Cornelius a Lapide
Table of Contents
Synopsis of the Chapter
The Apostle passes from the second question concerning things sacrificed to idols to the third principal question, concerning the veiling of women. For the Corinthians had asked Paul whether Christian women ought to be veiled, or not. Here Paul answers that they ought to veil their head, especially while praying publicly, and he proves this by five reasons. The first is, in verses 3 and 14, that womanly modesty and decency demand it. The second, verses 7 and following, that they are subject to men. The third, verse 10, that if they go forth bareheaded, they will offend the angels. The fourth, verse 15, that nature has given them their hair as a covering. The fifth, verse 16, that this is the custom of the Church.
In the other part of the chapter, verse 17, he treats of the Eucharistic Supper, and rebukes an abuse in it: namely, that in the agape or common supper the rich excluded the poor, and each one apart with his own indulged self-indulgence and drunkenness. Whence, verse 23, he recounts the institution of the Eucharist by Christ, and the crime and punishment of those who approach it unworthily, and commands that each one first prove himself before he approaches.
Vulgate Text: 1 Corinthians 11:1-34
1. Be imitators of me, as I also am of Christ. 2. Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and as I have delivered to you, you keep my precepts. 3. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraces his head. 5. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered, disgraces her head: for it is the same as if she were shaven. 6. For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her cover her head. 7. The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. 8. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. 9. For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. 10. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels. 11. But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12. For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God. 13. You yourselves judge: doth it become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered? 14. Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? 15. But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Church of God. 17. Now this I ordain: not praising you, that you come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18. For first of all I hear that when you come together in the church, there are schisms among you; and in part I believe it. 19. For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you. 20. When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord's supper. 21. For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk. 22. What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God; and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not. 23. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, 24. And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is My body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of Me. 25. In like manner also the chalice, after He had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in My blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of Me. 26. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until He come. 27. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28. But let a man prove himself; and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30. Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. 31. But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32. But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world. 33. Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34. If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order, when I come.
Verse 1: Be Imitators of Me, As I Also Am of Christ
These words cohere with the end of the preceding chapter, as if to say: Imitate me, O Corinthians, in this, that I said I seek not what is useful to me, but what is to many, that they may be saved: for in this zeal for souls I imitate Christ, who sought not His own conveniences, but our salvation, when for it He descended from heaven to earth and into our flesh, labored, sweated, and offered Himself to death and the cross.
Verse 2: I Praise You, Brethren, That in All Things You Are Mindful of Me
This is a transition and forewarning to a new question and admonition: for since Paul presently in the next verse begins to censure the Corinthians' abuses concerning the non-veiling of women, and that they approached the Eucharistic Supper drunk and divided, hence in his usual manner he softens his rebuke beforehand, so that the Corinthians may, as it were, take and swallow it more easily and sweetly, like a pill coated with sugar. He says therefore: "I praise you, that in all things you are mindful of me"; in Greek hoti panta mou memnesthe, that is, according to Erasmus, that you hold all my things in memory; or, according to Euthymius, that you may be mindful of all that is mine. Our (translator) understands to kata, that is according to, by; but the sense is the same. "All things" — understand precepts, teachings, admonitions, as follows. Again these "all things," that is most of all, are observed not by all indeed, but by most of the better and more powerful among you: for otherwise in this epistle Paul censures and refutes some vices of the Corinthians, and especially in this chapter the abuse of the Eucharistic Supper, as being at variance with His own and Christ's precept.
As I Have Delivered to You My Precepts.
In Greek, apedoka hymin tas paradoseis, that is, as Beza too renders, "I delivered to you traditions." Whence, since these were not written by the Apostle — for there exists no earlier epistle of Paul to the Corinthians than this (since this is the first) in which he prescribed these traditions to them — it manifestly follows that not all that pertains to faith and morals is written in Sacred Scripture, but Paul and the Apostles handed down many things by living voice, as Paul plainly teaches in this verse, and more clearly in verse 23 and the last. And this is plain, because before those things which the Apostle here writes about the Supper and other matters were written, the Corinthians were nevertheless bound to keep the same precepts from Paul and from Christ, as he himself says in verse 23. The same reasoning applies to those things which were handed down only and never written: for a law handed down obliges as much as a written law. So Theophylact (from Chrysostom) and others.
Verse 3: The Head of Every Man Is Christ; The Head of the Woman Is the Man; The Head of Christ Is God
Here the Apostle takes up the matter of the veiling of women. Concerning which note: The Corinthian women were most addicted not only to luxury, but also to the worship of Venus — to such a degree that they daily exposed a thousand girls in honor of Venus at her temple to procurers and prostitution, as I said at the end of chapter vi, and reckoned this an honor and a pious act, and supposed that they thus conciliated the goddess Venus to themselves and theirs for entering on a happy marriage or continuing it. Hence consequently they were shameless and seducers of lovers, whom, in order to allure to their love, they walked about with face, eyes, and head uncovered, displaying their beauty; so that this custom at Corinth was held to be honorable, becoming, and elegant, and Christian women supposed they ought to retain this same custom as something ancestral. Some more sober-minded Corinthians warned Paul of this, and proposed to him this question: whether it was lawful or fitting for Christian women to walk about, or be present, bareheaded, especially in the Church. Paul answers that this is neither becoming nor lawful, and he begins to prove it here; and this is his first reason: the woman is subject to the man, as to her head; therefore she must be veiled. On the contrary, the man is subject to God, as the glory and image of God; therefore the man is not to be veiled. He will prove both consequences in verses 7 and 10.
Note: "Head" here is the same as lord, superior, ruler. Thus the head and ruler of Christ as man, or of the humanity of Christ, is God — a head, namely, heterogeneous, or of another nature, and transcending; but Christ is the proper and homogeneous Head of the Church, and that in four ways, says S. Thomas: first, by reason of conformity of nature with other men, for Christ as man is the Head of the Church; second, by reason of the perfection of graces; third, by reason of sublimity above every creature; fourth, by reason of influence over all, and especially over the Church. So the man is the head of the woman in four ways, says S. Thomas: "For first, the man is more perfect than the woman, not only as to body — because, as the Philosopher says in the book On the Generation of Animals, the female is an accidental male — but also as to the vigor of the soul, according to that of Eccles. vii: 'One man among a thousand I have found, a woman among them all I have not found.' Second, because the man naturally surpasses the woman, according to that of Ephes. v: 'Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the woman.' Third, because the man exerts influence by governing the woman, according to that of Genesis III: 'Thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee.' Fourth, the man and woman are conformable in nature, according to that of Genesis II: 'Let us make him a help like unto himself.'"
Verses 4-5: Every Man Praying or Prophesying With His Head Covered, Disgraces His Head; Every Woman Praying or Prophesying With Her Head Uncovered, Disgraces Her Head
This is the second reason: It is shameful for a man to be veiled, so that the modesty, freedom, and manliness of the man require that the man not veil his head, but expose it open and free; on the contrary, it is shameful for a woman not to be veiled: for womanly modesty and shame require that the woman veil her head; therefore the woman is to be veiled, but not the man. Note: a woman praying or prophesying — "prophesying" here is not taken properly, as if it were the same as proclaiming or explaining a prophecy, but improperly, and it is the same as praising God with sacred hymns and psalms, and singing them to God. For Paul here speaks of a public assembly, where He does not permit a woman to speak or teach, but well to sing, namely when the whole assembly sings. Thus "prophet" is taken for a singer in 1 Paralipomenon xxv, 1, and 1 Kings x, 10. Thus Saul is said to have been among the prophets, that is among singers, singing the praises of God. Thus the sons of the prophets in the books of Kings are called those who served the praises and worship of God.
Some explain "prophesying" thus: that is, hearing a prophecy. But "to prophesy" is nowhere taken passively, but always actively. Again, the Apostle here understands any kind of woman, namely both virgin and unmarried, and married and corrupted: for he commands absolutely all to be veiled, as Tertullian teaches in the book On the Veiling of Virgins, chapters iv and v, and adds that the Corinthians thus understood Paul, who, he says, even to this day by Paul's precept veil not only their wives, but also their virgins.
Disgraces.
In Greek kataischynei, that is, dishonors, brings disgrace upon her head, as if to say: If a woman does not veil herself in the temple, she acts against the natural modesty and shame implanted in her by God. For "it is one and the same thing" (it is just the same, equally shameful for a woman if she be not veiled) as if she were shaven.
Verse 6: For If a Woman Be Not Covered, Let Her Be Shorn
"For" here is not causal, but continuative with emphasis, and it has the same force as: And so if a woman be not veiled, let her be shorn.
Let Her Be Shorn.
In Greek kai keirastho, that is, let her also be shorn, because the disgrace is equal: namely, it is as shameful for a woman not to be veiled as to be shorn or shaven. Hence the heretics infer: therefore Religious virgins are wrongly and shamefully shorn.
I answer: I deny the consequence; because the Apostle speaks generally of secular women, especially married, namely those who are seen publicly in the temple, but he is not speaking of Religious or recluses. For these rightly lay aside their hair to show: first, that they despise all the adornment of the world; second, that they are not under the power of a husband, but have Christ for a Spouse. And this was the custom in the time of S. Jerome, as he himself says in epistle 48 to Sabinianus. The Nazirites did the same, Num. chap. vi.
You will say: The Council of Gangra, Canon 17, forbids virgins to be shorn under pretext of religion.
I answer, from Sozomen, lib. III, cap. xiii: That canon speaks not of Religious, but of heretical women who, with their husbands forsaken and unwilling, as if under pretext of religion, shorn their heads, and assumed manly attire: for it excommunicates these, as Baronius rightly demonstrates at the end of vol. IV of his Annals. Add that Religious have the sacred veil in place of hair.
Where it is to be noted, although the Emperor Theodosius, in book XXVII On Bishops and Clergy of the Theodosian Code, forbade virgins in the West to be shorn — namely those who were younger and who outside monastery cloisters wished to profess publicly in the world chastity and a quasi-religious life; and this on account of the danger of scandal if, as sometimes happened, they should fall back and slip; for, as Baronius rightly observes in the year of Christ 390 (Sozomen also assigns this cause of the law, lib. VII, cap. xvi), in the same year this law was promulgated by Theodosius, in which at Constantinople a certain noble and youthful matron, also a deaconess as it seems, having been violated in the church by a deacon, when by command of her confessor she was performing a public confession of certain sins, going further, also confessed this sin of fornication, to the great scandal of the people: for which reason Nectarius abolished this public penitentiary and public confession; nevertheless the common practice has always been in the Church, that virgins, when they enter religion, be shorn. Whence S. Jerome teaches in the said epistle 48 that virgins consecrated to God in Egypt and Syria are accustomed to cut off their hair: "It is the custom," he says, "in the monasteries of Egypt and Syria, that both virgin and widow who have vowed themselves to God and renounced the world have trampled all the delights of the world underfoot, offer their hair to the mothers of the monasteries to be cut off, not to walk afterwards with head uncovered, against the Apostle's will, but bound equally and veiled." Palladius in the Lausiac History is the author that the most holy Tabennesiote virgins, whom S. Pachomius — admonished by an angel — instituted, also did the same; nay, S. Basil in the Rule of monks prescribes that at the very beginning of monastic conversion they shave their heads. For this dress befits one who mourns his sins.
Verse 7: The Man Ought Not to Cover His Head, Because He Is the Image and Glory of God
It is a hendiadys. For as the poet says, "He bit the gold and reins," that is, he bit the golden reins: so here the Apostle says that the man is the image and glory of God, that is, the image of glory or a glorious image, in which especially the majesty and dominion of God shine forth. For the man is placed in the supreme rank of things in this world, and as a kind of secondary God, ruling over all. This is the major premise of Paul's syllogism, under which understand this minor: But the glory of God is to be revealed, while the glory of man is to be hidden: therefore, since the woman is the glory of the man, but the man of God, it follows that the woman is to be veiled, not the man. S. Anicetus, in the epistle to the Bishops of Gaul, understands this sentence of the Apostle especially of those men who are in the clergy, that is priests, who by the ordinance of the Apostles ought not only to have an open head, but also one shorn in the manner of a crown — as S. Peter was, says Bede in book V of the History of the English, chap. xxiii, and Gregory of Tours in the book On the Glory of Confessors, xxviii — namely that they may represent and as it were bear the crown of thorns of Christ, and the reproach of S. Peter and the other Apostles, and from this expect the crown of glory in the heavens.
Whereon note: In the Old Testament the high priest performed sacrifices and sacred rites with bare feet and covered head, namely girt with the tiara, as is plain from Exod. xxviii, 37; in the New Testament priests perform the sacrifice of the Mass shod and with uncovered head: because, as Epiphanius teaches in heresy 80, which is that of the Messalians, in the New Testament Christ, who is our Head, is conspicuous and manifest to us, who in the old law was veiled and hidden from the Jews. The Apostle here, however, is speaking not only of clerics, but of all men in general, as is plain.
Note: It is not against this precept of the Apostle that our priests when they celebrate use the amice among the sacred vestments; for they never cover their head with it during the sacrifice, "but roll it back over the chasuble," as Rupert says, lib. I On the Divine Offices, cap. x. The amice is therefore not for covering the head, but for representing the superhumeral of the pontiff in the old law, as Alcuin and Rabanus write; or for signifying the veil with which the Jews covered the eyes of Christ, Matt. xxvi, as Dominic Soto teaches in IV, dist. 13, Quaest. II, art. 4; Hugo of S. Victor, lib. II On the Sacraments, cap. iv, and others.
But Paul wishes to abolish the custom of the Gentiles, who (as Aeneas had first instituted, as Plutarch and Servius write) sacrificed and supplicated their gods with veiled head. Tertullian noted this distinction between Christians praying and Gentiles in his Apology, and Varro testifies in book IV On the Latin Language that even the Roman women were veiled in head while sacrificing, in these words: "From the rite the rica (veil) is named, because by Roman rite, when women perform a sacrifice, they veil their heads."
But the Woman Is the Glory of the Man.
That is, the woman was made to the glory of the man, from the man, as his workmanship and image: whence she is subjected to him, and as a sign of subjection she is to be veiled.
Note: "The woman," namely the wife, "is the glory of the man," that is, the glorious image, as I said above, because God formed the woman, namely Eve, from the man, after the likeness of the man, that she as an image might represent the man as her exemplar. This image is placed in the mind and reason; namely that the woman, like the man, is endowed with a rational soul, understanding, will, memory, liberty, and is capable of all wisdom, grace and glory equally with the man; and accordingly the woman is the image of the man, not properly: for the woman in her rational soul is on a par and equal with the man, and both — that is, woman as well as man — were made to the image of God; but improperly and analogically: because, namely, the woman as posterior and inferior was made from the man, and was created similar to him. Whence the Apostle does not expressly say: The woman is the image of the man; but only: "The woman is the glory of the man": because indeed, as Salmeron rightly noted, the woman is a notable ornament of the man, since she was given to the man both as a help for propagating children and governing the household, and as material and as it were a domain over which the man might exercise his jurisdiction and dominion. For the dominion of the man extends not only to inanimate things and brute animals, but also to rational beings, namely to women and wives.
Verse 8: The Man Is Not of the Woman, But the Woman of the Man
He proves by two reasons or indications that the woman is the glory of the man, as of her head. The first is, that the woman is posterior to the man, and produced from the man, and consequently the man is the origin and principle from which the woman arose.
9. The second is: For the Man Was Not Created for the Woman, But the Woman for the Man, namely that she should be a help to the man, for the fellowship of life and the propagation of offspring; as therefore the man is the principle from which, so He is also the end for which the woman was produced; and consequently the woman is the glory of the man, but the man is not the glory of the woman.
Verse 10: Therefore Ought the Woman to Have a Power Over Her Head
Thus the Greek and the Roman (Vulgate) read, namely "power"; but not "veil," as some read.
Note first: "Power" here signifies authority, right, command, sovereignty — not of the woman herself, but of the man over the woman; for it alludes to Genesis III, 16: "Thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee."
Note second: "Power" here metonymically signifies a sign of the man's power, that is the veil, which the woman wears on her head, to signify that she is subjected to the man's power, and as it were that the man sits upon and dominates her head. "Power" therefore is here taken actively on the man's part, but passively on the woman's part; see Canon 30. For the veil is the burden of one who reverences power in another: for just as a bare and free head is a sign of power and dominion, so if anyone veils it, it is a sign that this power in him is, as it were, veiled, constrained, and bound and subjected to another. For which reason Tertullian, lib. On the Soldier's Crown, cap. xiv, calls this veil of women "the burden of their humility," and lib. On the Veiling of Virgins, cap. xvii, "their yoke;" Chrysostom calls it "the badge of subjection;" the Council of Gangra, session xvii, calls it "the memorial of subjection."
Note third: From this veil it has come about that in Latin women are said to "marry" (nubere), that is to overcloud or veil their head, when they pass into the power of a husband; on the contrary, in the man also the cap (pileus) was once the badge of the freedman's condition, as Livy testifies at the end of book XLV. Whence slaves, when there was need to enroll them for military service, were said to be "called to the cap," that is to liberty.
Because of the Angels.
First, according to the letter the sense is: women ought to have a veil over their head, out of reverence for the angels, not because they have a body and are incited to lust, as Justin, Clement, Tertullian formerly thought (for this is an error, as I said on Genesis vi); but because women have the angels as witnesses of their honest modesty or shamelessness, and likewise of their obedience or disobedience. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, S. Thomas, Anselm.
Second, Clement, in book II of the Hypotyposes, takes by "angels" good and holy men.
Third, Ambrose, Anselm, and S. Thomas take "angels" as the priests and Bishops who in Apocalypse II are called angels — namely, lest unveiled women provoke them to lust by their beauty. Whence Clement, in book II of the Paedagogue, cap. x, thinks it is here commanded not only that they cover their head, but also that they shade brow and face with a veil, which we see the more modest do in churches. But the first sense is the most literal and genuine.
This is the third reason by which Paul proves that women must be veiled, namely because the reverence of the angels demands it, especially in the temple: for the angels go through the temple, and explore the dress, gestures, and voices of each one. Hear what S. Nilus, S. Chrysostom's disciple, in the epistle to Anastasius narrates as having happened to S. Chrysostom in this matter, not once, but often: "John, he says, the admirable priest of the Church of Constantinople and the splendor of the whole world, a man of penetrating mind, almost always saw the house of the Lord filled with a host of angels, and then especially when the divine and unbloody sacrifice was being offered: at which time, full of stupor and gladness, he related the matter to His chief friends: When the priest had begun, he said, the most holy sacrifice, very many of those Powers immediately descending, clad in most splendid robes, with bare feet, with intent eyes, prostrate, stood about the altar with great silence and reverence, until that venerable mystery was completed. Then, dispersed here and there through the whole house, they attached themselves to the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons ministering the distribution of the body and precious blood, and were busy and diligently helping."
The same S. Chrysostom, in the homily On the Sacred Table, marveling, says: "At which the Cherubim are present, the Seraphim descend, who being endowed with six wings cast down their faces: where all the angels with the priest perform an embassy on your behalf." S. Ambrose, on chapter I of Luke, speaking of the angel that appeared to Zacharias: "Would that, he says, an angel might also assist us as we burn the altars and offer the sacrifice — nay, would offer Himself to be seen! For you should not doubt that an angel is present when Christ is present, when Christ is sacrificed." S. Gregory, lib. IV Dialogues, cap. lviii: "What faithful person, he says, can have any doubt that in the very hour of the immolation, at the voice of the priest the heavens are opened, that in that mystery of Jesus Christ choirs of angels are present, that the lowest are joined to the highest, earthly to heavenly things, and one whole is made of things visible and invisible?" S. Dionysius the Areopagite, Celestial Hierarchy, cap. v and ix, says that angels of the lowest order preside over the ecclesiastical hierarchy and over the co-ministration of sacred rites. Tertullian, lib. On Prayer, cap. xiii, rebuking the abuse of sitting at Mass, says: "For if it is irreverent to sit before the gaze and against the gaze of him whom you most revere and venerate, how much more, beneath the gaze of the living God, with the angel of prayer still standing by, is that action most irreligious — unless we reproach God, that prayer has wearied us?" John Moschus, in the Spiritual Meadow, cap. cl, narrates that the Bishop of Rumelia, celebrating before Agapitus, the appearance of her face should not encounter the gaze of others. For innumerable women have either themselves perished by their look, or have killed others, so that the greatest caution must rightly be applied to the eyes. Hence Tertullian, in a passage to be cited shortly: "Every public exposure of a virgin who is good," he says, "is a suffering of violation:" namely because she who, with uncovered face, freely roves with her eyes that she may see and be seen, is easily violated in spirit. And this very wandering is an index of a mind not sufficiently chaste. Hence Tertullian adds: "Put on the armor of modesty, draw round a rampart of bashfulness, build a wall for your sex, which neither sends forth your eyes nor admits the eyes of others." To this duty the Brabant veils (which they call Heucas) serve excellently, covered above with hats, which the more honorable women let down so that they cover and overshadow nearly the entire face.
Tertullian, lib. On the Veiling of Virgins, cap. XVII: "The women of Arabia," he says, "will judge us, the Gentile women, who cover not only the head but the face so completely, that with one balanced eye they are content to enjoy half the light, rather than to prostitute the whole face." The same Tertullian, On the Soldier's Crown, chapter IV: "For Jewish women," he says, "the veil on the head is so customary, that they are recognized by it." Concerning the Spartan women, Plutarch in his Laconic Apophthegms, in the life of Charilla, testifies that their virgins were accustomed to go forth with face uncovered, but married women with veiled face; namely so that the former might find husbands, and the latter, having husbands, would not care to please others. But just as it is reckoned a reproach to the Spartan women, says Clement, in book II of the Paedagogus, chapter X, that they wore garments drawn down only over the knees, so neither are their virgins praised who go forth with face uncovered; because thus virginal modesty would be exposed as if for sale.
Again secondly, Tertullian, lib. On the Veiling of Virgins, cap. II, blames those who used a thin veil, because that is more an incitement to lust than a covering of modesty, modeled rather on the practice of Gentile women than of those who believe in Christ. And in chapter XII, he treats as hawkers of chastity those who would seek the counsel of a mirror about their appearance; and that Christians of old shunned the mirror is sufficiently indicated by St. Justin to Severus, On the Christian Life. Finally, Tertullian wrote his book On the Veiling of Virgins to this end, that he might prove that all women, not only married, but also unmarried, even secular women, notwithstanding any custom whatsoever, must be veiled; because the Apostle here commands it; and thus, he says in chapter IV, the Corinthians understood it, who to this day veil their virgins: and the Apostle's reasons apply to absolutely all women, so that it must rightly be considered and corrected as an abuse, that in some places virgins go about with head plainly bare, namely so that they may show off their figure and capture a husband, when in reality they expose both others and themselves to the dangers of chastity, and daily expose themselves to the frauds of pimps; whence we see and hear of so many shipwrecks of chastity.
Let the virgin therefore be veiled, so that she may go forth covered into public, lest either she herself see what is unfitting, or her appearance encounter the gaze of others.
Hence thirdly, of old the dress of consecrated virgins was the flammeum, or sacred veil, concerning which Tertullian, On the Veiling of Virgins, chapter XV: "Pure virginity," he says, "is always timid, flees the eyes, takes refuge in the veil of the head, as in a helmet, against the blows of temptations, against the darts of scandals, against suspicions and whispers;" and he adds that these veils used to be solemnly blessed, and from this the virgins were called brides and betrothed of God. Hence also Innocent I to Victricius, epistle 2, chapter XII: "Those," he says, "who are spiritually wedded to Christ and are veiled by priests." In addition to these things, of old these virgins were clothed in dark garments and were covered with a mantle. By contrast, Lucian in Philopatris reproaches the ancient dress of Christian men: "A worn cloak, without shoes" (therefore Christians of old went barefoot, or at least with sandals, as the Capuchins do today), "and a covering, with bare head, with hair shorn."
Verse 11: Neither Is the Man Without the Woman, Nor the Woman Without the Man, in the Lord
Refer these words not to the verse immediately preceding (which therefore the Plantin Bibles aptly enclose in parentheses), but to the earlier one, verse nine: for what He there said, that the woman was created for the sake of the man, lest the Apostle should seem to have given occasion to men of being proud and to women of being indignant, He here mitigates, saying that neither can the woman be without the man, nor the man without the woman in marriage: for the one needs the other's help, namely as a spouse, and that "in the Lord," that is, with the Lord so willing and ordaining, or through the Lord, and with the Lord as author. So Ambrose, and it is plain from the next verse.
It could secondly be taken thus, "in the Lord," namely Christ, that is, in the matter and law of Christianity; see Canons 25 and 37, as if to say: According to the norm of the Christian law and of divine ordination, let the man and the woman help one another, beget children, and piously educate them. For He seems to remind the spouses of their duty, and of Christian piety.
Verse 12: As the Woman Is of the Man, So Also Is the Man by the Woman
For as the woman (the first, Eve) is of the man (was formed), so also is the man by the woman (conceived; formed, born, propagated): but all things are of God — are made, ordered, and disposed.
Verse 14: Doth Not Even Nature Itself Teach You
That which just now follows, namely, that it is fitting for a woman not to pray unveiled; but rather its contrary, namely that which follows: "That if a man nourish his hair, it is a disgrace to him: but a woman, if she nourish her hair, it is a glory to her." For the Hebrews, such as Paul was, speak concisely, and leave much to be understood, as I said in Canon 38. Hence the Greek and some Latin texts read this more clearly by way of interrogation, ἢ οὐδὲ αὐτὰ ἡ φύσις διδάσκει ὑμᾶς, that is, as the Syriac has it: Or does not nature herself teach you? Our Interpreter does not read ἢ οὐδὲ, but only οὐδὲ.
Verse 15: If a Man Nourish His Hair, It Is a Disgrace to Him
Because to nourish the hair is contrary to manly dignity, being indeed a sign of a soft and effeminate spirit, unless it be done for the sake of health or of cold. Hence St. Augustine, in his book On the Work of Monks, refutes certain monks who wore long hair down to their shoulders, that they might capture the appearance and name of sanctity. Again, it is fitting for a man to pray with bare head, for a woman with veiled head, as the Apostle has hitherto proved: therefore the woman ought to nourish her hair, but not the man; for hair has been given to her by nature as a covering. Understand here long and flowing hair, such as is that of women.
Note: That the woman should nourish the hair, but not the man, is not absolutely a precept of nature, or divine, or ecclesiastical. Hence, as I said on verse 6, religious women cut their hair: on the contrary, some nations of old considered hair on men a mark of beauty and ornament, as the Gauls, from whom Gaul was called Comata (long-haired); and the Achaeans, whom Homer everywhere calls καρηκομούντας Ἀχαίους, that is, long-haired Achaeans. The ancient Romans also nourished their hair, and only late, namely in the time of Scipio Africanus, did they begin to use barbers. The first barbers, says Pliny, Book VII, chapter LIX, came from Sicily into Italy in the year 454 after the founding of Rome; before that they were unshorn. Lycurgus also wished the Lacedaemonians to keep their hair long. Therefore Paul does not enjoin a precept here, but suggests the honor and decency of nature, namely that it is naturally fitting that when a woman goes out in public, she should go forth with hair and veil, but not a man: this decency of nature, however, Paul here sanctions, and wishes to be observed by the Corinthians as if it were a precept, whence he adds:
Verse 16: But If Any Man Seem to Be Contentious
"Contentious," namely so that he contends, not from zeal for truth, but for glory and victory (for this is what the Greek φιλόνεικος signifies), that Christian women should not be veiled when they pray in the temple, but should retain the pristine custom and nakedness of the Gentiles.
Verse 17: Now This I Command
This is the fourth reason proving that women should be veiled, drawn from nature itself, which gave woman hair as a covering, in order to teach that she should be veiled.
NOW THIS I COMMAND: NOT PRAISING THAT YOU COME TOGETHER NOT FOR THE BETTER, BUT FOR THE WORSE, — as if to say: This about veiling women I so command, that meanwhile I do not praise you in what follows, namely, "that you come together not for the better, but for the worse;" what this means he explains in the next verse, saying:
Verse 18: When You Come Together into the Church I Hear That There Are Divisions Among You
Where note the word "church": for from this it follows that already in the time of Paul there were churches and temples. See on the ancient form of the church, the pictures, the cross, the distinction of place for women, virgins, and men, Baronius on this passage of the Apostle.
Here the Apostle passes from the veiling of women to the correcting of the abuses of the Corinthians in the Eucharistic supper.
Verse 19: For There Must Also Be Heresies
considering namely human inconstancy, pride, novelty and proneness to error, such as that of the Corinthians, so that they would say, "I am of Paul, I am of Apollo," with God permitting it for the testing of His own, it is necessary and fitting that heresies follow. So Cajetan, Ambrose, Chrysostom.
HERESIES, — that is, schisms and sects, both in faith and in morals, such as existed here among the Corinthians in the Eucharistic supper, namely concerning the place of reclining, the time of beginning the supper, the foods and drinks, the companions and fellow-banqueters: for in the Lord's supper and the agape, the rich Corinthians excluded the poor, and conducted it separately, as is plain from what follows.
THAT THEY ALSO WHO ARE APPROVED (who are upright, solid and firm), MAY BE MADE MANIFEST. — For in the time of heresy and schism it is made manifest who are founded and constant in the faith and in piety, as here among the Corinthians the constancy and patience of the poor, whom the rich despised, were made manifest; again the modesty and charity of those rich men who hated the schisms, and called the poor to their suppers and agapes. So from Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius.
Verse 20: Therefore When You Come Together into One Place, It Is Not Now to Eat the Lord's Supper
as if to say: When you come together in such a manner to the Eucharist and the supper of Christ the Lord, your supper is no longer the Lord's supper, as it used to be; and your eating is no longer eating the Lord's supper, as it once was; you do not institute the supper of the Lord (who admitted all the Apostles, indeed even Judas, to His sober and pious supper), but of Bacchus or Mars. For you come together to make yourselves drunk, and to exclude the poor: and so each one is drunk in himself, but violent toward the poor. So Anselm, Chrysostom, Theophylact.
It can secondly, with Vatablus and Erasmus, the Greek οὐκ ἔστι be taken for οὐκ ἔξεστι, "it is not," that is, it is not lawful for you to eat the Lord's supper, by reason of what he subjoins. But the former sense is deeper and more vigorous and pricks the Corinthians more sharply.
Verse 21: For Every One Taketh His Own Supper Beforehand
First, St. Augustine, epistle 118: "He takes beforehand," he says, that is, he takes before the synaxis; for this is properly what "to take beforehand" means: and because to remove this anticipation, he commands in verse 33 that they wait for one another, namely in the supper before the holy synaxis: for in the sacred synaxis itself, or after it, there does not seem to have been need of waiting, since it was not celebrated until after all had assembled, and the poor mingled with the rich took it in common.
Where note: In the time of Paul, the Christians, that they might imitate Christ (who after the supper of the lamb and the common meal instituted the Eucharist), before the Eucharistic supper instituted a common meal for all Christians, both poor and rich, and that as a symbol of mutual and Christian charity. This custom continued in some Churches for many centuries: for in the time of Sozomen, as he himself narrates in book VII of his History, chapter XXIX, in Egypt, in many cities and villages, after the common meal was taken, they celebrated and received the holy synaxis after the example of Christ. The Council of Carthage III, canon 29, indicates the same about certain other Churches. This custom, where and as long as it was permitted, the Apostle does not censure here, but its abuse, in those who were getting drunk at this meal, allowing others, the poorer ones, to go hungry. For censuring this, he adds: "And one is hungry, but another is drunk;" and: "Whoever eats unworthily," that is, in mortal sin of drunkenness and contempt of the poor, "will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." Again concluding, in verse 33: "Therefore, brethren," he says, "when you come together to eat, wait for one another: if any be hungry, let him eat at home, that you come not together unto judgment;" namely, while you come together to eat the Lord's or Eucharistic supper, as he said in verse 20. Therefore he is speaking of the assembly that took place before, not after, the Eucharistic supper.
Secondly, however, others take "he takes his own supper beforehand" of the agape after the holy synaxis. For which note, in the primitive Church, in imitation of the supper of Christ, the wealthier were accustomed after holy communion to set up a meal in the Church for all, both rich and poor, as a symbol of charity, and therefore it was called agape, as if you should say, charity; but as charity grew cold, and the multitude of the faithful increased, the matter degenerated into abuse. For the rich would privately preoccupy and lay out their own supper most sumptuously, even to drunkenness, with the poor either excluded, or not awaited, much less invited, as is signified in verse 33, and this is what the Apostle seems to censure here. See Chrysostom in his moral exposition, near the end of homily 23; Tertullian, Apology XXIX, and Baronius here. For this reason the Council of Laodicea, canon 28, forbade agapes to be held in the Church.
But the former explanation is truer and more solid, for the reasons there given: for this agape in the time of Paul took place not after, but before the sacred synaxis; though shortly after these first times of the Church, namely when the Church decreed that the Eucharist, out of reverence, should be received only by those fasting, this agape was celebrated after the Eucharist, as is plain from Tertullian and Chrysostom already cited, and from Augustine, epistle 118. Hence by like reasoning this passage of the Apostle can be applied to those who after the Eucharist celebrated the divine agape; for the Apostle censures drunkenness and arrogance in the agape, whether it be before or after the Eucharist. Therefore some Innovators ineptly twist this passage of the Apostle against private Masses, in which only the priest communicates, because forsooth no one else wishes to communicate; for he does not exclude them: indeed the Church desires, says the Council of Trent, session XXII, canon 6 and canon 8, that those who hear Mass should also communicate. For the Apostle does not treat of this matter here, nor speak of the Eucharistic supper, but of the common and ordinary one, that is the agape, as I have shown.
TAKETH BEFOREHAND TO EAT, — takes beforehand to eat, or takes beforehand by eating, namely his own supper. It is a Hebraism.
Verse 22: Have You Not Houses to Eat and to Drink In? Or Despise You the Church of God?
AND PUT TO SHAME THEM (you cause shame to the poor) THAT HAVE NOT wealth and delicacies, which they might contribute to the common symbol with the rich? as if to say: If you wish to feast and indulge your appetite, do it among equals at home, not in the church. For if you do it in the church, you sin doubly.
First, that you contaminate and pollute the church with your gluttony.
Secondly, that by neglecting and shaming the poor, you divide and rend the Christian Church, which is common to the poor and to the rich.
Verse 23: For I Have Received of the Lord That Which Also I Delivered Unto You
not in writing, as is plain, but by living voice. Note this passage for traditions, which the orthodox teach are to be added to the written Word of God.
Verse 24: The Lord Jesus, in the Night in Which He Was Betrayed, Took Bread, and Giving Thanks Broke It, and Said: Take, and Eat: This Is My Body, Which Shall Be Delivered for You
THE LORD JESUS, IN THE NIGHT IN WHICH HE WAS BETRAYED (by Judas and the Jews unto death and the cross), TOOK BREAD, AND GIVING THANKS BROKE IT, AND SAID: TAKE, AND EAT: THIS IS MY BODY, WHICH SHALL BE DELIVERED FOR YOU.
Note here five actions of Christ. First, Christ took bread; secondly, He gave thanks to the Father; thirdly, He blessed the bread, as Matthew XXVI, 26 has it; fourthly, He broke the bread; fifthly, He held it forth, and while holding it forth He said: "Take and eat, this is My body." For these words are as much of one offering as of one consecrating.
Hence falls the argument of Calvin: All the words here, he says, namely, "He took, He blessed, He broke, He gave," look to and refer to the bread; therefore the Apostles received and ate bread, not the body of Christ.
I reply to the antecedent: These words refer to bread, not which remained bread, but which during the giving, by the force of Christ's words and consecration, was converted into the body of Christ. Thus Christ could have said in Cana of Galilee: "Take and drink, for this is wine," if by these words He had wished to change water into wine. Thus we commonly say: Herod imprisoned, killed, buried, or permitted to be buried, St. John, when nevertheless he did not imprison the same one whom he buried; because he imprisoned a man, but buried the corpse of one slain. Of such a kind, therefore, and consequently equally ordinary, is this manner of speech of the Evangelists and of Paul concerning the Eucharist.
Note secondly, from the fact that Christ says: "Take, for this is," etc., from this it seems that Christ took one bread, and during the consecration broke it into twelve parts, and at the same time distributed one to each Apostle, which each one seems to have received in the hand. Hence also for a long time in the Church the Eucharist was given into the hands of the Christian faithful, as is plain from Tertullian, in his book On the Spectacles; from Cyril of Jerusalem, mystagogical catechesis 5; from St. Augustine, sermon 44. Afterwards, however, for the sake of danger and reverence, the Eucharist was given into the mouth.
HOC EST CORPUS MEUM. — The heretics will have it that there is a trope here, some a metonymy, others another figure of speech, and that this is the sense: This is the figure of My body, or: This signifies My body.
But that there is no trope here is plain first, from the demonstration of the pronoun "this," and from the expression "My body, and My blood," and so from the whole sentence, which most clearly signifies this, so that it could not be said more clearly. Add to this, that Christ on this last day of His life made His testament, and instituted a new and eternal covenant with His unschooled and most beloved disciples, and founded and presented this most excellent Sacrament, dogma, and mystery of the Christian religion, all of which are wont and ought to be proposed in the clearest words. For who would believe that the supreme wisdom and goodness of Christ would by His last words have given an inevitable occasion for a false dogma and perpetual idolatry? which He surely did, if He wished these words so clear, "This is My body," to be understood only tropically and figuratively. For if it is so, then the whole Church for 1500 years has now been engaged in the gravest error and idolatry, and that on the occasion of Christ's words, which are so open that Luther writes to the Strasburgers: "For if Carlstadt had been able to persuade me that in the Sacrament there is nothing besides bread and wine, he would have bound me to himself by a great favor: for by this matter I would have greatly inconvenienced the papacy. But I see myself caught, with no way of escape left: for the text of the Gospel is too open and powerful, which cannot easily be uprooted, much less subverted by words or glosses concocted from a dizzy head."
Thus Luther. And Philip Melanchthon to Fred. Myconius: "If," he says, "you take figure of the body for the body, what cannot be evaded by this art? Thus it will be permitted to transform the whole form of religion." So Philip. Namely, thus with Servetus it will be permitted to interpret that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are only three names of one God, not three persons; that Christ assumed flesh, but a phantastic one; that He suffered and died, but only through an image and phantasm, with the Manichaeans; finally, anyone will be able by parity of reasoning to say that the Gospels are Gospels, Christ is Christ, God is God, only by trope, so that at last, as happens to many of them, they believe nothing. See how wide a window the Sacramentarians here open to atheism.
Most truly Cardinal Hosius said and foretold, that heretics will at last become atheists, and that the end of every heresy is atheism. Namely, while they fall away from the Catholic faith into heresy, and find in it nothing stable, nothing constant, nothing solid; what remains, except that they cast off heresy, believe nothing, and that be done which the Psalmist sang, Psalm XIII: "The fool said in his heart, There is no God." Would that we did not daily experience this!
Again not only Paul, but also all the others, namely Matthew, Mark, Luke, in the same manner and with the same words, "This is My body, this is My blood," narrate this supper and history, and the Syriac Interpreter most expressly, Mark XIV, 22, ithai pagri, that is, My very body: there is no one who explains or hints at a trope, as elsewhere one is wont to explain another when he is more obscure. By which argument Erasmus convinced, writes back to Conrad Pellican, by whom he was being solicited to Zwinglianism, thus: "To that, namely, that there is not in the Eucharist the true body of Christ, I have always denied that I could induce my mind, especially since the evangelical and apostolic writings so evidently name the body that is given, and the blood that is poured out." And below: "If you are persuaded that in the synaxis there is nothing besides bread and wine, I would prefer to be torn limb from limb, and to suffer all things, rather than to profess the same as you profess; nor will I suffer that you make me the author or companion of that dogma of yours. So may it befall me never to be separated from Christ, amen." So Erasmus.
Secondly, If in the Eucharist there is and remains bread, then the figure of bread has succeeded the figure of the lamb. But who does not see that this is wrongly done and said? for the lamb slain in the old law signified Christ suffering more clearly than bread in the new law. Again, the lamb would have been a cold and inept type of the Eucharist, which is mere bread according to Calvin. For who would not rather have the lamb both in itself and as a figure of Christ, rather than bread?
Thirdly, this is more plain in the consecration of the chalice: "This is My blood of the new Testament, which shall be shed for you:" which is most clear in the Greek of Luke, chapter XXII, τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινή διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον, that is, the cup is the new Testament in My blood, which (namely the cup) shall be shed for you. For τὸ must be referred to ποτήριον, not to αἵματι, since αἵματι is in the dative case, but τὸ in the nominative; therefore the cup, that is the chalice of the blood of Christ, has been poured out for us; therefore in this chalice there was truly the blood of Christ, so that when this chalice was poured out, it was not wine that was poured out, which was before consecration, and remains after it, as the heretics will have it; but the blood of Christ, which was in it after consecration, was poured out. For this is what "the chalice of the blood which shall be shed for you" signifies. Otherwise the cup of wine, not of blood, would have been poured out for us, and Christ would have redeemed us with a cup of wine, which is most absurd. This will be more plain from the next verse. Nor can it be said with Beza that the Greek text is corrupt: since all codices, as well as interpreters, so read and have always read.
Fourthly, all the Evangelists, and Paul, explain this body when they add, "which is given for you;" or, as Paul has it, "which shall be delivered for you;" or, as it is in Greek, κλώμενον, "which is broken for you;" but it is not the figure of the body, but the true body of Christ that was given, delivered, broken for us: therefore the true body of Christ was given by Christ to the Apostles. Again, Paul says that "whoever shall eat this bread unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord;" therefore here truly is the body and blood of the Lord, to whom he is injurious who unworthily handles and receives it.
Finally, the Greek and Latin Fathers of all centuries explain these words of consecration so properly as they sound. This was the sense of the whole Church up to Berengarius for 1050 years; for then Berengarius began, who, an unlearned man but greedy for glory, in order to attain the name of a new Doctor, was the first publicly to teach the contrary. For J. Scotus and Bertram, who before Berengarius held the same view, were obscure, and were immediately repressed by Paschasius Radbertus and others. To Berengarius bringing this dogma as if new into the light, Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, Guidmundus, Algerus, and the whole Catholic world immediately opposed themselves. Hence the error of Berengarius was condemned in the Council of Vercelli under Leo IX, again in that of Tours under Victor II, where being present and convicted Berengarius publicly abjured the heresy: but having relapsed, he abjured in the Roman Council of 113 Bishops under Nicholas II, and sang a palinode, which is contained in De Consecratione, distinction II, chapter Ego Berengarius. Soon relapsing a second time, a third time in the Roman Council under Gregory VII, he condemned his error with this profession of faith, which Thomas Waldensis recounts, vol. II On the Sacraments, chapter XLIII: "I Berengarius believe in heart and confess with mouth, that the bread and wine are converted into the true and proper and life-giving flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and after consecration to be the true body, which was born of the Virgin; and the true blood of Christ, which flowed from His side, not only through sign, but also in propriety of nature and truth of substance." Would that those who in this time have followed the erring Berengarius, would follow him also penitent! The heresy of Berengarius was first revived in this century by Andreas Carlstadt, against whom Luther immediately set himself. Zwingli followed Carlstadt, Calvin Zwingli; and yet no article of faith stands so firmly established by the consensus of all the Fathers and of the whole Church, as this concerning the truth of the body of Christ in the Eucharist.
The Church has defined the same in eight general Councils, namely in Nicaea I, Nicaea II, the Roman under Nicholas II, in the Lateran, the Viennese, Constance, Florence, and Trent: also in very many provincial councils. Let him who doubts see John Garet, who through each, that is sixteen centuries of years from Christ, in order recounts the testimonies of all the Fathers and councils of every century, by which all openly and unanimously confess this truth: he also brings forward the profession of the same faith of the Syrian, Ethiopian, Armenian, and Indian Churches. Let him also see Bellarmine On the Eucharist, exactly bringing forward and discussing the words of each. Truly whoever reads these will see that this has been the faith of the Church of every age and of every century; so that Erasmus rightly wrote to Ludovicus Berus: "It has never," he says, "been possible to persuade me, nor will it be, that Christ, who is truth and charity, would have suffered His beloved spouse to remain so long in so abominable an error, as to adore a little crust of meal for Himself."
And here appears the art and ingenuity of Zwingli, Calvin, and the like. They introduce a new sect and opinion concerning the Eucharist; they teach that in it the body of Christ truly is not, but only the figure of the body. From what do they prove this? From the Scriptures: let the words be consulted, let all the Evangelists be read, let Paul be read, do they favor them, or rather us, and the opinion received in the Church? What else do they all repeat but "body"? and that delivered for us: what but "blood"? and that shed for us. Where here is the shadow? where the figure? where the type? But, they say, these words must be expounded by figure: confess therefore that the words of Scripture do not favor you, you, I say, who teach that the meaning of Scripture is to be searched for nowhere else than from the words of Scripture. Whence then do you prove that they should be expounded by figure? if they were doubtful and ambiguous, whence is the exposition to be sought? who would settle the dispute, except the Church, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth handed down to her by the fathers? who but the venerable antiquity of the Fathers, the tradition of our elders, and the consensus of prior ages? We cite and bring forth through each century of years the Fathers, all our elders, national and ecumenical councils too of every age: all and they accept all the words of Christ as they sound, they condemn trope and figure. What therefore remains, except that you follow the plain words of Scripture, the plain and clear exposition of the Fathers and of the whole Church in all ages? and yet you persist tooth and nail in your tropical exposition. What Scripture? what authority? what reason persuades? none, except this one, that your heresy has so chosen, and that you follow Luther's trumpet: Thus it seems to me, thus it pleases, thus I will, thus I command, let will stand for reason. This one thing both urges and persuades you to this very thing, and to all your positions.
Therefore Philip Melanchthon better and more soundly in this matter, in his book On the Truth of the Body and Blood of the Lord: "If for human reasons," he says, "you deny that Christ is in the Eucharist, what will conscience say in temptation? what reason will it bring for departing from the received opinion in the Church? then those words: This is My body, will be thunderbolts. What will the terrified mind oppose to these? with what Scriptures, with what voice of God will it fortify itself, and will it persuade itself, that here a metaphor was necessarily to be interpreted, when the word of God ought to be preferred to the judgment of reason?" So Melanchthon.
Truly in the hour of death, on that terrible day, when we shall be set before the tribunal of Christ to be examined concerning faith and life, if Christ should ask me, Why did you believe My body to be in the Eucharist? I will boldly say: Lord, I believed what You said, what You taught me: You did not explain Your words by trope, nor did I dare to explain them by trope. The Church accepted them simply, and I accepted them simply: this faith, this reverence I owe to Your words and to Your Church, I plainly persuaded myself.
If Christ should ask the Calvinist: Why did you twist My words from their proper sense into a trope? what will he say? Thus it seemed to me must be done, since my reason could not grasp how it could happen or be fitting. But, He will say, to which ought you rather to have assented, to your reason, which is human and weak; or to My word, which is omnipotent and most truthful? Reason dictated to the Gentiles that to believe in Me, namely as God, born in the flesh, suffered, crucified, was foolishness; and yet you thought this to be believed and you believed it, and that persuaded by the words of Scripture alone, which simply assert this. Why then in this one article of the Eucharist did you presume to exact to your reason that which I so expressly said about it, and to interpret it according to your brain, so depressed, weak and small? why at least did you not acquiesce in the exposition and authority of the Church of all ages? why did you wish to be wiser than all those? What will he answer to these things? how will he excuse himself? whither will he turn? Let everyone now seriously consider this, and submit his judgment with humble faith and obedience to the word of God and of the Church, lest on that day of the Lord he be confounded, lest with the unbelieving he take part in the lake of fire burning with pitch and sulphur, lest he hear that thunderbolt: "Depart, you cursed, depart, you unbelieving, into eternal fire."
Nor let anyone marvel at so wonderful a mystery in the Eucharist, since Christ in all His life and mysteries has been and is wonderful, Isaiah IX, 6; and concerning Him the same Isaiah says, chapter XLV, 15: "Truly You are a hidden God, the God of Israel, the Savior." If an angel were to insert himself into the host, he would truly be in it, but hidden: you would not see, perceive, or taste an angel, but only bread; yet you would believe that an angel was hidden in it, if any angel or prophet had asserted it to you: why then in like manner do you not believe that Christ is hidden under this host, but concealed, when Christ Himself asserts the same, who cannot lie? For this spiritual, invisible, and indivisible mode of existing, which is natural to an angel, God, since He is omnipotent, can supernaturally give to the body of Christ in the Eucharist. Therefore let no unbeliever say: How can Christ be wholly in so small a host? let him think that Christ is there as an angel, nor inquire into the mode, but rather embrace the immense charity of Christ, whose delight is to be with the sons of men, who, about to pass from the world to the Father, as St. John says, chapter XIII, "when He had loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end;" who, as St. Thomas sings,
Being born, He gave Himself as companion,
Dining together, as food,
Dying, as ransom,
Reigning, He gives Himself as reward:
that He might compel us by His charity to love Him in return, so that, as often as we see and perform these mysteries, we may think that He addresses us with these words: Behold, Christ here gives Himself wholly to you; do you give yourself wholly, indeed give yourself back to Christ.
You will say: The Eucharist is sometimes called "bread and the fruit of the vine," that is wine, as is plain John VI, 57, Matthew XXVI, 29.
I reply: In the narration itself of the institution of the Eucharist, by no one is it called "bread," but elsewhere; and then "bread" signifies every food, as I said in chapter X, verse 17. Thus also "wine" could signify every drink, because among the Jews, as also in Spain, Italy, France, Germany, the common drink was not beer, but wine.
But it is truer that Christ called "the fruit of the vine," not what was in the Eucharistic chalice, but what was in the cup of the paschal lamb. For just as He said of the lamb, as Luke has it: "I will not eat of this, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God," so also of the cup of the lamb He said: "I will not drink of this fruit (or generation) of the vine, until the kingdom of God comes." For so expressly, what Matthew and Mark wrap together, St. Luke distinguishes, and recounts that Christ said both before the Eucharist, chapter XXII, verse 17. For Christ wished only to say, that He would not henceforth live with them, and would not take the common supper, as He had hitherto lived and taken, because He was going to death, says Jerome, Theophylact and others on that passage.