1 Corinthians 14:6–19

"The generation of those that seek Him" is the elect race, devoted to inquiry after knowledge. Wherefore also the apostle says, "I shall profit you nothing, unless I speak to you, either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophecy, or by doctrine." Although even by those who are not Gnostics some things are done rightly, yet not according to reason; as in the case of fortitude. For some who are naturally high-spirited, and have afterwards without reason fostered this disposition, rush to many things, and act like brave men, so as sometimes to succeed in achieving the same things; just as endurance is easy for mechanics. But it is not from the same cause, or with the same object; not were they to give their whole body. "For they have not love," according to the apostle.

"But now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either by way of revelation, or of knowledge, or of prophesying, or of teaching?"

"And why speak I," saith he, "of the rest? Nay, let the person who speaketh with tongues be Paul: for not even so will any good come to the hearers" And these things he saith to signify that he is seeking their profit, not beating any grudge against them that have the gift; since not even in his own person doth he shrink from pointing out its unprofitableness. And indeed it is his constant way to work out the disagreeable topics in his own person: as in the beginning of the Epistle he said, "Who then is Paul? and who is Apollos? and who is Cephas?" This same then he doth also here, saying, "Not even I shall profit you, except I speak to you either by way of revelation, or of prophesying, or of knowledge, or of teaching." And what he means is, "if I say not somewhat that can be made intelligible to you and that may be dear, but merely make display of my having the gift of tongues;-tongues which ye do not understand, ye will go away with no sort of profit. For how should you profit by a voice which ye understand not?"

Do you want to know that tongues without interpretation are useless? Let me, Paul, your teacher, speak in tongues; even in this case there will be no benefit to the hearers unless I explain something "by revelation," that is, as those who have received revelation from God usually speak; for this too is a form of prophecy, when in the presence of many the thoughts of each are disclosed. "Or by knowledge," that is, as those who have knowledge can speak, explaining to the hearers the mysteries of God. "Or by prophecy," that is, when someone speaks about the past, the present, and the future. For prophecy is broader than revelation. "Or by teaching," that is, in the form of a teaching word, when the discourse concerns now virtue, now dogmas. For teaching too is for the benefit of the hearers. Others understood the word "revelation" as follows: to say something easily understood, clear, and evident, and "knowledge" as saying something that can be known.

Then when he says: Now, brethren, he proves by examples that the gift of prophecy is more excellent than the gift of tongues, and this in three ways: first, by giving an example taken from himself; secondly, by an example taken from inanimate things (v. 17); thirdly by an example taken from men speaking different language (v. 10).

Using himself as an example he argues this: Consequently, it is clear that I do not have the gift of tongues less than you. But if I were to speak to you only in tongues and did not interpret, you would not profit at all. Therefore, neither would you from one another. And this is what he says: Now brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues. This can be understood in two ways, namely, either by an unknown language, or literally, by whatever sign that is not understood.

How shall I benefit you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? It should be noted that those four things, namely, revelation, knowledge, prophecy, teaching, can be distinguished in two ways: in one way according to the things they concern. In this way, it should be noted that the illumination of the mind for understanding concerns four things, because it is either about divine things, and this illumination of the mind pertains to the gift of wisdom. For, as was stated above, revelation is concerned with divine things, because "the things of God no one knows except the spirit of God" (1 Cor 2:11). Therefore, he says: in revelation, by which the mind is enlightened to know divine things. Or it is about earthly things, not just any but only about those which pertain to the building up of faith: and this pertains to the gift of knowledge. Therefore he says: in knowledge, not geometry or astronomy, because these do not pertain to the building up of the faith, but in knowledge of holy things: "He gave them knowledge of holy things" (Wis 10:10). Or it is about future events, and this pertains to the gift of prophecy: hence he says: or in prophecy: "She has foreknowledge of signs and wonders and of the outcome of seasons and of times" (Wis 8:8). It should be noted that prophecy is not taken here as it is generally used and was explained above, but it is taken here in a special sense, as a manifestation of future events only. In this sense it is defined by Cassiodorus: "Prophecy is divine inspiration announcing with infallible truth the future of things." "I will again pour out teaching like prophecy" (Sir 24:33). Or is it is about moral acts, and this pertaining to teaching; therefore he says: Or teaching: "He that teaches, in teaching" (Rom 12:7); "Good teaching wins favor" (Pr 13:15).

They can be distinguished in another way according to the various ways that knowledge is from a supernatural source, namely, God, or from a natural, i.e., the natural light of the intellect. If it is from a supernatural principle, namely, by a divinely infused light, it can happen in two ways: because it is either infused by sudden knowledge, and then it is revelation; or it is infused successively, and then it is prophecy, which the prophets did not have suddenly but successively and by parts, as their prophecies show. But if the knowledge is acquired by a natural principle, this is either through one's own study and then it pertains to knowledge, or it is presented by someone else, and then it pertains to teaching.

"Even things without life, giving a voice, whether pipe or harp, if they give not a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped?"

"And why do I say," saith he, "that in our case this is unprofitable, and that only useful which is dear and easy to be apprehended by the hearers? Since even in musical instruments without life one may see this: for whether it be pipe or harp, yet if it be struck or blown confusedly and unskilfully, without proper cadence or harmony, it will captivate none of the hearers. For even in these inarticulate sounds there is need of some distinctness: and if thou strike not or breathe into the pipe according to art, thou hast done nothing. Now if from things without life we require so much distinctness, and harmony, and appropriateness, and into those inarticulate sounds we strive and contend to infuse so much meaning, much more in men indued with life and reason, and in spiritual gifts, ought one to make significancy an object.

And what, he says, am I saying — that what is unclear among us is useless, while what is clear is useful? If even with inanimate instruments the sounds do not "produce distinct tones," that is, clear ones, but everything is mixed together, then it is impossible either to recognize what is being played or to receive pleasure and joy.

Here he shows the same thing with examples taken from inanimate things, namely, instruments which seem to have a voice: first, with instruments of joy; secondly, the instruments of battle (v. 8).

He says, therefore: that speaking in tongues does not benefit others is shown not only from what has been said above but also by lifeless things which seem to have a sound. Against this, a voice is a sound uttered from the mouth of an animal. Therefore, lifeless things do not give forth a voice. The answer is that although a voice is found only in animals, yet in virtue of a likeness it can be said that certain things, such as musical instruments, have a definite consonance and melody. That is why he mentions them, namely, the harp, which gives forth a voice through touch, and the flute through blowing. If even lifeless instruments do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know with is played? For since man intends to express something through musical instruments, namely, songs which are directed to sorrow or to joy: "You shall have a song in the night, when a holy feast is kept; and gladness of heart, as when one set out to the sound of the flute to go to the mountain of the Lord" (Is 30:29), or even to wantonness, one cannot tell what the flute is playing or the harp, if the sound is confused and not distinct. So if a man speaks in tongues, and he does not interpret, no one knows what he wants to say.

If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle? And what if the remarks of the trumpet take this form, "I charge you as you love your King and country to come to this Council. And I know you won't."

So far from being the age of demagogues, this is really and specially the age of mystagogues. So far from this being a time in which things are praised because they are popular, the truth is that this is the first time, perhaps, in the whole history of the world in which things can be praised because they are unpopular. The demagogue succeeds because he makes himself understood, even if he is not worth understanding. But the mystagogue succeeds because he gets himself misunderstood; although, as a rule, he is not even worth misunderstanding.

"For if the trumpet give an uncertain voice, who shall prepare himself for war?"

Thus from things merry ornamental he carries on his argument to those which are more necessary and useful; and saith that not in the harp alone, but in the trumpet also one may see this effect produced. For in that also there are certain measures; and they give out at one time a warlike note, and at another one that is not so; and again sometimes it leads out to line of battle and at others recalls from it: and unless one know this, there is great danger. Which is just what he means, and the mischief of it what he is manifesting, when he saith, "who shall prepare himself for war?" So then, if it have not this quality, it is the ruin of all.

The trumpet is a sign of war. Therefore, when the soul perceives itself armed with so many and such important virtues, it necessarily goes forth to the war it has against principalities and powers and against the world rulers.

If it is uncertain whether the bugle is sounding for relaxation or for war, nobody will get ready for battle. The latter is how your own words should be understood, for they are meant to prepare soldiers for spiritual warfare.

From things not necessary he passed to the most necessary, mentioned the trumpet, and says that from it too there come orderly sounds, some preparing for war, and others drawing away from war. If it produces an unclear and indeterminate sound, then the soldiers will not be ready, and what is the use of an unclear sound?

Here he shows the same thing with another lifeless thing, namely, the instrument ordained to battle. This likeness is taken from Num. (10:1-10), where it says that the Lord commanded Moses to make two silver trumpets to be used for summoning all the people, for moving their camps and for battle. For each of these three things there was a different way of sounding the trumpet, because when they moved their camps it sounded one way; and another, when they were to assemble; and still another, when they were to do battle. And so the Apostle argues that just as if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, it is not known whether they should prepare for battle, so you, if you only speak in tongues, unless you make your speech clear by interpreting or explaining, no one will know what you are saying. By "bugle" can also be understood "preachers." "Lift up your voice like a trumpet" (Is 58:1).

What we want to see in every ordination exam is a compulsory paper on (simply) translation; a passage from some theological work to be turned into plain vernacular English. Just turned; not adorned, nor diluted, nor made 'matey'. The exercise is very like doing Latin prose. Instead of saying, 'How would Cicero have said that?', you have to ask yourself, 'How would my scout or bedmaker have said that?' You will at once find that this labour has two useful by-products.

1. In the very process of eliminating from your matter all that is technical, learned, or allusive, you will discover, perhaps for the first time, the true value of learned language: namely, brevity. It can say in ten words what popular speech can hardly get into a hundred. Your popularisation of the passage set will have to be very much longer than the original. And this we must just put up with.

2. You will also discover — at least I, a copious 'translator', think I have discovered — just how much you yourself have, up to that moment, been understanding the language which you are now trying to translate. Again and again I have been most usefully humiliated in this way. One holds, or thinks one holds, a particular view, say, of the Atonement or Orders or Inspiration. And you can go on for years discussing and defending it to others of your own sort. New refinements can be introduced to meet its critics; brilliant metaphors can seem to illuminate its obscurities; comparisons with other views, 'placings' of it, are somehow felt to establish its position in a sort of aristocracy of ideas. For the others are all talking the same language and all move in the same world of discourse.

All seems well. Then turn and try to expound this same view to an intelligent mechanic or a sincerely inquisitive, but superficially quite irreverent, schoolboy. Some question of shattering crudity (it would never be asked in learned circles) will be shot at you. You are like a skilled swordsman transfixed by an opponent who wins just because he knows none of the first principles. The crude question turns out to be fatal.

You have never, it now appears, really understood what you have so long maintained. You haven't really thought it out; not to the end; not to 'the absolute ruddy end'. You must either give it up, or else begin it all over again. If, given patience and ordinary skill, you cannot explain a thing to any sensible person whatever (provided he will listen), then you don't really understand it yourself. Here too it is very like doing Latin prose; the bits you can't get into Latin are usually the bits you haven't really grasped in the English.

You see that the barbarian philosophy professes deeds, not words. The apostle thus speaks: "So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue a word easy to be understood, how shall ye know what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kind of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me." And, "Let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret."

"So also ye, unless ye utter by the tongue, speech easy to be understood, ye will be speaking into the air:" i. e., calling to nobody, speaking unto no one. Thus every where he shows its unprofitableness.

"But if it be unprofitable, why was it given?" saith one. So as to be useful to him that hath received it. But if it is to be so to others also, there must be added interpretation. Now this he saith, bringing them near to one another; that if a person himself have not the gift of interpretation, he may take unto him another that hath it, and make his own gift useful through him. Wherefore he every where points out its imperfection, that so he may bind them together. Any how, he that accounts it to be sufficient for itself, doth not so much commend it as disparage it, not suffering it to shine brightly by the interpretation. For excellent indeed and necessary is the gift, but it is so when it hath one to explain what is spoken. Since the finger too is a necessary thing, but when you separate it from the other members, it will not be equally useful: and the trumpet is necessary, but when it sounds at random, it is rather an annoyance. Yea, neither shall any art come to light, without matter subject to it; nor is matter put into shape, if no form be assigned to it. Suppose then the voice to be as the subject-matter, but the distinctness as that form, which not being present, there will be no use in the material.

Lest they should say: "what relation does the example of the flute and trumpet have to us?", he says: if you too, by the gift of tongues, do not utter words that are intelligible, that is, clear, then you speak in vain and into the wind, because no one understands; for all the power lies in the gift being useful — for what purpose was it given? Surely not so that only the one who received it would benefit? But if he wished to be useful to others as well, then he should have either prayed to God and through a pure life received the gift of interpretation, or turned to someone who can explain. Paul says this in order to unite them with one another, and so that they would not consider themselves sufficient for themselves, but would receive those who can also interpret: for then the gift will be more useful.

But the reason why it cannot be known what you are saying is that you will be speaking into the air, i.e., uselessly: "I do not box as one beating the air" (1 Cor 9:26).

"There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and no kind is without signification:" i. e., so many tongues, so many voices of Scythians, Thracians, Romans, Persians, Moors, Indians, Egyptians, innumerable other nations.

"If then I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian." "For suppose not," saith he, "that this happens only in our case; rather in all one may see this taking place: so that I do not say this to disparage the voice, but to signify that to me it is useless, as long as it is not intelligible." Next, that he may not render the accusation unpalatable, he makes his charge alike for the two, saying, "He shall be unto me a barbarian, and I to him." Not from the nature of the voice, but from our ignorance. Seest thou how by little and little he draws men to that which is akin to the subject. Which is his use to do, to fetch his examples from afar, and to end with what more properly belongs to the matter. For having spoken of a pipe and harp, wherein is much that is inferior and unprofitable, he comes to the trumpet, a thing more useful; next, from that he proceeds to the very voice itself. So also before, when he was discounting to show that it was not forbidden the Apostles to receive, beginning first with husbandmen, and shepherds, and soldiers, then he brought the discourse on to that which is nearer to the subject, the priests in the old covenant.

But do thou, I pray, consider, how every where he hath given diligence to free the gift from censure, and to bring round the charge to the receivers of it. For he said not, "I shall be a barbarian," but, "unto him that speaketh, a barbarian." And again, he did not say, "he that speaketh shall be a barbarian," but "he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me."

There is no language without meaning because all languages are human.

That is, so many languages appeared in the world—Scythian, Indian, Thracian, and those of other peoples—and all tribes say something, for they are not without language.

Here he uses the examples of the various human languages. In regard to this he does three things: first, he points out the diversity of tongues; secondly, that it is useless for one to speak to others in a language they do not understand (v. 11); thirdly, he concludes what he intended (v. 12).

First, therefore, he says: The languages of the world are many and diverse, and anyone can speak in whichever one he wants; but if he does not speak precisely, he is not understood. And this is what he says: There are doubtless many languages in the world. This can be explained in two ways, for it can be connected with the preceding as saying: you will be speaking uselessly in all languages, because you speak without understanding, whereas words have a definite meaning in all languages to be understood. For nothing exists without its "voice." Or it can be punctuated thus: you will be speaking into the air. So many, for example, are the kinds of languages, i.e., individual languages.

Any language we cannot understand we look down on as barbaric.

If I do not understand the meaning of the words, then the speaker will seem to me a foreigner, that is, one speaking unintelligibly; and I will seem the same to him, not because of the poorness of the words, but because of our lack of understanding.

Here he shows their uselessness. And this is what he says: "If I have spoken in all tongues," but did not know the meaning of the words, I will be a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker a foreigner to me. Note that barbarians according to some are those whose idiom completely disagrees with Latin. But others say that any foreigner is a barbarian to every other foreigner, namely, when he is not understood by him. But this is not true, because according to Isidore, "Barbaria" is a special nation: "In Christ Jesus there is neither barbarian nor Scythian" (Col 3:11). But it is closer to the truth to say that barbarian is the name for those who are strong in body and weak in reasoning and exist, as it were, outside the law and without the rule of law. And Aristotle seems to agree with this in his Politics.

The soul is stirred and rejoices when it learns something more about the Scriptures. The more it tends in this direction, the more it abandons vices. It is for these reasons that Paul advises that one should make efforts to communicate clearly.

"What then must be done?" saith he. Why, so far from disparaging, one ought to recommend and to teach it; as indeed himself also doth. Since after he had accused and rebuked it and shown its unprofitableness, he proceeds to counsel them; saying, "So also ye, since as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may abound unto the edifying of the Church."

Seest thou his aim every where, how he looks to one thing continually and in all cases, the general utility, the profiting the Church; laying this down as a kind of rule? And he did not say, "that ye may obtain the gifts" but, "that ye may abound," i.e., that ye may even possess them in great plenitude. Thus, so far am I from wishing you not to possess them, that I even wish you to abound in them, only so that ye handle them with a view to the common advantage. And how is this to be done? ...

Some, after the words "so also you," place a period, and explain: so also you, speaking in tongues things unintelligible, appear as foreigners to the listeners; then they begin again and read: "zealous for spiritual gifts." But Saint John Chrysostom reads without the division. Since, he says, you are zealous for spiritual gifts, I also desire this, and I accept it, as I said before; only strive to abound in them "for edification," that is, for the benefit of the Church. For I not only do not hinder you from speaking in tongues, but I desire that you abound in this gift, provided only that you use it for the common benefit.

Then when he says: So with yourselves, he concludes to what he intended; and this can be constructed in two ways: first, so that it is punctuated as if he were saying: Therefore, I will be a barbarian to you, if I speak without meaning and interpretation, just as you will be barbarians to one another; and, therefore, seek to abound. And this, because you will be eager for manifestations of the Spirit. Or in another way, so that it is all put under a distinction. As if to say: Therefore, do not be barbarians, but because you are eager for the manifestations of the Spirit, i.e., of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, do as I do and seek them from God, that you may abound: "In abundant justice is virtue the greatest" (Pr 12:5). This justice consists in edifying others: "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you" (Matt 7:7).

You see that the barbarian philosophy professes deeds, not words. The apostle thus speaks: "So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue a word easy to be understood, how shall ye know what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kind of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me." And, "Let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret."

"Wherefore let him that speaketh in a tongue pray that he may interpret."

Here he shows that it is in their power to obtain the gift. For, "let him pray," saith he, i.e., "let him contribute his own part," since if thou ask diligently, thou wilt surely receive. Ask accordingly not to have the gift of tongue only, but also of interpretation, that thou mayest become useful unto all, and not shut up thy gift in thyself alone.

If the one who speaks in tongues does not have the power to interpret them, others will not understand, but he will know what he was moved by the Spirit to say. When this is understood by others as well, there will be fruit from it. Here as elsewhere, we are taught to seek the common good of the church.

He points out the way to make this gift useful for many. He says: let the one who speaks in tongues pray, so that he may also receive the gift of interpretation. So they themselves are to blame for not receiving the gift of interpretation, because they do not ask God for it.

Having shown that the gift of prophecy excels the gift of tongues with reasons taken on the part of exhortation, the Apostle now shows the same thing with reasons taken on the part of prayer; for we perform these two things with the tongue, namely, prayer and exhortation. In regard to this he does two things: first, he proves that prophecy excels the gift of tongues with reasons; secondly, with examples (v. 18). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the necessity of prayer; secondly, how in prayer the gift of prophecy is more powerful than the gift of tongues (v. 14).

First, therefore, he says: I have said that the gift of tongues without the gift of prophecy has no value, because interpretation is an act of prophecy, which is more excellent than speaking in tongue. One who speaks in a tongue, unknown or foreign, certain hidden mysteries, should pray, namely, to God, for the power to interpret, i.e., that the grace to interpret be given him: "Praying that God may open to us a door" (Col 4:3). A Gloss exposits pray differently. For 'to pray' is said to be twofold, namely either to beseech God or to prevail upon him; as if he says: he who speaks in a tongue, let him pray, i.e., let him prevail upon God, so that he may interpret. And so the Gloss understands 'to pray' here for the whole chapter. But this is not the meaning of the Apostle, but rather it is 'to beseech God'.

What can a person achieve if he does not know what he is saying?

For he speaks thus, when that which is said is not understood, because it cannot even be uttered, unless the images of corporeal sounds precede the oral sounds by the thought of the spirit.

"For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful."

"What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also; I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also."

Seest thou how by degrees bringing his argument to a point, he signifies that not to others only is such an one useless, but also to himself; if at least "his understanding is unfruitful?" For if a man should speak only in the Persian, or any other foreign tongue, and not understand what he saith, then of course to himself also will he be thenceforth a barbarian, not to another only, from not knowing the meaning of the sound. For there were of old many who had also a gift of prayer, together with a tongue; and they prayed, and the tongue spake, praying either in the Persian or Latin language, but their understanding knew not what was spoken. Wherefore also he said, "If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth," i.e., the gift which is given me and which moves my tongue, "but my understanding is unfruitful."

What then may that be which is best in itself, and doth good? And how ought one to act, or what request of God? To pray, "both with the spirit," i.e., the gift, and "with the understanding." Wherefore also he said, "I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also."

He signifieth the same thing here also, that both the tongue may speak, and the understanding may not be ignorant of the things spoken. For except this be so, there will also be another confusion.

If you have brought a word in praise of God, not new and fresh from the learning of the spirit, from the teaching of God's grace, your mouth indeed offers "a sacrifice of praise," but your mind is accused on account of the sterility of yesterday's flesh.

In ancient times, some received the gift of prayer together with the gift of tongues, and they uttered Persian or Roman words, but the mind did not understand what they were saying. Paul says that "my spirit," that is, the gift that moves the tongue, "prays," but "my mind" remains without fruit, since it understands nothing of what is spoken. See then how he gradually proved that one who speaks only in a tongue is useless even to himself. Thus Saint John explains this passage. But some understand it this way: if I speak in a tongue but do not interpret, then "my spirit," that is, my soul, receives benefit in itself, but my mind remains without fruit, because it does not bring benefit to others. Those who understand this saying in this way, in my opinion, feared the error of Montanus: for he introduced such a heresy that the prophets absolutely did not understand their own words, but being possessed by the Spirit they spoke something, yet what they spoke they did not understand. But this is irrelevant here. For the apostle said this—that is, that they do not understand their own words—not about the prophets, but about those speaking in tongues, and of them not about all, but about some.

Here he shows that in praying, prophecy is more valuable than the gift of tongues in two ways: first, with a reason based on the one praying; secondly, on the one hearing (v. 16). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he presents a reason showing the truth of his proposition; secondly, he removes an objection (v. 15).

In regard to the first it should be noted that prayer is of two kinds: one is private, namely, when one prays in himself and for himself; the other is public, when one prays before the people and for others. In both cases one can use the gift of tongues and the gift of prophecy. Hence he wants to show that in both cases the gift of prophecy is more valuable than the gift of tongues. First, in private prayer, if an outsider says his own prayer, saying a Psalm or "our Father" and he does not understand what he says, he prays with the tongue and it does not concern him whether he is praying with words granted him by the Holy Spirit or with someone else's words: and if another prays and understands what he is saying, he, indeed, both prays and prophesies. It is evident that one who prays and understands accomplishes more than one who prays only in a tongue, namely, who does not understand what he is saying. For the one who understands is refreshed both in intellect and affections, but the mind of one who does not understand receives no fruit of refreshment. Hence, since it is better to be refreshed in mind and affections than in affections only, it is obvious that in prayer the gift of prophecy is more valuable than the gift of tongues.

And this is what he says: I say that he should pray for the power to interpret, for if I pray in a tongue, i.e., use the gift of tongues in praying, so that I utter what I do not understand; then my spirit, i.e., the Holy Spirit given to me, prays, Who inclines and moves me to pray. Nevertheless, I merit in that prayer, because the very fact that I am moved by the Spirit is merit for me: "We do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself makes us ask" (Rom 8:26). Or my spirit, i.e., my reason, prays, i.e., tells me that I should ask for things which are good, either in my own words or those of other saints. Or my spirit, i.e., the imagination, prays in the sense that words of the likenesses of bodily things are only in the imagination without being understood by the intellect. Therefore, he adds: but my mind, i.e., my intellect, is unfruitful, because it does not understand. Therefore, prophecy or interpretation is better in prayer than is the gift of tongues.

But is it true that whenever anyone prays and does not understand what he is saying, he obtains no fruit? The answer is that the fruit of prayer is twofold: one fruit is the merit the person obtains; the other fruit is the spiritual consolation and devotion produced by the prayer. In regard to the fruit of spiritual devotion, one is deprived of it, if he does not attend to what he is praying, or does not understand; but in regard to the fruit of merit, one is not necessarily deprived of it. For many prayers would be without merit, since a man can scarcely say the "Our Father" without his mind wandering to other things. Therefore, it must be said that when the one praying is sometimes diverted from what he is saying, or when a person engaged in one meritorious work does not continually think at each step that he is doing this for God, he does not lose the reason for merit. The reason for this is that in all meritorious acts ordained to the right end, it is not required that the intention of the performer be united to the end in every act: but the first influence, which moves the intention, remains in the entire work, even if in some particular it be distracted; and this first influence makes the entire work meritorious, unless it is interrupted by a contrary affection which turns one from the original and to a contrary end.

But it should be noted that attention is threefold: one is to the words the man is saying: and this is harmful sometimes, inasmuch as it impedes devotion; another is to the sense of the words, and this is harmful, but not very much; the third is to the end, and this is better and, as it were, necessary. Nevertheless, when the Apostle says that the mind is unfruitful, it is understood of the fruit of refreshment.

It is in spirit and mind that one should pray and sing to God. Paul does not say anything about the tongue. The reason is that this spiritual prayer is not offered up or prayed by the tongue, for it is deeper than the lips and the tongue, more interiorized than any composite sounds, lying beyond psalmody and wisdom.

The prayer of those who sing is acceptable to God only if a pure heart carries the same message which the words of the hymn unfold.

Worshiping and praying in the Spirit seem to me to be simply the Spirit presenting prayer and worship to himself.

For our mind would not even be able to pray unless the Spirit prayed for it as if obeying it, so that we cannot even sing and hymn the Father in Christ with proper rhythm, melody, measure and harmony unless the Spirit who searches everything, even the depths of God, first praises and hymns him whose depths he has searched out and has understood as far as he is able.

We are the true adorers and the true priests, who, praying in spirit, sacrifice, in spirit, prayer,-a victim proper and acceptable to God, which assuredly He has required, which He has looked forward to for Himself! This victim, devoted from the whole heart, fed on faith, tended by truth, entire in innocence, pure in chastity, garlanded with love, we ought to escort with the pomp of good works, amid psalms and hymns, unto God's altar, to obtain for us all things from God.

What then, he says, is more beneficial? And what should one ask of God? That one should pray "with the spirit," that is, with the gift, and also "with the mind," that is, to consciously understand the words of the prayer with one's thought. Likewise also concerning singing.

Because someone could say: inasmuch as prayer in a tongue is without fruit to the mind, but the spirit prays, should one then not pray in the spirit. Therefore, the Apostle answers this objection, saying that one should pray in both ways, in the spirit and in the mind; because man should serve God with all the things he has from God. But from God he has spirit and mind; therefore, he should pray with both: "With all his heart he will praise God" (Sir 47:8). Therefore, he says: I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. And so he says that he will pray and sing; because prayer is the beseeching of God, and so he says, I will pray, or it is praising Him, and so he says I will sing. Concerning these two Jas (5:13) says: "Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing." "Sing praises to the Lord" (Ps 9:11). I will pray, therefore, in the spirit, i.e., imagination, and with the mind, i.e., the will.

The confirmation of the prayer comes about when people say "Amen" to it. The words spoken are confirmed in the minds of the hearers by the confession of truth.

This teacher declares that the restitution of all things will take place, when all these, mixing into one letter, shall utter one and the same sound. He imagines that the emblem of this utterance is found in Amen, which we pronounce in concert. The diverse sounds (he adds) are those which give form to that Aeon who is without material substance and unbegotten, and these, again, are the forms which the Lord has called angels, who continually behold the face of the Father.

"Else," saith he, "if thou bless with the spirit, how shall he that filleth the place of the unlearned say the Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he knoweth not what thou sayest?"

"For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified."

Observe how again here he brings his stone to the plumb-line every where seeking the edification of the Church. Now by the "unlearned" he means the laymen, and signifies that he also suffers no little loss when he is unable to say the Amen. And what he saith is this: "if thou shalt bless in a barbarian tongue, not knowing what thou sayest, nor able to interpret, the layman cannot respond the Amen. For not hearing the words, 'forever and ever,' which are at the end, he doth not say the Amen." Then again, comforting him concerning this, that he might not seem to hold the gift too cheap; the same kind of remark as he made above, that "he speaketh mysteries," and "speaketh unto God," and "edifieth himself," and "prayeth with the spirit," intending no little comfort from these things, this also he utters here, saying, "for thou indeed givest thanks well," since thou speakest being moved by the Spirit: but the other hearing nothing nor knowing what is said, stands there, receiving no great advantage by it.

Paul is thinking here of laypeople, who do not hold office in the church.

When, he says, you sing, if you bless "in the spirit," that is, by a spiritual gift through a tongue, then the one occupying the place of the unlearned, that is, the layman — how will he say "amen" to your prayer? For you spoke the words "forever and ever" unclearly and in a language unfamiliar to him, and he did not understand, and therefore receives no benefit.

Here, secondly, he shows that the gift of prophecy is more valuable than the gift of tongues, even in public prayer, which is when a priest prays in public, where he sometimes says things he does not understand and sometimes things he does understand. In regard to this he does three things: first, he presents a reason, secondly, he explains; thirdly, he proves what he had presupposed.

He says, therefore: I have said that the gift of prophecy in private prayer is more beneficial, but also in public, because if you bless, i.e., if you give a blessing in the spirit, i.e., in a tongue not understood, or with the imagination, and moved by the Holy Spirit, who supplies the place of the ignorant man (who knows only the tongue in which he was born). As if to say: you will say what he should say there to the ignorant man; for what he should say there is Amen.

Therefore, he says: how can he say Amen to your blessing, where a Gloss says, i.e., how shall he consent to the blessing given by you in the name of the Church? "He that is blessed on the earth will be blessed in God. Amen." (Is 55:16). Amen is the same as "let it be done," or "it is so." As if to say: if he does not know what you are saying, how shall he conform himself to your utterances? He could conform, even if he does not understand, but only in a general way, because he cannot understand what good thing you are saying, but only that you are blessing.

But why are blessings not given in the vernacular, so that they will be understood by the people and conform themselves to them more? The answer is that this probably happened in the early Church, but later the faithful were instructed and know what they hear in the common office, where blessings are given in Latin.

Here Paul explains what he said above, which is that a believer should be a blessing to everyone.

You might think he is completely disparaging the gift of tongues, but he says: you, for your part, give thanks well, but since there is no benefit to your neighbor in this, your thanksgiving is useless.

Then he proves why he cannot say, "Amen," when he says: For you may give thanks well enough to God, inasmuch as you understand, but the other man, who hears and does not understand, is not edified, for he does not understand in detail, even if he understands in a general way and is edified: "Let no evil thought come out of your mouth, but only such as is good for edifying" (Eph 4:29). Consequently, it is better not only to bless in a tongue, but also to interpret and explain, although you who give thanks do well.

St. Paul himself seems to have been rather embarrassed by [_glossolalia_] in 1 Corinthians and labours to turn the desire and the attention of the Church to more obviously edifying gifts. But he goes no further. He throws in almost parenthetically the statement that he himself spoke with tongues more than anyone else, and he does not question the spiritual, or supernatural, source of the phenomenon.

The difficulty I feel is this. On the one hand, _glossolalia_ has remained an intermittent "variety of religious experience" down to the present day. Every now and then we hear that in some revivalist meeting one or more of those present has burst into a torrent of what appears to be gibberish. The thing does not seem to be edifying, and all non-Christian opinion would regard it as a kind of hysteria, an involuntary discharge of nervous excitement. A good deal even of Christian opinion would explain most instances of it in exactly the same way; and I must confess that it would be very hard to believe that in all instances of it the Holy Ghost is operating. We suspect, even if we cannot be sure, that it is usually an affair of the nerves. That is one horn of the dilemma. On the other hand, we cannot as Christians shelve the story of Pentecost or deny that there, at any rate, the speaking with tongues was miraculous. [...] It looks, therefore, as if we shall have to say that the very same phenomenon which is sometimes not only natural but even pathological is at other times (or at least at one other time) the organ of the Holy Ghost. And this seems at first very surprising and very open to attack. The sceptic will certainly seize this opportunity to talk to us about Occam's razor, to accuse us of multiplying hypotheses. If most instances of _glossolalia_ are covered by hysteria, is it not (he will ask) extremely probable that that explanation covers the remaining instances too?

[...] Those who spoke with tongues, as St. Paul did, can well understand how that holy phenomenon differed from the hysterical phenomenon—although be it remembered, they were in a sense exactly the same phenomenon, just as the very same sensation came to Pepys in love, in the enjoyment of music, and in sickness. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man judges all things and is judged of none.

Further, because he had run down the possessors of this gift, as though they had no such great thing; that he might not seem to hold them cheap, as being himself destitute of it, see what he saith: "I thank God, speaking with tongues more than ye all."

And this he doth also in another place intending, namely, to take away the advantages of Judaism and to show that henceforth they are nothing, he begins by declaring that himself had been endowed with them, yea, and that in very great excess; and then he calls them "loss," thus saying, "If any man thinketh to have confidence in the flesh, I more: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; as touching zeal, persecuting the Church; as touching the righteousness which is the law, found blameless." And then, having signified himself to have the advantage of all, he saith, "Howbeit what things were gain to me, those have I counted loss for Christ." So also he doth here, saying, "I speak with tongues more than ye all." Do not ye therefore glory as though ye only had the gift. For I also possess it, yea more than ye.

Lest they think that he disparages this gift because he himself does not possess it, he says: I speak in tongues more than all of you.

Here the Apostle shows that the gift of prophecy excels the gift of tongues with reasons taken on his own part. In regard to this he does two things: first, he gives thanks for the gift of tongues given him by God; secondly, he proposes himself to them as an example (v. 19).

He says, therefore, I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all. As if to say: I do not belittle the gift of tongues, because I say that the gift of prophecy is more excellent, but it ought to be cherished. Hence, I, too, thank God. Therefore, thanks should be given for all things: "In all things give thanks" (1 Th 5:18). Or I thank God. As if to say: I do not belittle the gift of tongues, as though lacking it; rather I have it. Therefore, he says: I thank God. But lest it be understood that all speak in one tongue, he says: that I speak in tongues more than you: "They spoke in various tongues" (Ac 2:4).

What we need to be particularly on our guard against are precisely the vogue-words, the incantatory words, of our own circle. For your generation they are, perhaps, engagement, commitment, over against, under judgment, existential, crisis, and confrontation. These are, of all expressions, the least likely to be intelligible to anyone divided from you by a school of thought, by a decade, by a social class. They are like a family language, or a school slang. And our private language may delude ourselves as well as mystifying outsiders. Enchanted words seem so full of meaning, so illuminating. But we may be deceived. What we derive from them may sometimes be not so much a clear conception as a heartwarming sense of being at home and among our own sort. 'We understand one another' often means 'We are in sympathy.' Sympathy is a good thing. It may even be in some ways a better thing than intellectual understanding. But not the same thing.

"Howbeit in the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I might instruct others also."

What is that, "speak with my understanding, that I might instruct others also?" "Understanding what I say," and "words which I can both interpret to others, and speak intelligently, and teach the hearers. Than ten thousand words in a tongue." Wherefore? "That I may instruct others," saith he. For the one hath but display only; the other, great utility: this being what he everywhere seeks, I mean the common profit. And yet the gift of tongues was strange, but that of prophecy familiar and ancient and heretofore given to many; this on the contrary then first given: howbeit it was not much cared for by him. Wherefore neither did he employ it; not because he had it not, but because he always sought the more profitable things: being as he was free from all vain-glory, and considering one thing only, how he might render the hearers better.

Paul wants to speak with a clear mind and in a normal language.

"With my mind," that is, understanding and being conscious of my words, and being able to explain them, so as to bring benefit to others as well. "Than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue," that is, when I cannot interpret them; for in such a case the benefit is limited to me alone. And "five words" are spoken by every teacher who applies the proper remedy to each of our five senses.

Here he presents himself as an example. As if to say: If I have the gift of tongues, just as you, you should do as I do. But I would rather speak five words in the church, i.e., a few words, with my mind and understand and be understood, in order to instruct others than ten thousand, i.e., any number of words in a tongue; which is not to speak to the mind in any way, as explained above.

Some say that he says, five, because the Apostle seems to prefer to say one prayer with understanding than many without understanding. But according to the grammarians, if a statement is to have perfect sense, it should have five things: a subject, predicate, verbal copula, a modifier of the subject and a modifier of the predicate. To others it seems better to say, that because we speak with the intellect in order that others be taught, he mentions five, because the teacher should teach five things, namely: things to be believed: "Declare and exhort these things" (Titus 2:11); things to be done: "Go into the whole world and preach the Gospel, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you" (Mk 16:15); things to be avoided, i.e., sins: "Flee from sin as from a snake" (Sir 21:2); "Declare to my people their transgressions, to the house of Jacob their sins" (Is 58:1); things to be hoped for, i.e., the eternal reward: "They searched and inquired about this salvation" (1 Pt 1:10); things to be feared, i.e., eternal punishments: "Depart, you accursed into everlasting fire" (Matt 25:21).