AND EDITED BY W. F. COBB, D.D. : JOHN GRANT 31 George IV. Bridge 1908 SAINT PAUL's FIRST EPISTLE TO THE EDITORS PREFACE In translating the Comments of Cornelius ΰ Lapide on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, the Translator has endeavoured, next to accuracy, to secure a reproduction of the spirit of the Commentator. The Translator, accordingly, has limited his efforts to a reproduction of the matter, and as far as possible of the form and spirit off the original, believing that most readers would prefer to see for themselves what Cornelius ΰ Lapide believed to be the plain meaning of Holy Scripture, and to appreciate the piety which he brought to its elucidation. The only liberties taken with the original consist in an attempt to shorten a little its terrible prolixity, and in the correction of a few obvious mistakes on matters of fact. W. F. C. November 1895. CHAPTER I. Achaia, or the peninsula commonly called the Morea, had in olden times several famous cities. The metropolis of these was the celebrated emporium of Corinth, famed, says Chrysostom, for its two ports, of which Lechζum stood on the Ionian and Schonus on the Ζgean Sea. Hence poets, as, e.g., Ovid (Fasti iv.), frequently called it bimaros. Corinth is said to have had its foundation from Sisyphus, the robber son of Ζolus, and to have been called Corcyra (Strabo, lib. 8.), and afterwards Ephyre. Having been destroyed, it was rebuilt by Corinth, son of Marithon, or of Pelops, according to Suidas, or according to others of Orestes, and was called after his name. Cicero, in his speech pro lege Maniliβ, calls this city the light of the whole of Greece. Its natural position was so strong that the Romans found great difficulty in reducing it. 1 Corinth abounded in wealth, in merchandise of all kinds, and in metals, especially brass or copper. This Corinthian copper was well known and in great request; so much so that Pliny (lib. iv., c. 2) says that it was reckoned equal to gold or silver. From this wealth were derived the pride, gluttony, self-indulgence, lust and ostentatious living of the Corinthians, and it became a proverbial saying that it was not every man's luck to go to Corinth. Demosthenes replied to a harlot who asked for eight talents of gold as her hire that he did not give so high a price for repentance. For the same reason the Apostle is called upon to rebuke their vices, and especially in ch. vi. 2 At Corinth flourished a large number of orators and philosophers, amongst whom was Periander, one of the Seven Men of Greece. Paul, we can see, went to Corinth because it gave him so excellent an opportunity for spreading the Gospel. There he converted many to Christ, by the of the Lord who appeared to him in a vision at Corinth and said, "Be not afraid but speak, and hold not thy peace, for I am with thee and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee; for I have much people in thus city." Under Paul's preaching the Corinthian Christians made such progress that Paul himself speaks (i. 5; xiv. 26) of their wisdom, prudence, gift of prophecy, and other gifts bestowed on them by God. 3 From this there arose among the Corinthians pride, self-seeking, and strife, and especially after the arrival of Apollos. Some then came to prefer him to Paul, as a more polished and eloquent speaker. Thence came schisms; whole one party would boast, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos." This caused Paul to write to them this Epistle, in which, through the first four chapters, he tries to lead them away from pride in human wisdom and eloquence, and from all contentious support of their teachers, Paul and Apollos, and to bring them to the humility of the Cross, to the doctrine of the faith in Christ. 4 The Corinthians had written to Paul, asking him to resolve certain difficulties they felt (vii. 1), which he does in this letter. After dealing in the first four chapters with their schisms and striving after empty wisdom, he proceeds in ch. v. to order the fornicator to be excommunicated, and in ch. vi., to rebuke them for this sin of fornication, and for going to law before heathen judges. In ch. vii. he answers their first question about matrimony and virginity, and lays down the laws of Christian marriage, putting over against it and before it the evangelical counsel of virginity and celibacy. Then in chs. viii. and x., he deals with the question of eating of things offered to idols, and lays down that such eating was lawful bot needed caution, lest the weaker brethren should be offended. In ch. xi., he replies to their third question, one concerning the veiling of women, as well as their fourth about the Eucharist and Agapζ. In ch. xii., he discourses of the gifts of the Spirit, pointing out that different gifts were distributed by the Holy Spirit to different people. Ch. xiii. dwells on the pre-eminent place among the gifts and graces of the Spirit occupied by charity. Ch. xiv. is an answer to the fifth question of the Corinthians, as to whether the gift of tongues was superior to the gift of prophecy. He answers in the negative. Ch.xv. resolves their sixth doubt, and gives manifold proofs of the resurrection, and describes its gifts, its mode, and order. In ch. xvi. he orders a collection to be made for the poor saints at Jerusalem, and he closes all with salutations. 5 Both this and the Second Epistle were written before that to the Romans; for, as Chrysostom points out, the collection which he orders here (1 Cor. xvi. 2), he speaks of in Rom. xv. 25, 26, as having already taken place. The Greek MSS. say that thus Epistle was written at Philippi and sent by Timotheus, and in this they are supported by the Syriac and the Regia Latina. But it seems more likely from xvi. 8, and other passages, that it was written at Ephesus , in A.D. 57 (Baronius and Oecumenius). Ver. 1.—Sosthenes. He was chief ruler of the synagogue at Corinth; having been converted to Christ by Paul, he was severely beaten for his faith before Gallio, the Proconsul , and after his death was placed among the Saints.— November 28th. Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints [supply, Paul writes and salutes in praying], grace be unto you and peace from God. For called to be saints the Syriac translates, called and saints. For in the Greek it is not the participle λεγόμενος or κεκλημένος, i.e., summoned, named, called; but, κλητὸς a word which denotes having a call to holiness, or holy by way of call, called to holiness. Note first, that Paul throughout this chapter and everywhere else holds up to admiration this benefit of calling. Secondly, that this and all other benefits he humbly and devoutly ascribes to the Divine benevolence and to the power of humility. Chrysostom has here a noteworthy passage in the moral part of his first homily. Thirdly, it is plain from this, in opposition to Pelagius, that, not for our merits, but by the mere grace of God, have we been called to the faith and the grace of Christ. Again, that all Christians were formally called Saints: not because they were really so, but by way of call, profession, duty. Fourthly, he calls them saints in Christ, that is sanctified through the merits of Christ, namely, in Baptism and its consequent gifts. Fifthly: "the church," and the "called to be saints" are the same thing. For the latter is in opposition and is explanatory of the former: so that if you ask, What is the Church? I shall answer from this passage of S. Paul: It consists of those called to be saints, or it is a congregation and assembly of the faithful, who have been called to holiness. Whence, sixthly, it is evident from here that the Church is visible; for Paul writes these things not to an abstract idea, but "to the church which is at Corinth," which was able to read and see his letters, as is plain. Seventhly, from this place it is evident that there is the same Church everywhere, a part of which was the Church at Corinth. Whence he says: "With all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours;" i.e., all Christians, wherever they exist: whether with me in this place of ours, or in any other place you please. Theirs, then, viz., of the Corinthians, and ours, viz., of me and Sosthenes. He adds this, that no one might suppose when he said Jesus Christ our Lord, that he meant to say that Christ is the Lord of Paul and Sosthenes alone, So Chrysostom says: "By this Paul tacitly enjoins the Corinthians that they ought to lay aside contentions and to be of one mind, as being members of the same Church, and of the sane Head, Christ." Next, he reminds them that he writes this letter specially indeed to the Corinthians, but, nevertheless, that he wishes it to be a circular letter to all Christians, in the same way that the letters of the other Apostles and of the Bishops in those first ages were circular letters. Cajetan's interpretation of "ours," that it means, "Our jurisdiction extends itself to Corinth and to the Corinthians, so that the city and district of Corinth is both theirs and ours," is forced. Lastly, why that is called the Church, or the summoning, or the assemvly of those called to the faith, which formerly was called the synagogue, that is, the congregation; and what it is, its nature and its marks, see in Bellarmine in his sound and learned dissertation on the Church (lib. i., c 1, 2 et seq.) Ver. 4.—I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ. "For the grace," in Greek, ε̉πὶτὴχάριτι, that is, on account of the grace of God, which is given you in Christ, i.e., through Christ. See Can. 25. "The source," says S. Bernard (Serm. 13 in Song), "of all the springs and rivers is the sea: but the source of all virtue and knowledge is the Lord Jesus Christ: the continence of the flesh, the energy of the heart, the rectitude of the will, all flow from that spring: let the heavenly stream be given back to its source" (by thanksgiving), "so that the farthest parts of the earth may be replenished ; 'I will not give my glory to another,' saith God" . Ver. 5.—That in everything ye are enriched by Him (by Christ), in all utterances (of the preaching of the Gospel), and in all knowledge, that is, in spiritual understanding of Him. In other words, I give thanks to God, because by me and Apollos He put before you, richly, the preaching and doctrine of the Gospel and a perception and understanding of it. Ver. 6.—Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you— i.e., by which, as by two testimonies, the Christian faith was founded and established in you. For the Greeks interpret the Greek καθώς, i.e., even as, by enallage, διών, through which, that is, the word and knowledge. Others interpret, Even as the testimony, thus: by which things, viz., by the preaching of the Gospel, and by the knowledge of it, as by a sure testimony, it is known that you are faithful and disciples of Christ. Ver. 7.—Waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His second Advent, when you will receive from Christ an abundant supply of all graces, and your consummation in heavenly glory. Ver. 8.—Who shall also confirm you, so far as His part is; i.e., shall give grace which can confirm you, and shall confirm you indeed, if you are willing to receive it, to use it, and to confirm yourselves in the faith and love of Christ: shall confirm you, I say, for this, that ye may be, and may persevere unto the end (of life) blameless; that is, unaccused, whom no one can charge with having committed anything against the faith and love of Christ. The Apostle speaks to the whole Church, in which the greater number were holy and blameless, although some few were sowing schisms, and these in the following verse he reproves and condemns. In the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is an ellipse common with the Apostle: for we must supply, that ye may be and may appear, blameless in that day of the advent and judgment of Christ. Ver. 9.—God is faithful, by whom ye were called into the of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Note, faithful with S. Paul is the same as constant, truthful, as I shall show on 1 Tim i. 15; not, according to Calvin, as though God saves those only who have been effectually called by Him, and all of them; and as though He bids and makes each one of them believe with a firm faith that he will be saved. For if so, why, in the next verse, anxious about the salvation of the Corinthians, does he condemn their divisions? Had not the Corinthians believed?— and yet, having lapsed into schisms, they had incurred the danger of damnation, and, therefore, Paul endeavours to avert it from them. The faithful, therefore, can lapse into sin and be damned. God, then, is said to be faithful, because, not without cause, will He, O Corinthians, withdraw His help from you which He began to give, and afterwards promised that He would give, in order that you might persevere and be confirmed in the faith and fellowship of Jesus; nor will He desert you unless He be first deserted by you; as the Council of Trent teaches (following S. Augustine). Sess. vi. c. 11 and 13, where it lays down the same three things which the Apostle does here: (1.) That God gives the grace of Christ to all the justified: because, if they are willing, they are able to persevere in righteousness. (2.) That they by their own will can fall from it. (3.) That no one knows whether he will persevere, and whether he is of the number of the elect, unless he has a special revelation of it from God. Note secondly. Paul here calls the communion of the faith, grace and glory of Christ which is enjoyed in the Church of Christ, the fellowship of His Son; or that partaking of Christ in which we gave a fellowship of sonship, inheritance, the Sacraments, and all the benefits of Christ. In other words: Ye are called to be sons of God, fellows, members, brothers, and co-heirs of Christ: so Anselm, Ambrose, Theophylact and Chrysostom (whom see), and . And here notice: although, as the Apostle says, all faithful Christians are of the fellowship of Christ, yet some are more so than others: that is to say, those who share more largely of the life and grace of Christ: as those who follow, not only the precepts, but also the counsels of Christ; even as the Apostles were more of the fellowship of Christ than other Christians. Ver. 10.—I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, into whose one and the same fellowship, family, house, and Church we are all called, as many as are faithful and Christians, that ye all speak the same thing—that is to say, that, like brothers, ye agree in words and in speech, and that ye all say at the same time "I am of Christ;" but let not one say, "I am of Paul," another, "I of Apollos." And, again, that ye agree not only in speech, but also in mind: otherwise your verbal confession would be feigned and false. Whence he adds as the root of concord:— That ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment, that ye think the same think the same thing and agree among yourselves in Christ, that ye be fitly united to each other in one mind and spirit in Christ. For the Greek signifies, aptly and harmoniously to join and cement anything, so that the parts agree with each other and with the whole. And because a thing is then perfect and complete when it has in this way been neatly and harmoniously united, hence the word signifies also to perfect, as ;  . Be perfect, i.e., mutually agree amongst yourselves and with your Head; and (Sept.). Ver. 11.—For it hath been declared unto me by them of Chloλ. Some think that Chloλ is the name of a place, but this place is nowhere else mentioned; nor does the Greek well allow Chloλ to be a place. Whence more truly Chrysostom and the Syriac suppose it to be the name of a family or of a woman, and then the meaning is, I have heard from the family of Chloλ. By a similar Greek idiom it is said, : "Salute them which are of Aristobulus, of Narcissus," viz., of the house and family. Ver. 12.—That every one of you; i.e., Whoever of you contend with one another, and foment any part of schism. (For there were among the Corinthians many others well-disposed and peaceful, unconnected with schism, and consequently with the following words): says, in turn, alternately or respectively; for not each one was saying, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Cephas, but in turn; since one would say, I am of Paul, another, I of Apollos, a third, I of Cephas. In the words "every one," therefore, there is a distributive and disjunctive force familiar to the Hebrews; for every one ambitiously and contentiously was saying, "I am of Paul," &c., I am of Paul, viz., a disciple, a catechumen; I of Cephas, that is to say, taught or baptized by the Blessed Pontiff Peter at Antiτch, at Rome, or elsewhere. For Peter had not yet been at Corinth, as is deduced from ch. iv. 15. Whence Baronius thinks that these are the words of those who were avoiding divisions, which had properly arisen because of Paul and Apollos, as appears in ch. iii. 4, and that, to escape from them, while others were boasting of their teachers, they would declare they were the disciples neither of Paul, nor of Apollos but of Peter, the head of the Church; as though they should say, "This man says and boasts that he is the disciple of Paul, that man of Apollos; but I say that I am of Cephas, that is, that I am a disciple of Peter, who is the head of the Church, and the Vicar of Christ: for to him I cling, in him I glory; he converted and baptized me by Paul or Apollos or some other." Whence another rising higher would say: "I am of Christ, who is the supreme Head of Apostles and of the Church, whose Vicar Peter is, whose ministers are Paul and Apollos." For it is to be noted that he adds I am of Christ as the words of those who speak not amiss but rightly, if there is no contention and contempt of the Apostles and the Vicars of Christ, as the Anabaptists now despise Prelates; for it became all to say, "We are of Christ," viz., Christians; whereas some called themselves disciples of Paul, or of Apollos, or of Cephas. So Ambrose, Theophylact, S. Thomas. The occasion of the schism seems to have been that Apollos, who was eloquent, acute, and learned in the Scriptures, was then teaching at Corinth , and compared to him S. Paul seemed to some cold and bald, because he avoided in his preaching all display of knowledge or of rhetorical ornament, as he says himself (ch. .) Lastly, S. Jerome (on Tit. i.) gathers from this passage that Bishops were given jurisdiction over presbyters, so as to remove all scandals, and that the Church before this was governed by the Presbyters in common to the Epistles to Titus. Ver. 13.—Were ye baptized in the name of Paul? Christ is one, and in His name all were alike baptized. In vain then, he says, do ye contend for us, which of us is to be the greatest, when we are but the ministers of baptism. Hence, theologians teach that the validity of Baptism and the other Sacraments depends not on the disposition of the receiver, or of the minister, but flows from the Sacrament itself. Note  1. that to be baptized in the name of Christ is the same as to be baptized in the invocation, profession, power, merit, and baptism of Christ, and so to have a right to the name of Christ. Therefore we are called Christians from Christ, and not Paulians, or Apollinians. For the power of excellency which Christ has in Baptism and the other Sacraments, see S. Thomas. 2. S. Thomas and others, as well as the history of the Greek Church, show that that Church uses as its form of Baptism, not "I baptize thee," but "Let the servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost," so that no one can say, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos." 3. Erasmus, Faber, and other innovators, wrongly argue that by parity of reasoning it is wrong to say, "I am of Scotus," and "I of Thomas;" "I am a pupil and follower of Francis," "I of Dominic;" because the Apostle is only censuring contentions for the pre– eminence, and the schisms of which some at Corinth boasted, and which divided the Church into hostile factions: so that they attributed the power and excellence of Baptism and of the faith not to Christ, but to Paul or Apollos. But this is no condemnation of monastic institutions, or of the schools and academies of the philosophers and theologians; for though they differ from one another in their customs, their rites, and opinions, yet they are joined together in the same faith, the same Christian charity and humility. If any one does otherwise, his religion will be vain, and we will hand over his vanity and contentiousness to be corrected by S. Paul with that of the Corinthians. This is the sin of the individual, not of the Order; as in this chapter it is the sin of individual Corinthians that is dealt with, not that of the Church. Far more truly and suitably may we use this passage against the schisms of modern innovators. For they say, "I am of Calvin," or "I of Luther," or "I of Menno," and this in matters of faith and religion. For Calvin teaches one faith, Luther another, Menno another. But the diversity of Religious Orders makes for the greater beauty, strength, and unity of the Church; just as a camp is beautified, strengthened and united by the due distribution of its legions. For without this distribution it would be in confusion. The religious of the various Orders are united not only under one head, the Supreme Pontiff, in the one Church, but also by their living under the same Order, whether their state be lay or cleric. For the Religious Orders make, as it were, one legion in the Church, and that its strongest one. As, then, the members of the same body are joined in one, and as the soldiers of the same legion are more united to one another than the soldiers of different legions, so the Religious who are aspiring to the height of perfection are bound together more closely than all others by the bond of religion and of prayer to God. If there is amongst them who calumniates, envies, opposes another Order that man's religion is vain; he is not a Religious, nay, he is not a Christian, but a heathen; he is not led by the spirit of God, but by that of the devil. For the true Religious says with S. Bernard in his Apology, "For one Order I work; to all others I show charity." In work, I am a Franciscan, in charity a Dominican, an Augustinian, a Benedictine, &c. And therefore I am a religious of all Orders; I have work for one, charity for all. Therefore I rejoice in the good of all Orders: I am pleased at the prosperity of all, I envy none. For all are mine, and I belong to all. Is Christ divided in the different orders? God forbid. For the same Christ is the Institutor, Author, and Governor of all Religious Orders, and that makes for their greater concord. Let not then that which ought to be the cause of greater harmony be the cause of the most disgraceful division, which is hateful to God, lest we hear the words, "Whereas there is among you envying and strife and divisions, are ye not carnal?" And again, "Is thine eye evil because I am good?" If it has pleased God to add Order to Order, to raise up new ones to supplement the old, to give them fresh supplies of His grace and of His Spirit, who can find fault with God? who can envy the new Orders? who deprive the Church of such workmen? Suppose that they do carry off the prize; I will rejoice that God is honoured through them, and that more souls are saved; and may I be a sharer of their labours, for I seek not mine own glory, but that of God. Ver. 16.—And I baptized also the house of Stephanas. Stephanas, says Theophylact, was a well– known inhabitant of Corinth, whose faith and charity are praised by S. Paul ch. ). Ver. 17.—For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel. Preaching and the administration of the Sacraments are the two duties of Pastors, but especially the former. And therefore the chief work of Bishops, Archbishops, and Primates is to preach the Gospel: and this they are bound to do themselves, unless lawfully hindered (Council of Trent, Sess. v. c. 2, and Sess. iv. c. 4). But they may with Paul intrust the administration of Baptism and the other Sacraments to Parish Priests and their assistants. Not with wisdom of words. I.e., with eloquence and rhetorical adornment, not according to the Gospel. The Greek word for wisdom gives us Sophists, the Greek orators who particularly pleaded in the law courts. Of this are modern innovators in religion, who rightly style themselves "ministers of the word." Not so did Paul, "lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect," i.e., should become emptied of its force, by men supposing that they had obtained salvation, and their belief in the faith through human eloquence, instead of by the power of the Passion of Christ. This was the origin of the schism of those who said, "I am of Paul," "I of Apollos," because the eloquence of Apollos was pleasing to some of the more fastidious Corinthians, and to those who loved eloquence; while on the other, Paul pleased those who sought for the spirit rather than the words, inasmuch as he was unskilled indeed in rhetoric but not in knowledge. And thence it is that S. Paul here and in the next three chapters attacks and abases in different ways eloquence and worldly wisdom. The "wisdom of words" can be taken for natural philosophy, of the wisdom of human reason; for it is opposed to the Cross in ver.18; and again, in verses 19, 20– 27, he explains it as philosophy and human reason and prudence. (Maldonatus.) Ver. 18.—For the preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness. Any declaration about the salvation bestowed by the Cross, or about our redemption by the Cross and Passion of Christ, seems foolishness to men who are sceptical and perverse, and therefore ready to perish. Isaiah, too, says this in the person of Christ: "Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel" . See also . Ver. 19.—For it is written. This is from , where, following the Hebrew, the verbs are transitive, but the sense is the same. Note that Paul refers to the whole circle of worldly wisdom what the Prophet said of the wisdom of the Jews alone, which was Pharisaic. For both are alike in this connection, and the meaning is, "I will make men unwilling to use worldly wisdom for their salvation, but only the Gospel and the Cross of Christ." Ver. 20.—Where is the wise? The Gentile philosopher. Where is the scribe? The Jewish doctor.  S. Paul is quoting . Note, as the Greeks called their wise men philosophers, and the Chaldeans theirs magi, so the Jews called theirs sopharim, "scribes." "Scribes" is from the same root as "Scripture," and implies that they were occupied with the Holy Scriptures. Their duty, in fact, was to preserve the Holy Scriptures in their integrity, to carefully correct all transcripts, to interpret them by writing and by word of mouth, and to write out or state the answers they gave to questions about the Law. (Epiphan. hζres. 16). Where is the disputer of this world? The student of physical science who narrowly investigates the secrets of nature and the world. In other words, philosophers and scribes have been cast aside, and all the wise of this world thrown down and put to confusion by the preaching of the Apostles, by the glory of the Gospel. (So S. Chrysostom.) Paul here and in the following verses is aiming at philosophers both ancient and modern, and not at such Christians as Dionysius the Areopagite, Hierotheus, Paul himself, Clement of Rome, Nathanael, Gamaliel, Apollos, as the Anabaptists seem to think. He has in his mind the Gentile teachers who at this very time were going round the world, like rivals to the Apostles, and under the garb of piety, wisdom, and eloquence were attempting to attract to themselves, and away from the Apostles, the various nations, as though they alone taught true wisdom, and the way to virtue, righteousness, and salvation; as, e.g., Musonius, Dio, Epictetus, Damys, Diogenes Minor, Apollonius of Tyana, who was greatly looked up to by the Greeks at that time because of his mystic powers, and was given a statue at Ephesus, and placed among the gods. (Baronius, Annals, A.D. 75.) Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? I.e., has shown to be foolish: a manifestation of its true nature is described as if it were a change of its essence. It is foolish, he says, seen in the light of the Cross and of Christ and of salvation. The light of this knowledge requires faith, not subtlely.  S. Ambrose says, "The knowledge of fishermen has made foolish the knowledge of philosophers," since it has surpassed their limits, and the limits of nature. So, too, did God by His creative work show the folly of the saying of the philosophers, that "Out of nothing nothing comes," and that in consequence the universe was uncreate and eternal. So in His Incarnation did He show the folly of the saying, "God cannot be contained by a body, time, and place;" and in His Passion the saying, "God cannot suffer and die." So in the Eucharist He shows the foolishness of their principles and of those of our modern innovators who say, "An accident cannot exist without a subject; a body cannot be in a point; two bodies cannot be in the same place at the same time." For though these things are out of Nature's reach, yet they are not impossible to God, who is Omnipotent, and transcends all nature. S. Paulinus quotes this passage of S. Paul's in a letter (27) to Aper, who had been a lawyer and then had embraced the monastic life, and was, therefore, exposed to ridicule. From this he confirms him in his purpose, and shows him how to despise the laughter and sneers of men. "I congratulate you," he says, "on having scorned that wisdom which is rejected of God, and on having preferred to have fellowship rather with Christ's little ones than with the wise of the world. It is from this that you have merited the grace from God of the hatred of men; this would not be had you not begun to be a true follower of Christ." And a little lower, in showing the fruit and dignity of his purpose, he says, "Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven; for it is not you that they hate, but Him who has begun to be in you, whose work is in you, whose humility they despise, whose holiness they loathe. Joyfully recognise yourself to be a sharer in this good with Prophets and Apostles. From the beginning of the world Christ has ever suffered and triumphed in His own: in Abel He was killed by His brother; in Noah He was mocked by His son; in Abraham He was a pilgrim; in Isaac He was offered up; in Jacob He served; in Joseph He was sold; in Moses exposed and forced to flee; in the Prophets stoned and persecuted; in the apostles tossed about on sea and land; in His Martyrs often slain and in different ways. In you, too, He suffers reproaches, and thus world hates Him in you; but thanks be to Him that He overcomes when He is judged and triumphs in us." Again, praising and admiring his change of life, he says, "Where now is the once feared advocate and judge? Would that I had wings to fly to you, to see you no longer yourself, but changed from a lion to a calf— to see Christ in Aper, who has now laid aside his ferocity and strength, and become a lamb unto God instead of a wild boar of this world. For you are a boar, but of the corn-field, not of the forest; you are rich in the good fruit of the holy discipline, and have fed yourself with the fruit of virtues." Ver. 21.—For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. Mark the phrase, "in the wisdom of God," God shows His wisdom in the marvellous structure and government of the world, as S. Thomas says. In other words, the world in its foolishness knew not God practically in His wisdom stamped on His Creation, as the Author of its salvation, and Leader to a life of bliss; nor yet speculatively, because philosophers regarded God as powerless to create; they thought Him to act under necessity, and to be void of providence, &c. Hence it is that God has revealed Himself and His salvation to the world in a way which seems to the world foolishness, viz., by the Cross. He has thus stooped to men, and become as or were foolish among them; just as a teacher will sometimes act as a boy, and talk as a boy, amongst boys. So Christ, because He was not understood as God, revealed Himself to men, as a man, and one liable to suffering. This is wisdom unspeakable. See S, Thomas, Anselm, and others. Ver. 22.—For the Jews require a sign . . . but we preach Christ crucified. A Theban, when asked what he thought of the Romans, said that "the Romans boasted themselves in their spears, the Greeks on their eloquence, the Thebans in their virtues." But the Apostle says that he and other Christians boast themselves in Christ crucified. This is our spear, our eloquence, and our virtue. Ver. 23.—Into the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness. Notice here, with S. Chrysostom (Hom. iv. moral in loco, and above on ver.17), that the power of the Cross shines forth not only in itself but also in its preaching: (1.) In the fact that the Apostles, few in number, simple fishermen, poor, unlearned, unknown, and Jews, in all these respects hateful to the world, yet brought the world into subjection to the Cross. (2.) In the fact that they subdued most bitter enemies, demons, sin, death, hell, kings, princes, philosophers, orators, Greeks, barbarians, laws, judgments. Long-existing religions, and time-honoured traditions. (3.) In that they persuaded men by simple preaching, and not by arms, wisdom, or eloquence. (4.) In that in so short a time they spread the faith of Christ over the whole world. (5.) In that by the grace of Christ they overcame most cheerfully and courageously what is hardest to be borne by the natural strength of man, the threats of tyrants, scourgings, deaths, and tortures. (6.) In that they preached a doctrine not about a glorious God, but a crucified One, and Him their Saviour to be believed in and adored; and a law of Christ displeasing to nature and flesh. Wherefore Tertullian (lib. contra Jud.) beautifully and fitly compares the Kingdom of Christ with the kingdoms of all kings and people, and prefers it before them all: "Solomon," he says, "reigned, but only in the borders of Judζa from Dan to Beersheba: Darius reigned over the Babylonians and Parthians, but not further; Pharaoh reigned over the Egyptians, but over them only. The kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar stretched only from India to Ethiopia. Alexander of Macedon, after subduing all Asia and other countries, could not keep what he had conquered. So have the Germans, Britons, Moors, and Romans bounds set to their dominions. But the kingdom of Christ has reached to all parts, His name is believed on everywhere, is worshipped by all nations, everywhere reigns, is everywhere adored; He is equal to all, King over all, Judge over all, God and Lord of all." Ver. 25.—Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. That is, say Ambrose and Anselm, the foolishness and weakness of God, or what men think is the foolishness and weakness in God and in Christ incarnate and suffering, as e.g., His humanity, morality, Passion and Cross, was just that by which Christ, when seemingly conquered, yet most wisely and most powerfully conquered men, Satan, and the whole world. In other words, God's wisdom and strength by what was foolish and weak, viz., the Cross. And therefore Jerome and S. Augustine explain the passage of Habakkuk (iii. 4) "He had horns coming out of His hands," thus: The strength and weapons by which, as by horns, Christ slew His foes were the arms of the Cross to which the hands of Christ ere nailed. Hence it is that the cross in the sky appeared to Constantine the Great as he was going to battle against Maxentius, with the inscription, "In this sign thou shalt conquer" (Euseb., Life of Constantine, lib. i. c. 22). Literally and morally the power and wisdom of the Cross are seen (1.) in that on the Cross God showed His supreme love to us, that so He might draw us to Him; for God, under no necessity, with no prospect of advantage to Himself, of His own will stooped to the Cross from love of man, solely. This He yet did with such wisdom that no damage was dine by it to the loftiness and glory of His Godhead; for the Godhead in Him suffered nothing, but He bore all His suffering in the Manhood which He had assumed. (2.) In that on the Cross He redeemed man, not by the power of His Godhead, but through the righteousness and humility of His Passion, as S. Augustine says. (3.) In that on the Cross He set before us a most perfect example of obedience, constancy, endurance of punishment, patience, fortitude, and all virtues, as well as mortification of vices. (4.) In that on the Cross He condemned the wisdom and pride of the world, and gave to man, who had fallen through pride and self– indulgence, a mirror of life, viz., a mode of recovery through humility and the Cross. (See also S. Thomas. 3, p. qu. 46, art. 3 and 4, and S. Augustine, De Trin. lib. xiii. c. 12.) S. Bernard, in his exhortation to the Soldiers of the Temple (c. 11), says: "The weakness of Christ was no less beneficial to us than His majesty; for although the power of His Godhead ordered the removal of the yoke of sin, yet the weakness of His flesh destroyed by death the rights of death over man. And therefore the Apostle beautifully says: 'The weakness of God is stronger than men.' But His foolishness by which He was pleased to save the world, so as to confound the wise; which made Him, though He was in the form of God and equal to God, empty Himself, and take upon Him the form of a servant; by which, though he was rich, He yet for our sake became poor, though He was great He became little, though he was high yet He became humbled, though He was powerful He became weak; through which He hungered, thirsted, and was weary on the journey, and suffered all that His own will and no necessity laid upon Him; this foolishness of His, was it not to us the way of prudence, the form of righteousness, the example of holiness? Therefore the Apostle also adds, 'The foolishness of God is wiser than men.' Death then set us free from death, life from error, grace from sin. And truly His death won the victory through His righteousness; because the Just One, by paying what he never took, rightly recovered all that He had lost." Hence it is that Francis and the greatest Saints have sought to be considered foolish by the world, in order that they might the rather please God. Some religious Orders, indeed, so regard this as the height of perfection and Christian wisdom that they enjoin their members to love, desire, and embrace contempt, ridicule, insults, and injuries, and to long to be considered fools, just as eagerly as worldly men seek for a reputation for wisdom, for honour, and renown. They do this to teach them in this way (1.) to utterly despise the world; (2.) to humiliate themselves and uproot their innate desire of honour, praise, glory, and high position; (3.) to be more like Christ, and to clothe themselves with His garments and His marks, who for our sakes, and to give us an example of virtue and perfection, chose these things Himself, willed to be considered foolish, and became a scorn of men, and the outcast of the people, They say, therefore, with S. Paul, "God forbid that I should glory save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me and I to the world." All this does the Cross of Christ teach if you often meditate on it; nay, the Cross is the fount of wisdom. S. Bonaventura, when asked where he had drunk in so much wisdom, showed a crucifix almost worn away by kisses.  S. Jacoponus, a man of good birth and of great learning, after having learned from the Cross of Christ to become foolish to the world, was asked by Christ, who appeared to him in a friendly and familiar way, why he was so enamoured of this foolishness, and he answered with his customary pious pleasantry, "Because Thou, Lord, hast been more foolish than I." In short, S. Chrysostom (Hom. 4 on the Cross and the Robber) sums up the power and praise of the Cross as follows: "If you to know the power of the Cross, and what I have to say in its praise, listen: The Cross is the hope of Christians, the resurrection of the dead, the way of them that despair, the staff of the lame, the consolation of the poor, the curb of the rich, the destruction of the proud, the punishment of them that live badly, victory over the demons, subjection of the devil, the instructor of the young, nourishment of the needy, hope of the hopeless, the rudder of seafarers, haven to the storm– tossed, wall to the besieged, father to the fatherless, defender of widows, counsellor of the just, rest to the weary, guardian of little ones, head of men, end of the aged, light to them that sit in darkness, the magnificence of kings, an everlasting shield, wisdom of the foolish, liberty to the slaves, a philosophy for kings. law ro the lawless, the boast of martyrs, the self-denial monks, the chastity of virgins, the joy of priests, the foundation of the Church, the destruction of temples, the rejection of idols, a stumbling-block to the Jews, perdition to the ungodly, strength to the weak, physician to the sick, bread to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothing to the naked." Ver. 26.—For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called. The for gives the reason of what had gone before. This verse contains another proof of what was said in ver. 21, "It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." For this is proved in two ways: (1.) in ver. 23, from the object of preaching, viz., the Cross, by which God was pleased to save the world, but which to the world seems foolishness; (2.) from the ministers of preaching, viz., the Apostles, whose duty it was to preach salvation through the Cross, and who were men of no account, unpolished, despised, and foolish in the eyes of the world. Again, the particle for fitly joins this verse to the preceding; ver. 25 gives an indefinite and general statement which is true, not only of the Cross, but also of the preachers of the Cross, as Athanasius points out (Ad Antiochum, qu. 129). This particle, then, declares the likeness of the Apostles to the Cross that they preached. It is as if S. Paul had said: God willed to use the foolishness and weakness of the Cross, and with it to overcome and subdue to Himself the wisdom and power of all men; and we see this, not only in the Cross itself, and its victory, but also in the Apostles who preach the Cross: for God has not chosen the wise and powerful of this world, but the Apostles, who are poor, simple, and foolish in the eyes of the world, that they might carry the banner of the Cross on high throughout the whole world, and bring all men into obedience to the faith of the Cross, and that they all might believe and hope for their righteousness and salvation through the Cross of Christ. It is a reason drawn from likeness or analogy. For such as the Cross was— worthless, despicable, and foolish before the world— such should be all preachers of the Cross. For God in His wonderful wisdom has so well adapted everything to the Cross, which is the burden of all preaching, that not only the preachers but believers too should be like the Cross; for the first who were called to the faith were men of low birth, of no reputation, unknown, sinners, publicans, and harlots. Ye see your calling. The reason and mode of your calling. Because the Apostles who called you are not wise, according to this wisdom, which knows not that which is spiritual and Divine. So S, Thomas applies the words to the Apostles, who called others. S. Chrysostom, however, applies them and rightly (from ver. 2) to those who had been called and converted; for many unlearned gad been converted to Christ, and but few who were learned and nobly born. The words, then, mean: Ye see of what kind are both caller and called. Some wise and powerful, of course, as, e.g., Dionysius the Areopagite, Paulus the Proconsul, Nicodemus, S. Paul himself, but they were few. Moreover, the Apostle is speaking mainly of the Apostles, who were the first called, though they were poor and of no reputation. And therefore S. Ambrose , says: "See the counsel of God. He chose not the wise, the rich, the noble, but fishermen and publicans to train, that He might not be thought to have drawn any to His grace by His wisdom, to have redeemed us by His riches, to have won us to Him by the influence of power or birth; and that so, not love of disputation, but truth by its reaonableness might prevail." S. Augustine (vol. x. Serm. 59) says, "Great is the mercy of our Maker. He knew that if the Senator were chosen, he would say, 'I was chosen because of my rank.' If the rich man were chosen, he would say, 'I was chosen for my wealth.' If a king, he would put it down to his power; if an orator, to his eloquence; if a philosopher, to his wisdom. 'For the present,' says the Lord, 'those proud men must be rejected: they are too haughty. Give Me first that fisherman. Come, poor men. You have nothing, you know nothing; follow Me. The empty vessel must be brought to the plentiful stream.' The fisherman let down his nets; he received grace, and became a Divine orator. Now while the words of the fishermen are read, orators bow their heads in reverence." It seems, therefore, that what some fable about the royal birth and renown of the Apostle Bartholomew is groundless. Ver. 27.—But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. The words "foolish, weak, base," form a climax, and are used by S. Paul to describe the faithful who had been called to Christ, or rather the Apostles themselves, who had called them. He contrasts them as uncultivated, poor, base, and hence foolish in the eyes of the world, and the world's laughing-stock, with the wise, strong, and powerful of the world. Things which are not. This is applied to the same persons as being contemptible and reckoned of no account. In other words, God chose the despised Apostles, who were thought nothing of, that He might destroy, and, as it were, bring to nought things that are, i.e., which are highly esteemed, as e.g., the wise and mighty of the world. Observe that three things which the world is wont to admire, viz., wisdom, power, and birth, were passed over by God when He called men to faith, righteousness, and salvation; and on the other hand that three things opposite to these were chosen by Him, viz., want of wisdom, of power, and of birth. This was done to show that the work was from God, and that this calling as to be ascribed to the grace of God, and not to human excellence. Thus, in the second century after the Apostles, He chose Agnes, a maiden of thirteen years, who amazed and confounded her judges and all the heathen who saw her by her wonderful fortitude. Well, therefore, does the Collect for her day run: "Almighty and everlasting God, who choosest the weak things of the world to confound the strong, mercifully grant that we who keep the feast of Thy Virgin and Martyr S. Agnes, may receive the fruit of her prayers." Such too were SS. Agatha, Lucy, Dorothy, Barbara, and a countless number of others whom God seems to have raised up to show the power of His grace in their weakness. Therefore in their Collect the Church prays: "O God, who, amongst other marvels of Thy power, hast also conferred upon feeble women the victory of martyrdom, mercifully grant that we, who keep the 'birthday' of Thy blessed Virgin and Martyr, N., may by her example come to Thee," Ver. 30.—But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus. By the gift of God Himself, by His grace, were ye called to believe in Christ. So Anselm. To be in Christ is to have been incorporated with Him in Baptism, or to be in the Church of Christ, and in Christianity. Who of God is made unto us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption. This righteousness, say our modern innovators, is imputed, because it is ours, not substantially and inherently, but is merely the external righteousness of Christ imputed to us; before God we seem righteous. But I reply: If this be true, then in the same way the active redemption wrought by Christ, which S. Paul here joins with righteousness, will be imputed to us, and consequently we shell be redeemers of ourselves, which is absurd. In the second place, wisdom is infused into us, and so is faith, and so therefore is righteousness; for the Apostle classes together the righteousness and wisdom of Christ as both alike ours. I say, then, with Chrysostom, Theophylact, Anselm, Ambrose, and S. Thomas, that the sense of this passage is this: Christ is made unto us the author and cause of real Christian wisdom, redemption, sanctification, and righteousness. 1. By way of satisfaction and meritoriously; and this is what the Apostle specially has in his mind here: because Christ paid man's debt with the most precious price of His own Blood, and so made sanctification for man, and merited for us righteousness, wisdom, and sanctification. In this way He was made for us righteousness, because the righteousness, i.e., the satisfaction of Christ, is ours, just as much as if we had ourselves made satisfaction to God. And hence it is that theologians teach that the satisfaction of Christ is applied to us in justification through the Sacraments, as if naturally first, and that then as a natural consequence our sins are forgiven through that satisfaction, and grace is infused. This condemns the error of Peter Abιlard, in which he is followed by the Socinians, who teach that Christ was the teacher of the world, not its redeemer— nay more, that He was sent by the Father to give to man an example of perfect virtue, but not to free him from sin or to redeem him. S. Bernard refutes this in Ep. 190, to Pope Innocent, where he says: "Christ is the end of the law to every one that believeth. In short, S. Paul says that He was made to us righteousness by God the Father. Is not then that righteousness mine which was made for me? If my guilt is brought against me, why am I not given the benefit of my righteousness? And indeed what is given me is safer than what is innate. For this has whereof it may glory, but not before God. But the former, since it is effectual to salvation, has no ground of glorying, except in the Lord. 'For if I be righteous, yet will I not lift up my head,' says Job, lest the answer come, 'What hast thou that thou didst not receive? But if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hast not received it?' This is the righteousness of man in the blood of his Redeemer, which Abιlard, that man of perdition, scoffs and sneers at, and so tries to empty of its force, that he holds and argues that all that the Lord of Glory did in emptying Himself . . . in suffering indignities . . . is to be reduced to this, that it was all done that He might by His life and teaching give to man a rule of life, and by His suffering and death set up a goal of charity." Abιlard's argument was fallacious and frivolous: the devil, he said, had no right over man; therefore man needed no liberator. The premiss is doubtless true when understood of lawful right, but not of usurped right, under which man through sin by his own free will had submitted himself to the power of the devil, of sin, and of hell. 2. By way of example; because the righteousness of Christ os the most perfect example, to which all our righteousness ought to be conformed. In this sense S. Paul's meaning is, Christ is an example and mirror of righteousness. 3. Efficiently; because Christ effects and produces this righteousness in us through His Sacraments, and because He teaches the Saints true wisdom and understanding; as, e.g., how to live a good and Christian life, by what road to attain to heaven, and how we must strive after bliss. 4. As our end; because Christ Himself and His glory are the end of our righteousness and sanctification. S. Bernard, in his 22nd Sermon on the Canticles, deals with these four, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, redemption, symbolically. In the first place, he adapts them to the four works of Christ. He says, "Christ was made for us wisdom in His preaching, righteousness in the forgiveness of our sins, sanctification in the life that He spent with sinners, redemption in the sufferings that He bore for sinners." And again further on he says, "Christ was made for us by God wisdom by teaching prudence, righteousness by forgiving our trespasses, sanctification by the example He set of temperance and of chaste life, redemption by the example He left of patience and of fortitude in dying. Where, I ask, is true wisdom, except in the teaching of Christ? Whence comes true righteousness but from the mercy of Christ? Where is there true temperance but in the life of Christ? Where true fortitude save in the Passion of Christ?" In the second place, S. Bernard naturally adapts these four to the four virtues, prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude, which Christ imparts to us. He goes in to say: "Only those, then, who have been imbued with His doctrine are to be called prudent; only those, who by His mercy have obtained forgiveness of their sins, are to be called righteous; only those are to be called temperate who strive to imitate His life; only those are to be called brave who bravely bear adversity and show patience like His. In vain surely does any one strive to acquire virtues, if he thinks that they are to be obtained from any other source but the Lord of virtues, whose teaching is the school of prudence, whose mercy the working of righteousness, whose life the mirror of temperance, whose death the pattern of fortitude." Ver. 31.—That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. He is quoting not the words but the sense of . So Ambrose, Theophylact, Anselm, St, Thomas. In Jeremiah the passage runs: "Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches, but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth Me." This it is to glory in the Lord. Jeremiah is speaking of liberation from the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, and from the slaughter of the Chaldeans, which were then threatening the Jews. In other words, then, he says: The Jews glory in counsels of their wise men, in the strength of their soldiers, in the riches of Jerusalem, as though these would make them secure against the Chaldeans; but they err, for their true glory is to know and understand God, that is, His Providence, an that it is He alone who worketh mercy, and mercifully sets free whom He will, and not the wisdom, might, or riches of man. Moreover, He alone inflicts just punishment on whom He will, and no wise, mighty, or rich man can set free from this— even as, O Jews, He will inflict it on you, and will bring it to pass, that death (that is, the Chaldeans, shall bring death upon you) shall climb up into your houses, though your windows, and slay all your little ones. The Apostles rightly adapts this passage to those who were calling others, or who had been called to Christianity, that no one may attribute the grace of Christ to himself, his virtues, or the gifts of nature, but only to Christ, and consequently his tacit exhortation is: "Do not, O Corinthians, glory in yourselves, or in Paul, or in Apollos, your teachers, but in the Lord alone." For this is what in the beginning he proposed to prove, and therefore all that is here said must be referred to it. Anselm says: "That man glories in the Lord only who knows that it is not of himself, but of Him, not only that he is, but also that it is well with him." Again that glories in the Lord who, if he has anything which makes him pleasing to God, holds that he has received it, not because of his own wisdom, power, good works, talent, or merits, but merely through the grace of God. Thirdly, he who in all that he does seeks not his own glory, but that of the Lord. S. Bernard wrote a noteworthy sermon on these words of the Apostle; see also Sermon 25 on Canticles. He says: "Moreover, the whole glorying of the Saints is within and not without, that is, not in the flower of grass, or the mouth of the vulgar, but in the Lord; for God alone is the sole judge of their conscience, Him alone they desire to please, and to please Him is their only real and chief glory." And Sermon 13 on Canticles: "Brothers, let none of you desire to be praised in this life. For whatever favour you gain for yourselves here which you do not refer to Him, you steal from Him. For whence, thou dust that perishest, whence comes thy glory?" And in his Sentences: "The Apostles knew that glory properly belongs to the Creator, and not to the creature. But he also knew that the rational creature so seeks after glory that it can scarcely or perhaps never overcome this desire, just because it was made in the image of the Creator. Therefore he gave the most wholesome advice when he said: 'Since you cannot be persuaded not to glory, let him that glorieth glory in the Lord.'" Let us, too, say in company with the Psalmist, "Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto Thy name give the praise," and with the four and twenty elders who cast their crowns before the throne, "Blessing and honour and glory and power be unto Him that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb for ever and ever" . CHAPTER II. OF THE CHAPTER He proceeds to exalt the spiritual wisdom of Christ above all natural and animal wisdom. Therefore he says:— i. That he knew and preached nothing but Christ crucified; and that not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. ii. Nevertheless in ver. 5 he says that he speaks wisdom among them that are perfect, wisdom hidden from the world, which eye hath not seen nor ear heard, but which the Spirit of God alone has revealed. iii. He shows in ver. 14 that the natural man does not perceive the things which are of God, but the spiritual man perceives and judges all things. Ver. 1.—And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom. The Apostle here descends from the general to the particular. In other words: I said in the preceding chapter that God in preaching the Gospel willed not to use the wisdom of the wise in this world, but rejected it and scorned it, but willed by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe; and therefore He chose not many noble or wise to spread the Gospel, but the low-born and untaught Apostles. From this I infer and say "And I" i.e., and so I as one of the number of the Apostles, who, according to the election and will of God, did not use eloquence and worldly wisdom, was unwilling to use those means, and I came to you not in excellency but in simplicity of speech and wisdom. Ver. 2.—For I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Mark the word determined: it is as if he said, I did not think of, I did not value any knowledge save that which is of Jesus crucified, our Saviour, and, therefore, I so bore myself among you, as if I knew nothing of human wisdom, although I have much acquaintance with it, for on other occasions I can quote the Greek poets; but with you I kept it back, that like the others I might merely preach with all simplicity Christ crucified. Not that I did not preach the other mysteries of the faith, but I especially taught you and impressed on you that we must glory in the Cross of Christ only, and hope from it for our righteousness and salvation, and, as Anselm says, must imitate the cross and crucify our vices. For in Christ crucified it is easy to see, besides other things, that Christ chose and embraced these three, viz., utmost pain, the greatest poverty or nakedness, and the lowest depths of shame. Christ by His pains crucified and taught us to crucify the lust of the flesh; by His poverty He crucified the lust of the eyes or avarice; and by His shame He crucified the pride of life. These are the three heads of the world's sin, and the sources of all sins. (See 1 S. John ii. 16, and what was said about the Cross in c. i. 23). Ver. 3.—And I was with you in weakness: that is, in anxieties, tribulation, and persecution; and in fear and much trembling, because of the hostility of the persecuting Jews and Gentiles.  S. Chrysostom and Anselm remark that the Apostle in his Second Epistle (xi. 30 and xii. 5, 9, 10), and elsewhere, gives the name of weakness to the anxiety he suffered from dangers, plots, exile, daily terrors, calumnies, and hatreds. And also, that Paul suffered great anxieties and persecutions at Corinth, is evident in that he needed to be strengthened against them by Christ in a vision (Acts xviii. 9). Moreover, shortly afterwards the Jews there stirred up a tumult against Paul, and dragged him to the judgment– seat of Gallio, the deputy of Achaia, and publicly beat Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, before him. Ver. 4.—And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom,, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. Speech (λόγος) denotes his private and familiar conversation as contrasted with his public preaching. S. Thomas and the Glossa distinguished the two words in this way; so does Seneca, who, in Ep. 38, says: "Conversation, because it makes an impression on the mind by little and little, is of immense force. Speeches prepared and delivered to a large assembly have more vehemence but less familiarity." S. Paul's conversation, then, as well as his preaching, was not with enticing words (i.e., apt to persuade) of man's wisdom. In such the orators and philosophers at Corinth surpassed Paul. Paul, however, had to make the Corinthians believe a new philosophy by a new mode of speech and action, and in this he excelled all orators and philosophers, viz., in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. So Sulpicius testifies that S. Martin once said that "the kingdom is not founded on eloquence but on faith." S, Augustine, too, in his Sermon 1, about those coming to grace, says: "We do not try to persuade you with thundering words and flowery phrases, nor by any rhetorical skill, nor by eloquence darkened by set speeches such as the world uses, but we preach Christ crucified." And in lib. ii. c. ii., against Felicianus, he says: "I will never rely on wisdom of words, lest the Cross of Christ be shorn of its power; but I am content to rely on the authority of the Scriptures, and I am more anxious to obey simplicity than presumption." This, then, was the demonstration of the Apostles, viz., to show (1.) burning zeal and a spirit giving forth wisdom and revealing secrets, not human but Divine, so that the hearers might perceive plainly that the Holy Spirit was speaking by their mouth; (2.) great powers, that is prodigies and miracles. Therefore Origen (lib. i. contra Celsum) says: "Our mode of teaching has its own proper demonstration, which is more Divine than that of the Greeks, and which is called by the Apostle, 'the demonstration of the Spirit and of power.' The Spirit lends faith to those things which are said about Christ in the Prophets; and the power is seen in the miracles which we believe to have been wrought." Origen here understands the work of the Spirit somewhat differently, but his explanation is not so much to the point as the one given above. For, as Oecumenius says, "The demonstration which comes by works and signs is surer than that which depends on words." This was the Apostolical mode of preaching, and a far more effectual way than that which modern preachers put before themselves for imitation. Their style was not adorned, clouded over, and tainted with enticing words of man's wisdom, but was in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. So will Apostolic men go forth, and their words, like fiery arrows, will pierce men's hearts, and like hammers break in pieces the rocks. Listen to S. Jerome (Ep. ii. to Nepotianus): "Let not the applause of the congregation be aroused by your teaching in church, but their groanings. Let the tears of the hearers be the proofs of your success." This spirit, as well as the fruit of preaching, must be obtained by prayer to God. Hence Origen (contra Celsum, lib. vi.), in quoting these same words of the Apostle, says "What else is the meaning of these words but that it is not enough that what we say is true and fit to stir the hearts of men? the teacher must have a certain power given him from above, and his words require the energy of Divine grace, as David says, 'The Lord shall give the word to those that preach with much power'" (Ps. lxvii. Vulg.). Ver. 5.—That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. Our preaching is to be of the kind just mentioned, so that your faith, i.e., your conversion to the faith of Christ, may not be attributed to human wisdom and eloquence but to the power and working of God. Your faith must be based on God's wisdom not on man's. (Anselm and others.) Ver. 6.—Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect. This wisdom that he speaks among the perfect, that is, the faithful, is Christian wisdom, and is concerned with the Cross of Christ, with grace, salvation, and the eternal glory won for us by Christ. And although the "faithful" are simple, yet in the things which belong to salvation they are wiser than Aristotle or any other philosopher. So S. Chrysostom and Anselm. Moreover, those who have not only been born again by baptism, but also confirmed by the Sacrament of Confirmation, have obtained the Christian perfection, and are perfectly made Christians. For this reason S. Dionysius and others call the Sacrament of Confirmation "the perfecting," and they call those confirmed "the perfected." Irenζus implies the same (lib. v. c. 6), when he says: "We speak wisdom among them that are perfect, that is, those who have received the Holy Spirit, and by that Spirit speak all tongues just as S. Paul did." Secondly and more simply, wisdom here denotes the more hidden and deeper mysteries of the faith, such as the Resurrection, Anti-Christ, Reprobation, Predestination; or a more profound and thorough explanation of the things of faith, such as the mode, counsel, and end of the Incarnation, Passion, and Redemption of Christ; for so S. Paul explains wisdom in the verses immediately following. He does not speak and discourse of this wisdom to beginners, but to those who have advanced and are perfected. Hence in ver. 15, he calls the perfect "spiritual," and contrasts them with the natural man, with children and carnal men. He is here impressing on them that, though he may seem to have no human wisdom, yet he has Divine; that although he has given to them, as to children, milk, that is, simple and easy teaching (iii. 2), yet amongst the perfect he speaks of hidden and Divine wisdom. The Apostle by these words defends his authority over the Corinthians, who, after hearing Apollos, an eloquent and learned speaker, seemed to hold S. Paul in little esteem, as a speaker without eloquence or skill. Yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world. Anselm, Ambrose, Cajetan, and others understand the devils by the princes of this world, inasmuch as they have their power over the air, the ungodly, and the children of this world. And they prove from here that the devil, before the Passion of Christ, although he knew that Christ was God, yet did not know that by His death his own empire was to be destroyed, and men redeemed (ver. 8). This is true, but it is truer still when understood of men. Secondly, S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Anselm, Tertullian (contra Marcion, lib. iii. c. 6), Origen (Song Nom. 2) understand by the princes of this world the leaders who excel their fellows in wisdom, wealth, or power. And therefore S. Paul adds, that come to nought, i.e., are done away with, pass by, disappear. These, too, crucified Christ (ver. 8). Such were Pilate, Herod, Annas, Caiaphas, and other princes of the Jews and Gentiles. Ver. 7.—But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery. (1.) This is a Hebraism for "the wisdom of the mystery." that great secret of the Divine counsel, about the Incarnation of the Word, and the redemption of man by Christ, which cannot be attained to by man by any effort of reason— no, nor yet by the angels, as is clear from Eph. v. 4, 5. Hence, in 1 Tim. iii. 16, this wisdom of the mystery is called the great mystery of godliness. So Theophylact, Ambrose, Oecumenius, commenting on this verse, and Jerome and Leo Castrius on Isa. lxiv; also S. Leo. (2.) We may understand this wisdom to be concerned with the greatness of the glory of the Blessed, for this was the end of the Incarnation and suffering of the Word. Secondly, it is simpler to connect the words "in a mystery" with "we speak" rather than with "wisdom." Then the meaning is, we speak secretly and to a few, viz., those who are perfect, the spiritual, of this deeper and more hidden wisdom. Hence Ephrem and Tertullian render the passage: "We speak of the wisdom of God in secret." Hence also S. Dionysius and others have written books on mystic theology. Ver. 8.—Which none of the princes of this world knew. The pronoun is better referred to glory than to wisdom, and the sense is: if this wisdom, or rather this glory and its being predestined in Christ, had been known by Pilate, Annas, Caiaphas, and the other princes of the world, they would never have crucified the Lord of Glory, viz., Christ, by whose merits this eternal glory was predestined and prepared for us from eternity. Gabriel Vasquez comments well on this passage (lib. i. disp. 2, c. 3). The Apostle tacitly implies that none other of the princes of this world knew this glory and wisdom of Christ. For, ΰ fortiori, the Jews were wiser than the Gentiles, especially in Divine things; if, therefore, they did not know it, much more were the others ignorant of it. Ver. 9.—But, as it is written, eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him. After "but" there is an ecthlipsis, and we must supply, "this wisdom and the glory which was its end were hidden from them," as it is written, &c. He then quotes . 1. Isaiah, in the passage quoted, is speaking of the Incarnation of Christ and of this present life. And hence Chrysostom, Ambrose, Theophylact, Oecumenius take this verse of the miracles of Christ, and of the wisdom, virtues, and grace which Christ by living here on earth has imparted to us. 2. It is more agreeable to the context to say that Isaiah seems to fly away in admiration from the Incarnation and manhood of Christ to the celestial glory, which is the fruit and end of the Incarnation of Christ; for such flights and sudden changes are common with the Prophets, because of the sublime and ample light if prophecy which they enjoyed. This appears from the words used; as, e.g., "Him that waiteth for him," and "Thou meetest him that worketh righteousness." He is speaking then of the fruit of the works of the just, viz., the eternal life which we wait for; for the fruit of the Incarnation and faith does not meet them that work righteousness, but those that are sitting in darkness and sin. So says S. Jerome (in Isa. lxiv.), S. Dionysius (De Cζlest. Hierarch. 12), and Vasquez, in the passage above quoted. Hence S. Bernard (Serm. 4 on the Vigil of the Nativity) says: "Eye hath not seen that unapproachable light, ear hath not heard that incomprehensible peace . . . And why is it that it has not ascended into the heart of man? Surely because it is a spring and cannot ascend. For we know that the nature of springs is to seek the rivers in the valleys, and to shun the tops of the mountains; for God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble." S. Augustine, in his "Meditations," ch. 22 et seqq., and "Soliloquies," ch. 35 and 36, discourses most beautifully about the greatness of this bliss. The author too of the book on "The Spirit and the Soul" (which is found in vol. iii. ch. 36 of S. Augustine's works), very appropriately says on this passage of the Apostle: "As the outward man is affected by temporal things through his five senses, so the inward man, in the life of bliss, is affected by the five ineffable attributes of God through his ineffable love for Him. For when he shall love his God, He will know him as a certain light, a voice, a sweet odour, a food, and an inward embrace. For there shines the light which no place can contain; there sounds the music which no time steals away; there is the sweet odour which no wind can scatter; there is the food which is eaten and yet undiminished; there clings to us the good which knows no satiety; there is God seen without intermission, known without error, loved without disgust, and praised without wearying." These words of the Apostle were once the occasion of the conversion of S. Adrian, and made him a martyr. He was a soldier and in the flower of his age, viz., twenty eight yeas old, and when he beheld the constancy of the Christian martyrs in the tortures they had to endure for the faith of Christ, he asked them what they expected in return for such sufferings, what enabled them to overcome such tortures. They replied, "We hope for those good things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, which God hath prepared for them that love Him." By these words Adrian was touched and converted, and he hastened to get himself enrolled in the list of martyrs, and eagerly bore a cruel death at Nicomedia, with his wife Natalia looking on and encouraging him. This was A.D. 306, under Diocletian. 3. The meaning of this passage will be complete if you combine the two interpretations given above thus: Those good things which Thou, God, through Christ, hast prepared for them that wait for Thee, surpass all our senses, experience, natural understanding, and all human desire, not only in this life in the case of those who have already caught some sounds of Thee, but also chiefly and most properly in the future glory. There will God, who is Himself all that good is, give Himself to the blessed, and will be as all in all, as Anselm says. For by these words of Isaiah, the Apostle proves what he has said, viz., that the wisdom as well as the glory of Christ was secret and hidden, as we saw above. Neither have entered into the heart of man. Has not come into the mind of man: no man can by nature think of or understand them. The heart with the Hebrews stands for the mind. For what the heart is to the body— its chief and noblest part, the source and principle of life— that is the mind to the soul. Moreover, the heart supplies the brain with its vigour, and so is a kind of handmaid to the imagination and consequently the understanding. Hence Aristotle, though against Galen and all other physicians, placed the apprehension of external objects not in the brain but in the heart. He distinguished the vital organs of man by their functions on these verses: "The heart gives wisdom, the lung speech, and anger comes from the bile, The spleen is the cause of laughter, and live comes from the liver." Where Isaiah has "them that wait for Thee," S. Paul has "them that love Thee." The sense is the same, for love is one cause of expectation. Ver. 10.—But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit. S. Paul here anticipates an objection. It might be said, "If eye hath not seen, neither have entered into the heart of man, the wisdom and the glory that Christ has prepared for His friends, how is it that you boast yourself of its possession?" Paul replies that he knows them not by sight, sensation, or by the understanding, but by the inspiration and revelation of God. Hence, Clement of Alexandria (Pζdag. lib. i. c. 6) interprets the phrase, "ear hath not heard," by adding, "except that ear which was taken up into the third heaven," viz., Paul's, who heard with the ear in Paradise mystic words which it is not lawful for a man to utter. Paul means, then, that God has revealed these things to us His Apostles and Prophets filled with His Spirit, in order that we may teach you and others. It appears from this that not only is our longing for bliss and glory supernatural, but that our knowledge of them is also, whether that knowledge be of them in their essence, or merely the obscure and fragmentary knowledge of the Apostles and of all others who are still "in the way." Consequently there is not naturally in man any perfect and effectual desire, or appetite, for this bliss. The Spirit searcheth all things, the deep things of God. That is, penetrates into and perceives everything. For when men want to learn something of which they are ignorant, they are wont to search and inquire about it. But God, without any such searching, knows everything at a glance, and as it were by a single application of His mind. (S. Thomas, Theodoret, Theophylact.) The deep things of God are all the most secret and inward counsels of God. Amongst them the chiefest is this mystery of man's glory and redemption by Christ. All these the Holy Spirit penetrates into and clearly views, because He is of one essence and knowledge with God, and therefore He so "searches the deep things of God," that nothing in God remains unknown t Him. His knowledge and sight equal their object, and He knows God as he can be known; i.e., the Holy Spirit, because He is God, comprehends God and His Divinity as completely as He comprehends Himself. (Molina part i. qu. 14, a. 3, Theodoret, S. Thomas.) From this passage Ambrose and other Fathers prove the Godhead of the Holy Ghost against the Macedonians. To sum up S. Paul's meaning: The Holy Spirit has revealed to us these mysteries and secrets of God: He knows all the secrets of God, and therefore He searches and clearly views the deep things of God. Ver. 11.—What man knoweth the things of a man? Those in the inner recesses if his being, which are buried in his heart and mind, as, e.g., his thoughts, resolutions, and intentions, and the foundation of the character itself. Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit knows them as well as Himself. For the Holy Spirit is internal to God, just as the spirit of a man is internal to him; and as the spirit of a man is a sharer of his humanity, so the Spirit of God is a partaker of Godhead, and of the Divine omni-science and power. "The things of God" are those which are hidden in the mind of God— the thoughts, counsels and determinations of the Divine Will. After "knoweth no man, but the Spirit" must be understood, "and He to whom the Spirit has willed to reveal them, as to me and the other Apostles," as was said in ver. 10. "No man, but the Spirit" foes not exclude the Son. For since He is he Word, he knows the deep things of God. For in Divine things, when as exclusive or exceptive word is applied to one Person in respect of the Divine attributes, it does not exclude the other Divine Persons, but only all other essences from the Divine, i.e., it only excludes those whose nature differs from that of God. The meaning then is: No one knows the secret things of God, save the Spirit of God, and they who have the dame nature with the Spirit, the same intellectual and cognitive powers, viz., the Father and the Son. These alone know the deep things of God. Ver. 12.—Now we have received not the spirit of the world but the Spirit which is of God. He contrasts the spirit of the world with the Spirit which is of God, claims the latter for himself and the Apostles, and assigns the other to the wise men of this world. The spirit of the world, therefore, is that which id infused by the world, by worldly and carnal wisdom, which aspires after worldly, earthly, and carnal goods, and makes men worldly and carnal. In the other hand the Spirit of God is that which is infused by God and Divine Wisdom, which makes us pursue heavenly and Divine goods, and makes men spiritual and heavenly. Therefore the Apostle adds— That we might know the things that are freely given to us by God. On this passage the heretics found their peculiar belief that each Christian knows for a certainty that he ought by heavenly faith to believe that he has through Christ had given to him by God the forgiveness of his sins, with grace and righteousness, and as Calvin says, that he has been chosen to eternal glory. But this is not faith, but a foolish and false presumption, not to say blindness; because we do not certainly know that we have been duly disposed for righteousness, and whether we surely believe, and as we ought; nor is it anywhere said or revealed in Holy Scripture that I believe as I ought to do, or that I am righteous or one of the elect. The best answer to them is the sense of the passage, which is this: The Holy Spirit shows and reveals to us what and how great are the gifts given to us, the Apostles, by God, and to others who love God— so great indeed that eye has not seen them, nor have they entered into the heart of man; for the Apostle looks back to ver. 9. I say, then, that the Apostle is speaking in general terms of the gifts which were given to the Apostles and the Church, and of those gifts alone. He says in effect: "We received this Spirit that we, i.e., the Apostles, might know with what gifts and good things in general Christ has enriched us, i.e., His Church, viz., with what grace of the Spirit, what redemption, what virtues, and especially with how great glory;" for these were the things alluded to in ver. 9; and these things are, as he says in ver. 11, in God, i.e., by the free-will and predestination of God. "We know, too, through the Holy Spirit the Revelation, that these things have been given by God to the Church; for we speak of and teach these things as part of the faith. But that I am possessed of them, or a sharer in them, is not a matter of faith, but of conjecture: it is not to be publicly preached, but secretly hoped for." Again, the word know may be taken in a twofold sense: (1.) Objectively; (2.) Subjectively. 1. Objectively, the Apostle knew, and all the faithful knew, from the prophecies, miracles, and from other signs from God, that He had promised to His congregation (i.e., His Church, which had been called together by the Apostles, and was afterwards to be called together), and that, according to His promises, He had given His grace, and lastly a sure hope of eternal life. But all this was to His Church in common, not to this or that individual in it; for we cannot know in a particular case whether this one or that us faithful. In this sense the word know is the same as believe. For we believe that the Catholic Church is holy, and that in her there is forgiveness of sins and everlasting life. God, therefore, has only revealed that His Church is holy, but not that I am holy. For although he has revealed and has promised to all in the Church, who rightly believe and repent, forgiveness of sins and righteousness, yet He has not revealed that I believe truly repent; and therefore He has not revealed that my sins are forgiven, and that I am justified. 2. The word know may be taken subjectively: we Apostles know by experience what wisdom and grace God has given us; and in this way the word know is the same as experience. For no one of the Apostles believed by faith from above that he had wisdom and grace; but he experienced the acts and effects of grace in himself so vehemently frequently, clearly, and surely, that he felt morally certain that he had true wisdom, and it behoved them to teach others the same, and wholly to long to bring the world to Christ. Although, then, the Apostles knew by experience that they had been justified and sanctified, still the rest of the faithful did not know it, nor do they know it now. They can only hope so, and conjecture it from the signs of an upright and good life. Yet neither the Apostles, nor they, believe it on the testimony of infused faith; for experience of every kind merely generates human faith, not Divine: that springs from and depends on the revelation of God alone. Ver. 13.—Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth. I.e., not in words taught by Cicero, Demosthenes, or Aristotle, such as human wisdom teaches, but in words inspired by the Holy Ghost. Comparing spiritual things with spiritual. In other words, we teach this spiritual wisdom from the Scriptures and other spiritual writings, and do not base it on philosophical, rhetorical, or earthly reasons, ideas, or speeches, as S. Chrysostom says. Oecumenius says: "If we are asked whether Christ rose on the third day, we bring forward testimony and proofs from Jonah. If we are asked whether the Lord was born of a Virgin, we compare His mother in her virginity to Anna and Elizabeth in their sterility, and thence rove it." The Apostle here gives ΰ priori the cause and reason why, at God's command, he refrained from using eloquence and human wisdom in his preaching. The reason is that Divine and human wisdom so widely differ. Since, then, speech should be fitted to the subject— matter, it was evidently right that that speech, by which Divine wisdom was published, should be adapted to it, and should differ from the words of human wisdom— that is to say, that it should be simple, grave, efficacious, and Divine, as proceeding from the Holy Spirit, who would reject all rhetorical ornamentation. In this matter we are bidden to learn, forbidden to use ornament. For as words of human wisdom carry with them the wisdom and the spirit of the speaker, so do the words of the Holy Spirit bring into the soul the wisdom of God, and of his Spirit speaking by the Apostles. Ver. 14.—The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God. Natural or animal is here applied to one who is concerned with this life only, and thinks after the way of this life, who follows the objects of his sensations and the thoughts of his heart. Such were the Apostles before they received the Holy Spirit, and such were the Corinthians at this time, as they sought after eloquence. Now, too, there are many of the faithful, not bad men, who do not seek after higher things. The word animal here comes from "anima," and has a threefold application. (1.) It is applied to one who grows, takes nourishment, and needs food, as all animals do. So Adam, though created in grace, is called animal [natural] .  (2.) Secondly, to one who follows his nature, i.e., his lusts and desires. So the Jews are called animal or natural, as not having the Spirit. (3.) To one who follows after knowledge that is not spiritual and sublime, but open and easy to the mind and senses. This is the meaning here. Bernard, or whoever is the author of the treatise on the solitary life, says, a little after the beginning of it: "The natural state is a mode of life subservient to the senses of the body, viz., when the soul, as though going outside herself, pursues, by means of the bodily senses, the pleasure she finds in the bodies she loves, feeds on the enjoyment they give, and nourishes her own sensual disposition; or when, as though returning to herself, on finding that she is unable to bring to the place where her incorporeal nature is the bodies to which she has joined herself by the powerful bonds of love and habit, she brings with her images of them, and holds friendly conversation with them. And when she has accustomed herself to them, she thinks that there is nothing save what she left behind her without, or herself brought within. Thenceforward, as long as she remains here, she finds her pleasure in living according to the pleasures of the body; but when she is prevented from enjoying them, she has no thought but such as are images of bodily things." So he is called spiritual who lives in the Spirit: 1. As a spirit not needing food, so Christ lived after His resurrection . 2. As following the inspiration, direction, and movements of the Spirit. 3. As drinking in the heavenly teaching of the Spirit. Such a one is called spiritual by S. Chrysostom, S. Thomas, and others. S. Bernard, in the place just quoted, writes: "The state of beginners may be called natural, of those who are advancing rational, of those who are perfect spiritual. For they are natural who by themselves are neither led by reason nor drawn by affection, and yet are influenced by authority, or touched by doctrine, or provoked by example to approve, and strive to imitate the good. They are rational who through the judgment of reason have some knowledge and desire of good, but have not yet any love of it. They are perfect who are led by the Spirit, who are illuminated by the Holy Spirit more fully, and derive their name of 'the spiritual' from this. And since they know the taste of the good, and are led by their love for it, they are called the wise, or those who know." Then in comparing these three, and forming of them steps, and a ladder of virtues, he goes on to say: "The first state has to do with the body, the second with the soul, the third finds no rest but in God. The beginning of good in conversion is perfect obedience, its advancement is the subjection of the body, its perfection is to have turned through continued good actions custom into love. The beginning of the rational is to understand those things which are put before it in the teaching of faith, its advancement is marked by the providing of those things which are enjoined, its perfection is seen in the judgment of the reason becoming the live of the heart. The perfection of the rational is the beginning of the spiritual; its advancement consists in seeing the glory of God with unveiled face; its perfection is to be changed into the same image from glory to glory as by the Spirit of the Lord." Because they are spiritually discerned, i.e., according to the rules given by the Holy Spirit and the canons of faith. Some read, he is spiritually discerned, which would mean that he is invited, by being examined, to spiritual and heavenly wisdom. When he is being instructed in spiritual matters, or when spiritual things are put before the natural man, and when the natural man is questioned about spiritual things, he cannot understand them. Ver. 15.—But he that is spiritual judgeth all things. He is called spiritual, as we have seen, who follows faith and wisdom and the teaching of the Holy Spirit, who has the Holy Spirit as the ruler of his soul. So Chrysostom, Anselm, S. Thomas. Judgeth all things. 1. Hence Calvin and the Anabaptists make the private and fanatical spirit of each spiritual man, i.e., each one of the faithful, the arbiter of controversies of faith, and the interpreter of Scripture; but wrongly, for all Christians are not spiritual, but only the perfect, as was said at ver. 14. 2. Others cannot know whether a man has this spirit, whether he is spiritual, nay, whether he is even faithful. Therefore this private and secret spirit cannot be the public judge of all things; but this is the province of Councils and the Pope. For it is known that these are spiritual, that they are governed by the Holy See, who appointed them teachers, and by them governs and teaches the Church. 3. The Fathers were spiritual to a high degree, and yet they sometimes erred. 4. It is evident that the simple need the pastors and teachers whom God has placed in the Church to teach others . I answer, then, that this passage means that the spiritual man judges things in general, spiritual things, Divine and heavenly things, natural, earthly, and easy things; while the natural man judges natural things only. This is that there may be a distribution proportioned to classes of individuals, and not to individuals of different classes. So we say, "I live on every kind of food," i.e., on any kind. In the second place, to "judge all things" is to examine, confute, and sift questions, according to the rules of the faith, and of the Divine wisdom which the spiritual man has. Of course this is in questions in which he has been sufficiently instructed from above, as, e.g., in clear and ascertained matters of faith he judges everything according to the articles of the faith. But if any new question in faith or morals should arise, and it is obscure or doubtful, wisdom itself dictated to the spiritual man, who in this question is not yet spiritual, or sufficiently taught by the Spirit, to have recourse to his superiors, as the same Spirit teaches him, to the doctors, to his mother, the Roman Church, that she may decide and define this question for him. For she, according to the teaching of the Apostle, is plainly spiritual, and judges all things by the direction and assistance of the Spirit. For Christ promised this to Peter, and in him to his successors (S. Matt. xviii. 18; S. Luke xxii. 32). They, then, are highly spiritual, and they judge all things, It is different with those beneath them, who, though they be spiritual, yet should often seek the judgment of their superiors. Otherwise he who is spiritual would never have to obey the decision of his father, or his teacher or his bishop. In so far, then, as the spiritual man follows the leading of the Spirit, either teaching him directly, or sending him to the doctors of the Church, he cannot err. In the same way S. John says that he that is born of God cannot sin ; i.e., so far as he that is born of God abides in Him. So S. Thomas, Ambrose, Anselm, Theophylact, Chrysostom. S. Paul's meaning, then, is that the spiritual man judges well about the hidden mysteries of the faith, and about things in general, and if he doubts, he knows what to do, whom he ought to consult, so as to receive instruction. So Aristotle (Ethics iii. 4) says. "A good man rightly judges in all cases, and the virtuous man is the rule and measure of all human things," i.e., says S. Thomas, because he has a will ordered judgment and good desires, obedient to law and reason, Still, in difficult cases he ought to consult those who are wiser and more skilled in the law. Yet he himself is judged of no man, i.e., is confuted or condemned by to one, in so far as he judges spiritually, as S. Chrysostom says. For if otherwise, he is reproved as S. Peter was by S. Paul . On the other hand the natural man is spiritually examined and judged by the spiritual, even though he does not know it or understand it. For in this passage the whole endeavour of the Apostle is to exclude human and worldly wisdom by spiritual, and to contrast the spiritual with the natural, and to put it first, since the Corinthians did the opposite and therefore put Apollos before Paul. He implies, therefore, that the Corinthians are natural, because they sought after "enticing words of man's wisdom," such as they admired in the eloquence of Apollos; and he says that they cannot judge about spiritual things, and the spiritual wisdom of Paul, but that he and men like him ought to judge both spiritual and natural wisdom. This and nothing else is what the Apostle is aiming at. Ver. 16.—Who hath known the mind of the Lord? Since the spiritual man has been taught by God and follows His rules, so far as he is such, he can be judged by no one; for one who should judge him ought to be wiser or greater than the Spirit of God, so as to be able to penetrate and measure that Spirit. But who can do this? So Chrysostom. Nevertheless, the spiritual man often can be and ought to be judged, because he is not known to be spiritual in a given matter. Hence, in cxiv. 29, he says, "Let the others speak two or three, and let the others judge." Moreover, many boast themselves to be spiritual who are merely natural, as, e.g., the Anabaptists. But S. Paul was confessedly spiritual, hence he adds, We have the mind of Christ—the wisdom of Christ which is spiritual and Divine, not natural and human. Our wisdom is not that of Plato or Pythagoras, but of Christ, who has infused His truths into our minds. So Chrysostom. CHAPTER III. OF THE CHAPTER He endeavours to put an end to the divisions among the Corinthians, by reminding them of their mutual subjection and union in Christ and God. i. He points out that Paul and Apollos are but ministers of Christ (vers. 1– 9). ii. He reminds them that Christ is the foundation of the Church: let each one, therefore, take heed what he builds on that foundation; for if it is only hay and stubble he will be saved indeed, but as by fire (vers. 10– 15). iii. He tells them that they are the temple of God, and bids them beware how they break in pieces or violate that temple (vers. 16– 20). iv. He forbids party strife (vers. 21– 23). Vers. 1, 2.—As babes in Christ I have fed you with milk and not with meat. In the preceding chapter the Apostle, to support his own authority, and to remove from the minds of the Corinthians the false opinion that they had about his ignorance and lack of speaking powers, said that he spoke wisdom among them that were perfect: hidden wisdom which the eye had not seen, nor the ear heard, but which God had revealed. Now, anticipating an objection, he gives the reason why he had not displayed this wisdom to the Corinthians, and transfers the blame from himself to them. It was because they were like children and carnal, not yet capable of receiving such wisdom, and to be fed, therefore, not with meat but with milk. Notice that the Apostle designates as milk that easier, pleasanter, and more teaching about the Manhood of Christ, His grace and redemption, which befits catechumens recently converted and still carnal. He calls "meat," or solid food, the more perfect and robust teaching about the deeper mysteries, such as about God, about the Spirit of God and spiritual things, about the wisdom, power, and love of the Cross. So say Ambrose, Theophylact, S. Thomas. S. Anselm moralises thus: "The same Christ is milk to man through the Incarnation; solid food to an angel through His Divinity. The same Christ crucified again, the same lection, the same sermon is taken by carnal men as milk, by spiritual as solid food." S. Paul is here alluding, as his custom is, to Isa. xxviii. 9, and to Isa. lv. 1. In this connection notice that what Isaiah calls "meat," which represents the full spiritual wisdom of the perfect, as milk signifies the discipline of children and of the imperfect. Hence, in former times wine and milk were given to the newly baptized, when they had been clad with the white robes, and this custom, as S. Jerome says in his commentary on Isaiah, is still kept up in the churches of the West. In other places honey and milk were given, as Tertullian testifies (contra Marcion lib. i. c. 14), to denote (1.) their infancy and innocence in Christ, milk being a symbol of both. Hence Homer calls men that are innocent and just "feeders on milk," as Clemens Alexandrinus says (Pædag. lib. i. c. 6). (2.) To denote their likeness to Christ, of whom Isaiah sang , "Butter and honey shall we eat." (3.) To symbolise the infantine gentleness, humility, and meekness of the Christian life. Hence it was that at the first sacrifice of the Mass, which the newly baptized heard at Easter, viz., on Low Sunday, there was read as the Epistle that portion of S. Peter's Epistle in which occur the words, "As new-born babes desire the sincere milk of the word." Hence S. Agnes, on the authority of S. Ambrose (Serm. 90), used to say, "Milk and honey have I received from His mouth," Clement (Pædag. lib. i.c. 6) discourses at length about this milk. Ver. 3.—Whereas there is among you envying and strife . . . are ye not carnal? (1.) The word carnal is here applied to one who not only has his natural use of sense and reason, but also to one who follows the motions and dictates of the flesh, that is, of his animal nature. And, therefore, as S. Thomas rightly remarks, he who follows the motions of lust, or of his fallen nature, is carnal, natural, walking according to man, and destitute of the Spirit of God. (2.) Both here and in Gal. v. 19., the works of the flesh, i.e., of our corrupt nature, include envying, jealousy, strife, which are spiritual sins, as well as gluttony and lust, which are, strictly speaking, fleshly. Cf. notes to , and . The meaning is: You, O Corinthians, are carnal, i.e., contentious, because you fight like boys foolishly about the dignity of your teachers, and extol and put up for sale, one Paul, another Apollos. Ver. 5.—Even as the Lord gave to every man. God gave to each one of His ministers powers of such kind and such extent as befitted his ministry. Therefore they should glory in God alone, not in Paul or Apollos, His ministers. These latter were not the lords or the authors of their faith, but merely the instruments used by God. So Anselm, Ambrose, Theophylact. Ver. 6.—I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. I was the first to sow the seeds of the faith at Corinth, and then Apollos coming after me helped it forward . But it was God who gave the inner life and strength of grace for growth and maturity in Christian faith and virtue: this belongs to God alone. Cf. Augustine (in Joan. Tr. 5). God gives to plants their increase, not, as rustics suppose, by directly adding some special daily power of growth, but by bestowing upon and preserving to the nature itself of the seed or the root a vigorous power of growth. In other words, He is continually bestowing it and preserving it, and co-operating with it: for the Divine work of preservation is nothing but a continuation of the primal creative power. He does this by ordering and tempering according to His counsel the rain, heat, and winds, and other things needed by the fruits of the ground, so that, as these are tempered, the fruit is larger or smaller. So it is in the sowing of the Word of God, and in its growth, perfecting and harvest in the minds of men. It appears from this (1.) that outward preaching, calling, examples, and miracles are not alone sufficient for the conversion and the beginning of the spiritual life, or for its further growth. (2.) That, though all alike hear the same word of preaching, yet some profit little, some profit much by it, viz., those whom God works upon by a special inward calling, and whose hearts He touches to change their lives, or to continue to rise to higher things. Hence, both those who preach and those who hear profit most who earnestly beseech God for this inward influence. Ver. 7.—So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth, but God giveth the increase. The husbandman who plants and waters does hardly anything when compared with God; for he works from without only, and whatever he does he receives it from God, and works as His instrument. But God works within directly as the chief agent, and supplies the power of vigorous growth. For action is assigned to the chief agent, and especially to the first cause. So S. Thomas and Theophylact; S. Augustine (in i. Ep. S. John. Tr. 7) says beautifully: "Outward ministries are helps and warnings, but He that teacheth the heart has His throne in heaven. These words which we address to another from without are to him as the husbandman to the tree. For the husbandman acts upon the tree from without, by diligently watering and tending it, but He does not fashion its fruits." It is God that co-operates with the tree, and lends it the power of bringing forth fruit. In the same way the words of the preacher do but little, for they sound from without only. But it is God who co-operates with them within, and by His grace illuminates and converts the soul. Ver. 8.—Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one. They are one, say S. Thomas, Anselm, and others, in office and one in their ministry, i.e., they are both alike ministers. Therefore one is not to be despised or extolled in comparison of another, e.g., Paul in comparison of Apollos. Moreover, all ought to be knit together as one by the same bond of charity, and ought not to cause divisions on account of their ministers. For although they may have different gifts, yet they all discharge the self-same duty, and are one in Christ, who hates schisms, loves unity, and carefully watches over His ministers, however feeble thy be, and wishes them to be esteemed and honoured by all, not as men but as His representatives. And every man shall receive his own reward according to his labour. This passage shows clearly the merits of good works; for where there is reward there is merit, the two terms being correlatives. He does not say, it should be noticed, that "each one shall receive a reward according to the fruit that he has brought forth," but simply "according to his labour," for the fruit is not in our power, but in the hand of God that giveth the increase. You will receive, therefore, a full reward for all genuine labour, even though no fruit follow— though no heretic or sinner be converted. Nay, the reward will be the greater, because it is more difficult and more disheartening to preach when little or no fruit is seen than when many applaud the sermon, or profit by it. Ver. 9.—For we are labourers together with God. S. Dionysius (Cælest. Hierarch. c. 3) says, "A great, an angelic, nay, a Divine dignity is it to become a fellow-worker with God in the conversion of souls, and to show openly to all the Divine power working in us." Ye are God's husbandry. Not Paul's or Apollos': so you cannot boast yourselves in them. S. Paul continues the illustration drawn from agriculture. The chief tiller is God; Paul and Apollos are his servants; the Corinthians are the field; the seed is grace, the fruits good works. God by His Spirit cultivates within: Paul assists Him by his preaching from without. So Anselm. Ye are God's building. He inculcates the same truth by another illustration from building and architecture. The first architect is God; the secondary minister is Paul; the building is the Church and every Christian soul. So Anselm. We should observe that the Hebrews and Syrians rejoice in metaphors and parables, and run them together, easily passing from one to another. Ver. 10.—According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master– builder I have laid the foundation. Not mine is this building, not mine the works; for although I, as the first architect, laid the foundations, by my preaching, of the Church at Corinth, yet whatever I did, and brought to perfection there, was done, not by my strength, but by the grace of God. Let, then, this building of God's Church be attributed to His grace, not to my efforts. Ver. 11.—For other foundation can no man lay. I have laid the foundation of your Church: let Apollos and others see what superstructure they raise upon, but not endeavour to lay a new foundation. For no other foundation can be laid, for it is Jesus Christ Himself. The foundation, then, of the Church, and of each individual soul in it, is Jesus Christ, i.e., faith in Him as our Saviour, and especially that faith which is quickened by charity, on which I have built you. So Anselm, and S. Gregory (lib. vii. epist. 47). In this sense Christ alone is the foundation of the Church, and the foundation of the foundations, as S. Augustine says (Ps. lxxxvii. 1), because He rests on Himself alone, and bears up all others, even Peter. In another sense Peter is the foundation of the Church, viz., a secondary one, because from his firmness in the faith he cannot publicly teach error, but always confirms others in it, and gives them light. This is laid down by S. Thomas and all Catholic theologians. In a similar sense, not only Peter, but all the Apostles, are called the foundations of the Church . Vers. 12 and 13.—Now if any man build . . . the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. This is a metaphor drawn from a house on fire, which if constructed of gold or precious stones receives no damage, but if of wood or stubble is consumed. Notice in passing that by "previous stones" we must here understand marble, porphyry, and the like, not diamonds or other gems; for the houses of wealthy men are built of the former, not of the latter. Such was the boast of Augustus: "I received the city built of brick, I leave it built of marble." The Apostle's meaning, then, is that, if a fire occur, a house built of marble and gold is not injured by it, but rather shines the more brightly. But the next house, being built of wood and stubble, will burn, and its tenant will escape indeed, but he will be scorched. So if any Christian, and especially any teacher or preacher of the Gospel (for such are primarily referred to here, as appears from vers. 4, 6, and 10), build upon the faith of Christ gold and silver, that is, according to Theodore and Theophylact, holy works, and especially sound, edifying, and holy doctrine, he shall receive his reward. So Ambrose and S. Anselm. S. Thomas says: "Gold is charity; silver, contemplative wisdom; precious stones are the other virtues." On the other hand, wood, hay, stubble are sins, not deadly sins, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Gregory (contra. Magd. lib. iv. c. 13) think (for these are lead and brass, as is pointed out by Anselm and S. Thomas and S. Augustine (Enchirid. c. 68), nor are they built upon, but they overturn and destroy the building, viz., that living faith which alone wins a reward from Christ); but they represent venial sins, which make the mind cling to vanities, to worldly advantages, to vain-glory. But strictly speaking the Apostle is referring, when he speaks of wood, hay, stubble, to doctrine that is fluid, frivolous, showy, ornamental, wire-drawn, and useless. So say Ambrose, S. Thomas, Theodoret, Anselm. For he that builds these things on the foundation of faith in Christ shall be saved, yet so as by fire. The Apostle in verses leaves the Corinthians to give a warning to Apollos and their other teachers and preachers, especially those gifted with eloquence, to beware of their great danger, vain-glory, and to be teachers of the truth in its purity, lest if they do otherwise they have to expiate their sin by fire. That there were some such at Corinth who had been the cause or the occasion of strife and division is pretty plainly hinted here and in the next chapter in vers. 6, 10, 15, 18, and 19. For the day shall declare it. This day is the day of the Lord, to be marked with a white or black stone, the day of judgment, especially of the universal judgment, which shall be revealed in fire. For that day of the Lord is now our day, as Anselm, Theodoret, Ambrose, and S. Thomas say. Cf. also ;  ; and c. 15. In these and other places we are evidently to understand "that day" to be as it were a technical name for the famous day of universal judgment. But notice that the day of particular judgment is also to be included under this day of universal judgment. For the judgment of both is one and the same, as is also their sentence. It shall be revealed by fire. What is this fire? To answer this we must notice that the Apostle speaks of three things: (1.) that the day of the Lord shall be revealed in fire; (2.) that it shall try each man's; (3.) that those who build wood, hay, stubble shall pass through it, and shall be saved, yet so as by fire. 1. Many of the ancients, as Origen (in Lucam, hom. 14), Ambrose (in Ps. 37), Lactantius (lib. vii. c. 21), Basil (in Isaiah 14.), Rupert (in Gen. lib. ii. c. 32), take the fire to be literal fire, which they think all souls, even those of Peter and Paul, must pass through on their way to heaven, to have their impurities purged away, whether it be the general conflagration at the end of the world, or the purgatorial fire beneath the earth, or some other fire in the upper æther. For Bede says (hist. lib. iii. xix.) that S. Fursey saw huge fires on the road which led to heaven, through which the traveller must pass. But this opinion, though it has not been condemned, and though Bellarmine (de Purg. lib. ii. 1) has not ventured to condemn it, yet lacks foundation. For this passage of the Apostle's, on which alone those who uphold this view rely, has a different meaning. That vision of Fursey's, too, was merely a representation, under the image of literal fire, of God's spiritual judgment and the punishments awaiting carnal men, as I will show presently. 2. S. Chrysostom and Theophylact, who were followed by the Greek Fathers at the Council of Florence, reply that it is hell-fire, in which the sinner will remain safely, i.e., undestroyed and undying, so as to undergo punishment everlastingly. But this is a perversion of the meaning: for salvation everywhere stands in Scripture for a state of freedom from pain and sorrow, never for an eternal existence in torments. And so all other interpreters understand it, as well as the Latin Fathers at that same Council. But we should notice that though S. Chrysostom understands this verse of hell, yet he does not deny that it may refer to purgatory, as was falsely asserted by Mark, Archbishop of Ephesus, at the Council. He even expressly admits it (in Matt. Hom.32, in Philipp. Hom. 3, Heb. Hom. 4, and elsewhere). In these places he exhorts the faithful to pray for the faithful departed in purgatory; for we may not pray for those in hell, since there there is no redemption. Heretics reply that this fire is the fire of the tribulation of this life; and this is even implied by Anselm and Gregory (Dial. iv. 39) and Augustine (in Ps. xxxviii), all of whom, however, understand it of purgatory, or that it is the fire of confusion, which they feign that the Holy Spirit sends upon the Saints in life, or else at their death, as, e.g., they say He did in the case of SS. Bernard, Francis, and Dominic, to show them their errors about the monastic life, the Mass, and Confession, that so they might have their eyes opened and be led to retract. But all this is a gratuitous invention, nor does there exist any such retractation made by these Saints or by others on their death-beds: they rather gave with constancy an exhortation to their followers to persist and go forward in the monastic life. Add to this that many have died suddenly, and still die suddenly, or die in their sleep, and that they depart with the stain of venial sins. Where are they purged? Not in heaven, for there nothing that defiles shall enter ; not in hell, for that is the place of the lost; therefore, it must be in purgatory. For after this life there is no place for the wonted mercy and pardon of God, but only for justice and for just making amends, or rather suffering amends, so that no one may say that God freely forgives all sin to the dead, i.e., all pain and guilt. Lastly, the day of death is not called the day of the Lord, but the day of judgment; nor does fire denote the confusion that happens then, but literal fire. Calvin objects that wood, hay, stubble are used figuratively, so therefore is fire. I reply by denying that it follows; for it appears that the day of the Lord is to be revealed by fire properly so called, and I shall show this directly. 4. Sedulius, Cajetan, Theodoret, Ambrose understand this fire of the strict and severe examination of the judgment of God, punishing sin after death by fire; or, as Bellarmine suggests, it is the fire partly of judgment, partly of purgatory. In other words, as the works of sinners shall have their fiery examination, so too shall they that work them have their fire, the fire of vengeance, in purgatory. By way of analogy that judgment is called by the name of fire, because, like fire, it will be most purifying, most searching, most rapid, and most efficacious (; Heb. xii. 29). But since the words of the Apostle speak of nothing but fire, and repeat it twice and three times, they seem plainly and properly to mean what they say, and to denote literal fire throughout, with no figure, double meaning, or variation. I say, then, 1. that it is certain that this place is understood of the fire of purgatory. So it is taken by the Council of Florence, by Ambrose, Theodoret, S. Thomas, Anselm, here, and in innumerable places by the Greek and Latin Fathers, cited at length by Bellarmine and Salmeron. This is the tradition and common opinion of the Church and of doctors, although they may sometimes explain the details differently, or apply them to purgatory in a different way. It may be objected: If the Council of Florence understands this passage of purgatorial fire, it is therefore a matter de fide, and must be understood of it by all, and therefore also it is de fide, not only that there is a purgatory, but that souls are purged in it by fire. I answer by denying that it follows. For although the Latin Fathers in the Council of Trent so understand it, and though consequently it is certain that there is a purgatorial fire, yet they were unwilling to define it to be a matter of faith that it is fire, but only that it is purgatorial. They did this, too, so as not to offend the Greeks, who admitted indeed a purgatory, but denied the existence of fire in it, saying merely that it was a dark place and full of suffering. 2. The fire spoken of here by the Apostle is, properly speaking, the fire of the conflagration of the world. This appears from the fact that it will be in the day of the Lord, that is, at the last judgment, which is everywhere described in Scripture "by fire which is to burn up the world." Cf. ; ; ; 2 Peter 3:12. For this fire will at the same time consume the world, and prove and purge those who shall then be living, as theologians everywhere lay down; it will also be the precursor, or rather the companion and lictor, of Christ, the Judge. It will, too, bring death and punishment, if not to the pure, at any rate to the impure, proportioned to their deserving. This fire shall then surround and carry off the condemned with it into hell, and so it is said that "the day of the Lord shall be revealed by fire;" which means that that day shall be revealed by fire as the day of the vengeance and judgment of the Lord. You will ask, How does this fire purge works which have long passed away and are not? I reply that Scripture says that men's good and evil deeds follow them; they are with them after death, inasmuch as responsibility for them still remains with men, binding them either to reward or punishment. You may ask again, How can works be said to be burnt? I answer, in two ways: (1.) Figuratively, for they are compared to stubble, which literally burns. Works, too, burn in a figurative sense, i.e., they are punished and destroyed like wood which is consumed by fire. (2.) By metonymy the works are put for the worker, and are thus said to burn. Notice here that the Apostle uses this figure and metonymy so as to carry on the illustration of a building which he introduced in ver. 9, and also because he is referring to the conflagration which is to burn all the buildings in the world. For men's works build for them as it were houses, just as silkworms spin little balls of silk, and enwrap themselves in them, as if they were their houses; so that if you burn these little balls you burn the silkworm, and vice versâ. So here work is figuratively burnt like a house, because the worker and builder to whom the works adhere, and in whom they may be said to adhere is burnt. Moreover, the works rather than the workman are said to be burnt, because the workman is not utterly consumed, but is saved, yet so as by fire. But the guilt of his works is by this fire consumed and done away. It may be asked in the third place, How is it that this fire is said to try gold and silver, i.e., good works? I answer, By the very fact that it does not touch them, but leaves them wholly unharmed, because they are wholly without alloy; the fire declares the perfection of the workmen and their works. But it will manifest by burning, i.e., by punishing wood, hay, stubble, when it shall attack and burn those that committed venial sin, and shall purge them so as to save them, yet so as by fire. Similarly, in olden times, until it was forbidden by the Canons as tempting God, trial by ordeal was resorted to for the purpose of deciding guilt: an accused person had to handle a red-hot iron, or walk upon it barefoot. If he was really guilty he was burnt; if innocent, uninjured. This happened to S. Cunegund, wife of the Emperor Henry, and to the three children in the Babylonian furnace. The one proved her chastity by walking barefoot over the hot iron, the others their innocence by passing uninjured through the fiery furnace. It may be asked again, How does fire try the work of every man? For Paul, and all who are already dead, do not pass through the fire that consumes the world. I reply (1.) that S. Paul is on the habit of speaking as if the last day were close at hand, that so he may stir up every one to prepare himself for a day that is uncertain, and perhaps soon to come. (2.) Moreover, this fire will purge the whole world, and therefore if there is any stain in any of the dead that has not yet been purged away, it will be attacked and punished by that fire; and so each one's work, whether he be living or dead, will be manifested. (3.) As the Apostle includes the day of death under the day of the Lord, and particular judgment under the general, and regards them under one aspect, so in like manner, under the fire that will accompany Christ when He comes in judgment, and that will purge whatever then remains that needs purging, he wishes us to understand that fire by which souls begin to be purges directly after death. By this fire, he means the fire of purgatory. It is no objection to this that the fire which shall destroy the world will be before death, when it should be after death. For (1.) it will do away with the sins of the whole life and of death also. But it cannot be after death so as to purge the dead, for they that are dead then will immediately rise and be carried to judgment. (2.) If any one before death shall chance not to have been sufficiently purged, he will after death be fully dealt with by the same purgatorial fire. This is proved by this verse; for the Apostle writes it to the living, who were not to see the general conflagration, but were to have their own purgatory after death, as the others were to have theirs at death. For why should one escape this fire more than the other, if their merits were the same? (3.) The Greek word is in the present tense, "is being revealed:" in other words, the "day of the Lord" is revealed at death. (4.) The work of every one will be tried by this purgatorial fire, and yet the work of those alive at the general conflagration will alone be tried by it. (5.) All the Catholic Fathers, the Latin doctors, and the Council of Florence, at its beginning, understood this passage of the fire of purgatory, and it has the unanimous tradition of the Church. (6.) To try by purging is in the strictest sense the work of purgatory, and of it we can most truly say that it shall save, yet so as by fire. For from the moment of death a man will be saved, and when he has been thoroughly purged he will fly from purgatory to heaven, before the great day of the Lord. As, then, the saying of the Apostle's, that the day of the Lord shall be revealed by fire, exactly suits the fire at the end of the world, so also it strictly falls in with the fire of purgatory, because it shall try each man's work, and because the righteous man who has sinned shall be saved yet so as by fire. I must add to this that theologians of repute, as Francis Suarez (pt. iii. vol. 2, disp. 57. sec. 1), hold that thus general conflagration will not slay the purge men, but that after the resurrection, at the general judgment, this fire will only be for the terror and punishment of the lost, and to burn up and renew the world after judgment. Still, they say, that we can infer that it will try and purge the good, inasmuch as it will be a witness to the acknowledgment by Christ of their innocence resulting from the purgation they have undergone in purgatory. It is therefore much more certain that the trial spoken of here will be by the fire of purgatory rather than by the conflagration at the end of the world. In short, the whole of this passage of the Apostle's must be understood as well of the day of judgment, both particular and universal, as of purgatory and the fire that is to consume the world. It may be asked, Why does the Apostle blend these and speak indifferently of both judgments and both fires? The reason is (1.) that as the particular and general judgment will be one and the same, so will the fire of purgatory and at the end of the world be one and the same. One purges men, the other the world. The fire of purgatory is related as a part to the whole to the general fire which will be the world's purgatory; it will give place to it, and perhaps be changed into it, and perhaps become numerically one with it. (2.) The Apostle frequently speaks of the day of judgment being close at hand, and consequently as if the passage from purgatory to the general conflagration were soon to be made; and, as was said, he does this that men may prepare themselves for it by holy and pious lives. Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 15; Heb. xi. 40; 2 Cor. v. 1, 3, 4. Similarly, the Prophets and Christ Himself often mingle type and antitype, as in S. Matt. xxiv. Christ speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the world as one destruction, and as if one were to follow closely upon the other. This is why the Apostles, when Christ said this, thought that the two would be nearly contemporaneous, though afterwards when better taught they perceived and corrected their mistake. You may ask secondly, How can the words, "it shall be revealed by fire," be applied to the particular judgment? What fire will be Christ's assessor at the particular judgment when each man's works are tried and declared? I answer that the fire of purgatory is Christ's assistant in the particular judgment of any man, ready to His hand to try, punish, and purge each man's work. We ought to remark that S. Paul personifies this purgatorial fire, and makes it a kind of assessor to Christ, so that, like soldiers before their captain, all the dead must pass before it, to be inspected, and, if they need it, to be corrected. The Apostle does this (1.) to carry in his figure of gold and the refiner; (2.) to keep the fitting proportion between this fire and the general conflagration, to which his reference is primarily when he says, "the day of the Lord shall be revealed by fire." Notice also that, as then the Prophets and Christ blend confusedly type and antitype, as, e.g., when they speak of Solomon and Christ, of the destruction of the city and the world, and appear to apply to both things, which have more reference to the one than to the other, so also S. Paul does here: for the words, "the day of the Lord shall be revealed by fire," refer rather to the conflagration at the end of the world; but the words that follow, "the fire shall try every man's work," have to do rather with the fire of purgatory. The fire of purgatory, then, is Christ's assistant at the day of particular judgment, His precursor, lictor, jailer, and scourge; it examines each man's work, leaves the gold of good works unharmed, but burns up as if they were its proper fuel all works of wood, hay, stubble; and so each one shall suffer loss, or punishment— in such a way, however, that the worker is saved, yet so as by fire. And so at the day of death and particular judgment this fire is revealed to each one. And this was the meaning of Fursey's vision. For when he saw himself dead and the fire approaching him, he said to the angel, "Lord, lo! the fire is coming near me." The angel answered, "What thou didst not kindle shall not burn thee. For though the pyre seem great and terrible, yet it tries every man according to the merit of his works, for each man's lust shall be burnt in this fore. For just as each one burns in his body with unlawful lust, so when freed from the body shall he be burnt by just punishment." Ver. 15.—But he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. Isidorius Clarius wrongly applies this to the "foundation." Grammatically it is possible, but logically not, for it does not agree with the context. For the Apostle is showing that those teachers who erect an empty and showy structure on the faith of Christ shall be punished with fire. Moreover, the preceding words, "he shall receive a reward," evidently refer to the builder, not to the foundation. So, too, the opposite clause here must be referred to him who builds and not t the foundation laid. Notice (1.) that as is a mark of truth, not of comparison. So in S. John i. 14: "We have seen His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten. (2.) That it is possible for as to be the introduction of a comparison here. The meaning then would be, He shall be saved like as one who escapes from a burning house, and passes scorched through the flames, as I said at ver. 12. Hence it appears both that there is a purgatory and that there is fire. Hence Chrysostom (Hom. ad pop. 69) says that "the Apostles ordered that at the sacrifice of the Mass prayer be offered for the departed." Dionysius (Eccles. Hierarch. cvii. pt. 3) records these prayers, and says that he received them from the Apostles. For, as S. Augustine says (Ps. xxxviii), "Because it is said 'shall be saved,' this fire is thought little of, but it will be more than anything that man can endure in this life." S. Bernard too says (de Obit. Humb.), "What we have neglected here shall there be paid a hundredfold." Many think that the fire of purgatory is the same as the fire of hell, which borders on purgatory, but only differs from it in duration. From this Anselm gives the wise advice: "If to escape tortures we obey a king here, let us obey the will of Gos so as to escape that fire which is more terrible than all tortures here." And S. Chrysostom (de Penit. hom. 5) says: "Now there is space for repentance; let then penitence forestall punishment; let us come before His face with confession; let us extinguish the fore prepared for our sins, not with many waters, but with a few tears." At all events, it is better and easier to be purged with water than with fire: it is better to spend the life whole in the purgatory of penitence than to dwell for a year in the purgatory of fire. S. Bernard, in his sermon on "the wood, hay, stubble," gives a tropological discourse that is much to the point. He says: "The foundation is Christ, the wood is perishable, the hay yielding, the stubble light. They who began stoutly enough, but when broken are not renewed, are the wood. They are the hay who, being lukewarm by reason of the sloth that they should have fled from, are unwilling to touch arduous labours with the tip of their fingers. They are the stubble who, being tossed about by every light breeze, never remain in the same state. For such must we fear, though not despair: for if they have heed to Christ as the foundation, and have finished their life in Him as the Way, they shall be saved, yet so as by fire . . . Fire has three things— smoke, light, heat. Smoke calls forth tears, light illuminates what is near, heat burns. So he who is of this sort ought to have smoke, that is, a smarting as it were in his mind, because of his lukewarmness, his remissness, his fickleness; for as far as in him lies he disturbs and overthrows natural order. So, too, should he have light in his mouth, that he may by confession say and bewail that he is what he knows himself to be; so that his tongue may sharpen his conscience, and his conscience shame his tongue. It is necessary, too, that he feel in his body the heat of the suffering exacted by penitence— in some degree at all events, if not very acutely. Thinkest thou that He who wishes all men to be saved will cast away those who in this way are of contrite heart, who humbly confess, and try to bring under their bodies? . . . There are, too, others who build on this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, who begin ardently, more ardently go forward, and most ardently seek perfection, not paying any heed to what the flesh can do, but what the Spirit wills." Ver. 16.—Know ye not that ye are the temple of God? This is a return to the image of ver. 9: "Ye are God's building," and therefore not a heathen temple, but the temple of God, in which by faith, grace, charity, and His gifts He dwells. So Anselm and others. For a fuller exposition if this, see the notes to . How the soul may be dedicated as a temple to God is declared at length by S. Bernard (Serm. 1 de Dedic. Eccl.). He says that there are five things observed in a dedication: the sprinkling, the marking with the cross, the anointing, the illumination, and the benediction; and all these take place also in the dedication of the soul. Observe that up to the present S. Paul has been dealing with those teachers and those of the faithful who build up the holy edifice of the Church. He now turns to those who undermine it. Ver. 17.—If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy. If any one, through the fatal pride that is born of human wisdom, through novel, erroneous, and pestilential teaching, or through schisms such as are found among you, O Corinthians, says Anselm; or if any one in any other way corrupt the Church, or any individual soul in it— him shall God destroy. The Apostle is speaking mainly of the corruption that comes through the teaching of false doctrine, through pride, through envy, or the fomenting of schism. For as he began, so does he finish this chapter with warnings to false teachers. It appears, too, from the next words where he says that any such defiler shall not be saved, so as by fire, but shall be consumed in everlasting fire. Ver. 18.—If any man among you seemeth to be wise . If any man is proud if his worldly wisdom and eloquence, his earthly knowledge and so come to look down on others, let him become filled with humility and faith, and with the folly of the Cross, so as to be a fool in the eyes of the world. Cf. notes on i. 26. This with God is the only true wisdom. Since the world's wisdom is folly with God, and God's wisdom foolishness to the world, it follows that we cannot be wise unless according to the world we are fools— unless, in spite of our greatness and wisdom before the world, we submit ourselves like children, nay, like fools, to the faith, doctrine, cross, and obedience of Christ. "So," says S. Bernard (Serm. 2 de Epiph.), "did the three Magi worship the Child in the manger and become fools, so as to learn wisdom; and so the spirit taught them what was afterwards preached by Apostles: 'He who wishes to be wise let him become a fool, that he may be wise.' They enter the stable, they find a child wrapped in swaddling clothes: they think no scorn of the stable, stumble not at the swaddling clothes, nor find offence in the Infant at the breast: they fall down, they worship Him as King, they adore Him as God. Surely, He who led thither their steps also opened the eyes of their mind. He who guided them from without by a star, also taught them in the deepest recesses of the heart." S. Basil asks (Reg. brevoir. 274): "How is any one made a fool in this world?" And he replies, "If he fears the judgment of God, who says. 'Woe to them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight;' and if he imitates Him who said, 'I became even as a beast before Thee;' if he throw away all empty belief in his own wisdom, reverse all his former judgments, and confess that not even from the beginning has he ever thought aright till he was taught by the command of God what was pleasing to Him in thought, word, and deed." Ver. 19.—For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. God has rejected the wisdom of the world as worthless, (1.) because it has nothing in it that is wholesome and Divine, and does nothing towards salvation; (2.) He would not use it in the preaching of the Apostles, but employed instead unlettered Apostles; (3.) It is often contrary to the faith, not only in speculative matters (as, e.g., all who are merely worldly-wise reject the mystery of the Holy Trinity, of the Incarnation and death of the Son of God as being impossible and incredible), but also in matters of practice and morals. For Christ bids us love our enemies; the wisdom of the world bids us hate them: Christ bids us overcome evil with good, the world says, "Return evil for evil;" Christ calls blessed the poor, the meek, them that mourn, that hunger, that suffer persecution, but the world says that it is the rich, those that are in high station, that laugh, feast, and rule, that are happy. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. This is from . They are the words, not of Job, but of Eliphaz, who wished to show that Job had deserved his calamities through his sins. He was reproved by God , and therefore these words of Eliphaz have not the authority os Holy Scripture, but only that of a wise man. For S. Paul approves of this saying of Eliphaz as being true, and wisely said by a wise man. God takes the wise in their craftiness when He fulfils His will by the very means by which they thought to reverse it. When the brothers of Joseph, wishing to stultify his dreams about his future leadership, threw him into a pit and sold him into Egypt, God through their action, exalted him, and made him ruler over Egypt, and forced his brothers to do him reverence. In like manner God overruled the wisdom of Pharaoh at the Red Sea, of Saul and Achithophel on their attempts to destroy David, of Haman at the gallows, where he thought to slay Mordecai. So S. Thomas. Ver. 20.—And again, the Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are but vain. . By all these quotations and reasons S. Paul impresses on the Corinthians that the worldly wisdom and eloquence of which they boasted themselves, and through which they put Apollos before himself, were but vain. He declares that the true wisdom is the faith and teaching of Christ, which he had preached them— on simple words, indeed, but yet with burning and efficacious zeal. S. Jerome, moralising on Ps. xciv., says: "Do you wish to know how it is that the thoughts of men are vain? A father and mother bring up a child, they promise themselves happiness in him, they send him to be educated; he comes to manhood, they enter him as a soldier, and when through thirty years they have thought of everything for him, a slight attack of fever comes and carries away the fruit of all their thought. O anxiety of man! how vain is it in human affairs! One thought alone brings happiness— the thought of God." Vers. 21, 22.—Therefore, let no man glory in men . . . all are yours. Glory not in Paul or in Apollos, for they and all others, nay, all creatures are common to each one of you; they all alike concur in procuring your salvation. It should be remarked that S. Paul, when he says that all are yours, does not teach a community of goods such as there was in paradise, and as Huss, Wyclif, and others fondly dream of. He means that by way of final cause and use, not by way of possession, all things have been intended to help forward their salvation. So say Anselm, Ambrose, Theodoret, S. Thomas, Chrysostom. They have been given to be used either objectively or subjectively, which latter consists in acknowledging and praising the Creator in all His creatures; and this is what is meant by the common saying, "The whole world swells the wealth of the faithful." Cf. Theodoret (Serm. 10 de. Provid.). Hence S. Chrysostom says: "We are Christ's in one way; Christ is God's in another; the world is ours in another. For we are Christ's as His work; Christ is God's as His most dearly– beloved Son; the world is ours, not as being our work, but because it was made on our account." The world then is ours, because all creatures in the world serve our body and soul; life is ours, that we may lay up a store of merits; death is ours, because it is the gate through which we pass to everlasting life; or the death of martyrdom is ours; things present, whether adverse or prosperous, are ours that we may extract good from them; things to come are ours, that we may enjoy them: they are now ours in hope, they will be ours in fact in heaven. So S. Thomas and Anselm. Ours, too, are evil things, such as hell and the lost, that we may rule over them. Ver. 23.—Ye are Christ's. You are the mystical members of Christ, your Head and Lord, and therefore you are His possession, having been bought by His Blood. Therefore you should glory in Christ, not in Paul or Apollos. So S. Thomas and Anselm. And Christ is God's. (1.) Because, as God, He is the Son of God. Ambrose says, "Christ is the Son of God, and does His will, that we too may do it." So, too, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Anselm. (2.) Christ as man is God's, as His Lord and Head, being His creature and His possession. So S. Thomas and Cajetan. From what has been said it appears that all the faithful, and especially the elect, are the end for which God created all things. The end of all things is Christ as man. For this glory was the due of such a man, viz., that all things should serve Him, be ordained foe Him, and look to Him as their end. But Christ is for God and His glory, and therefore all glory is to be given, not to Paul or Apollos, but to God alone. S. Chrysostom (Hom. 10 Moral.) says beautifully: "All that we are and all that we have comes from Christ: life and light, and spirit, and air and earth. If any of these be taken from us we perish, for we are but strangers and pilgrims. 'Mine and thine' are, when carefully considered, but empty words. Though you may speak of your house as being your own, you speak foolishly; for indeed the air, the earth, the material of which it is made, yourself who build it, and all other things are the property of the Creator. Even if the use of it is yours it is of uncertain duration, not only because of death, but also because of the uncertainty of all things before death. for we are God's in two ways— by creation and re-creation; and if your soul is not your own, how can you say that your money is? Since, therefore, it is not your own, you should expend it upon your fellow-servants. Do not say, then, 'I spend my own.' It is not your own, it is another's, nay, it is common to thee and thy fellow-servant, like as the sun and air and all things are." CHAPTER IV. OF THE CHAPTER S. Paul proceeds in his task of uprooting the divisions, the pride, and the boasting of the Corinthians, and especially of some of their teachers who held him in contempt. And— i. He shows that he cares nothing for their judgment, or for that of other men, but for God's only. ii. He reproves their elation at their gifts (vers. 7, 8.). iii. And chiefly he urges upon the, the example of himself and of the other Apostles, who, as the offscouring of the world, preached the Gospel with humility, despised and persecuted by all (vers. 9-14). iv. He exhorts them as his children, as having begotten them in Christ, and threatens to come soon to Corinth to rebuke and punish these false, boastful, and puffed-up teachers (vers. 15-21). Ver. 1.—Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ. I have forbidden you to boast yourselves in Paul or Apollos; but lest any man should therefore despise us, I say that every one should regard us as minsters of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Kemnitius raises a railing objection based on these last words, that the Council of Trent was wrong in relying on this passage to prove that the Pope can give dispensation in the matter of vows and laws; for he says that a steward's duty is not to relax laws but to distribute goods. I answer that the Council knew this very well; but that its argument was simply this: If the stewardship of the affairs of the Church has been intrusted to the Pope, therefore he can in certain cases, when there is need, dispense, that is, dissolve vows and oaths, and remit penances and the debt of temporal punishment, just as the steward of a household can, when the honour or profit of his lord demands it, make dispensations, grants, or remissions— for this belongs to the office intrusted to him; only he is bound to dispense rightly, not to squander thoughtlessly, as S. Bernard says (de Precep. et Disp., and de Consid. lib. iii.): "It is required in stewards that a man be found faithful. Where necessity urges it, a dispensation is excusable; where expedience calls for it, it is laudable. I mean, of course, expedience which makes for the common good, not that of the individual; for where neither of these exists, not only is a dispensation a breach of faith, it is a heartless act of squandering." The word used here, "steward," denotes one who has charge of a house, and rules, divides, and arranges everything in it; one, too, who gives gifts and remits debts, when he believes sincerely that to do so would be pleasing to his lord, or make for his honour and advantage. His chief virtues are prudence and faithfulness. So does the Pope, as steward of the Church and vicegerent of Christ, ordain everything, grant indulgences, and dispense with vows. The mysteries of God mentioned here are the mystic secrets of Divine doctrine and off the Sacraments of Christ. For both these are mysteries of Christ, intrusted by Him to Paul and the other Apostles as His stewards. Hence it was that the strife and divisions of the Corinthians arose from a dispute about the Sacrament of baptism, inasmuch as one would boast that he had received baptism from Paul, another from Apollos. Cf. ch. i. 13. Ver. 2.—Moreover, it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful. You have been called from the study of wisdom and human eloquence to the simple and lowly teaching of Christ, so as not to dispute whether Paul or Apollos is the wiser or the more eloquent; and I have said that both of us are stewards of this teaching. Perchance, as you are always ready to draw comparisons between us, you will now begin to dispute about our stewardship, and ask, as men will, which of us is the more faithful in his office of preacher. Many of you say that Paul is the more faithful and more powerful, but Apollos more eloquent. Each will boast of his own teacher, and say that he is better and more faithful than we. Therefore to cut away all occasion for comparison let me tell you that I care nothing for the judgment of you or of any other man, but for God's alone. So says Theophylact, following Chrysostom. The chief quality requires in a steward is faithfulness. S. Paul alludes to the words of Christ: "Who then is a faithful and wise steward?" . Theophylact says: "He is faithful if he does not regard his master's goods as his own, if he foes not treat them as if he were owner of them, but distribute them as another's and his master's: of he does not speak of them as his own, but on the contrary say that what is his own belongs to his master." So, too, is a teacher or preacher faithful who does not seek his own glory, but the glory of God and the conversion of souls, and do all he can to forward these two objects, not only by his preaching, but also by a perfect example of a holy life. Ver. 3.—But with me it is a very small thing . . . or of man's judgment. The Latin version give "of man's day." The meaning is the same; for the "day of the Lord" is frequently put for the "judgment of the Lord," and a day is commonly named for defendants to appear for judgment. Cf. S. Jerome (ad Algas. qu. x.). He adds that Paul, as a native of the Cilician Tarsus, used the Greek idiom common there, and called "human judgment" "man's day." It would, however, be better to say that Paul, being a Hebrew, borrowed this from the idiom of the Hebrews. For he is alluding to Jer, xvii. 16, where Jeremiah, being mocked and persecuted because of his prophecies, says: "Neither have I desired man's day; Thou knowest." The day of man is that wherein man prospers, and is honoured and praised by all as powerful, happy, and enviable. Jeremiah's meaning, then, is: "I have not desired longer life, prosperity, riches, honours, pleasures, or the applauses of men; for if I had looked for such things I should not have prophesied to them of sadness and disaster, but I should have praised their glory and their lusts; but this I did not do, nor desired man's day or his applause. For I know that man is but frail and miserable, and quickly to vanish away in death with all his goods and glory. Knowing this and recollecting it, I have not desired to please man in my prophecies and teachings, but to please and obey Thee, alone, O God, and to win commendation from none but Thee, and I call upon Thee to be my witness to this by saying, 'Thou knowest,' just as Job did when he said , 'Behold, my witness is in heaven, and my record is on high.'" So, too, say S. Jerome, Rabanus, Hugo, S. Thomas, and others. In imitation of Jeremiah, therefore, the Apostle says: "With me it is a very small thing to be judged of you or of man's day." In other words, he cared little for the power and wisdom of this world, for man's favour and applause. Happy he who could say, " I have not desired man's day," and call God for a witness to his truth. This is the height of perfection which enables a man to count all things as dross if only he can gain Christ. This noble portion was that of Moss, who abjured his position as son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season. S. Chrysostom well moralises here: "Let us not, therefore, seek the praises of men. For to do so is to offer an insult to God, as though we counted His praise insufficient, and so passed Him by, and strove for that of our fellow-servants. For as those who contend for the mastery in a small arena seek for themselves a larger, because they think that the other is not large enough to display their prowess, so do they who contend in the sight of God pass by the larger arena, when they seek for the applause of men, and heap up for themselves punishment through their lust for the lesser good. Everything has been perverted, the whole world overturned, by this desire of ours to do everything for the sake of men, by our want of diligence in good works, by our disdaining the praise of God, and seeking only that of our fellow-servants. In our crimes, again, we despise God, and fear man; for if man were present we should abstain from fornication, and even though our lust burnt more fiercely its violence would be held in check by very shame lest we be seen by man. But when none but God sees us, we not only are guilty of adultery and fornication, but we have dared and still dare to commit far more heinous wickedness. Would not this alone be enough to bring down upon us God's avenging thunders? Hence it is that all our woes have sprung, because in our disgraceful actions we fear not God but man." S. Chrysostom again (Hom. 17 in Ep. ad Rom.) says: "Just as boys in play put on each other's heads crowns of hay, and often laugh behind his back at the boy they have crowned, so too do those who speak you fair to your face jeer at you quietly among themselves. What else is this but placing crowns of hay on each other's heads? Would or were nothing else but hay! But as it is, this crown of ours is full of warning to us, for it destroys all that we have rightly done. Consider, then, its value; flee from the loss it entails. For if there are a hundred, or a thousand, or a host without number to applaud you, yet all of them are nothing more than chattering jackdaws. Nay, if you but think of the cloud of angel-witnesses they will seem viler than worms, and their words more flimsy than cobwebs, more fleeting than smoke, or than a dream of the night. Say to thy soul what Paul said, 'Knowest thou not that we shall judge angels?' Then call it away from such a feast, and chide it, and say, 'Dost thou that art to sit in judgment on angels wish to be judged by such unclean spirits?'" S. Jerome too (ad Pammach.) wisely says: "The first monastic virtue is to despise the judgment of men, and always to bear in mind the words of the Apostle, 'If yet I pleased men I should not be the servant of Christ.' Some such saying, too, did God address to the Prophets when He told them that He would make their face as a city of brass, and an adamantine stone, and an iron pillar, that they might not tremble at the threats of the people, but with unmoved brow tread under foot the impudent jeers of their adversaries." Lastly, Anselm says here: "The righteous look not for man's judgment but for the award of the Eternal Judge, and therefore with Paul they despise the words of detractors." This is what one of the Saints meant when he said, "If you wish to be happy learn to despise and to be despised." Yea, I judge not mine own self. I cannot certainly judge myself, my works, my motives, my conscience. Ver. 4.—For I know nothing by myself, yet am I not hereby justified. I do not judge myself. For though I am not conscious of any unfaithfulness in my Apostolic office, yet I am not really just: I do not mean in the sight of men, for I do nor care for their judgment: I mean in the sight of God, who perhaps sees in me sins that I do not. Hence S. Basil (Constit. Monast. c. 1) says: "Although in many things we all offend, yet we have no conception at all of the greater part of our offences. This is why the Apostle once said, 'I know nothing by myself, yet am I not hereby justified.' It is as if he had said, 'I commit many venial sins of which I am bot aware.' For the same reason the prophet said, 'Who understands his offences?' You will not then be saying what is not true if you call yourself a sinner." From this we can argue against the Protestants that the justified have no sure knowledge, much less faith that they are justified. They reply that S. Paul means here that as regards his works he did not know that he was justified, but that he had a sure knowledge of it from faith and Holy Scripture, which promise justification to every one that believeth on Christ. In other words, they say that they know that they are justified, not because they are free from sins, and live holy lives, but through God's mercy accepting their belief in the free gift of justification by Christ. But this answer of theirs is frivolous and feigned, for the Apostle goes on to say, Ver. 5.—Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light, &c. He will reveal the thoughts and actions of men that lie hid in darkness. He means, then, that to God alone are naked and open the hidden things of man, his intentions, his secret motives, and the depths of his heart, which is to him like a bottomless sea, and therefore that none but God sees man's justification. None, therefore, save God should judge another, or even himself, for his faith, his works, or the grace of Christ. For we often think that we are doing right when we are acting amiss: we often suppose that we are led by the grace of Christ, and act out of love for Him, when all the time we are impelled by our own lust or by the love of our own fame. Cf. Chrysostom and Ambrose and S. Jerome ( Dial. 2 contra Pelag.). S. Augustine, too, has some beautiful remarks on this point in his sermon on Ps. 42., where he says that the deep of human misery and blindness calls to the deep of Divine mercy and illumination. This argument is confirmed by the following reflections: (1.) that God even does not look upon us as justified by works but by faith, and this, according to the Protestants, we know of as well as God does; for we believe, they say, by faith. Therefore, according to them, what the Apostle says is false; for he says that God alone knows it and not we. (2.) The words which say that God beings to light the hidden things of darkness, and makes manifest the counsels of the hearts, do not mean that God surveys and manifests men's faith, but their designs, their motives, and works. (3.) Just as the nature of our works is uncertain to us, so too is our faith, which according to Protestants alone justifies: for no man can know for a certainty that he believes on Christ with a faith that is firm and Divine, and therefore still less can he know that he is justified by it. The Holy Spirit often says the same elsewhere. Cf. ; ; ; . Ver. 6.—And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself, &c. "Above that which is written" may refer (1.) to ch. i. 2, 3;  or (2.) with S. Chrysostom it may mean "contrary to that which is written" in Holy Scripture against pride. It is foolish, therefore, for the Protestants to abuse this passage into an argument against tradition. S. Paul evidently means that what he had said against their idle boasting of the gifts of their teachers, and about not caring for the applause and opinion of men, but only for God's, had been said of them in the person of himself and Apollos. He had been speaking of others in his own name, so as to avoid offending any of the Corinthian teachers, or their disciples, by mentioning their names. That ye might learn in us, therefore, is the expression of his desire, that when he speaks of himself or Apollos, they may apply what he said to the other teachers, who had been the occasion of the schism, of which he and Apollos were guiltless. He urges the Corinthians by his own example of moderation and conciliatory disposition not to be puffed up, or boast of one against another, viz., for this or that catechist or teacher, by saying, "I was baptized by Paul; I was converted by Apollos." It is, too, an exhortation to the teachers not to be proud and puffed up because they might be wiser or more eloquent than other teachers, or boast of their disciples as being better instructed than those of other teachers, above that which he had just now written. For in what follows he is reproving the teachers rather than disciples; but he does it in a mild way and under another name, the teachers, I mean, who has been the chief cause of the empty contention and divisions among his Corinthian disciples. This will be seen by reference to ch. v. 15, 18, 19, and also ch. iii. 10, as well as to the whole of ch. xi. of the Second Epistle. For the false teachers whom he here speaks of mildly, because they had not yet disclosed their true nature, are the same apparently as those that in 2Cor. 11 he speaks more severely of as imposters, and guilty of Judaising, and teaching false doctrine. Hence, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Oecumenius point put, S. Paul first censures the teachers in the words, "that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written," i.e., that you, teachers, might learn from me and Apollos that you are, as I said before, merely stewards of God. Then he proceeds to rebuke the disciples in the words, "that no one of you be puffed up for one against another," i.e., that no disciple boast of his teacher as wiser or more eloquent than another. S. Paul, then, while he seems to continue his address to the Corinthians, is in them and through them reproving their teachers. Just so a tutor endowed with tact and judgment will, when he wishes to chide a king's sons, chide their servants, as if they were guilty, that so the princes may take it to themselves. The expression "puffed up," to describe one that is proud and swollen with arrogance, is a figure borrowed from wine skins. They are said to be puffed out when by being filled with air they resemble in form and size a solid body. Similarly, the proud man who is well satisfied with his knowledge, or eloquence, or some such gift, but within is devoid of all such powers, is just like a wine skin that is swollen out with wind. Ver. 7.—For who maketh thee to differ from another? 1. The Greek word denotes as much the act of placing a man above others as separate him and dividing him off from them. So Theophylact paraphrases it, By whose suffrage was it that this separation and pre-eminence was given thee?" It was not of men, but of God. It is God's to make to differ and to judge, and therefore you ought not to care for man's judgment. So understood, these words hark back to ver. 4. But it is better to understand them: Who gives you any pre-eminence over the herd of your fellow-Christians, O Corinthian catechumen? No one but yourself, who are puffed up, because you think that you have been baptized and taught by one that is a more holy, eloquent, and wise teacher than others: even so it does not follow that you share in his good qualities. It is this schismatic spirit that the Apostle has before him, as is evident from what has gone before, and as is pointed out by Ambrose, Anselm, and Theodoret. 3. But what, it seems to me, is most within the scope of the Apostle's aim, who, as I said, is addressing the teachers, is this Who, O teacher, makes you to differ from another, as to be a better teacher and a better Christian, but yourself, who vainly extol your own wisdom and eloquence above that of others, or of your followers whom you have taught, as Psaphon did his birds, to sing your praises? If you say, "It is my labour, my zeal and industry, that mark me off from others," I answer, "What hast thou that thou didst not receive?" Thy talent for labour, thy abilities, and all the natural gifts of which you boast came to you from God. Much more came from Him thy supernatural gifts; therefore to Him give all the glory.  S. Ephrem (de Pζnitentiβ) wisely says: "Offer to God what is not thine own, that he may give thee what is His." Hence the Council of Arausica (Can. 22) lays down that we have nothing of our own except falsehood and sin. This is the literal sense, and the Apostle's meaning. Nevertheless, we must take notice that S. Augustine frequently, prosper, Fulgentius and the Council of Arausica (Can. 6) transfer these words of the Apostle's by parity of reasoning from the natural gifts of eloquence and wisdom, primarily referred to here, to the supernatural gifts and good works achieved by natural strength alone, as well as the labour, zeal, and industry of teachers, affect nothing for grace and holiness; and if these gifts to not warrant a man in boasting himself of his natural abilities, much less will they allow him to glory in the sphere of the supernatural, that they have made him holy, or more holy than others. This is the reason why S. Augustine refers these words to grace and predestination, in the sense that no one can separate himself from the mess of sinful human nature and make a beginning of his own salvation, by his own efforts and his own natural strength, as the Pelagians and Semi-pelagians held. It is, then, not the powers of nature but God that separates the man justified from the man not justified; for God is the great First Cause of all the gifts that the justified has, in such a way that he has nothing to mark him off from the non-justified, save what he has received from God. He is, therefore, debarred from all boasting. This, however, does not remove the fact that all this at the same time depends for its efficacy on the free co-operation if our will. For as S. Augustine lays down, through free-will assisted by grace, he who is converted can separate himself from him that is not. He says (de Spir. et Lit.c. 34): "To yield to the call of God, or to resist it, is an act of my own will. And this not only does not weaken the force of the words, 'What hast thou that thou didst not receive?' it even strengthens them. The soul cannot receive and have the gifts spoken of here except by consenting; and through this consent what it has, and what it receives, are of God. For to receive and to have are the acts of one that receives and has." In other words they are the acts of one that consents freely to the grace of God calling him. S. Bernard (de Grat. et lib. Arbit.) says tersely: "What God gives to our free-will can no more be given without the consent of the receiver than without the grace of the Giver." If then it be asked: What makes a man that believes to differ from one that refuses to believe, it being understood that each received from God an equal grace of calling to faith,— I should reply: He that believes does so through free-will, and not through his natural powers, as Pelagius supposed, and through the strength given him by Grace he makes himself to differ from one that believes not. For it was in his own power to assent, or not to assent, to grace, and therefore to believe or not to believe: when, then, he believes, he does so freely: he assents freely to the grace of God; he freely distinguishes himself from him that believes not. It may be said that he can boast himself, then, of having so distinguished himself from the other. But I answer that boasting is excluded, since he should attribute the chief glory, nay, the whole to God, by whose grace he has so separated himself. The reason is that by the strength of grace alone, not by natural powers, did he perform, or have power to do, or to wish for, the act by which he separated himself. From the same source came his strength for the embracing of grace, which is not distinguishable from assent to it, and for any attempt, or movement, or inclination towards it. For in that act there is not the least ground for saying that it has been effected by the power of free-will alone; for the whole of it, as far as its substance and real modes is concerned, is of grace and all of free-will; just as every work is wholly from God as its first cause, and wholly also from its secondary cause. But from grace it has it that it is supernatural and meritorious, and thence comes all its worth; it has from free-will its freedom only. As, then, the act itself and the co-operation with them, a man can no more boast of his co-operation and election than a beggar who is offered a hundred pieces of gold can boast of his having accepted them. And all that the Apostle means is that no one can so boast himself of anything as though he had nor received it from God. Otherwise, all virtue by itself, and the virtuous man by himself, are worthy of praise and honour; but this praise and virtue must be attributed to God; for whoever converts himself and separates himself from others does so not by his own natural abilities but by the power of the grace of God. Nor is it to be said that the Apostle's meaning is otherwise from the fact of his speaking literally, as I said before, of differences in wisdom, eloquence, and other natural gifts, which undeniably a man can acquire, or excel in by his own labours, zeal, and industry, and so make himself to differ from others less learned, and can also therefore give his own labour and zeal the credit, and boast moderately of his advancement. The Apostle is merely excluding that boasting which arises from pride and contempt of others: as if, for instance, you were to arrogantly boast that what you have is your own and came not from God. This is evidently S. Paul's meaning, from the words he adds: "Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?" If, then, you accommodate this sentence to supernatural things, it only excludes, according to S. Paul's meaning, that boasting which arises from a pride despising others, attributing all to itself, and not referring everything to God and His grace as the Well-spring of all. But you do not do this if you say that by the power of God's grace you have freely distinguished and divided yourself from sinners who prefer to remain in their sin; for you then give the praise and glory first and last to God and His Grace. All the same, however, free-will has its own praise and glory, though that praise and glory, be it recollected, was received by the grace of God. From what has been said it follows that he who is converted is to be distinguished from him who is not, and that he is converted as well by grace as by free-will. For although both have prevenient grace, which is often equally exerted on many, yet the one has as well co-operating grace, which is wanting to the other who has no wish to be converted, and by this he is freely distinguished from the other and converted. Moreover, it was foreseen that his prevenient grace would be effectual in him here and now; and because God foresaw this, He predestinated him to it, knowing that with it he would most surely co-operate and be converted: but such grace He does not give to another man who is nit converted. We are, therefore, in general to think of this as the actual cause of our conversion and salvation. For this effectual grace is peculiar to the predestinate and the elect, if only it remains with them to the end of their life, as S. Augustine says. Hence, it is clear that it id not so much free-will as grace that divides the just from the unjust: for grace effects the conversion and justification of the righteous man who does not hinder the efficacious working of grace, but freely consents to it. But grace does not do this with the unjust, because he places an opposing barrier in the way of grace in refusing to consent to it and co-operate with it, and so grace becomes in him ineffectual and vain. Wherefore S. Ephrem's advice in c. 10 of the tractate, "Look to thyself," is wise, "Have charity with all, and abstain from all." For these two, benevolence and continence, are the principal mark of holiness, which soften the most barbarous of men and bind them to themselves. Ver. 8.—Now ye are full. This is, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Anselm say, ironical. Ye are filled with wisdom and grace, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and so it is your boast that you are not so much Corinthians as teachers, having nothing further to learn of Christianity. You think yourselves perfect as teachers when you are scarcely disciples at all of the true and perfect wisdom. S. Chrysostom says, To be satisfied with little is the mark of a weak mind: and to think one's self rich by a small addition of means is the mark of one that is sick and miserable; but true godliness is never satisfied." S. Thomas notices that S. Paul here points out four kinds of pride in the Corinthians, or rather in their teachers. First, when one thinks that he has from himself and not from God whatever good he possesses: this is alluded to in the words, "Why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?" In these words also is contained the second, which is, when any one attributes to his own merits whatever good he has. The third is when one boasts that he has what he has not, and this is touched in the words, "Now ye are full; now ye are rich." The fourth is when one despises others, and wishes to stand in a class by himself: this is pointed at in the words, "Ye have reigned as kings without us." Ye have reigned as kings without us. Without our help, you think, O Corinthians, that you triumphantly excel over all God's saints; and especially you, O teachers, as if you had been given a kingdom, claim for yourselves, while excluding us, a supreme dignity. And I would to God that ye did reign, that we also might reign with you. As your followers and rivals, or better as being your fathers: for this as a matter of fact we are. So Theophylact, Chrysostom, and Anselm. He does not decline to have partners in the kingdom of God, i.e., in the government of the Church; he only requires them to rule as they ought, that is, to devote themselves to the salvation of the faithful. Ver. 9.—For I think that God hath set forth us, the Apostles, last, as it were appointed to death. (1.) He contrasts himself and the true Apostles with those vain teachers who sought their own glory and their own advantage. I would, he says, that we Apostles were reigning with you; for so far, I think, are we from reigning triumphantly, that God has exhibited us to the world as the last and most despised of all, as though destined to a well-deserved death. (2.) The simpler meaning is, we are the last to have been sent into the world in these last times. We have been marked out by God for death, as. e.g., by means of wild beasts— not for a kingdom or triumphs, but for death, persecution, and martyrdom. So Tertullian understands it. Observe that the Apostles are called last, as comperes with those Prophets that went before them, as Isaiah and Jeremiah and others, who were sent by God as Apostles to the Jews and others (Isa. vi. 9). Especially does he call himself last of all, as having been called to his Apostleship by Christ ascended, after the other Apostles had been called by Christ living on the earth. Moreover, "set forth" denotes (1.) marked out, (2.) made or exhibited, and, as Ephrem terms it, appointed. Cf. and .   (3.) It denotes put forward publicly as an example to others. Hence it follows— For we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. They were placed, as it were, in a theatre, like those condemned to die by fighting with wild beasts before the eyes of the populace. There seems to be as allusion here to the public games of Rome and other places, where men fought with wild beasts in the arena. The world, he says, delights to regard us as fools, dealers in secret arts, or babblers of novelties, or better still, as men condemned to the beasts. Observe that "the world" here is a generic name for "angels and men" for they were the only beings to gaze upon the Apostles. Hence, in the Greek, "world" has the article, and the two other terms are without it. We are made, he says, to the good angels an object of compassionate regard, as well as of worthy admiration and honour. But since evil angels and evil men rejoice in our being despised, persecuted, and put to death, we are made a spectacle to evil angels of hatred and rejoicing, as well as of confusion and terror. To good men we are a spectacle and example of fortitude, faith, innocence, patience, meekness, constancy, and holiness of life. So Titelmann. S. Chrysostom (Hom. 12 in Moral.) applies thus to the theatre of this life, in which we do everything in the presence of God. So, Suetonius says. S. Augustine, when about to die, said to his friends standing round him, "Have I played my part pretty well on this stage and in the theatre?"— "Very well," his friends replied. Then he rejoined, "Applaud me, therefore, as I take my departure;" and having said this he gave up the ghost. Better and still more appropriate was the use of these words made by Edmund Campian, England's noble martyr, well named Campianus, a true wrestler and champion of Christ, who, when about to suffer martyrdom, publicly gave out these words as the text of his last sermon. Such a theatrical spectacle was what the Apostles here primarily intends. Cicero says (qu. 2, Tuesul.) that there is no fairer sight than that of a virtuous and conscientious life, and so among Christians there is nothing more beautiful than martyrdom. The illustrious Paula appositely and piously replied, as S. Jerome says in his eulogy of her, to some caviller who suggested that she might be considered by some insane, because of the fervour of her virtues: "We are made a spectacle unto the world and to angels and to men; we are fools for Christ's sake; but the foolishness of God is wiser than men. Hence, too, the Saviour said to His Father, 'Thou knowest My foolishness!' and again, 'I was made as it were a monster unto many, but be Thou My strong helper. I became as a beast before Thee, and I am always with Thee'" Lastly, S. Chrysostom (in Ep. ad Rom. Hom. 17) teaches from this that we ought to fly from eye-service, that is, from serving the eyes of men, that so we turn our eyes towards the eyes of God, and live perpetually in His sight and before Him. There are, he says, two theatres: one most spacious, where sits the King of kings, surrounded by His shining hosts, to view us; the other most insignificant, where stand a few Ethiopians, i.e., men ignorant of what is going on. It is, therefore, the height of madness to pass by this mist spacious theatre of God and of the angels, and to be content with the theatre of a few Ethiopians, and laboriously to strive to please them. When you have a theatre erected for you in the heavens, why do you gather together spectators for yourself on earth? S. Bernard (Serm. 31 inter parvos) treats these words somewhat differently, though his application of them is the same. He says: "We are made a spectacle unto the world, to angels and to men, good and bad alike. The passion of envy inflames the one, the compassion born of pity makes the others minister to us continually; the one desires to see our fall, the other our upward flight. We are undoubtedly half-way between heaven and hell, between the cloister and the world. Both consider diligently what we do, both say, 'Would that he would join us!' Their intention is different, but their wishes, perhaps, not unlike. But if the eyes of all are thus upon us, whither have our friends gone, or why did they alone go from us? . . . Let us, then, before it is too late, brethren, rise, nor receive in vain our souls for which, whether for good or evil, others so zealously watch." Ver. 10.—We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ. This is a continuation of the irony of ver. 8. We are reckoned fools because of Christ crucified, whom we preach, and for whose sake we seem to expose ourselves rashly to so many dangers. For the Cross is to the Greeks foolishness. But you in your own eyes are wise in the Gospel of Christ, because of the eloquence and philosophy which you mingle with it, and because you take care to so preach Christ that you run no risk for His sake. We are weak, as bearing without resistance many grievous adversities, such as hunger, thirst, nakedness, toils, injuries, cursings, persecutions, as is said in ver. 11. But ye are strong. For you easily by your worldly eloquence, wisdom, and friendship turn the edge of all evils that attack you. Ye are honourable, but we are despised. You are honoured, we are held in no honour. He teaches modestly, but yet sternly by his own example as a teacher, that the Christian's boast must not be in renown, wealth, wisdom, eloquence, or the applause of men, but in being despised by others, and in despising glory, and in the Cross of Christ; and especially is this true of the Christian teacher and preacher. So S. Chrysostom. And in this way he endeavours to shame these self-indulgent, vain, and luxurious teachers, and also the Corinthians who preferred to follow such men, rather than the Apostles of Christ, who were giving for them their strength, their substance, and their lives. So Isaiah says, in the name of himself and the other Prophets, as well as of Paul and the Apostles, "Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel." And as the Annales Minorum relate, S. Francis used to say that he was a despised fool of Christ's in the world, and was for this beloved of Christ Himself. Ver. 11.—Even unto this present hour we . . . have no certain dwelling-place. This remarkable description of the Apostle's life is very like that contained in the Second Epistle (xi. 23), which those that are called to the ministry ought to put before them as an example, as the Apostolic men of great zeal do in England, Holland, India, and Japan. S. Chrysostom (Hom. 52 on Acts of the Apostles) says excellently on the words of xxvi. 29: "Such is the soul that is raised on high by celestial love that it thinks itself a prisoner for Christ because of the greatness of the promised glory. For as one in love has no eyes for any save her he loves, who is to him everything, so he who has been laid hold of by Christ's fire becomes like one who should be living alone on the earth, caring nothing for glory and shame. For he so utterly despises temptations and scourgings and imprisonment that it is as though another body endured them, or as though he possessed a body made of granite. For he laughs at those things which are pleasant in this life; he does not feel their force as we do; his body is to him as the body of one dead. So far is he from being taken captive by any passion, as gold that has been purified in the fire is from showing any stain. All this is effected by the love of man for God, when it is great." But we do not attain this height because we are cold, and ignorant of this Divine philosophy. The philosopher Diogenes saw this, though but darkly and afar off, for then he was asked what men were the noblest, he replied, " They that despise riches and glory and pleasure and life; they that draw their force from the opposite things to these, from poverty, obscurity, hunger, thirst, toil and death." Diogenes saw this, but could not practise it, for he was himself a slave to vain-glory. Ver. 12.—Being reviled, we bless. Infidels and Jews mock us, and call down imprecations on us, saying, "Let these new preachers of a crucified God be slain, let then perish and hang on the accursed cross." We, however, pray for their peace, that God would give them His light, His grace, and salvation.  S. Basil (in Reg. Brevior. 226) points out that to do evil and to do good are connoted by reviling and blessing. He says: "We are bidden to be patient towards all, and to return kindly deeds to those who persecute us unjustly. We are to love fervently, not only those that curse us, but whosoever shows us unkindness in any way whatever, that so we may obey the precept, 'Be not overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good.'" Ver. 13.—Being defamed, we entreat. When we are reviled, called evil dealers in evil arts, and railed at. The word "blaspheme" has this meaning also in . When thus treated we speak the meekness after the manner of suppliants, as the Greek Fathers take it, or else we entreat God for them. But the first is nearer the Greek. S. Basil (Reg.226, quoted above) renders it "comfort," in the sense of filling their minds with a perception of the truth. Comfort is used in this sense in . We are made as the filth of the world. We are made, as Theophylact and Theodoret say, as it were the excrement of the world— not once, but always, down to this present hour. We are made like filth that has been collected from all sides, is the literal force of the Greek. We are reckoned as most contemptible, as wretches unworthy of man's society, fit only to be driven away and destroyed. S. Paul is here alluding to : "Thou hast made us as the offscouring and refuse in the midst of the people." For Jeremiah was imprisoned by the Jews, cast off, and rejected, and so was a type of Paul and the Apostles, imprisoned, rejected, and at length slain by the Jews and Gentiles. But Gagneius and others translate this word "expiatory victims." Hence S. Ambrose, too, commenting on , reads it, "We are made for the world's purging." We should notice that the Greek word here used was applied to the wicked men and others doomed to sacrifice by the Gentiles, in order to get rid of famine or tempests of any other public calamity. So, for instance, did the Decii devote themselves for their country, and Curtius, who, to banish a common plague and appease the Deity, leaped in full armour into a gulf in Rome. So, to, Servius, on the line of the Ζneid, "O accursed thirst for gold, to what villainy do you not impel the hearts of men?" notes that famine is called accursed or sacred after the manner of the Gauls. For when the citizens of Marseilles were suffering from pestilence, a certain poor man offered himself to the state to be fed for a full year on the best food at the public expense, and then to be led through the city with execration, clothed with evergreens and sacred garments, that on his head might fall all the evils of the state; and then he was either sacrificed or drowned. Hence Budζus, following Suidas and others, says that καθαρμάτα were men dedicated to death, and thrown into the sea, bearing the burden of all the wickedness of the state, and so sacrificed to Neptune, with the words added: "Be thou our expiatory victim." Such a victim was the goat sent into the wilderness by the Hebrews . But the Greek and Latin versions support the first meaning in preference, and that gives the more literal and simple sense. For S. Paul is here treating of the contempt meted put to him and his companions, whereby they were spurned by tongue and foot as the vilest wretches living. And are the offscouring of all things unto this day. Offscouring is the translation of a word which denoted such things as scabs, nail-pairings, and such worthless things as are cast aside and trodden under foot by all. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Anselm. Oecumenius understands it to mean a little rag or cloth by which sweat is wiped off the face; others follow Budζus, and take it to mean "expiatory victim," as I have said. This is supported, too, by the Syriac Version. Vers. 14, 15.—I write not these things . . . for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel. And therefore I alone am your spiritual father. Other teachers are but schoolmasters who educate the child sent them by the father. Paul hints that the Corinthians should be ashamed of themselves for passing by the Apostles, who had converted them to Christ, and who were suffering so much for their sake, and for following after vain-glorious teachers, and for wishing to be called their disciples. Ver. 17.—Who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways. My doctrine and Christian life, say S. Thomas and Anselm. In Christ. In Christ's religion. Ver. 20.—For the Kingdom of God is not in word but in power. The spiritual energy and Christian, and especially Apostolic perfection, in which God reigns, and displays in us and in the Church the effectual working of the Gospel of His grace and Spirit, are not to be found in eloquence, but in the powerful working of the Holy Spirit, viz., in convincing speech, in the power of miracles, in the expulsion of demons, and, as Theophylact and Cajetan say, still more in the sufferings of the Apostle's life described in vers. 9-11, and in conversion of character and in holy living. So, too, say S. Chrysostom and Anselm: For S. John Baptist did no miracle, and yet began to preach the Kingdom of God in the power of a holy life, in the spirit and efficacy of preaching and exhortation. Cf. the parallel expression in . Ver. 21.—What will ye? Shall I come unto you with a rod? Such as becomes the father I spoke of in ver. 15. The rod is a symbol of severity of rebuke and power of punishing. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Anselm. Observe here the power of punishing lodged in the Church and her prelates, and exercised by Paul in the next chapter. �cumemius and Cajetan refer these words of the Apostle's to the next chapter, in which he sternly rebukes the Corinthians for the incest of the fornicator. However, these words can well be joined with the preceding, in which he reproved the Corinthians for their pride. CHAPTER V. OF THE CHAPTER i. The Apostle proceeds from the schism of the Corinthians to deal with the scandal caused by incest among them: he blames them for allowing one living openly in incest to remain among them, and orders them to excommunicate him and hand him over to Satan. ii. He bids them (ver. 6) purge out this and any other leaven of sin, in order that they may with purity celebrate the everlasting Passover, and so eat the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. iii. He orders them (ver.9) not to mingle with Christians that are open sinners; but as for heathens and unbelievers, he says that they are not under the jurisdiction of him or of the Church. Ver. 1.—It is reported commonly among you. It is no vague rumour, but a well-ascertained fact. 1. The Gentiles who were not barbarians, but living civilised and honest lives, by natural instinct rejected all such intercourse of a step-son and step-mother. The poets praise Hippolytus for preferring to incur the anger of his father, Theseus, rather than yield to the lust of his step-mother, Phζdra. When he was solicited by Phζdra and refused to consent to the abomination, he was falsely accused by her to his father of having solicited her, and was torn asunder by him by four horses. There is, however, extant an example of such intercourse in Valerius Maximus (lib. v. De Par. Amore in Lib.), in the case of King Seleucus, who, on learning from his physician that his son Antiochus was sick unto death from love of his wife Stratonice, handed her over to him. 2. Theodoret, in his preface to this epistle, and Chrysostom here say that this fornicator was an eminent and powerful leader of the schism at Corinth, and this is why the Apostle proceeds so directly from the one sin to the other. It may be asked whether this incestuous person took his father's wife during his lifetime or afterwards. Some reply that he was dead; but it seems more likely that he was living, from the phrase used, "his father's wife," and also from the words of 2 Cor.vii. 12: "I did it not for his cause that had done the wrong, nor for his cause that suffered wrong," which seems plainly to mean the father. Anselm and others take the view that the father was still alive. The man, therefore, was at once incestuous and an adulterer, and was obstinate in his sin; for without such obstinacy he would not have been excommunicated. Ver. 2.—And ye are puffed up. You meanwhile are so occupied with your contentious pride that you neglect to correct this incestuous person by removing him from your society. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Anselm. Learn from this how careful not only prelates but all the faithful should be to remove from the Church scandals and their authors. Vers. 3, 4.—For I verily as absent in body . . . in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. As it behoves a Pastor and Bishop to be always present by vigilant care, even though absent in bidy from the Church, I have already judged, i.e., determined; and by these words I now order that he be excommunicated and handed over to Satan, and that in the name of Christ, by His authority which I wield when I order and judge. Chrysostom refers the clause in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to what follows, when ye are gathered together. Paul means that they were to assemble, and in a public congregation of the Church they were to excommunicate the incestuous person. This clause, thirdly, may be referred to the words to deliver such an one to Satin; such delivery and execution of the sentence would be done in the power, name, and place of Christ. Vers. 4, 5.—When ye are gathered together . . . deliver such an one unto Satan. I determine and order, O Corinthians, that when you are assembled in the Church, where I shall be present in my spirit, i.e., in mind, affection, and the authority given me by Christ, this incestuous person be excommunicated and handed over to Satan, who rules outside he Church, and is wont in this world to afflict the excommunicate not only in soul but also in body. It plainly appears from these words that the heretics are wrong in saying that the power of excommunicating resides in the whole congregation, and not in the prelates. On the contrary, he says, I have judged. All that the Apostle means is that the excommunication is to be publicly pronounced by whoever was presiding over the Church, that others might fear to do the like. Hence, he does not say that they were to assemble and hand him over to Satan, but when ye are gathered together I have determined to hand him over to Satan, i.e., through him who in the name of Christ is in charge of your Church in my place, and whose, therefore, it is to hand him over. In every state judgment takes place, not by the popular voice, but by the judges and magistrates. The Apostles, moreover, uses this phrase to denote that this spiritual power has been given to the Church, and was exercised by himself and by prelates in the name of the Church, not in the sense that the whole Church has received it directly from Christ, but that Christ gave it to Paul and the other Apostles, not for themselves, but for the good of the Church; for as great confusion would ensue if each one had to be asked to give his sentence, the whole Church discharges this duty by the hands of its heads and rulers. Again, as excommunicating is liable to cause hatred, Paul wishes it to be done with the consent of the whole Church, that so he may win all to his side, and none may protect the powerful fornicator and accuse Paul of over severity. Hence he leaves, as it were, the judgment to them of his own free-will, and out of his modesty he makes them the assessors, approvers, and executors of the sentence pronounced by him of public excommunication of the fornicator by the hands of their president. So often prudent princes and generals will in a difficult and dangerous matter, when any great officer is to be punished, seek the opinion of other great officers, and what is more, leave the judging to them. So Chrysostom, Ambrose, Theophylact, Anselm. With the power of our Lord Jesus Christ. Connect this with deliver, or, better still, as Ambrose does, with when ye are gathered together and my spirit. In other words, in this act of excommunication the Spirit is present with you, and still more with my spirit. For Christ has given His mighty power to His Church, and so the Church can, by her rulers and prelates, excommunicate and deliver over to Satan the contumacious. Ver. 5.—To deliver such an one to Satan. Theophylact thinks that by these words Paul actually excommunicates the fornicator, but it is truer to say that by them he orders his excommunication to be carried out by the prelates in the Corinthian Church. If otherwise, he would have said, "I deliver," instead of "I have judged to deliver;" and the same is borne out by his bidding that he be delivered over to Satan in public assembly of the Church. 2. Observe that the ancients understood this passage of the power and act of excommunicating which is lodged in the prelates of the Church. So Chrysostom, Anselm, Augustine, and others quoted by Baronius, p.448, A.D. 57. 2. The excommunicate are said to be delivered over to Satan, because being ejected from the fellowship of Christ and His Church, and being deprived of all its benefits, its prayers, suffrages, sacrifices, and Sacraments, of the protection of God, and of the care of pastors, they are exposed to the tyranny and assaults of the devil, whose rule is outside the Church, and who goes about against them more then before, and impels them to every kind of evil. Cf. Ambrose, Augustine (lib. iii. Ep. contra Parmen. c. 2), Jerome (Ep.1 ad Heliod.), Innocent (apud S. Aug. Ep.51). For the destruction of the flesh. 1. That the devil may harass him with bodily sickness, wounds, and diseases; that his flesh may be brought low and its vigour be destroyed; that being thus humiliated he may learn wisdom. So say Theodoret, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Anselm. 2. Ambrose and Anselm here, and S. Augustine in the passage just cited, explain it to mean, for the destruction of the pleasure of the body through this confusion and shame. But though shame may restrain a man from the external act when there is danger of its being commonly known, yet it does not do away with the inner desire of the heart, and therefore the first meaning, which is supported by more Fathers, is the more true and suitable. From these Fathers we gather, though some deny it, that the excommunicate were formally handed over to the devil, and also corporally vexed and possessed by him, that they might learn to fear excommunication. Theodoret says this expressly here, and also at 1 Tim. iv. 20, and Ambrose too there says that this was the tradition of his forefathers, and that this is the strict meaning of "the destruction of the flesh." Frequently examples of diabolic possession are to be found in the lives of the Fathers, and especially in the life of S. Ambrose by Paulinus. When Ambrose had delivered a certain man to Satan, devil at that very moment seized him and began to tear him. For this reason Christ, in S. Matt. x., gave, S. Thomas says, to the Apostles power over unclean spirits, both to expel them from and to admit them into men's bodies to vex them. For other examples, cf. Delrio de Magia (lib. iii. p. 1, qu. 7), Petr. Phyrζus (De Dζmon. p. ii. c. 30), Lerarius (in Tob. c. 6, qu. 20). That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. That the soul and mind, gaining from this punishment wisdom and renewal, may be saved in the day of judgment. Hence it appears that the end of excommunication should be borne in mind, which is to cause the excommunicate shame and distress, that he may be humiliated, and ask to be received back, and seek for pardon from God and the Church. The faithful, therefore, should pray secretly for him, and endeavour to win him back to unity. Ver. 6.—Your glorying is not good. Your boasting yourselves in your worldly wisdom, which makes you say, "I am of Paul," "I of Apollos," is evil and out of place. It were better for you to cast down the eyes of your mind, since you allow so great a wickedness to exist among you. So Anselm; Theophylact adds from Chrysostom: "He implies obscurely and in a homely way that the Corinthians themselves prevented this fornicator from coming to a better mind, by glorying in his name; for he was one of their wise teachers." A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. As yeast penetrates every part of a mass of dough with its taste and sharpness, so does this one taint of the fornicator penetrate and stain all of you: firstly, because for the sake of one man the wrath of God may be kindled against you all, and against the whole Church which suffers him, as Ambrose and Anselm say; and secondly, if this man go unpunished, others may follow his example, and this one may cause many to stumble. So S. Chrysostom. In other words, remove this scandal, and separate the man from the Church by excommunicating him. Ver. 7.—Purge out, therefore, the old leaven. Eject this fornicator from your society, lest like leaven he infect the whole. It follows that not the predestinate alone, or hidden sinners, but that public sinners, like this fornicator, are in the Church till they are excommunicated. So Chrysostom. Although the Apostle refers primarily to the incest of the fornicator, yet Chrysostom and Anselm understand leaven more generally to be fornication, and its concealment, and any kind of wickedness and vice, which by parity of reasoning the Apostle orders to be removed from the soul of every individual and from the whole Church. That ye may be a new lump. That your Church may be once more pure. As ye are unleavened. As Chrysostom and Anselm say, as by baptism you were made unleavened, i.e., pure from the leaven of sin, so consequently you are, or ought to be, from thenceforth unleavened, or pure and holy, by calling and profession. It is a Hebraism to say that what ought to be is; and Christians accordingly are frequently called Saints, because they ought to be. Others take ye are strictly to mean that, excepting the one incestuous person, they were all unleavened or pure. This unleavenedness of heart and life is put before each one at baptism, both in words and ceremonies, by the Church, when, after signing the head with the sacred Chrism, she clothes the newly baptized person with a white robe, and, holding out a lighted candle, says to him: "Receive this holy and spotless white robe, and may you keep it without spot till you take it before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may you gain eternal life and live for ever and ever. Amen." Or as S. Jerome has it in his letter to Damasus: "Receive this burning and blameless light, guard well thy baptism, keep God's commandments, that when the Lord cometh to the wedding thou mayest meet Him, together with all His Saints, in the court of heaven; and mayest thou gain eternal life and live for ever and ever. Amen." By the white robe and the lighted candle are signified (1.) a pure and exemplary life and conversation; (2.) freedom from the power of sin and the devil; (3.) victory and triumph ever them; for the Romans used to give their servants a white robe when they set them free, white being the colour of triumph. Of this garment S. Ambrose (Lib. de Iis qui Initiat. c. 7), addressing the newly baptized, says? "You have received white garments for a testimony that you have cast away the slough of sins, and put on the holy garb of innocence." Paulinus thus sings of the same thing;— "Thence from the sacred font the priest their father brings The infants, snowy-white in body, heart, and dress." Cf. also S. Augustine, Lactantius, and Victor of Utica, whose words I quoted in Rom. vi. 4. Hence the Saturday and Sunday immediately after Easter Day are called Sabbatum in albis and Dominica in albis, because the neophytes then used to lay aside their white garments. Yet, as Baronius has rightly pointed out (A.D. 58, p. 606), they received a white Agnus Dei as it was called, made of paschal wax, and blessed by the Bishop, and wore it hung from their neck, that they might be ever reminded of purity and innocence, and might learn from Christ, the Paschal Lamb, to be thenceforth in every work unleavened, pure, meek, and lowly of heart. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us. The word for denotes: I rightly adjure you to be unleavened and pure, because you are keeping the Passover, in which the Jews had no leavened thing. As the Passover was a type of Christ, so were the unleavened loaves a type of the baptismal innocence and pure life of Christians. The Apostle's argument is based on the allegorical meaning of the Passover and the unleavened bread. The word Passover has its rise from the passing over of the angel of the houses of the Israelites when he saw the blood of the lamb that had been sacrificed for the purpose smeared on the doorposts. Then by a happy metonymy the lamb sacrificed is called the Passover, or the Passover victim, i.e., the victim slain for the passing over of the angel. Then, too, the day itself, and the feast at which this happened, and its annual memorial are called the Passover. Allegorically this lamb signified Christ. Our Passover, i.e., our Pascal Lamb, Christ, was sacrificed for us, that as many as are washed with the Blood of His Passion in baptism and the other Sacraments may be defended in safety from the destroying angel, who passes over them, and lights the unbelieving and the wicked, who have not been washed with the blood of Christ, to kill them with eternal death. For Christ has rescued hose that have been so washed from Pharaoh's yoke, that is, from the yoke of the devil and of sin, and having set them perfectly free He has loaded them with all gifts and graces, and daily is adding more. S. Bernard (Serm.1 in die Pasch,) thus moralises on this passage: "Christ, our Passover, is sacrificed. Let us embrace those virtues commended to us by His Cross— humility, patience, obedience, and charity. On this great festival let us carefully consider what it is that is commended to us. It is a resurrection, a passover, a transmigration. For Christ, my brethren, did not to-day fall again but rose again: He did not return, He passed over: He transmigrated— did not go back. The very feast that we are celebrating is called the Passover, not "the returning;" and Galilee, where He who rose promises to show Himself to us, does not speak of going back but of transmigration . . . We have lately given up ourselves to mourning, to penitence, and prayer— to heaviness and fasting. If we have bewailed our negligences, why should we now return to them? Shall we as before be again found inquisitive, as fond of talking as before, slothful and negligent as before, vain, suspicious, backbiters, wrathful, and again involved in all the other vices which we but lately were grieving over? I have washed my feet: how shall I again defile them? Alas! the resurrection of the Saviour is made the time for sinning, the place in which to fall. Revellings and drunkenness return, chambering and wantonness are sought after, as though it was for this that Christ rose, and not for our justification. This is not a passing over, but a going back. For this cause, as the Apostle says, many are weak and sickly and many sleep. Therefore is it that in different places are there so many deaths, specially now." S. Anselm, on 1 Cor. xi. 30, makes the same observation, viz., that at Easter diseases walk abroad and many die, because of so many making an unworthy communion, and either not making proper atonement for their sins, or else going back on them. Ver. 8.—Therefore let us keep the feast. The Latin has, "Let us banquet," because feasts were wont to be celebrated with solemn banquets in token of rejoicing. The feast here is either the feast of the Passover or of unleavened bread. And notice that, according to Exod.xii., the evening of the fourteenth day of the month, or of the Passover, was not, strictly speaking, the feast, but the following morning was, which was called the feast of the first day of unleavened bread, and lasted for seven days, during which nothing but unleavened bread was allowed to be eaten; and before those days, viz., in the fourteenth day of the first month Nisan, instead of the Paschal lamb that had been killed, they killed other Paschal victims, viz., burnt offerings and peace-offerings. Cf. . The meaning, therefore, is this: Christ, having been sacrificed for us as our Passover, has redeemed us, and has begun for us the feast of unleavened bread. Therefore, after this Passover, after the death and redemption of Christ, let us keep this spiritual feast of unleavened bread, that we may be unleavened and pure, and may consequently feed on unleavened things, i.e., may enjoy purity of life for the seven says of our life. As all our time is measured by seven revolving days, seven is a symbol of completeness, and therefore the seven days mentioned here denote the whole of life here below. Through that life we are to keep up the memorial of Christ's redemption, of our Paschal Lamb, by purity of life that befits Christians, and by sacrifices and praises. But since the evening of the Passover could also be joined with the following morning, as the Jews reckoned their feasts from evening to evening, hence this evening may also be called a feast, or at all events a festive sacrifice and banquet of a lamb. Hence the Latin version is, "Let us banquet." Hence a second meaning can be gathered, which is this: "Let us keep a perennial Passover: let the Paschal feast be to us a continuous feast throughout the day of life, by our daily feeding on Christ, our Paschal Lamb, and His good gifts; and let us festively banquet on him spiritually, by faith, hope, and charity, or even really in the Blessed Sacrament, and that with the unleavened bread if sincerity and truth," Cf. Chrysostom and Anselm. For though the Pascal lamb, as it was slain, was a figure of Christ slain on the Cross, yet as far as it was eaten with unleavened bread it was rather a figure of the Unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharist. In the same way the Passover here is understood of Christ sacrificed and eaten in the Eucharist by S. Cyprian (Serm. de Cζna Dom.). by Nazianzen (Orat. de Pascha), by Chrysostom (Serm. de Pron. Juda), by Ambrose (In Luc. i.). by Jerome and Origen (in S. Matt. 26). Hence S. Andrew the Apostle said to King Ζgeas: "I daily sacrifice an immaculate Lamb, which remains whole and living, even when all the people have eaten of It," Hence, too, it is that the Church reads this passage of the Apostle's for the Epistle of Easter, when she bids all to communicate and to feed on this Paschal Lamb, although in the Primitive Church the faithful ate of it daily, as the Apostle here exhorts. Chrysostom gives us a moral meaning here when he says that we should banquet, not because it is Easter of Pentecost, but because all time is given to the Christian for so banqueting, because of the excellency of the gifts conferred. He says: "What good thing is there that the Son of God has not given you by being born and slain for you? He has set you free and called you into His kingdom. Why then do you not banquet always?" Hence S. Sylvester said that all days were festal days, because the Christian ought to feast every day, and be at leisure for God, and keep the spiritual feast. So too S. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. lib. 7) says: "The whole life of the righteous is one solemn and holy feast day." Neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness. Vatablus translates wickedness, craftiness, and others render it depravity; for he is wicked who does evil mediately, and with guile and fraud. The Latins of old by malice and wickedness signified all the vices and crimes of men. Hence the saying of Publius Africanus (apud Gell. lib. vii. c. 11) that all the evil and disgraceful and heinous things that men do are briefly comprehended in two words, malice and wickedness. But with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. A Hebraism. Let us banquet, not on literal unleavened bread, but on spiritual, i.e., on sincerity (or purity) and truth— not merely truth of the mind or of the mouth, but the truth of life, the Christian righteousness; in other words, any duty of virtue that Christians are bound to, especially simplicity, faithfulness, and truth. Sincerity is here opposed to malice, and truth to wickedness. Ver. 9.—I wrote unto you. In ver. 2 of this chapter. So Theodoret and Chrysostom. But S. Thomas, Lyranus, Cajetan think that S. Paul wrote this in another former epistle which has perished. Not to company with fornicators . . . for then must ye needs go out of the world. When I bade you have no fellowship with fornicators I did not mean what you were to avoid fornicating pagans, for then you would have to go out of the world, for the whole world is full of pagans, who are either fornicators, or covetous, or idolaters; but if any one who is a brother, says S. Ambrose, if any one who is a Christian, is publicly spoken ill of as a fornicator, then avoid him. Ver. 11.—If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator. This admits of being rendered, "If any man that is a brother be called a fornicator." Hence S. Augustine (contra Parmen. lib. iii. c. 2) says: "Is called," i.e., is judged and declared guilty of fornication. Or covetous . . . or an extortioner. The first word here denoted one who stealthily seizes others' goods by fraud, the second one who seizes them by open violence. But the miser who clings to his money too tenaciously will not be excluded from heaven, unless he refuse to give alms to the poor in their great necessity: much less is he to be excluded from the society of the faithful. But the Apostle orders this in this verse. Therefore "covetous," as I said, must mean a thief of robber. Cf. and . Ver. 12.—For what have I to do to judge them that are without? To judge is here and elsewhere the same as to condemn and punish fornicators, e.g., by excommunicating them, which is done in order to warn others who are pure and innocent not to mingle with them. When S. Paul says that they were not to mingle with fornicators, he at the same time judges indirectly the fornicators, by ordering them to be avoided and shunned as guilty and dangerous. He condemns not those outside the Church, because as pagans they were beyond his jurisdiction, but only the faithful, who were subject to his pastoral care. It may be said that if we cannot judge them that are without, the Church cannot judge and punish heretics and schismatics, for they are without, i.e., outside the Church. I answer that they are without the Church in the sense of being deprived of all her benefits, but within so far as jurisdiction is concerned. The very fact that they still retain the character of baptism makes them subject and bound to the Church. Hence they are bound to observe the fasts and feasts and other laws of the Church; and they are in the Church as slaves in a family, or as criminals imprisoned in a city. CHAPTER 6 OF THE CHAPTER i. The Apostle passes on to the subject of lawsuits and trials, and reproves the Corinthians for instituting proceedings before the heathen judges, and he declares those proceedings to be thereupon unjust and unfair. ii. Then (ver.9) he declares that the unrighteous, of whom he names several kinds, shall not inherit the kingdom of God. iii. He passes on (ver.13) to fornication, and condemns it on many grounds, which I will collect at the end of the chapter. Ver. 1.—Dare any of you . . . go to law? Literally, be judged, i.e., contend in judgment. Cf. ;  ; and . The Apostle is not censuring those who were dragged before the heathen tribunals, but those who dragged their brethren before them, or who appeared before them by the consent of both parties. Before the unjust. The saints here is a name for the faithful, and the unjust, therefore, are Gentile unbelievers. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Anselm. The heathen are so called as lacking the faith by which the just man lives, and as being therefore unjust, and as often committing injustice strictly so called. In other words, since these unjust men are the judges, justice is not to be looked for from them. As they pervert the faith , so do they justice. Ver. 2.—If the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? If the saints are to judge the whole world how much more ought they to be able to act as arbiters in composing their own small differences? Ver. 3.—Know ye not that we shall judge angels? Some think that angels here means priests, and they refer to , "For he is the angel of the Lord of hosts," spoken of the priest. But this is foreign to the mind of S. Paul, and therefore the Fathers unanimously take it literally. Observe that, as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ambrose, and Anselm say, it is the day of general judgment that is here spoken of. Hence it follows (1.) that at that day not only men but angels, both good and bad, are to be judged. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, Anselm understand this passage to refer to evil angels; for there is one Church of angels and men, and one Head and Judge, even Christ. Such a judgment tends to display publicly the Divine righteousness, and the honour due to the angels. It follows (2.) that this judgment is not such an one as is spoken of in S. , where it is said that the Queen of the South and the Ninevites should rise up in the judgment and condemn that generation of Jews, but judgment in the proper sense of the word, inasmuch as it is set side by side with that by which the Corinthians judged their worldly matters. S. Paul says then that Christ and the Saints, by their power and authority, shall judge the angels as well as men: the good by a judgment of approbation, of praise and glory, and the evil by a judgment of condemnation and reprobation. They shall be judges because, when they were frail men in the body, they devoted themselves to the worship of God and perfect purity. The others shall be judged because they refused to do God's will, though they were incorporeal and pure spirits. So Theophylact and Theodoret. Again, because the Saints were victorious over the devil in this life, they for their reward shall, before the whole world, pass judgment on his malice, pride, and foolishness, and shall exult over him as conquered, mean, and contemptible, cast away by God, and condemned to everlasting punishment. So Christ is said to do in . And this will be to the exquisite pride of the devils a most bitter punishment, as Francis Suarez says beautifully (pt. iii. qu. 69, disp. 57, sect. 8). Add to this that the Apostles and Apostolic men, who left all and followed Christ most closely, will be nearest to the Judge, as the leaders of His kingdom and assessors of their King. And so their sentence will be Christ's; and as Cardinals are associated with the Pope, so they with Christ shall judge all others. How much more things that pertain to this life? We are competent and worthy to judge things that belong to man's ordinary life, if only the office of judging is intrusted to us by the litigating parties, or if we are appointed to it by the Church or by the State. For if we are able to judge angels, why not matters of this world? For angels as far surpass worldly things as heaven is higher than earth. Ver.4.—Set them to judge who are least esteemed, rather than the heathen. Ver. 5.—Is it so that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? This is severe irony, and a tacit reproof and condemnation. Sedulius and Gregory (Mor. lib. xix. c. 21) take it a little differently, as if said seriously, as though he meant: Let those who are of lesser merit in the Church, and who have no great gifts of power, judge in matters of worldly business, that so those who cannot do great things may be the means of supplying lesser benefits. This judging of secular causes was afterwards intrusted amongst Christians to the presbyters and Bishops, as appears from Clement (Constit. lib. i. c. 49-51, and Ep. i. to James the Lord's brother). He says: "If brethren have any dispute let them not take it for decision before secular magistrates, but, whatever it is, let it be ended by the presbyters of the Church, and let their decision be implicitly obeyed." "This too was afterwards decreed in the civil law by the Emperor Theodosius, and confirmed by Charlemagne (xi. qu. 1, Can. quicunque and Can. Volumus), who gave permission to any one, whether plaintiff or defendant, to appeal from the secular tribunal to the Ecclesiastical court. Hence it was that Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bishop of Neo-Cζsarea, discharged among his faithful the office of judge, as is testified by Gregory of Nyssa in the life that he wrote of him; so did S. Ambrose, as appears from Offic. lib. ii.c. 29, where he says that he had brought to nought the unjust judgments of the Emperors; so did S. Augustine (de Opere Monach. c. 26); Synesius (Epp. 57 and 58). But as the number of Christians and lawsuits increased, the Bishops transferred this duty to secular judges, who were, however, Christians. This they did, following the teaching and appointment of S. Peter, who this writes to Clement, and in him to all Bishops, in the letter here cited: "Christ does not wish you to be a judge or decider of worldly affairs, lest being engrossed with the things that are seen you have no leisure for the word of God, or dor severing the good from the bad according to the rule of truth," It may be asked, Why then foes not S. Paul intrust this office of judge to the Bishop? Ambrose replies, Because there was no such officer at Corinth as yet: "He had not yet been appointed to rule their Church." The Corinthians had but recently been converted by S. Paul, and were yet but few in number. Ver. 7.—Now, therefore, there us utterly a fault among you. Fault Theophylact renders condemnation and shame. It is simpler to take it as a defect of shortcoming, as when a man is overcome by another his strength and courage are thereby diminished. Imperfection, meanness, and feebleness of mind are among you, because you are overcome by anger, avarice, and strife, and can bear nothing. It is the mark of a great mind to be raised high above all these things, to look down upon them as beneath its notice, and to care nothing for injuries. It is littleness of mind and love of gain which make you go to law before heathen tribunals, to the scandal of believers and unbelievers, who are thus led to blaspheme the faith of Christ. Why do ye not rather take wrong? Or suffer loss, as beseems those that are but newly Christians, who are few in number, and in the first fervour of their profession of peace and perfection. This passage, however, does not favour the Anabaptists, who hold that it means that all judicial power should be taken from the magistrates. For (1.) as Chrysostom says, the Apostle is not condemning the existence of law-courts, but the impatience of the litigants. (2.) He censures them for inflicting injury on their fellow-Christians (ver. 8); (3.) forgoing for judgment on these matters before the unbelievers and the unjust; (4.) for oppressing the poor among them wrongfully; (5.) for so scandalously disturbing brotherly peace, which is the bond of charity, and thus injuring the faith itself. Cajetan adds that one or other of the parties must always be in the wrong, because one or other favours an unjust cause, unless he can be excused through ignorance. Wherefore S. Augustine (Enchirid. c. 78) says that even lawsuits that are just can hardly be entered into without sin, at all events venial sin, because they generally proceed from a too great love of worldly things, and can scarcely be free from the danger of hatred, ill-will, and injurious dealing. There is added to this loss of time, of peace, and internal tranquillity, which cannot be compensated for except by a still greater good, and therefore even suits that have justice on their side are not undertaken without sin. Hence Christ, in S. Matt. v. 40, enjoins "If any man will sue thee at law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also," A greater good is the necessity of one's self, of the public, of ones family, godliness, or the obligations of justice, as when you determine to protect or recover the goods of a monastery, or of the poor, by the public law-courts. So Paul appealed to Cζsar's judgment-seat . In fine, the Apostle is not here blaming judging on the part of the judge, but only on the part of the suitors. And so, even if it were sin to go to law, it would not be sin to pass judgment; for judgments put an end to suits, which is altogether a good thing. S. Clement of Rome supports in this S. Paul, his master and contemporary (Constit. Apost. lib. ii. x. 45), in the words: It is the beautiful boast of a Christian that he goes to law with no one. But if by the doing of others, or by any temptation, it come to pass that he is entangled in a lawsuit, he does all he can to put an end to it, although he have thereby to suffer loss, and to prevent himself from having to appear before the heathen's judgment-seat. Nay, do not suffer secular magistrates to decide in your causes, for by them the devil endeavours to bring the servants of God into reproach, by making it appear that you have no wise man to do justice between you, or to put an end to controversy." Ver. 9, 10.—Neither fornicators nor adulterers, &c. . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God. Hence it appears that not only adultery but also fornication, by which as unmarried man sins with as unmarried woman, is against he law of Christ and of nature. Rabbi Moses Ζgypt, erred shamefully in this respect (More, lib. iii. c. 50) when he excused the intercourse of Judah with Tamar, related in Gen, xxxvii., on the ground that before the law of Moses whoredom was allowable. Our politicians err still more shamefully who, while allowing that fornication is forbidden by the law of Christ, yet deny that it was forbidden by the law of Moses. For Moses includes it, as do the Rabbins always, in Exod. xx., under the sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," under which not only adultery, but also incest, sodomy, fornication, and all kinds of sexual intercourse and lust outside the limits of matrimony are forbidden. So Tobias (Tobias 4:13) says: "Keep thyself, my son, from all fornication." So the Apostle here reckons fornication with adultery, idolatry, and other sins which are against the law of nature and of the Decalogue, and naturally shut out men from the kingdom of heaven. For fornication is at variance with the first creation of man, and with the institution of matrimony, by which the God of nature and the Lord of all things has tied the use of those members which serve for generation to matrimony; and outside that He has taken away all permission to use them. It is opposed also to conjugal fidelity, and to the good of the offspring, who cannot be properly brought up in fornication, but only in matrimony. Hence Deut. xxii. 21 orders a maiden to be stoned who before marriage has committed fornication in her father's house. And the Wise Man says (Ecclus. 19:3): "He who joins himself to fornication shall be vile." Lastly, to pass over other instances, 24,000 of the Israelites were killed for committing fornication with the daughters of Moab. Effeminate. Those guilty of self-pollution. Covetous. Those who by fraud, unfair contracts, and legal quibbles get possession of the goods of others. They are distinct from thieves and robbers. Cf. note to ver. 10. Drunkards. The Greek word here stands both for one that os drunk and one that is given to drunk. Here it denotes rather the act than the habit, as the other words, thieves, revilers, adulterers, do; for one of such acts excludes from the kingdom of heaven. Cf. Gal. v. 21. A single act of drunkenness, if it is perfected, is deadly sim, because it deprives a man of the use of his reason, and makes him like a beast, and exposes him to danger of broils, lust, and many other sins. S. Thomas says, however: "Drunkenness is not a mortal sin if a man is ignorant of the strength of the wine or the weakness of his head," This excuse, however, is rendered invalid by frequent experience; therefore the Apostle says significantly, "habitual drunkard," not merely "drunkard." But the former explanation is the sounder. Ver. 11.—But ye are washed . . . by the Spirit of our God. Ye were justified in baptism by the Holy Spirit. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius. S. Cyprian gives a beautiful example of this washing and change of character, produced in his own case by being baptized into Christianity, in Ep. 2, to Donatus, in which he candidly confesses what sort of man he was before his baptism, what a sudden change passed over him through the grace of baptism, and what benefits Christianity conferred upon him, which, as he says, "is the death of vices, the life of virtues." Nazianzen (Orat. Funebr. in Laudem S. Cypr.) says the same, and relates his wonderful conversion, and the change of heart and life which baptism wrought in him. Ver. 12.—All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient. All things, say Theodoret and Oecumenius, are through free-will lawful unto me, are in my power, e.g., to commit fornication, to rob, to be drunken, and all the other sins mentioned above. But they are not expedient for the salvation of my soul, inasmuch as they are sins. But this rendering is rightly condemned by Ambrose, who says: "How can that be lawful which is forbidden? For surely if all things are lawful there can be nothing unlawful." In other words he says that that is said to be lawful which no law forbids. The word lawful does not apply to that which it is in the power of the will to do or leave undone. The meaning, therefore, of this passage is, all indifferent things, all not forbidden by any law, are lawful to me. So Chrysostom, who with Theophylact refers these words to the next verse. Ver. 13—Meats for the belly and the belly for meats. 1. Although it is lawful for me to eat every kind of food, yet I will not allow desire for any food to get the mastery over me, and make me a slave to my belly. 2. Ambrose and S. Thomas understand these words to refer to his personal expenses, and to mean— Though it is lawful for me as a preacher of the Gospel to receive from you means of support, yet I will not receive it, lest I become chargeable to any one and lose my liberty. The Apostle after his manner joins together various disconnected matters, which he knew would by intelligible in other ways to those to whom he was writing. 3. The best rendering is to refer these words, with Anselm and S. Thomas, to what had been said above about judgments: I have said these things against going to law, not because it is unlawful in itself for a man to seek to regain his own at law, but because I am unwilling for you to be brought under the power of any one, whether he be judge, advocate, or procurator, especially when they are of the unbelievers. S. Bernard (de Consid. lib. iii.) says, moralising: "The spiritual man will, before undertaking any work, ask himself three questions, Is it lawful? Is it becoming? Is it expedient? For although, it is well known in the Christian philosophy, nothing is becoming save what is lawful, and nothing is expedient save what is both lawful and becoming, nevertheless it does not follow that all that is lawful is necessarily also becoming or expedient." Why, says S. Paul, do you enter on lawsuits for the sake of worldly good, which for the most part serves only for the belly and its meats? For food is but a perishing and mean thing, made but to be cast into the belly. The belly too is the lowest part of man, made only to cook, digest, cast forth, and corrupt the food, and is a vessel containing all that is disgusting. Both food and belly shall be destroyed, for both shall be food for worms; and though the belly shall rise again, yet it will no linger take in food. Secondly, it should be observed that the Apostle here purposely introduces gluttony, because it is the mother of lust, which he then proceeds to condemn. So Theophylact. Hence in the passage bearing the name of S. Athanasius (qu. 133 ad Antioch,), the belly here is understood to mean gluttony and drunkenness. The belly has its desire to drunkenness, and drunkenness to it; but he who is thus given up to serve his belly cannot serve God, but is the slave of his belly, and therefore shall be destroyed of God. This passage is plainly not the writing of S. Athanasius, for earlier (qu. 23) Athanasius himself is quoted, and differed from; moreover, Epiphanius and Gregory of Nyssa are quoted, who lived after Athanasius. But God shall destroy both it and them. In death and the resurrection, in such a way that the belly will no longer be for meats, nor will there be meats to fill the belly. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. It was not meant, or given us, for such an end, but that with chaste body we should serve the Lord, and follow Him, our Head, with pure and holy lives. So Anselm. So also is Christ given to our body to be its head and crown. Or the Lord is for the body in another sense, according to Ambrose and Anselm, viz., that He is the reward for the body that is chaste and pure, and He will give it incorruption and immortality. The first meaning is the simpler, for S. Paul proceeds to speak of the resurrection. Ver. 14.—And God . . . will also raise up us by His own power. As He raised up Christ when crucified and dead, so too if with Christ we die to lust and gluttony, and crucify them, will He raise up us. Ver. 15.—Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? For ye yourselves, and consequently your body and soul, are members of the Church of Christ. S. Augustine (Serm. 18. in hζc Verb.) says beautifully: "The life of the body is the soul, the life of the soul is God. The Spirit of God dwells in the soul, and through the soul in the body, so that our bodies also are a temple of the Holy Spirit, whom we have from God." Shall I then . . . make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. Take here is not to pluck off and separate from Christ, for a fornicator remains a member of Christ and His Church so long as he retains the true faith. But it means, as S. Thomas says, unjustly to withdraw these members, that were given for generation, from the obedient service of Christ, whose they are. For whoever of the faithful commits fornication filches as it were his body and his organs of generation, which body is a member of Christ, from their lawful owner, and gives them to a harlot. He takes, therefore from Christ, not jurisdiction over his body, but the use of it. Ver. 16.—Know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? One body by a union and blending of the two bodies. Just as merchants in partnership have but one capital, because it is common to both, so those who join in committing fornication have one body, because their bodies are common to both, as Cajetan says. So two are one flesh: that is, out of two there is made but one human being, and that not spiritual, but carnal— wholly fleshly. For two, saith He, shall be one flesh. S. Paul is here quoting from Gen. ii. 24, where the words are applied to those married. But he refers them truly enough to fornicators, because the external acts, whether of them or of those married, do not differ in kind, though they differ morally by the whole sky, for the acts of the former are lustful and vicious, but those of the latter are acts of temperance, righteousness, and virtue, as S. Thomas says. 1. Observe that it is said of the married that they too shall be one flesh (1.) by carnal copulation, as the Apostle her takes it; (2.) by synecdoche, they shall be one individual, one person: for the man and the woman civilly are, and are reckoned as one; (3.) because in wedlock each is the master of the other's body, and so the flesh of one is the flesh of the other ; (4.) in the effect produced, for they produce one flesh, that is one offspring. 2. Observe again that Scripture employs this phrase in order to show that of all human relationships the bond of matrimony is the closest and the most inviolable. Hence it was that God made Eve out of the rib of Adam, to show that the man and the woman are not so much two as one, and ought to be one in heart and will, and therefore, if need be, each for the sake of the other ought to leave father and mother, as is said in . The Apostle quotes this passage to show the fornicator how grievously he lowers and disgraces himself, inasmuch as he so closely joins himself to some abandoned harlot as to become one with her, and as it were he transforms himself into her and himself becomes a harlot. Ver. 17.—But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Not one essentially, as Ruisbrochius (de Alta Contempt.) says that Almaric and certain fanatic "illuminati" thought, but one in the way of accidents: one in charity, in the consent of the will, in grace and glory, all which make man like God, so that he is as it were one and the same spirit with God. So Ambrose, Anselm, Oecumenius. From this passage S. Basil (de Vera Virgin.) shows that the chaste and holy soul is the spouse of God, and is changed into the excellence of the Divine image, so as to become one spirit with God, and from this union with God drinks in all possible purity, virtue, incorruption, peace, and inward calm. "Wherefore," he says, "the soul which is joined to Christ is, as it were, the bride of the Wisdom or the Word of God; is necessarily wise and prudent, so that every mark of the yoke of brutish folly having been removed by meditation on Divine things, she wears the beauteous ornament of the Wisdom to which she has been joined, until she so thoroughly joins to herself the Eternal Wisdom, so becomes one with It, that of corruptible she is made incorruptible, of ignorant most prudent and wise, like the Word, to whose side she has closely kept, and in short, of mortal man is made immortal God; and so He to whom she has been united is made manifest to all." S. Bernard (Serm 7 in Cantic.) beautifully describes this betrothal of God with the soul that clings to Him with pure and holy love, and the communication of all good things that flows from it. He says: "The soul which loves God in called His bride; for the two names, bride and bridegroom, denote the closest affections of the heart; for to them all things are in common: they have one purse, one home, one table, one bed, one flesh. Therefore shall a man leave father and mother, &c., and they twain shall be one flesh. . . . She that loves is called a bride; but one that loves seeks for kisses— not for liberty, or wages, or a settlement of money, but for kisses after the manner of a most chaste bride, whose every breath whispers of her love in all its purity, and who is wholly unable to conceal the fire that is burning her. 'Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth,' she says. It is as though she were to say, 'What have I in heaven, and what do I wish for on earth apart from you?' Surely this, her love, is chaste, since she seeks to have Him that she loves, and nothing else besides Him. It is a holy love, because it is not in the lust of the flesh, but in the purity of the spirit. It is a burning love, because she is so drunken with her own love that she thinks not of His majesty. Yet is One that looks at the earth and it trembles, He toucheth the mountains and they smoke, and she seeks to be kissed by Him. Is she drunk? Surely so, because she had perchance come forth from the wine-cellar. How great is love's power! how great is the confidence of the spirit of liberty! Perfect love casteth out fear. She does not say, 'Let this or that bridegroom, or friend, or king, kiss me,' but definitely, 'Let Him kiss me.' Just so when Mary Magdalene, when she found not her Lord in the tomb, and believed Him to have been taken away, said of Him, 'If thou have borne Him hence, tell me where thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him away.' Who is the 'Him'? She does not reveal it, because she supposes that what is never for a moment absent from her heart must be obvious to all. So too the bride says, 'Let him kiss me,' i.e., him who is never absent from my heart; for being on fire with love she thinks that the name of him she loves is well known to all." More on this betrothal and union to God of the soul that clings to Him will be found in the notes to . Again we find S. Bernard, or the author of the treatise, "On the Solitary Life," saying towards the end: "The perfection of the will that is moving towards God is to be found in the unity with God of the spirit of the man whose affections are set on things above. When he now no longer merely wills what God wills, but has so far advanced in love that he cannot will save what God wills, the union is complete. For to will what God wills is to be like God; not to be able to will save what God wills is to be what God is, with whom Will and Being are the same. Hence it is well said that then we shall see Him as He is, when we shall be so like Him that we shall be what He is. For to those to whom has been given the power of becoming the sons of God, there has been also given the power of becoming, not indeed God, but what God is." S. Bernard goes on to point out a triple similitude that men have to God, and then he adds: "This likeness of man to God is called a unity of spirit, not merely because it is the Holy Spirit that effects it, or because He affects man's spirit towards it, but because it is itself the Holy Spirit— God who is love. Since He is the bind of love between the Father and the Son, He is unity, and sweetness, and good, and kisses, and embraces, and whatever can be common to Both in that supreme unity of Truth and truth of Unity; and similarly He makes man to become to God after man's capacity all that by substantial unity the Father is through Him to the Son and the Son to the Father. The blessed consciousness of man has found in some way a means by which it embraces the Father and the Son: in an ineffable and inconceivable manner man merits to become of God, though not God. God, however, is what He is by His own Nature; man becomes what he does by grace." Ver. 18.—Flee fornication. Because, as Anselm, Cassian, and the Fathers generally teach, other vices are conquered by resistance, lust alone by flight, viz., by fleeing from women, from the objects and occasions of lust, by turning aside the eyes and the mind to see and think of other things. For if you oppose a temptation to some lewdness, or fight against some impure thought, you only excite the imagination by thinking of such things, and then inflame still more the innate lust of the flesh, that is naturally disposed to such acts as fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body. Does not stain or pollute the body. It may be said that if a man kills or mutilates or castrates himself he sins against his body, and therefore it is not a fact that every sin distinct from fornication is without the body. I reply that every sin, i.e., every kind of sins which men commonly and ordinarily commit is without the body. For there are seven capital sins, which theologians, following S. Paul, divide into spiritual and bodily or carnal. Those that are carnal are two— gluttony and lust; the spiritual are five— pride, covetousness, anger, envy, sloth. Of these anger and envy tend directly of themselves towards murder of one's neighbour, but not except by accident towards murder of one's self, and that in few and extraordinary cases. The angry man, therefore, does nor ordinarily and necessarily sin against his body, but against that of another, by assaulting him or killing him. The Apostle's meaning then is, that all the sins in general which men ordinarily and commonly commit are without the body. "Every sin" therefore does not include mutilation or suicide, which happen rarely, and as it were accidentally; nor does it include gluttony as I will show directly. But he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. S. Jerome (Ep. ad Amand. tom. iii.) gives two explanations of this passage, of which the first is— the fornicator sins against his wife, who is his own body; the second is— he plants in his body the seeds of sexual passion, which, even after his sin, remain, when he wishes to repent, to spring up into active life. S. Jerome says that "other sins are without, and after being committed are repented of, and though profit urge to them yet conscience rebukes. Lust alone, even in the hour of repentance, suffers under the whips and stings of the past, and under organic irritation, and under incentives to sin, so that material for sin is supplied again by thoughts of the very things which we long to see corrected."  S. Jerome confesses (Ep. 22 ad Eustoch,) that he knew this from own experience. S. Mary of Egypt found the same true in her own case, who endured under penance these whips and stings for as many years as she had formerly given to sexual passion, viz., seventeen, as Sophronius, Patriarch if Jerusalem, related in her life. Oecumenius has ten other explanations of this passage, as has also Isidorus Pelusiota . But the true and genuine sense is: Whoever commits fornication does injury to his own body, 1. because he polluted and disgraces his body, as Gregory of Nyssa says in his oration on these words. 2. Because by fornication he weakens and exhausts his body, and often destroys it, by contracting venereal disease. So S. Athanasius, quoted by Oecumenius. In both these ways the glutton and drunkard sin against their body, because the first disgraces it by subjecting it to unhealthy humours, to vomiting, and other disgusting things, while the latter weakens, injures, and finally ruins its natural heat and strength. Hence under the name of fornication, here gluttony and drunkenness, as being akin to it, or rather its mother, may be understood. It was for this reason that the Apostle, in ver. 13, spoke of gluttony. For these two sins, gluttony and lust, are vices peculiar to the body, and are thence called sins of the flesh: other sins belong to the spirit alone, as I have just said. 3. The fornicator dies injury to his own body, inasmuch as he alone brings his body, which was created free, pure, and noble, under the jurisdiction, service, and power of the mist degraded harlot, so that he becomes as one thing with her. In the same way that, if any one were to bind his own body, that was noble, healthy, and beautiful, to the body of some loathsome leper, he would be said to do his body a great wrong, so does he who unites to a common, base, and infamous harlot his body, that was created by God pure, noble, and free, and redeemed and washed by the blood of Christ, do to it grievous injury. In all these verses the Apostle lays stress upon this wrong. 4. The fornicator does injury to his body, because he excites in it a foul and shameful lust, which so absorbs the mind that in carrying it out into action the man can think of nothing else. He makes his body, therefore, the slave of his lust, in such a way that he is wholly ruled by it. Neither gluttony nor any other sin in the body excites such shameful and vehement lust as this is. Impurity alone then holds sway over the body, and by its lust and outward action stains, subjugates, and destroys it. Ver. 19.—Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost? They, therefore, who pollute their bodies by impurity are guilty of sacrilege, for they sin against the Holy Ghost. They do Him wrong by robbing Him of the body dedicated to Him, and 120 transferring it to the demon of lust. Further, the bodies of the faithful are the temple of the Spirit of Christ, because they themselves are members of Christ, and because the faithful are one spirit with God. Tertullian cleverly and beautifully says (de Cultu Femin. c. i.) that the guardian and high-priestess of this temple is chastity. He says: "Since we are all the temple of God, because endowed and consecrated with the Holy Spirit, the guardian and high-priestess of His temple is chastity, who suffers nothing unclean, nothing unholy to be carried in, lest God, who inhabits it, be offended, and leave His polluted shrine." The faithful and just is therefore a temple in which by grace dwells and is worshipped the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given us, to work in us all holy thoughts, affections, words, and works. Wherefore it is altogether unseemly that His soul and body should by fornication become the temple of Venus and Priapus: this is a grievous wrong done to God and the Holy Spirit. Hence it was that S. Seraphia, virgin and martyr, when asked by the judge, "Where is the temple of the Christ whom you adore, where you sacrifice?" replied, "I, by cultivating chastity, am the temple of Christ, and to Him I offer myself a sacrifice." The judge retorted, "If your chastity, then, were taken from you, you would, I suppose, cease to be a temple of Christ?" The virgin rejoined: "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy." The judge then sent two young men to violate her, but at her prayer an earthquake took place, and the young men fell down dead: they were, however, at her prayers restored to life. This is to be found in her life by Surius, under the 3rd of September. Ver. 20.—For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. Value highly your bodies, though the devil bids for them with a shameful and brief bodily delight. Do not despise your bodies, do not sell them for nothing— rather think them of the highest possible worth; for it is to the glory of God if these bodies, which God bought at a great price, even with His own blood, become of great importance in our eyes. Hence the well-known proud name of a Christian is, "Bought and Redeemed," viz., from sin and heathenism, by the precious blood of Christ. So in olden times the children of Christians were bought by the Turks, and became, instead of Christians, Mahometans, and were called Mamelukes, or "the bought;" for when the Tartars had subdued Armenia they sold the children of the Christians. Melech-Sala, Sultan of Egypt, bought them in great numbers, and had them trained as soldiers, and called Mamelukes. After the death of Melech-Sala the Mamelukes began to appoint a king for themselves, A.D. 1252, out of their own society of apostate Christians. As they took their rise under the Emperor Frederick II., so under Solyman, who filled the Egyptian throne, they were exterminated, A.D. 1516. Then their reign and existence ceased together. Glorify God in your body, by keeping it pure in obedience to the Spirit and to God. The Latin has, "Glorify and carry God," but the carry is not in the Greek. "As a horse," says S. Thomas, "carries its lord and rider, and moves as he wills, so does the body serve the will of God." The Greek also adds, and in your spirit, which are God's. Observe that the Corinthians were greatly given to impurity, and consequently to gluttony. This is evident from Suidas, who, under the word "Cothys," says: "Cothys is a devil worshipped by the Corinthians as the ruler of effeminate and unclean persons." Herodotus says the same thing (Clio), and Strabo (lib.viii.). The latter says: "The temple of Venus at Corinth was so wealthy that it had mire than a thousand harlots as priestesses, whom men and women dedicated to the goddess." Thus κορινθιάξεθν became a common word for lasciviousness, self-indulgence, and impurity generally. Hence it is that the Apostle takes such pains to warn the Corinthians against their common sin of fornication; and he does this by various reasons drawn from different sources: (1.) from creation, (2.) from the resurrection of the body, (3.) from the shamefulness of impurity, and the injury it does to the body, (4.) from the dignity of the body. From these we may collect six arguments by which he seeks to save them from fornication: (1.) Because our body is not our own but the Lord's (ver.13); (2.) Because, if it is pure, it shall rise again with glory (ver. 14); (3.) Because our body is a member of Christ. (ver. 15); (4.) Because the body is a pure temple of the Holy Spirit, in order that by clinging to God in chastity it may become one spirit with Him (ver. 17); (5.) Because our body has been bought with the blood of Christ, and therefore it is an unworthy thing, and an injury to God, to Christ, and the Holy Spirit, to give it to a harlot (ver. 20). See Chrysostom (in Morali.). S. Bernard (Serm. 7 in Ps.xci.) moralises thus: "Glorify, dearly beloved, and bear meanwhile Christ in your body, as a delightful burden, a pleasant weight, a wholesome load, even though He seem sometimes to weigh heavily, even though sometimes He use the spur and whip on the laggard, even though sometimes He hold in the jaws with bit and bridle, and curb us wholly for our good. Be as a beast of burden in the patience with which you bear the load, and yet not as a beast, heedless of the honour that its rider gives. Think wisely and sweetly both of the nature of the load you bear, as well as of your own future benefit." So S. Ignatius, the martyr, was called "God-bearer" and "Christ-bearer," and he salutes the Blessed Virgin by the same name, "Christ-bearer," in his letters to her, as S. Bernard says. CHAPTER 7 OF THE CHAPTER In this chapter he answers five questions of the Corinthians about the laws of matrimony, and about the counsel of virginity and celibacy— i. The first question is whether matrimony and its use are lawful for a Christian, as being born again and sanctified. The answer is that they are lawful, and that, moreover, when either party demands his due, it ought to be given, and that therefore it is better to marry than to burn. ii. The second is (ver. 10) concerning divorce, whether it is lawful, and S. Paul answers that it is not. iii. The third is (ver. 12), If a believer have an unbelieving partner, can they continue to live together? He answers that they both can and ought, if the unbeliever consents to live in peace with the believer. iv. The fourth is (ver.17) whether a man's state is to be changed because of his faith; whether, e.g., a married person who was a slave when a heathen becomes free when a Christian, whether a Gentile becomes a Jew. He answers in the negative, and says that each should remain in his station. v. The fifth is (ver. 25) whether at all events those who are converted to Christ as virgins ought to remain so. He replies that virginity is not enjoined on any as a precept, but that it is on all as a counsel, as being better than matrimony for six reasons:— (a) Because of the present necessity, inasmuch as only a short time is given us for obtaining, not temporal but eternal gain: she that is a virgin is wholly intent in these things (ver. 26). (b) Because he that is married is, as it were, bound to his wife with the wedding-bond, but the unmarried is free and unconstrained (ver.27). (c) Because the unmarried is free from the tribulation of the flesh which attacks the married (ver. 28). (d) Because a virgin thinks only of what is pleasing to God, but one that is married has a heart divided between God and his wife (ver.32). (e) Because a virgin is holy in body and in soul, but the married not in body, and often not in soul (ver.34). (f) Because he that is unmarried gives his virgin an opportunity to serve God without interruption, whereas the married have a thousand hindrances to piety and devotion (ver.35). Ver. 1.—Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me. In answer to the questions you have put to me about the rights, use, and end of matrimony and the single life, I answer that it is good for a man not to touch a woman. Notice here from S. Anselm and Ambrose that certain false Apostles, in order to seem more holy, taught that marriage was to be despised, because of the words of Christ , "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake," which they interpreted as applying to all Christians, especially since the act of fornication, which had been so severely condemned by the Apostle in the preceding chapter, is physically the same as conjugal copulation. The Corinthians, therefore, asked S. Paul by letter whether Christians ought to be so chaste, and ought to be so much free for prayer, godliness, and purity as to be bound, even though married, to abstain altogether from intercourse with their wives. It is good for a man not to touch a woman. It is beautiful, exemplary, and excellent. The Greek here is καλὸν. So Theophylact. Good is not here the same as useful or expedient, as Erasmus turns it, but denotes that moral and spiritual good which of itself conduces to victory over passion, to piety, and salvation (cf. vers. 32, 34, 35). To touch a woman or to know is with the Hebrews a modest form of speech, denoting the act of conjugal copulation. S. Jerome (lib.i. contra Jovin.) adds that the Apostle says touch, "because the very touching of a woman is dangerous, and to be avoided by every man." These are his words: "The Apostle does not say it is good not to have a wife, but 'it is good not to touch a woman,' as though there were danger in the touch, not to be escaped from by any one who should so touch her: being one who steals away the precious souls of men, and makes the hearts of youths to fly out of their control. Shall any one nurse a fire in his bosom and not be burnt? or walk upon hot coals and not suffer harm? In the same way, therefore, that he who touches fire is burnt, so when man and woman touch they feel its effect and perceive the difference between the sexes. The fables of the heathen relate that Mithras and Ericthonius, either on stone or in the earth, were generated by the mere heat of lust. Hence too Joseph fled from the Egyptian woman, because she wished to touch him; and as though he and been bitten by a mad dog and feared lest the poison should eat its way, he cast off the cloak that she had touched," Let men and youths take note of these words. Cardinal Vitriaco, a wise and learned man, relates of S. Mary d'Oignies that she had so weakened and dried up her body by fastings that for several years she felt not even the first motions of lust, and that when a certain holy man clasped her hand in pure spiritual affection, and thus caused the motions of the flesh to arise, she, being ignorant of this, heard a voice from heaven which said, "Do not touch me," She did not understand it, but told it to another who did, and thenceforward she abstained from all such contact. S. Gregory (Dial. lib. iv. c. 11) relates how S. Ursinus, a presbyter, had lived in chastity separated from his wife, and when he was on his death-bed, drawing has last breath, his wife came near and put her ear to his mouth, to hear if he still breathed. He, still having a few minutes to live, on perceiving this, said with as much strength as he could summon, "Depart from me, woman— a spark still lingers in the embers; do not fan it into a flame." Well sung the poet:— "Regulus by a glance, the Siren of Achelous with a song, The Thessalian sage with gentle rubbing slays: So with eyes, with hands, with song does woman burn, And wield the three-forked light of angry Jove," S. Jerome rightly infers from this (lib. i. contra Jovin.) that it is an evil for a man to touch a woman. He does not say it is sinful, as Jovinian and others falsely alleged against him, but evil. For this touching is an act of concupiscence, and of the depraved pleasure of the flesh; but it is nevertheless excused by the good of wedlock, but is wholly removed by the good of the single life. It may be urged from Gen, ii. 18, where it is said that it is not good for a man to be alone, that it is therefore good to touch a woman. I answer that in Genesis, God is speaking of the good of the species, Paul of the individual; God in the time when the world was uninhabited, Paul when it is full; God of temporal good, Paul of the good of the eternal life of the Spirit. In this it is good for a man not to touch a woman. Ver. 2.—Nevertheless to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife. Lest being unmarried, and unwilling to live a chaste life, he fall into fornication. Every man, say Melancthon and Bucer, must include the priest and the monk. I reply that every man means every man that is free, not bound by vow, disease, or old age: for such are incapable if matrimony. Laws and documents must be interpreted according to their subject-matter: they only apply to those capable of receiving them, not to those who are not. To him then who is free, and unbound, and can fulfil the requirements of matrimony, the apostle gives to precept, but advice and permission, that if he fears to fall into fornication he should marry a wife, or keep to her that he has already married, rather than fall into any danger of committing such a sin. So the Fathers whom I will quote at ver. 9 all agree in saying. This must be the Apostle's meaning, for otherwise he would contradict himself, for throughout the whole chapter he urges the life of chastity. Moreover, the apostle is speaking primarily to the married alone, and not to the unmarried. To these latter he begins to speak in ver. 8, Now I say to the unmarried and widows, where the adversative now marks the change. He says too here let every man have, not let every man marry, because he is speaking to those who already had wives. So S. Jerome (lib. i. contra Jovin.) says, "Let every man that is married have his own wife," i.e., continue to have her, not dismiss or repudiate her, but rather use her lawfully and chastely. The word have signifies not an inchoate but a continuous action. So : "Hold fast the form of sound words," where the same word is used. So in S. : Unto every one that hath (that uses his talent) shall be given; and from him that hath not (does not use), even that he hath shall be taken away from him; otherwise there cannot well be taken from a man what he has not. That this is the true meaning is evident from that follows in ver. 3. Ver. 3.—Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence. A modest paraphrase for the conjugal debt. Ver. 4.—The wife hath not power of her own body but the husband, She has not power, that is, over those members which distinguish woman from man, in so far as they serve for the conjugal act. Power she has not over them so as to contain at her own will or to have intercourse with another. That power belongs to the husband alone, and that for himself only, not for another. Cf. S. Augustine (contra Julian, lib. v.). The Greek is literally, has no right over her body, whether to contain or to hand it over to another. Likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Hence it is clear that, though in the government of the family the wife should be subject and obedient to her husband, yet in the right of exacting and returning the marriage debt she is equal with her husband, has the same right over his body that he has over hers, and this from the marriage contract, in which each has given to the other the same power over the body, and received the same power over the other's body. The husband, therefore, is as much bound to render his wife, as the wife her husband, faithfulness and the marriage debt. This is taught at length in their expositions of this passage by Chrysostom. Theophylact, Oecumenius, Primasius, Anselm, and by S. Jerome (Cit. 32, qu. 2, cap. Apostolus), who says that husband and wife are declared to be equal in rights and duties. "When, therefore," says S. Chrysostom (Hom. 19), "a harlot comes and tempts you, say that your body is not your own but your wife's. Similarly, let the wife say to any one who proposes to rob her of her chastity, 'My body is not mine but my husband's.'" Ver. 5.—Defraud ye not one the other. By denying the marriage debt. The words and to fasting, though in the Greek, are wanting in the Latin. Hence Nicholas I., in his answers to the questions if the Bulgarians (c. 50), writes to them that, throughout the forty days of Lent, they should not come at their wives. But this is a matter of counsel. And come together again. From this Peter Martyr and the Magdeburgians conclude that it is not lawful for married persons to vow perpetual continence by mutual consent. But the answer to this is that the Apostle is not prescribing but permitting the marriage act. Ver. 6.—But I speak this by permission and not of commandment. 1. I permit the act of copulation by way of indulgence: I do not prescribe it. Nay, S. Augustine (Enchirid. c. 78) takes it: "I say this by way of pardon." The Greek word denotes forgiveness, and hence S. Augustine gathers that it is a venial sin to have sexual connection, not for the sake of children but for carnal pleasure, and to avoid the temptations of Satan; for pardon is given to what is sinful. So too indulgence is given in what concerns sin, or at all events a lesser good, as S. Thomas has rightly observed. 2. That there is no precept given here is also evident, because the Apostle permits married people to contain for a time, that they may give themselves to fasting and to prayer; therefore, if they agree to devote their whole life to fasting and to prayer, he permits them to contain themselves for life. 3. He says come together, and gives the reason, "that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency;" i.e., that there may be no danger of your falling into adultery, or other acts of impurity, because of your incontinency. Therefore, when the cause does not exist, viz., the danger of incontinency, as it does not exist in those who have sufficient high-mindedness to curb it and tame it, he permits them to be continent for life. 4. He says in ver. 7, "I would that all men were even as I myself," i.e., not chaste in some way or other, but altogether continent, unmarried, nay, virgin souls, even as I, who am unmarried. So Ambrose, Theodoret, Theophylact, Anselm, Chrysostom, Oecumenius and Epiphanius (Hζres.78), S. Jerome (Ep. 22 ad Eustoch.) 5. In the early days of the Church many married persons, in obedience to this admonition of S. Paul, observed by mutual consent perpetual chastity, as Tertullian tells us (ad Uxor. lib. i. c. vi., and de Resurr. Carn. c. 8, and de Orland. Virg. c. 13). The same is said by the author of commentaries de Sing. Cleric., given by S. Cyprian. Here are some examples of married persons, not merely of low estate, but people illustrious both for their birth and holiness and renown, who preserved their continency and chastity unimpaired in wedlock. (1.) There are the Blessed Virgin and Joseph, who have raised the banner of chastity not only before virgins, but also before they married. (2.) We have the illustrious martyrs Cecilia and Valerian, who were of such merit that the body of S. Cecilia has been found by Clement VIII. in this age, after the lapse of so many centuries, undecayed and uninjured. (3.) There are SS. Julian and Basilissa, whose illustrious life is narrated by Surius. (4.) S. Pulcheria Augusta, sister of the Emperor Theodosius, made a vow to God of perpetual chastity, and on the death of Theodosius, married Marcian, stipulating that she should keep her vow, and raised him to the Imperial throne; and this vow was faithfully kept unbroken by both, as Cedrenus and others testify. (5.) We have the Emperor Henry II. and Cunegund, the latter of whom walked over hot iron to prove her chastity. (6.) There is the example of Boleslaus V., King of the Poles, who was called the Maid, and Cunegund, daughter of Belas, King if the Hungarians. (7.) King Conrad, son of the Emperor Henry IV., with Matilda his wife. (8.) Alphonse II. King of the Asturians, who by keeping himself from his wife gained the name of "the Chaste." (9.) Queen Richardis, who, though married to King Charles the Fat, retained her virginity. (10.) Pharaildis, niece of S. Amelberga and Pepin, was ever-virgin though married. (11.) Edward III. and Egitha were virgin spouses. (12.) Ethelreda, Queen of the East Angles, though twice married, remained a virgin. (13.) We have two married people of Arvernum, spoken of by Gregory of Tours (de Gloria Conf. c. xxxii.): "When the wife was dead, the husband raised his hands towards heaven, saying: 'I thank Thee, Maker of all things, that as Thou didst vouchsafe to intrust her to me, so I restore her to Thee undefiled by any conjugal delight.' But she smilingly said: 'Peace, peace, O man of God; it is snot necessary to publish our secret.' Shortly afterwards the husband died and was buried in another place; and, lo! in the morning the two tombs were found together, as is today: and therefore natives there are wont to speak of them as the Two Lovers, and to pay them the highest honour." Nowadays two examples of the same thing nay be found. Ver. 7.—For I would that all men were even as I myself. That is so far as the single life and continency is concerned. The Apostle means that he wishes it if it could well be. I would, therefore, denotes as inchoate and imperfect act of the will. This is evident too from his subjoining, But every man hath his proper gift of God. The word all again means each one, or all taken one by one, not collectively. For if all men in a body were to abstain, there would be no matrimony, and the human race and the world would come to an end together. In the same way we are said to be able to avoid all venial sins: that is, all taken singly, not collectively, or in other words, each one. Others take all collectively, inasmuch as if God were to inspire all men with this resolution of continency, it would be a sign that the number of the elect was completed, and that God wished to put an end to the world. But Paul was well aware that God at that time was willing the contrary, in order that the Church might increase and be multiplied through matrimony. The first explanation therefore is the sounder. But everyman hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner and another after that, That is, he has his own gift of his own will, says the treatise de Castitate, falsely assigned to Pope Sixtus III., which is preserved in the Biblioth. SS. Patrum, vol. v. It is, however, the work of some Pelagian; for the tenor of the whole treatise is to show that chastity is the work of free-will, and of a man's own volition, and not of the grace of God. (Cf. Bellarmine, de Monach. lib. ii. c. 31, and de Clericis, lib.i. c. 21, ad. 4.) But this is the error of Pelagius; for if you take away the grace of God from a man's will it can no longer be called "his proper gift of God." For the will if a man is nothing else but the free choice of his own will. For God has given to all an equal and similar gift of free-will; wherefore that one chooses chastity, another matrimony, cannot be said to e the gift of God if you take away His grace; but it would have to be attributed to the free choice of each man, and that choice therefore in diverse things is unlike and unequal. Proper gift then denotes the gift of conjugal, virginal, or widowed chastity. But heretics say that priests therefore, and monks, if they have not the gift of chastity, may lawfully enter on matrimony. But by parity of reason, it might be said ghat therefore married people, if they have not the gift of conjugal chastity, as many adulterers have not, may lawfully commit adultery, or enter upon a second marriage with one that is an adulterer. Or again that if a wife is absent, is unwilling, or is ill, the husband may go to another woman, if he alleges that he has not the gift of widowed chastity. And although the passion of Luther may admit this excuse as valid, yet all shrink from it; and the Romans and other heathen, by the instinct of nature, regarded all such tenets as monstrous. I reply, then, with Chrysostom and the Fathers cited, that the Apostle is here giving consolation and indulgence to the weak, and to those that are married, for having embraced the gift and state of conjugal chastity, then before they might have remained virgins. For of others that are not married he adds, It is good for them if they abide even as I; that is, it is good for them, if they will, to remain virgins; but this I do not command, nay, I am consoling the married, and I permit them the due use of wedlock, in order that they may avoid all scruple, by the reflection that each one has his own gift from God, and that they have the gift of wedlock, i.e., conjugal chastity; for matrimony itself is a gift of God, and was instituted by Him. God wills, in order to replenish the earth, in a general and indeterminate way, that some should be married; and yet this gift of wedlock is less than the gift of virginity. It may be said that not only is matrimony a gift from God, but that one is a virgin and another married is also a gift from God. I answer that this is true enough, as when God inspires one with a purpose to lead a single life, and another a married life; as, e.g., in the case of a queen who may bear an honest offspring to the good of the realm and the Church; but still God does not always do this, but leaves it wholly to the decision of many whether they will choose the married or unmarried life. It will be retorted, "How, then, is it that the Apostle says that each one has his proper gift of God?" I answer that this word gift is of two-fold meaning: (1.) It denotes the state itself of matrimony, or celibacy, or religion; (2.) The grace that is necessary and peculiar to this or that state. If you take the first, then each man's own gift is from God, but only materially, inasmuch as that gift which each one has chosen for himself and made his own is also from God. For God instituted, either directly or by His Church, matrimony and celibacy and other states, and gave this or that state to each one according as he wished for it; and in this sense each one has his own gift, partly from God and partly from himself and his own will. But properly and formally, that this gift or that is proper to this or that man, is often a matter of free-will. Yet it may be said to be so far from God as the whole direction of secondary causes, and all good providence generally is from God. For God in His providence directs each one through his parents, companions, confessors, teachers, and through other secondary causes, by which it comes to pass that one devoted himself, though freely, to matrimony, another to the priesthood. For all this direction does not place him under compulsion, but leaves him free. Here notice 1. that the Apostle might have said, "Every man hath his proper state of himself, having chosen it by an exercise of his free-will;" but he chose rather to say that "every man hath his proper gift of God," because he wished to console the married. Lest any one, therefore, who was of scrupulous conscience and penitent should torture himself and say, "Paul wishes us to be like him, single and virgins; why ever did I then, miserable man that I am, enter into matrimony? It is my own fault that I did not embrace the better state of virginity, that I have deprived myself of so great a good, that I have plunged myself into the cares and distractions of marriage"— for this is how weak-minded, troubled, and melancholy people often look at things, and especially when they find difficulties in their state; and therefore they seek after higher and more perfect things, and torture themselves by attributing to their own imprudence the loss of some good, and the miseries that they have incurred— Paul, then, to obviate this, says that the gift, in the sense explained above, is not of man but of God. And therefore each one ought to be content with his state and calling, as being the gift of God— ought to be happy, perfect himself, and give thanks to God. 2. Gift may be the grace befitting each state. The married require one kind of grace to maintain conjugal fidelity, virgins another to live in virginity; and this grace peculiar to each is formally from God, because, it being given that you have chosen a certain state, whether of matrimony, or celibacy, or any other, God will give you the grace that is proper to that state to enable you, if you will, to live rightly in it. For this belongs to the rightly ordered providence of God, that since He has not seen fit to prescribe to each of us his state, but has left the choice of it, as well as mist other things, to our own free-will, He will not forsake a man when he has made his choice, but will give him the grace necessary for living honestly in that state. Consequently He will supply to all the means necessary to salvation, by which, if thy are willing, they will be enabled to live holily and be saved. For else it would be impossible for many to be saved, as, e.g., for religious and others who have taken a vow of chastity, for one married who has bound himself to a person that is hard to please, infirm, or detestable. To meet and overcome such difficulties they need to receive from God proper and sufficient grace. For neither the married can be loosed from matrimony, nor the religious from their vow, to adopt some other state more fitting for them. In this the sense of this passage is: Choose whatever state you like, and God will give you grace to live in it holily. So Ambrose. And that this is the strict meaning if the Apostle is evident from the words, "For I would," which import: I have said that I allow, but do not command, the state of wedlock; for I would that all would abstain from it, and cultivate chastity, and live a single life; but still each one has his own gift— let him be content with that, kat him exercise that. Let the single man who has received virginal or widowed chastity, i.e., the grace by which he can contain himself, look upon it as the gift of God; let the married, who has received conjugal chastity, i.e., the grace of using wedlock chastely, look upon it as the gift of God, be content with it, and use it as such. Hence it follows (1.) that God gives to minks, even though they be apostates, the gift of sufficient grace to enable them, if they will, to live chastely; that is to say, if they pray to God, give themselves to fasting, to holy reading, to manual labour, to constant occupation. Otherwise they would be bound to an impossibility, and God would be wanting to them in things necessary, and they would not have the gift proper to their state, although the Apostle here asserts that each one, whether unmarried, or virgin, or married, has the gift of chastity proper to his state. It follows (2.) that if any one changed his state for the better, God also changes and gives him a greater gift, and a greater measure of grace befitting that state, for this is necessary to a more perfect state. So the Council of Trent (Sess. xxiv. can. 9) lays down: "If any one says that clerks who have been placed in Holy Orders, or regulars who have solemnly professed chastity, and who do not think that they have the gift of chastity, can lawfully enter into matrimony, let him be anathema, since God does not deny it to them that seek for it, nor suffer us to be tempted above that we are able." Hath his gift of God. The gifts of God are twofold. 1. Some are wholly from God. So the gifts of Nature, which is but another name for god, inasmuch as He is the Author and Maker of Nature, are talent, judgment, memory, and a good disposition. The gifts of grace again are faith, hope, charity, and all the virtues infused by God, as the Author of grace. 2. Other gifts are from God indeed, but require for their due effect out co-operation. For example, all prevenient grace and good inspirations are gifts of God; so all good works, and the acts of all virtues, are gifts of God, says S. Augustine, because he gives (a) prevenient grace to excite us to these works and these actions, and (b) co-operating grace, by which He works with men to produce such things. Yet this grace so acts that man is left free, and has it in his power to act or not, to use this grace or not. In this sense all good works are gifts of God: yet they are free to man, and subject to his will and power. Of this second class the Apostle is here speaking in connection with the gift of chastity. The gift of chastity is, strictly speaking, an infused habit, or an acquired habit in those who already have it infused. But for those who have not yet the habit, there is sufficient help of grace, both internal and external, prepared for each one by God, so that by freely co-operating with it, each one may live in chastity, if he is willing to use that help. And this is evident from what is said in vers. 25, 35, 38, about the single life being counselled by God and Christ, who puts it before all men, and advises them to adopt it. But God does not advise a man to anything which is not in his power; but the single life is not in the power of each man, unless his will is helped by the grace of God. Therefore Christ has prepared, and is prepared to give to each one, this grace that is necessary to a single life and to virginity. If he is ready to give to each one virginal chastity, much more conjugal. Whoever, therefore, has his proper gift, that if his proper grace, in its beginning, will have it also in its perfect ending, if he will only pray to God earnestly and constantly to give him the grace prepared for him, and then co-operate vigorously with the grace that he has received. Ver. 8.—I say, therefore, to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. I am unmarried: let them remain the same. Hence it is most evident that S. Paul has no wife, but was single. Ver. 9.—But if they cannot contain, let then marry, for it is better to marry than to burn. This may be a reference to . It is better to marry than to burn, unless, that is, you are already wedded to Christ by a vow. Cf. S. Ambrose (ad Virg. Laps.c. v.). for to those who are bound by a vow of chastity, and are professed, as well as for husbands, it is better to burn and commit fornication than to marry a second time. For such marriage would be a permanent sacrilege or adultery, which is worse than fornication, or some momentary sacrilege; just as it is better to sin than to be in a constant state of sin, and to sin from obstinacy and contempt. But it is best of all neither to marry, nor to burn, but to contain, as Ambrose says; and this can be done by all tho have professed chastity, as was said in the last note, no matter how grievously they may be tempted. The Apostle going it so in his sore temptation, as many other saints have done, and especially he to whom the devils exclaimed, when they were overcome by him and put to confusion through the resistance he made to their temptation: "Thou hast conquered, hast conquered, for thou hast been in the fire and not been burnt." Burn here does not denote to be on fire, or to be tempted by the heat of lust, but to be injured and overcome by it, to yield and consent to it. For it is not he that feels the heat of the fire that is sain to be burnt by it, but he that is injured and scorched by it. So Virgil sings of Dido, who had been overcome by love for Ζneas (Ζn. 4. 68): "The ill-starred Dido burns and wanders frantically about the city." Cf. also Ecclus. 23:22. The Apostle is giving the reason why he wishes the incontinent and weak to marry, viz., lest they should burn, i.e., commit fornication; others, who are combatants of great soul, he wishes to contain. In other words, let those who do not contain marry, for it is better to marry than to burn. So Theodoret, Ambrose, Anselm, S. Thomas, Augustine (de Sancta Virgen, c. 74), Jerome (Apolog. pro Lib. contra Jovin.). "It is better," says S. Jerome, "to marry a husband than to commit fornication." And S. Ambrose says: "To burn is to be at the mercy of the desires; for when the will consents to the heat of the flesh it burns. To suffer the desires and not be overcome by them is the part of an illustrious and perfect man." It may be objected that S. Cyprian (Ep. 11 ad. Pompon. lib. i.) says of virgins who have consecrated themselves to Christ, that "if they cannot or will not persevere, it is better for them to marry than to burn." But Pamelius, following Turrianus and Hosius, well replies that S. Cyprian is not speaking of virgins already consecrated but of those about to be. These he advises not to dedicate and vow themselves to Christ if they do not intend to persevere; and in the same epistle he points out that that would be adulterous towards Christ if, after a vow of chastity, they should be wedded to men. Like the apostle here, he is speaking, therefore, not of those who are already bound, but of those who are free. Erasmus therefore is wrong and impudent, as usual, in making a note in the margin of this passage of S. Cyprian's, "Cyprian allows sacred virgins to marry." It may be objected secondly that S. Augustine says (de Sancta Virgin. c. 34) that those vowed virgins who commit fornication would do better to marry than to burn, i.e., than to be consumed by the flame of lust. I answer (1.) that this is a mere passing remark of S. Augustine's, meaning that for such it would be better, i.e., a less evil to marry than to commit fornication. He does not deny that they sin by marrying, but he only asserts that they sin less by marrying than by committing fornication. In the same way we might say to a robber, "It is better to rob a man than to kill him," i.e., it is a less evil. (2.) For such it is even absolutely better to marry than to burn, if only they enter into wedlock lawfully, that is to say, with the consent of the Church and a dispensation of their vow of continency from the Pope. (3.) Possibly, and not improbably. S. Augustine's meaning was that even for those who have no such dispensation it is better to marry than to commit fornication persistently, i.e., to live in a state of fornication and concubinage. And the reason is that such a one, if she marries, sins indeed grievously against her vow by marrying; yet still, after her marriage she may keep her vow of chastity and be free from sin, viz., by not exacting, but only paying the marriage debt, as the women commonly do of whom S. Augustine is here speaking. If, however, such a one is constantly breaking her vow, and she consequently sins more grievously than she would by marrying. For those acts of fornication constantly repeated seem to be a far worse evil and more grievously sinful than the single act of entering into a contract of marriage against a vow of continency. For though this one act virtually includes many, viz., the seeing and paying of the marriage debt as oft as it shall please either, yet this is only remotely and implicitly. But one who commits fornication constantly sins directly and explicitly, and daily repeats such actions; therefore he sins more grievously. For it is worse to sin explicitly and in many acts than by one tacit and implicit action. Observe also that at the time of S. Augustine these maidens who had vowed and professes chastity, though they might sin by marrying, yet might contract a lawful marriage. For the Church, as S. Augustine gives us plainly enough to understand, had not at that rime made the solemn vow an absolute barrier to matrimony. Moreover, it is evident from his next words that S. Augustine is of opinion that such ought simply and absolutely to keep their vow of chastity; for he adds: "Those virgins who repent them of their profession and are wearied of confession, unless they direct their heart aright, and again overcome their lust by the fear of God, must be reckoned among the dead." Lastly, that the Apostle is here speaking to those who are free, and not to those who are bound by a vow, is proved at length by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, by Epiphanius (Hζres.61), Ambrose (ad Virgin. Lapsam c. 5), Augustine (de adulter. Conjug. lib. i. c. 15), Jerome (contra Jovin, lib. i.).  S. Ephrem, 1300 years ago, being asked to whom this verse applies, wrote a most exhaustive treatise about it, in which he abundantly proves that it has to do, not with religious or the clergy, and those who have taken a vow of chastity, but with seculars who are free. Vers. 10, 11.—And unto the married I command, &c. The Apostle now passes from the question of marriage to that of divorce; for, as this verse indicated, the Corinthians had put to Paul a second question, one relating to divorce. Granted that in matrimony its use was lawful, nay obligatory, as S. Paul has said, at all events may not one that is faithful to his marriage vow dissolve it and have a divorce? And again, when a divorce has taken place, may not the wife or the husband marry again? This verse and ver. 11 give the answer to the question. He says let her remain unmarried. Hence it follows that divorce, even supposing it to be just and lawful, does not loose the marriage knot, but only dispenses with the marriage debt; so that if the wife os an adulteress it is not lawful for the innocent husband to enter into another marriage. And the same holds good for the wife if the husband is an adulterer. We should take notice of this against the heretics Erasmus, Cajetan, and Catherinus, who say that this cannot be proved from Scripture, but only from the Canons. But they mistake, as is evident from this passage of S. Paul's. For the Apostle is here speaking evidently of a just separation made by the wife when she is innocent, and injured by her husband committing adultery, for he permits her to remain separated, or to be reconciled to her husband. For if he were speaking if an unjust separation, such as when a wife flies from her husband without any fault on his side, he would have had not to permit of separation but altogether to order a reconciliation. It may be said that the word reconciled points to some offence and injury done by the wife who caused the separation, and that therefore S. Paul is speaking if an unjust separation. I reply by denying the premiss. For reconcile merely signifies a return to mutual good-will; and the offending party in spoken of as being reconciled to the offended just as much as the offended to the offending. For instance, in 2 Macc. i. 5, it is said "that God may hear your prayers and be reconciled to you." The Councils and Fathers explain this passage in this way, and lay down from it that fornication dissolves the marriage bond so far as bed and board are concerned, but not so that it is lawful to marry another. Cf. Concil. Milevit. c. 17;  Concil. Elibert. c. 9; Concil. Florent. (Instruct. Armen. de Matrim.);  Concil. Trident Sess. xx. can. 7);  Pope Evaristus (Ep. 2);  S. Augustine de Adulter. Conjug. (lib. ii. c. 4); S. Jerome (Ep. ad Amand.); Theodoret, Oecumenius, Haymo, Anselm and others. It may be said that Ambrose, commenting on this verse, says that the Apostle speaks of the wife only, because it is never lawful for her to marry another after she is divorced; but that it is lawful for the husband, after putting away an adulterous wife, to marry another, because he is the head of the woman. I answer that from this and similar passages it is evident that this commentary on S. Paul's Epistles is not the work of S. Ambrose, or at all events that these passages are interpolations. For in matrimony and divorce the same law governs the wife which governs the husband, as the true Ambrose lays down (in Lucam viii. and de Abraham, lib. i. c. 4). What then the Apostle says of the wife applies equally to the husband; for he is speaking to all that are married, as he says himself; and moreover, in ver. 5, he declared that the marriage rights of husband and wife are equal, and that each has equal power over the other's body. Let not the husband put away his wife. I.e., without grave and just cause; for it is allowed to put her away because of fornication and other just causes. Ver. 12.—But to the rest speak I . . . let him not put her away. The rest are those that are married and belong to different religions; and to them I say, that if a brother, i.e., one of the faithful, have a wife that is an unbeliever, &c. In other words, I have thus far spoken to married people when both are of the number of the faithful, as I implied in ver. 5, when I said "that ye may give yourselves to prayer." Now, however, I am addressing those of whim one is a believer, the other an unbeliever. This is the explanation given by many together with S. Augustine, who will be quoted directly. But if this is so it is certainly strange that the Apostle did not express himself more clearly, for by the addition of a single word he might have said more simply: "To the faithful who are married it is not I that speak but the Lord; but to the rest, viz., to those married couples of whom one is an unbeliever, I speak, not the Lord." But by saying not to the faithful, but unto the married, he seems to speak in general terms of all that are married, whether believers or unbelievers. Nor is it to be objected to this that in ver.5 he speaks casually to the faithful, for there he is excepting from the general law which governs the marriage debt those of the faithful who are married, when by mutual consent they give themselves to prayer. But this exception is not to be made to cover all the marriage laws, which the Apostle in this chapter us laying down for all who are married. Moreover, the Apostle so far has not said a single word about the unbeliever, or about a difference of religion. Hence we may say secondly and better, that the rest are those who are not joined in matrimony. For by the words but and the rest this verse is opposed to ver. 10, as will appear more clearly directly. Speak I, not the Lord. "I command," says Theodoret. But S. Augustine (de Adulter. Conjug. lib. i. c. 13 et seq.), Anselm, and S. Thomas interpret it: I give the following advice, viz., that the believing husband is not to put away an unbelieving wife who lives at peace with him, and vice versβ. There is a third interpretation, and the best of all, given us from the Roman, Plantinian, and other Bibles, which put a full stop after the words, But to the rest speak I, not the Lord, this separating them from what follows and joining them to what precedes. We have then the meaning as follows: To the rest, viz., the unmarried, the Lord gives no command (supply command from ver, 10), but I say, and I advise what I said and advised before in ver. 8, viz., that it is good for them to remain as they are, unmarried. This interpretation too is supported by the antithesis between the rest and the married, by which it is clear that the rest must be the unmarried, not married people of different faiths. Moreover, he explains himself in this way in ver. 25, where he says, "Now, concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord, yet I give my judgment," which is identical with what he says here, "To the rest speak I, not the Lord." If any brother hath a wife that believeth not. This is the third question put to Paul by the Corinthians: Can one of the faithful that is married live with an unbelieving partner? S. Augustine and others, as I have said, connect these words with the preceding, which then give as the meaning: Although Christ permitted a believer to put away his wife that believeth not, yet I give as my advice that he do not put her away; for to put her away is neither expedient for her salvation nor for that of the children, if she is willing to live with a believer without casting reproach on her Creator and on the faith. Hence many doctors, cited by Henriquez (de Matrim. lib. xi. c. 8), gather indirectly by analogy that, since Paul forbids what Christ permits, one of the faithful that is married may, by Christ's permission, put away an unbelieving partner that refuses to be converted, and contract another marriage. On the contrary, when both are believers, neither is allowed this, as has been said. But if we separate these words, as the Roman Bible does, from the preceding, by a full stop, nothing if the kind can be proved. Nay, Thomas Sanchez (de Matrim. vol. ii. disp. 73, no. 7), who does not read any full stop, as S. Augustine does not, and so refers these words to what follows, thinks that all that is exactly to be gathered from this is that Christ permits to a married believer separation a toro, but not dissolution of a marriage entered into with one that believes not. In the third place, this passage might be explained to mean that Christ laid down no law on this matter, but left it to be settled by His Apostles and His Church, according to needs of different ages, as, e.g., the Church afterwards declared the marriage of a believer with as unbeliever null and void, if one was a believer at the time of the marriage. According to S. Augustine's reading, this rendering is obtained with difficulty; according to the Roman, not at all. For all that the Apostle means is that the believer is not to put away an unbeliever, if the latter is willing to live with the former. Cf. note to ver. 15. Infidelity in S. Paul's time was no impediment that destroyed a marriage contracted with a believer, nor did it prevent it from being contracted, if the believer ran no risk of apostatising, and if the unbeliever would consent to live in peace with the believer, retaining his faith, as S. Paul here lays down. But now by long custom it has become the law of the Church that not heresy but infidelity not only impedes, but also destroys a marriage which any one who was a believer at the time might wish to contract with an unbeliever. Ver. 14.—For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife. Such union by marriage is holy. The believer, therefore, is not, as you so scrupulously fear, defiled by contact with an unbeliever, but rather the unbeliever, as Anselm says, is sanctified by a kind of moral naming and sprinkling of holiness, both because he is the husband of a holy, that is a believing, wife, and also because by not hindering his wife in her faith, and by living happily with her, he as it were paves the way for himself to be converted by the prayers, merits, words, and example of his believing wife, and so to become holy. So did S. Cecilia convert her husband Valerian; Theodora, Sisinnius; Clotilda, Clodζvus. So say Anselm, Theophylact, Chrysostom. S. Natalia, the wife of S. Adrian, is illustrious for having not only incited her husband to adopt the faith, but also most gloriously to undergo martyrdom for it. For when she had heard that women were forbidden to serve the martyrs, and that the prison-doors would not be opened to them, she shaved off her hair, and having donned man's dress, she entered the prison and strengthened the hearts of the martyrs by her good offices. Other matrons followed her example. At length the tyrant Maximianus discovered the fraud, and ordered an anvil to be brought into the prison, and the arms and legs of the martyrs to be placed on it and smashed with a crow-bar. The lictors did as they had been ordered; and when the Blessed Natalia saw it, she went to meet them and asked them to begin with Adrian. The executioners did so, and when the leg of Adrian was placed on the anvil, Natalia caught hold of his foot and held it in position. Then the executioners aimed a blow with all their might, and cut off his feet and smashed his legs. Forthwith Natalia said to Adrian, "I pray thee, my lord, servant of Christ, while your spirit remains in you, stretch forth your hand that they may also cut that off, and that you may be made like the martyrs in all things: for greater sufferings have they endured than these." Then Adrian stretched out his hand, and gave it to Natalia, who placed it on the anvil, and then the executioners cut it off. Then they took the anvil away, and soon after his spirit fled. Cf. his life, September 8th. It is worth our notice what Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople, writes, in his exposition of the Council of Florence (Sess. v.) of Theophilus, a heretic and not a heathen emperor, son of Michael the Stammerer, who was saved by the prayers of his wife Augusta. He had made an onslaught on images, and his mouth was in consequence so violently pulled open that men might see down his throat. This brought him to his senses, and he kissed the holy image. Shortly afterwards he was taken away to appear before the tribunal of God, and through the prayers offered for him by his wife and by holy men he received the pardon; for the queen in her sleep saw a vision of Theophilus bound and being dragged by a vast multitude, going before and following. Before him were borne different instruments of torture, and she saw those following who were being led to punishment until they came into the presence of the terrible Judge, and before Him Theophilus was placed. Then Augusta threw herself at the feet of the Dread Judge, and with many tears besought Him earnestly for her husband. The terrible Judge said to her: "O woman, great is thy faith; for thy sake, and because of the prayers of thy priests, I pardon thy husband." Then He said to His servants: "Loose him, and deliver him to his wife." It is also said that the Patriarch Methodius, having collected and written down the names of all kinds of heretics, including Theophilus, placed the roll under the holy table. Then in the same night on which the queen saw the vision, he too saw a holy angel entering the great temple, and saying, "O Bishop, thy prayers are heard, and Theophilus has found pardon." On awaking from sleep he went to the holy table, and lo! the unsearchable judgment of god, he found the name of Theophilus blotted out. Cf. also Baronuis (Annal. vol. ix., A.D. 842). Else were your children unclean. If you were to put away a wife that believed not, your children would be looked upon as having been born in unlawful wedlock, and as therefore illegitimate. But, as it is, they are holy, i.e., clean— conceived and born in honourable and lawful wedlock. So Ambrose, Anselm, Augustine (de Peccat. Meritis. lib.ii. c. 26). In the second place they would be strictly unclean, because they would be enticed into infidelity, and educated in it by the unbelieving parent, who had sought for the divorce through hatred of his partner; and especially if it is the father that is the unbeliever, for in such cases the children for the most part follow the father. But if the believer remain in wedlock with the unbeliever, the children are holy, because, with the tacit permission of the unbeliever, they can easily be sanctified, baptized, and Christianly educated through the faith, the diligence, and care of the believer. So S. Augustine (de Peccat. Meritis. lib. iii. c. 12), and after Tertullian, S. Jerome (ad Paulin. Ep. 153). It is from this passage that Calvin and Beza have gathered their doctrine f imputed righteousness, teaching that the children of believers are strictly holy, and can be saved without baptism. They say that by the very fact that they are children of believers they are regarded as being born in the Church, according to the Divine covenant in Gen. xvii. "I will be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee." Similarly, in the Civil Law, when one parent is free the children are born free. But these teachers err, For (1.) the Apostle says equally that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife. But it is not precisely correct to say that such a man is sanctified through his wife; neither, therefore, is it strictly true of the child. (2.) The Church is not a civil but a supernatural republic, and in it no one is born a Christian; but by baptism, which has taken the place of circumcision, every one is spiritually born again and is made holy, not civilly but really, by faith, hope, and charity infused into his soul. This is the mind of the Fathers and the whole Church. (3.) It is said absolutely in S. , that "except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." It is therefore untrue that any one not born of water, but merely of believing parents, can enter into the kingdom of God. Ver. 15.—But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. If the unbeliever seek for a dissolution of the marriage, or will not live with his partner without doing injury to God, by endeavouring to draw her way to unbelief or to some wickedness, or by uttering blasphemy against God, or Christ, or the faith, then, as Sanchez lays down from the common consent of the Doctors of the Church (vol. ii. disp. 74), he by so acting is rightly regarded to wish for a separation; then let the unbeliever depart from the unbelieving, because it is better, says S. Chrysostom, to be divorced from one's husband than from God. Observe that the Apostle in this case allows a separation, not only a toro but also a vinculo; and therefore the believer may contract another marriage, this being a concession made by Christ in favour of the faith; otherwise a Christian man or woman would be subject to slavery. For it is a grievous slavery to be bound in matrimony to an unbeliever, so as not to be able to marry another, and to be bound to live a life of celibacy, even if the unbeliever depart. So S. Augustine (de Adulter. Conjug. lib. i. c. 13), S. Thomas, and S. Ambrose, who says: "The marriage obedience is not owing to him who scoffs at the Author of marriage, but in such case remarriage is lawful." Further, many doctors, cited by Henriquez (de Matrim. lib. xi. c. 8), amongst whom is S. Augustine (de Adulter. Conjug. lib. i. c. xix.), gather from this verse and from verse12 that the believer whose unbelieving partner is not willing to be converted, even though he may be willing to live with her without injury to God, has by this very fact a right to enter upon a new marriage. But S. Paul and the Canonical decrees (cap. quanto, cap. Gaudemus, tit, de Divort, and cap. Si Infidelis 28, qu. 2) only deal with the case where the unbeliever wishes to depart, or where he is a blasphemer against the faith. And, therefore, other doctors, cited by Henriquez, think that in this case it is lawful for the believer to marry again. And this opinion is the more sound not only for the reason given above, but also because the Fathers who support the first opinion rely on glosses on the various capitula, which are merely glosses of Orleans, and if anything darken the text. Moreover, no gloss by itself can be the foundation of a right, or of a new law. Since, therefore, it is agreed that the marriage of unbelievers is true marriage, and that it is not dissolved by the conversion of either party, because there is no law of God or of the Church to dissolve it, it follows that they must hold to their contract, which by its very nature is indissoluble. This is strengthened by the consideration that each party possesses good faith; therefore it cannot set aside, unless it is agreed that either or both have no right to this marriage, or that one loses his right through the conversion of the other. This, however, is not agreed on, but is highly doubtful. In matters of doubt the position of the possessor is the stronger, and he ought not to be ousted from it because of any doubt that may arise. Nevertheless, Sanchez adds (disp. 74, num. 9) that it is lawful for the believer to marry again, because it is now forbidden by the Church to live with an unbeliever who will not be converted, because of the danger of perversion which exists nearly always. The unbeliever is then looked upon as having departed, because he refuses to live with the believer in a lawful and proper manner. But Sanchez means that the Church now forbids in general a believer to continue to live with an unbeliever. But this is denied by Navarrus and others; for though the Fourth Council of Toledo forbids a believer to live with an unbeliever if he is a Jew, this was done merely because of the obstinate tenacity of the Jews to their creed. Neither here nor elsewhere is marriage with a heathen forbidden. Moreover, the Council of Toledo was merely local, and this same canon has been differently interpreted by different authors, as Sanchez says (disp. 73, num. 6). And in truth it would be hard and a just cause of offence if, in India, China, and Japan, when the faith is first preached, Christians should be compelled to put away the wives that they had married when unbelievers, or if wives should be compelled to leave their husbands who were unwilling to be converted to Christianity, especially when they were in high position; for occasion would be taken from thence to exterminate Christians and their faith. The case is different in Spain and amongst Christians, where the Church might, without causing scandal, enact this, either by a general law (which as a matter of fact does not exist, as I have said), or by use and custom, by forbidding individuals in particular to remain in marriage with one that was not a believer, because of the danger of perversion. Such a precept it would be the duty of the believer to obey, and therefore it would not be he that was in fault, but the unbeliever, who, by refusing to live in marriage, according to the law binding on the believing partner and the precept of the Church, becomes the cause of the separation. By so acting, the unbeliever will be reckoned to wish for separation, and consequently it would be lawful for the believer to contract another marriage, as Sanchez learnedly argues. For example, Queen Cζsar, wife of the King of the Persians in the time of the Emperor Mauritius, fled secretly to Constantinople, and was there converted and baptized. When her husband requested her to return, she refused to do so unless he became a Christian. He when went to Constantinople and was there baptized, and assisted out of the font by Augustus, and having received his wife again, he returned joyfully to his home. This happened about the year 593, as Baronius related on the authority of Paul the Deacon and Gregory of Tours. All that has been said must be clearly understood to refer to matrimony contracted when both partied are unbelievers, followed by the conversion of one and the refusal of the other to be converted; for matrimony contracted by an unbeliever with a believer has been declared null and void by the Church since the time of S. Paul and thence it is that difference of faith is a barrier to matrimony. This was the reason why Theresa, sister of Adelphonsus, King of Liθge, refused to marry Abdallah, King of the Arabs, unless he adopted the Christian faith. This he promised, but falsely. Therefore on the arrival of Theresa he forced her, in spite of her struggles; but being smitten by God with a sore disease, he was unable to be cured without sending back Theresa to her brother. This is told by Roderic, Vazζus, and Baronius (A. D. 983). S. Eurosia too, daughter of the King of Bohemia, having been taken prisoner by the King of the Moors, chose death rather than marriage with him; and while she was patiently awaiting the sword of the executioner, she heard an angel saying, "Come, my elect, the spouse of Christ, receive the crown which the Lord hath prepared for you, and the gift that your prayers shall be heard as often as the faithful call upon you for help against rain or any storm whatsoever." Having heard these words, her arms and legs having been lopped off, she gave up the ghost, being renowned for her miracles, as Lucius Marinζus Siculus related (de Rebus Hispan, lib. v.). But God hath called us unto peace. Peace of conscience with God, and of agreement with men. Therefore, on our part, let us not depart from unbelieving husbands, but live with them as peacefully as we can. Secondly, and more fitly, peace here stands for that rest and tranquil life to which the Apostle is urging the married believer. Such a life in separation and solitude is to be preferred to marriage with an unbeliever who wishes to depart, and who is perpetually provoking the believer to quarrel, and disturbing his peace. This better agrees with the mention of departure which has gone just before these words, and of which I shall have more to say. Ver. 16.—For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? If we take the first meaning of "peace" given above, the sense will be: Live in peace as far as you can, O believer, with your unbelieving partner, for you know not the good that he may derive thence: perhaps by living with him you will convert him and save him. So Chrysostom, Ambrose, Anselm, Theophylact, and others, If we take the second meaning of peace, the sense will be still better. Peace is the gift of Christ; to this have we been called by Christ, not to unhappy and quarrelsome slavery. If, therefore, the unbeliever seeks by quarrels, abuse, by threats against the faith and against his faithful partner, to drive her away, let her depart and live peacefully, and give up all hope of his conversion. For what ground of hope is there of one that is a heathen, blasphemous, and quarrelsome? Therefore, what do you know, or whence do you hope to save him? Ver. 17.— But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. I have said this much about the marriage of an unbeliever with a believer, and about separation and divorce, if the unbeliever seek for it, and about living together in peace; but I do not wish to be understood to mean that a divorce is to be sought for, or that peace is to be broken, merely through lust and a desire to change one's state, as, e.g., that a believer, because he is a believer and called to Christian liberty, may desire and find an excuse for changing his servile condition into one of freedom, his position as a Gentile into that if a Jew. I ordain, therefore, that each one of the faithful, whether he be a Jew or a Gentile, bond or free, maintain the state and condition which the Lord has given him, and which he had before he became a believer. Let each one walk in his own line; let him be content with that, and live as becometh a Christian; let him not grow restless to change his state because of his Christianity, and so cause the Gentiles to stumble. This seems to be the answer to a fourth question put to Paul by the Corinthian CHAPTER 8 OF THE CHAPTER In this Chapter he treats of the second general question put before him by the Corinthians. It dealt with things offered to idols, and whether it was lawful to eat of them, i. He answers that, taken by itself, such eating was not unlawful, since an idol is nothing. ii. He next says that it is unlawful, if conscience be wounded, or if offence be caused to the weaker brethren. He impresses upon them that this last is by all means to be avoided. To understand the three following chapters, note that the things spoken of as offered to idols are flesh, bread, wine, &c. It was not sin simply to eat such things, as S. Thomas lays down (i. ii. qu. 103, art. 4, ad. 3). Still it was a sin (1.) if it was out of unbelief, as, e.g., if any idolater ate of such things in honour of the idol, or if it were done out of weakness of faith, as was frequently the case in S. Paul's time. For many had been but lately converted, and were only half-taught, and so had not wholly cast off their old ideas about idols and idol-offerings, and therefore still regarded them as having something Divine about them. They regarded the food offered to idols as holy and consecrated, although the Christian faith taught them the opposite. 2. It would be sinful if any one who thought it unlawful to eat of such things were to go against his conscience and eat of them, thinking, that is, that so doing was holding communion with the idols and professing idolatry. 3. It would be a sin if any one, knowing that an idol is nothing, should yet eat of things offered to idols in the presence of weak brethren, and to show his knowledge and liberty, and so provoke them (ver. 10) to eat of the same things against their conscience, or to think that he, by eating, was sinning against the faith, or returning to the worship of idols, and dragging others with him. 4. It would be against the Apostolic precept, given in , forbidding the eating of things offered to idols. 5. It would be a sin if eaten in such way and under such circumstances, as, e.g., in the idol-temple, when the idolatrous sacrifice is offered, as to cause others to think that it was done in honour of the idol, and in profession of idolatry, in the same way that any one who participates in a Calvinistic supper is looked upon as professing Calvinism. It is of this case that S. Augustine speaks (de Bono Conjug. xvi.) when he says, "It is better to die of hunger than to eat of things offered to idols." The Emperor Julian, in order to compel the Catholics of Constantinople to some outward compliance with idolatry, forced them all to eat of things offered to idols. The story is related by Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, in a sermon delivered by him at the beginning of Lent. He says: "He defiled all the foods that were exposed for sale in the public markets, with sacrifices offered to the gods, that so all might either be compelled to eat of these sacrificial foods or perish of hunger. The faithful inquired at the oracle of the martyr Theodore how they were to act at this crisis; and they were bidden from heaven to use, instead of bread, boiled corn for food. This the rich generously distributed to their poorer brethren for a week, when the Emperor Julian, despairing of being able to accomplish his purpose, and vanquished by the continence and constancy of the Christians, ordered pure and undefiled food to be again sold in the markets." 1. We should observe here the expression, "vanquished by the continency of the Christians." Their abstinence was constant and spontaneous. For, though they might have eaten of the foods defiled by Julian's orders, as though common foods, yet they refused out of abhorrence of Julian and his idols. That they might lawfully have eaten of them appears from the fact that Julian was unable to defile ordinary food by bringing it into contact with things offered to idols, or to make it sacred to devils, in such a way that one who ate of them should be regarded as an idol-worshipper. For though this might have been Julian's intention, yet he was nut a single individual, and unable to alter the common judgment of men, which regarded this not as idolatrous but as indifferent. Hence, too, the citizens of Antioch, when Julian had on like manner polluted their food and drink, ate and drank of them freely and without scruple, as Theodoret tells us (Hist. lib. i. c. 14). S. Augustine, too (Ep.154), says that it is lawful to9 eat of vegetables grown in an idol's garden, and to drink from a pitcher or a well in an idol-temple, or into which something offered to idols has fallen, Cf. notes to x. 21. 2. Notice, again, that there were at Corinth some who knew and felt that this was the case, viz., that idols and the things offered to them had no meaning; and so they ate of such things to the scandal of those who were not so strong and not so well informed, in order to show their knowledge and liberty. But others, less well instructed, either had not quite cast off their old feelings about idols and idol-sacrifices, and hence might easily relapse. This is why the Apostle, fearing danger for such, said, in x. 14, "Flee from idolatry." It led to the question being put to the Apostle by the Corinthians, whether it was lawful to eat of things offered to idols. 3. The Apostle here only begins his answer to the question, for he clears it up and fully replies in x. 20, 21. Not only does he not allow them, because of the scandal caused, to eat of such things; but even when there is no scandal he forbids them to eat of them is the temples, at the altars, or tables of idols, as their wont was, and in the presence of those who offered them. For this would be to profess idolatry, and to worship the idol in the feast which consummated the sacrifice offered to it; for this banquet was a part of the sacrifice and its completion. In this sense we must understand and , where the angel, i.e., the Bishop of Pergamos and Thyatira, is rebuked for allowing his flock to eat of things offered to idols, as though they were sacred and Divine, and so give honour to idols. For this was the stumbling-block that King Balak, at the instigation of Balaam, put before the children of Israel: by eating of things offered to idols they were enticed into worshipping Baal-Peor. . For the same reason it was forbidden by the Council of Gangra (cap. ii.) to eat of idol-sacrifices, and also by the Third Council of Orleans (cap. xix.). 5. The Apostle says nothing of the apostolic precept of Acts xv., which forbade absolutely the eating of things offered to idols, because that precept was directed to the men of Antioch and its neighbourhood alone (ver. 23), where were very many Jews who abhorred idols and idol-sacrifices. These had sent with the Gentiles messengers to Jerusalem to the Apostles, that they might decide the question about the observance of the Law. To them the Apostles replied that the ordinances of the Law were not binding, but that, notwithstanding, they must abstain from the eating of things offered to idols, for the sake of concord between the Jews and Gentiles. Afterwards, however, other heathen living far distant from Antioch, of their own free will obeyed the command, through the reverence they felt for the Apostles. Cf. Baronius (A.D. 51, p. 441). Ver. 1.—Now as touching things offered unto idols we know that we all have knowledge. We all know, though some of you may think differently, that things offered to idols are the same as other food, and have no greater sanctity or power. All of us who are fairly well instructed in the faith of Christ know that they belong to the class of adiaphora. Knowledge puffeth up. This knowledge of yours, that idols are nothing, and that consequently it is lawful to eat of things offered to idols, which accordingly you do to the great offence of those who know it not, makes you proud towards the ignorant, and makes you look down on them. The word for puffeth up points to a bladder distended with wind. Such, he says, is this windy knowledge.  S. Augustine (Sent. n. 241) says: "It is a virtue of the humble not to boast of their knowledge; because, as all alike share the light, so do they the truth." But charity edifieth. The weak and ignorant. It brushes aside such things as the eating of idol-sacrifices, which may be stumbling-blocks t them, so as to keep them in the faith of Christ, and help them forward in it. Windy knowledge, therefore, makes a man proud, if it be not tempered with charity, So Anselm. It plainly appears that this knowledge, which puffeth up, is contrary to charity, for it induces contempt of one's neighbours, while charity is anxious to edify them.  S. Bernard (Serm. 36 in Cantic.) says appositely: "As food, if not digested, generates unhealthy humours, and harms rather than nourished the body, so if a mass of knowledge be bolted into the mind's stomach, which is the memory, and be not assimilated by the fire of Christ, and if it be so passed along through the arteries of the soil, viz., the character and acts, will it not be regarded as sin, being food changed into evil and noxious humours?" Ver. 2.—And if any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. He who is puffed up at the thought that he knows something, knows not yet the end, use and measure of knowledge. Knowledge is given to cause humility, to enable us to benefit all that we can, to stand in the way of no one, to cause offence to no one, that so we may be known and loved by God. He is pointing at those who displayed their knowledge about the nature of idol sacrifices, by eating of them, though it were an offence to the untaught. S. Bernard, in explaining this passage (Serm. 36 in Cantic.) says beautifully: "You see that he gives no praise to him that knoweth many things, if he is ignorant of the measure of knowing. That measure is to know the order, the zeal, and the end with which we should seek knowledge. The order is to seek that first which is more conducive to salvation. The zeal we should show is in seeking that more eagerly which makes us love more vehemently. The end of knowledge is not for vain glory, curiosity, or any like thing, but only for our own edification of that of our neighbour. For there are some who wish to know only that they may know, and this is vile curiosity. There are some who wish to know that they may be known themselves, and this is contemptible vanity: such do not escape the scoff of the satirist, 'To know your own is nothing, unless another knows that you know yourself.' There are some again who wish to know, that they may see their knowledge, and this is despicable chaffering. But there are also some who wish to know that they may edify, and this is charity; and some who with to know that they may be edified, and this is prudence. Of all these the last two only are not found to abuse knowledge, for they wish to gain understanding that they may do good." Again (de Conscientia, c. ii.) he says: "Many seek for knowledge, few conscience. If as much care and zeal were devoted to conscience as is given to the pursuit of empty and worldly knowledge, it would be laid hold of more quickly and retained to greater advantage." Ver. 3.—But if any man love God, the same is known of Him, If any, for God's sake, love his neighbour, so as not to make him stumble at seeing him eat of idol sacrifices, &c., but seeks instead to edify him, then that man is approved of and beloved by God, and in His knowledge God is well pleased. Note that he that loves God loves also his neighbour; for the love of God bids us love our neighbour for God's sake; and the love of God is exhibited and seen in the love of our neighbour . Ver. 4.—We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other than God but One. An idol is not what it is commonly supposed to be, not what it stands for, is not God. It has no Divine power; materially it is of wood, formally it is nothing. It is an image of a falsehood, or of a non-existent God. Consequently that which is offered to idols is as such nothing, has no Divinity or sanctity derived from the idol to which it was offered. The word "idol" itself is derived from the Greek ειδος, which Tertullian says denotes appearance; and from it the diminutive, εί̉δωλον, was formed (de Idolol. ciii.). An "idol" among the earlier Greek writers denoted any empty and untrustworthy image, such as hollow phantasms, spectres, the shades of the dead, and the like. In the same way Holy Scripture and the Church writers have limited the term idol to an image of God which is evident from this verse. The LXX., too, throughout the Old Testament, apply the same term to the statues and gods of the heathen. Hence Henry Stephen and John Scapula are deceived and deceive, when they lay down in their lexicons that the term idol is applied by ecclesiastical writers to any image representing some deity to which honour and worship are paid. It is not every statue or image of every god that is an idol, but only the image of a false god. Cf. Cyprian (de Exhort. Mart. c. i.), Tertullian (de Idolol.), Athanasius (contra Idola). The Protestant fraud, therefore, must be guarded against which confounds idol with image, and concludes that all images are forbidden by those passages of Scripture which condemn idolatry. Cf. Ballarmine (de Imagin. lib. ii. c. 5), who shows unanswerably that an idol is the representation of what is false, an image of what is true. Ver. 5, 6.—For though there be that are called gods, . . . to us there is but one God, &c. The pagans have gods many and lords many, as the sun, moon, and stars, or terrestrial gods, as Jupiter, Apollo, Hercules; but we have only one God, for whose glory and honour we were created. Notice also against the Arians that, when S. Paul says One God, he is only excluding false gods, not the Son and the Holy Spirit. When he says One Lord Jesus Christ, he is only excluding false lords, not the Father and the Holy Spirit. Ver. 7.—Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge. I.e., that an idol and what is offered to it are nothing. For some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol. They eat what is offered to an idol with reverence, thinking that the idol has something that is Divine, and that the offering was made to the deity lurking behind the idol. So Amselm. Theophylact explains this verse differently, thus: "Some eat of what has been offered to the idol, under the false supposition that it has been changed by the idol and physically breathed upon by a devil, and so in some way affected by him, or, at all events, morally defiled by him, so as to be regarded to be now his property and food, with power to change and pollute him that eateth of it. In this way they eat of idol sacrifices under the mistaken belief that they are polluted by them." This sense also is suitable and likely; for there can be no doubt that, among the Corinthians lately converted, were some who were over-scrupulous and some over-superstitious. And their conscience being weak is defiled. Being not fully instructed in the faith about these matters, they go against their conscience in following the example of others, and eating of idol sacrifices. So Chrysostom. Libertines do but rave when they lay down from this passage that neither fornication, nor drunkenness, nor anything else is sin, if the conscience has no scruples. This is to advise men to get rid of conscience, so as to sin at pleasure. Libertines therefore have no conscience; and they would appear therefore to have put aside their manhood, their reason, and all virtue. But what folly is it to ascribe such sentiments to the Apostle! For who is there that sees not that the Apostle is here speaking, not of sins or of forbidden things, but of things indifferent, such as the eating of idol offerings? Ver. 8.—But meat commendeth us not to God. The eating of idol sacrifices or of any other food is in itself no help towards piety, which makes us acceptable to God. Therefore, we that are string ought not, under the pretext of piety, to wish to use all things as alike indifferent. The Apostle here turns to the more advanced, and warns them to avoid giving offence to the weak. It is foolish, therefore, as well as wrong, for heretics to wrest this passage into as argument against the choice of food and the fasts of the Church. Food, indeed, does not commend us to God, for it is not a virtue; but abstinence from forbidden food is an act of temperance, obedience, and religion, and does therefore commend us to God, as it commended Daniel and his companions, the Rechabites, John Baptist, and others. Cf. notes to . For neither if we eat are we the better. If we eat of idol offerings, we do not on that account abound the more in virtue, merit, and grace, which commend us before God, and therefore we ought not to have any desire so to eat. So Chrysostom. Secondly, it is more simple to take this as a fresh reason to dissuade them from eating idol-sacrifices. Whether we eat of these things, we shall not abound any the more with pleasant food and other good things; or whether we eat not, we shall not be deprived of them, for we may eat of other things. So it is often said that, whether we be invited to a banquet or not, we shall not on that account be full or be hungry, be fatter or leaner, richer or poorer. He is pointing out that food is a thing of little account, and may therefore be put aside if scandal arise, and be subordinated to the edification of our neighbours. So Anselm. Ver. 10.—Sit at meat in the idol's temple. Erasmus takes the word which we have idol's temple to mean idol's feast. The text, however, gives the better translation. S. Paul speaks of their siting at meat in an idol's temple, or at a table consecrated to idols. Those who were about to partake of the idol-sacrifices were wont to have tables set out in the temple, as Herodotus says in Clio, and Virgil (Ζn. viii. 283), in his description of the sacrifice of Evander and the subsequent feast with the Trojans. So too did the Jews eat of the peace-offerings in the court of the Temple . It hence follows that to eat of things offered to idols in an idol temple is not only an evil because of the scandal it causes, but also is an evil in itself, because it is a profession of idolatry, as will be said at chap. x. Anselm says tropologically: "The knowledge of idol-offerings is the knowledge of the vanity of heathen philosophy, poetry, and rhetoric. This must be guarded against. Far be it from a Christian mouth to say, 'By Jove,' or 'By Hercules.' or 'By Castor,' or to use other expressions that have more to do with monsters than with Divine beings," Emboldened here is either (1.) provoked to eat of things offered to idols, as though they were sacred and the channels of grace, and so he will be led to sacrifice to some deity and return to idolatry; or (2.) he will be provoked to act against his conscience, which tells him that food offered to an idol has been breathed upon by it and polluted, and that therefore he will be polluted if he eat. Cf. note to ver. 7. Ver. 13.—Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth. S. Chrysostom says: "It is the mark of a good teacher to teach by example as well as precept. The Apostle does not qualify what he says by adding 'justly' of 'unjustly,' but he says absolutely, 'If meat make my brother to offend.' He does not speak of idol-offerings as being prohibited for other reasons, but he says that if what is lawful causes his brother to offend, he will abstain from it, not for one or two days, but for his whole life. Nor does he say, 'Lest I destroy my brother,' but 'Lest I make my brother to offend.' It would be he height of folly in us to regard those things, which are so dear to Christ that He refused not to die for them, as so worthless that we will not for their sake abstain from certain food." On the subject of offence, see S. Basil (Reg. Brevior. 64), where, towards the end, he says that the offence is greater in proportion to the knowledge or rank of him who gives it; and he adds that at his hand God will require the blood of those sinners who follow his bad example. CHAPTER 9 OF THE CHAPTER i. He proceeds to show by his own example how offences are to be avoided, and he says that he had refused to accept payment, or the maintenance due to a preacher of the Gospel, both to gain greater merit and for the sake of edification. ii. He then (ver. 7) proves by six arguments (summarised on the notes to ver. 12) that this maintenance is due to himself and other preachers of the Gospel. iii. He shows (ver, 20) that for the same reason he had become all things to all men, that the Corinthians might learn how each one must care for his own edification and the salvation of his neighbour. iv. He urges them (ver. 24) to that same edification, pointing out that our life is a race and trial of virtue, and in them we must run and strive after better things, and after the prize, buy abstinence and bodily mortification. Ver. 1.—Am I not an apostle? am I not free? It may be asked what connection this has with the preceding chapter: it seems to be an abrupt transition to another subject. I reply that Paul had spoken at the end of the last chapter of the necessity of avoiding all that might cause offence. Now, that he may enforce this, he puts himself forward as an example, and points to his having refused to receive any payment for his preaching, and his having earned his bread by his own labours; this cession of his rights he made, both to void causing any to offend, and to give an example of singular virtue. He would so teach the Corinthians not to stand upon their rights, especially in the matter of eating idol-sacrifices, out of regard for their neighbours, if they saw that they were thus made to stumble, or led into sin. Yet at the same time Paul, by implication, guards in this declaration the sincerity and authority of his preaching against the false apostles who impugned them; he points indirectly to his having preached the Gospel without money and without price, while the false apostles made gain out of it. He says therefore: "Am I not an Apostle? am I not free? Am I not within my rights, as the Apostle of Christ, if I demand and receive from you means for my maintenance? Yet this I do not so, because I wish to show you what our neighbour's salvation demands from us, and how you ought, therefore, to avoid all causes of offence." Cf. Chrysostom's homily on this text (No. 20). Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are not ye my work in the Lord? It is clear that I am an Apostle, for I have seen Christ, and been sent by Him to preach the Gospel. Cf. ; . Ye are my work in the Lord, because I begat you by the Gospel in Christ. Your Church was built up by me: ye are my building. Ver. 2.—For the seal of mine Apostleship are ye in the Lord. A proof of my apostleship may be seen in you, in my preaching, in my miracles, in the toil and the dangers which I have either borne or performed amongst you for your conversion; by such things as by Divine seals have I sealed, confirmed, and proved my apostleship. All these things loudly testify that I am a true Apostle, sent by God to teach and save you. Ver. 3.—Mine answer to them that do examine me is this, Those who ask about my Apostleship may take what I have said as their answer. So Anselm. But Chrysostom and Ambrose just as suitably refer this to the following verse. To examine of interrogate in a judicial term, and is purposely used by S. Paul to point to the audacity of those who called in question his jurisdiction. Ver. 4.—Have we not power to eat and to drink? Viz., at your expense. This is the glory and defence of me and my apostleship, that it is gratuitous, unlike that of the false apostles. Notwithstanding I have the same right, the same power to look for means from you for my eating and drinking. Ver. 5.—Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles? The Greek is ảδελφὴνγυναξκα, which the Latin version turns mulierem sororem; and Beza, Peter Martyr, Vatablus, and Valle render sororem uxorem. They argue from this that Paul was married, urging that, though the Greek word stands both for woman and wife, yet here its meaning is fixed to the latter by the term "lead about." Men do not, they say, lead about sisters but wives. They mistake: 1. Christ led about women, not as a husband might a wife, but as a teacher is accompanied by disciples and handmaidens, who see to his necessities. Cf. . 2. It would be absurd to call a sister a wife, and the term sister would be superfluous. 3. The definite article is wanting in the Greek, which would be required if a certain woman, as, e.g., a wife, were designated. 4. It is evident from 1 Cor. vii. 8 that Paul was unmarried. This passage is explained at length is the sense I have given by Augustine (de Opere Monach. c. iv.), Jerome (contra Jovin. lib. i.), Chrysostom, Ambrose, Theodoret, Theophylact in their comments on the verse, and by other Fathers generally, except by Clement of Alexandria (Strom, lib. iii.) S. Jerome indeed says that, among the Apostles, Peter was the only one that had a wife, and that only before his conversion. Tertullian's words (de Monogamia) are: "I find that Peter alone was a husband." I say, then, that the phrase here is literally "sister woman," and denotes a Christian matron who ministered to Paul's necessities from her means. We have a similar phrase in Acts xiii. 26, "men brethren," i.e., Christian men. S. Paul says then that he might, if he so saw fit, lead about a matron to support him, as much as Peter; but he does not do so, because it might be a cause of offence to the Gentiles, whose Apostle he was, and might only cause evil surmisings. So Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Anselm. It may be said that Ignatius, in his letter to the Philadelphians, classes Paul among the married. Baronius (A.D. 57, p. 518) and others well reply that Paul's name was inserted there by later Greek copyists, to serve as an excuse for themselves being married. The oldest and best copies of the Epistles of S. Ignatius, including that of the Vatican and of Sfort, have not S. Paul's name. It may be said again that Clement of Alexandria (Strom. lib. iii.) understands this passage of a wife of Paul. I reply, firstly, that that is true, but that he goes on to say that after he became an Apostle she was to him as a sister, not as a wife, which is against the heretics, and in the second place that all the Fathers are against Clement. And the Brethren of the Lord. Brethren is a common Hebraism for kinsmen. James, John, and Judas are here meant. So Anselm. And Cephas. Nay, as well as Peter, the prince of the Apostles and of the Church. Ver. 7.—Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? Just as it is right for soldiers to be paid and to live in their pay; just as it is right for a vine-grower to eat of the fruit of his vine, for a shepherd of the milk of the flock that he feeds, so is it right for the preachers of the Gospel to live of the Gospel, of their vineyard the Church, and of their flock, the members of Christ. The Apostle is beginning here to prove in various ways his right to receive payment for his preaching, that all after him might know that this is owing to preachers of the Word of God, and that he may show how undeniable and how clear is the right that he has freely given up by refusing to receive payment out of regard to the Corinthians. He so acted in order that by this generosity of his he might draw them to Christ and help forward their salvation. I will summarise his reasons at ver. 12. Ver. 8.—Say I these things as a man? Do I prove or strengthen my arguments by human reasons merely, and by similitudes drawn from the life of the soldier, the vine-grower, the shepherd. By no means. Nay, rather I establish and fortify them from the law of God. Ver. 9.—For it is written in the law of Moses, &c. . The reason doubtless was that it was right that the animals who laboured should also eat. Hence God forbade that the mouths of the oxen that trod out the corn should be muzzled, to prevent them from eating of what they trod out. It was the custom in Palestine, as it is now in some places, for the oxen to thresh out the grain by treading the corn-ears with their hoofs. That this is the literal meaning appears from the words in which it is enjoined on the hard-hearted Jews. It may be objected that the Apostle seems here to exclude this meaning, by saying, "Doth God take care for oxen?" Abulensis, commenting in Deut. xxv., says that the literal sense of the verse is twofold: (1.) It refers to oxen, as has just been said, but not principally; (2.) The sense which is uppermost and chiefly intended by the Holy Spirit is that given by the Apostle here when he speaks of preachers. God, he says, takes care for oxen in the second place, but for teachers in the first; and therefore it is more the literal sense of the injunction that preachers should be maintained than that oxen should. But it is evident that the first only of these two is the literal sense. For the word ox denotes a preacher typically only, and not literally. Otherwise the literal sense would be wholly allegorical, which is absurd. For the literal sense is that which is the first meaning of any sentence; the allegorical or typical is that which is derived from the literal. As then the shadow of a body is not the body itself, so the typical sense cannot be the literal, but is merely shadowed forth by the literal. The literal meaning therefore if the verse in Deuteronomy is that which I have given, but the mystical is that which is given by the Apostle, that preachers must be maintained, and that they are to live of the Gospel, just as the ox is fed on what he treads out; and since God's chief care is for the former, the mystical meaning of the text is, as the Apostle says, the one that is uppermost. Notice that it is a matter of faith that God takes care for oxen: for by His providence He cares for the sparrows (S. Matt. x. 29), and for the young ravens that call upon Him , and for all animals, as the Psalmist frequently says, and especially throughout Psalm civ. The Apostle means, therefore, that in this precept God's chief care was not for oxen, but for preachers like S. Paul, who are like oxen in labouring and treading out the corn in the Lord's field and threshing-floor, and are to be allowed to live of the Gospel. Ver. 10.—Or saith He it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes no doubt this is written. The argument is here, as so often in S. Paul's writings, from the mystical, not the literal sense; or rather it is an ΰ fortiori argument from the literal to the mystical sense, thus: If the ox lives of what he treads out, much more may an Apostle live of the Gospel. Cf. Tertullian (contra Marcion, lib. v. c. 7) and Theodoret (qu. xxi. in Deut.). Observe here that, though the literal sense in the first in time, yet the mystical is the first in importance, and the one chiefly intended by the Holy Spirit. That he that ploweth should plow in hope. Just as those that plough and thresh do so in hope of being partakers of what is reaped and threshed out, so too the preacher may hope for suppoet because of his preaching. If this hope Ovid speaks (Ep. ex Ponto, lib. i. vi. 30): "Hope it is that gives courage to the farmer, and intrusts the seeds to the ploughed-up furrows, to be returned with heavy interest by the kindly earth." From this passage we may argue ΰ fortiori that to work is hope of an eternal reward is an act of virtue, and that this act therefore is meritorious. Hence the Sorbonne, as Claudius Guiliandus testifies in his remarks on this passage, has defined as erroneous the proposition the "he that strives for the sake of a reward, and would not strive unless he know that a reward would be given, deprives himself of the reward." The Council of Trent has the same definition (Sess. vi. can. 31). Ver. 12.—If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? The Apostle proves by six arguments that that he and other ministers of the Word of God and the Church may receive their expenses from their flocks: (a) By the examples of the other Apostles (ver. 5); (b) by comparisons drawn from the practice of soldiers, shepherds, and agriculturists (ver. 7); (c) from the law of Moses (ver. 9); (d) from the example of the priests and Levites of the Old Testament, who lived on the sacrifices offered on the altar that they served (ver. 13); (e) from the ordinance of God and of Christ (ver. 14); (f) from the very nature of the case, from the positive command of God, as well as from the law of mature, which declared that, as payment is due to a workman, so is support to a minister of the Word, not as the price of sacred things, which would be dishonouring to them and simoniacal, but as what is necessary for them to fitly discharge their sacred functions for the people's sake. Hence this support is owing to them as a matter of justice. So Chrysostom. Nevertheless we have not used this power, but suffer all things. We have not claimed out right to maintenance, but endure the utmost poverty, and undertake every kind of evil to relieve that poverty by working with our hands. Lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. He would not receive money for his support, lest he should give occasion to covetous or injudicious men to hinder the Gospel and bring obloquy upon it. That there was no cause of offence given here by the Apostle, but that it was received from others, and that it was in him a work of supererogation to refuse to receive payment, appears from what has gone before, and from ver. 15, where he says, "It were better for me to die than that any man should make my glorying void." Ver. 13.—Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? The priests and Levites partake of the victims offered, and the tithes and firstfruits. The Greek for "minister" is "labour." The office of the priest was to labour at killing, cutting up, skinning, boiling, and burning the victims, all of which are laborious, and under other circumstances would be the work of butchers. And they which wait at the altar. He does not say, says S. Chrysostom, the priests, but they which wait at the altar, that we may see that constant attendance of sacred things is required from the ministers of the temple of Christ, who partake of the good things of the Temple. On the other hand, now-a-days, none are less often at the altar than some who derive the greatest profit from the altar and from tithes. These are condemned by the Council of Trent. Ver. 14.—Even so hath the Lord ordained. S. ; S. , and . Ver. 15.—For it were better for me to die than that any man should make my glorying void. His glorying has for its subject the preaching of the Gospel without charge, or his work of liberality, free grace, and supererogation, as is evident from ver. 18. It appears from this that it is an Evangelical counsel to preach the Gospel without charge, as is now done by some apostolic and religious men. So Theophylact, Theodoret, and Anselm. Cf. also Chrysostom and Anselm. Observe that S. Paul does not speak of his glory but his glorying, viz., that which he could make before God and before men, especially before the false apostles, who were held of great account and sumptuously maintained by the Corinthians. Cf. , for similar "glorying." Ver. 16.—Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel. It appears from this that strict injunctions were given to the Apostles to preach the Gospel and teach all nations, insomuch that, if they had neglected to do so, they would have sinned mortally. For on those that neglect this their duty he pronounces the woe of the wrath of God and of hell. By the same injunctions all pasters, Bishops, and Archbishops are now bound. Cf. chap. i. 17. Ver. 17.—For if I do this thing willingly I have a reward. That is, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and Anselm say, if I freely preach without charge, I have not merely the reward given to a work that has been enjoined on me, as other Apostles have, but the exceeding reward of abounding glory given to a work not enjoined, but heroically undertaken by a soul that is of its own accord generous towards God. But if against my will. Compelled by a command of God, or under fear of punishment. Willingly here denotes the doing a thing of one's own motion, one's own accord, and free will; unwillingly, the doing it under order, being moved and forced by the will of another. A dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. I shall not have that supreme glory I spoke of, but neither shall I sin, because I fulfil my duty, and do what I am ordered. For this commission of preaching the Gospel was intrusted to me. But though I do not sin, yet I act as a slave, or as a steward in matters intrusted to his care, not of his own accord, but merely doing what he ought to do, because compelled to it by his Lord's command. Cf. S. . So the Fathers cited understand this passage, and that this is the meaning appears also from the context. Some explain it differently in this way: If I preach the Gospel willingly I have merit and reward, because of my own free will I fulfil the command of Christ; but if I do it unwillingly, I fail to attain merit and reward, because I act under compulsion. A dispensation of the Gospel is committed unto me, and so by me, though unwilling, Christ's Gospel is propagated, and others profit, though I do not. This seems to be the simple meaning of the words by themselves. This explanation is favoured by S. Thomas, Lyranus, and the Ambrosian commentary; but the context requires the former sense. Ver. 18.—What is my reward then? That glorious and supreme reward spoken of. Observe that reward is put by metonymy for merit, or for a heroic and meritorious work, that calls for a great reward. This work, he goes of to say, is to preach the Gospel without charge. From these words it is evident that not all good works are matters of precept, but that some are works of counsel and supererogation, and that such merit with God an illustrious crown of glory. So S. Chrysostom, Ambrose, S. Augustine (de Opere Monach. c. 5), and Bellarmine (de Monach. lib. ii. c. 9). The other Apostles, being full of zeal for God, would as well as Paul have preached the Gospel freely, if they might thence have hoped for a greater harvest of souls, and greater glory before God. But this they might not hope for, for the faithful were generous to them, and the Jews devoted to them, and of their own accord they supplied their needs. Cf. Acts iv. 34. But Paul, as one outside the order and number of the twelve apostles, called to the apostolate after the death of Christ, had to gain a recognition of his authority, and he judged it useful to that end that he should preach the Gospel without charge. Moreover, the Corinthians, though rich, were covetous; and, therefore, Paul preached freely to prevent them from supposing that he sought their goods instead of themselves; but from the more generous Thessalonians and Philippians he accepted support. In short, Paul wished by this course of action to shut the mouth of the Jews, who hated him, and of the false Apostles. He says this indeed in . That I abuse not my power in the Gospel. That I may not use my undoubted right and liberty to the detriment of the Gospel. Not that it really is an abuse to receive money for preaching he Gospel, but that it is the employment of a lesser good. Abuse is used here for use to the full, as it is in chap. vii. 31. Cf. a similar use of the word in S. Paulinus (Ep. ii.). It may be said that Ambrose here understands the word to mean literal abuse, which is sin, when he says: "They who use their right, when it is inexpedient to do so, or when another suffers loss, are guilty, and therefore sin." I reply that this is true when they can easily give up their right, and when others suffer great loss by their not yielding; for charity then bids us give way. These conditions, the Ambrosian commentary seems to think, existed with Paul and the Corinthians. But the opposite is far more true. It was a very difficult matter for the Apostle to yield his right of maintenance at the hands of the Corinthians, because by so yielding he has to spend nights without sleep, while he laboured with his hands to procure food for himself and his companions; while the Corinthians, who were numerous and rich, might easily have maintained him. Nor ought they to have taken offence at this, for the other Apostles were maintained by their flocks, and all law and reason say that he who labours for another should be maintained by him. The Apostle, therefore, wished to set a noble example of poverty, sincerity, and zeal, for the greater commendation and spread of the faith among those who were young in it, and the avaricious rich. But such a heroic work as this is not a precept, but a counsel of charity. Therefore, on the next verse, he says that in such matters he is free. Ver. 19.—For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all. I humbled myself to all things, even to want and hunger; I accommodated myself to the weaknesses of all, insomuch that, when I saw the Corinthians slow and niggardly in their support of the Apostles, I refused to accept any payment from them, that I might gain all by condescending to their infirmity. Ver. 20.—To them that are under the law, as under the law. To the Jews I became as one under the Mosaic law. This took place, e.g., says Oecumenius, when he circumcised Timothy, when, after purifying himself, he went to the Temple, because he had a vow . Ver. 21.—To them that are without law, as without law. To the Gentiles I became as though I followed nature only as my light and leader, as the Gentiles do. So Oecumenius, Theophylact, and Chrysostom. Ver. 22.—I am made all things to all men. Not by acting deceitfully or sinfully, but through sympathy and compassion, which made me suit myself to the dispositions of all men, so, as far as honesty and God's law allow, that I might be able to heal the indispositions of all. Cf. S. Augustine (Epp. 9 and 19): "Not by lying, but by sympathy; not by cunning craftiness, but by large-hearted compassion was Paul made all things to all men." The Apostle does not sanction what men of the world wish for and do, viz., the accommodating ourselves through right and wrong to all men, feigning to be heretics with heretics, Turks with Turks, pure with the pure, and unclean with those that are unclean. This he condemns ( et seq.). The advice of S. Ephrem (Attende tibi, c. 10) is sound: "Have charity with all and abstain from all;" and again the apophthegm of S. Bernard, which embraces every virtue: "Live so as to be prudent for yourself, useful to others, pleasing to God." S. Jordan, S. Dominic's successor in the Generalship of the Order, used to say, as his life related: "If I had devoted myself as closely to any branch of learning as I have to that sentence of S. Paul's, 'I am made all things to all men,' I should be mist learned and eminent in it. Throughout the whole of my life I have studied to accommodate myself to every one: to the soldier I was a soldier, to the nobleman as a nobleman, to the plebeian as a plebeian; and thus I always endeavoured to do them good in this way, while on the watch that I did not lose or hurt my soul while benefitting them." Ver. 23.—And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you. That I may with other preachers receive, in fu time, fruit of the Gospel that I have preached. The Greek denotes a partaker with others. Hence in the second place Chrysostom understands "partaker thereof" to mean a fellow-sharer of the faithful in the Gospel, i.e., of the crowns laid up for the faithful. And Chrysostom rightly points to the wonderful humility of Paul, in putting himself on a level with even ordinary Christians, when he had surpassed not only the faithful, but all the other Apostles in his labours for the Gospel. Cf. . Ver. 24.—Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? For this I preach the Gospel without charge, for this I am made all things to all men; for this I labour, that I may obtain that best prize of all, given to those who run in this race. As it is in a race, so is it in the Christian course: it is not all that run that receive the prize, but those only that run well and duly reach the appointed goal. I say duly, or according to the laws of the course which Christ the Judge has laid down for those that run, and according to which he has promised the prize to those that tun well. When, therefore, one is mentioned, more are not excluded, for the Apostle does not mean to say, as Chrysostom well remarks, that only one Christian surpasses the rest, and is more zealous of good works, and will receive the prize; for a similitude does not hold good in all points, but only in that one which is expressed. The comparison here is that, as in a race he who runs well receives the prize, so in Christianity he who runs well will receive a crown of glory. And this is evident from what is added, "So run that ye may obtain," i.e., not one, but each one. Moreover, in a race it is often not only the first, not the second, third, or fourth who also receives a prize. Still the Apostle says one, not three or four, because he is chiefly looking at that glory and superexcellent reward given, not to all the elect, but to those few heroic souls that follow, not only the precepts, but also the counsels of Christ. For he is looking to the prize which he is expecting for himself, in having been the only Apostle to preach the Gospel without charge, in having surpassed all the other Apostles in the greatness of his labour and his charity, in having become all things to all men. He says in effect: O Christians, do not merely run duly, that ye may obtain, but run most well and most swiftly, that you may carry off the first and most splendid prize of glory. It is a sluggish soul that says, "It is enough for me to be saved and reach heaven." for each one, says Chrysostom, ought to strive to be first in heaven, and receive the first prize there. Some understand this passage to refer to the mansions or crowns and prizes prepared for each of the elect, and would read it, "Let each so run that he may obtain his prize." But this explanation is more acute than simple. Anselm again takes it a little differently. Heathens, heretics, reprobates, he says, run, but the one people of elect Christians receives the prize. But the apostle is speaking to Christians only as running, and he urges them to so run that they may obtain the prize to which they are called by the Gospel of Christ. So run that ye may obtain. I.e., obtain the crown of glory and the prize of victory. The allusion is to those that ran in the public games for a crown as the prize, with which they were crowned when victorious. Cf. notes to Rev. iii. 2. The word so denotes the rectitude, the diligence, the swiftness, and the perseverance especially required on order to win the prize. The course of Christ was marked by these qualities, that course which all ought to put before themselves for imitation. S. Bernard (Ep. 254) says: "The Creator Himself of man and of the world, did he, while he dwelt here below with men, stand still? Nay, as the Scripture testifies, 'He want about doing good and healing all.' He went through the world not unfruitfully, carelessly, lazily, or with laggers step, but so as it was written of Him, 'He rejoiced as a giant to run his course.' No one catches the runner but he that runs equally fast; and what avails it to stretch out after Christ if you do not lay hold of Him? Therefore is it that Paul said, 'So run that ye may obtain.' There, O Christian, set the goal of your course and your journeying where Christ placed His. 'He was made obedient unto death,' However long then you may have run, you will not obtain the prize if you do not persevere even unto death. The prize is Christ." He then goes on to point out that in the race of virtue not to run, to stand still, is to fail and go back, "But if while He runs you stand still, you come no nearer to Christ, nay, you recede from Him, and should fear for yourself what David said, 'Lo, they that are far from Thee shall perish.' Therefore, if to go forward is to run, when you cease to go forward you cease to run: when you are not running you begin to go back. Hence we may plainly see that not to wish to go forward is nothing but to go back. Jacob saw a ladder, and on the ladder angels, where none was sitting down, none standing still; but all seemed to be either ascending or descending, that w might be plainly given to understand that in this mortal course no mean is to be found between going forward and going back, but that in the same way as our bodies are known to be continuously either increasing or decreasing, so must our spirit be always either going forward or going back." Ver. 25.—And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in al things. Every wrestler, &c., refrains from everything that may 212 endanger his success. 1. The allusion is t the Isthmian games, celebrated at Corinth in honour of Neptune and Palζmon, in which the victor was crowned with a pine-wreath. Of these games the poet Archias this sings:— "Four Argive towns the sacred contests see, And two to men, and two to gods belong; Jove gives the olive, Ph�bus sunny fruit, Palζmon poppy, and Archemorus the pine." 2. There is consequently an allusion also to the athletes, the wrestlers, and boxers, who fought with their fists; to the runners, who strine for the prize for speed; to all who contested, whether with hand, or foot, or the whole body, for the prize. 3. All these abstained from luxurious living, and only lived of the necessities of life. This is what the Apostle alludes to when he says, is temperate in all things. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. lib. iii.), following Plato (de Leg. lib. viii.), adds that they also refrained from all sexual intercourse. For as lust weakens, enervates, and exhausts the body, so do continence and chastity strengthen the body, and much more the mind,  S. Ephrem, too, in his tractate on the words, "It is better to marry than to burn," explains this abstinence from all things spoken of here to be abstinence from all lust. 4. The course is this present life, of each one's state in the Church, and especially that of an evangelist; the runner or wrestler is each Christian. Hence, S. Dioysius (de Eccles. Hierarch. cvii.) says that those who are baptized are anointed to be Christ's athletes, and are consequently called to fight a holy fight for faith and godliness. He adds that it is the practice, too, to anoint them when dead, as athletes perfected by death. He says: "The first anointing called him to a holy fight; the second shows that he has finished his course and been perfected by death." 5. In this course and contest the antagonist is the world, the flesh, and the devil; the athlete's diet is moderate food tempered with fasting; the fight consists in the castigation of the body, and all the arduous offices of virtue, which are accomplished with a conflict, whether external or internal;— especially is the preaching and spreading of the Gospel such a fight; and from such arises the victory over the world, the flesh, and the devil. The prize is the incorruptible crown of eternal glory for which Paul expresses his longing in 2 Tim. iv. 8. The punishment inflicted on the conquered is rejection and eternal confusion (ver. 27). As the athlete, by abstinence, exercise, and toil, subdues and exercises his body, and prepares it for the race-course or the contest, that he may conquer by lawful and generous effort, and may obtain a corruptible crown, so much more to obtain the eternal crown do we Christians, and especially I, your Apostle, keep under and exercise my body by fasting, labour, and weariness, and so much more severely do I, as an athlete in the Divine contest, exact from myself all the offices of those that fight. I do this, lest my body lose the strength derived from continency and a hard life by luxurious living, and then dwindle down into the helplessness of a self-indulgent life. But as I have to fight against the world, the flesh, and the devil, let me rather imitate the athletes, and so conquer and be crowned. Come, then, O Corinthians, run with me in this course; abstain not only from things offered to idols, because of scandal, but also from luxuries— from wine and lust— that you may gain the victory and carry off the prize. This exhortation to abstinence was occasioned by the question of idol— sacrifices, as I sain at the beginning of chapter viii. Epaminondas, leader of the Thebans, having fought most bravely in battle, and being wounded, even to death, asked, as he was dying, whether his shield were safe and the enemy slain; and when they answered "Yes" to both questions, he said: "Now is the end of my life; but a better and higher beginning is as hand: now is Epaminondas being born in so dying." So Valerius Maximus relates. If Epaminondas so strove for a temporal victory, for praise and glory that are evanescent, and died so joyfully and gloriously, what shall the soldier of Christ do for the crown that fadeth not 214 away, for the glory that knows no ending? Tertullian (ad Martyred, c. iv.) says excellently: "If earthly glories can so overcome bodily and mental delights as to throw contempt on the sword, fire, crucifixion, wild beasts, and torments, in order to obtain the reward of human praise, I may well say that these sufferings are but little to undergo to obtain the glories of heaven, Is glass worth as much as true pearls? Who therefore would not most joyfully suffer for the true glory as much as others suffer for the false." Virgil says of Junius Brutus, who ordered his sons to be put to death for conspiring against the Romans with the Tarquins— "The love of Rome him mastered with boundless thirst for praise;" so we may say of the Christian— "The love of Christ will conquer, and heaven's unquenchable thirst," Listen to what S. Chrysostom says (de Martyr. vol. iii.): "You are but a feather-bed soldier if you think that you can conquer without a fight, triumph without a battle. Exert your strength, fight strenuously, strive to the death in this battle. Look at the covenant, attend to the conditions, know the warfare— the covenant that you have entered into, the conditions on which you have enrolled yourself, the warfare into which you have thrown youself." It is clear from this, says S. Chrysostom, that faith alone is not sufficient for salvation, but that works also are requisite, and heroic efforts, and especially no small abstinence from all the allurements of the world. For, as S. Jerome says (Ep. 34 ad Julian): "It is difficult, nay, it is impossible for any one to enjoy both the present and the future, to fill here his belly and there his soul, to pass from one delight to the other, to show himself glorious both in heaven and in earth." S. Augustine piously consoles and animates Christ's athletes by reminding them of the help that God gives (Serm, 105). He says: "he who ordered the strife helps them that strive. God does not look upon you in your contest as the spectators do on the athlete: for the populace warms him by shouts, but cannot lend him any help. He who arranged the contest can provide the crown, but cannot lend strength; buy God, when He sees His servants striving, helps them when they call upon Him. For it is the voice of the combatant himself in Psalm xciv. 18, who says, 'When I said, my foot slippeth, Thy mercy, O Lord, held me up.'" S. Dionysius too (de Eccl. Hier. cii.) says: "To them that strive the Lord promises crowns as God. He has laid down the rules of the contest by His wisdom. He has appointed rewards most fair and beautiful for the conquerors; and, what is surely more Divine, He Himself, as supreme living-kindness and goodness, conquers in His warriors; and while He indwells within them, He fights for their safety and victory against the forces of death and corruption." Ver. 26.—So fight I, not as one that beateth the air. The comparison is still maintained. I fight as an athlete, but I do not spend my toil for nought, but I wound my enemy, i.e., I subdue my body and my flesh; and when I have subdued this foe, the remaining two, the world and the devil, are easily overcome. For the world and the devil cannot kill us, wound us, strike us, tempt us, approach us, except through the body and its organs, the eyes and ears and tongue and other members. Ver. 27.—But I keep under my body and bring it into subjection. I keep under means, says S. Ambrose, "I repress it by fastings;" "I wound it with stripes," says S. Basil (de Virginitate); "I starve it," says Origen. S. Augustine (de Utilit. Jejun.) says: "The devil often takes it upon him to protect the flesh against the soul, and to say, 'Why do you thus fast?— you are laying up punishment in store for yourself, you are your own torturer and murderer.' Answer him, 'I keep it under, lest this beast of burden throw me headlong.'" For our flesh is the devil's instrument; it is, says S. Bernard, "the snare of the devil" (Serm. 8 in Ps. xci.). Erasmus, following Theophylact and Paulinus (Ep. 58 ad. Aug.), renders the Greek verb, "I make it black and blue," or "I make the eyes of a black and bloody colour." This last is, as Hesychius and Suidas say, the literal rendering of the word. But all others in general take the word to mean subdue, coerce, bruise. Castigate in the Latin, or "keep under," as the text, suits both renderings, but the second is better, as being at once plainer and more near to the Greek— taking ύπωπιάξω to be synonymous the ύποπιέξω. This keeping under or castigation of the body is effected by fastings, hair-shirts, humiliations, scourgings, and other mortifications of the flesh. Hence some think that Paul was in the habit of scourging his body. This is certainly the literal meaning of the Greek, which is rendered by Beza, Melancthon, Castalion, and Henry Stephen "bruise." but a bruise is not caused except by a blow, whether from a stick, or a scourge, or some other instrument. Moreover, fasting (which some, as, e.g., Ambrose, Gregory, and Chrysostom, think was Paul's discipline) is not so much a strife and contest as a preparation for them; for of it he has already said, "Every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things." Cf. also Jacob Gretser (de Discipl. lib. i. c. 4). Moreover, as Anselm remarks, as well as Gregory, in a passage to be quoted directly, the Apostle, while he keeps under and scourges his body, at the same time scourges and wounds the devil, his antagonist, who is in alliance with our carnal concupiscence, and lies in hiding within the foul jungle of the flesh, and through it tempts and attacks us. Lest I myself should be a castaway. Lest I be a reprobate from God and excluded from heaven, Maldonatus (Notζ Manusc.) learnedly says that, as the comparison is still with the arena, a castaway here is one who is conquered in the fight; and that S. Paul's meaning is, "Lest while I teach others to conquer I myself be conquered." The Apostle is speaking not of eternal reprobation, which is in the mind of God, but of that temporal reprobation which is the execution of the eternal. He is referring to Jer. vi. 30: "Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them." 1. Hence it is clear that the Apostle is not speaking , as some think, of the reprobation of men, as if his meaning were, "What I preach that I practise: I do not fare sumptuously, but I keep under my body, lest I be a cast away and reprobate of men, and regarded as one not doing what he teaches." For Jeremiah clearly speaks of God's rejection, not men's; and reprobation and reprobate always refer to this when they are spoken of absolutely, and not restricted to men, as they are restricted in . Hence appears the uncertainty to us of grace and predestination. Paul feared being condemned, and will you believe that your faith cannot but save you? 2. It also follows that Paul had no revelation of his salvation. Cf. S. Gregory (lib. vi. Ep. 22, ad Gregoriam). 3. And that he was not so strong in grace not that he might fall from it. From this passage, it is evident that the Christian's fight consists especially in bringing the body into subjection. For this foe is an inward foe, and one most hard to withstand, and therefore the snares of the flesh are to be dreaded more than all others. We ought also to get ourselves ready for this fight by the athlete's training, that is, by temperance, and in this temperance we should begin the fight, and in it daily increase, grow strong, and cone to perfection. The Christian, therefore, must begin with conquering gluttony. When that is done, it will be easier for him to conquer other vices, as Cassianus and others say. Hence it appears that the Christian fighter must keep under his body, lest its lusts make him a castaway; and that, therefore, bodily mortification, by watchings, fastings, and other afflictions, is the right way to salvation, and is the most suitable instrument for perfecting virtue, and for the complete subdual of vices, if it be done with discretion, and in proportion to one's strength and health. Cf. S. Thomas (ii. ii. qu. 188, art. 7). But let us hear what the ancient doctors of the Church have to say on this head. Ambrose (Ep. ad Eccl. Vercell.) says: "I hear that there are men who say that there is no merit in fasting, and who scoff at those who mortify their flesh, that they nay subdue it to the mind. This S. Paul would never have done or said if he had thought it folly" (let our Protestant friends observe this); "for he says, as though boasting, 'I keep under my body and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.' Therefore, those who do not mortify their body, and who wish to preach to others, are themselves regarded as reprobates, What new school has sent forth these Epicureans to preach pleasure and advise luxury? The Lord Jesus, wishing to strengthen us against the temptations of the devil, fasted before He strove with him, that we might know that we cannot in any other way overcome the blandishments of the evil one. Let these men say why Christ fasted if it were not to give us an example to do likewise," S. Gregory (Morals, lib. xxx. c. 26) says: "Nebuzaradan, the chief of the cooks, destroyed the walls of Jerusalem as he destroys the virtues of the soul when the belly is not kept in check. Hence it is that Paul took away his power from the chief of the cooks, i.e., the belly, in its assault on the walls of Jerusalem, when he said, 'I keep under my body and bring it into subjection.' Hence it is that he had said just before, 'So fight I, not as one that beateth the air.' When we retrain the flesh, it is not the air but the unclean spirits that we wound with the blows of our abstinence; and in subduing what is within we deal blows to the foes without, Hence is it that, when the King of Babylon orders the furnace to be heated, he has a heap of tow and pitch thrown into it, but nevertheless the fire has no power over the children of abstinence; for though our old enemy put before our eyes a countless number of delicacies t increase the fire of our lust, yet the grace of the Spirit from on high whispers to us, bidding us stand our ground, untouched by the burning lusts of the flesh." S. Basil (Hom. de Legend. Gentil. Libris) says: "The body must be mortified and kept in check like a wild beast, and the passions that take their rise from it to the soul's hurt must be kept in order by the scourge reason, lest by giving free rein to pleasure the mind become like a drover of restive and unbroken horses, and be run away with and list. Amongst other sayings there is one of Pythagoras which deserves to be remembered. When he saw a certain man looking after himself with great care, and fattening himself by sumptuous living and exercise, he said: 'Unhappy man! you are ever engaged in building for yourself a worse and worse prison!' It is said too of Plato, that owing to his vivid realisation of the harm that arises from the body, he fixed his Academy at Athens in an unhealthy spot, that he might reduce the excessive prosperity of the body, as a gardener prunes a vine whose boughs stretch too far. I too have often heard physicians say that extremely good health is fallacious. Since, therefore, care for the body seems to be harmful to body and soul alike, to hug this burden and to be a slave to it is evident proof of madness. But if we study to despise it, we shall not easily lose ourselves in admiration of anything human." S. Basil again (in Reg. Fusius Disp. Reg. 17) says: "As a muscular build and good complexion put a stamp of superiority on the athlete, so is the Christian distinguished from others by bodily emaciation and pallid complexion, which are ever the companions of abstinence. He is thereby proved to be a wrestler indeed, following the commands of Christ, and in weakness of body he lays his adversary low on the ground, and shows how powerful he is in the contests of godliness according to the words, 'When I am weak, than am I strong!'" S. Chrysostom says here: "'I mortify my body' means that I undergo much labour to live temperately. Although desire is intractable, the belly clamorous, yet I rein them in, and do not surrender myself to my passion, but repress them, and with wearisome effort bring under nature herself. I say this that no one may lose heart in his struggle for virtue, for it is an arduous fight. Wherefore he says, 'I keep under my body and bring it into subjection.' He did not say, 'I destroy and punish it,' for the flesh is not an enemy, but 'I keep it under and bring it into subjection,' because it is the property of my Lord, not of an enemy; of a trainer, not a foe; 'lest by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway,' If Paul feared this, being such a teacher as he was; if he has any dread, after having preached to the whole world, what are we to say?" S. Jerome, writing against Jovinian, a heretic, an opponent of fasting, of chastity, and asceticism, ably defends these duties, and about the end of lib. ii. he says: "The fact that many agree with your opinions is a mark of luxuriousness; and you think it adds to your reputation for wisdom to have more pigs running after you to be fed with the food or the flames of hell. Basilides, a teacher of luxury and filthy practices, has after these many years now been transformed into Jovinian, as into Euphorbus, that the Latin race might know his heresy, It was the banner of the Cross and the severity of preaching" (let the Protestants mark this) "which destroyed the idol-temples. Impurity, gluttony, and drunkenness are endeavouring to overthrow the fortitude taught by the Cross. False prophets always promise pleasant things, but they give not much satisfaction. Truth is bitter, and those who preach it are filled with bitterness." Cassianus (de Instit. Renunt. lib. v. c. xvii. et seq.) says: "Do you want to listen to the true athlete of Christ striving according to the lawful rules of the contest? He says, 'I therefore so run not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air, but I keep under my body and bring it into subjection, lest when I have preached to others I myself should be a castaway.' Seest thou how he has placed in himself, that is in his flesh, the hottest part of the battle, and has thus put it on a firm base, and how he has made the fight consist in simple bodily mortification and in the subjection of his flesh?" And then a little afterwards he repeats these words of the Apostle, and adds: "This properly has to do with the sufferings of continence, and bodily fasting, and mortification of the flesh. He describes himself as a strenuous combatant of the flesh, and points out that the blows of abstinence that he directs against it are not in vain, but that he has gained a triumph by mortifying his body. That body, having been punished by the blows of continence and wounded by the bruises of fastings, has given to the victorious spirit the crown of immortality and the palm that never fadeth. . . . So fights he by fastings and affliction of the flesh, not as one that beateth the air, i.e., that deals in vain the blows of continence; but he wounds the spirits who dwell in the air, by mortifying his body. For he that says, 'not as one that beateth the air,' declares that he strikes some one that is in the air." Further, not only for the sake of lust, but to subdue pride and break down all vices, and to cultivate every virtue, the body must be mortified, as S. Jerome says (Ep. 14 ad Celantiam): "They who are taught by experience and knowledge to hold fast the virtue of abstinence mortify their flesh to break the soul's pride, in order that so they may descent from the pinnacle of their haughty arrogance to fulfil the will of God, which is most perfectly fulfilled in humility. Therefore so they withdraw their mind from hankering after variety of foods, that they may devote all their strength to the pursuit of virtue, By degrees the flesh feels less and less the burden of fastings, as the soul more hungers after righteousness. For that chosen vessel, Paul, in mortifying his body and bringing it into subjection, was not seeking after chastity alone, as some ignorant persons suppose: for fasting helps not only this virtue but every virtue." Lastly, the holy hermits of old, in their zeal after perfection, mortified their bodies to a degree that seems incredible. And that this was pleasing to God is seen from the holiness, the happiness, and the length of their lives. We may read for this Jerome, in his life of S. Hilarion, S. Paul, S. Malchus; Athanasius in his life of S. Antony; Theodoret in his life of S. Simeon Stylites, who for eighty years stood under the open sky night and day, hardly taking food or sleep. sagacious men have observed in their lives of the Saints that scarcely any Saints have been illustrious for their miracles and for their actions but such as were eminent for their fastings and asceticism, or who afflicted their bodies, or were afflicted by God with diseases, or by enemies and tyrants with tortures and troubles; that other Saints, who led an ordinary life, were of great benefit to the Church, but seldom if ever performed any miracles. CHAPTER 10 OF THE CHAPTER From speaking of the contest, in which those who deny themselves and strive lawfully are rewarded, and in which the slothful and self-indulgent are condemned and put to confusion, of which the Apostle treated at the end of the preceding chapter, he goes on to the manners of the Hebrews of old, their lusts and vices, especially idolatry, its punishment and condemnation, that by such examples he may teach the Corinthians how vices and temptations, and especially idolatry, are to be guarded against. Consequently, in ver. 18 he descends and returns to things offered to idols, and answers a question concerning them which had been broached in chapter viii. And— i. He lays down that it is not lawful for them to eat of things in so far as they are offered to idols; for this would be to give consent to the sacrifice, and to profess idol worship. ii. In ver. 22 he points out that it is not lawful to eat of them when the weaker brethren are offended at it. Hence in ver. 31 he recommends to the Corinthians edifying above everything, and bids them do everything to the glory of God and the salvation of their neighbours. Ver. 1.—Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant how that all our fathers were under the cloud. The particle for gives the cause of what was said at the end of the preceding chapter. He means, I have said that Christians must strive after baptism in their contest, lest they become reprobates and lose the prize, as the Hebrews, after their typical baptism and heavenly food, lost slothfully through their sins the land of promise, their prize, so that out of 600,000, Joshua and Caleb alone entered the Promised Land. So do you, O Corinthians, take care, lest, through your sloth, and a life out of harmony with your faith and baptism, you be excluded from heaven. So Chrysostom and Anselm. The argument is from the type or figure to the thing prefigured. Our fathers, i.e., the fathers of the Jews, of whom I am one, as many of you are, O Corinthians. Under the cloud. This cloud was the pillar which overshadowed the Hebrews in the daytime as a cloud, and shone at night as a fire, which led them for forty years through the wilderness, which settled over the ark and went before their camp, and protected them from the heat by spreading itself over the camp. Its mover and charioteer, so to speak, was an angel. See Exod. xiii. And all passed through the sea. The Red Sea, and dry shod, because Moses smote the waters with his rod, and divided them. Ver. 2.—And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. See Exod. 14. The passage of the Red Sea is a type of baptism, in which we are reddened with the blood of Christ, and drown the Egyptians, viz., our sins. Moses is a type of Christ; the cloud is the Holy Spirit, who cools the heat of lust and gives us light. Theodoret says: "Those things were typical of ours. The sea stood for the font, the cloud for the grace of the Spirit, Moses for the priest, his rod for the cross. Israel signified those who were baptized; the persecuting Egyptians represented the devils, and Pharaoh himself was their chief." Unto Moses as the legislator signifies, according to some, that the Hebrews were initiated into the Mosaic law by a kind of baptism when they passed through the sea. So we are baptized into Christ or initiated and incorporated into Christ and Christianity, by baptism. Hence in Exod. xiv., after the account of the passage through the sea, it is added, "They believed the Lord and His servant Moses." But our baptism was not a type of the baptism of the Hebrews in the Red Sea, but , on the contrary, theirs was a type of ours. Moreover, in this passage the Hebrews were not initiated into the law of Moses, for they did not receive it till they reached Sinai. I say, then, that since the Apostle frequently puts into for in, it is more simple to understand the phrase to mean through Moses, or under his leadership. So Ephrem, Chrysostom, Theophylact take it. The sense, then, is: all the Hebrews were baptized by Moses spiritually and typically, or bore the type of our baptism, in that, when they saw the sea divided by Moses, and Moses passing through it before, they, as Chrysostom says, also ventured to trust themselves to the sea, and that in the cloud, that is, under the guidance and protection of the cloud going before then, and in the sea, viz., in which the Egyptians were drowned, and through which they passed from Egyptian slavery to liberty and newness of life, just as we pass through the waters of baptism from the service of the devil to the Kingdom of Christ. So Anselm, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Theophylact. Notice, too, with Chrysostom, that the Scriptures give the name of the type to the antitype, and vice versâ. Here the passage through the Red Sea is called a baptism, because it was a type of one. Hence ver. 6 is explained, where he says, "These things were our examples." Ver. 3.—And did all eat the same spiritual meat. Not, as Calvin supposes, the same as we, as though Christians and Hebrews alike feed, not on the Real Body of Christ, but on the typical. You will say, perhaps, that S. Augustine (tract. 25 in Johan.) and S. Thomas explain it to be the same as we eat. I reply: They understand "the same" by analogy, for the Hebrews received typically what we receive really. But this is beside the meaning of the Apostle, who understands the same to refer, not to us but to themselves. All the Hebrews, whether good or bad, ate the same food, that is the same manna. This is evident from the context, "But with many of them God was not well pleased," that is to say, that though all ate the same manna, drank of the same water from the rock, yet all did mot please God. As, then, they had one baptism and one spiritual food, so too have we; and as, notwithstanding, they were not all saved, but many of them perished, so is it to be feared that many of us may perish, although we have the same sacraments common to us all. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Anselm, and others. And notice with them that manna is here called "spiritual food," or mystical, or typical, because the manna was a type of the Eucharist. So the water from the rock is called "spiritual drink," because it was a type of the blood of Christ. Others take "spiritual" to mean miraculous, i.e., not produced by the powers of nature but of spirits, viz., God and the angels; for of this kind was manna, of which the Psalmist says, "So man did eat angels' food" (Ps. lxxviii. 25). 1. Manna allegorically stood for Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, as is evident from S. John vi. 49, 50. Especially did it represent the contained part, and the effect of the sacrament, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Cyril point out at length, in commenting in the passage of S. John just quoted. Hence the Apostle says here: "They did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink." Even Calvin takes this of the Holy Communion, and says that the manna was a type of the body of Christ. From this you may rightly infer that in the Blessed Sacrament the flesh of Christ is truly present, since manna was a symbol of a thing really existing, and not merely imagined; for some of us as well as of the Jews will eat the spiritual meat, i.e., the typical and symbolical flesh, and will not have more of the truth signified than the Jews, nay, much less; for manna was sweeter than our bread, and far more clearly than dry bread represented the body of Christ. A certain minister of this new flock has lately yielded this point as a clear consequence. But who does not see that it is at variance with Holy Scripture and with reason? For the New Law is more excellent than the Old, and therefore the sacraments of the New surpass those of the Old. Therefore the Apostle says: "These things were our examples." But the thing figured is better than the figure, as a body is than its shadow, and a man than his likeness. Therefore the sacraments of the New Law, and especially the Eucharist, as a thing figured, must be more noble than the sacraments of the Old Law, and than the manna itself, which was but a type and figure of our Eucharist. Again, in S. John vi., Christ at some length puts His body in the Eucharist before the manna (vers, 48 and 59). The bread that He there speaks of is that which is Divine, consecrated and transubstantiated into the body of Christ. Who does not see that the manna was a better representation of the body of Christ than bread? It can be shown in many ways. 2. S. Paul has most fittingly compared manna to the body of Christ in the Eucharist, and has most beautifully shadowed it out: (a) the element in the Eucharist and the manna have the same colour; (b) it is not found except by those who have left the fleshpots of Egypt and the lusts of the flesh; (d) to the covetous and to infidels both turn to worms and bring condemnation; (e) the manna was not given till after the passing of the Red Sea— the Eucharist is not given till after baptism; (f) after the manna came, the Hebrews fought with Amalek, but before that God alone had fought for them against the Egyptians. They fought and conquered; so the obstacles and temptations which beset the heavenly life are allowed by God to trouble those only who are fortified against them, and they are overcome by the power of the Eucharist. (g) The manna was bread made by angels, without seed, or ploughing, or any human toil; so the body of Christ was formed of the Virgin alone by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. (h) Manna gave every kind of sweet taste to those who were good and devout. Hence Wisdom (xvi. 20) says of manna: "Thou feddest Thine own people with angels' food, and didst give them bread from heaven prepared without labour, containing in itself all sweetness and every pleasant taste." So Christ is milk to babes, oil to children, solid food to the perfect, as Gregory Nyssen says. (j) The manna was small: Christ is contained by a small Host; (k) the manna was beaten in a mortar: Christ was stripped of His mortality in the mortar of the Cross. (l) The faithful wonderingly exclaim, "Man-hu— What is this— that God should be with us!" (m) All collected an equal measure of manna, viz., one omer; so all alike receive whole Christ, though the species or the Host be greater of smaller, as Rupert says. (n) The manna was collected in the wilderness on the six week-days only; so in our eternal Sabbath and Promised Land the veil of the sacrament will be done away, and in perfect rest we shall enjoy the sight of Christ face to face. (o) The manna melted under the sun, so is the sacrament dissolved when the species are melted by heat. More will be found in the commentary on Exod. xxi. Ver. 4.—For they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them. The rock which gave water to the Hebrews was a type of Christ, who is the true Rock from which flowed the blood to quench the heat of our lust. But what is meant by saying that this rock followed the Hebrews? 1. The Hebrews reply that their tradition, and the Chaldean rendering of Num. xxi. 16, is that this rock miraculously followed the Jews everywhere in the wilderness till they came to Canaan, and supplied them with water. Hence Ephrem renders this, "They drank of the spiritual rock which same with them;" and Tertullian (de Baptismo, c. ix.) calls this rock their "companion." He says: "This is the water which flowed from the rock which accompanied the people." But farther on he interprets this rock of Christ, who in His Godhead accompanied and led the Hebrews through the wilderness. He says again (contra Marcion, lib. ii. c. 5): "He will understand that the rock which accompanied them to supply them with drink was Christ." S. Ambrose, too (in Ps. 38) says: "There is a shadow in the rock which poured forth water and followed the people. Was not the water from the rock a shadow of the blood of Christ, who followed the people, though they fled from Him, that He might give them drink and quench their thirst, that they might be redeemed and not perish?" Again, S, Ambrose (de Sacramentis, lib. v. c. 1) takes the rock to be Christ. He says: "It was no motionless rock which followed the people. Drink, that Christ may follow Thee also." But I should like to have better authorities for this tradition, for it is against it that after this water came from the rock , the people murmured again because of the scarcity of water ver. 16). 2. Others soften down the passage and explain it thus: "The waters which burst forth from the rock flowed for a long time and rushed forth as a torrent, and this stream followed the Hebrews till they came to a place where there was plenty of water. For had it been a supply to last but for one day, the rock would have had to be struck on the next day, and the third, and the fourth, and so on, to get a supply of water." And this explanation they support by pointing out that the manna is literal manna, and that therefore the rock or the drink spoken are material rock and material drink; but the objections to the first explanation are equally strong against this. 3. Photius supposes that the word for following simply means serving, and he would paraphrase the verse, "This rock satisfied the thirst of the Hebrews." But the Greek cannot possibly bear this interpretation. 4. It is better, then, to understand this of the spiritual Rock signified, not the one signifying. The meaning is then: By the power of the Godhead of Christ, which was the spiritual Rock signified by the rock that gave water to the Hebrews, and which was their constant companion in the wilderness, water was given to them from the material rock. It is so explained by S. Chrysostom, Ambrose, Anselm, Œcumenius. It may be said, By "spiritual meat" the Apostle meant manna, not the body of Christ, and by "spiritual drink" he means the water signifying the blood of Christ, not the blood itself; therefore, by parity of reasoning, the "spiritual rock" is the actual rock that typified Christ, not Christ Himself. I deny the consequence, for the Apostle in speaking of the Rock inverts the phrase, and passes from the sign to the thing signified. This is evident from his saying in explanation of the Rock, "That Rock was Christ." In other words, "When I speak of the spiritual Rock, I mean Christ." What can be clearer? For it was not the material but the spiritual Rock which was Christ: one was type, the other antitype. It may be urged again, that the phrase "They drank of the spiritual Rock," means that they drank the spiritual or typical drink, for the rock giving this drink was spiritual or typical. This would give the connecting idea, and the reason for saying that "they drank the same spiritual drink," for the rock was a type of Christ. The answer to this objection is that the sequence of thought is clear enough. The particle for gives the efficient cause of so great a miracle; in other words, the Hebrews drank of water which served as a type, for Christ was foreshadowed by the rock which gave this water, and He miraculously gave them this typical water in order that they might know and worship Christ giving it; but this, as the sequel shows, very many of them did not do. The rock that gave the water allegorically stood for Christ, because Christ, like a rock most firm, supports the Church, and was smitten, i.e., killed, by Moses, i.e., the Jews, with a rod; that is, the Cross poured forth waters, that is, most fruitful streams of grace, to the faithless of contradiction, to the faithful of sanctification. This is especially true of the waters of His blood in the Eucharist, with which He gives us drink in the desert of this life, that, strengthened by them, we may attain to our country in the heavens. See S. John vii. 37 and iv. 14. S. Augustine (contra Faustum, lib. xvi. c. 15). It may be argued: Some Catholic writers, according to the first explanation given above, say that, as "that Rock was Christ" means that it was typical of Christ, so in the same way it can be said of the Eucharist, that "this is My body" means "this bread is a figure of My body." But add that the Apostle expressly says that he us speaking of the spiritual, not the material rock. "They drank of that spiritual Rock," he says, and "that spiritual Rock was Christ." It is called a spiritual Rock, or typical, because it was a type of Christ. But neither Christ nor S. Paul speak then of the Eucharist.  S. Paul and all the Evangelists uniformly declare that Christ said, "This is My Body," not, "This is My spiritual or typical Body." Secondly, I answer that that explanation of some writers is not a very probable one; for that spiritual Rock, i.e., the One signified, was really Christ, not a type of Him. The words of S. Paul clearly say this. Ver. 5.—For they were overthrown in the wilderness. All the Hebrews who left Egypt with Moses died for their sins in the wilderness, except Joshua and Caleb, who, with a new generation, entered the Promised Land . Ver. 7.—Neither be ye idolaters . . . and rose up to play. Viz., when the Hebrews fashioned and worshipped the golden calf they closed their idolatrous festivities with a banquet. Thus they ate of the victims offered to their idol, that they might, after the manner of the Egyptians, celebrate the worship of this new food of theirs with a banquet and games, Hence it is said, "They rose up to play," i.e., to dance and sing. For Moses (Exodus 32:19), when he descended, a little time afterwards, from the mount, saw them dancing. This was the custom of the Gentiles after their sacrifices, and these games were frequently of a most obscene character. Hence the Rabbins and Tertullian (de Jej. contra Psychicos) interpret this play of the Jews of fornication and uncleannes. They celebrated, too, public games, which, Tertullian says, were forbidden to Christians, as being held in honour of idols, and on the same level, therefore, as things offered to idols (SeeTert. de Spectac.). But presently the wrath of God came on the people, as they were worshipping the calf and sporting, and 23,000 of them were slain by the Levites at the command of Moses. S. Paul impresses these thing on the Corinthians, because it was likely that they, before their Christianity, had engaged in such games and feasts, and had eaten of things offered to idols, in honour of their gods, and especially of Venus, to whom they daily offered a thousand maidens for prostitution. They were, too, much given to lust and impurity. Hence here, and in chap. vi. 9, he warns them against fornication. His meaning, then, is: See, O Corinthians, that you do not return to idols, nor eat of things offered to them, and so become partakers of idolatrous sacrifices; and do not give yourselves up to games, to lust, and self-indulgence; otherwise, like the Hebrews, you will be punished by God, as apostates and idolaters, as gluttons and drunkards. Ver. 8.—As some of them committed. When they worshipped Baal-peor. i.e., Priapus, and in his honour committed fornication with the daughters of Moab (Num. 25.). And fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Chrysostom, Anselm, Cajetan, refer this to the plague which was sent because of the fornication with the daughters of Moab, and which is related in Num. xxv. But in ver. 9 of that chapter the number slain is given as 24,000, not 23,000. (1.) Some account for this by saying that on one day only 23,000 were slain, and 1000 on the day before. But this is pure conjecture, for Scripture says nothing of this. (2.) Cajetan explains it by an error of some scribe, who wrote 23,000 for 24,000. (3) Œcumenius says that some read 23,000 in as well as here. (4.) Others say that the Apostle is not wrong, because the greater number includes the less. But it is simpler and more natural to say that the Apostle is referring to Exod. xxxii. 28, where, according to the Roman Bible, 23,00 fell for worshipping the golden calf. S. Paul, if this be so, is not referring to the punishment inflicted on the fornicators of Num. xxv., but by a Hebrew custom he looks back to the idolaters of ver. 7. We must suppose that, having forgotten to mention the punishment inflicted on them, he now gives it as an after-thought: certainly in the sins he goes on to name he in each case adds the punishment. He does this to warn the Corinthians against such sins, and especially because the worship of the calf and the lust accompanying it were exactly parallel, both in punishment and guilt, to the worship and fornication in the matter of Baal-peor. S. Paul's number agrees with the older rendering of the Greek in Exodus 32:28. The LXX. now has 3000. Ver. 9.—Neither let us tempt Christ by disbelieving His promises, as some of the Corinthians were doubting of the resurrection, as is seen in chap. xv. See . As some of them also tempted. The reference is to Num. xxi. 5. The words there, "against God," S. Paul here applies to Christ; therefore Christ is God. Hence the Greek Fathers say that the angel who appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and led the Hebrews out of Egypt, was a type of Christ to come in the flesh, i.e., of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. And were destroyed of serpents. See Num. xxi. 6. These fiery serpents are not so called because they were of a fiery nature, for this is repugnant to their true nature, but from the effect of their bite and the heat of their breath: these caused such a heat in those who were bitten that they seemed to be burning, These snakes are called by the Greeks by names (Praester and Canso), which denote burning, and are found in Libya and in Arabia, through which the Hebrews were then passing. Ver. 10.—As some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer, i.e., the angel by whom God inflicted punishment on the Hebrews for murmuring, because Korah and his followers were swallowed up alive by the earth. Fourteen thousand seven hundred perished by fire (see , , , ; Wisd. 18:20; Anselm in loco). This angel seems to have been Michael, the leader of the people, the giver of the law on Sinai and its vindicator, and a type of Christ, as was said just now (see Exodus 23:21). Others suppose that this "destroyer" was an evil angel or a devil, and refer to . But the Psalmist is speaking of the plague sent on the Egyptians, but Paul of those that God inflicted on the Hebrews. Besides, it is truer to say that the plagues were inflicted on the Egyptians by good angels, not by evil ones; for, as S. Augustine says, when commenting in , it is well known that it was by good angels that Moses turned the water into blood, and produced frogs and lice; for it was by these miraculous punishments that Moses and the good angels strove against the magicians of Pharaoh and the devils: hence at the third miracle of the lice they exclaimed, "This is the finger of God." The good angels are called, in , "evil," as inflicters of evil. The Hebrews murmured very often in the wilderness, and nearly always were punished by God. He thus wished to show that murmuring and rebellion are worse than other sins in His sight. So, in Num. xi., He slew those who murmured through fleshly lust, and the place was therefore called "the graves of lusts." In the same way all who murmured because of the report of the spies, who said that Canaan was a land strongly fortressed, were excluded from it, and perished in the wilderness; and of 600,000, Joshua and Caleb alone entered it (Num. xiv. 29). So were Korah and his followers punished clearly and severely. Ver. 11.—Now all these things happened unto them for types. Viz., all those here mentioned. We are not to imagine that everything that is related in the Old Testament is merely typical, as though it contained nothing which did not figuratively represent something in the New Testament.  S. Augustine (de Civ. Dei, lib. xvii. c. 5) says truly: "They seem to me to make a great mistake who think that the things recorded in the Old Testament have no meaning beyond the events themselves, just as much as those people are very venturesome who contend that everything without exception in it contains allegorical meanings." Gabriel Vasquez (p. 1, qu. i. art. 10, disp. 14, c. 6) rightly points out that the word "figure" or "type" used here, does not mean so much an allegorical sense, or a mystical one, as an example which may be well applied for the purpose of persuasion. Thence S. Paul adds, "they are written for our admonition." In other words, God punished the Hebrews that they might be an example to us, and teach us wisdom. Upon whom the ends of the world are come. That is, the last age of the world. The Prophets call the time of the Messiah: the last time," (See 2 S. John ii. 18.) Ambrose and Chrysostom add that the Apostle often speaks in this way, as though the end of the world was at hand, that he may keep every one in expectation and in fear of it, that so each one may be taught to prepare for it diligently. Ver. 12.—Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. S. Augustine (de Bono Persev. cviii.) says: "It is good for all, or nearly all, not to know what they will be, that each one, from not knowing that he will persevere in good, may humbly and anxiously pray for the grace of God, and with it do all he can to watch against falling and to persevere in grace." Ver. 13.—There hath no temptation taken you. The Vulgate reads the verb in the imperative— "let no temptation take you." His meaning is: Be it, O Corinthians, that you are tempted to schisms, lawsuits, lust, idolatry, yet remain constant, for these temptations which take you are common to man, and therefore you can easily overcome them if you like. If you take the Roman reading, the meaning is, When, as is often the case, any temptation of those which I have mentioned, or any other, attacks your minds, do not take it in and foster it, so as to let it grow imperceptibly in power, and to become at last unconquerable: for it is impossible to exclude altogether human and light temptations so as to never feel them. Anselm says: "To be overcome by malignant temptation and to sin from malice is devilish: not to feel its power is angelic; to feel it and overcome it is human." See also S. Gregory (Pastoral. i. cxi.). God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able. If God does not suffer us to be tempted beyond our strength, therefore much less, or rather in no way does God impel us to sin, as Calvin thinks. 2. Nor does God enjoin impossibilities, as Luther thinks, not foes He even permit them. 3. It follows from this that we can be so strongly tempted by the devil and the flesh as to be unable to resist if the grace of God does not succour us, as Chrysostom and Anselm say. 4. As a matter of fact there is no temptation so great but that it can be overcome by the grace of God. 5. The best remedy, therefore, against temptation is prayer, by which we call down the help of God from distrust of our own strength (S. Matt. xxvi 41). 6. This grace is promised here and elsewhere, not inly to the elect, but to all who duly call on God. See also decrees of the Council of Trent (Sess. xxiv. can. 9, and Sess. vi. can. 11). For the Apostle is speaking to the Christians at Corinth, many of whom were not elect, but some contentious, causing offence, and drunken (chap. xi. 21). What is more, none of them knew that they were elected, so as to be able to apply this consolation to themselves exclusively. 7. It is in the power of each Christian to obtain sufficient help to overcome all temptations and all sins; for God pledges His word to them to this, and He is One to be trusted, as the Apostle says here. His meaning is: no temptation can take you, except on your own side and by your own negligence; for on God's side I pledge myself that God, who is faithful, will perform what He has promised, and will not suffer you to be tempted above that you are able, i.e., will not allow you to be tempted, except by human temptation. Understand, however, that this is if you seek His grace and help, as is right, and co-operate with Him. "God," as S. Augustine says (de Nat. et. Gratia, c. 43), and following him, the Council of Trent (Sess. vi. can. ii.), "God does not order impossibilities when He orders us to resist every temptation; but when He orders, it is to bid us to so what we can, to seek help for what we cannot, and then He lends the strength." See S. Matt. xi. 30 and 1 S. John v. 3. S. Ephrem beautifully illustrates this saying of the Apostle as follows: "If men," he says, "do not put upon their beasts more weight than they can bear, much less will God put on men more temptations than they can bear. Again, if the potter bakes his vessels in the fire until they are perfected, and does not remove them before they are properly baked and of the right consistency, and again does not leave them in too ling, lest they be burnt too much and so become useless: much more will God do the same with us, trying us with the fire of temptations until we are purified and perfected; but beyond that point He will not suffer us to be scorched and consumed with temptation." (de Patientiâ) But will with the temptation also make a way to escape. God, who suffers you to fall into temptation, will also make it turn out well, as Erasmus and Augustine (in Ps. lxii and Ep. 89) understand it. He makes it good for you and your salvation, and will enable you to come out of it without less, nay, rather victoriously and with glory, as Anselm says. 1. The word translated "way of escape." according to Theophylact, Œcumenius, and the Greeks, means a happy end of the temptations, so that it turns out well and promotes the good of the tempted; for God will either bring the temptation to a speedy ending, or not permit it to go on to the fourth day, if He knows that we cannot bear it for more than three days, as S. Ambrose says; or if He gives it linger life He gives us the power of bearing it, as Ambrose and Anselm say. 2. It does not signify any way of escape, but such a way as when a soldier comes out victorious from a battle of a single combat, more renowned and even with increased strength and courage. So have the saints come out of temptation. The Greek word then also means a progress. Not only will God make the temptation no obstacle, but a means even of advancement, causing an increase of strength, virtue, grace, victory, and glory, a more certain walk in the way of virtue and in the road to heaven. So Photius. That ye may be able to bear it. The Greek literally means, "to more than bear it," i.e., so to bear it that strength remains over and above to bear something farther. God hives such help that any one can overcome temptation with flying colours, Hence the Fathers often remark that men advance in virtue through temptations chiefly; the reason is, that no one can resist them, except by putting forth contrary acts of virtue strongly and intensely, and where temptation brings out such acts it strengthens and intensifies their habits. 3. The righteous wins merit by such acts; he seeks and receives from God an increased infusion of grace and all virtues. Ver. 14.—Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. Not only avoid the worship which is given in sacrificing to and calling on idols, but also abstain from eating things offered to idols from any feeling of their sanctity, as the heathen eat them when the sacrifice is completed, either at the altars of in the temples. So you would share in their sacrifices, and would be thought to approve of them, and even to offer them. The Apostle is now going on to speak of the eating of things offered to idols. Chapter ix. was a long digression about a paid or unpaid ministry, about the Christian contest, the prize, and the competitors; the earlier part of chap. x. has been about the sins and punishments of the Hebrews; and now, after this long digression, he returns to the subject of things offered to idols, which was begun in chap, viii. The "wherefore" signifies, then, that he had written all that precedes for the purpose of warning them against idolatry and idol-offerings. Ver. 16.—The cup of blessing which we bless. (1.) That is the wine in the chalice which is blessed by the priest, and hence the chalice itself, containing this consecrated wine, does it not communicate to us the blood of Christ? (2.) It may be called the cup of blessing, because it blesses us and loads us with grace, as Anselm and Chrysostom say. (3.) More accurately, it is called "the cup of blessing," because Christ blessed it before consecration, i.e., called down the power of God to afterwards effect a change both in the bread and in the cup (S. Matt. xxvi. 26). 1. We see from the accounts of the Last Supper in S. , S. , and here and in that Christ, before consecration of the Eucharist, gave thanks to God thee Father, and, as He was wont, lifted up his eyes to heaven, as is enjoined in the Roman Canon of the Mass and in the Liturgy of S. James. Hence this sacrament is called the Eucharist, or Thanksgiving, because it is the greatest act of grace, and consequently is to be received with the greatest thanksgiving. 2. Christ blessed the bead and wine, not, as heretics say, His Father. And so Paul says expressly, "The cup which we bless." Christ blessed the bread and the cup, i.e., invoked the blessing and power of God on the bread and wine, that it might be present, both then and at all future consecrations, to change the bread into the body, and the wine of the chalice into the blood of Christ, when ever the words of consecration should be duly pronounced. Of the same kind was the blessing of the bread in S. Luke ix. 16. This blessing, then, was not the consecration, though S. Thomas thinks that it was (pt. iii. qu. 78, art. i. ad 1). Hence in the Liturgies of S. James and S, Basil, and in the Roman, after Christ's example, God is prayed to bless the gifts, that the Divine power may descend upon the bread and the cup to complete the consecration; and it is thence that we have "the cup of blessing," i.e., the cup blessed by Christ. Is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? 1. The communion, or communication, of the body and blood of Christ not only signifies that we receive the same body and the same blood of Christ, but also, as is said in ver. 17, we become one body and one blood. Therefore, the sacrament is not a type of the blood, as Calvin thinks, but it is the very blood of Christ itself, and is given to us in the Eucharistic chalice. If I were to say, "I give you a golden one," you would rightly understand that I did not mean a painted one. If I were to invite you to dinner, and a feast on the hare or stag caught in the chase, and instead of the hare or stag were to put before you on a dish a picture of animals, should I not be acting ridiculously?— should I not hear myself called an impostor? Are not then the Protestants who transform the blood and flesh of Christ, which He declares that He gives, into a figure of that blood and flesh, acting ridiculously? Are they not making Christ an impostor? 2. If this cup is only a figure of the blood, as the Protestants think, then we have not more, but less, in the Eucharist than the Jews had in the manna and the water miraculously provided for their drink. The apostle, too, should have said that we eat the spiritual body and drink the spiritual blood of Christ, that is that which represents them, just as he said that the Jews ate the spiritual meat— the manna, and drank the spiritual drink— the water from the rock. But as a fact he contrasts the blood and the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist, as the reality and the thing signified, with the manna and water, as the figure and spiritual type, signifying the flesh and blood of Christ. Moreover, he calls the manna spiritual meat, i.e., typical, and the water, spiritual drink; but he calls the body of Christ in the Eucharist the body, and the blood the blood. Who, then, can doubt that, as the manna was truly a type and shadow, so in the Eucharist there is really the blood, flesh, and body of Christ? 3. Theodoret, Theophylact, Anselm, S. Thomas expressly explain this passage in this way. Theophylact says: "He does not say the 'participation,' but the 'communion,' because he wished to indicate something more excellent, viz., the closest possible union. What he really says is this: What is in the chalice flowed from the side of Christ; and when we receive it, we have communion with, or are united to Christ. Are you not then ashamed, O Corinthians, to have recourse to the cup of idols, and to leave this cup which sets us free from idols?" S. Chrysostom most plainly dwells on this thought (in Hom. 24, Moral.), where, exhorting Christians to mutual charity through Holy Communion, he says: "If, then, dearly beloved, we understand these things, let us also strive to maintain unity among ourselves; for this dreadful and wonderful sacrifice leads us to this: it bids us approach one another with concord and perfect charity, and, like the eagles that Christians have been made in this life, let us fly to heaven itself, or rather above the heavens." And again a little further on he thus explains what the body of Christ in the Eucharist is like: "If no one would lightly lay hold of another man's clothing, how can we receive with insults the pure and immaculate body of the Lord, which is a partaker of the Divine Nature, through which we are and live, which burst open the gated of hell and opened heaven? This is the body which was pierced by nails, scourged, unconquered by death; this is the body at the sight of which the sun hid his rays; through which the veil of the Temple was rent, and the rocks and the whole earth quaked; this is the body which was suffused with blood, pierced by the spear, and which poured forth streams of blood and water to regenerate the wwole world." And a little further on he says that the body of Christ in the Eucharist is the same as was in the manger: "This body in the manger the Magi adored, and with great fear and trembling worshipped. But thou seest Him not in a manger, but on the altar. It is not a woman holding Him in her arms that you see, but a priest is before you, and the spirit shed abundantly upon the sacrament spread forth. Let us, therefore, be stirred up and fear, and show greater devotion than ever those barbarians did." And after some other remarks he asserts mist clearly that in the Eucharist we touch and feed on God Himself, and receive from Him all good thing, saying: "This table is the strength of our soul, the vigour of our mind, the bond of mutual trust, our foundation, hope, and salvation, our light and our life, If we depart fortified by this sacrifice, we shall with the greatest confidence climb the sacred hill which leads to heaven's gate. But why speak of the future? For even while we are here in this life, this mystery makes earth heaven: for the body of the King is set before our eyes, on earth, as it is in heaven. I show you, not angels or archangels, not heaven or the heaven of heavens, but the Lord of them all. Nor do you merely gaze on Him: you touch Him, you feed on Him: you receive not a child of man, even though of kingly birth, but the Only-Begotten Son of God. Why, then, do you not shudder at such Presence, and cast away the love of all worldly things?" A new preacher of a new word of God has lately answered these words by saying that S. Chrysostom spoke rhetorically. But this evasion is as silly as futile; for S. Chrysostom is, I admit, an orator, but he is also a teacher of Christian truth. Hence in his commentary itself, he days that he is treating of the literal meaning of the Apostle. It is true that in the application of his sermon he does enlarge on that meaning, but not so as to exceed or to deny the truth, as, i.e., if he were to say that wood is stone, that a man is a brute, that bread is flesh; else he would not be an orator, but a lying impostor, and that in matters of faith. For an orator would be false and foolish who should say that the water of baptism was the very same blood of Christ that flowed from His side, when the Jews pierced His body with nails, and smote it with scourges; if he were to say that it was the God and Lord of all, he would no doubt mean that the water of baptism is a type of the blood of Christ, who applied it to us to wash away our sins. In the same way he is false and foolish who says that the bread and wine are the very blood, the very body of Christ, which was adored by the Magi in the manger, nailed to the Cross, scourged, and crucified by the Jews, nay, that it is the very Lord of all things, and the Only-Begotten Son of God, as S. Chrysostom says. I appeal to you, reader, to read these words of his candidly and impartially, or to say whether they are true of the manna, of the Paschal lamb, or of any such type. Would S. Chrysostom have spoken of them thus? Would Calvin, or Viretus, or Zwinglius, or any of their following, no matter how eloquent an orator he might be, speak of their supper in this way? If it is lawful t sublimate and invert the meanings of authors and the words of the Fathers in this way, it will be lawful to invert all faith, all history, all the opinions of these men, and to twist them to a totally different sense, all this will better appear in the following verses. The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? The sense is, The communication to us, or the eating of the bread which we break, communicates to us also the very body of Christ, so that each one actually partakes of it in the Eucharist. It may be said: The Eucharist is here called the bread, therefore it is not the flesh of Christ. I reply that bread, by a Hebraism, stands for any food . So Christ is called manna , and bread (Ibid. ci. 41). The reason is that bread is the common and necessary food of all. Moreover, S. Paul does not say "bread" simply, but "the bread which we break," i.e., the Eucharistic or transubstantiated bread, which is the body of Christ, and yet retains the species and power of bread. In this agree all the Fathers and orthodox doctors. Christ, on other occasions as well as in the Last Supper, is said to have broken and distributed the bread, according to the Hebrew custom by which the head of the house was wont to break the bread and divide the food among the guests sitting at table. For the Easterns did not have loaves shaped like ours, which need a knife to cut them up, but they used to make their bread into wide and thin cakes, as, amongst others, Stuckius has noticed (Convival. lib. ii. c. 3). Hence "to break bread" signifies in Scripture "to feast," and breaking bread signifies any feast, dinner, or meal. In the New Testament it is appropriated to the Eucharist; therefore "to break bread" is a sacramental and ecclesiastical term. Hence S. Paul calls here the Eucharist "the bread which we break," meaning the species of the body of Christ which we break and consume in the sacrament. See further on c. xi. 24. Ver. 17.—For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. As one loaf is made out of many grains of wheat, so of many faithful is made one holy and living bread, the one mystical body of Christ, the Church. Not only generally and mystically, but properly and substantially, because all are really united to the body of Christ, and become one with it, in the Eucharist, just as food becomes one with him that eats it. Hence it may be rightly argued against Protestants that we all eat really the same body of Christ. They, however, say that in the Eucharist all Christians become one, because they eat the same sacramental bread, which is a type of the body of Christ. But who share in it one, merely because they sit at the same table and eat of the same bread? It would be a statement at once untrue and foolish. It is, however, true when applied t the body of Christ, because we all feed on what is numerically one, especially because this holy bread, as S. Augustine says, when eaten, is not changed into our substance, but rather changed us into its own, and unites us to itself and makes us like it, which ordinary bread does not do. Here Cyril of Alexandria (in Joan. lib. iv. c. 17) says: "As wax is incorporated into wax, and leaven permeated through bread, so do we become fused into the body of Christ." And Cyril of Jerusalem (Catachesis, 4) says: "In Holy Communion we become, not only bearers of Christ, but also sharers of the same body and the same blood as He." This is because we become one with Christ and Christ with us, because we are really blended with the flesh of Christ, and therefore with his Person, His 244 Godhead, and His omnipotence. Irenæus says the same (lib. iv. c. 34), and Hilary (de Trin. lib. viii.). It is for this reason that the Eucharist is called Communion by the Fathers: it really unites us to the body of Christ, so that all become one in Him and with Him. "Communion," then, is the common union of the faithful, who, by feeding on the same true body of Christ in the Eucharist, are made one mystical body, the Church. So says Bede, following S. Augustine. Hence, too, the Council of Trent (sess. xii. c. 8) says: "This sacrament is the sign of unity, the bond of charity, the symbol of peace and concord," no doubt because, in a wonderful way, it signifies and perfects the unity of the body of Christ, i.e., of the faithful of the Church. For this reason, too, the Eucharist was formerly given to infants after their baptism, that they might be perfectly incorporated into Christ (vide S. John vi. 55). Again for the same reason the Eucharist was called by S. Dionysius, Synaxis, i.e., "congregation," because the faithful were in the habit of assembling in the church to receive the Eucharist. Tertullian even says (de Oratione, cap. ult.) that prayer should end when the body of the Lord has been received. The Apostle too, in the next chapter (ver. 20), says: "When ye come together, therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper." For although the Church becomes the body of Christ through faith and baptism, yet this is done more truly and properly in the Eucharist. Heretics raise the objection that therefore only the good and righteous are parts and members of the Church, for the Apostle says, "We are all one bread;" but bread, they say, is made from grains of wheat, not from chaff; therefore the Church is formed from the righteous, not from the wicked; for the righteous are the corn, the wicked are the chaff. I reply (1.) that this does not follow, because a similitude is not bound to be in all points alike; (2.) that the major premiss is false, for often chaff, grains of sand, lentils are mingled with the wheat, and with it go to make up the bread. Hence S. Paul (c. xi. 29) says that even the wicked eat of this bread. But here he says that all who partake of this bread make up the one body of Christ, which id the Church: therefore the wicked, also, who eat of this bread are of the Church. Vide S. Cyprian (Ep. ad Magnum, lib. i.; Ep.6). Ver. 18.—Behold Israel after the flesh . . . partakers of the alter? That is, of the victim offered on the altar, by metonymy. All this is meant to prove that things sacrificed to idols ought not to be partaken of; and the sense is: See, O Corinthians, Israel after the flesh: when they eat of the victims offered to God, are they not deemed to be partakers of the sacrifice offered on the altar to God, and to consummate the sacrifice, and in a sense therefore to sacrifice? In the same way that they who eat of the Eucharistic bread are sharers of the Eucharistic sacrifice, are they who eat of things offered to idols sharers of idolatrous sacrifices: they consummate them, and in a sense sacrifice to idols. He proves, from the example of the Jews, that they who eat of things sacrificed to idols give their consent to such sacrifices, and tacitly sacrifice to those idols. Ver.19.—What say I then? that the idol is anything, &c. By no means: for the idol and that offered to it are nothing, have no influence or power. See viii. 4. Vers. 20, 21.—But I say . . . Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and of the table of devils. The table is the altar, which is, as it were, God's table at which He feasts with us, See Lev. i.;  ; Ambrose, Anselm, and the Council of Trent (sess. xxii. c. 1), where it lays down from this passage that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. For that the Apostle is dealing with the Eucharist and not with the sacrifice of the Cross appears plainly— 1. Because the Victim of the Cross has passed away, and long ago creased; but the Apostle is here treating of a sacrifice of which the Corinthians were partakers daily. 2. From the phrase, "the Lord's table," i.e., the altar. Where there is an altar there is a priest and a sacrifice, for the three are correlative terms. If, then, the Corinthians had an altar, they had also a sacrifice, and that of course none other than the Eucharist. 3. "The cup of the Lord" can only be the cup offered to the Lord, for the cup of devils is none other than the one offered to them. From the context, and the line of the Apostle's argument, which is this: As the Jews, when they eat if their peace-offerings, share in and consent to the sacrifice of them that is made on God's altar, so do those who eat of things sacrificed to idols share in and consent to the sacrifice of them that is made to idols; and so do Christians, when they receive the Eucharist, become partakers of the Eucharistic sacrifice, and sacrifice the Eucharist to God by the priest, It is consequently unseemly altogether that they should also sacrifice to a devil, which they do by partaking of things offered to idols, as a part of the idolatrous sacrifice; for no one can at once sacrifice to God and a devil. Cf. S. Augustine (contra Advers. Legis et Prophet. lib. i. c. xix). Chrysostom in loco, Anselm, Theophylact, Œcumenius, Ambrose, Theodoret say the same thing. S. Cyprian (de Lapsis) expressly teaches the same lesson, and confirms it by the numerous examples of those who, after eating of things offered to idols, came to the Eucharist, and were punished by God accordingly; and he adds: "An earthly commander will not suffer any one of his soldiers to fly to the camp of his enemies and there to work; how much less can God suffer His followers to take part in the banquets of devils?" Notice (1.) that when the sacrifice was completed, the flesh which had been offered on the idol's altar was removed from it to a table, near the altar or temple, in order that they who had offered it might, with the friends they had invited, eat of it there; for sacrifices and religious feasts were generally concluded with such a sacred banquet. Cf. the sacrifice offered by Evander and Æneas in Virgil (Æneid, viii. 179-183). So, too, the Jews were in the habit of eating in the porch before the Temple of the sacrifices which they had offered (1 Sam. ix.13). So, too, Christ concluded the concluded the Eucharistic sacrifice with a banquet in it, and a distribution of it to the Apostles. Hence, too, in the primitive Church, all the faithful communicated at the Mass, that they might be partakers of the sacrifice, and conclude it with such a banquet. Again, the heathen, who sacrificed victims to their idols, used, after the sacrifice, to carry home with them portions of it to give to those in their house, and to send to their friends, that so the absent might be partakers of the sacrifice, as Giraldus (de Diis Gentium) points out from Herodotus and others, Similarly, the Christians in the time of persecution used to carry home the Eucharist , and even sent it to the absent, as a mark of love and communion, and to enable them to be partakers of the sacrifice. Cf. Eusebius, Hist. lib. v. c. 24 and 29. Notice (2.) that the Apostle gives a plain answer to the question whether it was lawful to eat of things offered to idols. He says that it never had been, nor was then, lawful to eat of things offered to idols, as such, or as being sacred to idols. He who so eats of them tacitly admits by the very act that the idol is sacred, has some Divine influence, and that, because of the idol, the flesh offered is sacred, because offered to a Divine being, which is idolatry. This takes place whenever such food is partaken of in such a place, in such a way, and under such circumstances, as that the eater is morally thought to eat it out of honour to the idol, as when the offerers sent portions to their friends with the intention of showing worship to the idol, when their friends received and ate them. Again, the case is still more clear, if you eat directly after the sacrifice, near the altar of the temple, together with those that offer the sacrifice, in presence of idolaters; for then you are rightly judged to eat it to the honour of the idol. It is otherwise if afterwards you feed on it alone, and from hunger of greediness, whither it be at home of at the temple, because in that case you are not thought to feed on it as being sacred to the idol, but you are seen to be merely gratifying your hunger or appetite. It may be said, S. Augustine (Ep. 154, and de Bono Conj. c. xvi., and contra Faustum, lib, xxxii. c. 13) asks whether a Christian, when travelling and pressed by hunger, may, if he can find nothing but some food offered to an idol, and if no one is present, eat of it, or whether it is better for him t die; and he answers, It may be said that it is either known to have been offered to the idol or not; if it is known, it is better for it to be rejected by Christian virtue; if it is not known, it may be taken for his necessity without any scruple of conscience." Otherwise, as I have said, it is better to reject it, lest the eater should seem to have communicated with idols. He ought then to abstain from things offered to idols, if they are known to be such. I reply that S. Augustine does not say that he must abstain from it, if he knows that it has been so offered. He says "it is better for it to be rejected by Christian virtue," implying pretty plainly that it is lawful to eat of it, but that it would be better and more noble if he abstained from it and preferred death. There is a parallel case in the Carthusian rule. One in extreme weakness is allowed to eat flesh to save his life; but he will do what is better and more holy if he follow his profession and abstain and so die. Cf. Victoria (Relect. de Temperant. num. 8), Azorius (Morals, lib. v. c. 6), and others. For he is not bound to save his life at all costs, but he may rank it below his vow, or rather the holiness of his profession, so as to give as example of virtue to others, and to hallow the discipline and rigour of his order. The Carthusians do not take a formal vow of abstinence from flesh, but merely have it enjoined on them by the constitution of their order. Ver. 22.—Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? I.e., to anger. Do we set up a rival to the Lord? De we leave Him, our Bride-groom, and cling to a devil, and the things offered to him, or at all events wish to serve both, and yoke together God and the devil? So Chrysostom, Anselm, Theophylact.  S. Paul is alluding to .  S. Jerome, commenting of Habakkuk ii., rightly says the unclean spirits preside over all idols, and answer those who call on the idols, and give oracular replies, and lend them help. Are we stronger than He? By no means; therefore our provoking God to anger will not go unpunished by Him. Ver. 23.—All things are lawful for me. Viz., all things that are not essentials, such as to eat of things offered to idols, not as sacred, or as things sacrificed, but as common food. So far Paul has treated of things offered to idols as such, and has forbidden the use of them. Hence, in ver. 14, he bids the Corinthians fly from idolatry, i.e., the meats of ver. 20. But in this verse he passes on to the second case, when meat that has been offered to idols is partaken of, not formally as such, but materially, as mere food or flesh; and with regard to this he says, "All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient," Because all things do not edify. Materially, you may eat of things offered to idols considered in themselves, but if there is attached to such action the giving of offence, then you may not; see vers. 27, 28, 33. Clement (Stromata) well said: "They who do whatsoever is lawful will easily sink into doing what is unlawful." Theophylact explains this verse differently, but his explanation is beside the drift of the context. Ver. 24.—Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth. Let no one seek or buy flesh which, e.g., has been offered too idols, and which is useful and pleasant to himself, just because it is of a low price; but in such matters let each one seek his neighbour's edification, and not to buy it or eat it, so as o cause him offence or spiritual loss. So Theophylact. Ver. 25.—Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question. Eat indifferently everything, whether offered to idols or not. Asking no question, i.e., making no difference, or according to S. Ambrose, making no inquiry; according to Theophylact, without hesitation. Herodotus tells us, as well as S. Augustine in the commentary he commenced on the Epistle to the Romans (c. 78), that the heathen custom was to send t the shambles whatever remained over of the sacrificed meats after the feast, and to give the priests the proceeds. In the shambles, therefore, they were looked upon as any other meats, as having returned to secular and common use. S. Augustine says: "Some weaker brethren at that time abstained from flesh and wine, lest they should unknowingly partake of things offered to idols; for all kinds of sacrificial flesh were offered for sale in the shambles, and the heathens used to pour out libations of wine to their images, and even to offer sacrifices at their wine-presses." Hence the Apostle dispels this scruple, and bids them buy and eat freely whatever was sold in the shambles, making no distinction between meats, nor asking where they same from, as if it were a matter of conscience, or as though the flesh needed cleansing, if it came from an idol's temple. The Christians of Antioch followed this teaching of the Apostles, when Julian the Apostate endeavoured to force them into idolatry through idol meats. Theodoret (lib. i. c. xiv.) thus describes the incident: "Julian first polluted the water-spring with victims offered to idols, so that every one who drank of the water was infected. He then polluted in the same way whatever was offered for sale in the market; for bread, flesh, fruits, vegetables, and all other eatables were sprinkled with this water; but when the Christians saw this, though they could not but grieve and detest the wickedness, still they ate of such things, in obedience to the injunction to the Apostle: "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles that eat, asking no question." For conscience sake, as though you were bound to ask whether the meat which they wish to sell has been offered to idols, it being not lawful for you to buy and eat such. So Anselm, Ambrose, Theodoret. It is evident from this that Paul is not speaking of the fasts of the Church, or saying that on any day, even a fast day, it is lawful to eat meat which is exposed for sale in the shambles. For these fasts do not belong to the class of non-essentials, but are precepts of the Church. Therefore S. Paul, in Acts 15., 16., ordered the decree concerning abstinence from things strangled and from blood to be observed, though it was a mere positive precept enjoined by the Apostles alone. Ver. 26.—For the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof. Every creature, because it is the Lord's, is good and clean; so, too, things offered to idols are not unclean, as you suppose, because they have been offered to a devil, but are clean, because created by the Lord. So Chrysostom, Theophylact,, Anselm. Theophylact gives another meaning as well: "Abstain from all food sacrificed to idols, for the whole earth is the Lord's, and you can be abundantly satisfied from other sources." But this meaning is not suited to the context, especially, to the injunction, "Eat whatever is sold in the shambles." Ver. 27 CHAPTER 11 OF THE CHAPTER The Apostle proceeds to deal with the third point put before him, that of the veiling of women; for the Corinthians had asked of S. Paul whether or no women ought to be veiled. He replies that they ought, and especially at the time of public prayer, and he supports his decision by five reasons. (I.) that womanly honour and modesty demand it (vers. 5 and 14); (2.) that they are subject to men (vers. 7 et seq.); (3.) that if they go forth with uncovered head they offend the angels (ver. 10); (4.) that nature has given them hair for a )covering (ver. 15); (5.) that this is the custom of the Church (ver. 16). The second part of the chapter (ver. 17) treats of the Eucharist, and in this he censures as an abuse that in the agape, or common meal, the rich excluded the poor, and sat apart by themselves, giving themselves to self-indulgence and drunkenness. Then (ver. 23) he gives an account of the institution of the Eucharist by Christ, and declares the guilt and punishment of those who approach unworthily, and bids each one examine himself before he approach to it. Ver. 1.—Be ye followers of me, even as also I am of Christ. This is a continuation of the preceding chapter. Imitate me, 0 Corinthians, in that, as I said, I do not seek my own advantage but that of many, that they may be saved; and in this I imitate the zeal of Christ, who sought not His own good but our salvation, and to gain it descended from heaven to earth, took our flesh, toiled, and gave Himself to the death of the Cross. Ver. 2.—Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things. He here passes on and paves the way for a fresh question. In the following verses he proceeds to censure the abuses of the Corinthians in suffering their women to go unveiled, and in approaching the Eucharist when full of wine and mutual discords, and according to his custom he softens his rebuke that the Corinthians may take it the more readily and kindly, in the same way that physicians sugar their pills. He says, therefore, "I praise you that ye remember me in all things," which, as Erasmus says, means "that ye keep in memory all my things," or, as Euthymius says, "that ye are mindful of everything that belongs to me" Supply "precepts, teachings, or exhortations" after "all." All these precepts, &c., must be understood with some limitation, and must mean that most of them were kept by the better sort of the Corinthians, for in other parts of this Epistle he censures some faults of the Corinthians, and especially in this chapter their abuse of the Eucharist, as a departure from the ordinance of Christ and His own precepts. As I delivered them to you.—The Greek gives, when translated literally, as even Beza admits, "Ye keep the traditions as I delivered them to you." Hence, since these traditions were not committed to writing by the Apostles, for no previous letter to the Corinthians containing a record of them is extant, it plainly follows that not everything which concerns faith and morals has been written down in Holy Scripture, and that S. Paul and the other Apostles delivered many things by word of mouth. This is even more clearly stated in vers. 23 and 34. It is evident, moreover, from the fact that before that had been written which S. Paul here writes about the Eucharist, &c, the Corinthians were bound to obey the precepts respecting them given by Christ and S. Paul, as he says himself in ver. 23. The law preserved in tradition binds equally with the written law. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others. Ver. 3.—But I would have you know, that . . . the head of Christ is God. S. Paul here lays the foundation for his precepts about the veiling of women. We must bear in mind that the Corinthian women were greatly given, not only to lust, but also to the worship of Venus, so much so that a thousand maidens were every day exposed as prostitutes at her temple and in her honour. (Cf. notes to chap. vi. at the end.) Moreover, they thought this to be to their own honour and an act of piety, and they hoped to conciliate the goddess in this way to bestow upon them and their daughters, or to continue to them, a happy marriage. They were consequently wanton, and forward to attract lovers by exposing their features and displaying their form; and this was regarded at Corinth as a custom honourable, becoming and elegant, and Christian women thought that they ought to retain the custom of their fathers. Some of the Corinthians whose minds were of a higher cast advised S. Paul of this fact, and put to him the question whether it was lawful or becoming, for Christian women to go about with uncovered head, and especially in the Church. Paul replies that it is neither becoming nor lawful, and he begins here to give his reasons. The first is that the woman is subject to the man as her head, therefore she ought to be veiled; again, man is subject to God as His image, and therefore he is not to be veiled. In vers. 7 and 10 he proves both conclusions. Head here has the meaning of lord, superior, or ruler. So God, as being of a higher nature, is the head and ruler of Christ as man; while Christ, as being of the same nature with the Church, is her Head, and that, as S. Thomas says, in four ways: (1.) by reason of conformity of nature with other men, for Christ as man is the Head of the Church; (2.) by reason of the perfection of His graces; (3.) by reason of His exaltation above every creature; (4.) by reason of His power over all, and especially over the Church. So the man, S. Thomas says, is head of the woman in four ways: (1.) He is more perfect than the woman, not only physically, inasmuch as woman is but man with a difference, but also in regard to mental vigour, according to : "One man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found." (2.) Man is naturally superior to woman, according to : "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as unto the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife." (3.) The man has power to govern the woman, according to : "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (4.) The man and the woman enjoy conformity of nature, according to : "I will make him an help meet for him." Vers. 4 and 5.—Every man praying, &c. This is the second reason: It is disgraceful for a man to be veiled, and, therefore, the honour, freedom, and manliness of man require that he veil not his head, but leave it free and unconstrained. On the other hand, it is disgraceful for a woman not to be veiled, for womanly honour and modesty require a woman to veil her head; therefore the woman ought to be veiled, the man ought not. The phrase, "Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth," does not use "prophesieth" in its strict, and proper meaning of uttering a prophecy or an exposition, but in the improper sense of singing hymns or psalms to the praise of God. For S. Paul is here speaking of the public assembly, in which he does not allow a woman to speak or to teach, but only to sing her part well when the whole congregation sings. Prophet means singer in , and in . So Saul is said to have been among the prophets, that is among the singers of praises to God. So in the Books of Kings those are called prophets who served God with praises. Some explain "that prophesieth" to mean "that hears prophecy;" but "prophecy" has never this passive meaning. Moreover, the Apostle here means any woman, whether unmarried, virgin, married, or unchaste. He bids all alike to go veiled. So Tertullian (de Vel. Virg. c. 4 and 5) lays down, and adds that the Corinthians understood this to be S. Paul's meaning, for up to that time, he says, they follow S., Paul's injunction, and veil their wives and daughters. Ver. 6.—For if a woman be not covered, let her also be shorn. For here is not causal, but an emphatic continuative. It is as disgraceful for a woman to have her head uncovered as to have her hair cut short or cut off. Heretics infer from this that it is wrong for religious virgins to be shorn; but I deny that it follows; for the Apostle is speaking in general of women living in the world, especially of married women, who are seen in public in the temple: he is not speaking of religious who have left the world. These latter rightly despoil themselves of their hair, to show (i.) that they contemn all the pomp of the world, (2.) that they have no husband but Christ. This was the custom at the time of S. Jerome, as he says (Ep. 48 ad Sabin.). The Nazarites did the same (Num. vi. 5). It may be urged that the Council of Gangra (can. 17) forbids virgins to be shorn under pretext of religion. I reply from Sozomen (lib. iii. c. 13) that this canon does not refer to religious, but to heretical women, who left their husbands and against their will cut off their hair, in the name of religion, and donned man's dress. It is these that the Council excommunicates, as Baronius rightly points out (Annals, vol. iv.). Add to this that religious virgins wear a sacred veil instead of their hair. It should be noticed that, although Theodosius (Codex Theod. lib. 27, de Epis. et Cler.) forbade virgins to be shorn in the West, that is to say, younger women not living within the walls of a monastery, but wishing to profess a religious life of chastity in the world, his reason was to prevent scandal, which would be caused if, as sometimes was the case, they happened to fall away into the ordinary secular life. This actually happened in the very same year that this law was passed by Theodosius, as Baronius has well pointed out (Annals, A.D. 390). Sozomen, too (lib. vii. c. 26), gives the same reason for its being passed. A young matron at Constantinople, and of noble birth, and a deaconness, had been, it would seem, seduced by a deacon; and when, according to custom, by the order of her confessor she was making a public confession of certain sins, she proceeded to confess also this sin of fornication to the great scandal of the people; and because of this Nectarius abolished public confession and the office of public penitentiary. Still it has ever been the common practice of the Church that virgins, when taking vows of religion, should be shorn. S. Jerome (Ep. 48) says that in Egypt and Syria women who had dedicated themselves to God were accustomed to cut off their hair. He says: "It is the custom of the monasteries in Egypt and Syria, that both virgin and widow who have vowed themselves to God, and have renounced and trodden underfoot all the delights of the world, should offer their hair to be cut off, and afterwards live, not with head uncovered, which, is forbidden by the Apostle, but with their heads both tied round and veiled." Palladius (in Lausiaca) is our authority for saying that the Tabeunesiotζ, an order of sacred virgins founded by S. Pachomius in obedience to the command of an angel, did the same. Moreover, S. Basil (in Reg. Monach.) prescribes, that at the very beginning of the monastic life the head should be shaven, for he says that this well becomes him who is mourning for his sins. Ver. 7.—For a man indeed ought two to cover his head, inasmuch as he is the image and glory of God. This is a hendiadys, for man is the image of the glory of God, or the glorious image of God, in whom the majesty and power of God shine forth most clearly. He is placed on the topmost step in nature, and is as it were God's vicegerent, ruling everything This is the major of a syllogism of which the minor is: but the glory of God must be manifested, the glory of man hidden. Therefore, since woman is the glory of the man, the man of God, it follows that woman should be veiled, that the man should not. S. Anicetus (Ep. ad. Episc. Galliζ) takes this verse of the Apostle chiefly of men in the ranks of the clergy, and of priests in particular, who, in obedience to S. Paul, ought not only to have their heads uncovered, but also a tonsure in the shape of a crown, as S. Peter had (Bede, Hist. Ang. lib. v. c. 23, and Greg. of Tours, de Glor. Conf. c. xxvii.), to represent Christ's crown of thorns and the contumely endured by S. Peter and his fellow Apostles, from which they expect a crown of glory in the heavens. It should be remarked that in the Old Testament the high-priest offered sacrifices with bare feet and covered head, i.e., wearing his mitre (Exod. xxviii. 37), but in the New Testament the priests offer the sacrifice of the Mass with their feet shod and with uncovered head. Epiphanius says (Hζres. 8o) that, in the New Testament, Christ, who is our Head, is conspicuous and manifest to us, but was veiled and hidden from the Jews in the Old Law. However, the Apostle is evidently referring here to all men in general, not to the clergy only. It is not contrary to this precept of the Apostle for our priests, when they celebrate, to use the amice among the other vestments, for they do not cover the head with it while sacrificing, but only use it round the opening in the chasuble (Rupert, de Div. Off. lib. i. c. 10). The amice is not used, then, to cover the head, but to represent the ephod of the high-priest under the Old Law, as Alcuin and Rabanus say, or to signify the veil with which the Jews bound the eyes of Christ . Cf. Dom. Soto, lib. iv. dist. 13, qu. 2, art. 4, and Hugh Vict. de Sacr. lib. ii. c. 4. But S. Paul wishes to abolish the heathen custom, first instituted, say Plutarch and Servius, by Ζneas, of sacrificing and making supplication to their gods with veiled head. Tertullian (in Apol.) remarked this distinction between Christians and heathen, and Varro (de Ling. Lat. lib. iv.) records that the Roman women, when sacrificing, had their heads veiled in the same way. But the woman is the glory of the man. Woman was made of man to his glory, as his workmanship and image; therefore she is subject to him, and should be veiled, in token of her subordination. The woman, that is the wife, is the glory of the man, his glorious image, because God formed Eve out of the man, in his likeness, so that the image might represent the man, as a copy the model. This image is seen in the mind and reason, inasmuch as the woman, like the man, is endowed with a rational soul, with intellect, will, memory, liberty, and is, equally with the man, capable of every degree of wisdom, grace, and glory. The woman, therefore, is the image of the man, but only improperly; for the woman, as regards the rational soul, is man's equal, and both man and woman have been made in the image of God; but the woman was made from the man, after him, and is inferior to him, and created like him merely. Hence the Apostle does not say that "the woman is the image of the man," but only "the woman is the glory of the man." The reason is no doubt the one that Salmeron has pointed out, that woman is a notable ornament of man, as given to him for a means to propagate children and govern his family, and as the material over which he may exercise his jurisdiction and dominion. For man's dominion not only extends to inanimate things and brute animals, but also to rational beings, viz., to women and wives. Vers. 8, 9.—For the man is not of the woman . . . but the woman for the man. By two reasons he proves that the woman is the glory of man as her head— (1.) that woman is of later date than man, produced from him, and consequently man is the source and principle from which woman sprang. (2.) She was created to be a help to the man, the sharer of his life, and the mother of his children. As, then, man is the beginning from which, so is he the end for which woman was made. Hence the woman is the glory of the man, and not vice versβ. Ver. 10—For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. There is no good authority for reading "veil" instead of "power," as some do. We should observe: (1.) Power denotes here the authority, right, or rule of the man over the woman, not of the woman herself. The reference is to Gen. iii. 16. (2.) Power, by metonymy, signifies here the symbol of the man's power, the veil which the woman wears on her head to signify her subjection to her husband's power, and to denote that the man, as it were, is enthroned upon and holds dominion over her head. Power here, then, is used with an active meaning with regard to the man, with a passive in regard to the woman; for a veil is worn by one who reverences the power of another. As a bare and unconstrained head is a sign of power and dominion, so when veiled it is a sign that this power of his is as it were veiled, fettered, and subdued to another. Hence Tertullian (de Cor. Mil, c. xiv.) calls this covering worn by women, "The burden of their humility," and (de Vel. Virg. c. xvii.) "their yoke."  S. Chrysostom calls it "The sign of subjection;" the Council of Gangra (sess. xvii.), "The memorial of subjection." (3.) From this covering it was that, by the Latins, women are said nubere, that is, caput obnubere, when they pass into the power of a husband. On the other hand, in the case of a man, a cap was the badge of the freedman, as Livy says at the end of lib. 45. Hence slaves who were to be enrolled as liable to military service, were said to be called "to the cap," that is, to liberty. Because of the angels. 1. The literal sense is that women ought to have a covering on the head out of reverence to the angels; not because angels have a body, and can be provoked to lust, as Justin, Clement, and Tertullian thought— this is an error I exposed in the notes to Gen. vi.— but because angels are witnesses of the honest modesty or the immodesty of women, as also of their obedience or disobedience. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, S. Thomas, Anselm. 2. Clement (Hypotypos, lib. ii.) understands by "angels," good and holy men. 3. Ambrose, Anselm, and S. Thomas take it to mean priests and Bishops, who, in Rev. ii., are called angels, and who might be provoked to lust by the beauty of women with uncovered heads. Hence Clement of Alexandria (Pζd. lib. ii. c. 10) thinks that this bids them cover, not merely their heads, but also their forehead and face, as we see the more honourable do in church. But the first meaning is the most literal and pertinent. This reverence that is due to the angels is the third reason given by S. Paul why women should cover their heads. It is especially to be shown in church, for angels fill the church, and take notice of the gestures, prayers, and dress of every one present. Hear what S. Nilus relates happened to his master, S. Chrysostom, not once or twice (Ep. ad Anast.). He says: "John, the most reverend priest of the Church at Constantinople, and the light of the whole world, a man of great discernment, saw almost always the house of the Lord filled with a great company of angels, and especially whilst he was offering the holy and unbloody sacrifice; and it was soon after this that he, full of amazement and joy, related what he had seen to his chief friends. 'When the priest had begun,' he said, 'the most holy sacrifice, many of these Powers immediately descended, clad in the most beautiful robes, barefooted, and with rapt look, and with great reverence silently prostrated themselves around the altar, until the dread mystery was fulfilled. Then they dispersed hither and thither through the whole building, and kept close to the bishops, priests, and deacons, as they distibuted the precious body and blood, doing all they could to help them.'" S. Chrysostom himself (Hom. de Sac. Mensa) says in amazement: "At the altar cherubim stand; to it descend the seraphim, endowed with six wings and hiding their faces. There the whole host of angels joins the priest in his work of ambassador for you." S. Ambrose, commenting on the first chapter of S. Luke, speaks of the angel who appeared to Zacharias, and says: "May the angel be present with us as we continually serve at the altar, and bring down the sacrifice; nay, would that he would show himself to our bodily eyes. Doubt not that the angel is present when Christ comes down and is immolated." S. Gregory (Dial. lib. iv. c 58) says: "Which of the faithful doubts that at the moment of immolation, the heavens are opened at the voice of the priest, that the choirs of angels are present in this mystery of Jesus Christ; that the lowest are joined to the highest, things earthly with divine, that things visible and invisible become one?" S. Dionysius Areopagites (Cζlest. Hierarch. c. v. and ix.), says that angels of the highest order preside over the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the administration of the sacraments. Tertullian (de Orat. c. xiii.), censuring the custom of sitting during the Mass, says: "If indeed it is a mark of irreverence to sit down under the very eyes of one whom you fear and reverence, how much more impious is it to do so in the sight of the living God, while the angel of prayer is still standing? What else is it but to insult God because we are tired of praying?" John Moschus (in Prato Spir. c. 50) relates that a Roumelian Bishop, when celebrating Mass in the presence of Pope Agapitus, suddenly stopped, because he did not see as usual the descent of the Holy Spirit; and when the Pope asked him why he stopped, he said, "Remove the deacon from the altar who holds the fly-flap." When this had been done, the wonted sign was given, and he finished the sacrifice. Metaphrastes (Vitβ S. Chrys.) says that the same thing happened to S. Chrysostom, through a deacon casting his eyes on a woman. We should note (1.), that out of modesty and dignified reserve head-coverings were worn in the time before Christ by the women of Judζa, Troy, Rome, Arabia, and Sparta. Valerius Maximus (lib. vi. c. .3) relates the severe punishment inflicted by C. Sulpicius on his wife: he divorced her because he had found her out of doors with uncovered head. Tertullian (de Vel. Virg. c. xiii). says: "The Gentile women of Arabia will rise up and judge us, for they cover, not only the head, but also the whole face, leaving only one eye to serve for both, rather than sell the whole face to every wanton gaze." And again (de Cor. Milit. c. iv.) he says: "Among the Jewish women, so customary is it to wear a head-covering that they may be known by it." As to the Spartan women, Plutarch (Apophth. Lacon.) records that it was the custom for their maidens to go out in public unveiled, but married women veiled. The reason was that the one might so find husbands, while those who already had husbands might not seek to attract the attention of other men. But, as Clement of Alexandria says (Pζdag. lib. ii. c. i. c), that it is a reproach to the Spartans that they wore their dress down to the knee only, so neither are their maidens to be praised for going forth in public with unveiled face, for in that way maiden modesty was lost by being put up for sale. 2. Tertullian (de Vel. Virg. c. ii.) blames those women who used a thin veil, because it was a provocation to lust rather than a protection to modesty, and was borrowed more from the custom of Gentile women than of believers in Christ. In chapter xii. he calls those women who consulted their mirrors for evidence of their beauty, sellers of their chastity. Moreover, S. Justin, writing to Severus (de Vitβ Christ.), hints plainly enough that Christians at that time abhorred mirrors. In short, Tertullian wrote a treatise (de Vel. Virg.) on this very point, to prove that all women, married or unmarried, religious or secular, should be veiled, any custom to the contrary notwithstanding, because so the Apostle enjoins. The Corinthians he says, (cap. 4), so understood S. Paul, and up to that time kept their maidens veiled. Moreover, the reasons given by the Apostle apply to all women alike, so that any breach of the precept ought to be censured and corrected. In some places, e.g., maidens go abroad with the head wholly uncovered, to show their beauty and attract a husband, when all that they really do is to peril the chastity of themselves and others, and to expose themselves daily to the wiles of panders, and hence we see and hear of so many shipwrecks to chastity. Let, then, a maiden be veiled, and go abroad covered, lest she see herself what she ought not, or others be too much attracted by her features. For those who have ruined themselves, or slain others through the eye, are not to be numbered, and therefore the greatest watch should be kept over the eyes. Hence Tertullian (de Vel. Virg. c. 15), says: "Every public display of a maiden is a violation of her chastity," no doubt meaning that any one who walks about freely with roving eyes and exposed face, to see and be seen, is easily robbed of the purity of her mind. This very want of control is an index that the mind is not sufficiently chaste. Hence Tertullian goes on to say: "Put on the armour of shame, throw around thee the rampart of modesty, raise a wall about thy sex which will suffer neither thy eyes to go out nor those of others to come in." 3. The head-dress of sacred virgins formerly consisted of a bridal-veil, of which Tertullian (de Vel. Virg. c. 15) says: "Pure virginity is ever timid, and flies from the sight of men, flees for protection to its head-covering as its helmet against the attacks of temptation, the darts of scandal, against suspicions and back-bitings." He adds that it was usual to solemnly bless these veils, whence the virgins were said to be wedded to God. Innocent I. (ad Victric. Ep. ii. c. 12) says too: "These virgins are united to Christ in spiritual wedlock, and are veiled by priests." These virgins lastly were clad in a dark-coloured dress, and covered with a long cloak. On the other hand Lucian, (Philopater) thus satirises the first dress of Christian men: "A sorry cloak, bare head, hair cut short, no shoes." They went then bare-footed, or at all events like the Capuchins, wearing only sandals. Ver. 11.—Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. This is to be referred to ver. 9, not to the words immediately preceding, which by some Bibles are rightly put in a parenthesis. Having said, in ver. 9, that the woman was created for the man, the Apostle, lest he might seem to have given to men an occasion for pride, to women of indignation, here softens the force of it by adding that in marriage neither can man be without woman, nor woman without man. Each needs the other's help, and that "in the Lord," that is, by the will and disposition of the Lord. Cf. S. Ambrose and the following verse. "In the Lord" may also be understood "in Christ, by Christian truth and law." The rule of Christian law and of God's ordinance is that the husband and wife give mutual help, procreate children, and educate them piously. This seems to be a reminder to married people of their duty to each other, and of Christian piety. Ver. 12.—As the woman is of the man, &c. The first woman, Eve, was formed from, man; man is conceived, formed, born, propagated through woman: all is done, ordered, and disposed by God. Ver. 14.—Doth not even nature itself teach you? The Latin Version reads, "Neither doth nature itself teach you," i.e., Nature doth not teach that women should be veiled, but it does teach that if a man grow long hair, it is a disgrace to him; if a woman, it is her glory. Ver. 15.—But if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her. To let the hair grow long is contrary to what becomes man, is the mark of a weak and effeminate mind, unless it is done because of ill-health or intense cold. Hence S. Augustine reproves some monks who wore their hair down to their shoulders, to gain the appearance and reputation of holiness (Deuteronomy 0p. Monach.). Again, it seems fitting for a man to pray with uncovered head, for a woman with covered, as the Apostle has proved here. The woman ought, therefore, to let her hair grow long, but not the man, for her hair was given her for her covering. Take note, however, that it is not absolutely enjoined, either by natural, Divine, or ecclesiastical law, that a woman should let her hair grow long and man should not. Hence, as was said in the notes to ver. 6, religious women cut off their hair. On the other hand, the men of some tribes, like the Gauls, used to let their hair grow long for an ornament. Hence we get the name of Gallia Comata. Homer, too, frequently speaks of the "long-haired Achζans." The Romans, also, in ancient times, grew their hair long, and did not apply the scissors till the time of Scipio Africanus. Pliny says (lib. vii. c. 59) that the first barbers came into Italy from Sicily, A.U.C. 454. Lycurgus also enacted that the Lacedζmonians should retain their hair. S. Paul, therefore, is not laying down any rule, but merely points to the teaching of nature, that it is fitting for a woman, when she goes out in public, to go with bonnet and veil, but not for a man. Still, he here adopts the decency taught by nature, and wishes the Corinthians to observe it as if it were a precept, hence he adds— Ver. 16.—But if any man seem to be contentious. To be contentious is to contend for renown and victory, not for truth; and here it is to contend that Christian women should not be veiled when they pray in Church, but should be bareheaded, according to the ancient custom of the heathen. Ver. 17.—Now in this that I declare unto you, I praise you not, &c. This is the fourth reason why women should be veiled, drawn from nature itself, which has given woman hair for a covering, to teach her that she ought to cover herself. The Apostle says, "In giving you this precept about the veiling of women, I do not at the same time, praise you for coming together, not for the better but for the worse." What this means is explained in the next verse. Ver. 18.—For first of all . . . I hear that there be divisions among you. Observe the word "Church," which shows that, in the time of S. Paul, there were places set apart for worship. For the early form of churches, their paintings, use of the Cross, the separation of the sexes, &c., see Baronius in his commentary on this verse. The Apostle here passes from the subject of the veiling of women to correct the abuses of the Corinthians in the Eucharist. For there must also be heresies among you. Looking at the fickleness, pride, newness in the faith, and quarrelsomeness of the Corinthians, who were saying, "I am of Paul, I of Apollos," which God permitted to prove them, it was necessary that there should he heresies. So Cajetan, Ambrose, Chrysostom. "Heresies" here denotes the divisions on points of faith and manners, which existed among the Corinthians about the Eucharist, e.g., where they should sit, when the Supper should begin, about the food and drink, about the persons they should sit down with. In the Lord's Supper and the agapζ, the rich Corinthians excluded the poor and had their meat by themselves. That they which are approved may be made manifest among you. In the time of heresy and schism, we see who are built on the foundation of faith and piety, as here amongst the Corinthians was seen the patient constancy of the poor, who were scorned by the rich, and also the modesty and charity of the rich who hated divisions, and invited the poor to their feasts and their agapζ. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius. Ver. 20.—When ye come together, therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. When you come together in this way to the Eucharist and the supper of the Lord, your supper is no longer that of the Lord, as it once was; and your eating is no longer an eating of the Lord's Supper. You do not institute a supper of the Lord, who admitted to His sober and holy meal all the Apostles, including even Judas, but a supper to Bacchus or Mars; for you come together to get drunk, and to exclude the poor, and so each one fills himself with wine, and the poor with violence. So Anselm, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Vatablus, and Erasmus read for "it is not," "it is not lawful," i.e., "it is not lawful for you to eat the Lord's Supper, and for this reason." But the first meaning is more thorough, more forcible, and better reproves the Corinthians. Ver. 21.—For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper. (1.) S. Augustine (Ep. 118) understands this to mean that they took their supper before they came to the Eucharist, and that ver. 33 orders them to wait for one another at the supper before the Eucharist; because at the Eucharist itself or after it there was no need of waiting, since it was not celebrated till all had assembled, when the poor would receive it mingled indiscriminately with the rich. We must remark that, at the time of S. Paul, in imitation of Christ, who, after the common meal on the Passover lamb, instituted the Eucharist, the Christians instituted before the Eucharist a meal common to all, rich and poor alike, in token of their mutual Christian charity. This custom lasted in some Churches for several centuries. As late as the time of Sozomen, as he relates (Hist.lib. vii. c. 29), it was the custom in many towns and villages of Egypt, first to take a meal in common, and then, following Christ's example, celebrate and partake of the Holy Eucharist. The Third Council of Carthage (can. 29) points to the same custom as prevailing in several other Churches. The Apostle does not here censure this custom wherever or whenever it was allowed, but only the abuse of it by those who got drunk in this supper, and allowed others who were poor to go hungry. Hence he says, "0ne is hungry and another is drunken;" and again he says, that a man will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord who eats unworthily, i.e., in the mortal sin of drunkenness and contempt of the poor. He therefore, in ver. 33, bids them wait for one another when they eat the Lord's Supper. He speaks, therefore, of the assembly which took place before, not after the Eucharist. 2. Others, however, think that "the supper taken before" is the agape after the Eucharist. In the primitive Church, in imitation of Christ, the richer members were in the habit of spreading a feast for rich and poor alike after the Holy Communion, in token of love, whence it was called the "agape;" but as charity grew cold and the number of the faithful increased, the practice became abused; for the rich would spread their own table sumptuously, even getting intoxicated, and would sit apart by themselves, the poor being excluded or not expected, far less invited, as ver. 33 implies, and it is this that the Apostle here censures. Cf. Chrysostom (Hom. xxiii. Moral.), Tertullian (Apol. 29), and Baronius in loco. It was for this reason that the Council of Laodicea (can. 28) abolished the agape. But the former explanation seems the better for the reasons given above; for the agape in S. Paul's time was held, not after but before the Eucharist; although shortly after these early days, when the Church laid down that, out of reverence, the Eucharist should be received fasting only, the agape was kept after the Eucharist, as will be seen by reference to the passages of Tertullian and Chrysostom, quoted above, and to S. Augustine (Ep. 118). By parity of reasoning this passage of S. Paul can be applied to those of the rich who celebrated the agape after the Eucharist; for he censures drunkenness and pride in the agape, whether before or after the Eucharist. Wherefore some Protestants are wrong in twisting this verse into an argument against private Masses, in which the priest alone communicates, merely because no one else wishes to communicate; for others are not excluded, nay, the Church wishes (Council of Trent, sess. xxii. can. 6 and 8) those who hear Mass to communicate. For the Apostle is not referring to this, nor is he speaking of the Eucharist at all, but of the common meal called the agape, as I have shown. Ver. 22.—What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? &c. Why do you put to shame the poor who have not your wealth, and cannot contribute the delicacies which you can to the common meal? If you wish to feast and enjoy yourselves, do it at home among your equals, not in the church. For if you do it in church you sin in two ways: (1.) because you defile the church by your self-indulgence; (2.) because, by neglecting and despising the poor, you rend the Christian Church, which is common to rich and poor. Ver. 23.—That which also I delivered unto you. Not by writing, as I said before, but by word of mouth. This is one authority for the traditions which, orthodox divines teach, should be added to the written word of God. Vers. 23, 24.—That the Lord Jesus the same night, &c. Five actions of Christ are here described: (1.) He took bread; (2.) He gave thanks to the Father; (3.) He blessed the bread, as S. Matthew also says ; (4.) He brake it; (5.) He gave it to His disciples, and in giving it, He said, "Take, eat; this is My body." These are the words of one who gives as well as of one who consecrates. Hence there is no foundation for the argument of Calvin, who says that all these words "took," "blessed," "brake," "gave," refer to bread only, and that therefore it was bread that the Apostles took and ate, not the body of Christ. My answer is that these words refer to the bread, not as it remained bread, but as it was changed into the body of Christ while being given, by the force of the words of consecration used by Christ. In the same way Christ might have said at Cana of Galilee, "Take, drink; this is wine," if He had wished by these words to change the water into wine. So we are in the habit of saying, Herod imprisoned, slew, buried, or permitted to be buried, S. John, when what he buried was not what he imprisoned: he imprisoned a man; he buried a corpse. Like this, and consequently just as common, is this way of speaking about the Eucharist, which is used by the Evangelists and S. Paul. Notice too from Christ's words, "Take, for this is," &c. that He seems to have taken one loaf, and in the act of consecration to have broken it into twelve parts, and to have given one part to each Apostle, and that each one seems to have received it into his hand. Hence the custom existed for a long time in the Church of giving the Eucharist into the hands of the faithful, as appears from Tertullian (de Spectac.), from Cyril of Jerusalem (Myst. Catech. 5), from S. Augustine (Serm. 44). Afterwards, however, it was put into the mouth to prevent accidents, and out of reverence. This is My body. Heretics say that this is a figure of speech, a metonymy, or something of the sort, and that the meaning is, "This is a figure of My body," "This represents My body." But that this is no mere figure of speech is evident (1.) from the emphasis on the word "This," and from the words, "My body and My blood," as well as from the whole sentence, which is so clearly expressed that it could not have been put more plainly. Add to this that the words were used on the last day of Christ's life, at the time that He left His testament, instituted a new and everlasting covenant with His unlettered and beloved disciples, and also instituted this most sublime sacrament, at once a dogma and a Christian mystery, all which things men generally express as they ought to do in the clearest terms possible. Who can believe that the great wisdom and goodness of Christ would have given in His last words an inevitable occasion for false doctrine and never-ending idolatry?— which He surely did if these so clear words, "This is My body," were meant to be understood merely as a figure of speech. If this is indeed true, then the whole Church, for the last 1500 years, has been living in the most grievous error and idolatry, and that too through Christ's own words, which Luther thought so clear that he wrote to the men of Argentum: "If Carlstad could have persuaded me that in the sacrament there is nothing but bread and wine, he would have conferred a great kindness upon me; for so I should have been most utterly opposed to the Papacy. But I am held fast: there is no way of escape open; for the text of the Gospel is too apparent and too convincing, its force cannot well be evaded, much less can it be destroyed by words or glosses forged in some brain-sick head." And Melancthon (ad. Fred. Myconium) says: "If you understand 'My body' to mean 'a figure of My body,' what difficulty is there that you will not be able to explain away? It will then be easy to transform the whole form of religion." With Servetus, you will be able to say that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but three names of the one God, not Three Persons; that Christ took flesh, but only in appearance; that He died and suffered, but only as a phantasm, as the Manichζans teach. In short, in this way who will not be able to say that the Gospel is the Gospel, Christ is Christ, God is God figuratively, and so come, as many do, to believe nothing at all? Observe how the Sacramentaries open here a door to atheism. Cardinal Hosius most truly prophesied that heretics would in course of time become atheists, and that the end of all heresy is atheism. When they fall away from Catholic truth into heresy, and find in that nothing fixed, or firm, or durable, what remains for them but to abjure their heretical opinions and believe nothing, and become that of which the Psalmist sings , "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God?" Would that we did not daily see the truth of this. Again, not only Paul, but Matthew, Mark, and Luke record the institution in the same way and in the same words: "This is My body; this is My blood." Not one, then, can say it is a figure of speech, or maintain that one explains the other where he is obscure. Erasmus was convinced by this argument, and replied to the attempts of Conrad Pellican to convert him to Zwinglianism: "I have always said that I could never bring my mind to believe that the true body of Christ was not in the Eucharist, especially when the writings of the Evangelists and S. Paul expressly speak of the body as given and of the blood as shed. . . . If you have persuaded yourself that in Holy Communion you receive nothing but bread and wine, I would rather under go all kinds of suffering, and be torn limb from limb, than profess what you do; nor will I suffer you to make me a supporter or associate of your doctrine; and so may it be my portion never to be separated from Christ. Amen." 2. If in the Eucharist bread remains bread, then the figure of bread has succeeded to the figure of the lamb. Who is there that does not see that it is wrong to say that that can be? The lamb slain under the Old Law was a plainer representation of Christ suffering than the bread in the New Law. Again, the lamb would have been a poor type of the Eucharist if it is, as Calvin says, bread and nothing else. Any one would rather have the lamb, both for itself and as a figure of Christ, than the bread. 3. This is still more evident in the consecration of the cup. "This is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for you"— words which are clearest of all in S. — "This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you." The relative in this verse undoubtedly refers to "cup."  S. Luke, therefore, says that the cup, or the chalice of the blood of Christ, was poured out for us; therefore, in this chalice there was truly the blood of Christ, so that, when this chalice was drunk from, there was poured out, not wine, which was before consecration, and, as heretics say, remains after consecration also, but the blood of Christ, which was contained in it after consecration; for this is the meaning of "the cup of My blood which is poured out for you." Otherwise it was a cup of wine, not of blood, that was poured out for us, and Christ would have redeemed us with a cup of wine, which is most absurd. This will still more plainly appear from the next verse. Nor can it be said, as Beza does, that the text is corrupt, for all copies and commentators read it as we do, and always have so read it. 4. All the Evangelists and S. Paul explain what "this body" means by adding, "which is given for you," or, as S. Paul says, "which is broken for you." But it was not the figure of the body, but the true body of Christ that was given and "broken for us;" therefore it was the true body of Christ that Christ gave to His Apostles. Moreover, S. Paul says: "Whosoever shall eat this bread . . . unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." Therefore there is here really "the body and blood of the Lord," and he who handles and takes it unworthily does it an injury. In short, the Greek and Latin Fathers of all ages explain these words of consecration literally. This was how the Church understood them for 1050 years, till the time of Berengarius. He was the first who publicly taught the contrary, being a man untaught indeed, but ambitious of obtaining the name of a new teacher. For J. Scotus and Bertram, who, at an earlier date, held the same views as Berengarius, were but little known, and were at once refuted and silenced by Paschasius Radbert, and others. This opinion of Berengarius was at once opposed as a dogma that had seen light for the first time by Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, Guidmund, Alger, and the whole Catholic Church. The error of Berengarius was condemned at a council held at Versailles, under Leo IX., and at another held at Tours, under Victor II., at which Berengarius was present, and being convicted, he at once abjured his heresy, but having relapsed, he was once more convicted in a Roman council of 113 bishops, under Nicholas II., and his books were burnt. Having again lapsed, he condemned his error in a third Roman council, under Gregory VII., and uttered the following confession of faith given by Thomas Wald. (de Sacram. vol. ii. c. 43): "I, Berengarius, believe with my heart and profess with my mouth that the bread and wine are charged into the true and real and lifegiving flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that, after consecration, there is His true body which he took of the Virgin, and that there is the very blood which flowed from His side, not merely by way of sign, but in its natural properties, and in reality of substance." Would that those who follow Berengarius now in his error would follow him also in his repentance. The heresy of Berengarius has been renewed in the present century by Andrew Carlstadt, who was at once opposed by Luther. Carlstadt was followed by Zwingli, he by Calvin; and yet there is no single article of faith which has such firm support of all the Fathers and of the whole Church as this of the reality of the body of Christ in the Eucharist. The same truth has been defined in eight General Councils— the First and Second Nicene, the Roman under Nicholas II., the Lateran, those of Vienne, of Constance, Florence, and Trent, as well as by many provincial synods. If any one doubts this, let him read John Garetius, who gives in order the testimonies of the Fathers for sixteen centuries after Christ, and of the Councils of each century, who alike unanimously and clearly confess this truth. He also brings forward the profession of the same faith given by the Churches of Syria, Ethiopia, Armenia, and India. Let him read also Bellarmine (de Eucharistiβ), who gives and comments on the words of each. Whoever reads them will see that this has been the faith of the Church in all ages, so that Erasmus might well say to Louis Beer: "You will never persuade me that Christ, who is Truth and Love, would so long suffer His beloved bride to remain in so abominable an error as to worship a piece of bread instead of Himself." And here appears the art and ingenuity of Zwingli, Calvin, and their friends. They bring forward a new view of the Eucharist, and teach that in it there is not really the body of Christ, but merely a figure of the body. How do they prove it? From the Scriptures. Well, then, let the words be studied, let all the Evangelists be read, let Paul too be read, and let it be said whether they support them or us and the received teaching of the Church. What else do all clearly proclaim but a body, and that a body given for us? What else but blood shed for us? Where here is room for shadow, or figure, or type? But they say these words must be explained figuratively. Admit, then, that the words of Scripture, do not favour you, for you say that the mind of Scripture is to be ascertained elsewhere than from the words of Scripture. How, then, do you prove that these words ought to be explained figuratively? If they are ambiguous, whence is the exposition to be sought? Who is to end the strife save the Church, which is the pillar and ground of the truth handed down to her from the Fathers? What save the primitive authority of the Fathers, the tradition of our forefathers, and the consent of the first ages of the Church? We quote and allege the Fathers of every century, all our forefathers, the national and General Councils of each century: all take the words of Christ as they stand, and condemn the figurative interpretation. What remains, then, but to follow the plain words of Scripture, and the clear exposition of the Fathers and of the whole Church in all ages? And yet you obstinately adhere to your figurative explanation. What Scripture supports you— whose authority— what reason? You can only say that your heresy has so determined, and that you follow the trumpet of Luther. So I think, so I choose, so I will, so I determine: let my will do instead of reason. This is the only ground you have for all your beliefs. Melancthon wrote far more truly and more soundly about this (de Ver. Corp. et Sang. Dom.): "If, relying on human reason, you deny that Christ is in the Eucharist, what will your conscience say in time of trial? What reason will it bring forward for departing from the doctrine received in the Church? Then will the words, 'This is My body,' be thunderbolts. What will your panic-stricken mind oppose to them? By what words of Scripture, by what promises of God will she fortify herself, and persuade herself that these words must necessarily be taken metaphorically, when the Word of God ought to be listened to before the judgment of reason?" At all events in the hour of death, and in that terrible day when we stand before the tribunal of Christ, to be examined of our life and faith, if Christ ask me, "Why didst thou believe that My body was in the Eucharist?" I can confidently answer, "I believed it, 0 Lord, because Thou saidst it, because Thou didst teach it me. Thou didst not explain Thy words as a figure, nor did I dare to explain them so. The Church took them in their simple meaning, and I took them as the Church did. I was persuaded that this faith and this reverence were due from me to Thy words and to Thy Church." If Christ ask the Calvinist, "Why didst thou wrest My words from their proper meaning into a figure of speech?" what answer will he make? "I thought that I must do so, for my reason could not understand how they could or ought to be true."— "But," He will reply, "which ought you to have listened to— your reason, which has human infirmity, or My word, which is all-powerful, than which nothing can be truer? Reason dictated to the Gentiles that to believe in Me as God, when born, suffering, and crucified, was folly. Yet you thought and believed that you should believe all this about Me, and you were persuaded of it from the words of Scripture only, which say this simply. Why, then, in this one article of the Eucharist did you presume to interpret what I expressly said, by the rule of your reason, according to the measure of your brain? Why did you not bow to the authoritative exposition of the Church of all ages? Why desire to be wiser than it?" What answer will he give— how excuse himself— whither turn? Let each one think earnestly of this ere it be too late, let him submit himself to God's word and the Church with humble and loyal obedience, lest he be confounded in that day of the Lord, and receive his lot with the unbelievers in the lake of fire that burneth with fire and brimstone, lest he hear the words of thunder, "Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." Nor let him marvel at such a wonderful mystery in the Eucharist, when Christ, throughout His whole life, was wonderful for His mysteries ; and when Isaiah also says of Him : "Verily Thou art a God that hidest Thyself, 0 God of Israel, the Saviour." If an angel should conceal himself under the form of the Host, he would be really there though hidden; you would see, touch, and taste bread only, not an angel; yet you would believe that an angel was hidden beneath it if an angel or a prophet had said so. Why, then, in like manner, do you not believe that Christ is concealed under the Host, when Christ Himself, who cannot lie, says so? For God, who is Almighty, can supernaturally give this mode of existence— spiritual, invisible, indivisible— to the body of Christ in the Eucharist. Let no one then faithlessly say: "How can Christ be in so small a Host?" Let him think that Christ is there, as an angel might be; let him not inquire as to the mode, but embrace instead the wonderful love of Christ, whose delights are with the sons of men, who went about to pass from the world to the Father; as S. John says , "having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end;" and of whom says the verse of S. Thomas— "By birth their Fellow-man was He, Their meat when sitting at the board; He died their Ransomer to be; He ever reigns, their great Reward."— that by His love He might compel our love in return, that as often as we see and take our part in these mysteries we might think of Him as addressing us in the words: "So Christ gives Himself here wholly to thee; give, nay give again thyself wholly to Him." You will perhaps object that the Eucharist is called "bread and fruit of' the vine," i.e., wine, in S. , S. . I answer that in the account of the institution of the Eucharist it is called bread by no one, if it is elsewhere, and also that "bread" there denotes any kind of food. (See note on x. 17). So wine might signify any kind of drink, as being the common drink among the Jews, as it is now in Spain, Italy, France, and Germany. But the better answer is that Christ applied the name "fruit of the vine," not to what was in the Eucharistic chalice, but to that in the cup of the Passover Supper. For, as He said of the lamb , "I will not eat thereof until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God," so of the cup of the lamb, "I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God shall come." For S. Luke plainly makes a distinction, not observed by S. Matthew and S. Mark, between the lamb and the cup of the Passover supper, and relates that Christ spoke of both before the Eucharist . Christ simply meant to say that He would not afterwards live with them, or take part in the common supper, as He had hitherto done, because He was going to His death, as Jerome, Theophylact and others say in their comments on the passage. You may perhaps object, secondly, that the words, "This is My body" are a sacramental mode of speech, and are, therefore, typical and figurative. But I deny that this follows; for this is a sacramental mode of speech, because, by these words, a true sacrament is worked, viz., because, under the species of bread and wine as the visible signs, there is present the very body of Christ. The words are not sacramental in the sense of being typical or figurative, for sacraments properly speaking signify what they contain and effect. For a sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible reality which it causes and effects, as, e.g., when we say, "I baptize thee," i.e., "wash thee," the meaning is not, "I give thee a sign or figure of washing," but strictly, "By this sacrament I wash thy body, and by this I wash thy soul from the stains of thy sins." So when we say, "I absolve thee," "I confirm thee," "I anoint thee," there is signified, not a figurative but a real and proper absolution, confirmation, and anointing of the body and soul. If Christ, therefore, when He said "body," had meant "figure of My body," He ought to have explained Himself, and said, "I am speaking, not only sacramentally, but figuratively," otherwise He would have given to the Apostles and to the whole Church an evident occasion for the most grievous error. The conclusion then has no basis that Christ is in the Eucharist as in a sacrament, that is, figuratively or typically, as the commentary ascribed to S. Ambrose says, in which it is followed by some of the Fathers, and that therefore He is not really there, but only figuratively; the contrary should be inferred. Christ is not, therefore, there figuratively, but truly and properly; for a sacrament signifies what is really present, not what is falsely absent. As, then, the conclusion is valid that where there is smoke there is fire, because smoke is the sign of the presence of fire; and again this body breathes, therefore life is present in it, because breathing is a sign of life, so also it rightly follows that the body of Christ is in the Eucharist as in a Sacrament; therefore, He is really there, because the Sacrament and the sacramental species signify that they as the true sacraments of Christ's body, truly contain it. You will object perhaps, thirdly, that Christ said : "It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing;" therefore the flesh of Christ is not present, and is not eaten in the Eucharist. 3. I answer that it cannot be said without impiety that the flesh of Christ, suffering and crucified for us, profits us nothing. Indeed, the very opposite of this is taught by Christ Himself throughout S. . He says in so many words that His flesh greatly profits us. His meaning therefore is, as S. Cyril points out, (1.) that the flesh of Christ has not its quickening power in the Eucharist from itself, but from the Spirit, that is from the Godhead of the Word, to which it is hypostatically united. (2.) That this manducation, as S. Chrysostom says, of Christ's flesh in the Eucharist is not carnal: that we do not press it with our teeth, as we might bull's flesh, but that we eat it after a spiritual manner, one suited to the nature of spirit, viz., mysteriously sacramentally, invisibly. For you here eat the flesh of Christ in exactly the same way as you would feed on and appropriate the substance of an angel, if he lay concealed in the sacrament. The opposite of this was what was understood by the unspiritual people of Capernaum, and it is against them only that Christ says these words. Hence He proceeds to say: "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life." In other words, "They are spiritual, and must be understood spiritually: you will not eat My flesh in the carnal sense of being bloody, cut into pieces and chewed, but only in a spiritual way, as though it were a spirit couched invisibly and indivisibly beneath the Blessed Sacrament." In the same way, "My words are life," that is full of life, giving life to him that heareth, believeth, and eateth My flesh. 4. You will perhaps again urge that it seems impossible that Christ, being so great, should be in so small a Host and at so many different altars, and that it seems incredible that Christ should be there, subject to the chance of being eaten by mice or vomited, &c. I reply to the first, "With God all things are possible." Hence we say, "I believe in God the Father Almighty." God can do more than a miserable man, nay, more than all the hosts of angels and men can conceive, else He would not be God. Moreover, faith transcends human capacity: these mysteries are matters for faith, not for reason. "Faith," says S. Augustine (in Joan. Tract. 27 and 40), "is believing what you see not." And S. Gregory (in Evang. Hom. xxvi.) says: "Faith has no merit where human reason supplies proof." S. Thomas, therefore, well sings of this sacrament— \ CHAPTER 12 OF THE CHAPTER In this and the two following chapters S. Paul discusses Christian gifts and graces. In this chapter he points out— i. That gifts are variously distributed by the Holy Spirit. ii. To show this he draws an illustration from the human body, which, though it is one, yet has many different members, and he concludes that each one in the Church should be content with the grace given him, and the position in which he is placed, and use his gifts for the common good, so that all, as members of the same body, may help and care for each other (ver. 12). iii. Next he declares that God has provided His Church with different classes of men, so that some are apostles, some prophets, some teachers, &c. (Ver. 28). In this chapter S. Paul deals with such gifts as prophecy, tongues, and powers of healing, &c. In the beginning of the Church these gifts were abundantly bestowed upon the faithful by the Holy Spirit, even as they were upon the Apostles on the day of Pentecost. The occasion for his dealing with these was the way in which the Corinthians prided themselves upon these gifts: one put an extravagant value on one gift, another on another, and some were mortified at not receiving some gifts which they saw others have. The Apostle, therefore, lays down what these gifts are— their nature and import, and the manner of their use. Ver. 1.—I would not have you ignorant. And therefore he proceeds to give them teaching about them. Ver. 2.—Ye know that ye were Gentiles, &c. You were led like slaves, by custom, by the institutions of your ancestors, by religious tradition, and by diabolic agency to these dumb idols. For the Hebraism in the employment of the participle instead of the finite verb, cf. Rom. xi1 11. Remember, he says, 0 Corinthians, that when you were Gentiles you used to worship idols, as sticks and stones which have neither breath, feeling, power of speech, nor strength of any kind, and much less can give such things to their worshippers. But now that you have become Christians you can worship God, who is pure spirit, full of all grace and wisdom, and sheds these same spiritual gifts abundantly upon you, as you daily experience. Recognise, therefore, the grace bestowed upon you by Christ, the chance wrought in you, and worship Christ, the author of all this, together with the Holy Spirit. Ver. 3.—Wherefore . . . no man . . . calleth Jesus accursed. The "wherefore" shows this verse to be a conclusion from the preceding, and explains it. I have reminded you, he says, of your previous condition as Gentiles, and of your dumb idols, in order that you may appreciate duly the greatness of your calling, and the grace of the Holy Spirit given you in your baptism, by which you no longer call on dumb idols but on Christ and the Holy Spirit, and receive from them gifts of tongues, &c., that you may know how full of eloquence and energy compared with your dumb idols is the Holy Spirit who makes you eloquent in divine wisdom. Acknowledge, then, the Holy Spirit's power, and contend no more about His gifts, since you have them from the Holy Spirit, who distributes His gifts as He wills. Let not him who has received less grieve thereat, nor him who has received more be high-minded. So Chrysostom. No man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed. No one execrates or blasphemes Jesus if he has the Spirit of God. He rather acknowledges Him and calls upon Him, as the author of the grace he has received, of his salvation, and of all spiritual gifts. S. Paul uses the figure meiosis, and leaves the rest to be understood. Observe that S. Paul says this to the Corinthians, partly because of the Jews, who to this day are declared to say in their synagogues, Cajetan says, "May Jesus and the Christians be accursed;" partly, also, and even more, because of the Gentiles, among whom the Corinthians were living. They and their poets, and their priests especially, were in the habit of execrating Jesus. Moreover, by this Gentile rulers tested whether any one were a Christian or not. They would order them to curse Christ, as Pliny says, that he had ordered (Ep. ad Traj): "There was brought before me a schedule containing the names of many who were accused of being Christians. They deny that they are or ever were Christians. In my presence they called upon the gods, and burnt incense, and poured a libation of wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought in amongst the statues of the gods. Moreover, they cursed Christ; and it is said that those who are bare Christians cannot be in any way forced to do any of these things. I thought, therefore, that they ought to be dismissed. Others said that they had been Christians, but had now ceased to be; they all paid honour to your image and the images of the gods, and cursed Christ." No man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost. The Apostle draws a contrast between calling Jesus accursed and calling Him Lord. No one can recognise, believe, invoke, and preach Jesus as Lord, and profess faith in Him as he ought, and as is necessary to salvation, except in the Holy Spirit, i.e., through the Holy Spirit. For faith, hope, and prayer are His gifts. S. Paul does not by this deny that unbelievers, under the ordinary influence only of God, can profess the name of Jesus, or have good thoughts about Him, but only that no one without the grace of Christ and the Holy Spirit can with true faith and pious affection invoke Jesus as Lord earnestly and heartily, and confess Him to be our Redeemer; or even say in his heart, or think of Him anything which in its rank and order confers and disposes to forgiveness of sins, grace, and eternal bliss. So say Ambrose and Anselm. This appears from the fact that he is addressing the Corinthian faithful, and rebuking the pride which they took in their gifts and graces, on the ground that they have their faith and all their gifts, not from themselves but from the Holy Spirit. These gifts, then, he means to say, are not your own, nor can you even call upon Jesus of yourselves; but to know Him and call upon Him are the gift of the Holy Spirit Ver. 4.—Now there are diversities of gifts. One grace is given to one, another to another, but they all proceed from the same Spirit. Ver. 5.—And there are differences of administrations. There are different kinds of sacred ministries distributed by the same Lord, from whom as God and through whom as man we receive them, so that He is ministered to in different ways by different people. So Anselm. Ver. 6.—And there are diversities of operations, &c. Observe 1. that the Apostle assigns gifts to the Holy Spirit, the fount of goodness; ministries to the Son, as Lord; operations to the Father, as the first beginning of all things. So Theophylact and Anselm. 2. The gifts here spoken of are what are sometimes called "graces gratuitously given;" the ministries are the various offices in the Church, such as the diaconate, the Episcopate, and the care of the poor; the operations are miraculous powers, such as the exorcism of demons, the healing the sick, the raising the dead. The word operations is explained in ver. 10 by being expanded into "working of miracles," which is translated by Erasmus the "working of powers." The Greek δύναμις is strictly power, might, ability, and ε̉νέργεια, working ε̉νέργημα, work. But it will be more satisfactory to say that the Apostle calls all graces gratuitously given (1.) graces, because they are given gratuitously; (2.) ministries, because by them each one ministered to the Church; (3.) workings, because by them the faithful received from the Holy Spirit a marvellous power to say and do things surpassing the power of nature. These graces are the work of the Holy Spirit equally with the Father and the Son; for all external works, as theologians say, viz., all that go forth to created things, are common to the Three Persons; yet, as they are workings they are fitly assigned to the Father, as ministries to the Son, as graces to the Holy Spirit Which worketh all in all. 1. God works everything in nature by working effectively with second causes, as theologians teach in opposition to Gabriel Biel. Thus God brings about all the blessings of nature and of good-fortune. That one is poor, another rich is to be attributed to the counsel and will of God. Cf. S. Chrysostom (Hom. 29 Moral). 2. God works all supernatural things, both the graces that make a man pleasing to God and the graces that the Apostle means here, viz., those gratuitously given, such as the working of miracles. Whatever the saints ask of God in prayer, or order to be done in His name, is done by God's direct action, even in the realm of nature. It does not follow from this that the co-operation of God goes before and determines beforehand the working of secondary causes, and of free-will in good works, and of grace that makes a man pleasing; for in all these God works all things through His prevenient grace, by which He stirs up the will, and through grace co-operating, which, together with free-will freely working, works simultaneously everything that is good. But the Apostle is not dealing primarily with the works of grace that make a man pleasing to God, but with the workings of graces gratuitously given, as will appear from what follows. S. Hilarius (de Trin. lib. viii.) renders "works" "inworks," and so follows the Greek more closely, which signifies the inward presence and effectual power with which God works all things inwardly, especially miracles and all the other gifts. The whole chapter deals with these. Ver. 7.—But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. The gift given by the Holy Spirit, and by which He is manifested, is given for the benefit of the Church, not of the individual Ver. 8.—To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom. The power of explaining wisdom, viz., the deepest mysteries of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, of predestination, &c. Cf. chap. xiii. To another the word of knowledge. The power of explaining the things pertaining to life and morals. S. Augustine distinguishes thus between wisdom and knowledge (de Trin. lib. xii. c. 14 and 15), and the Apostle so takes knowledge in chap. viii. Others understand by knowledge the power of explaining the things of faith by examples, comparisons, and human and philosophical reasonings. Ver. 9.—To another by the same Spirit. 1. S. Paul does not mean here the theological faith which all Christians have, but that transcendent faith, including the theological, which is the mother of miracles. It consists above all things in a constant confidence in God for obtaining anything and for working miracles, e.g., as Christ says, for removing mountains. This appears from chap. xiii 2. Cf.  S. Chrysostom. 2. Ambrose understands faith here to be the gift of an intrepid confession and preaching of the faith. 3. But best of all faith here is a clear perception of the mysteries of the faith for the purposes of contemplation and explanation; for in ,  S. Paul says in the same way that prophets have the gift of prophecy, and ought to prophesy "according to the proportion of faith," i.e., according to the measure of the understanding of the things of faith given them by God. Maldonatus (in Notis Manusc.) says that the Apostle here means that transcendent faith possessed by but few, and which enables its possessors to give a ready assent to Divine things; for the faith which works miracles seems to be included in the "working of powers" mentioned in the next verse, as Toletus, amongst others, rightly points out at . Ver. 10.—To another the working of miracles. Literally, the "working of powers," viz., those greater miracles which concern the soul, not those which belong to the body or its diseases. Of this kind are the raising the dead, casting out devils, punishing the unbelievers and impious by a miracle, as S. Peter did Ananias and Sapphira. So say Chrysostom and Anselm. Thus the "working of powers " is distinguished from the "gift of healing." To another discerning of spirits. That is of the thoughts and intents of the heart, and consequently of words and actions, whether they proceed from nature, or from the inspiration of God, or an angel or the devil. So Chrysostom, Ambrose, Anselm. S. Jerome, in his life of S. Hilarion, says that he had this gift, and S. Augustine says (conf. lib. iii. c. 2) that his mother Monica had; so too had S. Vincent of Ferrara, and so have some now-a-days, especially those who have the direction of souls. It is a gift most useful to confessors, one to be sought for from God, in so far as a perfect knowledge and care of consciences require it. To another the interpretation of tongues. Of obscure passages, especially of Holy Scripture. Hence there were formerly in the Church interpreters, whose duty was fourfold: (1.) there were those who, by the gift of tongues, prophesied or sung hymns in a foreign language; (2.) those who, inspired by the Holy Spirit, spoke of obscure and deep mysteries; (3.) those who publicly expounded the letters of S. Paul and of others sent to their people; (4.), those who turned them into another Language. In this way many think that S. Clement turned the letter to the Hebrews from Hebrew into Greek. It appears from this that Holy Scripture is not plain to every one; nor is it, as the heretics think, to be interpreted by the private ideas of any one, seeing that God has placed interpreters in His Church. But it should be noted that these interpreters have now been succeeded by professors of Hebrew, Greek, and Divinity. 1. From this chapter and the following, theologians have drawn the distinction between grace which perfects its subject and makes him pleasing to God, such as charity, chastity, piety, and other virtues, and grace gratuitously given, which is ordained for the perfecting of others. Although the Apostle names here nine only of the "graces gratuitously given," yet there may be more. 2. It is very likely that of these nine five are permanent habits, viz., wisdom, knowledge, faith, different kinds of tongues and their interpretation, to which must sometimes be added the discerning of spirits. The remaining four are not habits but transient actions, viz., the gift of healing, the working of miracles, prophecy, and the discerning of spirits. Cf. Bellarmine (de Gratiβ, lib. i.,c. 10). Ver. 11.—Dividing to every man severally as He will. Dividing to each one individually his own gifts and graces. Cf. S. Jerome (contra Pelag. dial. 1). Origen understood "as He will" to refer to each several man. It refers, of course, to the Holy Spirit. 1. Hence, as Theophylact says, the Holy Spirit is Lord and God. He, is not produced as an effect, but He effects all things equally with the Father, who worketh all in all (ver. 6). The working all in all assigned to the Father in ver. 6 is here assigned to the Spirit. 2. It follows that the Holy Spirit, being God, has free-will and works freely. 3. Abιlard, Wyclif, and Calvin may be refuted by this verse, in their teaching that God cannot do anything but what He actually does do. This is to rob God of His omnipotence, and to subject Him, like man, to fate, and therefore to transfer His Divinity to fate. For, if this were so, God would not work as He chose, but as fate willed, under whom He and all things would be placed. Ver. 12.—For as the body is one . . . so also is Christ. As an animal body is one, as a man has but one body, so also has Christ one body, the Church, the members of which are many, whose head He is. 1. But S. Augustine objects (de Peccat. Meritis, lib. i. c. 31) that if the Apostle had meant this he would have said, "So also is [the body] of Christ," rather than, "So also is Christ." In other words, he would have said that the body of Christ, the Church, has many members. 2. James Faber gathers from this that the body of Christ being indivisibly united to the whole Godhead, locally fills heaven and earth, which are, as it were, its place and His body. As Plato said that God was the soul of the world, and consequently was in a sense the whole world, so the body of Christ, from its intimate conjunction with Deity, is, like the Divine Spirit, diffused through the whole world, its parts and members are the several divisions of space and the bodies contained in it. But still in respect of the unity of the Deity, and of the body of Christ as its soul, they make up one body, viz., the universe. And hence it is that the Ubiquitarians are supposed to have obtained their false opinion that the body of Christ is everywhere. This absurd doctrine has been confuted by many, but most clearly of all by Gregory of Valentia, in five books written against the heresy of the Ubiquitarians. 3. I say, then, with S. Augustine that the meaning of this passage is simply this. So also is Christ one body, i.e., the Church. For Christ is both head and body to the Church, inasmuch as He sustains all her members and works in them all, teaches by the doctor, baptizes by the minister, believes through faith, and repents in the penitent. For in this sense Christ is not locally but mystically, and by way of operation and effectually, the body, hypostasis, soul, and spirit of the whole Church. As the Church is the body of Christ, its head, so in turn is Christ the body of the Church, because, through the operation of His grace, He transfers Himself into all the members of the Church. So the Apostle often says that we are one in Christ, that through baptism we are incorporated into Christ and made one plant with Him. And Christ said to Paul, "Why persecutest thou Me?" that is, the Christians, My members (Acts ix. 4). So Paul says again: "To me to live is Christ, to die is gain." Therefore S. Francis in his words, "My God, my Love, my All," was but echoing S. Paul. Ver. 13.—For by one Spirit are we all baptized. He proves that Christ is one body with many members from baptism, for by baptism we were regenerate, and incorporated into the one body of the Church, and therefore into Christ. In that body we live by the same Spirit, the Spirit of Christ; and on the same food, the Eucharist, we are fed, whether we are Jews or Gentiles, bond or free. Notice the phrase "into one body:" this body is the Church, and consequently we are baptized into Christ, who, as I have said, is in a sense the body of the Church. And have been all made to drink into one Spirit. In the Eucharistic chalice we have quaffed, together with Christ's blood, His Spirit. Hence some Greek copies read, "We have all drunk of one draught." Cf. Clemens Alex. Pζdag. lib. i. c. 6. The meaning is that from it we all partake of one and the same Spirit of Christ, who, by abiding in all, quickens every member, and makes it perform duly its function. In other words, not only were we born and incorporated into the said body, but we all partake of the same food, viz., Christ's body and blood, in the Eucharist. For one species of the Eucharist leads easily to the other, and by "the drink" we may well understand "the food;" just as on the other hand from the species of bread we understand that of wine in chap. x. 17. Cf. Chrysostom and Cajetan, whose comments here are noteworthy. It appears from this that all the baptized, whether good or bad, are the body of Christ, that is, are of the Church, and that they have been grafted into Him as members by baptism; for the soul of this body, the Church, is the faith which all the faithful have, even though their life be evil. Cf. notes to . Ver. 22.—Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary. S. Chrysostom and Theophylact think that this refers to the eyes, which are small and delicate but yet most necessary. But as the eyes have been included in the preceding verse amongst the nobler members which govern the body, it is better to refer it, as others do, to the internal parts of the body. For the belly is as the kitchen or the caterer for the whole of the body, and cooks and distributes the food for every part, and therefore is essential to the life of the body. Ver. 23.—And those members of the body . . . upon these we bestow more abundant honour. The "less honourable" members are the feet, say Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Ambrose. We are more careful to cover them with shoes, or to bestow ornament upon them, lest they be hurt in walking, or catch cold or in some way convey illness to the stomach and head. "Honour" here means either covering or the attention bestowed upon the feet in the way of decorated boots or leggings, such as many rich young men, and especially soldiers, wear. Homer, e.g., frequently speaks of the "well-greaved Achζans." And our comely parts have more abundant honour. Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Theophylact refer these to the pudenda. These, says S. Augustine (Retract. lib. ii. c. 7), are called uncomely, not because nature so made them, but because, since the Fall, lust reigns in them more than elsewhere, because lust is contrary to the law of reason, and therefore ought to be a cause of shame to man. For it puts man to shame when his member so casts off his authority. The more abundant honour that they receive is a more careful and comely covering, so that even if men anywhere discard clothing, they yet cover these parts, as Theophylact says. Moreover, these members are honoured in wedlock, as being necessary to the procreation of children and the perpetuation of the species, as Chrysostom says. Hence, under the Romans, any one who emasculated himself was severely punished, as an offender against the common good and a violent assailant of nature. Others think that the "more feeble" and "less honourable members are identical, and are the belly and its subsidiary organs. But the Apostle makes a distinction between them, and connects them as distinct entities by the conjunction "and." His meaning then is, that as we care for those members of the body which are more feeble and ignoble when compared to the rest, and treat them as if they were more useful, so, too, in the Church those who seem to be of less account, such as the infirm, the unknown, and the despised, are for that very reason of more use and should be the more carefully helped. So say Chrysostom, Theophylact, Anselm. For the use of beggars in the Church, see S. Chrysostom (Hom. 20 Moral, and also contra Invid. Hom. 31). We have an illustration of this verse in the allegory of the belly deserted by the other members, by which Menenius Agrippa brought back the lower orders who had seceded from the senate of the Roman people, and settled on Mons Sacer (Livy, lib. ii. dec. 1). Menenius said: "At that time when men's members were not so agreed as they are now, but each sought its own private ends, they say that the other parts of the body were indignant that the belly should get its wants supplied by their care, their toil, and their ministry, and itself rest quietly in the midst, and enjoy the pleasures they gave; so they agreed that the hand would lift no food to the mouth, that the mouth would not admit it if it were offered, nor the teeth chew it. Then while, as they thought, that they were reducing the belly by hunger, they found that each member and the whole body also were brought down to the last extremities. They saw then that the belly had, too, its active service, and was not more nourished by them than they gained from it. They saw that the blood, re-invigorated by the food that had been eaten, was impartially distributed through the veins into every part of the body, giving each its life and energy. Then, by drawing a comparison between the civil war in the body and the angry action of the lower orders against the Fathers, Menenius induced them to return." Ver. 24.—For our comely parts have no need. The eyes, the face, and the hands, which are the more comely parts of the body, lack no ornament, but are comely enough in themselves. Having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked. That is more careful guard, more clothing, and ornament. Cf. ver. 22. Ver. 25.—That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. No schism, such as that related by Menenius, but that all should have the same care for the others as for themselves, or else it may mean that each member should be solicitous for the common good of the whole body. Ver. 26.—Whether one member suffer all the members suffer with it. "They suffer together" in such away that the suffering member's grief is lightened, "not by communion in disaster, but by the solace afforded by charity," says S. Augustine (Ep. 133). Hence S. Basil (Reg. Brevior. 175) says that the outward proof of love is twofold: (1.) rejoicing in the good of one's neighbour and labouring for it; (2.) in grief and sorrow for his misfortune or his sin. He who has not this loves not. Doctors infer from this verse that souls in bliss, burning with love for us, help us by their prayers in our troubles and dangers; and that we in our turn ought to help souls kept in purgatory, for they suffer the devouring flame, and therefore he must be cruel indeed who does not suffer with them, and do what he can to set them free. Or one member be honoured. Or as Ambrose takes it, "be glorified," or, according to Ephrem, "whether one member rejoice." Salmeron, after S. Chrysostom, beautifully says: "He who loves possesses whatever is in the body, the Church: take away envy and what I have is thine." S. Chrysostom says again: "If the eye suffer, all the members will grieve, all will crease to act: the feet will not go, the hands will not work, the belly will take no pleasure in its wonted food, although it is the eye only that is suffering. Why, 0 eye, do you trouble the belly? why chain the feet? why bind the hands? Because all are knit together by nature, and suffer together in a "mysterious manner." Ver. 27.—-Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. The Latin version gives "members of the member." This is explained (1.) by S. Thomas: "You are members of the principal member, viz., Christ, for Christ is the head of the Church;" (2.) by S. Anselm, "You are members of Christ through the agency of another member, viz., Paul, by whom you were united to Christ, the head, and to the Church, the body." But (3.) the Greek gives "members in part," and this is the rendering of some Latin Fathers, or "members of each other." S. Ambrose seems to understand it so. The Latin version also means "fellow-members," brethren in the same society, of the same mystical body, the Church. So too S. Chrysostom and Ephrem, whose meaning may be paraphrased: "Each one, in his part and place, is a member of the Church." Notice here that, as in the body there is (1.) a unity and a union of soul and body; (2.) diversity of members; (3.) differences of function between the several members; (4.) an aptitude for its function given to each member; (5.) a community of interests in the members, so that each is bound to work, not for itself only but for the others also, just because they are members of the one body; (6.) harmony, inasmuch as each member is content with its rank and duty, does not seek another post or envy a more honoured member, so that there is the most perfect union and concord, the same share in sorrow and joy: so is it in the Church. There each one has from Christ, as if He were his soul, his proper gift, his proper talent, his office and rank, his functions to be discharged for others' good, not his own, his limits fixed by God. If anyone disturbs this order and seeks after another post, he resists the ordinance and providence of God, and forgets that all his gifts have come from God. S. Paul therefore says: "You, 0 Corinthians are members of the same body of Christ, the Church: let there not be then any divisions among you, let no one despise, envy, grieve at another, but let him love him, help him, and rejoice with him. Let each be content with his place, his rank, and his duty, for so he will be a partaker, not only of his own good, but also of the good of others. Just as the foot walks for the benefit of the eye, the ear, the belly, so in their turn the eye sees, the ear hears, and the belly digests for the benefit of the foot. But if there is envy and unwillingness shown by the eye to see, by the ear to hear, and the belly to digest, then those members hurt themselves as much as any other; and, as Chrysostom says, it is just as if one hand were to cut off the other, for that hand would be dishonoured and weakened through receiving no help from the other hand. Moreover, if nature is at such pains to preserve such perfect concord between the different members of the body, and so sternly forbids any seditious discord, how much greater concord between men's minds will the grace of God through its greater power effect, how little will it endure that any member should stand aloof from and be at variance with another in the same body! If the magistrate or the king severely punishes sedition in the state, what, think you, will Christ do to the schismatics who rend His Church? Ver. 28.—And God hath set some in the church, &c. Apostles as the rulers, prophets as the eyes, teachers as the tongue. From this it follows that the princes of this world are not, as Brentius thinks, the rulers and the head of the Church, but the Apostles and their successors, the Pope and the bishops; "for God," says S. Paul, "set the Apostles first." After that come "powers," i.e., workers of miracles, who are as the hands of the Church; then healers of diseases; then helps, or those who help others and perform works of mercy towards the sick, the poor, the unhappy, guests, and foreigners; then governments, or men who rule. and correct others, as parish priests, as S. Thomas says, or better still, with Theophylact and Cajetan, men who have the care of the temporal wealth which the faithful offer to the Church. These last are as the feet in the body of Christ, and of such were the deacons ordained by the Apostles to look after tables and the widows (Acts vi. 1-6). Notice the abstract here put for the concrete: "powers" for workers of powers, "gifts of healing" for healers, "helps" for helpers, "governments" for governors, "diversities of tongues" for men skilled in different languages.  S. Paul knits all these, as other members of the Church, to Apostles, prophets, and teachers. Ver. 29.—Are all apostles? Certainly not. Let each, therefore, be content with the position in which God has placed him in the Church, and with the grace that he has freely received from God, and thank God for all, and use the grace given him to God's glory and the good of the Church. Ver. 30—Have all the gifts of healing? S. Augustine says (Ep. 137) that "God, who divides to every man severally as He will, has not willed that miracles should be wrought in honour of every saint." It is not wonderful then that God should work miracles in this place, in this temple, at this or that image of the Holy Mother, or again that He should give one grace to one saint, another to another. Those, e.g., who invoke S. Antony He sets free from the plague, those S. Apollonia from toothache, those S. Barbara from sudden death, and from dying without confession; for, as the Apostle says, "God divides to every man severally as He will." So at the pool of Bethesda, and not elsewhere, God miraculously healed the impotent folk (S. John v. 2-4). So by the rod of Aaron, and of no one else, He worked miracles (Num. xvii. 8). So by the image of the brazen serpent, and of nothing else, He set free the Jews from the plague of fiery serpents (Num. xxi. 9). Ver. 31.—But covet earnestly the best gifts. Seek from God, and exercise, if you have received them (cf. notes to ver. 8), the more useful gifts, such as apostleship, prophecy, wisdom, but not such as the gift of tongues, which you are in the habit of seeking after and of priding yourselves in. So Anselm. Others take the clause interrogatively, "Do you covet the best gifts? then I will show you a more excellent way still." So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius. And yet show I unto you a more excellent way, viz., the way of charity, which is the way to God, to life, and everlasting glory. The commentary ascribed to S. Jerome says here that the Apostle divides off charity from the gifts of the Spirit, because these latter are gratuitously given by God, but charity is acquired by our own efforts and natural powers. This shows this commentary not to be S. Jerome's, but the work of Pelagius or some Pelagian, as was said before. Primasius, who transcribed a good deal of this commentary, has shown the falsity of this remark. It appears too that charity is the gift of God from Rom. v. 5: "The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." Hence S. Paul says here that he shows a more excellent way, meaning one that excels all others. If, then, the graces gratuitously given are of lower rank and are given by God, much more ought charity, which is exceedingly better and more excellent than them all, to be sought for and to be given from God. The Apostle then fixes the distinction between charity and the gifts of the Spirit in the fact that these latter are given for the good of the Church, not for the sanctification of him to whom they are given, while charity is given to make him who has it holy and pleasing to God. "He," says S. Augustine (de Laud. Char.), "holds both what is patent and what is latent in God's sayings who holds charity in his daily life." CHAPTER 13 OF THE CHAPTER i. He points out that of all gifts and graces, charity is the first, and that without charity no gift or virtue is of any use. ii. He enumerates (ver. 4) the sixteen conditions of charity, or the modes of its manifestation towards our neighbours. iii. He shows (ver. 8) the eminency of charity from the fact that it will remain in heaven, when faith is changed into sight and hope into fruition. The whole of this chapter is in praise of charity. The Apostle treats of charity at such length, not only because charity is the queen of all virtues, but also because he wishes by charity, as by a most effectual medicine, to cure the pride and divisions of the Corinthians; for charity effects that superiors do not despise inferiors, and that inferiors do not feel bitter when their superiors are preferred before them. But, especially, he commends charity to them as a most excellent gift, that they may seek it rather than the gift of tongues, or of prophecy, or of miracles, which things the Corinthians were in the habit of considering most important. And this is why, in preparing his passage to charity, he said, at the end of the preceding chapter: "Covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet show I unto you a more excellent way," viz., of charity. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels. Some hold that the tongue of angels is Hebrew, and that this was the tongue used by God, the angels, and Adam in Paradise (of which see below, ver. 8). Secondly, the Glossa, Durandus, Greg. Ariminensis (in 2 dist. 9, qu. 2), and Molina (i p. qu. 106 art. i.) think from this passage of the Apostle, that angels speak as men, not only by forms impressed on the angel who hears, but also by gestures and signs, spiritual signs (since they are as it were a kind of spiritual conversation and form of speech), imprinted on them at their creation, as the Hebrew tongue was imprinted on Adam. Hence Franciscus Albertinus (Lib. Corollariorum Theologicorum Corollario ii) says that each angel has his own proper tongue, different from the tongue of every other angel, because the Apostle says, "Though I speak with the tongues of angels," not with the tongue. But it seems to follow from hence, that if angels make use of those signs and speak to one, they cannot conceal them from others; for nothing natural can practise concealment but only that which is free; but these signs are natural, imprinted on them with their nature at their creation. Whence others, with S. Thomas, think that angels speak in this way, that they direct their thoughts to another, and form a wish to make them known to him, and that then, from the meet appointment of God and their meeting, a proportionate object is formed, and that this is placed as it were within a sphere of knowledge, and becomes intelligible to him, to whom they wish to speak, and not to another, so that he and none else sees and understands this object placed as it were before his eyes; from which some conclude that angels by their nature cannot lie. But the contrary seems truer, viz., that they can lie; because angels can form in their intellect a concept that is false, and opposed to the judgment of their mind, and can direct it to the other, to whom, in this way, they speak: even as man forms a false mode of speech and one opposed to his judgment when he lies. For angels do not exhibit to the sight of others the very acts of their will in themselves, that is, the very volitions and intentions, but they form in their mind concepts of these actions, whether true or false, just as they will, and represent them to him to whom they speak. But we may leave these points to be more thoroughly disputed and settled by the Schoolmen. The tongues of angels mentioned here are not therefore addressed to the senses, as Cajetan thinks, but to the intellect, since these tongues are the very concepts of angels, most perfect and most beautiful. The tongues of angels is certainly a prosopop�ia and hyperbole, that is, it denotes a most exquisite tongue. So we say in common phrases "He speaks divinely;" by a similar hyperbole it is said "the face of an angel," that is, a most beautiful face. So Theodoret and Theophylact speak, because, as we know, angels are most beautiful in themselves, and show themselves such, both in appearance and speech, when they assume a body. So therefore Paul here, as elsewhere afterwards, speaks on a supposition by hyperbole, chiefly for the sake of emphasis. His meaning, is— If there were tongues of angels surpassing the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and I knew them, but yet did not use them for the good of my neighbour, what else would it be but an empty and noisy wordiness? So Gal. i. 8; Rom. viii. 39. Paul here points at the Corinthians, who were wont to admire the gift of tongues more than other gifts. A tinkling cymbal, giving forth an uncertain and confused sound. The Greek α̉λαλάξον is an onomatop�ia, and denotes sounding "alala, alala." So Apion Grammaticus, because of his garrulity, was called "the cymbal of the world" (Suetonius, Lib. de Prζclaris Grammaticis). Ver. 2.—Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. Erasmus thinks that this is a hyperbolic fiction, as though he should say, "Charity by far excels faith," just as we say, "Virtue alone is the only nobility." But this is far too cold; for in the following verse, speaking of almsgiving and martyrdom if charity is wanting, he says, it profiteth me nothing. Therefore, I am nothing imports I am of no value, and have no grace in the presence of God; and in truth, because the righteous man is of some account before God, the rest of men, being unrighteous, are, in the eyes and estimation of God, as nothing. In other words, without charity nothing profiteth, nothing makes friendship with God; there is nothing which wins for a man righteousness and salvation, not even faith, though it be most great and most excellent, so that it can remove mountains, such as Gregory Thaumaturgus had, who, by his faith, moved a mount from its place, that he might make a place to build a church, as Eusebius narrates (Hist. lib. 7, v. 25). You will say, therefore, If a penitent exercises himself in good works before reconciliation, they profit him nothing. Some answer that they profit him, because the penitent, they say, has charity— not infused charity which makes righteous, but that charity which is a sincere love towards God, by which he longs for reconciliation. But this affection is not and cannot be called charity; for Holy Scripture, here and elsewhere, calls charity that most eminent virtue, greater than faith and hope, which makes us friends of God. Secondly, because the affections of fear, hope, and faith dispose to righteousness, therefore they are something, even without the affection of that love. I reply, Good works profit the sinner who repents nothing, unless charity follow. For so, he says, alms giving profits nothing, as will appear in ver. 3. For disposition by itself is useless and of no account unless there follow the form to which it disposes; therefore works without charity are nothing, that is, they confer no righteousness or salvation; and a man without charity is nothing so far as the spiritual being is concerned, in which, by supernatural regeneration, he receives a supernatural and Divine being, and is made a new creature of God, a son and heir of God. Hence it follows that faith alone does not justify. Beza replies that here faith which works miracles alone is in question; for justifying faith, which lays hold of the mercy of God in Christ, can be separated from charity indeed in thought, but not in reality, any more than light from fire. But on the other hand, since faith which works miracles includes and presupposes faith properly so called, which is the beginning of justification (nay, faith which works miracles is the most excellent faith, as the Apostle here signifies when he says: "Though I have faith so that I could remove mountains"), therefore, if faith which works miracles can exist without charity, it will also be able to be justifying faith. Secondly, the Apostle says "all faith," which Beza dishonestly translates "whole faith:" if all, therefore also justifying. Thirdly, the Apostle teaches us (vers. 3 and 13) that faith and hope, both theological and justifying, remain in this life only, while charity remains also in the future life; therefore faith is separated from charity. So Chrysostom, Anselm, Theophylact, and others; and especially S. Augustine (de Trin. lib. xv. c. 18) says: "Faith, according to the Apostle, can be without charity; it cannot be profitable;" and in his sermon on the three virtues— faith, hope, and charity (tom. x.), he speaks of charity alone, "that it distinguishes between the children of God and the children of the devil, between the children of the Kingdom and the children of perdition;" and again (Lib,. de Naturβ et Gratiβ, c. ult.) he says: "Charity begun is righteousness begun; charity increased is righteousness increased; charity perfected is righteousness perfected." See Bellarmine (de Justificatione. lib. i. c. 15). What faith which works miracles is I have said (chap. xii. 9); why the operation of miracles is to be attributed to faith S. Thomas teaches (de Potentiβ, qu. 6, art. 9). Ver. 3—And though I bestow all my goods. The Greek verb signifies to put into the mouths of children or the sick bread, or food, in crumbs as cut up, as I have said ; here, however, it denotes to expend all one's substance for such a purpose. Though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it pofiteth me nothing. You will say, Martyrdom, then, can be without grace and charity, with sin and damnation. Note firstly, as one can give alms, so one can hand over one's body in different ways and from different motives, e.g., for one's country, for one's neighbour, for correction of the body, from vain glory, or again for the faith, for the love of Christ and of God— and then it is martyrdom. Secondly, martyrdom is an act springing from the virtue of fortitude, ordered often by charity; still it can be ordered, not by charity, but by another virtue, as by religion or obedience; e.g., if a man offer himself to martyrdom, that he may honour God or obey Him. These actions, however, flow from a general love of God. Thirdly, martyrdom, from whatever virtue springing, confers justifying grace, even the first, from the mere fact of its being wrought, as theologians teach; and consequently it confers charity, nor can it be separated from it as from its end. I say, then, firstly, that the Apostle speaks in general terms of any handing over of the body to be burned: Whether any one does it for his country, as Mucius Scζvola did, who, wishing to kill King Porsena when he was besieging Rome, made a mistake, and fell into the power of his enemies; then, to show how little he shrank from death for his country, he burnt his hand, "In order that you may know," he said to Porsena, "how vile is the body in the eyes of us who look for glory;" or whether he do it for empty fame, as Peregrinus did, who, to obtain for himself an immortal name, threw himself at the Olympic games on a pyre to be consumed, as Lucian, an eyewitness, testified; or whether any one commit himself to fire for the faith of Christ, while at the same time keeping hatred of his neighbour, or a desire to commit mortal sin: which martyrdom is material, not formal; for it is then without charity and profiteth nothing, as D. Thomas, Anselm, and Theodoret say. Hence, I say secondly, that the Apostle also speaks of giving the body in material and formal martyrdom, but hypothetically, i.e., if martyrdom could be without charity it would profit nothing. So S. Chrysostom and Theophylact. Whence Theodoret and S. Basil (Epis. 75 ad Neocζsarienses) remark that there is here a hyperbole. But, if you wish, the Apostle speaks, not merely hypothetically, but absolutely. I say thirdly, martyrdom antecedently, whether from the mere fact of being wrought, in so far as its work is regarded in itself, or in so far as the merit of him who suffers martyrdom is regarded, can be without charity, e.g., if one living in mortal sin is willing to die for the faith of Christ, when as yet he has not charity, martyrdom profits him nothing. Nevertheless, in consequence, from the mere fact of its being wrought, in his end martyrdom always brings charity; for, from the very fact that any one, even a sinner, is killed for the faith, charity and righteousness are infused into him as if from the very act itself, and in this way martyrdom eminently profits. In this way, therefore, the sense of the Apostle will be, Martyrdom profiteth nothing unless charity go before, follow after, or accompany it, whether as the source or the end and effect of martyrdom. So S. Thomas, Cajetan, and Francisco Suarez (p. 3, qu. 69, disp. 29, sec 2). Anselm says: "Without charity nothing profits, however excellent; with charity everything profits, however vile, and becomes golden and Divine." It profiteth me nothing. I am not helped, I receive no benefit, i.e., towards justification and salvation. So Ephrem., "So great is charity that, if it be wanting, other things are reckoned vain; if it be present, we possess all," says S. Augustine (tom. iii. Sententia, 326). Ver. 4.—Charity suffereth long and is kind. Ambrose reads: "Charity is high-souled" (so also S. Cyprian and Tertullian, de Patientiβi, c. 12, read), "and is pleasing." Note, charity is long-suffering, not formally, but in the way of cause, because it produces patience and kindness; because patience, as well as kindness, is an act not elicited but ordered by charity. Tertullian (de Patientiβ, c. 2) beautifully teaches that no virtue is perfect which has not patience as its companion, and so in all the beatitudes which Christ (in S. Matt. 5) enumerates, patience also must be understood. He teaches also (c. 12) that the treasures of charity are held in by the discipline of patience, and that charity herself is taught by patience as her mistress; for, expounding, these words of the Apostle, "charity suffereth long," he says: Love, the great mystery of the faith, by whose training is she taught save by that of patience? Love," he, says, "is high-souled, so she adopts patience; she does good, so patience works no evil; envieth not— that also is the property of patience; savours nothing of wantonness— she has drawn her modesty from patience; is not puffed up, behaves not unseemly— for that belongs not to patience. But what would he have left to impatience? Therefore he says, 'Love beareth all things, endureth all things,' that is, because she is patient." Hence S. Augustine (de Moribus Eccl. c. 15) then defines fortitude: "Fortitude is love bearing easily all things for God's sake." In like manner he defines by love the three other cardinal virtues, that they are different forms of love. "We may say," he says, "that temperance is love preserving itself pure and uncorrupt for God; that justice is love, serving God only, and for the same cause duly ordering other things which have been placed under man; that prudence is love, rightly discerning between those things by which God is served, and by which His service is hindered." Again (c. xxii.) he says: "That love which we must have towards God, inflamed with all holiness, is called temperate in things that ought not to be sought for, and brave in things which can be lost." And shortly afterwards: "There is nothing so hard, so steely, which cannot be overcome by the fire of love. By love, when the soul hastens towards God, rising above the defilement of the flesh, it will fly, freely and wonderfully, on most beautiful and most chaste wings, by which pure love strives for the embrace of God." Every virtue therefore is love and charity, viz., an act of charity not elicited but ordered, because it is ordered, directed, formed, and perfected by charity. Add to this that virtue by itself is love of good. Such was the charity of Christ on the Cross towards His crucifiers, about which S. Bernard (Sermon de Passione Domini) says: "He was smitten with scourges, crowned wish thorns, pierced with nails, fastened to the Cross, laden with reproaches; yet, heedless of all pains, He cried, 'Forgive them, for they know not what they do.' How ready art Thou to forgive, 0 Lord! How great is the multitude of Thy sweet mercies! How far are Thy thoughts from our thoughts! How is Thy mercy established on the wicked! A wondrous thing! He cries, 'For give;' the Jews, 'Crucify;' His words were softer than butter, and they are as darts. Oh, suffering charity, but also long suffering. 'Charity suffereth long'— it is enough; 'charity is kind'— it is the crowning point. Because charity is kind, she loves also those whom she tolerates, and loves them so ardently.' And a little lower: "O Jews, ye are stones, but ye strike a softer stone, from which is given back the sound of piety, from which pours forth the oil of charity. How, 0 Lord, wilt Thou give drink to those who thirst for Thee of the torrent of Thy joy, who so overwhelmest those who crucify Thee with the oil of Thy mercy!" Envieth not. For, as S. Gregory says (Hom. v. in Evang.), "the good will which charity begets is one that fears others' misfortunes as its own, which rejoices in the prosperity of its neighbour as in its own, believes others' losses as its own, and reckons others' gains as its own." The reason is, because charity does not regard my things and thine, but those which are God's. For, as S. Gregory says (ibid.), "whatever we desire in this world, we envy to our neighbour," for we seem to lose what another gains. For this cause charity is cold where lust is bold. On the contrary, when brotherly love reigns, then lust lives an exile; for, as S. Augustine says (de Doctr. Christ. lib. iii. c. 10), "the more the kingdom of lust is destroyed, the more charity is increased." Does nothing wrongly. Perversely, wantonly, maliciously. Some interpret the Greek, "does not chatter idly," Vatablus, "does not flatter;" Clement (Pζdag. c. ii.), "does not paint her face or adorn her head overmuch." "For worship," says Clement, "is said to act unseemly which openly shows superfluity and usefulness; for excessive striving after adornment is opposed to God, to reason, and to charity." Cajetan interprets the word: "is not inconstant;" Theophylact, "is not head-strong, fickle, rash, stubborn;" Ephrem, "is not riotous." Theophylact again, "doth not exalt itself." So also S. Basil seems to interpret it. "What," he asks, "does this word (περπερεύεται) mean?" which the Latin translator of Basil renders: "What do we mean by being boastful and arrogant without cause?" He replies. "That which is assumed, not from necessity but for the sake of superfluous adornment, incurs the charge o unseemliness." But from these words it is evident that the translator has not followed the mind of S. Basil, and that Basil did not mean boasting and foolish arrogance, but painting, and excessive adornment, as did Clement of Alexandria in the place just cited. Best of all, Chrysostom understands it: "Charity is not forward or wanton, as is the carnal 1ove of lascivious men, wanton women, and harlots." Whence Tertullian (de Patientiβ, c. xii.) says, "Charity makes not wanton." Ver. 5.—Is not ambitious. Ephrem translates it: "Does not commit what is shameful." Clement (Pζdag. lib. iii.c. 1). "Doth not behave itself unseemly." Our translator with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, takes it thus: Charity thinks that nothing is dishonouring or unbecoming to it, though it suffer or do what is vile, ignominious, or degrading. Or more shortly: Charity is not ashamed, because it is ambitious of nothing, and of no honour. Our translator therefore has, from the effect, understood and rendered the cause— the cause why any one is not ashamed is, because he seeks for no honour or glory. Whence Chrysostom and Theophylact think that this is said by Paul against the arrogant. "Charity," says Chrysostom, "knows not what dishonour and disgrace are; she covers with her wings of gold the vices of all whom she embraces." So the love of Christ did not spurn or reject harlots, scourgings, or washing of men's feet. S. Basil understands it (in Regul. Brev. Reg. 246): "Charity doth not depart from her habit and form." But Oecumenius: "Charity doth not treat bitterly as a prisoner the man who is her enemy." Thinketh no evil, i.e., charity, if she is provoked by any one, does not reckon up the injury nor seek revenge, but conceals it, excuses it, forgives it. For the Greek word, as Vatablus and the Greeks understand it, is, imputes not his evil to any one. Ver. 6.—Rejoiceth in the truth. In the truth, not so much of speech and mind as of life, i.e., of righteousness. In other words, charity, when it sees its neighbours living justly and rightly and making advance, does not envy them, but rejoices and is glad, as though it were its own advance, as Anselm says from S. Gregory; for truth here is opposed to iniquity. Therefore truth here is equity, uprightness, righteousness. The Greeks understand it otherwise. Charity does not rejoice, but grieves when it sees an enemy suffering anything wrongly or unjustly; and it rejoices in the truth if it sees his own given to him. Ver. 7.—Beareth all things. Like a beam which sustains an imposed weight, or rather, like a palm-tree, which does not yield under its own weight, but, like an arch, is the more strong. Rightly says Augustine (in Sententiis, sec. 295): "The fortitude of the Gentiles comes from wordly lust, but the fortitude of the Christians from the love of God which was shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, who was given to us, not by any determination of our own will." Believeth all things, i.e., charity is not suspicious, but readily gives credence to others where it can prudently believe without danger of error. Therefore Paul says, "beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things." That is to say, charity bears all evils and all injuries, believes and is persuaded of the best about its neighbour, hopes for all good things for its neighbour, and endures from him evil words and blows. So Chrysostom and the Greeks. Anselm, S. Thomas, and Lyra explain the words differently. Charity makes us believe what ought to be believed, hope for what we ought, and await it with patience; for otherwise in some cases that saying of Seneca is true, "It is a vice to believe everything and a vice to believe nothing." So also S. Augustine explains it; and from these words of the Apostle he makes a chariot for charity, namely, of the four virtues of charity, faith, hope, patience, perseverance. In his sermon on the four virtues of charity he thus speaks: "Every one who devoutly bears rightly believes, and every one who rightly believes hopes for somewhat, and he who hopes perseveres, lest he should lose hope;" for the Apostle in this whole passage is treating of the offices of charity, not towards God, but towards our neighbour, and is showing how charity manifests itself in all cases to him. Chrysostom remarks (Hom. xxxiv.) that there are here sixteen benefits and fruits of charity, which he sets up as remedies for the diseases of the Corinthians: "Charity," he says, "patient, condemning the quarrelsome; kind, condemning the factious and stealthy; envies not, against those who are bitter against their superiors; is not wanton— he lays hold of the dissolute; is not puffed up— the proud; is not haughty, against those who will not abase themselves and serve their neighbour; seeketh not her own, against those who despise others; is not provoked— thinketh no evil against those who inflict insults; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth, against the envious. Again, 'beareth all things,' is for a solace to these who are hemmed in by foes and down-trodden; 'hopeth all things,' is for a solace to those who are rejected and despaired of; 'endureth all things and never faileth,' is against those who, for a slight cause, foster divisions." S. Gregory thus describes these offices of charity (Morals, book x. c. 8): "Charity is patient, because it bears calmly all evils that may be inflicted; is kind, because it bountifully repays good for evil; envieih not, because, from the fact that it seeks for nothing in this present world, it knows not how to be envious at earthly successes; is not puffed up, because, since it eagerly 1ongs for the promised inward reward, it does not exalt itself on the score of outward advantages ; does nothing amiss, because it confines itself to the love of God and of its neighbour, and is ignorant of whatever departs from rectitude; is not ambitious, because it ardently seeks within for its own perfection, and covets without no man's goods; seeketh not its own, because it disregards, as though they were another's, all things which here for a brief time it possesses, since it recognises that nothing is its own save what abides permanently; is not provoked, because, though stirred up by injuries, it is roused to no motions of revenge, since for great sufferings it expects hereafter greater rewards; thinketh no evil, because purity establishes a mind in love, while it plucks up all hatred by the roots, and cannot dwell in a soul which is defiled; rejoiceth not in iniquity, for it yearns with love alone for all, and does not rejoice in the fall of its enemies; but rejoiceth in the truth, because, loving others as itself, it rejoices in that which it sees good in others, as though it were an increase of its own perfection." A soul on fire with charity is like the sky; for as the wide-spreading sky embraces the whole earth, and warms and fertilises it by the suit, and waters it by its showers, even places bristling with thorns, so such a soul embraces with its charity the inhabitants of the whole earth, though they be barbarians or foes, and does good to whom it can, and waters and cherishes with its sweetness those who bristle with the thorns of hatred and of vice. Ver. 8.—Charity never faileth. It suffers no death; it will never cease: other gifts will cease in the heavenly glory. Heretics infer from this that, if charity never faileth, he who has it cannot sin, and is assured of his salvation. I reply, I deny the consequence. For charity never faileth, viz., by itself; for of its own accord it never deserts a man, unless it be first through sin deserted by him. "Charity," says Cassian (Callat. iii. c. 7), "is one who never suffers her follower to fall by sin supplanting her." So long, therefore, as you give yourself to charity and will to keep her, you will never sin; but if you sin, it is not that charity in itself fails, but you yourself eject her by force. Whether there be prophecies they shall fail. Not so much because of their obscurity as because they were here given to meet the imperfection of those who heard them, in order that they, being more untaught, might be taught by prophecy and tongues. Thus in heaven faith shall cease, because it is imperfect through lack of evidence, and hope, because it is imperfect through the absence of the thing hoped for; but charity has nothing of these, but is perfect in itself, and therefore will remain in heaven. Whether tongues they shall cease. He does not say language shall cease but languages, because in heaven there will be no variety of tongues, but language there will be; for we shall with one accord praise God, not only in mind but also with perceptible language. Haymo, Remigius, Cajetan here, Galatinus (de Arc. Fidei, lib. xii. c. 4), Viguerius (in Instit. c. ix. ver. 8), where he treats of the gift of tongues, all teach that the one tongue which we shall all use in heaven will be Hebrew, which Adam used in his state of innocence, which all the patriarchs, prophets, and saints before Christ, nay, which the whole world used before its dispersion and confusion of tongues at Babel. Hence in the Apocalypse, though written in Greek, it is said that the saints in heaven will sing in Hebrew "Amen, Alleluia." For since in heaven all sin will have been banished, the confusion of tongues will be done away with; and as we shall return to the primeval state of innocence, so shall we to its language, and to the one and first speech. Certainly, if any one of those tongues which we use on earth remain in heaven, I should think it would be Hebrew. But it is not plain that any will remain; for the Apostle only says that tongues will cease, which may mean that all which are now in use among men are to cease. Nevertheless, it is consistent with this that in heaven another sensible tongue may be infused anew into the blessed, a celestial tongue, one far more perfect than any we have here, one befitting their mouth and glorified body, and with this they will in a bodily manner praise God. Whether this be more true, a blessed experience will teach us. John Salas (in 1, 2, tom. i. qu. 5, art. 5, tract. 2 disp. 14, sect. 14. n. 106) thinks that is more likely. His reason is that the Hebrew tongue is wanting in sweetness, fulness, and perspicuity, and therefore it is not worthy to be retained after the General Resurrection. In heaven there will be an elect speech, as Wisdom says (cap. iii. 9), that is, a special tongue pre-eminently sweet, terse, and perspicuous, common to all nations, to be taught by God. Hence S. Bernard says (in Medit. c. iv.): "The unwearied rejoicing of all will be with one tongue," &c. There will not be in the peace of heaven any diversity of tongues, viz., for common use. Beyond this, however, they will speak, when they wish, with other tongues; for all will have the gift of tongues, and will know all idioms by Divine revelation. Salmeron and others add that in heaven it is meet for God to be worshipped with all kinds of tongues; for it seems to tend to the greater glory of God, that every tongue confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father. And so all tongues will be one, for they will feel and proclaim the same thing, as Martial (Epigram i.), in flattery of Caesar, said— "The voices of the nations sound unlike, yet they are one, For you are proclaimed by all, true father of your country." Whether there be knowledge it shall vanish away. This knowledge, as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact say, is that which is imperfect, obscure, and enigmatical, as Paul calls it in ver. 12, e.g., faith and all that depends on faith. Of this kind is our theological knowledge, which draws its conclusions from the principles of the faith: all this will cease in heaven. For theology there will be of a different appearance, being most clear, drawn from the vision of God and from the clearest principles. So say Cajetan, Molina, Vasquez, and others, in the beginning of the first part. Observe that the Apostle is speaking rather of the act of knowledge than of its habit; and therefore he adds: "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part;" and "When I was a child I thought as a child;" and: "Now I know in part, then shall I know even as also I am known." Still, from the cessation of the act he leaves it to be collected that the habit will cease; for the habit will be of no avail if there is no use for it; for it will not issue in action. And this he signifies by the words "shall fail" and "shall vanish away," which imply that knowledge, prophecy, and tongues, simply, both as regards act and habit, are to perish. Secondly, Photius explains the passage not amiss thus. Knowledge, i.e., teaching and learning shall fail, for in heaven we shall neither teach nor learn. Thirdly, others say that knowledge here is science, or the use of scientific terms, by which the realities of faith are illustrated and explained, by means of natural sciences. Ver. 9.—For we know in part and we prophesy in part, i.e., imperfectly. Ephrem turns it. "We know but little of much;" for the Apostle opposes what is little and imperfect, what we know partly by reason, partly by prophecy, to what is perfect (ver. 10), i.e., to the perfect vision and knowledge of God in himself, and of all things in God. It is certainly true that the whole being of God, and all His attributes and perfections, we do not know in this life, but all the blessed know them, and they alone. He proves this from the example of a boy, who grows both in age and knowledge. For the blessed are in knowledge as men, and we in it as boys. Again, our theological knowledge, though it is certain, is yet hidden and obscure; it leans on faith, and for that reason alone it is in part or imperfect. The blessed, however, know all things clearly and intuitively, nay, they see and behold face to face. Ver. 11.—When I was a child, that is, one who is now beginning to say, think, plan, attempt, study, play, and do anything, as our children are wont to do. I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. I understood as a child, or felt as a child; for children have not wisdom, but feeling. In other words, when a child I thought, and understood, and felt as a child, but when I became a man I thought and understood as a man does. So, when that which is perfect is come, i.e., perfect wisdom in heaven, partial and imperfect knowledge, as we have it in this life, shall fail; so that we who here are boys in knowledge are to be men in heaven. S. Paul leaves the remaining part of the likeness to be supplied from the verse before. Ver. 12.—For now we see through a glass in an enigma: but then face to face. We see, i.e., God and heavenly things, by which we may be saved and be happy, as appears from what follows. You will say: If we see God here in a mirror, we see Him clearly and not in an enigma, for a mirror exhibits to the eyes, not an image of the object, as is commonly supposed, but the very object itself. I reply. It is true that a mirror exhibits to the eyes the object itself, yet it does so, not by a direct ray but reflected; and therefore it represents the object, not properly, clearly, distinctly, but as from a distance, obscure and confusedly. Such is the knowledge of God and of Divine things which we have in this life, but in heaven we shall see God as He is, face to face, directly, closely, clearly. Secondly, the Greek word denotes that which we look through as a means of seeing anything, such as the spectacles of old men, an eye-glass, or green glass which is placed over a writing, that it may help weak eyes in reading, nevertheless, it makes things look green, dark, and obscure. Such a glass, properly speaking, makes the letters to be seen, not in themselves immediately, but by an obscure medium and by a shadowy likeness, or, as the Apostle says, in an enigma. Such a glass may be meant here. Thirdly, some interpret the word, "through a screen;" for, as merchants show their wares in their shops through glass screens to those who pass by, not close at hand and distinctly, but from a distance, in the mass and confusedly, so does God show Himself to us in this life. You will ask, What is this mirror by which we see God and Divine things here in an enigma? I reply, Firstly, the creatures which act as a mirror to represent their Creator. So S. Thomas teaches. Secondly, the phenomena of nature, which are the mirrors of realities. Thirdly, the humanity of Christ and its mysteries, which veil and set forth His Divinity. Again, the sacraments and other rites and ceremonies. So S. Theodoret says: "In holy baptism we see a figure of the resurrection; there we shall see the resurrection itself. Here we see the symbols of the Lord's body, there the Lord Himself; for so the words face to face imply. We shall see, however, not His Divine nature, which no eye can take in, but that which was assumed of us." In these last words of Theodoret an error of his must be guarded against, for he seems to say that in heaven we shall see the humanity only of Christ, because he says the Divine nature cannot he seen. But the excuse can perhaps be made that he is speaking only of corporal vision, of which it is true to say, that with the eyes of the body we shall see the humanity only of Christ. But this is outside the mind of the Apostle, for he is treating of the beatific vision, especially of the Divinity. In an enigma, i.e., according to Anselm, by an obscure speech, thought, or imagination. For an enigma is a question which is proposed in involved terms. Then face to face. He alludes to Moses . "Now I know in part" (imperfectly, as I have said, ver. 9), "but then shall I know even as also I am known." That is, Then in heaven I shall perfectly know and see God, as He is in His essence, and all other mysteries of God and the faith, even as He knows me and sees what I am in my essence. So Anselm, Theophylact, Cajetan, Ambrose, and Theodoret. "I shall know," he says, "even as I am known," as a well-known and familiar friend clearly sees the face of his friend. S. Augustine extends these words of the Apostle to a knowledge also of what takes place here on earth, and of what relates to the state of any saint. Hence he proves from this place that the saints understand in heaven our affairs more perfectly than they once did on earth; whence it follows that they hear the prayers with which we invoke them (de Civ. Dei, lib. xxii. c. 29). Chrysostom and �cum. understand it otherwise. Then, they say, shall I know what concerns action: I shall hasten to Him through love and righteousness, even as He prevented and went before me with His grace. Thirdly others interpret it thus: Then shall I know with that degree of perfection to which I was known and predestinated for eternity by God. But the first sense is the genuine one; for he opposes knowledge, which is clear and full, to that which is in part, i.e., imperfect and enigmatical. Ver. 13.—Now abide faith, hope, charity. S. Paul in this chapter clearly teaches that faith, hope, and charity abide in this present life, but charity alone in our heavenly country. So the Fathers hold. See Gregory de Valentia, disp. qu. 5 de Subjecto Fidei, part 2). You will say, Irenζus (ii. c. 47), Tertullian (de Patientiβ, c. xii.) understand "now" of heaven; therefore in heaven there will be, and will abide, both faith and hope. I reply: These Fathers understand by faith all sure knowledge, such as the vision of God; by hope, a firm adherence to God, as the object of love, which is the enjoyment of God. For this is what Tertullian says: "There abide faiih, hope, love: faith which the patietice of Christ had begotten; hope which the patience of man waits for; love which, with God as her teacher, patience accompanies." But these are not to the purpose of the Apostle, as is evident. The greater of these is charity. Greater, i.e., the greatest. So Catullus:— "0 Hesperus, light more fair, which shineth in heaven." that is, fairest star. Hence it is plain that faith is not the confidence of heretics in the remission of their sins; for that confidence is nothing else but a strong hope: if it is more it is properly called faith, by which you believe most firmly that you have been justified and saved, as you believe that God is; then hope is superfluous. For what you firmly believe you do not, nor can hope for, as, e.g., you do not hope that God is, that Christ suffered for us. For hope which truly is hope is allied to fear and dread as its opposites; there is nothing of this kind in faith. The Apostle just above distinguishes hope or confidence from faith, and requires in this life hope as well as faith; therefore faith is not that confidence of which heretics make their boast. Lastly, it is plain that of all virtues charity is the greatest and most eminent; for, as fire among the elements, gold among the elements, the empyrean among the heavens, the sun among the planets, the seraphim among the angels, so shines charity as the queen among virtues. For charity is the celestial fire which kindles the souls of all around it: the most glittering gold with which we purchase our heavenly inheritance; the highest heaven in which God and the blessed dwell; the sun which illuminates, fertilises, quickens all; the seraphic virtue which makes the seraphim glow. (See on .) Beroald says: "As is the helmsman in a ship, the ruler in a state, the sun in the world, so is love among mortals. Without a helmsman the ship is shattered, without a ruler the state is endangered, without the sun the world is darkened, and without love life is no life. Take love from men, you take the sun from the world." Plautinus happily calls love a purifying God, that is, making all things pure and beautiful. CHAPTER XIV OF THE CHAPTER i. He puts prophecy before the gift of tongues, because (a) it is of great use in edifying others, and tongues are not, unless some one interpret; (b) because (Ver. 21) prophecy is given to the faithful, while tongues are a sign to them that believe not, and he proves this from Isaiah xxviii. ii. He gives a rule for the due use of these gifts, and lays down laws to be observed in the meetings of the Church for public worship; amongst other things he bids (ver. 34) women keep silence always. The Apostle began in chap. xii. to treat of the various gifts of the Spirit, which He distributes to whom He wills and as He wills; and then, to take away all boasting from the Corinthians about these gifts, and especially about the gift of tongues, he exhorted them, in chap. xiii., to follow after charity as the queen of all graces and gifts; he now, in this chapter, returns to consider these gifts, and points out that not only charity but also prophecy excels the gift of tongues. The question arises, What does S. Paul mean in this chapter by prophecy and what by a prophet? This is the chief difficulty to be met with here. The word "prophet," properly speaking, denotes one who, by revelation from God, foretells an event before it comes to pass. The word is of Greek, not Latin, origin, coming from two words denoting to speak beforehand, as though the prophet saw an event before it happened. This is the origin of the word. Like most words, it then acquired a secondary meaning, and was extended to signify one who reveals the secrets of the heart or other mysteries, and one, especially who knows the will of God, and becomes His interpreter and messenger to others, and who sees and proclaims the mysteries of the mind and will of God. So Abraham, from being admitted to familiar intercourse with God, was honoured with the title of prophet . Hence prophecy generally in Scripture is the power of knowing more fully and more surely than is given to most men the counsels and determinations of God, and also of proclaiming them for the purpose of edifying the Church. This power is inspired by the Holy Spirit into some men, who are hence called prophets. A part of this power consists in a provision and prediction of future events, or even of any hidden things, whether past or future. Another part of it, and one that is far more important and more exalted, one not derived from study but inspired by the same Spirit, consists in discoursing more ably and more divinely of the being and attributes of God. If it were derived from study, it would be knowledge and doctrine, not prophecy; and so S. Paul, who received his Gospel, not from man but by the revelation of Jesus Christ , taught and preached rather from a constant flow of prophecy than of doctrine. 1. They then are called prophets who, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, forth-tell future events or hidden mysteries. 2. Those teachers only who so exhort to piety are to be called prophets. 3. Those too received the name of prophets who were borne along by a Divine impulse to praise God with hymns and to provoke the people to devotion. So, in 1 Sam. 10, the Spirit of God came on Saul and he prophesied; and again, in chap. 12., he laid aside his clothes and lay down naked, singing his prophecies a whole day and night. Again, since Elijah and EIisha had disciples, who at fixed times, like men devoted to religion, occupied themselves more zealously than others in singing psalms, in prayers and praises, in investigating, meditating on, and teaching the law, and since they sometimes were carried away by the power of the Spirit, as, e.g., he who anointed Jehu— hence all these were called prophets, and their sons or disciples were called sons of the prophets. Frequent mention of them is made in 2 Kings. They were especially so called because among them were some true prophets. 4. Hence the name of prophet is extended to any singers, so that to prophesy is the same as to play or to sing anything in praise of God. So, in , the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun are said to prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals. Still among them there were prophets indeed, such as the leaders of the singers, Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun, who, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, composed the psalms that bear their names, as the Hebrews hand down to us by tradition. (5.) By an abuse of the word, those are called prophets who, under the influence of some evil spirit, lose their self-control, and utter idiotic and frensied sounds. So, in , it is said that "an evil spirit of God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of his house," i.e., he spoke and acted as one demented, like one filled with frensy. Hence the heathen called their poets seers and prophets, because they seemed borne along by the irresistible power of the Muses, as, e.g., the Sibyls in composing and singing their songs. So Ovid (Fasti, lib. vi. 5.) says— "God is within us, enkindling us to song, And fanning into flame the sparks of heavenly truth." So, in , the poet Epimenides is called a prophet. (6.) "To prophesy" also denotes the working of miracles; for this was the work of prophets, who were holy men, gifted from above, and like organs of God and of His wisdom and power. So, in Ecclus. xlviii., the dead body of Elisha is said to have prophesied, because by its touch it raised a man from the dead . The word "prophet" is so used in S. . (7.) To prophesy is to confirm prophecy. So, in Ecclus. xlxx., the bones of Joseph are said to have prophesied after his death, viz., when they were carried with the Israelites out of Egypt, and so testified silently that the prophecy about them was true. From all these it is evident that prophecy, strictly speaking, is that gift which was frequently given before Christ came, as well as in the Primitive church, but which now for the most part has ceased, and is only vouchsafed to a very few men, for a testimony to their exceptional holiness. The frequency of such gifts was miraculous, and came almost to an end with the Apostles; that is to say, they are not now given, as then, promiscuously, but to very few and very seldom. It was the purpose of the Lord that those miracles should shine forth brightly, to draw the attention of the heathen to the Gospel, and to convince them of its truth. Now, however, that the faith has been well grounded and the world converted, He withdraws them and bids the Church depend for her growth and perfection on the usual instruments of teaching and exhortation. Cf. Jansenius (Concordia, c. 47). A second question arises, Which of these various meanings does S. Paul apply here to the word "prophet?" Chrysostom and Theophylact say that he uses the word in the strict meaning of "one who foretells future things." This was his meaning, they say, in chapter xii. Theodoret takes prophecy to mean the revelation of thoughts and other hidden mysteries, and quotes ver. 24 in support of his opinion. But we should notice that the Apostle is describing in this chapter everything that took place then in the public assemblies of the Church, and that he includes them all under the names of tongues and of prophesying. For the Holy Spirit then would fill many in the Church to sing and speak spiritual songs, hymns, prayers, collects, and psalms in strange tongues, in the presence of an unlettered crowd of all sorts of men, just as He did on the day of Pentecost, as described in Acts ii. This is supported by S. Dionysius (de Div. Nomin. c. 3) and by Tertullian (Apol. 29), and the Apostle calls this "the gift of tongues," or "speaking in tongues." To others the Holy Spirit would give the power of ex- pounding Holy Scripture, or of teaching or preaching, or of singing, or of leading the people in exalted prayer in the vulgar tongue, and hence, as Chrysostom and Theodoret point out, of manifesting the secrets of men's hearts, and even of uttering real prophecies. All these things S. Paul includes here under the name of prophecy, especially preaching and teaching, and he opposes them to the gift of tongues. Cf. vers. 4-6, 31, and especially vers. 25, 26. For the prophets of old time not only foretold future things, but taught and preached, and mingled with their teaching psalms and prayers. Therefore the Apostle here puts this kind of prophecy before tongues, and throughout the whole chapter exhorts them to it, and gives directions for its due use and its order in the public assemblies of the Church, both before and after the Eucharist; for in these assemblies one would expound Holy Scripture, another exhort, a third sing a hymn, a fourth a psalm, even sometimes in a foreign tongue. Cf. Ambrose, Anselm, and Philo (de Essζis). The word "prophet" has this meaning also in chap. xi. vers. 4, 5. We must notice too, that S. Paul does not here call all prophets who simply explain the obscure passages of the Prophets or of Holy Scripture, nor yet all those who teach others or exhort, as some writers suppose, but only those who do so by the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and not from learning acquired by laborious study. This is plain from ver. 30, where he says. "If anything be revealed to another, let the first hold his peace," and from ver. 32: "The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." By the name of prophets he means those who were filled with the Holy Spirit, and received from Him some revelation of doctrine, or word of exhortation, or of prayer. This was frequently given then, as appears from ver. 26. But when that influence of the Holy Spirit ceased, it was succeeded by reading of the Scriptures, preaching, psalm-singing before the Mass, during the Mass, and after the Mass. Cf. note on ver. 26. Ver. 1.—Follow after Charity. Pursue it eagerly so as to obtain it, just as a huntsman pursues a wild animal. Desire spiritual gifts. These are, S. Chrysostom says, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, not His graces, as, e.g., the gift of tongues or of healing, and the others referred to in chap. xi. S. Paul bids them desire these, try to obtain them, especially by prayer, not from any desire for superiority but from charity, that they may profit others and the Church at large by means of those gifts. But rather that ye may prophesy. Viz., that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit ye may teach, say, or sing such things as may stir up the devotion of others. This has just been seen to be the force of "prophecy." Ver. 2.—He that speaketh in a tongue, &c. S. Augustine (de Gen. ad Litt. lib. xii.), Primasius, and Cajetan read the nominative in the last clause of this verse, "Howbeit the Spirit speaketh mysteries," The meaning then would be: The Holy Spirit speaks of hidden mysteries in the Holy Scriptures, which cannot be understood, except some prophet or doctor interpret them. But this meaning is foreign to the context, and this reading is not supported by the Greek or Latin copies. Ver. 3.—But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to . . . comfort. This is what I said before, that to prophesy means here to speak words which edify, exhort, and comfort others. Hence, to prophesy is better than to speak in unknown tongues, which no one understands, and from which no one can receive instruction, edification, or comfort. Ver. 6.—Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues . . . or by doctrine? His tongues would profit them nothing unless he added to them a revelation, that is an explanation of the revelation given him; or knowledge, that is a declaration of what he knew, whether infused by God or acquired by study; or prophecy, that is a statement of what he knew, either by prophecy properly so called or improperly, in the way of explanation of hidden and difficult things, especially of Holy Scripture; or doctrine, that is an accommodation of his discourse to their capacity. Such is pretty nearly the explanation given by S. Thomas and Theophylact. To complete the sense of the verse we must supply: But I shall do nothing of this sort if I merely speak with tongues and do not interpret, so that you may understand me; therefore it is better to prophesy than to speak with tongues, unless some one interpret. But in the second place we can understand the Apostle's meaning still better if we join knowledge with doctrine, and revelation with prophecy. For, as it was from their stores of knowledge that learned men drew the teaching that they gave others, so was it from revelation that they prophesied. Prophecy is distinguished from doctrine in that it is received by revelation, doctrine from knowledge; for what we teach has been acquired by intellectual study. So Tolatus and Jansenius, in the place quoted above, say that S. Paul's meaning is, "Though I speak in unknown tongues, but do not teach you, whether by knowledge gained by study or by prophecy received by revelation, I shall profit you nothing." Thirdly, Cassianus (Collat xiv. 8) sees here the four senses of Holy Scripture: in the doctrine the literal sense, in the revelation the allegorical, in the knowledge the tropological, in the prophecy the allegorical. But this is a mystical and symbolic interpretation. Ver. 7.—And even things without life, &c. That tongues profit nothing unless they are understood can be seen, even from a comparison drawn from inanimate things; for a pipe or harp are of no use unless they give a distinct sound. Unless a man knows what is played he will take no pleasure in the sounds, nor will he be induced to dance to the music. Ver. 9.—So likewise ye . . . how shall it be known what is spoken. For the tongue is the stamp, the image, the index, and messenger of the mind. As Aristotle says (Peri Hermen. lib. ii.), "words are signs of the feelings which lie concealed in the soul." Hence Socrates used to determine the mind and character of any one from his voice, and would say, "Speak, young man, that I may see you." But this cannot be if the language of the speaker is unknown to the hearer. Ver. 10.—There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. As a matter of fact, or for example, there are many different languages: no nation is without its language, no language without its meaning. Others, as Oecumenius, refer the none to the instrument, and say that no pipe or harp but has its proper sound; others, more generally, no object is without its voice. As Ausonius sings to Paulinus:— "No creature silent is, nor winged bird, Nor beast that walks the earth, nor hissing snake: The cymbals smitten sound, the stage when struck By dancers' feet, the drum its echo gives." The best meaning, however, is that no tongue is void of meaning. Ver. 11.—I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian. As Ovid says:— "A barbarian here am I, and understood by none." The word "barbarian" is onomatopoetic, and was first applied by the Greeks to any one who spoke another language than Greek; then by the Romans to one who spoke neither Greek nor Latin; afterwards it denoted any one who spoke any other tongue but that of his native country. Hence Anacharsis the Scythian, when ridiculed as a barbarian by the Athenians, well replied, "The Scythians are barbarians to the Athenians, the Athenians just as much barbarians to the Scythians." Ver. 12.—Forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts. Since ye desire to have the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit enumerated in chap. xii, seek them from God abundantly, that ye may use them, not for ostentation, but for the perfecting of the Church. Ver. 13.—Let him that speaketh . . . pray that he may interpret. Paul is here speaking of public prayer, in which one man, even though a layman, inspired by the Holy Spirit, would offer up prayer in an audible voice before all, the others listening, and joining their prayers to his. This is the meaning, as appears from the following verses. But Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Anselm explain it thus: Let him pray that he may receive the gift of the interpretation of tongues, so as to make his own prayer intelligible to others. Ver. 14.—For if I pray in an unknown tongue my spirit prayeth. (1.) My spirit is refreshed; (2.) according to S. Chrysostom, the gift of the Holy Spirit which is in me prayeth, makes me pray and utter my prayer in public. (3.) Theophylact and Erasmus, following S. Basil, understand breath by spirit; in other words, My voice, produced by the vital and vocal breath, prays; but my mind is unfruitful, because it does not understand the meaning of the words uttered. Primasius, too, says that the word "spirit" here is to be understood of prayers uttered sometimes while the mind is thinking of something else. But the first is the true sense, and best fits in with what follows. S. Thomas, commenting on this clause, gives three other meanings, but they are not those in the Apostle's mind. But my understanding is unfruitful. S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ambrose, S. Thomas, and Cajetan think that the Apostle is speaking here of those who had received the gift of tongues, but who, like Balaam's ass, did not understand what they said, or at all events did not enter into the mysteries contained in their words. S. Augustine says the same (de Gen. ad Litt. lib. xii. c. 8 and 9), and it is gathered from ver. 28. For these prayed without fruit in such tongues; for, though their spirit fed on God in pious devotion, yet their mind was not fed on any understanding, of the words of the prayer. But I say that the Greek νοΰς here is the same as "meaning." It is so rendered in the Latin in ver. 19, and in chap. ii. 16, and in Rev. xvii. 9, where we read, "Here is the meaning" (of the vision of the beast) "which hath wisdom." S. Paul makes the same distinction between the tongue and the mind, or the letter and the spirit, which is so common amongst rhetoricians. "Sense" or meaning here is passive understanding, that by which I am understood by all— not active, by which I understand things. This "mind," or signification of tongues, is without fruit, because no one takes it in, and no one is aroused to devotion. This is the natural meaning, and S. Basil seems to hold it (in Reg. Brev. Interrog. 278). Secondly, Oecumenius and Theodoret give an explanation which is not improbable: My mind, or my aim and object, is without fruit, not on the part of the speaker but the hearer, whom the speaker strives to excite to piety. It is certain, from vers. 14, 16 and 19, that S. Paul is speaking of fruit on the side of the hearers; for he is speaking of the prayers and spiritual songs which some of the laity composed under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and uttered in public, or sang in the church at the time of their spiritual feasts, for the comfort, instruction, or exhortation of the people. He wishes them to be said in the vulgar tongue, so as to be understood by all; otherwise, he says, they would be fruitless. You will perhaps say that the Mass and Canonical Hours ought then to be said now in the vulgar tongue. I deny that this follows, for the Apostle is speaking of the prayers which any lay person might compose for the edification or quickening of the people, not of the public Divine offices, which the clergy now perform with the approbation, not to say at the command, and in the name of the whole Church, to worship and praise God with a solemn and uniform majesty in Latin. For if the vernacular tongue were used, it would come to pass (1.) that the uneducated would not understand Divine mysteries, or rather they would misunderstand them, and accept heretical opinions; (2.) the language would have to vary with the countries, or even with the cities. Although all the Germans speak the same language, yet each province has a different idiom: the Westphalians have one, the Swiss another, the Hessians another, and so on. And so if the Divine office were said in the vernacular, in such a difference of dialects division would arise, and sacred things would be ridiculed and despised. You will urge, secondly, perhaps that the people do not understand Latin: what fruit then have they from the Latin Mass? I answer, (1.) They participate in the sacrifice and also the sacrament if they wish to; (2.) in all the prayers which the priest offers for all men, and especially for those present; (3.) they are inflamed by the decent rites and ceremonies to devotion and elevation of their souls to God in private prayer, especially since parish priests are bound, by the Council of Trent (sess. xxii. c. 8), to explain the service to the people in their sermons. See Bellarmine (de Verbo. Dei. lib. ii. c. 16). Ver. 15.—I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also. I will pray with sense and meaning, intelligibly, so that others may understand me. S. Paul alludes to , where the same double meaning of understanding on the part of speaker and hearer is found. Ver. 16.—Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, &c. To bless here is to praise God with heart and mouth. S. Thomas understands it of the public blessing of the people; so also do Primasius, Haymo, and Salmeron, the latter of whom strives by many arguments to prove that the Apostle is speaking here of the sacrifice of the Mass, in which the priest blesses God rather than the people; for the two Greek words for "blessing" and "giving thanks," used indifferently by the Evangelists and S. Paul in their accounts of the institution of the Eucharist, are used here, and seem to point to the Mass. It hence derives its names of the "Blessing" and the "Eucharist," or giving of thanks. Add to this that in all the liturgies of the Mass, including those of S. James, S. Clement, S. Basil, and S. Chrysostom, after the consecration of the bread and wine, the people are wont to answer "Amen!" The Apostle, then, seems to mean here that public blessings, prayers, and Masses should not be celebrated in the church in an utterly unknown tongue, but that among the Greeks Greek should be used, among the Hebrews Hebrew, and among the Latins Latin; for these languages are for the most part understood by all who are of each race respectively. If it is impossible to use one language which is understood by all the different peoples who hear the same Mass, then one which is the best known should be selected, such as Latin among us, so that many "in the room of the unlearned" may answer "Amen!" as the Apostle requires. But that the Apostle is not speaking of the solemn blessing in the Mass, but of any other uttered by some private member, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, in hymn or psalm or prayer, appears (1.) from the Greek particle for else, which, in its meaning of because, gives the cause of the preceding verse. The singular, used in "thy giving of thanks," points also to the private and personal devotion of each of the faithful. (2.) It appears from the drift of the whole chapter, and especially from the conclusion, stated in ver. 26, "Let all things be done to edifying." (3.) It appears again from ver. 31, where he says: "Ye may all prophesy one by one;" and from ver. 29 "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge;" but it was of any one's fresh and private blessing, or prophecy that they were to judge; for the common prayer and liturgy of the whole Church, having been approved of by the whole Church, ought not to be subjected to examination for judgment. All this will better appear from the next paragraph. The unlearned. Gagneius, following Severian, says the unlearned is the catechumen. Primasius says he is a neophyte. Chrysostom, Ephrem, Theophylact, S. Thomas, and others give the best meaning, viz., one untaught, unlettered, and with no knowledge of tongues. S. Thomas, Primasius, and Haymo take the "unlearned" here to be the minister who at Divine service says "Amen!" for the people at the end of the Collects. These Fathers say that S. Paul means that at all events the minister at the Mass and other sacred rites should be able to understand the priest, or him who offers up prayer in public, in any other language than the vernacular, and should be able to respond, "Amen!" This is good and fitting teaching, but not necessarily the one uppermost in the mind of the Apostle. But the "unlearned" here denotes, not some minister of the sacred rites, but any one of the laity. The Greek gives us, "he who sits among the unlearned" that is, is himself unlearned. Prophets and teachers used to sit in one place, the lay people in another. This is the explanation given by Chrysostom and Theophylact. Justin (Apol. 2) says that the whole of the laity, and consequently any individual of it, was wont to answer "Amen!" Hence S. Jerome, towards the end of his commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, says that the people used to answer "Amen!" with a noise like thunder. A minister now says it for the people, so as to prevent a confused murmuring. The Apostle is speaking here, we must notice once more, of the extempore prayer of the individual, uttered for the purpose of edifying, and which might possibly contain some doctrinal error, as is hinted in ver. 29. He directs that in such prayers the vulgar be used, so that the people may not answer "Amen!" to a prayer in an unknown tongue which is meaningless, absurd, or heretical. He is not speaking of prayers approved by the Church, which for that very reason are free from error, to which a single minister makes reply, and to which the people can add private prayers of their own. Moreover, the Council of Trent orders that sometimes, instead of the sermon, these prayers be explained to the people. Again, it is lawful to pray in a language not understood by the person who prays, if you are certain that the prayers are good ones, as, e.g., when nuns say the Canonical Hours in Latin. In the same way the laity, when the priest offers up prayers in Latin, can pray with him, and add the intention of seeking that the priest may obtain for himself and all the people what he asks in the name of the Church in the beautiful prayers provided. And even if they do not understand them, and get no nourishment for their understanding from the meaning of the prayers, yet they reap the fruit of devotion to God, and of reverence towards the prayers; nay, they merit and obtain more than those who understand them if they pray with more humility, piety, and fervour. S. Jordanes, when asked whether such prayers as these of nuns were pleasing to God, well replied: "Just as a jewel in the hand of a peasant who knows not its value is worth as much as if it were in the hand of a goldsmith or jeweller who knew its value, so too prayers in the mouth of one who does not understand them are worth as much as if they were uttered by one who knew their meaning." A petition presented to a king by an ignorant peasant would obtain as much consideration as one presented by a learned man; for it is written: "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings Thou hast perfected praise;" and again, "If these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out" . In the same way, in the "Lives of the Fathers," Abbot Pastor is related to have said to one who complained to him, that though he prayed he felt no contrition, because he knew not the meaning of the words that he used: "Do you none the less persevere in prayer, for like as a charmer sings words which the snake hears but understands not, and yet is subdued and tamed by them, so when we use words whose meaning we know not, the devils hear them and understand them, and are terrified and driven away." Cf. S. Thomas and Cajetan. The case is different with the Lord's Prayer, which every one ought to learn and intelligently use in the vernacular, that he may know exactly what he should ask of God, as has been often laid down in synods. Cajetan, on the other hand, gathers from this passage that it is better for organs, and musical instruments generally, to be excluded from church services, in order that the Hours and the Masses may be sung so as to be understood, and so that the people may be able to answer "Amen!" But the practice of the Church is against this, which makes use of organs and other musical instruments in Divine service, as David did, to stir up the devotion of the people, who just as little understand the Latin language. The Church does this for three reasons: (1.) as we join in praising God, not only in spirit but also in body, so we should praise Him, not only with the best music of the voice, but also of instruments; for every spirit, every creature, every instrument ought to praise Him whose due never can be reached. (2.) To arouse the listeners, and especially the uneducated, to religious fervour, as David and Elisha were enkindled by psalms and harps, and as Saul was stirred up by music to give God praise. (3.) That the beauty, solemnity, and majesty of Divine service may be the greater. Prudentius, in his Apotheosis, written against the Jews, and the Faculty of Paris, in its decree (tit. xix. prop. 6), explain this verse thus: "When St. Paul says that in the church he would rather speak five words with his understanding than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue, he is speaking of sermons addressed to the people, in which a flow of words void of thought is useless. He says nothing about Church canticles, which are governed by another law." Nevertheless, we must in these matters guard against lightness, as the Council of Trent bids. Hence S. Augustine (Hom. in Ps. xxxiii.) says that pipes and organs used in theatres had been rejected by the Church, because the heathen used them then for lust in the theatres, and for banquets, and at their sacrifices. But, following the example and injunctions of David, we may use organs and other musical instruments, if it be done with piety, soberness, and gravity (cf. Ps. cl.). S. John, too (Rev. v. 8, and xiv. 2), heard in heaven, where all are perfected, harps, though of course more solemn and Divine than ours on earth. Amen. Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodoret have translated this faithfully or truly; the Septuagint, so be it. "Amen" signifies truly or even firmly. It is not the expression of an oath, but of one who affirms or confirms. It is used as an affirmation when it is put at the beginning of a sentence, as, e.g., "Amen, Amen, I say unto you." And in this sense S. Augustine (in Joan. Tract. 41) calls "Amen" the oath of Christ, because Christ's oath was not strictly an oath but a simple affirmation. It is a mark of confirmation when put at the end of a prayer, or it signifies the consent of the hearer; it sometimes marks an assertion and agreement, sometimes a wish. It stands for agreement in Deut. xxvii., where the people are bidden to answer "Amen" in token that they were willing to accept the blessings for keeping the law and the curses for breaking it. But in a prayer, as, e.g., in the Lord's Prayer, it merely denotes a wish that what is sought for in the prayer may be obtained. The Rabbinical writers say that there are two "Amens," one perfect and the other imperfect in three ways: (1.) that of a pupil, when "Amen" is said, not as though the prayer is understood, but it is left to the direction of another to dictate it, as it were; (2.) when the "Amen" is said before the end of the prayer it is called "surreptitious," (3.) and "divided" when the answer is given by one who is not thinking of the prayer, because he is occupied with something else. Ver. 18.—I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all. The Latin rendering is, "I speak with the tongues of you all," which suggests the question, What could be S. Paul's meaning in this, since there was but one tongue in Greece, and at Corinth in particular, viz., Greek? Haymo's answer is that he refers to the different dialects of Greek. A better answer would be, that foreigners and merchants of all nations flocked to Corinth as a great emporium, just as to-day, at Antwerp, Venice, or Paris, we find the commerce and language of the French, Italians, and English, and other nations, and that S. Paul is therefore referring to the different languages to be heard in the streets of Corinth, But Ephrem, Chrysostom, Jerome (ad Hedibiam), and others support the rendering of the text. All the tongues that you speak and more I speak: I do not extol, I do not condemn the gift of tongues, for I use it myself, but I do not use it, as you do, for ostentation, but to edification. Ver. 19—Ye in the church I had rather speak, &c. A very few words spoken so as to be understood are better than a multitude of foreign words not understood by the hearer. Notice (1.) that understanding is to be taken here passively, and denotes the meaning by which I and my speech are understood; hence he adds, "that I might teach others also." For there is a contrast between the meaning, and the foreign tongue understood by no one. See note to ver. 14. But (2.) Anselm takes it of the active understanding, that by which I myself understand what I say, and so can better explain it to others. (3.) Chrysostom says that it means with judgment— that he would rather speak and teach with tact and judgment, so that the hearers, no matter how rude and uncultured they might be, might take in and retain what he said. But the first sense is the best, and most to the point. Ver. 20.—Brethren, be not children in understanding. Understanding here is not the same word in the Greek as in the preceding verse: It can, with Chrysostom and Ephrem, be rendered "mind."— Do not become children in mind, judgment, and reason, so as to display your gift of tongues as children might. Howbeit in malice be ye children. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Ephrem render this: "Let malice be as unknown to you as to infants." So, too, S. Augustine (qu. lxi. lib. 73) says: "Be, like infants, free from malice." As "infant" is derived from in, "not," and fans, "speaking," and as a child who cannot speak knows still less of malice or anything else, so too the Christian is to be an infant in evil, not to know it nor to be able to speak of it, e.g., not to know what emulation, defilement, fornication are. So Theophylact following S. Chrysostom. Tertullian (contra Valent. lib. ii.) beautifully says: "The Apostle bids us after God be children again, that we may be infants in malice through our simplicity, and at last wise in understanding." Clement of Alexandria (Pζd. lib. i. c. 5) has pointed out that "children" here is not synonymous with "fools." The whole of his chapter, in which he points out how all Christians should be children, may be studied with advantage. Ver. 21.—In the law. Viz., . As Chrysostom remarks, the law is sometimes used to denote, not merely the Pentateuch, but also the Prophets and the whole of the Old Testament. It is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people. This is a difficult passage, and to understand it we must explain the passage in Isaiah cited by the Apostle. The prophet's meaning in vers. 9 and 10 is, that God is wont to teach knowledge and wisdom to those who have left childish delights and an immature age, and are men with the capacity for knowledge; but these Jews, who (ver. 7) take delight in the pleasures of wine and in drunkenness, are like children— do not take solid food— and are consequently unfitted for doctrine and true wisdom. Filled with wine, they scoff at me and at other prophets who denounce to them punishments from heaven for their drunkenness and other sins, and they say. "Precept must be upon precept, line upon line . . . here a little and there a little." S. Jerome and Haymo point out that in this passage there is an ironical play upon words. Isaiah and other prophets were often saying, "Thus saith," or, "Thus ordereth the Lord." Hence the Jews, when drunken over their cups, would repeat in derision, "Order and order again" (precept upon precept), "Expect and expect again" (line upon line). It was as if they had said: "The prophets are always dinning into our ears, 'Thus saith the Lord,' and are always threatening or promising things which never come to pass, bidding us expect here a little and there a little, and nothing comes of it all." The same is oftentimes the experience of preachers, that the wicked ridicule, repeat, and sneer at their sermons and threatenings. Rabbi David, Rabbi Abraham, and after them Vatablus, Isidorus, Clarius, Pagninus, and Forterius give a very cold rendering to this verse (10)— "precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little." The meaning then is: "These Jews are taught roughly and gradually line upon line, just as boys are taught their alphabet." But the following verses show that the prophet had in his mind scoffers and mockers, not untaught boys, for the punishments threatened are against scorners. S. Paul renders the sense of Isaiah and not the exact words: he applies the passage of Isaiah to the gift of tongues bestowed on the Apostles, who spoke with other tongues, not to scoff but to edify. The sense then is: God, speaking by Isaiah, says: "My exhortation to repentance, given by Isaiah and other prophets, seemed to you, 0 Jews, troublesome and ridiculous, just as if I had spoken to you with inarticulate sounds or in a foreign tongue; hence you imitate what seem to you the meaningless sounds of the prophets, and you repeat in mockery their words. Wherefore, by the Chaldeans, who seem to you stammerers and lispers, will I punish you, that they, as the ministers of My righteousness, may restrain your unbelief by the strange sounds of their foreign tongue, and may ridicule you as their captives, and in their language mock and condemn your Hebrew words; and they shall serve as a type of the Apostles, whom in the time of Christ I will send to reprove your equal unbelief then, by the gift of unknown tongues, and they shall seem to you as men that lisp or speak indistinctly, and they shall be scoffed at by you and the wise of this world as foolish preachers of the Cross of Christ." The literal meaning of Isaiah refers to his own time, and to the Chaldeans who were to overthrow Jerusalem; the allegorical refers to the gift of tongues given to the Apostles for a sign, not to the faithful but to unbelievers, of the malediction with which God punishes the incredulous, not of the benediction with which He teaches His own servants. This verse of S. Paul shows the sense of Isaiah. Cf. S. Jerome and Cyril on Isa. xxviii. Ver. 22.—Wherefore tongues are for a sign . . . to them that believe not. Viz., to the unbelieving Jews, both here and in Isaiah xxviii, rather than to the Gentiles. This sign must therefore not be used by the faithful for vain glory. Prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. The teaching of the word of God and exhortation are a sign of the blessing with which God trains up His servants, and stirs them up to every good work (see ver. 3). Sign here is not the same as "miracle," for the Chaldeans worked no miracle when in their own tongue they chided the Jews; but sign stands for a symbol, and mark of reproof, teaching, and exhortation. But understand what has been said of the believing and unbelieving, as applying to them primarily and principally; for in a secondary sense tongues serve for a sign to the faithful, and prophecy to the unbelievers. Cf. vers. 23 and 25. Vers. 23, 24.—If therefore the whole church, . . . he is judged of all. If all speak together confusedly and noisily, they will seem to be mad; but if all teach the faith from the Scriptures and other authorities, and preach of the way to lead a right life, the outsider will be convinced of, and reproved for, his unbelief and evil life, by all the teachers and preachers. Ver. 25.—And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest. Out of the gift of discerning of spirits, or because God directs the tongue of the prophet, i.e., the preacher, the most hidden sins of his heart will be described and reproved, and the man will think that the preacher speaks as a prophet to him in particular. It is evident from this that this was a common occurrence; it is also evident that these teachers and preachers were, strictly speaking, real prophets. There is a parallel case in the, life of S. Augustine by Possidonius (c. 15), where it is said that on one occasion S. Augustine left the subject that he had decided to speak on, and discoursed on Manichζism. This led to the conversion of a certain Manichζan, who chanced to be present, as S. Augustine afterwards learnt. He believed it to be due to the direct guidance of God. Hence (de Doct. Christ. lib. iv. c. 15) he says that prayer should always be offered to God before preaching, that He would direct the mind and tongue of the preacher suitably to the capacity and disposition of the audience. Others, however, understand "the secrets of his heart" to mean the sins which the unbeliever or unlearned has, but which he does not know to be sins, e.g., when he does not know that idolatry and fornication are sinful. He will learn this when he hears the prophet discoursing about them, and condemning them as sinful. But the first meaning is the best. Ver. 26.—How is it then, brethren? . . . Let all things be done unto edifying. "Every one of you" is, of course, distributive. It is not meant that each one had all these things, but one had one thing, another another. Whoever of you has a psalm, or a doctrine, or a revelation, or an interpretation, or the gift of tongues, let him sing the praises of God, or pour forth his prayers and other devotions. Hath a psalm. The grace of composing and singing psalms or hymns. So Pliny writes to Trajan that the Christians were wont to sing hymns before dawn to Christ as God. Hath a revelation. A revelation and exposition, either of some difficult passage of Holy Scripture, or of some future or unrevealed event. We should notice from this passage that in the Primitive Church the rites and order of Divine Service, instituted by Paul and the other Apostles, were somewhat as follows: (1.) Psalms were sung by all; (2.) the Holy Scriptures were read; (3.) the Bishop preached; (4.) then followed the Eucharist, which at that time consisted of simply the oblation, the consecration, communion, the canon and Lord's Prayer, and some collect to which the people answered, "Amen." (5.) All communicated; (6.) some, inspired by the Holy Spirit, would utter or sing, in different tongues, psalms or hymns to the praise of God, others would prophesy; (7.) some, after the Jewish fashion, would interpret the Holy Scriptures or give an exhortation, and that by two or three, especially prophets or men full of the Spirit; others would listen and then ask questions about what had been said. This was done even by the women, though this was an abuse corrected by S. Paul; and when anything particularly good or pious was said, they would all exclaim together, "Amen, amen! " (8.) All was concluded with the agape, which was a common feast and a symbol of brotherly love, after which prayers and hymns again were used. Justin, in the passage quoted below, enumerates all these in order. He says: "In all the oblations which we offer we praise with thanksgiving" (the first part) "the Maker of all, through His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit; and on the day called Sunday there is an assembly of all who live in town or country, and the commentaries of the Apostles or writings of the Prophets are read" (the second part). "Then when the reader ceases, he who presides delivers a sermon, in which he instructs the people, or exhorts them to practise the good things they have heard" (the third part). "Upon this we all rise together and offer up prayers, and as I have said, when the prayers are finished, bread is offered with wine and water; and the same president, as far as he can, offers up prayers and thanks givings, and the people answer with acclamation, 'Amen!'" (the fourth part). "Then there is made a distribution, and communication with thanksgiving to each one present, of the gifts, and the same is sent by means of the deacons to the absent" (the fifth part)— Justin (Apol. ii. ad Ant.). The sixth, seventh, and eighth parts are described indiscriminately by Tertullian (Apol. xxxix.): "Our supper shows its nature by its name of agape, which denotes love. We do not sit down to it without first praying to God. Then follows washing of the hands, lights are brought in, and as each one is able from the Holy Scriptures or his own gifts, he utters praise aloud, and the feast is ended also with prayer." Philo (de Essζis) gives a similar account. We must notice, secondly, that these gifts and this fervour were of short continuance. Still, the Church has retained as far as possible the order and method then observed. Hence our present customs are the legitimate descendants of the eight mentioned above. 1. To the saying of psalms, &c., have succeeded the Hours of Mattins, Lauds, and Prime. 2. To the prophecies, readiness with exposition and homilies, not only in the Hours, but also in the Mass, in the form of the Epistle and Gospel. 3. After the Gospel comes the sermon. 4. Now as then we have the Mass, in which, at the end of the collect, a clerk says "Amen!" for the people. The fifth, as well as the sixth, seventh, and eighth, have fallen somewhat into abeyance, except that hymns and the Lesser Hours are sung after Mass, and that monks, in their assemblies for worship, are wont to discourse of spiritual things, as Cassian relates (Collat. Patrum). Ver. 27.—If any man speak in an unknown tongue. . . . let one interpret. This verse depends on the foregoing clause, "Let all things be done to edifying." If any one sing, or teach, or speak with a tongue, let all be done to edifying, so that, e.g., if tongues are used, then let only two, or at the most three, in each assembly speak, and that in their turns, so that there may be no confusion; and let one interpret, so that the hearers may understand what is said. Ver. 29.—Let the prophets speak two or three, viz., their prophecies or revealed truths, or intuitions or exhortations inspired into them by God. See what was said at the beginning of the chapter. And let the other judge. Let the other prophets, not the people, judge by the gift they have whether what the prophet or teacher says is prophecy indeed, that is sound and wholesome doctrine, or not; for it does not belong to the laity to judge of the doctrines of religion, as heretics infer from this verse. It would be as absurd and foolish for the people to judge of prophecies, prophets, teachers, and pastors as for a scholar to judge his teacher, a sheep its shepherd, and a soldier his commander. Ver. 30.—If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. Let him rise and speak; let the first cease and sit down. S. Ambrose says: "This is a custom of the synagogue which S. Paul borrows and enjoins on us. The elders in dignity sit in their chairs while discoursing, those next to them sit on lower seats, the last on mats spread on the pavement. If anything happens to be revealed to these last, he bids that they be listened to: they are not to be despised, for they are members of the same body." Ver. 31.—For ye may all prophesy . . . and all may be comforted. All the prophets can exhort in their turn, if only the method and order laid down above be observed, and so all can receive exhortation and consolation. The word for "may be comforted" occurs again in 2Cor. i. 6. Some take it as active, when the meaning becomes, "that all may learn when they hear, and may teach when they speak and exhort." Ver. 32.—And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. The prophets can, when they wish, restrain the spirit of prophecy, and keep silence, and give place to other prophets; they are not forced to speak by an irresistible impulse, like heathen fanatics; for, as S. Thomas says, the spirit or gift of prophecy is not a habit but is partly an inspiration, or impartation of light and truth, by which God illuminates the prophet's mind in regard to facts that are future, hidden, or Divine; it is partly a force or impulse by which God touches the heart and impels it to prophesy, while preserving the freedom of the will. So Jonah and Jeremiah restrained themselves on occasion, as did Moses . S. Chrysostom's explanation is different. The gift of prophecy, he says, which the prophet has is subject to the judgment of the College of Prophets; but the first sense is more to the context, for S. Paul is giving the reason why the prophets ought in turn to give way to each other and be silent, viz., because the prophetical spirit was under their control. Ver. 33.—For God is not the author of confusion. He does not compel these or those to prophesy at the same time, to make a noise and disturb each other, and so cause such a confusion as is commonly found in uproarious crowds. Ver. 34.—Let women keep silence in the churches. Ambrose, and after him Anselm, say that even the prophetesses are to keep silence: (1.) Because it is against the order of nature and of the Law, in , for women, who have been made subject to men, to speak in their presence. (2.) Because it is opposed to the modesty and humility which befits them. (3.) Because man is endowed with better judgment, reason, discursive power, and discretion than woman. (4.) She is rightly bidden, says S. Anselm, to keep silence, because when she spoke it was to persuade man to sin . (5.) To curb her loquacity, for, as it is said, "when two women quarrel it is like the beating of two cymbals or the clanging of two bells." This might readily enough happen in the church if they were allowed to teach. About this silence enjoined on women, see notes on . How much is it then against the command of S. Paul, against all law, right, and seemliness, for a woman to be the head of a church! Tropologically woman stands for passion and lust, man for reason. Let the first then be silent and obey the reason. Cf. S. Chrysostom (Hom. 37 in Morali.). Aristotle (de Nat. Animal. lib. ix. c. 1) says: "Woman is more pitiful and more inclined to tears than man; also more envious, more ready to complain, to utter curses, and to revenge; she is besides more anxious and desponding than man, more pert and untruthful, and more easily deceived." Ver. 35.—And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. Hence Primasius says that men ought to be well taught enough to teach their wives in matters of faith. But what if they are themselves untaught, as is often the case? Who, then, is to teach the woman? Primasius answers that they have preachers, confessors, and teachers to instruct them. Again, it is better for them to be ignorant of some things that are not essentials than to ask and learn about them in public, to their own shame and the scandal of the Church. You may say that it is recorded in S. that Anna the prophetess spoke in the Temple to all concerning Christ. The answer is that she spoke to all in private, and one by one, not in a church assembly, nor in the Temple properly so called, for neither man nor woman, but the priests alone, were allowed to enter the Temple at Jerusalem. Anna, then, spoke to the women singly in the court of the women; for, as Josephus says, the women had a court distinct from the men's court. You may say again, "Nuns sing in their churches." I answer that theirs is not a church in the sense of being an assembly of the faithful, but merely a choir of nuns. The Apostle does not forbid women to speak or sing among women, but he forbids it in the common assembly only, where both men and women meet. In this Cajetan agrees. Moreover, S. Paul does not allude to such public speaking as is sanctioned by authority, but that particular and individual speech which consists in teaching, exhorting, and asking questions. Add to this that he is speaking of married women only, for he orders such to keep silence in the church and be subject to their husbands, and ask them at home what they want to know. Ver. 36.—What! came the word of God out from you? This is a sarcasm, concluding what had been said in this chapter and the preceding. Did not the Churches of Judζa, Samaria, and Syria believe before you? Look, then, at the order and custom of those Churches, whether they are so contentious about their gifts or make such boasting of their tongues as you do. So Ambrose and Anselm. Ver. 37.—If any man think himself to be a prophet, &c. It is the Lord who commands this order to be observed in your assemblies, by my mouth, not directly by Himself. This verse is an authority for canons passed by the Popes, and for the laws of the Church. Melancthon replies that Bishops cannot make fresh canons, because, since the whole of the Holy Scripture has been now written, the Bishops have a full and sufficient guide in the word of God; but he says the civil magistrate can pass new laws, because he has not the word of God to follow. But this is a frivolous answer. The magistrate has not only the law of nature, but a very full and complete code of laws in the statute-book. But if everything has not been provided for there, and the magistrate may add to the number of laws, why may not Bishops do the same? For the word of God has not provided for everything, as may be seen in the additions made to it by the Canon Law. Moreover, S. Paul is here enacting human and ecclesiastical laws, not Divine ones; and he had besides the word of God, not indeed written, but received by tradition or revelation from God , and that much more fully than we have it. If, therefore, it was lawful for him to add his laws to those given by God, it is also lawful for the Pope and the Bishops, who have succeeded Paul, to do the same. Ver. 38.—But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. He who is not willing to acknowledge these laws and my power will be ignorant, or ignored or condemned by God, who will say to him, "I know you not," for "he that heareth you hear heareth Me, and he that despiseth you despiseth Me." Ambrose, Jerome, Ephrem, read the future, "will be ignorant." "Let him be ignorant" has a parallel in "He that is filthy, let him be filthy still;" or, as others render it, "He that is ignorant, let him acknowledge himself ignorant, and behave accordingly, and not presume to pass judgment on other men, and on things of which he knows nothing, but let him rather follow others, as leaders in matters of prophecy and doctrine." But I prefer the first reading, that of the Latin Version, as the plainer, truer, and better supported reading. Ver. 40.—Let all things be done decently and in order. Like S. Ignatius (Ep. ad. Philipp. et Tars.), S. Paul had a great care for good order in the Church, especially in things indifferent, both because this order is beautiful and decent in itself, and because it prevents confusion and disturbance, and also because it greatly edifies others, even unbelievers. See notes on . CHAPTER 15 OF THE CHAPTER He proves the resurrection of the dead against the false teachers who denied it:— i. From the fact of Christ's resurrection. Thus (ver. 12) he gives the bearing of it on our resurrection. ii. He proves the resurrection by the authority of those who are baptized for the dead (ver. 29). iii. He declares what the body will be like in the resurrection (ver. 35), and then names the four endowments of the glorified body (ver. 42). iv. He shows that we shall all rise again, but shall not all be changed, and that in the resurrection which shall take place, in a moment, when the trumpet shall sound, death will be completely swallowed up (ver. 51). Ver. 1.—I declare unto you, i.e., recall to your memory. Vers. 3, 4.—How that Christ died for our sins . . . according to the scriptures. : "After two days will He revive us; in the third day He will raise us up," i.e., when He shall on the third day Himself rise from death to life; for the resurrection of Christ was the cause of our rising from the death of sin, and of our future resurrection from bodily death, so that we are to rise like Christ on the Judgment Day to everlasting life. See notes on . So Anselm, Dorotheus, in the beginning of his Synopsis, and also the Jewish writers of old in Galatin. lib. viii. c. 22. Theophylact, following S. Chrysostom, says that it was prophesied under an allegory that Christ should rise again on the third day; for Jonah brought from the whale's belly on the third day, was a type of Christ brought back to life from death and hell on the third day. Isaac, too, typified the same event in his being rescued from death when about to be sacrificed by his father, and restored to his mother alive and well on the third day. So Christ was given by His Father and sacrificed, and raised again on the third day. But these two instances are drawn from the allegorical sense, that of Hosea is from the literal. Ver. 5.—Was seen of Cephas. Paul puts this appearance of Christ first, and therefore implies that the first man that Christ appeared to was Peter. I say "the first man," for He appeared to the Magdalene before S. Peter . Then of the eleven. On the Sunday after the resurrection, when Thomas was now present, Christ appeared to the eleven, for the twelfth, Judas, had by that time hanged himself, or better still, "to the eleven," i.e., to the whole Apostolic College, which then had been reduced to eleven, Christ appeared on the day of His resurrection, though Thomas was absent. The Greek copies have, "then of the twelve." S. Augustine has the same reading (Quζst. Evangel lib. i. qu. 117), and he says there that, though Judas was dead, "the twelve" were still so called as by a corporate name. So the Decemvirs are said to assemble if only seven or eight are present. Chrysostom explains it otherwise. He says that Christ appeared to the twelfth, Matthias, after His ascension. But this is not recorded anywhere, and Paul is here naming the appearances of Christ before His ascension only. Ver. 6.—After that He was seen of above five hundred brethren. The Greek word for above means (a) "more than," (b) "from heaven." Chrysostom and Theophylact take it here in the latter sense. For Christ appeared, they say, not walking on the ground, but above their heads, as though descending from the sky; and He did this that He might show them that He had ascended as well as risen, and might confirm their faith in His ascension. Hence any one may gather that Chrysostom thought that this appearance of Christ took place after His Ascension; but still it is not true, nor is of necessity gathered from what Chrysostom says. This appearance of Christ, whether on a higher spot, as if from heaven, or in the air, evidently was prior to His ascension; and this is the common opinion of doctors; for we read nowhere of any public appearance after His ascension. Many suppose that this was the well-known appearance of Christ on a mountain in Galilee, which He had so many times promised. All His disciples met there, as He had bidden. This was not at His ascension, but before it; for Christ ascended into heaven, not from Galilee, but from the Mount of Olives. See S. Jerome (ad Hedibiam, qu. 7). Ver. 7.—After that He was seen of James. The son of Alphζus, first Bishop of Jerusalem, and styled brother of the Lord. There is a tradition mentioned by Jerome (Lib. de Scrip. Eccles. in Jacobo) that James had taken a vow not to eat anything till he should see Christ risen. S. Jerome, however, does not think the tradition of any value. Its falsity is seen, too, (1.) for it is evident, from this passage of S. Paul, that Christ appeared to him after appearing to the five hundred brethren, and therefore long after His resurrection, too long for S. James's fast to have been prolonged naturally. (2.) All the Apostles, and therefore S. James, were confounded at Christ's death, and did not believe in His resurrection. It is not likely then that James would take such a vow. (3.)  S. Jerome says that he took this story from the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," which is apocryphal. It is also said there that Christ wore at the time a linen garment, and that He gave it to the servant of the priest, which also seems false; for the garments of Christ remained in the sepulchre (S. Matt. xxviii.), and a glorified body, such as Christ's was, is not clad with linen or any such garments, but with splendour and rays of light. Then of all the apostles, and the disciples as well, says S. Anselm, at the ascension. Ver. 8.—And last of all Ale was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. Born out of due time is, (1.) according to Theophylact and Theodoret, contemptible and despised, because young that come too soon to the birth are generally imperfectly formed, thin, and undersized. (2.) According to Ambrose and Chrysostom it is untimely; that is, after Christ had ascended into heaven, Paul was born in Christ and received his Apostleship. (3.) According to Anselm he thus calls himself, because he was struck to the earth by Divine power, compelled, and violently born again: untimely young are forced into the world by the violence of nature. (4.) Or, as S. Anselm again remarks, such births are of young half-dead, and they are often born blind. So S. Paul was smitten with blindness at his conversion. (5.)  S. Paul was expelled from the womb of his mother, the people of the Jews, and was sent, not to his fellow-countrymen, but to the Gentiles outside. (6.) Baronius (Annals, A.D. 44) thinks that Paul was so called as an Apostle, because he was made an Apostle in addition to the twelve; for the Senators at Rome, he says, were so called, when they were co-opted into the Senate, in addition to the fixed number; but it cannot be said that S. Paul alludes to this, for he is writing in Greek to the Greeks, not to Romans. It appears from this verse that Christ appeared to Paul, not by an angel, as Haymo thinks (Comment. on Apocalypse, c. ii.), but in person; not in a vision, as He appeared to him in Acts xxii. 18, nor in a trance, as is recorded in 2 Cor. xii. 2, but in the air in bodily form; for it was in this way that Christ appeared to Cephas, James, and the other Apostles; moreover, if it were any other kind of appearance it would be no proof of the resurrection of Christ. The appearance of Christ alluded to here is the one at Paul's conversion (Acts ix. 3), when he saw Christ before the bright light blinded him. Hence it further appears that Christ then descended from heaven, for, as S. Thomas and others say, S. Paul heard the voice of Christ speaking in the air. Whence it follows again that Christ was then in two places, in the empyrean and in our atmosphere, close to Paul; for, according to Acts iii. 21, Christ has never left the highest heaven to which He ascended. If Christ was then in two places, why cannot He be at once in heaven and in the Eucharist? Hegesippus (Excid. Hierosol. lib, iii. c. 2) and others say that Christ appeared in the same way to S. Peter at Rome, when He called him back as he was flying from martyrdom with the words, "I go to be crucified again." Ver. 9.—For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle. Not only the least and unworthy because of my sins, but not fit for the apostleship; for it is not meet that one who was a persecutor should be a leader and Apostle of the Church. Morally, see the humility of S. Paul in calling himself the least; by so doing he was the greatest.  S. Bernard (Serm. xiii. an the Canticles) says well: "A great and rare virtue surely is it that you, who work great things, do not know your own greatness; that your holiness, which is evident to all, escapes your own observation; that you seem wonderful to others, despicable to yourself. This, I think, is more wonderful than your very virtues. You surely are a faithful servant, if, of the great glory of God, which passes through you rather than proceeds from you, you let none stick to your hands. Therefore you will hear the blessed words: 'Well done, good and faithful servant; because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things.'" Ver. 10.—I am what I am—an Apostle, and Teacher of the Gentiles. His grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain. Not empty, barren, without results. S. Ambrose reads: "His grace was not poor in me," and then the meaning would be: "Though I persecuted the Church of Christ, yet I did not on that account receive a grace of apostleship that was poor and slight, and less than that of the other Apostles, but if anything greater." But I laboured more abundantly than they all. S. Jerome (Ep. ad Paulinum) says beautifully: "A sudden increase of heat banishes a long existing lukewarmness. Paul was changed into an Apostle instead of a persecutor; was last in order, first in merits; for though last he laboured more than all." For, as Gregory says (Pastor. p. 3, c. 29): "A guilty life that has learnt to glow with love for God is often more pleasing to Him than a blameless life that has grown sluggish from long security." Yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. It plainly appears from this passage against Luther and Calvin that man has free-will, and that God alone does not work everything in us, but that our free-will co-operates with Him, even in supernatural works, for the Apostle says with me, not in me, and I laboured more abundantly than they all. Again, the verb to be supplied in this passage is properly laboured. Then it will run. "Yet it was not I that laboured, but the grace of God, which laboured with me." S. Paul does not here exclude the co-operation of the will, but only attributes the praise due to the work to grace as its more worthy cause. But the sense will be the same if you read with the Greek Fathers and S. Jerome, "was with me." The meaning then is, "which was with me to help me." I laboured much of my own free endeavour, yet I did not so labour as to give myself all the praise and glory of my labour; but it was the grace of God which aroused me, aided me, strengthened me for this labour; to it, therefore, I give the first and best praise of my labour." S. Bernard ("On Grace and Free-will," sub finem) says. "'It was not I, but the grace of God with me' implies that he was not only a minister of the work by producing it, but in some way a companion of the worker by consenting to it. Elsewhere S. Paul says of himself, 'We are workers together with God' ; hence we make bold to say that we merit to receive the kingdom because we are joined to the Divine Will by the voluntary surrender of our own will." See also Anselm, Chrysostom, Theodoret (in loco); also Jerome (contra Pelag. lib. ii.), Gregory (Morals, xvi. c. 10), S. Augustine (de Liber. Arbit. c. 17, and Serm. 13 de Verbis Apost.). He says there: "If you were not a worker, God could not be a co-worker." Ver. 11.—Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. So not only I, but all the Apostles, as was said in ver. 3, preach and affirm as eye-witnesses, viz., that Christ died, and rose from the dead, and appeared to us. The Apostle returns here, as if after a long digression, to the point of the whole chapter, which is to prove, from the unanimous testimony of the Apostles, the resurrection of Christ, and of the rest who have died. Ver. 12.—How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? Cerinthus with his followers are meant here. He was the first heresiarch after Simon Magus to deny, in S. Paul's time, the resurrection. See Eusebius (Hist. lib. vii. c. 23, and lib. iii. c. 28) and Epiphanius (Hζres. 28). Cerinthus was a champion of Judaism, and, founding his opinions on Jewish traditions, he referred all the prophecies about the Church and the Gospel law to an earthly kingdom, and to riches, and to bodily pleasures. In the same way he afterwards perverted the meaning of Rev. xx. 4, and became the parent of the Chiliasts, or the Millennarian heretics. Some think from this that he was the author of the Apocalypse, and that it should therefore be rejected. S. Ignatius, in his epistle to the Churches of Smyrna and Tralles, censures this error and its author. Hymenζus and Philetus also denied the resurrection. Ver. 13.—But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen. Not only because Christ was one of the dead, but also because the primary cause of Christ's death and resurrection was the complete destruction of death, and the restoration of life. Moreover, the resurrection of Christ was a pattern of ours, i.e., of our resurrection to righteousness in this life, and to glory in the next. See S. Thomas (p. 3, qu. 53, art. 1) for five other reasons why it was necessary for Christ to rise again. Ver. 17.—If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. It rightly follows that, if Christ has not risen, we are still in our sins; for 1. if Christ has not risen, therefore faith in a risen Christ, which is the basis of justification, is false; but a false faith cannot be the beginning and foundation of remission of sins and of true sanctification. 2. If Christ remained in death, He was overcome by it, and His death was ineffectual for the remission of sins; for if by His resurrection He could not overcome death, then He could not overcome sin, for it is more difficult and a heavier task to overcome this than to overcome death. If this be so, sin is not fully abolished, if its penalty death is not. 3. The resurrection of Christ is the cause of our justification. . Now the cause being removed, the effect is removed. If, then, the resurrection of Christ is not a fact, neither is our justification from sins, and consequently we are still in our former sins. Ver. 18.—Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished, i.e., who have died in faith, hope, and charity. If the body is not to rise again, but perishes outright at death, the soul too will perish: it cannot exist for ever without the body, for its nature is the "form" of the body. Unless, then, God take away by violence from the soul its nature and natural condition, He must restore to it its body. Ver. 19.—If in this life only we have hope in Christ. 1. The word "hope" here signifies, not the act of hope, for this exists in this life only, but the object of hope or the thing hoped for. If our only hope in Christ is for the goods of this life, then are we the most miserable of men; we are the most foolish also, because we rely on an empty hope of the resurrection, which is never to happen, and suffer fastings, mortifications, persecutions, and other hardships, and we resign the pleasure of the world and the flesh which others indulge in. Although, then, we are more happy than they, because of the good that is the fruit of the virtue of abstinence, of charity, and of an unclouded conscience, yet we are more miserable than they, so far as our hope in Christ is concerned, nay, we are fools for relying on a baseless hope. So Anselm and Chrysostom. The Apostle does not say "we are worse," but "miserable;" for it is a miserable thing to afflict ourselves for virtue's sake, and yet not obtain the prize; but the prize of Christian virtue is the resurrection. It may be said that the soul can have its reward and be blessed without its body rising again. My answer to this is: God might have so arranged things that the soul alone should be rewarded with the Beatific Vision, but He did not so will it. As a matter of fact He willed that if the soul be beatified, so shall the body; if the body is not, neither will the soul; otherwise Christ would not have completely overcome sin, which reigns by death over soul and body alike. 2. It was the opinion of men at that time that if the immortality of the soul be proved, the resurrection of the body must be at once admitted, because of the close connection between them. The soul has a natural longing after the body, and cannot exist without it unless by violence. Therefore the resurrection, so far as concerns the essence and the needs of human nature, is a natural process, though its mode of execution be supernatural. Nor can the soul when once separated be again united to the body by any created force, but only by the supernatural power of God. Paul, then, from the denial of the resurrection and happiness of the body, rightly infers, according to the common opinion of men, as well as the nature and truth of things, the denial of the immortality and bliss of the soul; and so it is no wonder if Christians are not to rise again, that they should be of all men most miserable. Ver. 20.—But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. (1.) Christ was and is the first of those that rise again, both in order of dignity and of merit. (2.) He was first in the Divine will and intention. (3.) First causally, for by Him we shall all rise again. (4.) Temporally, for Christ was the first in time to rise to everlasting life; for though some before Him were raised to life by Elijah and Elisha, yet they rose to this mortal life only, and again died; but Christ was the first to rise to the eternal life of bliss and glory. So Chrysostom, Anselm, Ambrose, Theophylact, Theodoret, and others. The word for firstfruits properly signifies this, and implies others to follow. So is Christ called the "first-begotten of the dead," i.e., rising before all others, and, as it were, being born again from the dead. It seems from this to be a point de fide that no one rose before Christ to everlasting life. Those, therefore, who at the death of Christ are said to have arisen , rose after Him in the way of nature, if not of time, for their resurrection depended on Christ's as its cause. Francis Suarez points out this (p. 3. qu. 53, art. 3). The earliest fruit of the earth, which under the Old Law was to be offered to God, was called the "firstfruits;" so Christ, after His resurrection, was offered to God as the firstfruits of the earth, into which He had been cast as a corn of wheat, and from which He sprang forth again in the new birth of the resurrection. Ver. 21.—For since by man came death. Adam brought death on all men, Christ resurrection. The word since gives the reason why Christ is called the firstfruits of them that rise, viz., because by Christ, as a leader of the first rank of God's army and the subduer of death, the resurrection of the dead was brought into the world. Ver. 22.—For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. The question may be asked whether even the wicked are to rise again and be endowed with life through Christ and His merits. S. Augustine (Ep. 28) says no, because their resurrection, being to condemnation, is better called death than life.  S. Thomas also says that Christ is the efficient cause of resurrection to all men, but the meritorious cause to the good alone. But my answer is that Christ is the cause of the resurrection of all, even of the wicked: 1. Because Christ wished by His resurrection to abolish the power of death over the whole human race entirely, and therefore the wicked are included, not as wicked, but as men, abstracting their wickedness. See S. Ambrose (de Resurr. c. 21), and still more clearly S. Cyril (in Joann. lib. iv. c. 12). 2. Christ merited resurrection for the wicked, even as wicked, that He might inflict just punishment on His enemies, that His glory might be increased by the eternal punishment of His enemies. But these meanings are beside the scope of the passage. The Apostle is treating of the blessed resurrection of the saints, not of the resurrection of the wicked to misery. We may here recapitulate the six methods by which the Apostle has proved that Christ rose again, that so he might prove that we too should rise. 1. From the testimony of those who saw Him alive after He rose, viz., Peter, Paul, James, the other Apostles, and the five hundred brethren (ver. 5). 2. If Christ is not risen, then the preaching of the Apostles and the faith of Christians are alike vain (ver. 14). 3. If Christ is not risen, we are still in our sins. This is proved by the fact that faith that justifies and expiates our sins is the same by which we believe that Christ died and rose again for us (ver. 17). 4. If Christ is not risen, then have ill perished who have fallen asleep in Christ, and have been destroyed both in body and soul; for the soul cannot live for ever without the body (ver. 18). 5. If we serve Christ only in this short life, and under His law have no hope of resurrection, then are we of all men most miserable (ver. 19). 6. By Adam all die, therefore through Christ shall all rise again, and be quickened. For Christ has done us as much good as Adam did harm: He came, not only that He might repair all the falls and loss of Adam and his descendants, but that He might lift us up to a higher state.(ver. 21). Ver. 23.—But every man in his own order. 1. According to Chrysostom, Theodoret and Theophylact this is the just among the blessed, the wicked among the reprobate. 2. According to the commentary ascribed to S. Jerome, this means that each shall rise higher and more blessed as he has been more holy here. 3. Oecumenius and Primasius explain it in this way. All who are to be quickened in Christ shall rise again in this order— Christ the first in time and dignity; secondly, the just shall rise; thirdly shall come the end of the world. This is the Apostle's meaning, as appears from the next words. Cf. . Ver. 24.—Then cometh the end. 1. The end of the whole dispensation of Christ for the salvation of the human race, and it will consequently be the end of the age then existing, of time, of all generations, and all corruptions, and of the universe. So Anselm. For Christ is the end of the whole universe, and when those that He has chosen out of it are completed, then the universe will be ended also. 2. "The end" may, with Theodoret, be rendered "consummation," i.e., the general resurrection of all, even of the wicked, when all things will come to an end. When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father. The kingdom is the Church of the faithful and congregation of the elect; not as though God did not now reign over it, for Christ says: "The kingdom of God is within you" , but because sin has somewhat of power over it, because the devil, death, and cares that attack mortals are found in it. In other words, Then cometh the end when Christ shall have presented, and as it were restored to His Father, the Church of the elect, which had been intrusted to His care and governance during the struggle of this life, that He might gloriously reign over it for ever. The Son shall as it were present it to His Father with the words: "Father, Thou didst send Me into the world, and after I ascended to heaven to be with Thee I have ruled these continuously, and protected them from the power and assaults of the world, the flesh, and the devil. Lo, these that I bring are Thine. They are My possession, given Me by Thee; they are the fruit of My labour, won by My sweat and blood. This is Thy kingdom as it is Mine, and is now free and pure from every sin, temptation, and trouble, that Thou mayst reign gloriously over it for ever." Cf. S. Ambrose and S. Augustine (de Trinitate, lib. i. c. 8 and 10). To God, even the Father is a hendiadys, to signify that Christ as man will present His faithful ones to God, as Son to His Father. When he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. When He shall have destroyed the power and dominion of the devils, so that they shall no longer be able to attack the Church, which is the kingdom of God. Cf. , Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Ambrose, Oecumenius. Principalities, Powers, and Dominions (the rule, and authority, and power of A. V.) are names of three angelic choirs . It hence appears that some of them fell and became devils, and kept the same names, just as each kept the same nature, the same order, rank, and power, especially in their attacks on the Church.  S. Paul says then that, when Christ shall have destroyed all the rule of the devils, who are and are called Principalities and Dominions, so that they might no longer attack the Church, He will then hand over the Kingdom to His Father, and will be the end and consummation of all things. S. Augustine (de Trinitate, lib. i.. c. 8) explains this passage of the good angels, and then the meaning will be. There will be no longer any necessity for the assistance of the angelic Principalities, Powers, and Dominions, and therefore their dispensation and guidance will be done away with in the Church. But the former meaning is truer, because the Apostle is speaking of the enemies of Christ, as is clear from the next verse. Ver. 25.—For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet. I e., Christ must rule the Church till God the Father puts all the devils and the wicked under Him. Till does not denote an end of His reign, for there is no doubt that when His enemies shall have been overcome Christ will reign more truly and for ever, though in another way and with other glory than now. Cf. S. Chrysostom. It signifies what may have been done before a certain event, not what was done afterwards. So Joseph is said not to have known Mary his wife till she brought forth her Son, not as though he knew her afterwards, as the impure Helvidius insinuates, but that he did not know her before she conceived and gave birth; for S. Matthew merely wished to record a wonderful event that was naturally incredible, viz., the conception and birth of Christ from a virgin without a father. So Paul says here that even now, while the Church is struggling with her enemies, Christ reigns over her. Moreover, it follows from this that Christ will reign after the struggle and triumph, for S. Paul implies but does not state what is evident to all. S. Augustine (Sentences, n. 169) well says: "As long as we are struggling against sins there is no perfect peace; for those that oppose us are crushed in dangerous fight, and those have been overcome are not yet triumphed over in peaceful land where care cannot come, but are still kept down by a power that must ever be on its guard." The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. That death which still reigns over the bodies of the saints will be altogether destroyed at the resurrection. The first enemy of Christ and His followers is the devil, who was conquered by Christ on the Cross. The second is sin, which, through the grace of Christ, is being conquered by Christians in this life. The third is death, which will be the last to be overcome, and that will he in the resurrection. Ver. 27.—He hath put all things under His feet. God will in the resurrection put all men and angels, good and bad, under Christ. He speaks of the future as past, after the manner of the prophets. But when He saith . . . which did put all things under Him. S. Paul adds this lest any one should suppose that the Father has given everything to the Son in such a way as to deprive Himself of authority over them, for so the Father would be less than the Son and subject to Him. Sometimes among men, when fathers are getting old, they make a gift of their goods and offices to their sons, but not so God. Ver. 28.—Then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him. Some understand this of His Godhead, as though Christ as God will show Himself to have received everything, and His very Godhead, from His Father, and will so declare Himself to His Father. But this is too bold a statement; for the Son is not, subject to the Father, because He has all that He has from the Father, but He is equal to Him in majesty and honour. Hence others often take this passage of Christ according to His human nature. (1.) With Chrysostom, He will show His subjection, and so all will see how perfect were the obedience and subjection of Christ here. (2.) Better, with Anselm, Christ will be subject as man, i.e., He will subject Himself and will offer Himself with His elect to the eternal praise of God, and to a participation in the Divine goodness, dominion, and glory. For this subjection of Christ is the same as is alluded to in ver. 24, where it is said that Christ shall hand over the kingdom to God the Father, that He may fully and gloriously reign over Him and His elect. This subjection of Christ and the saints to God is not mean and servile, but blessed and glorious. For God holds them in heaven who are subject to Him as sons, He rules over them, and blesses them, and makes them happy with the utmost height of glory. Well, then, is such subjection and service called reigning, and such service is much to be longed for with David (Ps. lxi. 1, Vulg.): "Shall not my soul be subject to God? for of Him cometh my salvation." On the other hand the wicked, who will not submit themselves to God, will be by this very fact His enemies, and the most unhappy of all men. In this very word subject there seems to lurk a double application; and so Gregory of Nyssa says, in his sermon on these words: "Subjection to God is a separation from evil that is perfect and absolute on every side. Christ shall be subject to His Father in the resurrection, because in it all the elect and faithful members of Christ will be clear from all evil, and will receive a chief part of what is good, and will be most closely united with Deity, and with its eternity, power, and bliss; and then will God be all in all, since there will be no evil in those things that remain; for God cannot be in what is evil, but must be in all that is good. Christ then will be subject to His Father when His Church shall be, and shall be so set free from all evil; for the subjection of the Church is called the subjection of Christ." (3.) The words shall be may be understood to denote merely a continued action. In other words, Christ shall persevere for ever in the subjection which He now is under to His Father. Hilary wrote on this sentence of the Apostle's against the Arians (de Trin. lib. ii.), S. Jerome (Ep. to Principia). S. Augustine (de Trin. lib. i. c. 8), where he says: "Christ, in so far as He is God with the Father, has us as His subjects; in so far as He is a priest, He is subject even as we to His Father." That God may be all in all. Viz., as Anselm says, that God may have all power over all things and may show that as God He is everything to His elect, or in place of everything else; that He is our life, salvation, power, plenty, glory, honour, peace, and all things, and the end and satisfaction of our desires. So God will rule over all in all things, and will subject all things to Himself and His glory. S. Augustine (de Civ. Dei. lib. xxii. c. 9) argues from this verse that the saints in heaven know our prayers and our state. S. Jerome (Ep. ad Amandum) appropriately says: "What the Apostle means by saying that God shall be all in all is this: our Lord and Saviour is at present not all in all, but a part in each one, e.g., He is wisdom in Solomon, goodness in David, patience in Job, knowledge of the future in Daniel, faith in Peter, zeal in Phinehas and Paul, purity in John, and other things in other men. But when the end of all things comes, then He will be all in all, that each one of the saints may have all virtues, and Christ may be wholly in each one and in all." From this passage S. Augustine says (de Trin. lib. i. c. 8) that some Christians thought that the humanity of Christ would reign till the day of judgment, but would then be changed into His Godhead, and they thought that this change is the subjection to the Father, of which S. Paul here speaks. This is both foolish and impossible, according to the faith and to nature. Some who had given themselves up to the contemplative life, and who aimed at an impossible closeness of union with God, and fanatics, have argued from this and similar passages of Scripture, that at the resurrection all men and all created things will return to their Divine archetype as it existed in eternity in God, and so would have to be changed into God; that is to say, that then every creature will have to disappear into the depths of the uncreated being, i.e., into the Godhead. Gerson attacks this error at length, and accuses Ruisbrochius of holding it; but the latter clears himself from it, and attacks it in his turn (de Verβ Contempl. c. 19, and ad Samuel, i. 4). But this passage of the Apostle's lends no countenance to this error, but on the contrary opposes it. For if in the resurrection God will be all in all, all created things will be in existence still. Otherwise God would not be all in all, but only all in none, or in nothing. Moreover, we can explain by similitudes how God will be all in all to the blessed. (1.) As a few drops of water poured into a large cask of very strong wine are at once swallowed up by the wine and incorporated with it, so the blessed, through love and the beatific vision, will as it were lose themselves in God, and seem swallowed up and incorporated by God as their greatest good, loved above all things. (2.) As the light of the sun fills all the air, so that it seems no longer to be air but light, in the same way God will so fill the blessed with the light of His glory that they will seem to be, not so much men as gods. (3.) As iron seems to be ignited by fire and to be changed into fire, so will the blessed be so kindled by their love and enjoyment of God, that they will seem transformed into God. (4.) As a large vessel of sugar or honey, when poured into a little porridge, makes it not only sweet as honey, but as if it were sugar or honey, so does God by His sweetness so inebriate and fill with sweetness the blessed that they seem to be very sweetness; for God is a sea of sweetness and an ocean of joy and consolation. (5.) As most sweet strains of music fill the ears of all who hear them and ravish their minds, or as a diamond, ruby, or emerald fills and dazzles the eyes of all who look upon it, so does God ravish, delight, and fill the minds of all the blessed. (6.) As a mirror exhibits, represents, and contains the faces and appearance of everything placed before it, so that they all seem to exist, live, and move in the mirror, so do all the blessed live, move, and have their being in God; for God is a most bright and glowing mirror of everything. Lastly, S. Bernard (Serm. xi. in Cant.) devoutly and beautifully says: "Who can understand how great sweetness is contained in the one short saying, 'God shall be all in all?' To say nothing of the body, I see in the soul three things— reason, will, and memory, and these three are the soul. How much of its integrity and perfection is lacking to each of these in this present life is known to every one who walks in the Spirit. Why is this, except that God is not yet all in all? Hence is it that the reason is so often deceived in its judgments, and the will weakened by a fourfold disturbing cause, and the memory clouded over by manifold causes of forgetfulness. To this threefold vanity a noble creature has beech made subject, not willingly, but in hope. For He that filleth the desire of the soul with good things will Himself be to the reason fulness of light, to the will a multitude of peace, to the memory eternal continuity. 0 Truth! 0 Love! 0 Eternity! 0 Trinity, blessed and blessing, to thee does my miserable trinity, after a wonderful fashion, aspire, since it is a miserable exile apart from Thee. . . . Put thy trust in God, for I will yet praise Him, when my reason knows no error, my will no grief, and my memory no fear; and when we enjoy that wondrous calm, that perfect sweetness, that eternal security which we hope for, God, as Truth, will give the first, as Charity the second, as Power the third, that He may be all in all, when the reason receives unclouded light, when the will obtains unbroken peace, and the memory drinks for ever of an inexhaustible Fountain. May you see all this, and rightly attribute it, first to the Son, then to the Spirit, and lastly to the Father." Ver. 29.—Else what shall they do? . . . why are they then baptized for the dead? 1. This baptism is metaphorical, the baptism of pain, afflictions, tears, and prayers, which they endure on behalf of the dead, in order to deliver them from the baptism of fire in purgatory. For even those Judaisers are baptized who deny the resurrection, like Cerinthus and others, or, at any rate, their fellow-religionists, the Jews, and this, according to the faith and custom of the Hebrews, who are wont to pray for the dead, as appears from 2 Macc. 12:43, and from their modern forms of prayer. This meaning best fits in with what follows. Baptism is in other places often used in this sense, . Throughout Scripture, waters and waves typify tribulations and afflictions. 2. "Baptism" can also be understood of purification before the sacrifices which were offered for the dead. The Jews were in the habit of being purified before sacrifice, prayer, or any Divine service. Cf. S. ;  , and . 3. The different interpretations of others are dealt with at length by Bellarmine (de Purgat. lib. i. c. 4) and Suarez (p. 3, qu. 56, disp. 50, sect. 1), and they all are referred to literal baptism. (a) S. Thomas explains it to mean baptism for washing away sins, which are dead works. (b) Theodoret thinks that "for the dead" is "like the dead," when they rise from death, viz., when they are baptized, and emerge from the waters of baptism as from the tomb, they symbolise the resurrection of the dead. Epiphanius (Hζre. 28) takes "for the dead" to mean when death is close at hand, and they are looked on as already dead. For then those who had deferred baptism wished to be baptized in hope and faith in eternal life and resurrection. Hence those to be baptized used to recite the Creed, in which is the Article, "I believe in the resurrection of the dead." (d) Claud Guiliaud, a doctor of Paris, thinks that the phrase refers to the martyrs, who suffer for the faith and the article of the resurrection of the dead. This meaning agrees well with the words that follow. "Why stand we in jeopardy every hour?" (e) Others refer to a custom which the followers of Marcion afterwards observed, and suppose the meaning to be that some, in mistake and out of superstition, received baptism for the dead who had died without baptism. Cf. Ambrose and Irenζus (Hζres. 28), Tertullian (de Resurr. c. 24) and Chrysostom. (f) Chrysostom proffers and prefers another explanation, viz., that S. Paul's meaning is: Why do all receive baptism in hope of the resurrection of the dead, or to benefit their state when dead, that it may be well with them after death, if the dead do not rise? Surely, then, in vain do they do this. But this is not credible, for the common faith of all the faithful is that they do rise, so much so, that many of them put off their baptism, even to the end of life, and are baptized on their death-bed, in the hope that, being purified by baptism from all pain and guilt, they may fly to heaven, and obtain a joyful resurrection. Hence we get the name "clinical baptism." Many canons are extant ordering that such baptism be not refused to those who ask for it. This last meaning seems the simplest of all, and the one most on the surface, and is taken from the literal meaning of "baptized." Tertullian says that "for the dead" means, "When the sacrament of baptism is performed over the body, the body is consecrated to immortality." Ver. 30.—And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? It is folly for us to expose ourselves to so many dangers and persecutions, in hope of the resurrection, if there is none. This is a fresh reason, or rather a fresh part of the reason joined to the preceding verse. That we all shall rise again is evident from the common belief and instinct of all the faithful, instilled into them both by grace and nature; for all long for baptism, because of this hope of the resurrection. Others again, and we especially, because of the same hope, boldly meet and even attack all dangers and sufferings. God, therefore, who by nature and grace has given us this feeling and this courage, through hope of the resurrection, plainly testifies by this very fact that we shall rise again. Ver. 31.—I die daily. I.e., I expose myself every day to danger of death, on behalf of the Gospel and the conversion of the Gentiles. By your rejoicing. That is, I die daily for the sake of the glory which awaits you in heaven, in order that I may win it for you; or, better still, as your father and Apostle, I swear, and call God to witness, by your glory, i.e., by the glorying with which I glory over you as my children in Christ, that I die daily, and expose myself to death in hope of the resurrection. Hence S. Augustine (Ep. 89) proves the lawfulness of oaths. [Cornelius ΰ Lapide follows the Latin Version, which gives glory where the A. V. has rejoicing.] Which I have in Christ. This is, according to Anselm, the future glory which, in reliance on Christ, I hope that you will have, or, better, the glory or glorying which I have, i.e., with which I glory in Christ; for I glory that by the merits of Christ I have obtained it. Gagneius and Photius explain the phrase differently, and make it a protestation rather than an oath, and read it, "I die daily because of your" (or, according to some Greek writers, "our") "glorying;" i.e., that I am able to boast of you as having been converted and won to Christ by my efforts. Take notice that the Apostle here proves the resurrection of the body from the immortality of the soul alone, because these two things are naturally connected, and because men doubted then not so much the resurrection in itself as the immortality of the soul; so that if any one should prove to them the immortality of the soul, they would at once admit the resurrection. So S. Thomas. Ver.32.—If after the manner of men. (1.) According to Photius, as far as man could; (2.) better, with human hope only, human courage, enterprise, love of glory, by which men are for the most part driven to face dangers. (3.) Others explain it as meaning, "I speak after the manner of men," who readily dwell on their fights and conflicts. I have fought with beasts at Ephesus. Theophylact, Anselm, Primasius, and Baronius think that "beasts" refers to Demetrius and his savage companions, who fought fiercely and like beasts against Paul in defence of Diana (Acts xix.). We may then translate it. "If I have fought against a man who was as a beast." So Paul calls Nero a lion . Such men too are called bulls ; and S. Ignatius, in his epistle to the Romans, says: "I fight daily with beasts," i.e., with the soldiers guarding him. But Chrysostom, Ambrose, and others think that Paul was actually thrown to the beasts at Ephesus and fought with them; for this is the strict meaning of the Greek, and, moreover, that contest with Demetrius at Ephesus took place after this Epistle was written, for after that outbreak, Demetrius and his followers, by their violence, forced Paul to leave Ephesus at once, so that he had no time to write this letter at Ephesus; therefore it was written before. It is pretty certain, as Baronius holds, that it was about that time that this letter was written at Ephesus. The fight with beasts, here spoken of, was not the one with Demetrius, which had not yet taken place, but an earlier one. It may be said, it is remarkable that S. Luke should have said nothing in the Acts of so important an incident and so fearful a fight. But it is clear that S. Luke passed over things of no less moment, as, e.g., those related by S. Paul himself in : "Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck," &c. Hence Nicephorus (Hist. lib. ii. c. 25) relates, on the authority of tradition apparently, that this fight of S. Paul's was a literal fight with beasts. Gagneius says that the Greek means, not only to fight against beasts, but to fight against them to extremities, even for life. He turns it: "For the defence of the Gospel I was thrown to beasts, and fought with them to the last breath, and by the help of God I overcame them, and slew them not with weapons or fists but with faith and prayer, or I fled from them and escaped them." Let us eat and drink; for to-morrow we die. S. Paul is quoting . Those who deny the resurrection or who do not believe it are not far from the position of the wicked in Isaiah; for if there is no resurrection it will be lawful to join with the Epicureans in saying, "Eat, play, drink: there is no pleasure after death." Ver. 33.—Evil communications corrupt good manners. Viz., with atheists and unbelievers who deny the resurrection. This is an iambic senarius of Menander's, as S. Jerome points out. Ver. 34.—Awake to righteousness and sin not. Awake from sin to be righteous. The Greek copies give "awake righteously;" Ephrem, "Stir up your hearts righteously." Sin not, because some know not that God can call the dead to life. I speak this to your shame. It is a shame for a Christian to have any doubt about the resurrection or the power of God. Vers. 35, 36.—But some man will say . . . except it die. The Apostle strikes here at the root of their disease and the cause of their error, which was that some were despairing of and denying the resurrection of the body, because they saw that it rotted in the ground, and they thought therefore it was incredible and impossible for it to be raised again and refashioned.  S Paul here answers this objection by pointing to a grain of corn which is sown. It first rots and dies away in the earth, and then as it were is born again and springs up, and brings forth, not merely one grain, but many grains from the one. In this way the one grain which is sown is clothed and laden at the harvest with many ears and grains, so that it seems to rise with greater glory. In the same way our bodies will rot in the ground, and thence rise to greater glory. Ver. 37.—Thou sowest not that body that shall be. When you sow you do not sow the body which will rise from the seed, as, e.g., a tree or an ear, but bare seed, of apple, or of wheat, &c., and yet God gives to this seed sown, when it spring from the earth, not any other seed, but a complete and beautiful body, e.g., of a tree or of an ear, which is beautifully composed of its own stalk, beard, blossoms, and grains. Hence S. Augustine says (Ep. 146) that the Apostle implies, "if God can add to the new seed something it had not before, much more can He at the resurrection restore man's body." Ver. 38.—But God giveth . . . to every seed his own body. He gives to each seed the body that belongs to its own natural species, as, e.g., to a grain of wheat He gives a body of wheat, and not of barley or of oats. Ver. 39.—All flesh is not the same flesh. He goes on to prove what he has said, viz., that God gives to each seed its own body as He hath pleased and determined. He proves it by analogy. "God," he says, "gives one flesh to man— his own, another to beasts, another to fishes, another to birds. He gives one body to the heavens and the stars, and another to things on earth." So, too, to the blessed in the resurrection, which will be a kind of regeneration and new creation, will God give their own body, such as He sees fit to give, and such as is becoming to men beatified and glorified. He will give to each as he had deserved; for there is a similitude and proportion between nature and merit. Such a nature demands such a body; so such a degree of merit demands a correspondingly glorified body: the less the merit, the less glorified the body to be received; the more the merit, the more the glory of the body. Ver. 41.—There is one glory of the sun, &c. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Primasius, Oecumenius, Bede, Augustine (de Sanct. Virg. c. 26), Jerome (contra Jovinian. lib. ii.), prove from this that not only is the resurrection of the saints glorious, but that there is also an inequality of rewards in heaven, just as there is an inequality in the seeds of merits sown here. Ver. 42.—So also is the resurrection of the dead. As there is one brightness of the sun, another of the moon, another of the stars, so will God give to each of the blessed the blessed and glorious body that belongs to him, and that is proportioned to his merits. The saints and blessed are well compared to stars for reasons which I have given when commenting on . Moreover, as one star outshines another, so does one saint in heaven excel another— as in grace and merits, so in the glory and reward that he receives, and "the star of virginity shines among all as the moon among lesser lights." So S. Dominic, while still a boy, appeared to a noble matron in a vision, wearing on his forehead a bright star which irradiated the whole world (Vita, lib. i. c. 1, and cap. ult.); and it is said of the high-priest Simon, son of Onias (Ecclus. 1:6): "As the morning star shines in the midst of a cloud, and as the full moon in her days, or as the noonday sun, so did he shine in the Temple of God." Similar things are told us of other saints. Learned men and teachers of righteousness and holiness will call to mind the verse : "They that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever." (Cf. Wisd. 3) Hence Christ, too, says . "I am the bright and morning star," and in : "The seven stars are the angels" (i.e., the doctors and bishops) "of the seven churches;" and in Rev. xii. 1, the Church appeared to S. John like a woman having on her head a crown of twelve stars, that is of the twelve Apostles, who, like stars, shed their light over the Church, and that on the head, i.e., in the beginning of the Church, as Primasius, Aretas, Andrew Bishop of Cζsarea, Bede, and others explain it. Lastly, in Rev. ii. 28, Christ says: "And he that overcometh, to him will I give the morning star," i.e., glory and the beatific vision, which is called a star because of the brightness of its light and the clearness of the vision. It is called the morning star, both because it is given after the night of this world, and because it is the beginning of the blessedness which will be completed at the resurrection of the body. Cf. Richard Victor, Primasius, and Aretas. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. 1. It is sown in creation, when the corruptible body is produced by the direct act of God, or from the seed of the father. So Anselm. 2. Better, it is sown a human body when it is buried, and thrown like seed into the ground to be eaten by worms and changed into dust; for so grain, when sown in the ground, is cast forth, buried, and corrupted. So Chrysostom, Ambrose, Anselm. Hence they have erred who supposed that the resurrection will take place through the powers of nature, and that we shall rise by natural strength; as though in the ashes of the corpse were latent seminal powers, able to make it rise again. S. Thomas refers to these men. This is an error opposed to the faith and to true philosophy, both of which declare that the resurrection is above the powers of nature. The Apostle does not compare the body to seed sown in this respect, but he merely points to the fact that, as God has given to each seed its own body, so that, e.g., wheat springs from wheat and not barley, so to each of the blessed will He give a body corresponding to his work and merit. That this is his meaning, appears from the following verses. To bring this out more clearly, S. Paul adduced, in vers. 39 and 40, a similitude drawn from the difference existing in the flesh and bodies of different creatures. The seed dying and springing up again, and as it were rising from death, is a remarkable image and proof of the resurrection. Hence S. Augustine (Serm. 34 de Verb. Apost.) says: "The whole government of this world is a witness to the resurrection. We see the trees at the approach of winter stripped of their fruits and shorn of their foliage, and yet in the spring set forth a kind of resurrection; for they first of all begin to shoot forth buds, then they are adorned with blossoms, clad with leaves, and laden with fruit. I ask you who believe not in the resurrection, Where are those things hidden which God in His own good time brings forth? They are nowhere seen, yet God, who is Almighty, and created them from nothing, produces them by His secret power. Then look at the meadows and fields, which after summer are stripped of their grass and flowers, and remain nothing but a bare expanse of ground; yet in the spring they are again clad, and rejoice the heart of the husbandman when he sees the grass again springing up in newness of life. Truly, the grass which lived and died again lives from the seed; so, too, does our body live again from the dust." Ver. 43.—It is sown in dishonour. Man's body when it is buried and thrown like seed into the ground, is base, thick, heavy, opaque. It is raised in glory. It will rise glorious clear, resplendent. The Apostle here strikes at another root of their error. There were some who at that time denied the resurrection of the body on the ground that the body, as being heavy and fleshy, was unfitted to be the home of the soul in bliss, and to enjoy the Divine life, as S. Dionysius testifies when refuting them (Eccles. Hierarch. c. 7). The Apostle cuts this away by declaring that to the soul in glory a corresponding glorified body must be given. It is sown in weakness. Is weak, slow, inert when it dies and is buried. It is raised in power. Powerful, quick, agile. Ver. 44.—It is sown a natural body. It dies as it lived: its life was vegetative and sensitive, and needed for its support food and drink, like the life of other animals. So, too, it was solid, inert, unable to give place to other bodies, and impenetrable. Such was the body of Adam, even in Paradise. The natural body is one that eats, drinks, sleeps, digests, toils, suffers fatigue, is heavy, and offers resistance to other bodies. It is raised a spiritual body. 1. Not that the body is to be changed into a spirit or into an aλrial body, as Origen and Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople in the time of S. Gregory, thought (he was convinced by S. Gregory and abandoned his error), but spiritual in the sense of being wholly subject and conformed to the spirit, so that it no longer stands in need of food or drink, it toils not, and feels no weariness, but is, so to speak, heavenly and deified, and, as Tertullian says, is, as it were, changed into the angelic nature. So S. Augustine (de Fide et Symb. c. 6) says: "It is called a spiritual body, not because it is changed into spirit, but because it is so subdued to the spirit that it is fitted for its heavenly dwelling-place, when all weakness and earthly frailty have been taken away, and transformed into celestial strength." Yet (c. 10) he seems to say that in the resurrection the body will not be of the flesh, but like that of angels. He retracts this, however, afterwards (Retract. lib. i. c. 17), and more at length (de Civ. Dei, lib. ult. c. 5 and 21). 2. Spiritual denotes subtilty, freedom from that heaviness and solidity that fills space, i.e., from that property of body by which it so fills space as to exclude all other bodies. The spiritual body will be subtle, as free from this property, and able, like spirit, to penetrate and fill all other bodies. Cf. Damascene (de Fide, lib. iv. c. 28) and Epiphanius (in Hζres. Orig.). For, as God can take from man his property, viz., the power of laughing, and can take from fire the heat which is the property of fire, so from body can He take away solidity, which is the property of natural bodily substance. This gift of subtilty, however, will not be a quality infused into the soul, for this seems an impossibility. It will be an assisting presence of Divine power, internal to the soul in bliss, so that the soul can, at its pleasure, lay aside the solidity by which it excludes other bodies, when it wishes to penetrate into them; and can, on the other hand, retain it when it wishes to occupy space and exclude other bodies. CHAPTER 16 Ver. 1.—Now concerning the collection for the saints. The saints here meant were the poor Christians living at Jerusalem. Cf. ver. 3 and . For the Christians at Jerusalem, as appears from Heb. x. 34, were robbed of their goods and grievously harassed by their fellow-countrymen, who were the most bitter foes of Christ. Hence an injunction was given to S. Paul in the Council of Jerusalem to be as mindful of the poor Jews as of the Gentiles . He orders, therefore, that alms be regularly collected for them; and this practice lasted till the time of Theodosius. Cf. 2 Corinthians 8 Ver. 2.—Let every one lay by him in store—the amount that he may wish to give at this collection on the Lord's Day. The first day of the week was the day on which the faithful assembled in church and made their oblations, even as they do now; for from this passage it is evident that, by Apostolic institution, a collection was wont to be made on the Lord's Day. When this custom had been discontinued at Constantinople, S. Chrysostom had it restored, and delivered a remarkable sermon on almsgiving and collections at the time. Again, S. Chrysostom well remarks that it was well ordered that the collection should take place on the Lord's Day, for on it God created the world and re-created it when lost, when Christ rose on the first day of the week and sent His Holy Spirit an the same day; and, therefore, we should keep in mind the great mercy that we have received on that day, and be merciful and liberal ourselves to others who are in need. Moreover, it appears from this verse, that in the time of the Apostles the Sabbath had given way to the Lord's Day, and that is evidently implied by S. John , when He says: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day" Moreover, it follows secondly, in opposition to the Protestants, that even unwritten traditions are to be observed, for Scripture nowhere orders the Lord's Day to be kept instead of the Sabbath. S. Thomas and Cajetan think that each one of the faithful is here bidden to lay by at home, each Lord's Day, his offering, and give it in the church, not on that day, but later on, when it was to be sent to the poor of Jerusalem. But the practice of the Church shows that the opposite is meant, viz., that the oblations should be offered at the altar each Lord's Day, and the same thing is shown by the words that follow, "that there be no gatherings when I come." He wishes, then, these offerings to be put by each Lord's Day, before the supper and the agape, and then, when the Eucharist was celebrated in the church, to be collected as alms. Notice that "to lay by in store" is in Greek "to treasure up," for he who treasures up for the poor lays up treasure for himself in heaven. Ver. 3.—I will send your liberality to Jerusalem. Œcumenius points out that he does not here speak of alms, as he might truly have done, because the name of alms is degrading and insulting to the saints who were to receive them, but he uses a more polite term— liberality, kindness, blessing. And if it be meet that I go also they shall go with me. S. Paul stirs up the Corinthians by these words to make a larger collection, one large enough to be fit for him to take. Ver. 8.—I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost. Viz., because at Ephesus was the famous temple of Diana, and because the chief men of Asia Minor lived there. Hence the Proconsul of Asia Minor resided at Ephesus, and, as Philostratus says (Vita Apollonii, lib. viii.), learning flourished there most; and, therefore, there was a greater harvest for S. Paul, and this was what determined him to stay so long there. Ver. 9.—A great door . . . is opened unto me. A great opportunity of preaching the Gospel and of converting many. So Ambrose. Ver. 14.—Let all your things be done with charity. This, according to some, is not supernatural charity, but the sincere affection which penitents or even unbelievers can possess. But this is not the charity which Scripture and S. Paul commend to the faithful, but merely such natural love as pagans have. The sense properly speaking is therefore: "Do all your works, 0 Corinthians, not from ambition, nor from contention or schism, as I told you in chaps. ii. and xiv., but in Christian charity, which is a Divine virtue infused into you by Christ." This is partly a precept, partly a counsel of perfection, as was pointed out in the notes to chap. x. 31. Ver. 15.—I beseech you, brethren, &c. Theophylact arranges this verse and the next in this way: I beseech you, brethren, that ye submit yourselves to Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, and to every one that works with them and labours; for ye know their house (i.e., houses or families), that they are the firstfruits of Achaia (viz., that they were the first in Achaia to believe on Christ), and that they have devoted themselves and all that they have to the ministering to the saints (i.e., in showing hospitality to needy Christians and to strangers, and especially those who labour in the Gospel). The submission enjoined here would consist in showing honour, and in following their exhortations and good example. The fellow-labourers are those who helped the men mentioned above in their Christian work. Ver. 17.—I am glad of the presence of Stephanas, and Fortunatus, and Achaiacus. (1.) According to Anselm this presence means the presence of these men with the Corinthians to supply, teach, and strengthen them in the faith. (2.) According to Theophylact it is the presence of these men with S. Paul, to supply him with what he needed for his ministry from their own resources, and so to help forward the cause of Christ. This is undoubtedly S. Paul's meaning, and suits better with what follows. Ver. 18.—For they have refreshed my spirit and yours. What refreshes me refreshes you. Theophylact thinks that these men were so warmly commended to the Corinthians, to prevent them from being treated coldly or severely for having brought to S. Paul news of the divisions and backslidings of the Corinthians. Ver. 22.—If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema. "Anathema" denotes anything separated by a curse, thrown away, and destined for utter destruction. In the case of men it denotes, therefore, eternal damnation. These are not words of excommunication merely, but of cursing, and of denunciation of eternal damnation against unbelievers and all who love not Christ. Cf. notes on Rom ix. 3. Next to "anathema" was reckoned "katathema," which was a term applied to those who allied themselves to persons under condemnation. Hence Justin (qu. 121) says: "'Anathema' denotes anything, laid aside and set apart for God, and no longer put to common uses, or what has been cut off from God because of its vice or guilt. 'Katathema' is applied to those who consent to men under anathema, or who devote themselves to the gods below." Maran-atha. This is properly two words. Erasmus thinks it is the same as "anathema," and he compares with its use here, "Abba Father." But he is mistaken: the words are Hebrew-Syriac, and signify, "The Lord has come." The first part is still in common use among the Christian churches of India and Babylon, which look to S. Thomas as their founder, and is applied to their bishops, as Mar Simeon, Mar Joseph, &c. But what has the phrase, "the Lord has come," to do with the context here? Chrysostom and Theophylact say that S. Paul uses this word in order to point to Christ's coming in our flesh, and His charity, to stimulate us to endeavour to come to every degree of virtue, and, as S. Jerome says, to hint that it is foolish to contend any longer by wanton hatred of one another against Him who, as every one knows, has now come. S. Chrysostom says, further, that the reason why S. Paul denounces anathema against those who love not Jesus is, that He has now come in His humility to save so that there is now no excuse for not loving Him; for the Incarnation and Passion of Christ so win our love that the man who does not love Him is unworthy of pardon. But this explanation seems too forced. Notice, then, that "Maran-atha" is a Syro-Hebraic phrase, which, with Amen, Hosanna, and Alleluia, has been transliterated into other languages. Cf. S. Jerome (Ep. 137 ad Marcellam) and S. Augustine (Ep. 178). And so S. Paul adds here, after "Anathema," "Maran-atha," because the Hebrews, when passing sentence on any one, were in the habit of invoking the Divine justice to confirm their own. Cf. and (Vulg.), and . It is, then, a prayer: "May the Lord come as judge to punish him who loves not Christ." Notice again that by a euphemism the Hebrews commonly let this punishment be understood. Their usual formula is, "May God do so to me and more also," without specifying the particular form of punishment that they wish to call down on themselves if they break their oath. They do this out of reverence for an oath, and from the fear that the curse, if openly expressed, may fall upon them in some way, just as among us now-a-days, when any one is enraged and falls to cursing, or calling down on his friend some dreadful disaster, he will by-and-bye add: "God avert this!" "God forbid it!" "God protect us!" Similarly, when it is here said, "The Lord is coming," or, "May the Lord come," supply "to judgment," viz., to inflict everlasting punishment on unbelievers and the enemies of Christ. Anselm says: "If any one love not the Lord Jesus Christ, as His first coming is of no use to him, so neither will His second coming to judgment be." The explanation of Titelman is the same: "Let him be anathema in the coming of the Lord to judgment." S. Clement, too, seems to interpret "Maran-atha" in the same way (Ep. 2 in Fine), when, in allusion to this passage, he says: "This, my brother James, have I heard enjoined by the mouth of S. Peter: 'If any one keep not these precepts entire, let him be anathema till the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.'" What else explains these last words but the "Maran-atha" of SS. Peter and Paul? S. Paul refers here to the last verse of the prophecy of Malachi, "lest I come and smite the earth with a curse," and primarily to the Book of Enoch, quoted. by S. Jude in his epistle (vers. 14 and 15): "Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of His saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly," &c. Ver. 24.—My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. May the love that I bear you flow back to me and towards each other for Christ's sake. Amen. THINK OF — MARAN-ATHA !