1 Corinthians 11:8–22

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.

Man has the first place because of the order of creation.

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).

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.

This is all that is needed to demonstrate the primacy of the man, for the woman was created to serve him, not the other way round.

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).

The veil signifies power, and the angels are bishops.

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.

It is on account of the angels, he says, that the woman's head is to be covered, because the angels revolted from God on account of the daughters of men.

She has the burden of her own humility to bear. If she ought not to appear with her head uncovered on account of the angels, much more with a crown on it will she offend those (elders) who perhaps are then wearing crowns above.

What was the use, however, of adducing the Creator's, which he was destroying? It was vain to do so; for his god had no such authority! (The apostle) says: "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn," and adds: "Doth God take care of oxen? "Yes, of oxen, for the sake of men! For, says he, "it is written for our sakes." Thus he showed that the law had a symbolic reference to ourselves, and that it gives its sanction in favour of those who live of the gospel.

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.

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. He adds: "Because of the angels." What angels? In other words, whose angels? If he means the fallen angels of the Creator, there is great propriety in his meaning.

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.

If "the woman ought to have power upon the head," all the more justly ought the virgin, to whom pertains the essence of the cause (assigned for this assertion).

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.

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.

Paul adds that all things are from God so that the woman will not be upset because of her dependent condition nor will the man be proud of his responsible position.

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."

This was the church's tradition, but since the Corinthians were ignoring it, Paul made his appeal to nature.

"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?"

Here then we see the just judgment of God's providence, that diversity of conduct is taken into account and that each is treated according to the deserts of his departure and defection from goodness.

Again he sets them themselves as judges, so that he may fully confirm what he desires.

Here he hints at something Terrible, namely that the dishonor ascends all the way to God.

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."

One act is becoming to a man, another to a woman.… How unsightly it is for a man to act like a woman!

This is in line with Leviticus [19:27], which prohibits a man from having long hair.

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.

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!

"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.

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.

So completely has Paul by naming the sex generally, mingled "daughters" and species together in the genus. Again, while he says that "nature herself," which has assigned hair as a tegument and ornament to women, "teaches that veiling is the duty of females," has not the same tegument and the same honour of the head been assigned also to virgins? If "it is shameful" for a woman to be shorn it is similarly so to a virgin too.

If, moreover, the apostle further adds the prejudgment of "nature," that redundancy of locks is an honour to a woman, because hair serves for a covering, of course it is most of all to a virgin that this is a distinction; for their very adornment properly consists in this, that, by being massed together upon the crown, it wholly covers the very citadel of the head with an encirclement of hair.

If Scripture is uncertain, Nature is manifest; and concerning Nature's testimony Scripture cannot be uncertain. If there is a doubt about Nature, Discipline points out what is more sanctioned by God.

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).

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.

Hence it is in vain that some who are overcome by reason oppose to us custom, as if custom were greater than truth; or as if that were not to be sought after in spiritual matters which has been revealed as the better by the Holy Spirit. For one who errs by simplicity may be pardoned, as the blessed Apostle Paul says of himself, "I who at first was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious; yet obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly." But after inspiration and revelation made to him, he who intelligently and knowingly perseveres in that course in which he had erred, sins without pardon for his ignorance. For he resists with a certain presumption and obstinacy, when he is overcome by reason. Nor let any one say, "We follow that which we have received from the apostles," when the apostles only delivered one Church, and one baptism, which is not ordained except in the same Church. And we cannot find that any one, when he had been baptized by heretics, was received by the apostles in the same baptism, and communicated in such a way as that the apostles should appear to have approved the baptism of heretics.

These things, dearest brother, I have briefly written to you, according to my abilities, prescribing to none, and prejudging none, so as to prevent any one of the bishops doing what he thinks well, and having the free exercise of his judgment. We, as far as in us lies, do not contend on behalf of heretics with our colleagues and fellow-bishops, with whom we maintain a divine concord and the peace of the Lord; especially since the apostle says, "If any man, however, is thought to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Church of God." Charity of spirit, the honour of our college, the bond of faith, and priestly concord, are maintained by us with patience and gentleness. For this reason, moreover, we have with the best of our poor abilities, with the permission and inspiration of the Lord, written a treatise on the "Benefit of Patience," which for the sake of our mutual love we have transmitted to you. I bid you, dearest brother, ever heartily farewell.

"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.

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).

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."

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).

"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.

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.

These were the ingenious arts of "spiritual wickednesses," wherewith we also, my brethren, may fairly expect to have "to wrestle," as necessary for faith, that the elect may be made manifest, (and) that the reprobate may be discovered.

If, however, the angels of the rival god are referred to, what fear is there for them? for not even Marcion's disciples, (to say nothing of his angels, ) have any desire for women. We have often shown before now, that the apostle classes heresies as evil among "works of the flesh," and that he would have those persons accounted estimable who shun heresies as an evil thing.

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."

Paul did not want heresies or choose them, but he foresaw the future and knew that they would come.

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.

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.

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.

That it was foretold that heresies would arise. In the first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: "Heresies must needs be, in order that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."

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.

"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.

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.

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.

Paul is not talking here about doctrinal error but about moral failures.

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.

And therefore "heresies must needs be in order that they which are approved might be made manifest, both those who remained stedfast under persecution, and those who did not wander out of their way into heresy.

Now, that which he subjoins to evil things, he of course confesses to be itself an evil; and all the greater, indeed, because he tells us that his belief of their schisms and dissensions was grounded on his knowledge that "there must be heresies also." 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.

It was indeed necessary that there should be heresies; and yet it does not follow from that necessity, that heresies are a good thing.

Nor do I risk contradiction in saying that the very Scriptures were even arranged by the will of God in such a manner as to furnish materials for heretics, inasmuch as I read that "there must be heresies, which there cannot be without the Scriptures.

Now if there are no heresies at all but what those who refute them are supposed to have fabricated, then the apostle who predicted them must have been guilty of falsehood.

Now it is no matter of surprise if arguments are captiously taken from the writings of (the apostle) himself, inasmuch as there "must needs be heresies; " but these could not be, if the Scriptures were not capable of a false interpretation.

Now, since it was "needful that there should be heresies, in order that they which are approved might be made manifest; " since, however, these heresies would be unable to put on a bold front without some countenance from the Scriptures, it therefore is plain enough that the ancient Holy Writ has furnished them with sundry materials for their evil doctrine, which very materials indeed (so distorted) are refutable from the same Scriptures.

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).

It is as if the apostle meant that the authors of heresies are not instantly rooted out by God, in order to make manifest those who are approved, that is, in order to make evident to what degree each one is a steadfast, faithful and firm lover of the orthodox faith.

But always must we conduct ourselves as in the Lord's presence, lest He say to us, as the apostle in indignation said to the Corinthians, "When ye come together, this is not to eat the Lord's supper."

"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 Lord's Supper is the sacrament of the Lord. Everyone participates equally in it, whether they are poor or rich, slaves or lords, rulers or ruled. Common tables must at all costs be truly common so as to imitate the table of the Lord, which is open to all equally.

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 apostle, checking those who 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.

"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.

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.

"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."