of such a one," and "I of such a one;" which thing also to correct he said in the beginning of the Epistle, "For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them which are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas." Not that Paul was the person to whom they were attaching themselves; for he would not have borne it: but wishing by concession to tear up this custom from the root, he introduced himself, indicating that if any one had inscribed upon himself even his name when breaking off from the common body, even so the thing done was profane and extreme wickedness. And if in his case it were wickedness, much more in the case of those who were inferior to him. Since therefore this custom was broken through, a custom most excellent and most useful; (for it was a foundation of love, and a comfort to poverty, and a corrective of riches, and an occasion of the highest philosophy, and an instruction of humility:) since however he saw so great advantages in a way to be destroyed, he naturally addresses them with severity, thus saying: "But in giving you this charge, I praise you not." For in the former charge, as there were many who kept (the ordinances), he began otherwise, saying thus: "Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things:" but here contrariwise, "But in giving you this charge, I praise you not." And here is the reason why he placed it not after the rebuke of them that eat the idol-sacrifices. But because that was unusually harsh he interposes the discourse about wearing of long hair, that he might not have to pass from one set of vehement reproofs to others again of an invidious kind and so appear too harsh: and then he returns to the more vehement tone, and says, "But in giving you this charge, I praise you not." What is this? That which I am about to tell you of. What is, "giving you this charge, I praise you not?" "I do not approve you," saith he, "because ye have reduced me to the necessity of giving advice: I do not praise you, because ye have required instruction in regard to this, because ye have need of an admonition from me." Dost thou perceive how from his beginning he signifieth that what was done was very profane? For when he that errs ought not to require so much as a hint to prevent his erring, the error would seem to be unpardonable. And why dost thou not praise? Because "ye come together," saith he, "not for the better but for the worse;" i.e., because ye do not go forward unto virtue. For it were meet that your liberality should increase and become manifold, but ye have taken rather from the custom which already prevailed, and have so taken from it as even to need warning from me, in order that ye may return to the former order. Further, that he might not seem to say these things on account of the poor only, he doth not at once strike in to the discourse concerning the tables, lest he render his rebuke such as they might easily come to think slightly of, but he searches for an expression most confounding and very fearful.”

“As the first believers, having all things in common, ate at a common table, so in imitation of them, though imperfectly, on certain appointed days, perhaps feast days, in Corinth after partaking of the Mysteries a common meal was offered: the wealthy brought provisions, and the poor were invited and treated by them. But through division this wonderful, friendly, and love-of-wisdom custom was perverted and was not observed by all. To correct this, Paul writes; and since in rebuking the fault mentioned before this, he had many who were obedient, he said: "I praise you" (1 Cor. 11:2); but as in the present case the matter stood otherwise, he says: "in giving you this charge, I praise you not," that is, I do not praise you because I am again instructing you and urging upon you that which I intend to speak about. You ought by your own understanding neither to sin at all nor to compel exhortation. You ought to have been progressing toward the better and making your gatherings more generous, but you have diminished even the custom that had already prevailed, and although you come together in one church, it is not in order to eat together. This is what is very bad, that is, that you have changed for the worse.”

“After reproaching the Corinthians for their error in covering, namely, because the women came to the sacred mysteries with their head uncovered, the Apostle then argues against their error about factions in the assembly, because while they gathered for the sacred mysteries, they spent their time in contentions. First, he touches on their shortcoming in general; secondly, in particular (v. 18). First, therefore, he says: But this, which was stated above, namely, that women should be veiled in church, I command, in order that he might thus induce them to this observance in three ways. First, indeed, by reason; secondly, by custom; thirdly, by command, which should persuade them without the other two: "Keep my commandments and you shall live" (Pr 4:4); "A three-ply cord is not quickly broken" (Ec 4:12). I do not praise but censure you, because you come together into the church not for the better, as it should be, but for the worse through your fault. For all gregarious animals, for example, doves, cranes, cows, each form one group by natural instinct, in order that things be better for them in a bodily way. Hence man, too, being a gregarious or social animal, as the Philosopher proves in Politics I, should act according to reason, so that many form one group for their betterment, just as in secular affairs many come together to form the unity of a city; so that it is better for them in a worldly way, namely, because of the security and sufficiency of life. Therefore, believers should come together into a unity for some better spiritual things according to Ps 102 (v. 22): "When people gather together and kings, to worship the Lord"; "In the counsel and congregation of the just the works of the Lord are great" (Ps 111:1). But they came together for the worse on account of the sins they committed, when they assembled: "I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly" (Is 1:13); "An assembly of the wicked is like two gathered together" (Sir 21:9).”

“Now this I ordain, &c. St. Paul found that several abuses had crept in among the Corinthians at their Church meetings, where before the holy mysteries (though St. Chrysostom thinks after them) they used to have those charitable suppers, called the Agape. For as our Saviour eat first a common supper with his apostles, before he instituted the holy sacrament, so the Christians in many places brought meats with them, and eat a supper together, in token of that friendship and union, which they had with all their brethren, before they began to celebrate the holy mysteries. It is this supper, which according to the common interpretation St. Paul here (ver. 20.) calls the Lord’s supper, [3] (though St. Augustine and some others by the Lord’s supper, understand the holy sacrament itself of Christ’s body and blood.) The apostle tells them, he hears there are divisions among them at their meetings, which he says will happen, as there must be also heresies, which God permits, that they who are approved, may be made manifest, that is, that on such occasions, the just may shew their fidelity and constancy in their duty to God. The apostle tells them, that it is not now to eat the Lord’s supper, that is, there were such abuses among them, that it was not now to imitate the supper, which Christ made with his apostles, or, according to the exposition of St. Augustine, this was not becoming persons, who, before the end of their meetings, were to partake of the divine mysteries. (Witham)”

“in this--which follows. I declare--rather, "I enjoin"; as the Greek is always so used. The oldest manuscripts read literally "This I enjoin (you) not praising (you)." that--inasmuch as; in that you, &c. Here he qualifies his praise (Co1 11:2). "I said that I praised you for keeping the ordinances delivered to you; but I must now give injunction in the name of the Lord, on a matter in which I praise you not; namely, as to the Lord's Supper (Co1 11:23; Co1 14:37). not for the better--not so as to progress to what is better. for the worse--so as to retrograde to what is worse. The result of such "coming together" must be "condemnation" (Co1 11:34).”

“For he shows us that it was owing to the prospect of the greater evil that he readily believed the existence of the lighter ones; and so far indeed was he from believing, in respect of evils (of such a kind), that heresies were good, that his object was to forewarn us that we ought not to be surprised at temptations of even a worse stamp, since (he said) they tended "to make manifest all such as were approved; " in other words, those whom they were unable to pervert.”

“"For first of all, when ye come together in the Church, I hear that divisions exist among you." And he saith not, "For fear that you do not sup together in common;" "for I hear that you feast in private, and not with the poor:" but what was most calculated thoroughly to shake their minds, that he set down, the name of division, which was the cause of this mischief also: and so he reminded them again of that which was said in the beginning of the Epistle, and was "signified by them of the house of Chloe." "And I partly believe it." Thus, lest they should say, "But what if the accusers speak falsely?" he neither saith, "I believe it," lest he should rather make them reckless; nor again, on the other hand, "I disbelieve it," lest he should seem to reprove without cause, but, "I partly believe it," saith he, i.e., "I believe it in a small part;" making them anxious and inviting them to return to correction.”

“Not immediately does he begin speaking about the meals, but first reproaches them for the fact that there are divisions among them. For indeed, it was precisely because there were divisions among them that each one ate separately. So that they would not say that those who slander us are lying, he said neither "I believe," lest he make them more shameless, nor "I do not believe," lest he appear a groundless accuser, but: I partly believe. And indeed it is likely that not all violated this custom, but a "part," that is, some.”

“Then when he says, For in the first place, he mentions in detail how they assemble for the worse. First, he presents a judgment of guilt, saying: For in the first place, among others, namely, that you come together for the worse, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, namely, through contentions, which they practiced. This by no means is suited to the church, which is established in unity, as it says in Eph (4:4): "There is one body and one spirit, just as you were called to one hope that belongs to your call." But his was predicted: "You saw that the breaches of the city of David were many" (Is 22:9). But a Gloss says: "By saying, first of all, he shows that the first evil is dissension, from which all the rest arise. For where there is dissension, nothing is right." But this seems to be opposed by the following statements: "The beginning of every sin is pride" (Sir 9:15) and "The love of money is the root of all evils" (1 Tim 6:10). But it must be said that these authorities speak in regard to personal sins of individual men, the first of which is pride on the part of aversion and greed for money on the part of conversion. But the Gloss here speaks about the sins of the multitude, among which the first is dissension, by which the reign of discipline is weakened. Hence it says in Jas (3:16): "Where jealousy and contention exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice."”

“first of all--In the first place. The "divisions" (Greek, "schisms") meant, are not merely those of opinion (Co1 1:10), but in outward acts at the love-feasts (AgapÃ&brvbr), (Co1 11:21). He does not follow up the expression, "in the first place," by "in the second place." But though not expressed, a second abuse was in his mind when he said, "In the first place," namely, THE ABUSE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS, which also created disorder in their assemblies [ALFORD], (Co1 12:1; Co1 14:23, Co1 14:26, Co1 14:33, Co1 14:40). in the church--not the place of worship; for ISIDORE OF PELUSIUM denies that there were such places specially set apart for worship in the apostles' times [Epistle, 246.2]. But, "in the assembly" or "congregation"; in convocation for worship, where especially love, order, and harmony should prevail. The very ordinance instituted for uniting together believers in one body, was made an occasion of "divisions" (schisms). partly--He hereby excepts the innocent. "I am unwilling to believe all I hear, but some I cannot help believing" [ALFORD]: while my love is unaffected by it [BENGEL].”

“And Trypho said, "I believe, however, that many of those who say that they confess Jesus, and are called Christians, eat meats offered to idols, and declare that they are by no means injured in consequence." And I replied, "The fact that there are such men confessing themselves to be Christians, and admitting the crucified Jesus to be both Lord and Christ, yet not teaching His doctrines, but those of the spirits of error, causes us who are disciples of the true and pure doctrine of Jesus Christ, to be more faithful and stedfast in the hope announced by Him. For what things He predicted would take place in His name, these we do see being actually accomplished in our sight. For he said, 'Many shall come in My name, clothed outwardly in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.'" And, 'There shall be schisms and heresies.' And, 'Beware of false prophets, who shall come to you clothed outwardly in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.' And, 'Many false Christs and false apostles shall arise, and shall deceive many of the faithful.' There are, therefore, and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things; and these are called by us after the name of the men from whom each doctrine and opinion had its origin.”

“Further, it is said that it is on account of "those that are approved that heresies exist." The apostle calls "approved," either those who in reaching faith apply to the teaching of the Lord with some discrimination (as those are called skilful money-changers, who distinguish the spurious coin from the genuine by the false stamp), or those who have already become approved both in life and knowledge.”

“The character of the times in which we live is such as to call forth from us even this admonition, that we ought not to be astonished at the heresies (which abound) neither ought their existence to surprise us, for it was foretold that they should come to pass; nor the fact that they subvert the faith of some, for their final cause is, by affording a trial to faith, to give it also the opportunity of being "approved." Groundless, therefore, and inconsiderate is the offence of the many who are scandalized by the very fact that heresies prevail to such a degree.”

“A lengthened conflict, then, having been maintained concerning all heresies by us who, at all events, have not left any unrefuted, the greatest struggle now remains behind, viz., to furnish an account and refutation of those heresies that have sprung up in our own day, by which certain ignorant and presumptuous men have attempted to scatter abroad the Church, and have introduced the greatest confusion among all the faithful throughout the entire world. For it seems expedient that we, making an onslaught upon the opinion which constitutes the prime source of (contemporaneous) evils, should prove what are the originating principles of this (opinion), in order that its offshoots, becoming a matter of general notoriety, may be made the object of universal scorn.”

“Hence heresies not only have frequently been originated, but continue to be so; while the perverted mind has no peace-while a discordant faithlessness does not maintain unity. But the Lord permits and suffers these things to be, while the choice of one's own liberty remains, so that while the discrimination of truth is testing our hearts and our minds, the sound faith of those that are approved may shine forth with manifest light. The Holy Spirit forewarns and says by the apostle, "It is needful also that there should be heresies, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." Thus the faithful are approved, thus the perfidious are detected; thus even here, before the day of judgment, the souls of the righteous and of the unrighteous are already divided, and the chaff is separated from the wheat.”

“Before all things, it is befitting that we should know both that He Himself and His ambassadors foretold that there must be numerous sects and heresies, which would break the unity of the sacred body; and that they admonished us to be on our guard with the greatest prudence, lest we should at any time fall into the snares and deceits of that adversary of ours, with whom God has willed that we should contend.”

“"For there must be also factions among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." By "factions," here he means those which concern not the doctrines, but these present divisions. But even if he had spoken of the doctrinal heresies, not even thus did he give them any handle. For Christ Himself said, "it must needs be that occasions of stumbling come," not destroying the liberty of the will nor appointing any necessity and compulsion over man's life, but foretelling what would certainly ensue from the evil mind of men; which would take place, not because of his prediction, but because the incurably disposed are so minded. For not because he foretold them did these things happen: but because they were certainly about to happen, therefore he foretold them. Since, if the occasions of stumbling were of necessity and not of the mind of them that bring them in, it was superfluous His saying, "Woe to that man by whom the occasion cometh." But these things we discussed more at length when we were upon the passage itself; now we must proceed to what is before us. Now that he said these things of these factions relating to the tables, and that contention and division, he made manifest also from what follows. For having said, "I hear that there are divisions among you," he stopped not here, but signifying what divisions he means he goes on to say, "each one taketh before other his own supper;" and again, "What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the Church of God?" However, that of these he was speaking is evident. And if he call them divisions, marvel not. For, as I said, he wishes to touch them by the expression: whereas had they been divisions of doctrine, he would not have discoursed with them thus mildly. Hear him, for instance, when he speaks of any such thing, how vehement he is both in assertion and in reproof: in assertion, as when he says, "If even an angel preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed;" but in reproof, as when he says, "Whosoever of you would be justified by the law, ye are fallen away from grace." And at one time he calls the corrupters "dogs," saying, "Beware of dogs:" at another, "having their consciences seared with a hot iron." And again, "angels of Satan:" but here he said no such thing, but spoke in a gentle and subdued tone. But what is, "that they which are approved may be made manifest among you?" That they may shine the more. And what he intends to say is this, that those who are unchangeable and firm are so far from being at all injured hereby, but even shows them the more, and that it makes them more glorious. For the word, "that," is not everywhere indicative of cause, but frequently also of the event of things. Thus Christ Himself uses it, when He saith, "For judgement I am come into this world; that they which see not may see, and that they which see may be made blind." So likewise Paul in another place, when discoursing of the law, he writes, "And the Law came in beside, that the trespass might abound." But neither was the law given to this end that the trespasses of the Jews might be increased: (though this did ensue:) nor did Christ come for this end that they which see might be made blind, but for the contrary; but the result was such. Thus then also here must one understand the expression, "that they which are approved may be made manifest." For not at all with this view came heresies into being, that "they which are approved may be made manifest," but on these heresies taking place such was the result. Now these things he said to console the poor, those of them who nobly bore that sort of contempt. Wherefore he said not, "that they may become approved," but, "that they which are approved may be made manifest;" showing that before this also they were such, but they were mixed up with the multitude, and while enjoying such relief as was afforded them by the rich, they were not very conspicuous: but now this strife and contentiousness made them manifest, even as the storm shows the pilot. And he said not, "that ye may appear approved," but, "that they which are approved may be made manifest, those among you who are such." For neither when he is accusing doth he lay them open, that he may not render them more reckless; nor when praising, that he may not make them more boastful; but he leaves both this expression and that in suspense, allowing each man's own conscience to make the application of what he saith. Nor doth he here seem to me to be comforting the poor only, but those also who were not violating the custom. For it was likely that there were among them also those that observed it. And this is why he said, "I partly believe it." Justly then doth he call these "approved," who not only with the rest observed the custom, but even without them kept this good law undisturbed. And he doth this, studying by such praises to render both others and these persons themselves more forward.”

“People become heretics, even though they would still have held wrong opinions if they had remained within the church. Now that they are outside, they do us more good, not by teaching the truth, for they do not know it, but by provoking carnal Christians to seek the truth and spiritual Christians to expound it. In the church there are innumerable people who are approved by God, but they do not become manifest among us as long as we are content with the darkness of our ignorance and prefer to sleep rather than to behold the light of truth.”

“He speaks not of disagreements in dogmas, but of such divisions as, for example, regarding meals. What then does "there must be" mean? That, since you are human, it is possible and inevitable that not everyone walks rightly. For this reason I also believe it. Likewise the Lord also said, "offenses must come" (Matt. 18:7), that is, since there are evil people in the world, there will be and there will come offenses. The word "that" here signifies not the cause, but the consequence of the matter, as is evident from many passages. For when the proud do not receive others at their table, then the "approved" are revealed, that is, the poor, because they endure contempt, whereas before this their endurance was not visible. Or he calls "approved" those who still preserve the custom regarding the table; for not all violated it. Thus, when the violators prove to be unapproved, the keepers prove to be approved.”

“Secondly, he presents the credulity of his hearers when he says: And I partly believe it, i.e., as to some of you who were prone to contention, according to what was said above (1:11): "There is quarreling among you. What I mean is that each of you says, 'I belong to Paul,' or 'I belong to Apollos' or 'I belong to Cephas.'" But others were not contentious, who said: "I belong to Christ." Hence it says in S. of S. (2:2): "As a lily among brambles, so is my love among maidens," i.e., good among the evil. Thirdly, he assigns the reason for their credulity, saying: For there must be not only factions among you but also heresies. Two things must be considered here: first, what heresy is; secondly, how it is necessary that there be heresies. In regard to the first it should be known that, as Jerome comments on the epistle to the Galatians, the Greek word, "heresy," means "election" or "choice," namely, because each one selects for himself that discipline which he considers to be better. From this two things can be taken: first, that it is of the very nature of heresy that a person follow his own private discipline, as though by his own choice, but not the public discipline handed down by God. Secondly, that he obstinately cling to this discipline. For choice implies firm adherence; and therefore the heretic is one who scorns the discipline of the faith handed down by God and obstinately follows his own error. Now something pertains to the discipline of the faith in two ways: in one way directly, as the articles of faith, which are proposed to be believed of themselves. Hence an error in regard to them makes one a heretic, if obstinacy is present. But a person cannot be excused from such an error on account of some simplicity especially in regard to those about which the Church made a solemn proclamation and which are generally spoken about by the faithful, such as the mystery of the Trinity, the birth of Christ, and so on. But other things pertain to the discipline of the faith indirectly, namely, inasmuch as they are not proposed as something to be believed of themselves, but from their denial something contrary to the faith follows; for example, if it is denied that Isaac was the son of Abraham, something contrary to the faith follows, namely, that Sacred Scripture contains something false. From such things one is not judged heretical, unless he continues in his opinion so obstinately, that he would not depart from his error, even though he sees what follows from his position. Therefore, the obstinacy with which someone spurns the judgment of the Church in matters pertaining to the faith directly or indirectly makes a man a heretic. Such obstinacy proceeds from pride, whereby a person prefers his own feelings to the entire Church. Hence the Apostle says in 1 Tim (6:3): "If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words." Secondly, it must be considered how it is suitable that heresies exist. For if it is suitable for heretics to be, it seems that they are commendable and should not be stamped out. But it should be noted that there are two ways in which something is described as suitable to be. In one way from the intention of the one who does this; for example, if we should say that judgments ought to be, because judges make judgments intending to establish justice and peace in human affairs. In another way from the intention of God Who ordains evil things to good, Who directs the persecutions of tyrants to the glory of the martyrs. Hence Augustine says in Enchiridion that God is so good that He would not permit evil in any way, unless He were powerful enough that from each evil He can draw some good. And according to this it says in Matt (18:7): "Woe to the world for temptations to sin. For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to that man from whom temptations come." And according to this the Apostle says the heresies must be, inasmuch as God has ordained the malice of heretics to the good of the faithful. He says this, first, for the clearer declaration of truth. Hence Augustine says in The City of God: "A question raised by an adversary is an occasion for learning; indeed, many things pertaining to the Catholic faith, when they are devised by the clever energy of heretics, in order that they may be defended against them, are considered more carefully and understood more clearly and preached with more emphasis." Hence it says in Pr (27:17): "Iron sharpens iron; and one man sharpens another." Secondly, to reveal the weakness of faith in those who believe rightly. And this is what the Apostle says: in order that those who are genuine, i.e., approved by God, may be recognized among you: "Like gold in the furnace he tried them" (Wis 3:6).”

“There must be also heresies: By reason of the pride and perversity of man’s heart; not by God’s will or appointment; who nevertheless draws good out of this evil, manifesting, by that occasion, who are the good and firm Christians, and making their faith more remarkable. (Challoner) — Not that God hath directly so appointed, as necessary: this originates in man’s malice, and his sole pride, and great abuse of free-will. The providence of God draweth good out of evil, but wo to the man, says the Scripture, by whom scandal cometh, such as sects and heresies. Hence St. Augustine, chap. viii. de vera relig. says: “Let us use heretics not so as to approve their errors, but to make us more wary and vigilant, and more strenuous in defending Catholic doctrine against their deceits.””

“heresies--Not merely "schisms" or "divisions" (Co1 11:18), which are "recent dissensions of the congregation through differences of opinion" [AUGUSTINE, Con. Crescon. Don. 2.7, quoted by TRENCH, Greek Synonyms of the New Testament], but also "heresies," that is, "schisms which have now become inveterate"; "Sects" [CAMPBELL, vol. 2, pp. 126, 127]: so Act 5:17; Act 15:5 translate the same Greek. At present there were dissensions at the love-feasts; but Paul, remembering Jesus' words (Mat 18:7; Mat 24:10, Mat 24:12; Luk 17:1) foresees "there must be (come) also" matured separations, and established parties in secession, as separatists. The "must be" arises from sin in professors necessarily bearing its natural fruits: these are overruled by God to the probation of character of both the godly and the ungodly, and to the discipline of the former for glory. "Heresies" had not yet its technical sense ecclesiastically, referring to doctrinal errors: it means confirmed schisms. ST. AUGUSTINE'S rule is a golden rule as regards questions of heresy and catholicity: "In doubtful questions, liberty; in essentials, unity; in all things, charity." that . . . approved may be made manifest--through the disapproved (reprobates) becoming manifested (Luk 2:35; Jo1 2:19).”

“"When ye assemble yourselves together," saith he, "it is not possible to eat the Lord's Supper." Seest thou how effectually appealing to their shame, even already by way of narrative he contrives to give them his counsel? "For the appearance of your assembly," saith he, "is different. It is one of love and brotherly affection. At least one place receives you all, and ye are together in one flock. But the Banquet, when you come to that, bears no resemblance to the Assembly of worshippers." And he said not, "When ye come together, this is not to eat in common;" "this is not to feast with one another;" but otherwise again and much more fearfully he reprimands them, saying, "it is not possible to eat the Lord's Supper," sending them away now from this point to that evening on which Christ delivered the awful Mysteries. Therefore also he called the early meal "a supper." For that supper too had them all reclining at meat together: yet surely not so great was the distance between the rich and the poor as between the Teacher and the disciples. For that is infinite. And why say I the Teacher and the disciples? Think of the interval between the Teacher and the traitor: nevertheless, the Lord Himself both sat at meat with them and did not even cast him out, but both gave him his portion of salt and made him partaker of the Mysteries.”

“The gathering serves as a sign of love and communion: yet in practice this does not happen. He calls it the Lord's Supper, referring to the common table as an imitation of that Last Supper which the Lord shared with His disciples. For this reason he also called the meal a supper. So take note, he says, of what you are depriving yourselves; you are depriving yourselves of the imitation of the table of your Master.”

“Then when he says, when you meet together, he accuses them of a third fault, namely, that they sinned in the way and order in which they took the body of Christ. All that follows can be explained in two ways. According to the first explanation they are accused of taking the body of Christ just after eating. In regard to this he does four things: first, he mentions the harm they incur; secondly, he mentions the fault (v. 21); thirdly, he looks for the cause of the fault (v. 22); fourthly, he concludes his rebuke (v. 22b). He says, therefore, first, When you come together, there are factions among you, therefore meeting together in body not in mind, you have come to this which is not, i.e., not lawful or is not becoming for you to eat the Lord's supper, i.e., receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord gave His disciples at supper. "For this sacrament," says Augustine On John, "is the sacrament of unity and love." Therefore, it is not suited to dissenters; "Eat, O friends and drink; drink deeply, O lovers" (S. of S. 5:2). Or better: it can be referred to what follows, so that the sense is: not only are there disputes among you when you come together, but it has now become your custom to do what is lawful for you, namely, to eat the Lord's supper, which you approach right after eating. For because the Lord gave this sacrament to His disciples after supper (Matt 26:26), the Corinthians also wanted to take the body of Christ after a common meal. But the Lord did this for three reasons: first, because the figure precedes the truth in proper order. But the paschal lamb was a figure or shadow of this sacrament. Accordingly, after the supper of the paschal lamb, Christ gave this sacrament. For it says in Col (2:17) about all practices of the Law: "These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." Secondly, in order that from this sacrament He might pass immediately to His passion, of which this sacrament is the memorial. Therefore, he said to the disciples: "Arise, let us go from here," (Jn. 14:31); namely, to His passion. Thirdly, in order that this sacrament be impressed more sharply on the hearts of the disciples, to whom He gave it in His last quiet retreat. But out of reverence for this great sacrament the Church later established that it can be taken only by those fasting; from which the sick were excepted, who in necessity, which knows no law, could take the body of Christ without fasting. But because water does not break the fast, some supposed that after a drink of water they could take this sacrament, especially because, as they say, water is not nourishment any more than any other element. But although water by itself is not nourishment and, therefore, does not break the Eucharistic fast in the sense that some are said to fast, nevertheless when it is mixed with other things, it does nourish. And in this sense some are said to be fasting who on the same day take neither food nor drink. And because the pieces of food remaining in the mouth are consumed after the manner of saliva, this does not prevent one from being fasting. Likewise, the fast is not broken, if a person does not sleep at all during the night, or even if the food is not fully digested, provided that on one and the same day he took absolutely no food or drink. Hence because the beginning of a day is reckoned from midnight according to the custom of the Church, then whoever partakes of food or drink, no matter how little, after midnight, cannot receive this sacrament on that day. According to another explanation, they are reprimanded for a different fault. For in the early church the faithful offered bread and wine, which were consecrated into the body and blood of Christ. After the consecration the rich, who had offered much, wanted the same amount returned; and so they took an abundant share, while the poor, who had offered nothing, received nothing. Therefore, it is for this fault that the Apostle reprimands them, saying: When you meet together, it is not any longer to eat the Lord's supper. For the Lord's supper is common to the whole family; but each of you takes it not as common but as his own, while he tries to justify himself, because he offered it to God. And this is what he adds: Each one presumes, i.e., presumptuously attempts to eat the supper, namely of the Lord, i.e., consecrated bread and wine, as his own, i.e., taking them as though they were his own, namely, the things consecrated to the Lord, for their use.”

“The Lord’s supper. So the apostle here calls the charity [Agape] feasts observed by the primitive Christians; and reprehends the abuses of the Corinthians on these occasions: which were the more criminal, because these feasts were accompanied with the celebrating the eucharistic sacrifice and sacrament. (Challoner)”

“When . . . therefore--Resuming the thread of discourse from Co1 11:18. this is not to--rather, "there is no such thing as eating the LORD'S Supper"; it is not possible where each is greedily intent only on devouring "HIS OWN supper," and some are excluded altogether, not having been waited for (Co1 11:33), where some are "drunken," while others are "hungry" (Co1 11:21). The love-feast usually preceded the Lord's Supper (as eating the Passover came before the Lord's Supper at the first institution of the latter). It was a club-feast, where each brought his portion, and the rich, extra portions for the poor; from it the bread and wine were taken for the Eucharist; and it was at it that the excesses took place, which made a true celebration of the Lord's Supper during or after it, with true discernment of its solemnity, out of the question.”

“"For in your eating, each one taketh before other his own supper," saith he, "and one is hungry, and another is drunken." Perceivest thou how he intimates that they were disgracing themselves rather? For that which is the Lord's, they make a private matter: so that themselves are the first to suffer indignity, depriving their own table of its greatest prerogative. How and in what manner? Because the Lord's Supper, i.e., the Master's, ought to be common. For the property of the master belongs not to this servant without belonging to that, but in common to all. So that by "the Lord's" Supper he expresses this, the "community" of the feast. As if he had said, "If it be thy master's, as assuredly it is, thou oughtest not to withdraw it as private, but as belonging to thy Lord and Master to set it in common before all. For this is the meaning of, 'the Lord's.' But now thou dost not suffer it to be the Lord's, not suffering it to be common but feasting by thyself." Wherefore also he goes on to say, "For each one taketh before other his own supper." And he said not, "cutteth off," but "taketh before," tacitly censuring them both for greediness and for precipitancy. This at least the sequel also shows. For having said this, he added again, "and one is hungry, and another is drunken," each of which showed a want of moderation, both the craving and the excess. See also a second fault again whereby those same persons are injured: the first, that they dishonor their supper: the second, that they are greedy and drunken; and what is yet worse, even when the poor are hungry. For what was intended to be set before all in common, that these men fed on alone, and proceeded both to surfeiting and to drunkenness. Wherefore neither did he say, "one is hungry, and another is filled:" but, "is drunken." Now each of these, even by itself, is worthy of censure: for it is a fault to be drunken even without despising the poor; and to despise the poor without being drunken, is an accusation. When both then are joined together at the same time, consider how exceeding great is the transgression.”

“You have turned this Lord's Supper into your own private one. For as long as it was common, it was also called the Lord's Supper; for the Master's goods are common to all servants. But since each one hastens to eat his own supper, not waiting for the poor, but eating by himself, you have dishonored your supper, having made it private instead of the Lord's. The poor man goes hungry, while the rich man gets drunk. Thus, there are two vices: one — you despise the poor, the other — you yourselves get drunk, consuming by yourselves what you ought to have offered to the poor as well. He said expressively: "gets drunk."”

“Then when he says, For each one, he mentions the fault: first, insofar as they sinned against God; secondly, insofar as they sinned against their neighbor (v. 21b). He says, therefore, first: The reason I say that it is not lawful for you to eat the Lord's supper is that each one of you goes ahead with his own meal, namely, of common food. For each one carried to the church a tray of food already prepared, and each one ate by himself, before he took the sacred mysteries: "They banquet separately; now they shall perish" (Hos 9:9); and in the person of the frugal, Ec (11:19) says: "I have found rest, and I ate of my own goods alone." Then when he says, and one, he accuses them of the sin against the neighbor. For the wealthy ate lavishly in church and imbibed until they were drunk; they gave nothing to the poor, who remained hungry. And this is what he says: and one is hungry, namely, the poor man, who did not have the means to prepare anything, and another is drunk, namely, the rich, who over-ate and over-drank, which is contrary to Neh (8:10): "Go your way, eat the fat and drink sweet wine and send portions to him for whom nothing is prepared"; and Jb (31:17): "I have eaten my morsel alone, and the fatherless has not eaten of it." And so it follows that one, namely, the poor person who offered nothing goes hungry, but another, namely, the rich man who offered much is drunk; literally, because he took too much of the consecrated wine, which he demanded as his own. But it seems to be impossible for one to get drunk from consecrated wine or even be nourished by the bread, because after consecration nothing remains under the appearance of bread and wine except the substance of Christ's body and blood, which cannot be changed into man's body, so as to nourish him or make him drunk. Therefore, some say that this does not come to pass by any conversion, but by the sole change of a man's senses by the accidents of bread and wine, which remain after consecration. For men were wont to be strengthened by the mere order of food and be stupefied and, as it were, made drunk from the strong odor of wine. But strengthening or stupefaction, which come solely from a change of the senses, lasts a short time, while, nevertheless, after the consecration of the bread and wine, if the wine or bread were taken in large quantities, a man would be sustained for a long time on account of the bread or stupefied on account of the wine. Besides, it is clear that the consecrated bread can be changed into another substance, since it is changed into dust by putrefaction or into ashes by burning. Hence there is no reason to deny that they can nourish, since nourishment requires no more than that the food be changed into the substance of the one fed. Therefore, others assert that the bread or consecrated wine can be converted into something else and so can nourish, because the substance of bread or wine remain there with the substance of the body and blood of Christ. But this conflicts with the words of Scripture. For what the Lord says in Matt (26:26) would not be true, namely, "This is my body," because this thing pointed to is bread; He should rather have said: "Here," i.e., in this place, "is my body." Besides, the body of Christ does not begin to be in this sacrament by local motion, because He would then cease to be in heaven. Hence, what is left is that He begins to be there by the conversion of something else, i.e., of the bread, into Himself; hence, it cannot be that the substance of bread remains. Therefore, others say that there remains the bread's substantial form, from which springs a thing's activity; consequently, it nourishes, just as bread itself nourishes. But this cannot be, because to nourish is to be converted into the substance of the nourished. But this does not belong to any nutriment 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 were there, it would be unable to nourish. But others say that the surrounding air is converted either into the substance of the one nourished or into anything else of the sort. But this could not happen without much condensation of air, which would not fail to be detected by a sense. Therefore, others say that by divine power the substance of bread and wine return, in order that the sacrament not be detected in these changes. But this seems to be impossible, because, since the substance of bread was converted into the body of Christ, it does not seem that the substance of bread could return, unless the body of Christ were converted into bread. Besides, if the substance of bread returns, this occurs either with the accidents of bread remaining, and then there will simultaneously be the substance of bread and the substance of Christ's body, which was disproved above: for the substance of Christ's body is there as long as the species remain. Or it returns with the species not remaining, which is also impossible, because then the substance of bread would be there without its own accidents; unless, perhaps, it is understood that God at the end of the conversion would cause to be there a certain matter which would be the subject of this conversion. But it is better to say that just as in virtue of the consecration, it is miraculously given to the appearance of bread and wine to subsist without a subject and to subsist after the manner of a substance, so also it is miraculously given as a consequence that they act or be acted upon in the same way as the substance of bread and wine would, if they 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.”

“Every one taketh before his own supper to eat. The sense seems to be, that he took and brought with him, what he designed to eat with others, and give at that supper: but as soon as some were met (without staying for others, as he orders them, ver. 33., when he again speaks of these suppers) the rich placing themselves together, began this supper, and did not take with them their poor brethren, who had brought nothing, or had nothing to bring; by this means, one indeed is hungry, and another is drunk, that is, had at least drunk plentifully, while the poor had nothing but shame, and confusion. By this means of eating and drinking without temperance and moderation, they were by no means disposed to receive afterwards the holy Eucharist. He tells such persons that committed these disorders, that if they be so hungry that they cannot fast, they should eat (ver. 34.) before they come from home. We find these Agape forbidden to be made in the Churches, in the 28th canon of the council of Laodicea, a little before the general council of Nice. In St. Chrysostom’s time, and from the first ages[centuries], every one received the sacrament of the holy eucharist fasting, as it is probable this was one of the things which St. Paul gave orders about, (ver. 34.) when he came to Corinth. We must not imagine, that because Christ instituted the holy sacrament, and gave it to his apostles after he had supped with them, that the apostles, or the pastors of the Church, their successors, could not order it to be received fasting, and kneeling, for greater reverence and devotion. See St. Augustine on this same subject, in his letter to Januarius, liv. tom. 2. part 2. p. 126. Nov. edit. He says, that though it is evident the apostles did not receive the body and blood of Christ fasting, yet we must not on that account calumniate, or blame the universal Church, in which it is received only by those who are fasting. He says, it is most insolent madness to dispute against what is a custom in the universal Church. (Witham)”

“one taketh before other--the rich "before" the poor, who had no supper of their own. Instead of "tarrying for one another" (Co1 11:33); hence the precept (Co1 12:21, Co1 12:25). his own supper--"His own" belly is his God (Phi 3:19); "the Lord's Supper," the spiritual feast, never enters his thoughts. drunken--The one has more than is good for him, the other less [BENGEL].”

“"What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the Church of God, and put them to shame that have not?" Seest thou how he transferred the charge from the indignity offered to the poor to the Church, that his words might make a deeper impression of disgust? Here now you see is yet a fourth accusation, when not the poor only, but the Church likewise is insulted. For even as thou makest the Lord's Supper a private meal, so also the place again, using the Church as a house. For it was made a Church, not that we who come together might be divided, but that they who are divided might be joined: and this act of assembling shows. "And put them to shame that have not." He said not, "and kill with hunger them that have not," but so as much more to put them to the blush, "shame them;" to point out that it is not food which he cares for so much as the wrong done unto them. Behold again a fifth accusation, not only to overlook the poor but even to shame them. Now this he said, partly as treating with reverence the concerns of the poor, and intimating that they grieve not so for the belly as for the shame; and partly also drawing the hearer to compassion. Having therefore pointed out so great impieties, indignity to the Supper, indignity to the Church, the contempt practised towards the poor; he relaxes again the tones of his reproof, saying, all of a sudden, "Shall I praise you? In this I praise you not." Wherein one might especially marvel at him that when there was need to strike and chide more vehemently after the proof of so great offences, he doeth the contrary rather, gives way, and permits them to recover breath. What then may the cause be? He had touched more painfully than usual in aggravating the charge, and being a most excellent physician, he adapts the incision to the wounds, neither cutting superficially those parts which require a deep stroke; (for thou hast heard him how he cut off among those very persons him that had committed fornication;) nor delivering over to the knife those things which require the milder sort of remedies. For this cause then here also he conducts his address more mildly, and in another point of view likewise, he sought especially to render them gentle to the poor: and this is why he discourses with them rather in a subdued tone.”

“If you do not intend to eat all together, then why do you not eat at home? For when you turn the Lord's Supper into a private one, eating by yourself, you show contempt both for the church and for the place. The poor are troubled not so much by the fact that you do not feed them, as by the fact that you put them to shame, exposing their poverty, while you yourselves recline grandly and drink to excess. Having rebuked them for their error, he softens his speech. He could have said that this is worthy of a thousand deaths; but what does he say? "Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you." He does this in order to make them more condescending toward the poor. For if he had extended his strong rebuke to the end, they would have hardened themselves against the needy, since the apostle reproaches them on their account.”

“Then when he says, Do you not have houses, he looks into the cause of this sin. First, he excludes a reason, by which they could be excused. For it is not lawful to apply to profane uses the house of God, which is set aside for sacred uses. Hence the Lord, when driving the buyers and sellers from the temple, said; "My house is a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves" (Matt 21:13). And Augustine says in his Rule: "In the oratory let no one do anything except for what it was built and from which it gets its name." Yet in case of necessity, namely, when one can find no other house, he may lawfully use the church for eating, or for other such lawful uses. But the Apostle rejects this excuse, saying: Do you not have houses, namely, your own, to eat and drink in? Then you would have an excuse, if you celebrated banquets in the church, which you ought to do in your own homes. Hence Lk (5:29) says that Levi made Christ a great feast in his house. Secondly, when he says, or do you despise, he asserts the cause which makes them inexcusable, the first of which is contempt for the church of God. And he states this, saying: Do you despise the church of God? Is that why you presume to eat your supper in the church? Here "church" can be taken for either the congregation of believers of the sacred house, which is not to be despised, as it says in Ps 93 (v. 5): "Holiness befits your house," and in Jer (7:11): "Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes?" But they despise both, when in the presence of the congregation of believers, they hold feasts in a holy place. Secondly, he mentions their contempt of neighbor when he says: and humiliate those who have nothing? For the poor were humiliated, inasmuch as they were hungry in the presence of the entire group, while others were eating and drinking lavishly. But it says in Pr (17:7): "He who mocks the poor insults his Maker" and Sir (4:2): "Do not grieve the one who is hungry." Then when he says, What shall I say to you, he concludes his reprimand, saying: What shall I say to you in the light of the above? Shall I praise you? And he answers: Although I praise you for other things, in this matter I cannot praise you. It should be noted that above when he spoke about women's apparel, he praised them at least ironically, saying: "I praise you, because you remember me in everything." But here he does not want to praise them even ironically, because in more serious matters sinners must in no way be handled gently. Hence it says in Ps 10 (v. 3); "For the sinner is praised in the desires of his soul and the wicked man is blessed. And the sinner renounces the Lord"; and in Is (3:12): "My people, those who called you happy, misled you."”

“What!--Greek, "For." houses--(compare Co1 11:34) --"at home." That is the place to satiate the appetite, not the assembly of the brethren [ALFORD]. despise ye the church of God--the congregation mostly composed of the poor, whom "God hath chosen," however ye show contempt for them (Jam 2:5); compare "of God" here, marking the true honor of the Church. shame them that have not--namely, houses to eat and drink in, and who, therefore, ought to have received their portion at the love-feasts from their wealthier brethren. I praise you not--resuming the words (Co1 11:17).”

“The false apostles had sown divisions among them so that they were possessive of their offerings. Although they were all blessed with one and the same prayer, those who had not offered or who had nothing to offer were covered with shame and did not take part. Furthermore, it all happened so quickly that those who came later found nothing left to eat.”

“In like manner, when treating of the gospel, we have proved from the sacrament of the bread and the cup the verity of the Lord's body and blood in opposition to Marcion's phantom; whilst throughout almost the whole of my work it has been contended that all mention of judicial attributes points conclusively to the Creator as to a God who judges.”

“Moreover, the blessed Apostle Paul, chosen and sent by the Lord, and appointed a preacher of the Gospel truth, lays down these very things in his epistle, saying, "The Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread; and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, This is my body, which shall be given for you: do this in remembrance of me. After the same manner also He took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye shall show forth the Lord's death until He come." But if it is both enjoined by the Lord, and the same thing is confirmed and delivered by His apostle, that as often as we drink, we do in remembrance of the Lord the same thing which the Lord also did, we find that what was commanded is not observed by us, unless we also do what the Lord did; and that mixing the Lord's cup in like manner we do not depart from the divine teaching; but that we must not at all depart from the evangelical precepts, and that disciples ought also to observe and to do the same things which the Master both taught dud did. The blessed apostle in another place more earnestly and strongly teaches, saying, "I wonder that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into grace, unto another gospel, which is not another; but there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any otherwise than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be anathema."”

“"For I received of the Lord," saith he, "that which also I delivered unto you: how that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread: And when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is My Body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." Wherefore doth he here make mention of the Mysteries? Because that argument was very necessary to his present purpose. As thus: "Thy Master," saith he, "counted all worthy of the same Table, though it be very awful and far exceeding the dignity of all: but thou considerest them to be unworthy even of thine own, small and mean as we see it is; and while they have no advantage over thee in spiritual things, thou robbest them in the temporal things. For neither are these thine own." However, he doth not express himself thus, to prevent his discourse becoming harsh: but he frames it in a gentler form, saying, that "the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread." And wherefore doth he remind us of the time, and of that evening, and of the betrayal? Not indifferently nor without some reason, but that he might exceedingly fill them with compunction, were it but from consideration of the time. For even if one be a very stone, yet when he considers that night, how He was with His disciples, "very heavy," how He was betrayed, how He was bound, how He was led away, how He was judged, how He suffered all the rest in order, he becometh softer than wax, and is withdrawn from earth and all the pomp of this world. Therefore he leads us to the remembrance of all those things, by His time, and His table, and His betrayal, putting us to shame and saying, "Thy Master gave up even Himself for thee: and thou dost not even share a little meat with thy brother for thine own sake." But how saith he, that "he received it from the Lord?" since certainly he was not present then but was one of the persecutors. That thou mayest know that the first table had no advantage above that which cometh after it. For even to-day also it is He who doeth all, and delivereth it even as then. And not on this account only doth he remind us of that night, but that he may also in another way bring us to compunction. For as we particularly remember those words which we hear last from those who are departing; and to their heirs if they should venture to transgress their commands, when we would put them to shame we say, "Consider that this was the last word that your father uttered to you, and until the evening when he was just about to breathe his last he kept repeating these injunctions:" just so Paul, purposing hence also to make his argument full of awfulness; "Remember," saith he, "that this was the last mysterious rite He gave unto you, and in that night on which He was about to be slain for us, He commanded these things, and having delivered to us that Supper after that He added nothing further." Next also he proceeds to recount the very things that were done, saying, "He took bread, and, when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is My Body, which is broken for you." If therefore thou comest for a sacrifice of thanksgiving, do thou on thy part nothing unworthy of that sacrifice: by no means either dishonor thy brother, or neglect him in his hunger; be not drunken, insult not the Church. As thou comest giving thanks for what thou hast enjoyed: so do thou thyself accordingly make return, and not cut thyself off from thy neighbor. Since Christ for His part gave equally to all, saying, "Take, eat." He gave His Body equally, but dost not thou give so much as the common bread equally? Yea, it was indeed broken for all alike, and became the Body equally for all.”

“Why does he mention the mysteries and that supper? Very fittingly, in order to convince that your Master deemed all worthy of one and the same table, yet you reject and despise one of your own kind. How does he say that he received from the Lord, when he was not at that time with the Lord, but was a persecutor? So that you may know that even now at the mystical table it is the Lord Himself who imparts the mysteries, just as He did then.”

“After rebuking the Corinthians for their unbecoming behavior, when they came together to take the Eucharist, the Apostle now deals with the sacrament itself. First, he discusses the dignity of this sacrament; secondly, he urges the faithful to receive it reverently (v. 27). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he commends the authority of the doctrine he is about to deliver; secondly, he presents the doctrine about the dignity of this sacrament (v. 23b). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he commends the authority of the doctrine on the part of the author, who is Christ, saying: I have said that it is no longer of interest 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 doctrine and not any mere man: "Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through men but through Jesus Christ" (Gal 1:1); "It was declared at first by the Lord" (Heb 2:3). Secondly, he commends the authority of the doctrine on the part of the minister, who is Paul himself, when he adds: what I also delivered to you: "What I have heard from the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, I announce to you" (Is 21:10); "I learned without guile and I impart without envy" (Wis 7:13). Then when he says, that the Lord Jesus, he commends the dignity of this sacrament, describing its institution: first, he mentions the institution; secondly, the time of the institution (v. 23c); thirdly, the manner of instituting (v. 23d). The one who institutes this sacrament is Christ. Hence he says: that the Lord Jesus, for it was stated above, when the sacrament of baptism was discussed, that Christ has in the sacraments the excellence of power, to which pertain four things: first, that His virtue and merit operate in the sacraments; secondly, that the sacraments are sanctified in his name; thirdly, that He can produce the effect of a sacrament without the sacrament; fourthly, the institution of a new sacrament. Yet it was especially suitable that He institute in His own person this sacrament, in which His body and blood are communicated. Hence He Himself says in John (6:52): "The bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world." Then when he says, on the night when he was betrayed, he describes the time of the institution of this sacrament. It was fitting to do this: first, as to the quality of the time. For it was night. For the soul is enlightened by virtue of this sacrament. Hence 1 Sam (14:27) says that Jonathon "put forth the tip of his staff and dipped it in the honeycomb and put his head to his mouth, and his eyes became bright"; on which account it says in Ps 139 (v. 12): "The night is as bright as the day." Secondly, as to the negotiations carried on at that time, namely, it was when he was delivered over to the passion, by which he passed to the Father that He instituted this sacrament, which is a memorial of the passion: "Come here, stranger, and prepare the table, and if you have anything at hand, let me have it to eat" (Sir 29:26).”

“I have received of the Lord. That is, by revelation from Christ, as well as from others, who were present with him, that which also I delivered to you by word of mouth, &c. Here he speaks of the holy sacrament itself, of the words of consecration, as the evangelists had done, and of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood. — Which shall be delivered for you. In the common Greek copies, which is broken for you, to wit, on the cross. — You shall shew the death of the Lord. As often as you receive, it shall be with a devout and grateful remembrance of his sufferings and death for your sake. He puts every one in mind, that whosoever shall eat this bread, (ver. 27.) so called from the outward appearances, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall, by such a sacrilege, be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. And (ver. 29.) that he eateth, and drinketh judgment, or condemnation to himself, not discerning the difference betwixt celestial food and other meats, and not considering it to be truly the body of the Lord. See St. Chrysostom, hom. xxvii. If the words of our Saviour, this is my body, &c. were to be understood in a metaphorical and figurative sense only, is it probable that St. Paul, writing twenty-four years afterwards, to the new converted Gentiles at Corinth, would have used words, which full as clearly express a true and real presence of Christ’s body in the eucharist, without one word to signify that this was to be understood in a figurative sense only? (Witham)”

“His object is to show the unworthiness of such conduct from the dignity of the holy supper. I--Emphatic in the Greek. It is not my own invention, but the Lord's institution. received of the Lord--by immediate revelation (Gal 1:12; compare Act 22:17-18; Co2 12:1-4). The renewal of the institution of the Lord's Supper by special revelation to Paul enhances its solemnity. The similarity between Luke's and Paul's account of the institution, favors the supposition that the former drew his information from the apostle, whose companion in travel he was. Thus, the undesigned coincidence is a proof of genuineness. night--the time fixed for the Passover (Exo 12:6): though the time for the Lord's Supper is not fixed. betrayed--With the traitor at the table, and death present before His eyes, He left this ordinance as His last gift to us, to commemorate His death. Though about to receive such an injury from man, He gave this pledge of His amazing love to man.”

“Being mindful, therefore, of those things that He endured for our sakes, we give You thanks, O God Almighty, not in such a manner as we ought, but as we are able, and fulfil His constitution: "For in the same night that He was betrayed, He took bread" [1 Corinthians 11:23] in His holy and undefiled hands, and, looking up to You His God and Father, "He broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, This is the mystery of the new covenant: take of it, and eat. This is my body, which is broken for many, for the remission of sins." In like manner also "He took the cup," and mixed it of wine and water, and sanctified it, and delivered it to them, saying: "Drink all of this; for this is my blood which is shed for many, for the remission of sins: do this in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do show forth my death until I come." Being mindful, therefore, of His passion, and death, and resurrection from the dead, and return into the heavens, and His future second appearing, wherein He is to come with glory and power to judge the quick and the dead, and to recompense to every one according to his works, we offer to You, our King and our God, according to His constitution, this bread and this cup, giving You thanks, through Him, that You have thought us worthy to stand before You, and to sacrifice to You; and we beseech You that You will mercifully look down upon these gifts which are here set before You, O God, who standest in need of none of our offerings. And accept them, to the honour of Your Christ, and send down upon this sacrifice Your Holy Spirit, the Witness of the Lord Jesus' sufferings, that He may show this bread to be the body of Your Christ, and the cup to be the blood of Your Christ, that those who are partakers thereof may be strengthened for piety, may obtain the remission of their sins, may be delivered from the devil and his deceit, may be filled with the Holy Ghost, may be made worthy of Your Christ, and may obtain eternal life upon Your reconciliation to them, O Lord Almighty.”

“Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord hath said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs. But after ye are filled, thus give thanks: We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which Thou didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which Thou modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name's sake; Thou gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us Thou didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that Thou art mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou hast prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maran atha. Amen. But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire.”

“The teaching of the blessed Paul is of itself sufficient to give you full assurance about the divine mysteries by admission to which you have become one body and blood with Christ.… When the Master himself has explicitly said of the bread, "This is my body," will anyone still dare to doubt? When he is himself our warranty saying, "This is my blood," who will ever waver and say it is not his blood?… With perfect confidence, then, we partake as of the body and blood of Christ.”

“Do you want to know why it is consecrated with heavenly words? Receive the words. The priest says: 'Make this offering written, ratified, reasonable, acceptable, which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who, on the day before he suffered, took bread into his holy hands, looked up to you, holy Father almighty, eternal God, giving thanks, he blessed it, broke it, and gave it to his apostles and disciples, saying: Take and eat all of you from this; for this is my body which will be broken for many.' He took bread in his holy hands the day before he suffered. Before it is consecrated, it is bread; but when the words of Christ have been spoken, it becomes the body of Christ. And before the words of Christ, the cup is full of wine and water: when the words of Christ have been spoken, there the blood of Christ is made, which redeemed the people.”

“In blessing the bread even before his suffering, Jesus left behind a last commemoration, or memorial. This is rather like someone who, when about to go on a journey, leaves some token of himself with his loved one, so that whenever she looks at it she will be reminded of his goodness and love toward her.”

“Then when he says, he took bread, he shows the manner of the institution: first, he relates what Christ said and did in instituting this sacrament; secondly, he explains (v. 26). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he deals with the institution of this sacrament as to the body of Christ; secondly, as to His blood (v. 25). In regard to the first, before explaining the text one must first consider the need for instituting this sacrament. So it should be noted that the sacraments were instituted on account of a need in the spiritual life. And because bodily things are likenesses of spiritual things, it is fitting that the sacrament be proportionate to things which are necessary to bodily life, in which generation comes first, to which baptism is proportionate and through which one is reborn into the spiritual life. Secondly, for bodily life is required growth, by which one is brought to perfect size and power. To this is proportionate the sacrament of confirmation, in which the Holy Spirit is given for strength. Thirdly, for the spiritual life is required food, by which man's body is sustained, and likewise the spiritual life is fed by the sacrament of the Eucharist, as it says in Ps 23 (v. 2): "He make me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside still waters." It should be known that the cause of generation is not joined according to its substance to the one generated, but only according to its power; but food is joined according to its substance to the fed. Hence in the sacrament of baptism, by which Christ regenerates us to salvation, it is not Christ according to His substance but only according to His power. But in the sacrament of this Eucharist, which is spiritual food, Christ is there according to His substance. He is contained under another appearance for three reasons: first, indeed, it would be horrifying for the faithful to receive this sacrament, if they ate the flesh of a man under its ordinary appearance and drank His blood; secondly, so that it would not be a source of derision to unbelievers; thirdly, in order that the merit of faith grow, which consists in believing something not seen. This sacrament is presented under two species for three reasons: first, indeed, on account of its perfection, because, since it is spiritual refreshment, ought to be spiritual food and spiritual drink. For even bodily refreshment is not complete without food and drink. Hence he also says above (10:3): "All ate of the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink." Secondly, on account of its signification. For it is the memorial of the Lord's passion, through which the blood of Christ was separated from His body; that is why in this sacrament the blood is offered separately from the body. Thirdly, on account of the salutary effect of this sacrament, for it avails for the health of the body, and so the body is offered; and it avails for the health of the soul, and so the blood is offered. "For the soul is in the blood" (Lev 17:11). This sacrament is offered specifically under the appearance of bread and wine: first of all, because men generally use bread and wine for their refreshment. Therefore, these are used in this sacrament, as water in baptism. Secondly, on account of the power of this sacrament: for bread strengthens the heart of man, but wine gladdens it. Thirdly, because the bread, which is made up of many grains, designates the unity of the Church, which consists of many believers. Furthermore, this Eucharist is especially the sacrament of unity and charity, as Augustine says On John. Having seen these matters relating to the explanation of the text: first, what Christ did must be explained; secondly, what he said (v. 24). But he does three things: the first is designated when he says: He took bread. Two things can be signified by this: first, that he voluntarily accepted the passion, of which this sacrament is the memorial, as it says in Is (53:5): "He was offered up because he willed it." Secondly, that he received from the Father the power of completing this sacrament, according to Matt (11:27): "All things have been handed over to me by my Father." He touches on the second, when he says: and broke: "Share your bread with the hungry" (Is 58:7). But this seems contrary to the practice of the Church, according to which the body of Christ is first consecrated and then broken. But this cannot be, because the priest, while he is consecrating, does not pronounce those words as from his own person, but as from the person of Christ consecrating. Hence it is clear that Christ consecrated with the same words with which we consecrate. Therefore, it should be noted that what is said here, and he said, is not to be taken successively, as though Christ took bread and giving thanks broke it, and later said the words which follow; rather, they are taken concomitantly, namely, that while he took bread, giving thanks he broke it and said. Therefore with Matt (26:26) it should be stated that "Jesus took bread and blessed and broke." The Apostle here did not care to mention about the blessing, understanding that the blessing was nothing else than what the Lord said: "This is my body." Then when he says: and said, he shows what Christ said when instituting this sacrament: first, he enjoined the use of the sacrament; secondly, he expressed the truth of the sacrament; thirdly, he taught the mystery. He enjoined the use of the sacrament, saying: Take. As if not from any human power or merit is it proper for you to use this sacrament, but from an eminent gift of God: "Thou didst give thy people the food of angels" (Wis 16:20); "What have you that you did not receive" (1 Cor 4:7)? And he determines the kind of use when he says, and eat: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man" (Jn. 6:54); "If the men of my tent have not said, 'Who will give of his flesh that we may be filled?'" (Jb 31:31). It should be noted, however, that these words are not from the form of consecration. For there is this difference between this and other sacraments, that the latter are completed not in the consecration of the matter but in the use of consecrated matter, as in the washing with water or in the anointing with oil or chrism. The reason is that in the matters of the other sacraments mention is made of the use of the sacrament, as when it is stated: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But this sacrament is completed in the very consecration of the matter, in which Christ Himself is contained, Who is the end of all sanctifying grace. Therefore, the words which pertain to the use of the sacrament are not of the substance of the form, but only those containing the truth and content of the sacrament, which he mentions last, adding: This is my body. In regard to these words three things should be considered: first, the reality signified by these words, namely, that the body of Christ is there; secondly, the truth of this statement; thirdly, whether this is a suitable form for this sacrament. In regard to the first it should be noted that some have said that the body of Christ is not truly present in this sacrament, but only as in a sign explaining what is said here: This is my body, i.e., this is a sign and figure of my body, just as it was said above (10:4): "But the rock was Christ," i.e., as figure of Christ. But this is heretical, since the Lord expressly says: "My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (Jn. 6:56). Hence others say that the body of Christ is truly there but along with the substance of bread. This is impossible, as was shown above. Therefore, others said that only the body of Christ is there, the substance of bread not remaining because it is annihilated or reduced to prejacent matter. But this cannot be, because, as Augustine says in the Book of Eighty Three Questions: "God is not the author of tending to non-existence." Secondly, because even this position takes away the fact the substance of bread is converted into the body of Christ; and so, since the body of Christ begins to be in this sacrament by the conversion of something else into it, the consequence is that He begins to be there by local motion: but that is impossible, as was shown above. Therefore, one must say that the body of Christ is truly in this sacrament by the conversion of bread into it. Yet it should be noted 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 beyond changing something according to its form, either substantial or accidental. Hence every natural conversion is said to be formal. But God, Who makes this conversion is the author of form and of matter, and therefore the entire substance of bread, the matter not remaining, can be converted into the entire substance of the body of Christ. And because matter is the principle of individuation, this whole signated individual, which is a particular substance, is converted into another particular substance. For this reason it is called a substantial conversion or transubstantiation. In this conversion, therefore, occurs the contrary of what happens in natural conversions, in which, the subject remaining, a change sometimes occurs affecting the accidents. But here the substance is changed, while the accidents remain intact without a subject. This is done by divine power, which as the first cause sustains them without a material cause, which is the substance caused in order that the body of Christ and the blood be consumed under a different appearance, for the reasons given above. And because accidents are referred to their substance in a definite order, the dimensions remain without a subject and the other accidents remain in those dimensions as in a subject. But if no substance remains under those dimensions except the body of Christ, there could be no doubt about the breaking of the consecrated host, since the body of Christ is glorified and, therefore, unbreakable. Hence He cannot exist under this particle nor can it be pretended that He subsists, because the sacrament of truth is incompatible with any pretense. Hence nothing is perceived by the senses in this sacrament, which is not truly there. For the per se sensibles are qualities, which indeed remain as they previously existed, in this sacrament, as we have stated. Therefore, others have said that a certain breaking without a subject occurs there; hence nothing is broken there. But this cannot be said either, because, since breaking is in the category of "being acted upon," which is a weaker category than quality, it cannot exist in this sacrament without a subject any more than quality can. Hence it must be said that the breaking is founded, as on a subject, on the dimensions of bread and wine which remain. But the body of Christ is not affected by such breaking, because the whole body 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 come about by reason of the dimensions. For the dimensions of the bread remain, but only by reason of the substance. Hence, too, the body of Christ is there by reason of its own substance, but not by reason of its own dimensions, although its dimensions are there by way of consequence, inasmuch as they are not separated from His substance. But as far as the nature of the substance is concerned, it is entire under each part of the dimensions. Hence, just before the consecration the whole truth of the substance and nature of bread was under each part of its dimensions, so after the consecration the whole body of Christ is under each part of the divided bread. The division of the consecrated host signifies, first of all, the passion of Christ through which His body was broken by wounds, as it says in Ps 22 (v. 16): "They have pierced by hands and my feet." From Him, as it says below (7:4) "there are divisions of graces." Secondly, the distribution of the gifts of Christ, as it says above (12:4): "There are varieties of gifts." Thirdly, the various parts of the Church. For among Christ's members some are still pilgrims in this world, some may be in glory with Christ, both as to the soul and as to the body, but some await the final resurrection at the end of the world, and this is signified by the division of the host into three parts. Secondly, one should consider the truth of this statement. For the statement, This is my body, seems to be false. For the conversion of bread into the body of Christ occurs at the time of the pronouncing of these words. For it is then that the signification of these words is completed. For the forms of the sacrament effect by signifying; therefore, it follows that in the beginning of the statement, when it is stated that the body of Christ is not there but only the substance of the bread, which is pointed out by the pronoun, this, when it points out a substance. It is the same, therefore, to say, this is my body, as to say: "The substance of bread is my body," which is obviously false. Therefore, some have said that the priest pronounces these words materially and recitatively from the person of Christ and, therefore, this pronoun's function of pointing out is not referred to the matter present, such that as a result the statement should be rendered false as the objection supposed. But this cannot stand. First of all, because if this statement is not applied to the material present, it will do nothing in regard to it, which is false. For Augustine On John says: "The word comes to the element and the sacrament comes to be." Hence it is necessary to say that the words are taken formally as referring to the material present. But the priest says them from the same efficacy now, as when Christ spoke them. For the power conferred on these words does not vanish either by the difference of time or by the variety of ministers. Secondly, because the same difficulty remains in regard to the first time these words were spoken, namely, by Christ. Therefore, others say that the sense of these words is, this is my body, i.e., this bread designates my body, so that "this" designates that which is present at the beginning of the statement. But even this cannot be, because since the sacraments effect what they signify, these words effect nothing except what they signify. Secondly, because it would follow from this that nothing would be effected by these words, except that the body of Christ would be there, as under a sign, which was disproved earlier. Therefore, others say that the "this" points out something to the intellect and indicates that which will be at the end of the utterance, namely, the body of Christ. But neither does this seem to be suitable, 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 before the words of consecration. Therefore, there must be another explanation, namely, that the forms of the sacraments not only signify, but also make: for by signifying they make. But in every instance of making, something common must be subject as a principle. But in this conversion the common factor is not a substance but the accidents, which were present in the beginning and continue to remain. Therefore, on the part of the subject in this statement no noun is used, which signifies a definite species of substance, but a pronoun, which signifies a substance without naming its species. The sense, therefore, is this, i.e., which is contained under these accidents, is my body. And this is what occurs through the words of consecration. For before the consecration that which was contained under these accidents was not the body of Christ, but it is made the body of Christ through consecration. Thirdly, it is important to consider how this is a suitable form for this sacrament. For this sacrament, as has been said, does not consist in the use of the matter but in its consecration. But the consecration does not occur by the consecrated matter merely receiving some spiritual power, but by the fact that it is transubstantiated according to its being into the body of Christ. Therefore, no other word was to be used except a substantive, so as to say, this is my body. For by this is signified that which is at the end, which is effected by signifying. Then when he says, which will be given up for you, he touches on the mystery of this sacrament. For this sacrament represents the Lord's passion, through which His body was delivered over to death for us, as it says in Is (50:6): "I gave my back to the smiters," and Eph (5:2): "He gave himself for us." And to show the reason for making frequent use of this mystery, he adds: Do this in remembrance of me, by recalling this to mind, namely, such a great blessing, for which I gave myself in death. Hence it says in Lam (3:9): "Remember my affliction and my bitterness, the wormwood and the gall," and Ps 111 (v. 4): "He has caused his wonderful works to be remembered; the Lord is gracious and merciful. He provides food for those who fear him."”

“Juvenius, a native of Spain, and a priest, who flourished under Constantine the Great, about the year 329, has left us the life of Christ in hexameter verse, where speaking of the institution of the eucharist, he says, “Christ taught his disciples, that he delivered to them his own body;” and when he gave them the chalice, “he taught them that he had distributed to them his blood: and said, this blood remits the sins of the people: drink this, it is mine.” (Bibl. Max. P. P. T. iv. p. 74) Discipulos docuit proprium se tradere corpus, Edocuitque suum se divisisse cruorem. Atque ait: Hic sanguis populi delicta remittit: Hunc potate meum.”

“brake--The breaking of the bread involves its distribution and reproves the Corinthian mode at the love-feast, of "every one taking before other his own supper." my body . . . broken for you--"given" (Luk 22:19) for you (Greek, "in your behalf"), and "broken," so as to be distributed among you. The oldest manuscripts omit "broken," leaving it to be supplied from "brake." The two old versions, Memphitic and Thebaic, read from Luke, "given." The literal "body" could not have been meant; for Christ was still sensibly present among His disciples when He said, "This is My body." They could only have understood Him symbolically and analogically: As this bread is to your bodily health, so My body is to the spiritual health of the believing communicant. The words, "Take, eat," are not in the oldest manuscripts. in remembrance of me--(See on Co1 11:25).”

“Daniel the disciple of Arsenius used to talk also about a hermit in Scetis, saying that he was a great man but simple in the faith, and in his ignorance he thought and said that the bread which we receive is not in very truth the Body of Christ, but a symbol of His Body. Two of the monks heard what he said but because they knew of his sublime works and labours, they imagined that he had said it in innocence and simple-mindedness; and so they came to him and said unto him, 'Abba, someone told us something that we do not believe; he said that this bread that we receive is not in very truth the Body of Christ, but a mere symbol.' He said to them, 'I said that.' They begged him, saying, 'You mustn't say that, abba; according to what the Catholic Church has handed down to us, even so do we believe, that is to say, this bread is the Body of Christ in very truth, and is not a mere symbol. It is the same as when God took dust from the earth, and made man in His image; just as no one can say that he is not the image of God, so also with the bread of which He said, "This is My Body" is not to be regarded as a merely commemorative thing; we believe that it is indeed the Body of Christ.' The hermit said, 'Unless I can be convinced by the thing itself I will not listen to this.' Then the monks said to him, 'Let us pray to God all week about this mystery, and we believe that He will reveal the truth to us.' The hermit agreed to this with great joy, and each went to his cell. Then the hermit prayed, saying, 'O Lord, you know that it is not out of wickedness that I do not believe, so in order that I may not go astray through ignorance, reveal to me, Lord Jesus Christ, the truth of this mystery.' The other two brothers prayed to God and said, 'Lord Jesus Christ, give this hermit understanding about this mystery, and we believe that he will not be lost.' God heard the prayer of the two monks. When the week was over they came to the church, and the three of them sat down by themselves on one seat, the hermit between the other two. The eyes of their understanding were opened, and when the time of the mysteries arrived, and the bread was laid upon the holy table, there appeared to the three of them as it were a child on the table. Then the priest stretched out his hand to break the bread, and behold the angel of the Lord came down from heaven with a knife in his hand, and he killed the child and pressed out his blood into the cup. When the priest broke off from the bread small pieces, the hermit went forward to receive communion and a piece of living flesh smeared and dripping with blood was given to him. Now when he saw this he was afraid and he cried out loudly, saying, 'Lord, I believe that the bread is Your Body, and that the cup is Your Blood.' At once the flesh that was in his hand became bread, and he took it and gave thanks to God. The brothers said to him, 'God knows the nature of men, and that we are unable to eat living flesh, and so He turneth His Body into bread, and His Blood into wine for those who receive Him in faith.' Then they gave thanks to God for the hermit, because He had not let Satan destroy him, and the three of them went back to their cells joyfully.”

“We may not, I say, we may not call into question the truth of the (poor vilified) senses, lest we should even in Christ Himself, bring doubt upon the truth of their sensation; lest perchance it should be said that He did not really "behold Satan as lightning fall from heaven; " that He did not really hear the Father's voice testifying of Himself; or that He was deceived in touching Peter's wife's mother; or that the fragrance of the ointment which He afterwards smelled was different from that which He accepted for His burial; and that the taste of the wine was different from that which He consecrated in memory of His blood. On this false principle it was that Marcion actually chose to believe that He was a phantom, denying to Him the reality of a perfect body.”

“"In like manner also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the New Covenant in My Blood: this do, as oft as ye drink of it, in remembrance of Me." What sayest thou? Art thou making a remembrance of Christ, and despisest thou the poor and tremblest not? Why, if a son or brother had died and thou wert making a remembrance of him, thou wouldst have been smitten by thy conscience, hadst thou not fulfilled the custom and invited the poor: and when thou art making remembrance of thy Master, dost thou not so much as simply give a portion of the Table? But what is it which He saith, "This cup is the New Covenant?" Because there was also a cup of the Old Covenant; the libations and the blood of the brute creatures. For after sacrificing, they used to receive the blood in a chalice and bowl and so pour it out. Since then instead of the blood of beasts He brought in His own Blood; lest any should be troubled on hearing this, He reminds them of that ancient sacrifice.”

“The word cup means nothing other than the new covenant in the Lord.… The grace of suffering was intended by the Lord when the word cup is used. For what did he wish to be understood when he said to the sons of Zebedee, "Can you drink the cup that I am going to drink?" … and "Shall I not drink the cup that the Father gave me?" A stone's throw from his disciples he is torn away to die for the sins of humanity. This is his cup of suffering. He shows his feelings of human weakness, saying … "Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me.".”

“And in the Old Testament there were cups into which, after the sacrifice, the blood of irrational animals was poured (Exod. 24:6–8), and it was received with a goblet and a cup. Therefore, in place of the blood of irrational animals, which sealed the Old Testament, I now offer My Blood, sealing with it the New Testament. Therefore, do not be troubled when you hear of blood. For if in the Old Testament you received the blood of irrational animals, how much more ought you now to receive the Divine Blood? And through the cup, he says, you perform a remembrance of the Master's death. How then do you alone drink and get drunk, when this fearful cup was given equally for all?”

“After setting forth the institution of this sacrament as to the consecration of the body, the Apostle now sets forth its institution as to the consecration of the blood. First, he presents the order of institution; secondly, the words (v. 25b). The order is considered with respect to two things: first, the co-presence of both species, when he says: In the same way also the cup. For both are required for the perfection of this sacrament, both for the perfection of nourishment and on account of its representing the passion, and as its effecting the salvation of the soul and of the body, as has been stated above. But if the body of Christ is consecrated first in this sacrament and the blood later, it seems to follow that before the consecration of the blood, the body of Christ is without blood in the sacrament. Some who considered this unfitting have said that the two forms await each other in effecting, so that, namely, the first form of the consecration of the body does not achieve its effect before the form of consecration of the blood is completed; just as it was said that the words pronounced in consecrating the body do not achieve their effect until the end of the pronunciation of the words. But this is not similar. For the signification of the words by which the body of Christ is consecrated is not completed except at the end of the pronouncing of the words. And because sacramental words produce their effect by signifying, they cannot have effect before the end of their pronunciation. At that time they have full signification, even before the words of the consecration of the blood are begun. Therefore, it is necessary that even then they have their effect. Otherwise the priest would sin immediately after the words of consecration by showing an unconsecrated host to the people to be adored, unless the body of Christ were already there; because he would be inducing the people to idolatry. Therefore, it must be said that before the consecration of the blood the body of Christ is in this sacrament not without His blood. For it should be noted that in this sacrament something is present in two ways: in one way in virtue of the consecration, that, namely, that into which the conversion of the bread and wine is terminated, as is signified by the form of consecration; and in this way under the appearance of bread the body of Christ is present. In another way something is present in this sacrament by real concomitance, as the divinity of the Word is present in this sacrament on account of its indissoluble union with the body of Christ, although the substance of bread is in no way converted into the divinity. Likewise, the soul is there, which is really joined to the body. But if at any time during 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, because it was really separated from the body. The same is true of the blood. For under the appearances of bread in virtue of the consecration is present Christ's body, into which the substance of bread is converted. But the blood is there by real concomitance, because then the blood of Christ is not really separated from the body. And for the same reason under the appearance of wine the blood of Christ is present in virtue of the consecration, but the body by real concomitance, so that the whole Christ is under both species. But if during the time of the passion, when the blood of Christ had been drained from His body, this sacrament had been celebrated by any of the apostles, there would have been under the appearances of bread only the body of Christ without the blood; under the appearances of wine would there have been only the blood of Christ. The second order considered is to the material foods which had preceded when he says: After supper. This is a significant phrase. For Christ gave His body during the meal, as it says in Matt (26:26): "As they were eating, Jesus took bread." But He gave his blood expressly after the meal, as it says in Lk (22:20): "And likewise the cup after supper." The reason for this is that the body of Christ represents the mystery of the Incarnation, which occurred while the observance of the Law was still in vogue. Among these observances the most important was the meal 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 observances of the Law came to an end; hence it says in Heb (9:12): "He went once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption." Then he presents the words, this cup: first, he demonstrates the truth of this sacrament; secondly, he enjoins its use (v. 25c). In regard to the first he says, this cup. This can be taken in two ways: in one way as metonymy, where the container is put for the content. As if to say: Contained in this cup, which is more fittingly used in the consecration of the wine, which by reason of its wetness needs to be contained by other boundaries than in the consecration of the bread, which by reason of its dryness is contained within its own boundaries. In another way it can be taken metaphorically, so that the sense would be: just as the cup intoxicates and confuses, so also the passion. Hence Matt (20:22): "Are you able to drink the cup I am to drink?" and Matt (26:39): "Let this cup pass from me." The sense, therefore, is this: This cup, i.e., what is contained in this cup, or this my passion, is the new covenant in my blood. Hence it should be noted that "covenant" is taken in two senses in the Scriptures. In one way for any pact which is confirmed by witnesses; and so it must be supposed that God entered into a pact with the human race in two ways: In one way by promising temporal goods and by freeing from temporal evils; and this is called the Old Covenant or pact. In another way by promising spiritual goods and by freeing from opposite evils, and this is called the New Covenant. Hence it says in Jer (31:31): "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers, when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. But this will be the covenant: I will put my law within them and I will be their God." But it should be noted that in antiquity the custom was that they would pour out the blood of some victim to confirm a pact. Hence it says in Gen (31:54) that after Laban and Jacob made a pact, victims were sacrificed on the mountain and called his kinsmen. Hence, too, in Ex (24:8) its says that Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people and said: "Behold, the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you." Therefore, just as the Old Covenant or pact was confirmed by the figural blood of bulls, so the New Covenant or pact was confirmed in Christ's blood, which was poured out in the passion. And in the cup the sacrament is so contained. In another way "covenant" is taken more strictly for the disposition of an inheritance to be received and which must be confirmed by a certain number of witnesses. Such a covenant, however, is not confirmed except by death, because, as the Apostle says in Heb (9:17): "For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive." God, first of all, made disposition of eternal rewards to be received, but under the figure of temporal goods, which pertain to the Old Covenant. But later He made a New Covenant, expressly promising an eternal inheritance, which was confirmed by the blood of Christ's death. And therefore, the Lord says of this: This cup is the new covenant in my blood. As if to say: Through that which is contained in the cup is commemorated the new covenant confirmed by the blood of Christ. But it should be noted that the same words the Apostle gives here are found in Lk (22:20), except that Luke adds: "which shall be shed for you." For Luke was a disciple of Paul and followed him in writing his Gospel. But Matt (26:28) says: "This is my blood of the new covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." The same words appear in Mk (14:24). Therefore, some say that whichever forms of these words written in the canon are said, they suffice for consecration. But it seems more probable to say that consecration is accomplished only by those words which the Church structured on the apostles' uses. For the evangelists intended to recite the Lord's words as part of His history, but not as they are ordained to consecration of the sacrament, which they held in secret in the early Church on account of unbelievers. Hence Denis says in Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: "It is not permitted to explain openly in writing the perfective invocations in the Scriptures or to bring to light their secret meaning." But in regard to the words the Church uses in the consecration of the blood, some believe that not all are necessary for the form, but only that "This is the cup of my blood" but not "of the new and eternal covenant, a mystery of faith, which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins." But it does not seem fitting to say this. For all that follows is a determination of the predicate. Hence, it pertains to the meaning or signification of the same statement; and because, as has often been said, the forms of the sacraments effect by signifying, and totality pertains to the effective power of the sacrament. Nor is there any merit in the reason they adduce, because in the consecration of the body it is enough to say: "This is my body," because the blood separately consecrated especially represents the passion of Christ, through which His blood was separated from the body. Therefore, in the consecration of the blood it was necessary to express the power of Christ's passion, which is looked at, first of all, with respect to our guilt, which the passion of Christ abolishes, as it says in Rev (1:5): "He washed us from our sins in His blood." In regard to this he says, "which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins." The blood was indeed shed for the remission of sins, not only for many but for all, as it says in 1 John (2:2): "He is the expiation for our sins, and not for ourselves only but also for the sins of the whole world." But because some make themselves unworthy to receive such an effect, as far as its efficacy is concerned, it is said to have been shed for many, in which the passion of Christ has an effect. But he expressly says, "for you and for many," because this sacrament can produce remission of sin for those who receive it after the manner of a sacrifice for many not receiving communion for whom it is offered; which is signified, when it is said: "and for many." Secondly, its power is considered with respect to the life of justice it effects through faith, as it says in Rom (3:24): "They are justified by his grace as a gift through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood to be received by faith." As to this he says: "The mystery," i.e., the sacrament "of faith," namely, because faith in the passion of Christ was hidden in all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant, as the truth in a figure. But the Church has this from the tradition of the apostles, since it is not found in the canon of Scripture. Thirdly, its power is regarded with respect to the life of glory, as it says in Heb (10:19): "Having confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus." As to this he says: "Of the new and eternal covenant." "Eternal," indeed, because it is the disposition for the eternal inheritance. "New" to distinguish from the Old, because it promised temporal things. Hence, it says in Heb (9:15): "Therefore, he is the mediator of a New Covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since his death has occurred." Then when he says, Do this, he enjoins the use of this sacrament, saying: Do this as often as you take it in remembrance of me, namely, in the mystery of my passion. Hence the prophet says in Lam (3:20): "My soul continually thinks of it and is bowed down within me," and in Is (63:7): "I will recall the mercies of the Lord." But it should be noted that principally wine should be put in the cup. But water should be added. For it is probable that Christ at the meal gave the disciples wine mixed with water on account of a custom of that land, in which the strength of the wine had to tempered, so that all drink their wine mixed with water. Hence in Pr (9:5) Wisdom says: "Drink the wine I have mixed for you." Nevertheless, water mixed with wine signifies the Christian people joined to Christ by passion, as it says in Rev (17:15): "The waters you saw are peoples and nations." And partaking of the blood of Christ by the faithful pertains to the use of the sacrament, although it is not necessary. But wine can be consecrated without water, although one so consecrating would sin by not observing the rite of the Church. Therefore, if the priest before the consecration of the wine recalls that water was not added to the wine, he should add it. But if he recalls it after the consecration, he should not add it but should complete the sacrament. For after the consecration, nothing should be mixed with the blood of Christ, because such a mixing could not take place without some sort of corruption of the consecrated wine, which pertains to the crime of sacrilege. But some say that when from the side of Christ hanging on the cross blood and water flowed, as it says in Jn. 19:34, then as wine is converted into blood, so water into water. But this is not suitable, because in that water is figured the washing which is through baptism. But some say that after the conversion of wine into the blood the water remains as water and is surrounded by the accidents of the wine. But this is awkward, because the water is mixed with the wine before consecration, when it does not differ from other wine. Hence, they do not remain separated but are commingled. Therefore, it must be said that water is converted into wine and this whole is converted into the blood of Christ. Accordingly, the custom is to add a small amount of water, especially if the wine is weak, which can convert only a slight amount of water into itself.”

“when he had supped--Greek, "after the eating of supper," namely, the Passover supper which preceded the Lord's Supper, as the love-feast did subsequently. Therefore, you Corinthians ought to separate common meals from the Lord's Supper [BENGEL]. the new testament--or "covenant." The cup is the parchment-deed, as it were, on which My new covenant, or last will is written and sealed, making over to you all blessings here and hereafter. in my blood--ratified by MY blood: "not by the blood of goats and calves" (Heb 9:12). as oft as--Greek, "as many times soever": implying that it is an ordinance often to be partaken of. in remembrance of me--Luke (Luk 22:19) expresses this, which is understood by Matthew and Mark. Paul twice records it (Co1 11:24 and here) as suiting his purpose. The old sacrifices brought sins continually to remembrance (Heb 10:1, Heb 10:3). The Lord's Supper brings to remembrance Christ and His sacrifice once for all for the full and final remission of sins.”

“And because we make mention of His passion in all sacrifices (for the Lord's passion is the sacrifice which we offer), we ought to do nothing else than what He did. For Scripture says, "For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord's death till He come." As often, therefore, as we offer the cup in commemoration of the Lord and of His passion, let us do what it is known the Lord did. And let this conclusion be reached, dearest brother: if from among our predecessors any have either by ignorance or simplicity not observed and kept this which the Lord by His example and teaching has instructed us to do, he may, by the mercy of the Lord, have pardon granted to his simplicity. But we cannot be pardoned who are now admonished and instructed by the Lord to offer the cup of the Lord mingled with wine according to what the Lord offered, and to direct letters to our colleagues also about this, so that the evangelical law and the Lord's tradition may be everywhere kept, and there be no departure from what Christ both taught and did.”

“Therefore, whenever you receive, what does the Apostle say to you? Whenever we receive, we proclaim the death of the Lord. If we proclaim his death, we proclaim the forgiveness of sins. Whenever his blood is poured out, it is poured out for the forgiveness of sins; I must always receive it, so that my sins are always forgiven. As I always sin, I must always have the medicine.”

“Next, having spoken concerning that Supper, he connects the things present with the things of that time, that even as on that very evening and reclining on that very couch and receiving from Christ Himself this sacrifice, so also now might men be affected; and he saith, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till He come." For as Christ in regard to the bread and the cup said, "Do this in remembrance of Me," revealing to us the cause of the giving of the Mystery, and besides what else He said, declaring this to be a sufficient cause to ground our religious fear upon:-(for when thou considerest what thy Master hath suffered for thee, thou wilt the better deny thyself:)-so also Paul saith here: "as often as ye eat ye do proclaim His death." And this is that Supper. Then intimating that it abides unto the end, he saith, "till He come."”

“Proclaiming the death according to the flesh of the only begotten Son of God, that is, of Jesus Christ, and confessing his resurrection from the dead and his ascension into heaven, we celebrate the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and we thus approach the spiritual blessings and are made holy, becoming partakers of the holy flesh and of the precious blood of Christ, the Savior of us all.”

“Then when he says, As often as, he explains the Lord's words, which said: "Do this in memory of me," saying: For as often as you eat this bread. He says bread on account of the appearances that remain. He says this on account of the numerically same body signified and contained. And drink the cup, you will proclaim the Lord's death, namely, by representing it through this sacrament. And this, until he comes, i.e., until His final coming. This gives us to understand that this rite of the Church will not cease until the end of the world: "I am with you always to the end of the world" (Matt 27:20); "This generation," namely, of the Church, "will not pass away, till all has taken place" (Lk 21:32).”

“For--in proof that the Lord's Supper is "in remembrance" of Him. show--announce publicly. The Greek does not mean to dramatically represent, but "ye publicly profess each of you, the Lord has died FOR ME" [WAHL]. This word, as "is" in Christ's institution (Co1 11:24-25), implies not literal presence, but a vivid realization, by faith, of Christ in the Lord's Supper, as a living person, not a mere abstract dogma, "bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh" (Eph 5:30; compare Gen 2:23); and ourselves "members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones," "our sinful bodies made clean by His body (once for all offered), and our souls washed through His most precious blood" [Church of England Prayer Book]. "Show," or "announce," is an expression applicable to new things; compare "show" as to the Passover (Exo 13:8). So the Lord's death ought always to be fresh in our memory; compare in heaven, Rev 5:6. That the Lord's Supper is in remembrance of Him, implies that He is bodily absent, though spiritually present, for we cannot be said to commemorate one absent. The fact that we not only show the Lord's death in the supper, but eat and drink the pledges of it, could only be understood by the Jews, accustomed to such feasts after propitiatory sacrifices, as implying our personal appropriation therein of the benefits of that death. till he come--when there shall be no longer need of symbols of His body, the body itself being manifested. The Greek expresses the certainly of His coming. Rome teaches that we eat Christ present corporally, "till He come" corporally; a contradiction in terms. The showbread, literally, "bread of the presence," was in the sanctuary, but not in the Holiest Place (Heb 9:1-8); so the Lord's Supper in heaven, the antitype to the Holiest Place, shall be superseded by Christ's own bodily presence; then the wine shall be drunk "anew" in the Father's kingdom, by Christ and His people together, of which heavenly banquet, the Lord's Supper is a spiritual foretaste and specimen (Mat 26:29). Meantime, as the showbread was placed anew, every sabbath, on the table before the Lord (Lev 24:5-8); so the Lord's death was shown, or announced afresh at the Lord's table the first day of every week in the primitive Church. We are now "priests unto God" in the dispensation of Christ's spiritual presence, antitypical to the HOLY PLACE: the perfect and eternal dispensation, which shall not begin till Christ's coming, is antitypical to the HOLIEST PLACE, which Christ our High Priest alone in the flesh as yet has entered (Heb 9:6-7); but which, at His coming, we, too, who are believers, shall enter (Rev 7:15; Rev 21:22). The supper joins the two closing periods of the Old and the New dispensations. The first and second comings are considered as one coming, whence the expression is not "return," but "come" (compare, however, Joh 14:3).”

“We also, our Father, thank You for the precious blood of Jesus Christ, which was shed for us and for His precious body, whereof we celebrate this representation, as Himself appointed us, "to show forth His death." [1 Corinthians 11:26] For through Him glory is to be given to You forever. Amen. Let no one eat of these things that is not initiated; but those only who have been baptized into the death of the Lord. But if any one that is not initiated conceal himself, and partake of the same, "he eats eternal damnation;" because, being not of the faith of Christ, he has partaken of such things as it is not lawful for him to partake of, to his own punishment. But if any one is a partaker through ignorance, instruct him quickly, and initiate him, that he may not go out and despise you.”

“Both must therefore test themselves: the one, if he is qualified to speak and leave behind him written records; the other, if he is in a right state to hear and read: as also some in the dispensation of the Eucharist, according to custom enjoin that each one of the people individually should take his part. One's own conscience is best for choosing accurately or shunning. And its firm foundation is a right life, with suitable instruction. But the imitation of those who have already been proved, and who have led correct lives, is most excellent for the understanding and practice of the commandments. "So that whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup." It therefore follows, that every one of those who undertake to promote the good of their neighbours, ought to consider whether he has betaken himself to teaching rashly and out of rivalry to any; if his communication of the word is out of vainglory; if the only reward he reaps is the salvation of those who hear, and if he speaks not in order to win favour.”

“For although in smaller sins sinners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of communion: now with their time still unfulfilled, while persecution is still raging, while the peace of the Church itself is not yet restored, they are admitted to communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the eucharist is given to them; although it is written, "Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."”

“"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and the Blood of the Lord." Why so? Because he poured it out, and makes the thing appear a slaughter and no longer a sacrifice. Much therefore as they who then pierced Him, pierced Him not that they might drink but that they might shed His blood: so likewise doth he that cometh for it unworthily and reaps no profit thereby. Seest thou how fearful he makes his discourse, and inveighs against them very exceedingly, signifying that if they are thus to drink, they partake unworthily of the elements? For how can it be other than unworthily when it is he who neglects the hungry? who besides overlooking him puts him to shame? Since if not giving to the poor casteth one out of the kingdom, even though one should be a virgin; or rather, not giving liberally: (for even those virgins too had oil, only they had it not abundantly:) consider how great the evil will prove, to have wrought so many impieties? "What impieties?" say you. Why sayest thou, what impieties? Thou hast partaken of such a Table and when thou oughtest to be more gentle than any and like the angels, none so cruel as thou art become. Thou hast tasted the Blood of the Lord, and not even thereupon dost thou acknowledge thy brother. Of what indulgence then art thou worthy? Whereas if even before this thou hadst not known him, thou oughtest to have come to the knowledge of him from the Table; but now thou dishonorest the Table itself; he having been deemed worthy to partake of it and thou not judging him worthy of thy meat. Hast thou not heard how much he suffered who demanded the hundred pence? how he made void the gift vouchsafed to him? Doth it not come into thy mind what thou wert and what thou hast become? Dost thou not put thyself in remembrance that if this man be poor in possessions, thou wast much more beggarly in good works, being full of ten thousand sins? Notwithstanding, God delivered thee from all those and counted thee worthy of such a Table: but thou art not even thus become more merciful: therefore of course nothing else remaineth but that thou shouldest be "delivered to the tormentors."”

“He hints that they themselves partake unworthily, because they despise the poor. In what way, then, is one who partakes unworthily guilty? In that he too has shed the blood. For just as those who then pierced did not pierce in order to drink, but in order to shed, so too the one who drinks unworthily, and therefore receives no benefit from it, has shed the blood in vain. The Jews tore the tunic of the King, but whoever partakes unworthily has cast it into the mud, that is, into his own soul. Is not the dishonor equal? Therefore he is guilty in equal measure.”

“After showing the dignity of this sacrament, the Apostle now rouses the faithful to receive it reverently. First, he outlines the peril threatening those who receive unworthily; secondly, he applies a saving remedy (v. 28). First, therefore, he says, Therefore, from the fact that this which is received sacramentally is the body of Christ and what is drunk is the blood of Christ, whoever eats this bread or drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. In these words must be considered, first, how someone eats or drinks unworthily. According to a Gloss this happens in three ways: first, as to the celebration of this sacrament, namely, because someone celebrates the sacrament in a manner different from that handed down by Christ; for example, if he offers in this sacrament a bread other than wheaten or some liquid other than wine from the grape of the vine. Hence it says in Lev (10:1) that Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron, offered before the Lord "unholy fire, such as he had not commanded them. And fire came forth from the presence of the Lord and devoured them." Secondly, from the fact that someone approached the Eucharist with a mind not devout. This lack of devotion is sometimes venial, as when someone with his mind distracted by worldly affairs approaches this sacrament habitually retaining due reverence toward it; and such lack of devotion, although it impedes the fruit of this sacrament, which is spiritual refreshment, does not make one guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, as the Apostle says here. But a certain lack of devotion is a mortal sin, i.e., when it involves contempt of this sacrament, as it says in Mal (1:12): "But you profane it when you say that the Lord's table is polluted and its food may be despised." It is of such lack of devotion that the Gloss speaks. In a third way someone is said to be unworthy, because he approaches the Eucharist with the intention of sinning mortally. For it says in Lev (21:23): "He shall not approach the altar, because he has a blemish." Someone is understood to have a blemish as long as he persists in the intention of sinning, which, however, is taken away through penitence. By contrition, indeed, which takes away the will to sin with the intention of confession and making satisfaction, as to the remission of guilt and eternal punishment; by confession and satisfaction as to the total remission of punishment and reconciliation with the members of the Church. Therefore, in cases of necessity, as when someone does not have an abundance of confessors, contrition is enough for receiving this sacrament. But as a general rule, confession with some satisfaction should precede. Hence in the book on Church Dogmas it says: "One who desires to go to communion should make satisfaction with tears and prayers, and trusting in the Lord approach the Eucharist clean, free from care, and secure. But I say this of the person not burdened with capital and mortal sins. For the one whom mortal sins committed after baptism press down, I advise to make satisfaction with public penance, and so be joined to communion by the judgment of the priest, if he does not wish to receive the condemnation of the Church." But it seems that sinners do not approach this sacrament unworthily. For in this sacrament Christ is received, and He is the spiritual physician, Who says of Himself in Matt (9:12): "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick." The answer is that this sacrament is spiritual food, as baptism is spiritual birth. But one is born in order to live, but he is not nourished unless he is already alive. Therefore, this sacrament does not befit sinners who are not yet alive by grace; although baptism befits them. Furthermore, the Eucharist is the sacrament of love and ecclesial 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, since he is signifying that he has charity, but does not. Yet because a sinner sometimes has faith in this sacrament, it is lawful for him to look at this sacrament, which is absolutely denied to unbelievers, as Denis says in Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. Secondly, it is necessary to consider how one who receives this sacrament unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. This is explained in three ways in a Gloss. In one way materially: for one incurs guilt from a sin committed against the body and blood of Christ, as contained in this sacrament, which he receives unworthily and from this his guilt is increased. For his guilt is increased to the extent that a greater person is offended against: "How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God and profaned the blood of the covenant?" (Heb 10:29). Secondly, it is explained by a similitude, so that the sense would be: He will be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, i.e., he will be punished as if he had killed Christ, as it says in Heb (6:6): "They crucify the son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt." But according to this the gravest sin seems to be committed by those who receive the body of Christ unworthily. The answer is that a sin is grave in two ways: in one way from the sin's species, which is taken from its object; according to this a sin against the godhead, such as unbelief, blasphemy and so on, is graver than one committed against the humanity of Christ. Hence, the Lord Himself says (Matt 12:32): "Whoever says a word against the son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven." And again a sin committed against the humanity in its own species is graver than under the sacramental species. In another way the gravity of sin is considered on the part of the sinner. But one sins more, when he sins from hatred or envy or any other maliciousness, as those sinned who crucified Christ, than one who sins from weakness, as they sometimes sin who receive this sacrament unworthily. It does not follow, therefore, that the sin of receiving this sacrament unworthily should be compared to the sin of killing Christ, as though the sins were equal, but on account of a specific likeness: because each concerns the same Christ. He will be guilty of the body and blood of Christ is explained in a third way, i.e., the body and blood of the Lord will make him guilty. For something good evilly received hurts one, inasmuch as evil well used profits one, as the sting of Satan profited Paul. By these words is excluded the error of those 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 this is the word of the Apostle: "Whoever eats this bread or drinks the Lord's cup unworthily." For according to the above opinion no one unworthy would eat or drink. But this opinion is contrary to the truth of this sacrament, according to which the body and blood of Christ remain in this sacrament, as long as the appearances remain, no matter where they exist.”

“Or drink. Here erroneous translators corrupted the text, by putting and drink (contrary to the original, e pine ) instead of or drink. — Guilty of the body, &c. not discerning the body, &c. This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lord’s body. (Challoner) — The real presence in the sacrament is also proved by the enormity of the crime, in its profanation. See St. Chrysostom, hom. de non contem. ec. and hom. lx. and lxi. ad pop. Antioch. where he shews that the unworthy receiver imitates the Jews in crucifying Jesus, and trampling under foot his sacred blood. Hence the dreadful punishments we read of in verses 27 and 30.”

“eat and drink--So one of the oldest manuscripts reads. But three or four equally old manuscripts, the Vulgate and CYPRIAN, read, "or." Romanists quote this reading in favor of communion in one kind. This consequence does not follow. Paul says, "Whosoever is guilty of unworthy conduct, either in eating the bread, or in drinking the cup, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ." Impropriety in only one of the two elements, vitiates true communion in both. Therefore, in the end of the verse, he says, not "body or blood," but "body and blood." Any who takes the bread without the wine, or the wine without the bread, "unworthily" communicates, and so "is guilty of Christ's body and blood"; for he disobeys Christ's express command to partake of both. If we do not partake of the sacramental symbol of the Lord's death worthily, we share in the guilt of that death. (Compare "crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh," Heb 6:6). Unworthiness in the person, is not what ought to exclude any, but unworthily communicating: However unworthy we be, if we examine ourselves so as to find that we penitently believe in Christ's Gospel, we may worthily communicate.”

“In your conscience, where no one is present except God who sees all, there judge yourself, examine your sins. When you reflect upon your whole life, bring your sins to the court of the mind. Correct your mistakes, and in this way, with a clean conscience, touch the sacred table and participate in the holy sacrifice.”

“When Paul necessarily includes one proposition within another, he usually investigates the latter as well. So it is now. The preceding discussion was about meals. But since he began speaking about the Mysteries, he occupies himself with this as the most essential matter, and points to the highest good in approaching with a clean conscience, and says: I do not set another as judge over you, but you yourself. Therefore, justify yourself before your own conscience, and thus approach — not when there are feast days, but when you find yourself pure and worthy.”

“Then when he says, Let a man examine himself, he applies a remedy against this peril. First, he suggests the remedy; secondly, he assigns a reason (v. 29); thirdly, he clarifies the reason with a sign (v. 30). First, therefore, he says: because one who receives this sacrament unworthily incurs so much guilt, it is necessary that a man first examine himself, i.e., carefully inspect his conscience, lest there exist in it the intention to sin mortally or any past sin for which he has not repented sufficiently. And so, secure after a careful examination, eat of that bread and drink of that cup, because for those who receive worthily, it is not poison but medicine: "Let each one test his own work" (Gal 6:4); "Examine yourselves to see whether you are holding to your faith" (2 Cor 13:5).”

“examine--Greek, "prove" or "test" his own state of mind in respect to Christ's death, and his capability of "discerning the Lord's body" (Co1 11:29, Co1 11:31). Not auricular confession to a priest, but self-examination is necessary. so--after due self-examination. of . . . of--In Co1 11:27, where the receiving was unworthily, the expression was, "eat this bread, drink . . . cup" without "of." Here the "of" implies due circumspection in communicating [BENGEL]. let him eat--His self-examination is not in order that he may stay away, but that he may eat, that is, communicate.”

“"For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself." What sayest thou, tell me? Is this Table which is the cause of so many blessings and teeming with life, become judgment? Not from its own nature, saith he, but from the will of him that approaches. For as His presence, which conveyed to us those great and unutterable blessings, condemned the more them that received it not: so also the Mysteries become provisions of greater punishment to such as partake unworthily. But why doth he eat judgment to himself? "Not discerning the Lord's body:" i.e., not searching, not bearing in mind, as he ought, the greatness of the things set before him; not estimating the weight of the gift. For if thou shouldest come to know accurately Who it is that lies before thee, and Who He is that gives Himself, and to whom, thou wilt need no other argument, but this is enough for thee to use all vigilance; unless thou shouldest be altogether fallen.”

“Not because of the nature of the Mysteries (for they are life-giving), but because of the unworthiness of the one who approaches, just as looking at the sun is harmful to diseased eyes. That is, without examining or thinking about the greatness of what is set before us. For if we were aware of what is set before us at a given time, we would not need another awakening: this alone would have awakened us to be vigilant.”

“In the species of bread and wine Christ is set before us as food, which whoever receives worthily, not only sacramentally, but also eating spiritually through faith and charity, is more fully incorporated into the mystical body of Christ and is in himself refreshed and purified; but whoever approaches unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the most holy body of Christ. Since our capacity to receive Christ efficaciously is not in the flesh, but in the spirit, not in the belly, but in the mind: and the mind does not attain Christ except through knowledge and love, through faith and charity, such that faith illuminates unto meditation, and charity enkindles unto devotion: therefore, in order that one may approach worthily, it is necessary that one eat spiritually, so that through the meditation of faith one may chew, and through the devotion of love one may receive: through which one does not transform Christ into oneself, but rather one is transferred into His mystical body. On account of which it is manifestly gathered that he who approaches tepidly, without devotion, and without consideration eats and drinks judgment to himself, because he does insult to so great a Sacrament. And therefore the counsel is for those who feel themselves less clean in mind or in flesh, or even without devotion, that they defer until, prepared for the eating of the true Lamb, they approach clean, devout, and circumspect.”

“Then when he says, anyone who eats, he assigns the reason for the above remedy, saying: A previous examination is required, because anyone who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment, i.e., condemnation, upon himself: "Those who have done evil will rise to the resurrection of judgment" (Jn. 5:29). Not discerning the body of the Lord, i.e., from the fact that he does not distinguish the body of the Lord from other things, receiving Him indiscriminately as other foods: "Anyone who approaches the holy things while he has an uncleanness, that person shall be cut off from my presence" (Lev 22:3). On the other hand it says in John (6:58): "He that eats me shall live because of me." The answer is that there are two ways of receiving this sacrament, namely, spiritually and sacramentally. Therefore, some receive sacramentally and spiritually, namely, those who receive this sacrament in such a way that they also share in the reality of the sacrament, namely, charity through which ecclesial unity exists. To such the Lord's words apply: "He that eats me will live because of me." But some receive only sacramentally, namely, those who receive this sacrament in such a way that they do not have the reality of the sacrament, i.e., charity. To these are applied the words spoken here: "He that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment upon himself." Besides these two ways by which the sacrament is taken, there is a third way, by which one eats per accidens, namely, when it is taken not as a sacrament. This can happen in three ways: in one way, as when a believer receives the consecrated host, which he does not believe is consecrated: such a one has the habit of receiving this sacrament, but he does not use it actually as a sacrament. In another way, as when an unbeliever receives the consecrated host, but he has no faith about this sacrament: such a person does not have the habit of using this sacrament, but only the potentiality. In a third way, as when a mouse or other brute animal eats the sacred host: such animals do have even the potentiality to use this sacrament. Therefore, from the fact that those who receive this sacrament spiritually acquire life, some are drawn to receive this sacrament frequently. But from the fact that those who receive unworthily acquire judgment upon themselves, many are deterred and rarely receive. Both seem commendable, for we read in Lk (19:6): "Zacheaus rejoiced to receive the Lord into his house." In this his charity is commended. We also read in Lk (7:6) that the centurion said to Christ: "I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof." In this case his honor and reverence toward Christ is commended. But because of themselves love is preferred to fear, it seems more commendable to receive more frequently rather than more rarely. Yet because something more choiceworthy in itself can be less choiceworthy in regard to this or that person, each one should consider in himself which effect the frequent reception of this sacrament would have in him. For if someone feels that it helps him make progress to the fervor of his love of Christ and in his strength to resist sins, he ought to receive frequently. But if someone feels in himself less reverence for his sacrament by receiving it frequently, he should be advised to receive it rarely. Hence, even in the book On the Dogmas of the Church it says: "I neither praise nor condemn daily communion."”

“damnation--A mistranslation which has put a stumbling-block in the way of many in respect to communicating. The right translation is "judgment." The judgment is described (Co1 11:30-32) as temporal. not discerning--not duty judging: not distinguishing in judgment (so the Greek: the sin and its punishment thus being marked as corresponding) from common food, the sacramental pledges of the Lord's body. Most of the oldest manuscripts omit "Lord's" (see Co1 11:27). Omitting also "unworthily," with most of the oldest manuscripts, we must translate, "He that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, IF he discern not the body" (Heb 10:29). The Church is "the body of Christ" (Co1 12:27). The Lord's body is His literal body appreciated and discerned by the soul in the faithful receiving, and not present in the elements themselves.”

“"For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep." Here he no longer brings his examples from others as he did in the case of the idol-sacrifices, relating the ancient histories and the chastisements in the wilderness, but from the Corinthians themselves; which also made the discourse apt to strike them more keenly. For whereas he was saying, "he eateth judgment to himself," and, "he is guilty;" that he might not seem to speak mere words, he points to deeds also and calls themselves to witness; a kind of thing which comes home to men more than threatening, by showing that the threat has issued in some real fact. He was not however content with these things alone, but from these he also introduced and confirmed the argument concerning hell-fire, terrifying them in both ways; and solving an inquiry which is handled everywhere. I mean, since many question one with another, "whence arise the untimely deaths, whence the long diseases of men;" he tells them that these unexpected events are many of them conditional upon certain sins. "What then? They who are in continual health," say you, "and come to a green old age, do they not sin?" Nay, who durst say this? "How then," say you, "do they not suffer punishment?" Because there they shall suffer a severer one. But we, if we would, neither here nor there need suffer it.”

“Take the proof of what has been said from what happens among you. For it is because many partake unworthily that cases of untimely death and prolonged illnesses occur. But do those who reach the deepest old age without experiencing illness no longer sin? They do sin. But for those who approach unworthily, not only these present punishments await, but even more severe ones in the other life. And we would not be punished even here if we did not sin, as he continues.”

“Then when he says, That is why, he clarifies the reason he gave with a sign. First, he mentions the sign; secondly, he assigns the cause of that sign (v. 31). In regard to the first it should be noted that, as Augustine says in The City of God: "If God punished every sin with a penalty now, it would be thought that nothing was left for the final judgment." Again, if He punished no sin now, it would be believed that there is no divine providence. As a sign of the future judgment, God even in this world punishes certain ones temporarily in this world. This is especially seen in the beginning of the legislation both of the Old and of the New. For we read in Ex (32:28) that on account of the sin of adoring the golden calf many thousands of men fell. Again we read in Ac (5:1-11) that on account of the sin of lying and of theft Ananias and Sapphira were destroyed. Hence also for the sin of receiving this sacrament unworthily some in the early Church were punished by God with bodily infirmity or even death. Hence he says, that is why, namely, as a sign of the future judgment among you many unworthily receiving the body of Christ are weak bodily "Their sorrows are multiplied" (Ps 16:4), and ill, i.e., labor under a long sickness, and some have died, namely, a bodily death (1 Th. 4:12).”

“Therefore in punishment of the sin of receiving unworthily, many are infirm, visited with infirmities, even that bring death, which is meant by those words, many sleep. But it is a mercy of God, when he only punishes by sickness, or a corporal death, and does not permit us to perish for ever, or be condemned with this wicked world. To avoid this, let a man prove himself, examine the state of his conscience, especially before he receives the holy sacrament, confess his sins, and be absolved by those to whom Christ left the power of forgiving sins in his name, and by his authority. If we judge ourselves in this manner, we shall not be judged, that is, condemned. (Witham)”

“weak . . . sickly--He is "weak" who has naturally no strength: "sickly," who has lost his strength by disease [TITTMANN, Greek Synonyms of the New Testament]. sleep--are being lulled in death: not a violent death; but one the result of sickness, sent as the Lord's chastening for the individual's salvation, the mind being brought to a right state on the sick bed (Co1 11:31).”

“Now the Scripture kindles the living spark of the soul, and directs the eye suitably for contemplation; perchance inserting something, as the husbandman when he ingrafts, but, according to the opinion of the divine apostle, exciting what is in the soul. "For there are certainly among us many weak and sickly, and many sleep. But if we judge ourselves, we shall not be judged."”

“Judge in yourself what I am going to tell you: suppose you happen to go on a long journey and, parched with thirst in the heat, you chance upon one of the brothers. You say to him, "Refresh me in my exhaustion from thirst," and he replies, "It is the time for prayer; I will pray and then I will come to your aid"; and while he is praying, before coming to you, you die of thirst. What seems to you the better, that he should go and pray, or alleviate your exhaustion?”

“"For if we discerned ourselves," saith he, "we should not be judged." And he said not, "if we punished ourselves, if we were revenged on ourselves," but if we were only willing to acknowledge our offence, to pass sentence on ourselves, to condemn the things done amiss, we should be rid of the punishment both in this world and the next. For he that condemns himself propitiates God in two ways, both by acknowledging his sins, and by being more on his guard for the future. But since we are not willing to do even this light thing, as we ought to do it, not even thus doth He endure to punish us with the world, but even thus spareth us, exacting punishment in this world, where the penalty is for a season and the consolation great; for the result is both deliverance from sins, and a good hope of things to come, alleviating the present evils. And these things he saith, at the same time comforting the sick and rendering the rest more serious.”

“Indeed, many sins seem to be ignored and go unpunished. But their punishment is reserved for the future. It is not in vain that the day when the Judge of the living and the dead shall come is rightly called the day of judgment. Just so, on the other hand, some sins are punished here, and if they are forgiven will certainly bring no harm upon us in the future age. Hence, referring to certain temporal punishments which are visited upon sinners in this life, the apostle, speaking to those whose sins are blotted out and not reserved to the end says: "But if we judged ourselves truly we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world."”

“Then when he says, But if we judged, he assigns two reasons for the above sign: the first is taken on our part; the second on God's part (v. 32). On our part the cause of divine punishment is from negligence, because we neglect to punish ourselves for sins committed. Hence he says that if we judged ourselves truly by rebuking and punishing our sins, we should not be judged, i.e., not punished by the Lord either later in the future or even in the present. But on the other hand it says above (4:3): "I do not even judge myself" and in Rom (14:22): "Blessed is he that does not judge himself." The answer is that someone can judge himself in three ways: in one way by examination, and in this way one ought to judge himself both as to past works and as to future ones, according to Gal (6:4): "Let each one prove his own work." In another way by absolving himself decisionally as though judging himself innocent as to the past; and according to this, no one should judge himself, namely, that he judge himself innocent, according to Jb (9:20): "Though I am innocent, my own mouth would condemn me; though I am blameless, he would prove me perverse." In a third way by reprehending, namely, that he did something he judges evil. In this way is understood the statement: "Blessed is he who does not judge himself for what he approves." But as to things already done, each one ought to judge himself by blaming and punishing oneself for evil deeds. Hence it says in Jb (13:15): "I will defend my ways to his face" and (23:4): "I would lay my case before him and fill my mouth with arguments." In the book On Penance, Augustine says of this judgment: "Let the image of the future judgment play before your eyes and let a man rise up against himself before his own face, and having made a judgment in his heart, let thought be the accuser and conscience the witness and the heart executioner. Then let the blood of the confessing spirit break out in tears. Finally, from the mind itself let such a sentence issue that the man judges himself unworthy to partake of the body and blood of the Lord."”

“if we would judge ourselves--Most of the oldest manuscripts, read "But," not "For." Translate also literally "If we duly judged ourselves, we should not be (or not have been) judged," that is, we should escape (or have escaped) our present judgments. In order to duly judge or "discern [appreciate] the Lord's body," we need to "duly judge ourselves." A prescient warning against the dogma of priestly absolution after full confession, as the necessary preliminary to receiving the Lord's Supper.”

“For the law, in its solicitude for those who obey, trains up to piety, and prescribes what is to be done, and restrains each one from sins, imposing penalties even on lesser sins. But when it sees any one in such a condition as to appear incurable, posting to the last stage of wickedness, then in its solicitude for the rest, that they may not be destroyed by it (just as if amputating a part from the whole body), it condemns such an one to death, as the course most conducive to health. "Being judged by the Lord," says the apostle, "we are chastened, that we may not be condemned with the world." For the prophet had said before, "Chastening, the Lord hath chastised me, but hath not given me over unto death."”

“Now the image is the Spirit that is wafted over the water; and whosoever is not fashioned into a figure of this, will perish with the world, inasmuch as he continues only potentially, and does exist actually. This, he says, is what has been spoken, "that we should not be condemned with the world." If one, however, be made into the figure of (the Spirit), and be generated from an indivisible point, as it has been written in the Announcement, (such a one, albeit) small, will become great. But what is great will continue unto infinite and unalterable duration, as being that which no longer is subject to the conditions of a generated entity.”

“Instead of passing idly by what are considered slight sins, let us daily require an account of ourselves for words and glances and execute sentence upon ourselves so as to be free from punishment later. This is the reason Paul said, "If we judge ourselves, we would not be judged." Thus if we judge ourselves for our sins every day here, we shall preclude the severity of the judgment in that other place. But if we should be remiss, "we will be judged and chastised by the Lord." So let us take the initiative in passing sentence on ourselves with all good will, holding the court of conscience unbeknown to anyone. Let us examine our own thoughts and determine a proper verdict so that through fear of imminent punishment our mind may forbear to be dragged down and instead may check its impulses, and by keeping in view that unsleeping eye may ward off the devil's advances.”

“Since, he says, we do not perform such an easy and simple task, that is, self-condemnation, God does not deal with us so mercilessly either, but punishes us here in order to show mercy there. "We are chastened" (παιδευόμεθα), he says, here: we are not subjected to punishments, but receive fatherly admonitions, so that there we may not be condemned "with the world," that is, with unbelievers. For believers, being under the protection of God, receive retribution for their sins here.”

“Then when he says, But when we, he presents the cause on God's part, saying: But when we are judged by the Lord, i.e., punished in this world, we are chastened, i.e., this is done for our correction, in order, namely, that each one withdraw from sin on account of the punishment he endured: "Happy is the man whom God reproves" (Jb 5:17); "Whom the Lord loves he chastises" (Pr 3:12), or even when through the punishment of one, another ceases to sin: "Strike a scoffer and the simple will learn prudence" (Pr 19:25) and this in order that we may not be condemned with eternal damnation in the future, along with the world, i.e., with worldly men.”

“The apostle, checking those that transgress in their conduct at entertainments, says: "For every one taketh beforehand in eating his own supper; and one is hungry, and another drunken. Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God, and shame those who have not?" And among those who have, they, who eat shamelessly and are insatiable, shame themselves. And both act badly; the one by paining those who have not, the other by exposing their own greed in the presence of those who have. Necessarily, therefore, against those who have cast off shame and unsparingly abuse meals, the insatiable to whom nothing is sufficient, the apostle, in continuation, again breaks forth in a voice of displeasure: "So that, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait for one another. And if any one is hungry, let him eat at home, that ye come not together to condemnation."”

“That too great lust of food is not to be desired. In Isaiah: "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we shall die. This sin shall not be remitted to you even until ye die." Also in Exodus: "And the people sate down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." Paul, in the first to the Corinthians: "Meat commendeth us not to God; neither if we eat shall we abound, nor if we eat not shall we want." . And again: "When ye come together to eat, wait one for another. If any is hungry, let him eat at home, that ye may not come together for judgment." Also to the Romans: "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." In the Gospel according to John: "I have meat which ye know not of. My meat is, that I should do His will who sent me, and should finish His work."”

“"Wherefore when ye come together to eat, wait one for another." Thus, while their fear was yet at its height and the terror of hell remained, he chooses again to bring in also the exhortation in behalf of the poor, on account of which he said all these things; implying that if they do not this they must partake unworthily. But if the not imparting of our goods excludes from that Table, much more the violently taking away. And he said not, "wherefore, when ye come together, impart to them that need," but, which has a more reverential sound, "wait one for another." For this also prepared the way for and intimated that, and in a becoming form introduced the exhortation...”

“Then when he says, So then, he leads them back to due observance: first, he presents what he now ordains; secondly, he gives a promise of a future ordination (v. 34b). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he makes his ordination, saying: So then, my brethren, so that no one will presume to eat his meal, when you come together, namely, in the church, to eat, namely, the body of Christ, wait for one another, so that all may receive at the same time. Hence it says in Ex (12:6): "The holy assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lamb." Secondly, he excludes an excuse, saying: If anyone is hungry and cannot wait, let him eat at home, namely, ordinary food, not to receive the Eucharist later: "The stomach will take any food" (Sir 36:18). Thirdly, he gives the reason saying: lest you come together, namely, to receive the body of Christ, to be condemned.”

“"And if any man is hungry, let him eat at home." By permitting, he hinders it, and more strongly than by an absolute prohibition. For he brings him out of the church and sends him to his house, hereby severely reprimanding and ridiculing them, as slaves to the belly and unable to contain themselves. For he said not, "if any despise the poor," but, "if any hunger," discoursing as with impatient children; as with brute beasts which are slaves to appetite. Since it would be indeed very ridiculous, if, because they were hungry they were to eat at home. Yet he was not content with this, but added also another more fearful thing, saying, "that your coming together be not unto judgment:" that ye come not unto chastisement, unto punishment, insulting the Church, dishonoring your brother. "For for this cause ye come together," saith he, "that ye may love one another, that ye may profit and be profited. But if the contrary happen, it were better for you to feed yourselves at home." This, however, he said, that he might attract them to him the more. Yea, this was the very purpose both of his pointing out the injury that would arise from hence, and of his saying that condemnation was no trifling one, and terrifying them in every way, by the Mysteries, by the sick, by those that had died, by the other things before mentioned. Then also he alarms them again in another way, saying, "and the rest will I set in order whensoever I come:" with reference either to some other things, or to this very matter. For since it was likely that they would yet have some reasons to allege, and it was not possible to set all to rights by letter, "the things which I have charged you, let them be observed for the present," saith he; "but if ye have any thing else to mention, let it be kept for my coming;" speaking either of this matter, as I said, or of some other things not very urgent. And this he doth that hence too he may render them more serious. For being anxious about his coming, they would correct the error. For the sojourning of Paul in any place was no ordinary thing.”

“A shaming word. For he speaks with them as with children who are irritable from hunger, and condemns their gluttony. Therefore, leading them out of the church, he sends them home, and there shames them considerably. That is, to their own harm and condemnation. Assemblies are appointed so that those who gather in love may be mutually beneficial to one another, but if this is not the case, then it is better to stay at home. He says this not so that they would stay at home, but in order to more strongly draw them to assemblies in the proper manner. He speaks either about some other faults that existed among them and required resolution, or about the fact that some would likely defend themselves against what was said. But for now, what I have said must be observed. If anyone has something else to say, let him wait for my arrival. He frightens them with his arrival so that they may humble themselves and correct themselves, if they have anything amiss.”

“Then a promise is made when he says: About other things, namely, which are not so perilous, when I come home very soon, I will give directions, namely, how to conserve them. From this it is clear that the Church has many things arranged by the Apostle that are not contained in Sacred Scripture: "The cities will be inhabited," i.e., the churches will be set in order "by the sense of prudent men," namely, of the apostles (Sir 10:3).”

“if any . . . hunger--so as not to be able to "tarry for others," let him take off the edge of his hunger at home [ALFORD] (Co1 11:22). the rest--"the other questions you asked me as to the due celebration of the Lord's Supper." Not other questions in general; for he does subsequently set in order other general questions in this Epistle. Next: 1 Corinthians Chapter 12”