Father MacEvilly's Commentary on 1 Corinthians Chapter 12

ANALYSIS OF 1 CORINTHIANS CHAPTER 12
Scripture links are to the Douay Rheims translation

This and the two following chapters are employed by the Apostle in delivering instructions concerning the gifts of the Holy Ghost. In this chapter, he undertakes to remedy certain abuses of which these gratiæ gratis datæ, with which the Corinthian Church was abundantly favoured, were the occasion. It appears, that many among them, upon whom were conferred gifts of a more exalted and honourable description, had, in consequence, grown insolent, and despised their humbler and less favoured brethren. These, on the other hand, indulged feelings of jealousy and envy. Hence, schisms and divisions among them. To remedy this evil, the Apostle reminds them, in the first place, of their former degraded condition, when professing the errors of Paganism. As they, therefore, possessed no claim to these gifts, they should not make them serve as occasions of pride (1 Cor 12:1–4). In the next place, he shows that these gifts, although differing in number and quality, were one in their source and origin, viz., God, their author; and hence, they should serve rather to cement union, than cause divisions (1 Cor 12:4–6). He then reminds them that these gifts were given for the profit of the entire body of the faithful, as well those who were not favoured with them, as those who were (1 Cor 12:7). In the next place, he shows that in the distribution of the several gifts, which he enumerates and classes wider nine distinct heads, the Holy Ghost is influenced solely by his own gratuitous will; and, therefore, these gifts should neither prove the occasion of pride to one party, nor of envy to the other (1 Cor 12:8–12). By a beautiful illustration drawn from the unity of the natural body of man, although composed of different members, he points out the relative duties which the different members of the mystic body of Christ owe to each other. He shows, that, like the natural body, the mystic body of Christ is one (1 Cor 12:12–13). (Hence, the members of the Church should have but one soul), and composed of different members (1 Cor 12:14). (Hence, all cannot have the same gifts). He then points out, that the different members, all enjoy the honours of the body by incorporation (1 Cor 12:15-16). And, that consistently with the nature of an organized body, all cannot have the same functions (1 Cor 12:17–20). Addressing the more highly gifted, he assigns reasons why they should treat the others with greater attention (1 Cor 12:21–27). He applies all that had been said of the natural body to the Church, and shows the variety of gifts and functions in it 1 Cor 12:(27–30). He recommends charity (1 Cor 12:31).

COMMENTARY ON 1 CORINTHIANS CHAPTER 12
Text in purple indicates Fr. MacEvilly's paraphrase of the scripture he is commenting on

1 Cor 12:1. Whilst deferring until the period of my advent amongst you all further arrangements respecting your Agapes and the Adorable Eucharist (1 Cor 11:34), I am anxious to instruct you regarding the spiritual gifts which are the occasion of certain abuses.

“Concerning spiritual things,” the Greek, πνευματικῶν, will also admit, “concerning spiritual persons.” The former is, however, the more probable rendering of the words. “I would not have you ignorant,” is a form of words requesting serious attention and undoubting faith.

1 Cor 12:2. You know, that before your conversion, when you professed the errors of Paganism, you were in the habit of going to pay your senseless homage to mute idols which were devoid of reason or intelligence, according as you were impelled either by curiosity, or custom, or the craft of the devil.

“When you were heathens,” in which they are reminded of what they now are through the divine mercy. “When,” ὅτε, is omitted in the common Greek text, but found in the chief MSS. “You went.” The Greek is in the participial form, απαγωμενοι, you were going, it expresses custom or habit. “Dumb idols,” devoid of reason or intelligence. “As you were led,” i.e., impelled by curiosity, or custom, or the craft of die devil. The Apostle reminds the Corinthians of their former wretched condition, as the most effectual security against those feelings of pride, which their present favours were apt to engender.

1 Cor 12:3. Wherefore, I wish to make known to you, that no one speaking under the influence of God’s Spirit, will curse, or say anathema to Jesus. (As, then, you were identified in your Pagan state with those who cursed the Lord Jesus, you had no claim whatever to receive those spiritual gifts of which you now boast). And no one can so much as pronounce, in a pious manner, and in a way conducive to salvation, the name of Jesus, without the grace of the Holy Ghost. (Hence, whatever gifts you possess at present come from the Spirit of God).

“Wherefore,” may be connected with the preceding verse, thus: “I have reminded you of your wretched condition in Paganism, in order to make you understand the following truth, viz.”:—“That no man speaking by the Spirit of God,” &c.—A’Lapide; or, with the first verse, thus:—as “I would not have you ignorant of spiritual things” (verse 1), “I therefore,” to remove this ignorance, “give you to understand,” &c. Piconio, in his Triplex Expositio, and others, say, that the object of the Apostle, after reminding the Corinthians of their former wretched condition in Paganism (verse 2), is, to give them a sign for distinguishing from true prophets, those men who falsely pretended to heavenly revelations, many of whom they formerly witnessed, and had still to witness among the Pagans. The false prophets, when questioned about the Lord Jesus, curse him, and wish him to be anathematized, or to be regarded as an object of execration; whereas, the true prophets, under the influence of God’s spirit, pronounce his name with piety and respect. This, although a very ingenious connexion, does not seem to accord well with the context, nor is it suggested by the consideration of the passage itself. The mode of connecting it, adopted in the Paraphrase, seems much preferable, being the most natural, and the one suggested by the context. The Apostle reminds the Corinthians of their wretched condition in Paganism, from which state most of them were converted to the gospel, in order to show them that they were altogether devoid of God’s spirit, having been identified with those who anathematized the Lord Jesus, and hence, not in the way of receiving those spiritual favours of which they now boast; and, if at present, they have any favour of which to boast, it surely comes from the Spirit of God, without whose grace they could not perform the most trifling meritorious action, nor even so much as pronounce the name of Jesus in a pious manner—or, in a manner conducive to salvation. “Saith Anathema to Jesus.” In the common Greek, λεγει αναθεμα Ιησοῦν, calleth Jesus accursed. The chief MSS. have the Vulgate reading, λεγει αναθεμα Ιησους. “No man can say Lord Jesus;” in the common Greek, ειπεῖν κυρίον Ιησοῦν, that Jesus is the Lord. The chief manuscripts have the Vulgate reading, εἰπεῖν κύριος Ἰησοῦς.

1 Cor 12:4. But, although there is a different distribution of gratuitous gifts, the source and principle of them is one and the same—viz., the Holy Ghost.

“There are diversities of graces.” The Greek, διαιρεσεις δε χαρισματων εισιν, means, there are differences of gifts, and the same word which is here translated “graces” is translated “gifts.”—(Rom. 12:6). By it are meant the several gratiæ gratis datæ, as they are termed by Theologians, viz., the word of wisdom, prophecy, the gift of tongues, &c., enumerated by the Apostle, (1 Cor 12:8-10), as distinct from “ministries” and “operations.” Others say that the word “graces,” mentioned in this verse, is a generic term, denoting all the gifts of the Holy Ghost, under which are included “ministries” (1 Cor 12:5), “operations” (1 Cor 12:6), and the other gifts enumerated (1 Cor 12:7-9). The former division is the more probable. These several “graces” are, by appropriation, ascribed to the “same Spirit,” or Holy Ghost, who is goodness and love, because they emanate from the gratuitous goodness of God.

1 Cor 12:5. And although the distribution of ministrations be different, the principle and source of them is the same: viz., God the Son, who is our Lord by the special title of Redemption.

“Ministries,” διακονιῶν, refer to the different orders of ministry established in the Church—viz., Episcopacy, Priesthood, Deaconship, &c., including also the functions committed to females—such as was confided to Phœbe, the deaconess.—(Rom. 14:1). And these are, by appropriation, attributed to the Son, “the same Lord,” because he is the head of the Church, purchased with his blood; he is our “Lord” by the special title of Redemption.

1 Cor 12:6. And although the distribution of supernatural operations, of the active faculties of working great and distinguished miracles be different, their principle is still one and the same—viz., God the Father.—(Having, then, but one source to which all their glory is due, they should not prove the occasion of divisions by engendering feelings of pride in one party, or of envy in the other).

“Operations,” i.e., the active faculties of performing great and splendid miracles, such as raising the dead to life, &c., to distinguish them from “the grace of healing” (verse 9). These, like all the other efforts of Omnipotence, are, by appropriation, ascribed to God the Father, “who worketh all in all.” As first and primary cause, he concurs in the production of all works, whether natural or supernatural; in the former, by his concursus generalis; in the latter, by divine grace. “The same Spirit” (verse 4) “the same Lord” (verse 5), “the same God” (verse 6), serve to remind the Corinthians, that, although these gifts differ in multitude and variety, their source is still the same; and hence, that they should be the occasion of harmony rather than of disunion. The Trinity of Persons in the Godhead is here distinctly insinuated by the Apostle, with the order inverted, to indicate the perfect equality of these Persons.

1 Cor 12:7. (Another reason why these gifts should secure harmony is, the end which God had in view in bestowing them). Every one of these gifts, by which the operation of the Holy Spirit is manifested, was given to each person not for his own private profit, but for the utility of the entire Church. (Hence, the less favoured man is a sharer in the benefits accruing from them).

Another reason why these gifts, which proved the occasion of division, should rather promote harmony—viz., the end for which they were given, which was, the “profit” or general utility of the entire Church; and hence, they were intended to benefit the less favoured as much as those specially favoured with them. “The manifestation of the spirit,” i.e., the gifts by which the operation of the Holy Spirit was manifested.

1 Cor 12:8. To one man, indeed, is given by the Holy Ghost the faculty of treating of the sublime truths of Revelation, and of explaining them on the lofty principles of faith. To another, is given by the same spirit the faculty of explaining truths of Revelation on principles, and by examples, derived from human things.

“The word of wisdom,” most probably means (as in the Paraphrase), the faculty of discoursing on, and explaining, the divine truths of faith on the principles of faith, (v.g.), to explain the congruity of the Incarnation on the grounds pointed out by faith, and all the other truths, which the Apostle terms “wisdom,” of which he treats, with the perfect.—(1 Cor. 2:7). “The word of knowledge,” (vide Paraphrase), these words may also mean, the faculty of explaining moral precepts. The term “word,” shows that in both the gifts referred to in this verse, he considers the power of discoursing on something or other. In this, and the two following verses, the Apostle enumerates the several gifts with which the primitive Church was favoured, and divides them into nine kinds.—(See Analysis).

1 Cor 12:9. To another, is imparted by the same Spirit, the faith by which are wrought miracles: to another, the gift of miraculously healing divers maladies and distempers.

“Faith.” Not the theological virtue of faith; but, the faith of miracles. It most probably consists in an extraordinary enlightenment of the intellect, joined with great confidence in God. Whatever it may consist in, we know that our Redeemer refers to it, as a means of working miracles (Mark 9:9–23; Luke, 17:6); and so does the Apostle (1 Cor 13:2).

1 Cor 12:10. To another, the faculty of working great and splendid miracles. To another, the faculty of explaining, without previous consideration, the SS. Scriptures and points of Revelation. To another, the faculty of discerning the quarter from which the several communications made may come—whether from God or the enemy. To another, the faculty of speaking in several tongues to him hitherto unknown. To another, the faculty of explaining those unknown tongues in the vernacular of the country.

“The working of miracles.” This gift is distinguished from the preceding gift of miraculously curing bodily distempers, in this, that this gift consists in performing great and splendid manifestations of power—such as raising the dead, miraculously punishing others with sudden death—as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira.—(Acts 5:5). The Greek word for “miracles,” δυναμεων, means, manifestations of strength or power.

“To another prophecy,” most probably means, as in the Paraphrase, the gift of explaining extraordinarily, and without previous preparation, the abstruse points of Revelation. It may also denote the power of predicting future events.—(See 1 Cor 11:5).

“The discerning of spirits,” i.e., the faculty of discerning whether certain communications come from God, or are only artifices of the enemy. “Kinds of tongues.” The faculty of speaking several languages of which one before knew nothing. “Interpretation of speeches”—in Greek, γλωσσων, of tongues. The faculty of explaining in the vernacular language of the people these unknown tongues to which those who had the gift of tongues gave utterance. These two giftswere not always united in the same person. The man who could give expression to unknown tongues had not always the power of explaining them, and vice versa, as is clear in 1 Cor 14:28.

1 Cor 12:11. But all these gifts, differing in number and variety, are bestowed by one and the same Spirit, who also co-operates in their exercise, distributing them to each one according as he may think fit and proper. (And hence, one man should not be puffed up with pride, nor should another pine away from envy on account of the gifts bestowed by the Holy Ghost according to his own gratuitous pleasure).

“Worketh.” The Greek word, ενεργει, means, inworketh, i.e., co-operates in the exercise of all these gifts—“one and the same spirit.” Hence, instead of creating disunion, the gifts should, on the contrary, be the source of harmony, as having the same cause and principle. The Apostle is not tired of repeatedly inculcating this truth—viz., that all these gifts, differing in number and variety, have, still, but one principle—the Holy Ghost—in order to reproach the Corinthians with the divisions, of which these gifts were the occasion among them. “Dividing to every one,” in the Greek, ἰδία ἑκάστῶ, severally: “as he (the Holy Ghost) wills.” In these words the Apostle conveys an additional reason why these gifts should neither be the occasion of pride to one party, nor of envy to the other; because, in the distribution of them, in giving greater gifts to one man, and lesser gifts to another, and none at all to some, the Holy Ghost is influenced solely by his own will and pleasure; for, by looking to their former state, in which they anathematized Jesus, and served dumb idols (1 Cor 12:2-3) they will find that none of them had any claim to such gifts.

1 Cor 12:12. (And that the very difference of these gifts conferred on the several members of the Church should, far from creating disunion, on the contrary, secure harmony, is clear from the example of the human body and its several component members). For, as the human body is one, although composed of different members, nor does the difference or multitude of members make it cease to be one body; so it is also with the mystical body of which Christ is head. (It is one, although composed of several members.)

Under an expressive metaphor, derived from the mutual co-operation and dependence of the several members of the human body the Apostle points out the relation which the different members of the mystic body, of which Christ is head, hold towards each other, and inculcates cordial union in contributing mutually to the common advantage of the entire Church, without repining on one side, or pride on the other. “As the body,” i.e., the human body, “is one,” … “and all the members of the body,” (in the common Greek, of that one body, the chief MSS. omit “one,”) “so is also Christ;” i.e., the mystic body of which Christ is head. It is needless to remind the readers of Roman history how successfully this famous apologue of the human body was employed by Menenius Agrippa in reconciling the Roman Plebeians with the Patricians.—(Vide Livy, Book ii. c. xxii.)

1 Cor 12:13. For that the mystic body of Christ is one, is clear from this fact, that in baptism we all, whether Jews or Gentiles, slaves or freemen, are by one Spirit, ingrafted on the one body of Christ. And besides baptism, we have another bond of union, in our having been made partakers of the sacred blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, and thus made into one Spirit.

He applies to the mystic body of Christ, the two qualities which he predicated of the natural body in the preceding verse—viz., that it is one; and, secondly, that it is composed of many and different members. Applying the first part in this verse, he proves that the mystic body of Christ is one. “Baptized into one body,” i.e., by baptism ingrafted on the mystic body of Christ. “And in one spirit we have been all made to drink.” The common Greek is, εἰς ἑν πνευμα, into one spirit. The interpretation of the Paraphrase, which refers this to the Adorable Eucharist, seems preferable to any other. In the first ages of the Church, the Eucharist was given to children under the species of wine; or it might have been the general practice to administer it under that species; because, the administering of it under the one species or the other, or under both, is a point of discipline which may vary at different times according to the will of the Church. In this interpretation, the words mean, that having been “made to drink” of the Eucharist, they are formed into one spirit, in the same way, as speaking of the participation of the Eucharist under the species of bread (1 Cor 10:17), he says they are made, “one body.” The words may also mean, that they were filled with and drank plentifully of the grace of the same holy Ghost, which was abundantly poured out upon them.

1 Cor 12:14. And that this mystic body has many members follows from the very nature of a body, which is composed not of one, but of many members.

He proves that the Church must be composed of different members. This follows from the very fact of its being a body. The Apostle wishes the Corinthians to learn from the natural body the duties which they owe each other. In this verse, he shows that there must be a variety in the members of the mystic body, and that all, therefore, cannot have the same gifts.

1 Cor 12:15. And in the natural body were the foot to complain that it is not the hand, would it, therefore, cease to be of the body, or to partake of its honours?

In this verse, the Apostle undertakes to offer consolation to the less favoured members of the Church—“the foot”—and thereby to remove all ground for murmuring on their part. He consoles them by the assurance, that they partake of the honours of the mystic body, no less than the most highly gifted and exalted of their brethren.

1 Cor 12:16. The same holds for the several inferior members, should they murmur or repine at the place allotted to them respectively in the body—(v.g.), should the ear murmur for not being the eye, would it, therefore cease to belong to the entire body, or to partake of its honour and glory? By no means.

“The ear,” probably refers to the hearers, and to persons requiring instruction. “The eye,” to the learned, and to the teachers among them.

1 Cor 12:17. And if the entire body were reduced to an eye, as the repining member would have it (for, the other members might just as well wish to be the eye as the repining one), where would be the ear?—where the sense of smelling?

He shows in this verse, that consistently with the nature of a body, which must be composed of a variety of members (verse 14), all can neither hold the same place, nor enjoy the same privileges. If, in the natural body, all were reduced to an eye, where would be the ear, or sense of hearing?—where the sense of smelling? So it is also with the mystical body of Christ, if all were teachers, where would be the disciples and hearers?

1 Cor 12:18. But now God has so arranged the different members in the body, that each one should hold its proper place according as it has pleased him.

He shows the ordination of God to be in favour of this diversity of members, as well in the mystical as in the natural body, and to the supreme and adorable will of God all should at once humbly submit.

1 Cor 12:19. And if, contrary to this ordination of God, all the members were reduced to one, where would be the harmony and order of a body regularly organized and composed of different parts?
In this verse he repeats, in an interrogatory form, the assertion which he already made (1 Cor 12:14)—viz., that it is of the very nature of an organized body, to be composed, not of one, but of many members.

1 Cor 12:20. But now, there are many component members, and but one body, as has been asserted, verse 12.

Here he repeats his assertion (verse 12), to the proof of which the preceding verses are devoted.

1 Cor 12:21. (And as the less favoured members should neither repine at their place in the body, nor envy the more highly favoured, so these latter should not in turn grow proud of their position, nor despise the less favoured members.) The eye cannot say to the hand, I require not your assistance; nor can the head say to the feet, you are not necessary for me.

After addressing himself in the foregoing passage to the less honourable members, the Apostle now points out to the more highly favoured, their duties in regard to the less honoured members—viz., that they should treat them with greater attention and respect in proportion to their wants; for they stand in mutual need of each other. By “the eye” and “head” are meant these who hold an exalted position, analogous to that which the eye and head occupy in the natural body. From this verse the Apostle wishes it to be inferred, that those who hold a more exalted position in the Church cannot dispense with the aid and assistance of their more humble brethren.

1 Cor 12:22. Far from undervaluing any member as useless, we should keep in mind, that the very members, which appear to be the most feeble, are the most necessary for the maintenance of life—(v.g.), the brains, intestines, &c.

Not only are the inferior members necessary for the more honourable, but they are indispensable for the existence of the entire body, and the most feeble are the most necessary (v.g.), the brains and intestines.

1 Cor 12:23. And on the members which we regard as least honourable, we bestow the greatest honour, by more studiously covering them with raiment, and those that are called the uncomely parts are covered with greater care and decency.

“The less honourable members,” probably refer to the feet and the lower part of the trunk of the body, especially the ducts, by which nature empties herself and discharges what is redundant. “More abundant honour,” by more studiously covering them with raiment. “Our uncomely parts,” probably refer to the pudenda. In the moral body they refer to sinners, who should be particularly attended to; and hence, their failings cloaked and concealed, as much as possible.

1 Cor 12:24. But our comely parts, viz., the hands, face, &c., require no particular care or honour in having them clothed. But God has so attempered the human body, and nicely balanced all things, as that men bestow more external honour and care on the members that require it.

“But our comely parts,” such as the face, eyes, hands, “have no need” of particular care in having them clothed. This he adds, to conciliate the more highly gifted members of the Church, who might take offence at the foregoing. “But God has tempered the body together.” This he has done by making compensation to the less honoured members for their native unworthiness by adding greater external care and culture, “giving more abundant honour to that which wanted it.”

1 Cor 12:25. In order that there should be no schism or division in the body in consequence of the less favoured members repining at the place allotted to them, but that all might mutually assist and anxiously co-operate with one another in promoting the welfare of the entire body.

The schism of which St. Paul here speaks, is, of course, to be dreaded only in the moral or mystical body. To it, the Apostle wishes to apply all that he has been saying regarding the relations, which the members of the natural body bear to each other.

1 Cor 12:26. And such is the concord and union established by God, that if one member suffer pain, all the others sympathize with it—if one member rejoice and feel pleasure, the others exult with it.

In the mystical body, the order of charity requires that all the others sympathize with the suffering, and exult with the delighted member.

1 Cor 12:27. Now, you are the body of Christ, and fellow-members with each other. (As fellow-members, then, depending on each other, you should afford one another mutual aid and assistance).

In this verse, the Apostle tells the Corinthians and all Christians, that they should apply to themselves, as the mystical body of Christ, what he had been saying of the natural or human body; it was for the purpose of pointing out their relative duties towards one another, that he introduced the comparison between them and the natural body. “You are the body of Christ,” from which they should infer that all which has been said of the relations and duties of the several members of the natural body should be understood to apply to them, and fulfilled by them towards one another.

“And members of member,” i.e., fellow-members of the same body, mutually connected with, and depending on each other. The words are probably allusive to the passage in the Book of Genesis (Gen 2:23). “This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh,” which is mystically understood of Christ and his Church. The words, as containing this allusion, might also mean, members of Christ, because they are members of the body of which he is head, or chief member—hence, “members of member,” μελη εκ μελους. The Greek reading runs thus: μελη εκ μερους, members in part. The Greek reading, followed by the Vulgate, and still found in the manuscripts of St. Germain and Clermont, was, εκ μελους. The meaning of the words, according to the present Greek, is, that they are particular members of Christ’s mystic body, and all, therefore, cannot have the same gifts. This interpretation accords well with the Syriac reading of the words—you are members in your proper places.

1 Cor 12:28. And as the natural body is composed of different members; so it is also the case with the mystical body, or Church of Christ: God has placed in it different members destined for different purposes. First, Apostles, his own legates. Secondly, Prophets, to explain the truths of faith by a sudden inspiration. Thirdly, Doctors, having the faculty of explaining the doctrines of faith in a plain, intelligible way to the people. After these, men gifted with the divine power of working miracles. Next, those gifted with the power of curing diseases. After them, those who have the gift of consoling the miserable, and such as are in pain and sorrow. Next, those who are gifted with peculiar prudence in managing the temporalities of the Church; then those who have the gift of strange and unknown tongues; and, finally, those who have the gift of interpreting those tongues in the vernacular of the country.

The Apostle adopts in this verse the similitude of the natural body to the Church; and by recounting part of the gifts and offices conferred on her, he shows that God has set the different members as he thought proper, conformably to what is said (1 Cor 12:18). He places these gifts and offices in their order of dignity.

“First, Apostles.”—(See Gal. 1:1). These may be regarded as the visible head of the body, as being Christ’s representatives and vicegerents. “Secondly, Prophets.” They were gifted with the “words of wisdom” (verse 8). They may be regarded as the eyes of the body. “Thirdly, Teachers,” who had the faculty of explaining the truths of faith in a plain, simple way. They had the “word of knowledge” (verse 8); the tongue of the body. It is observed by Commentators, that these teachers of the gospel are preferred by the Apostle to those who had the gifts of miracles and of tongues, so much prized by the Corinthians. “After that, miracles.” The workers of miracles—the hands of the body. In the latter part of this verse, the Apostle employs the abstract for the concrete term. “Then, the graces of healings.” Those who are divinely endowed with the gift of healing bodily diseases. “Helps.” Those who assisted their brethren in distress, not by any miraculous operation, but by the performance of the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. “Governments,” are understood by some to refer to the directors of souls. The interpretation of the Paraphrase seems preferable. “Kinds of tongues.”—(See 1 Cor 12:10). St. Chrysostom remarks, that almost the last place is given by the Apostle to this gift, so highly prized by the Corinthians. “Interpretation of speeches.” These words are wanting in the Greek copies. But as all Greek manuscripts give the same words in an interrogatory form, next verse—“do all interpret?” it is likely, that the Greek copy from which the Vulgate was taken, was the correct one. The Vulgate is preferred by Beza.

1 Cor 12:29. Are all favoured with these gifts? Are all Apostles?—Prophets?—Doctors? as explained above.
1 Cor 12:30. Are all gifted with the faculty of working miracles?—or with the faculty of healing diseases?—or, with the faculty of speaking in unknown tongues?—or, with the faculty of explaining these tongues in the vernacular of the country? (By no means; for, if so, where would be the variety of members necessary to constitute an organized body?—verse 19. This diversity of gifts in the Church has been arranged by God for the greater beauty and harmony of the entire mystical body).

The several questions are equivalent to so many negations. By them the Apostle intends to assert, that in the mystical, as well as in the natural body, a variety of functions and offices is necessary, in order to consult for the beauty and harmony of the entire body. Each one, therefore, should rest content with whatever place it may please Providence to assign him in the Church.

1 Cor 12:31. But have emulation for gifts, not the most honourable, but the most useful for yourselves and the Church. And I will point out to you a way for exercising them with profit, or, wherein you may walk, a way far exceeding any gift or endowment; and, this is charity!

“But be zealous,” &c. The Greek word for “be zealous,” ζηλοῦτε, may be rendered, you are zealous. The Vulgate, æmulamini, “be zealous,” is preferable. Estius understands the words conditionally, thus: If you are zealous for gifts, be zealous for the better gifts. This is in accordance with the Syriac Paraphrase, and also derives probability from this consideration; that it is not likely the Apostle gives an absolute precept to be zealous for gifts, which might in the end prove injurious.

“A more excellent way.” This is charity, which leads to God and to eternal glory and which sanctifies the use of all the other gifts.

Father MacEvilly's Commentary on 1 Thesslonians Chapter 5

ANALYSIS OF 1 THESSALONIANS CHAPTER 5
Scripture links are to the Douay-Rheims translation

After having pointed out in the foregoing chapter, the order and several other circumstances of the Resurrection, the Apostle tells the Thessalonians in this, that there is one circumstance of the General Resurrection, which it is neither necessary nor possible for them to know at present; that circumstance is, the precise time at which it will occur (1 Th 5:1). They know from faith, that it will come unexpectedly, and will bring sudden destruction on the wicked; but it will not surprise, nor will it come unawares upon, the just, so as to find them unprepared, since, as children of light, they are always on the alert, always employed in the works of light, in hopes of the Lord’s coming (1 Th 5:2–8). He exhorts them to correspond with the designs of God in their regard, putting on the breast-plate of faith and charity, and the helmet of hope—to live in the expectation of salvation from the goodness of God, who gave us his Son for Saviour (1 The 5:9-11).

He inculcates, with regard to the people, the necessity of discharging certain duties towards their Pastors; while, to the latter, he points out the duties which they in turn owe their people (1 Th 5:12–15).

He enjoins on all the faithful to cultivate and exhibit spiritual joy—to practise assiduous prayer—to employ the gifts of the Holy Ghost with profit and discernment, and to abstain from all appearance of evil (1 Th 5:16–22).

Finally, he beseeches God to grant them the gift of perfect sanctity both of soul and body, and recommends himself to their prayers; he salutes them all, and adjures them to have this Epistle read to all the brethren. He concludes with the usual form of Apostolical benediction.

COMMENTARY ON 1 THESSALONIANS CHAPTER 5
Text in purple indicates Fr. MacEvilly's paraphrase of the scripture he is commenting on

1 Th 5:1. But as to the periods of time or precise moments at which this great event shall take place, it is not necessary (nor indeed is it possible) that I should write to you.

The word “times,” denotes longer periods, such as years; “moments,” shorter terms, such as months, days, hours.

“You need not that we should write to you,” as if to say, it was necessary for your consolation, that we should explain to you the order and the other circumstances of the Resurrection referred to already; but the time you need not, nay, you cannot know.

1 Th 5:2. For you know yourselves full well, from the principles of your faith, that the day of the Lord shall come suddenly and unexpectedly, like a thief in the night.

He shall come unexpectedly. This is true of the death of each one, when the day of judgment for him shall have virtually arrived; and, although Antichrist will precede it, this, however, shall not be a sign so much of the precise time of Christ’s coming, as of the approaching end of the world; and so far as the signs in the sun and in the moon, &c., are concerned, these may occur, probably on the very day of Judgment.

1 Th 5:3. For when the impious shall say, peace and security, i.e., all things are quite secure; then, shall sudden and unexpected destruction come upon them, as the throes of child-birth come upon a woman with child, from which they will not be able to escape.

“For when they,” the impious, “shall say peace,” &c., because as it happened in the days of Noe, so shall men be eating and drinking, &c., at the coming of the Lord.—(Matthew 24:37).

“For,” is omitted in the Greek. The example of the woman with child is frequent in the SS. Scripture. As she knows that she is to bring forth, but knows not the moment in which she may be suddenly seized with the throes of child-birth, so neither will the wicked know when the final destruction shall come upon them.

1 Th 5:4. But although this day may come unexpectedly, like the approach of the nightly thief, still, it will not surprise you unawares, who are not unprepared for it, having been enlightened by faith, and free from the darkness of infidelity and sin.

“Overtake,” i.e. catch by surprise, so as to be unprepared for it.

1 Th 5:5. For, how could you be in darkness, you, who are the sons of light and the sons of day? For, we Christians, are not the children of night nor of darkness.

“Children of Light,” i.e., called to perform good works, suited to appear in open light, and not followers of the works of darkness. “Light” and “darkness” are frequently used in the SS. Scripture, to signify good and evil. Christians are called “children of light,” in allusion to the light of faith which they received, and because they are called to good works, forsaking the darkness of infidelity and sin.

1 Th 5:6. Let us, therefore correspond with our calling, and not be, like the infidels, engaged in the works of darkness, regardless of the coming of our Lord but, like men who are called to the works of light, let us be on the alert, and let us be sober.

From the metaphors of light and darkness, the Apostle takes occasion to exhort them to good works, to live up to their Christian profession, which will avail them nothing, but rather deepen their damnation, if, like Pagans, they indulge in the works of darkness. “Sleep as others do.” The Vulgate has sicut et ceteri, “even as others do.”

1 Th 5:7. For the time suited for sleep and drunkenness is the night; hence, those who indulge in sleep and those who indulge in drunkenness, do so in the night (we should, therefore, not indulge in sleep or drunkenness, which are unsuited to our vocation, or to the time of our actions, i.e., the day).

We should watch and be sober, in consequence of being children of light, because the opposite characteristics—viz., sleep and drunkenness—are peculiar to the night. On this account it is that men select the night for indulging in sleep and drunkenness. Hence, as these deeds are unsuited to our calling, or to the time of our action, we should wholly abstain from the works signified by them.

1 Th 5:8. Let us, therefore, who belong to the day (abstaining from these deeds which are signified by sleep and drunkenness), be vigilant and sober, putting on faith enlivened by charity, as a breast-plate, and the hope of salvation, for a helmet.

We should, therefore, as children of the day, perform the works represented, or signified, by vigilance and soberness; but, in order to do so, we should be cased in the Christian panoply; for otherwise, although sober and vigilant, we will not be able to make a stand against the powerful enemies with whom we have to contend. “The breast-plate of faith and charity.” In the panoply of the Christian soldier (Ephes. 6). The Apostle calls “justice” the “breast-plate,” but it does not differ from this—for, faith animated by charity is “justice.” “And hope of salvation for helmet;” since hope will raise and elevate our thoughts on high. Three things are necessary for us—vigilance, sobriety, and armour. St. Chrysostom excites to vigilance in the narrow way of salvation, which is beset on all sides with dangers and precipices, by the example of rope-dancers, and of those who walk on the brink of precipices, all whose senses are awake and on the alert; so ought it be with us in the way of salvation. We ought to be sober, free from all vicious affections; and for armour we should have faith, hope, but especially active, operative charity towards our neighbour.

1 Th 5:9. I say, we should put on the helmet of hope. For, God has not destined us for damnation, but for eternal salvation, to be acquired through the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ.

No commentary is offered on this verse beyond the paraphrase.

1 Th 5:10. Who died for us, in order that, whether living or dead, we may live with him here a life of grace, and hereafter a life of eternal glory.

“Watch,” in this verse, means to be in this life, and “sleep,” to be dead; hence, they have a signification different from that which they have in the preceding verses.

1 Th 5:11. In consequence, then, of these cheering motives of your hope—viz., the death of Christ to bestow on us eternal life, continue to console one another, to edify one another, by word and deed, as indeed, you are already doing.

“Edify one another;” for the meaning of this word, see 1st Epistle to Cor. 8:1. “As you also do,” he adds these words of well-timed praise with a view of rendering his exhortation more agreeable.

1 Th 5:12. But we implore of you to reverence and respect those who are labouring amongst you in preaching the gospel, and who preside over you in a spiritual capacity, and admonish you of your duties.

He here addresses the people, and inculcates reverence and respect for their prelates and the ministers of the gospel.

1 Th 5:13. And treat them with more abundant honour by administering to their support in consequence of their labours amongst you, and this from a feeling of charity. Be at peace with them.

“Have peace with them,” i.e., have no difference with your pastors. In the Greek it is, have peace among yourselves; a reading which is preferred by some, Estius among the rest.

1 Th 5:14. But, we entreat you, brethren, who preside, to correct the disorderly, who are causing disturbances, to console the faint-hearted under afflictions, to prop up the weak who may be easily scandalized, accommodating yourselves to their weakness, and to be patient towards all.

He now addresses those who preside: “Be patient towards all men,” whether they be “unquiet,” “feeble-minded,” or “weak.”

1 Th 5:15. Take care that no one, in a spirit of vengeance, render evil for evil to any man, but always endeavour to do good to all men whomsoever, whether brethren or unbelievers.

“But ever follow towards all men.” This is perfectly conformable to the precept of our Lord in the gospel, commanding us to love all men, not excepting our very enemies.

1 Th 5:16-17. Under all circumstances spiritually rejoice. Pray without ceasing.

“Pray without ceasing.” This, of course, is to be understood in this sense, that we should frequently and at certain times pray, and that the intervals of labour should be consecrated to God by prayer, and that our actions should be of such a nature as to be referable to his glory.

1 Th 5:18. Give thanks to God in all things (whether in prosperity or adversity), for, this is the will of God, that you should all do so, through Jesus Christ.

“This is the will of God;” is referred by some to the three preceding precepts of spiritual joy, prayer, and thanksgiving; by others, it is confined to the precept of thanksgiving.

1 Th 5:19. Do not extinguish the Holy Ghost in his gifts, by altogether prohibiting the exercise of spiritual gifts.

It appears that many pretended to the gifts of the Holy Ghost, prophecy, miracles, &c., who had them not, and that to prevent altogether, any such practices of imposition, the heads of the Church wished to prohibit the exercise of these gifts, in every instance. Of this the Apostle disapproves. Others interpret the verse, do not expel from you the Holy Ghost; thus, as far as you are concerned, destroying him. The word “extinguish” has reference to the form in which the Holy Ghost is frequently exhibited in SS. Scripture—viz., that of fire.

1 Th 5:20. But especially do not despise the useful gifts of prophecy.

For the meaning of “prophecies,” see chapter 16, 1st Epistle to Corinthians.

1 Th 5:21. But examine all matters proposed to you by those who have the gift of prophecy, and retain what is good.

There is question here of private prophecies, and of doubtful matters, which had not been defined by competent authority,—and the Apostle is addressing the rulers, whom he authorizes to judge of such matters, and reject or retain them, as they may think fit. Hence, this passage contains no argument against the Dogmatic Decrees of Councils; for, in them, there is question of quite a different matter altogether, a matter defined by a competent authority.

1 Th 5:22. Fly everything that has even the appearance of evil.

No commentary is offered on this verse beyond the paraphrase.

1 Th 5:23. May God, the author of peace, perfectly sanctify you, so that your entire being, your soul, considered both as to its sensitive and rational part, and your body, may be preserved without reproach, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, when he shall render to every one, according to his works.

“Your whole spirit and soul.” He considers the human soul under two different respects, and as exercising different faculties. “Spirit,” is the rational soul guided in its judgment by reason, and exercising the higher faculties of intellect and will. “Soul,” the sensitive, concupiscible part, guided by sensation, common to us with the beasts. So that your mind, your will, and all your senses, external and internal, be preserved from the stain of sin.

Fr. MacEvilly offers no no commentary on the final 5 verses beyond the following paraphrase.

1 Th 5:24. God, who called you to sanctity, is faithful, and he will perfect what he has begun, by giving you the grace of perseverance.

1 Th 5:25. Brethren, pray for us.

1 Th 5:26. In my name, salute all the brethren in a holy kiss, the symbol of charity.

1 Th 5:27. I conjure you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to have this Epistle read in a public assembly of all the faithful.

1 Th 5:28. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

Father MacEvilly's Commentary on 1 Corinthians Chapter 11

ANALYSIS OF 1 CORINTHIANS CHAPTER 11
Scripture links are to the Douay Rheims translation

The Apostle undertakes, in this chapter, the correction of three abusive practices, which prevailed at Corinth. The first was, the indecorous practice on the part of the Corinthian females of appearing in the churches with heads uncovered, while the men appeared with their heads covered. In order to combat this abuse, he shows the relation of inferiority and subjection which the woman holds towards the man; whence he infers the deordination of the man appearing with covered head, and the woman with head uncovered, and from other reasons of congruity, and finally, from the practice of the Church, he demonstrates the same (1 Cor 11:1–16).

The second regarded their conduct at the Agapes, celebrated immediately before Holy Communion. He reproves the Corinthians for their dissensions on such occasions. He taxes the rich with a want of consideration for the poor, when they assemble together; and in order to bring them to a sense of what they owed this divine banquet, he relates the history of the institution of the adorable Eucharist (1 Cor 11:16–26).

The third regarded the sacrilegious impiety of unworthy communion. He points out its enormity (1 Cor 11:27), its antidote (1 Cor 11:28), and in order to stimulate them to greater diligence in their preparation for this divine banquet, he again depicts the enormity of unworthy communion (1 Cor 11:29). He refers to instances of its punishment even among themselves (1 Cor 11:30). He shows the mode of avoiding these punishments (1 Cor 11:31), and again reverts to the subject of the Agapes.

COMMENTARY ON 1 CORINTHIANS CHAPTER 11
Text in purple indicates Fr. MacEvilly's paraphrase of the scripture he is commenting on

1 Cor 11:1. (Since, then, regardless of my own temporal ease and profit, I have had always in view, the glory of God, and my neighbour’s spiritual advantage); be you imitators of me, as I have been of Christ.

This is connected with the preceding chapter, in the last verse of which the Apostle encouraged the Corinthians to perform certain laudable actions after his own example. In this verse, he gives the reason for proposing his own example, viz., because he imitated Christ; and it is only inasmuch as they imitate their heavenly model, that we are to follow the example of superiors.

1 Cor 11:2. Now, I have reason to praise you for being mindful of all my precepts, and for observing all my ordinances, as I have delivered them to you.

Before entering on the disagreeable duty of denouncing abuses, the Apostle, in order to soften down the harshness generally involved in their correction, with apostolic prudence, first compliments the Corinthians for what was deserving of praise in them. “That in all things you are mindful,” &c. “All things,” must be taken with some limitation; for, in this very chapter, the Apostle censures them for the violation of some of his precepts (verse 22). Hence, the words must be confined to the more religious among them; or, if they be understood to extend to all, then, they must mean, on the whole “you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances.” By “ordinances,” as appears from the Greek word, παραδοσεις, are meant oral instructions. The word “delivered” also, as appears from the Greek word, παρεδωκα, means, orally delivered.

1 Cor 11:3. But I wish you to know, that Christ is the head or superior to whom every man is immediately subject; and the man is the immediate head or superior to whom the woman owes subjection; and God, or, the blessed Trinity, is the head or superior to whom Christ, as Man, is subject.

The first abuse which he wishes to correct is, that of women appearing with heads uncovered in the Church, either at times of prayer or public instruction. It is not unlikely that, among the several questions proposed to the Apostle by the Corinthians (7:1), he was consulted about the propriety of women appearing in the Church without veils. In order to point out more clearly the impropriety of such conduct, he shows the place which the woman holds with regard to her husband, at the same time he shows the relation of subjection which the husband holds in regard to Christ, and following up the order of subjection, he brings it to the supreme headship and high dominion of God. “The head of every man is Christ.” He is the head of every woman also; but the man is her immediate head or superior. “The head of Christ,” as Man—it is under this respect that the Apostle considers him—“is God,” or the Blessed Trinity. This is said of him in the same nature, of which it is said, “Pater major me est.” Hence, all dominion is ultimately referred to God.

1 Cor 11:4. Every man who prophesies or prays, having his head covered, disgraces his head.

“With his head covered.” The Greek is κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων, having on his head; of course, covering is understood; hence, our version expresses the sense. “Disgraces his head.” because, as the covering of the head was, according to the usage prevalent in the days of the Apostle, a sign of subjection to those before whom it was covered, the man, by having his head covered, would imply that he had a superior on earth; and hence, he would be disgracing his dignity, as lord of creation. It is observed by Commentators, that a different and contrary meaning is now attached to covering and uncovering the head. It is hardly necessary to remark that, with us, the inferior keeps the head uncovered before the superior, in token of reverence and respect. Even of old, the Jewish High Priest, in the discharge of his sacerdotal functions, wore a tiara on his head, with his feet naked; but this was done for a mystical reason, to signify that in the Old Law things were obscured and veiled in mystery.

1 Cor 11:5. While, on the other hand, every woman, who publicly prays or prophesies with head uncovered, disgraces her head; it is just as bad as if she were shaved.

It is a matter of dispute what the word “prophesying” means. It is clear, the Apostle is censuring a fault committed in the public assemblies convened either for the purposes of prayer or instruction, &c. But how it comes to pass that the Apostle censures women merely for prophesying or speaking publicly with heads uncovered, instead of preventing them from speaking at all in the temples, as he does (14:34), is a matter of difficulty; to solve which some say, that by “prophesying,” is meant joining in singing psalms, in which women could take a part. This is a signification of the words not uncommon in SS. Scripture (v.g.), “Saul amongt he prophets” (1 Sam 19:24), i.e., the singers of God’s praises. Others, by “prophesying” understand, not the predicting of future events, but the explaining of the Scriptures in an extraordinary manner, as the result of the inspiration of the moment. These say, that the Apostle censures the women who speak publicly in the Church, for two reasons: First, for doing so with heads uncovered—and this is the reason expressed by him here; and, secondly, for doing so at all, which he reserves for 1 Cor 14:34; whereas, the women who pray in public, he censures only on the ground of appearing with head uncovered; and this is a fair reply; because a person may censure one bad quality of an action, without entering into a condemnation of all the evils which it involves, if his scope do not require it, as is the case here with the Apostle. Others understand the word “prophesying,” of the prediction of future events, as in the case of the daughters of Philip.—(Acts 21:1). The former is, however, the more probable view of the case; for, although it was a fault in them to speak at all in public; still, that was not precisely the fault which the Apostle intended to censure here.

The Corinthian women were remarkable for immodesty in dress, and after their conversion, they adhered to the same, as a matter of fashion in the country. This proved a source of offence to the converted Jews, whose women always appeared with, veils in the temple; and, as this immodesty in dress was the result of improper conduct, to which it also served as an incentive on the part of the Pagan population, it might be, that the Pagans, on seeing Christian women appearing in the same dress with the uncoverted females, would regard the morals of both in the same light, to the detriment of Christian faith and morality. As a city dedicated to Venus, Corinth was the very seat of impurity. Hence, the zeal of the Apostle in remedying this evil. Of course, the meaning attached to covering or uncovering the head, depends on custom, which is always variable. The Apostle argues from the meaning of the usage in his own time. This much, however, is to be inferred, as a precept binding at all times, that women should always appear in modest, becoming dress, whether in the church or elsewhere; but particularly when assisting at the Adorable Sacrifice, and, above all, when approaching Holy Communion.

1 Cor 11:6. Now, if a woman be not veiled, she might as well be shorn; but if it be disgraceful for a woman to appear shorn or bald (as it surely is), then, let her be veiled.

“If a woman be not covered, let her be shorn,” i.e., she might as well be shorn. It was the general feeling that women should be veiled. This was indicated by her natural veil or long hair, which nature gave her as an emblem of that veil which modesty should superadd, and if she throw away this latter veil, she might as well throw away the former or natural one; and so, be shorn. “But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn,” &c., as it surely is, being adopted only in case of extreme grief, or inflicted as a mark of infamy on harlots or adulteresses. This, of course, contains no argument against the propriety of religious females cutting off their hair; because they lay aside their hair in token of their total renunciation of the world, and their entire devotedness to a better, a heavenly lover. Moreover, the natural disgrace attached to cutting the hair regards those females only who engage in the world and mix in society.

1 Cor 11:7. The man ought not to cover his head, because he is the subject in whom God has cause to glory, as in his most perfect work, and the glory of God is to be manifested and not concealed; he is also the image of God, made after God’s likeness; having, therefore, no superior on earth, he should, as a mark of pre-eminence, keep his head uncovered. But the woman is the subject wherein the man has cause to glory; and hence, in token of subjection to him, whose glory she is, and whose control she is to acknowledge, she should be veiled.

He assigns a reason why the woman and not the man should wear a veil; the man should not wear a veil. “because he is the image and glory of God,” i.e., the glorious image of God; or perhaps, it is better to read the words, “glory” and “image” separately, on account of the following words “the woman is the glory of the man.” She is a subject of glory to him, having been formed from his side. Hence, Adam cried out on seeing Eve: “Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis,” &c.—(Genesis 2). Is not the woman also the image of God? Moses says of both: “ad imaginem Suam creavit Deus hominem. Mascuium et feminam creavit eos.”—(Genesis 1:27). But still, the image of God is more clearly reflected in the man, his faculties having been more vigorous, and his dominion over creation more universal, than is the case with the woman; for, she herself is subject to man’s control. Moreover, he refrains from calling the woman, the image of God, because she is immediately the image of man, having been formed from man for an assistance like unto himself. Hence, she is the image of God, in the same way as she has Christ for her head, i.e., mediante viro.

1 Cor 11:8. For, that the woman is the glory of the man, whose superiority, therefore, she should acknowledge by wearing a veil, is clear from the fact, that she was formed out of the man, but not reciprocally, the man, in the first instance, out of her.

The Apostle points out the reasons of the inferiority of the woman, in point of nature, having been formed from man, and having been consequently posterior to him in the order of creation.

1 Cor 11:9. The same is clear from the end of woman’s creation, which was the service of man, to be a helpmate to him; but the woman was not the end of the man’s creation. As, then, subserviency implies inferiority, and the means are inferior to the end; hence, the superiority of the man over the woman.

Another ground of inferiority: the purpose of her creation was to be a helpmate to him; and hence, as the woman is, in a certain sense, from the man, as the man is from God, and as she was created for the man, as the man was, in a certain sense, for God, she is the glory of the man, and should acknowledge his superiority by wearing a veil.

1 Cor 11:10. She ought, therefore, wear a veil on her head, in token of her subjection to her husband’s power, on account of the angelic spirits, who are present in our temples, and prostrate before their annihilated God, encircle our altars during the celebration of the divine mysteries.

“A power over her head.” The thing signified, viz., “power,” is used for the sign, viz., a veil, which is a sign of power, one the one hand, and of subjection, on the other. He appeals to the women to guard against impropriety in dress, on account of the angelic pure spirits who are present in our temples, and shall one day appear as witnesses before God, of their immodesty and disorderly conduct. St. John Chrysostom, as we are informed by his disciple, St. Nilus (Epistola ad Anastasium), saw the temple filled with hosts of angels during the celebration of the divine mysteries. And St. Chrysostom himself assures us, that the Cherubim and Seraphim assist at the divine mysteries in prostrate adoration.—(Homilia de Sacra Mensa). St. Gregory (Libro iv. Dialog. chapter 58) asserts the same. How great, then, should be the feelings of awe and reverence which we ought to carry with us into the house of God, in which the Lord of glory remains really, truly, and substantially, on our altars. Quam terribilis est locus iste; non est hic aliud nisi domus Dei, et porta cæli.—(Genesis 28:17).

By “angels” others understand the bishops and priests who may be endangered in their ministry, unless the woman appear clad in modest dress. The Prophet, Malachy, (Mal 2:7) calls the priests “the angels of the Lord of armies.”

1 Cor 11:11. But the man should by no means grow insolent on account of the superiority which we have asserted for him over the woman; for the ordinance of the Lord has been, that the man requires the assistance of the woman, and the woman, that of the man.

Lest the man should grow insolent on account of the superiority which has been asserted for him over the woman; and the woman, on the other hand, should despond and undervalue her position too much, the Apostle now asserts that the ordinance and disposition of God—“in the Lord”—is, that they should mutually depend on each other; and this holds particularly in the management of the household and the education of their families—they should, therefore, live in indissoluble union.

1 Cor 11:12. And as the first woman was formed from the man, so now, in turn, is man born of woman, and this by the arrangement of God, the primary source and fountain of all things, in order to secure for them reciprocal dependence and mutual love.

And as the first woman was formed out of the man; so, now, man is born of woman, God, the first source and principle of everything, so arranging it, ex ipso et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia.—(Rom. 11).

1 Cor 11:13. I appeal to your own sense of propriety, if it be becoming in a woman to appear at prayer without a veil in the public assemblies of the faithful.

He now appeals to their own sense of propriety in proof of what he has been saying; “yourselves,” in Greek ἐν ὑμιν αὐτοῖς, in yourselves; “to pray to God, uncovered.” He omits the word “prophesying,” because veiled, or unveiled, this latter would be improper in her, as he shows (1 Cor 14:34).

1 Cor 11:14. Does not a sense of natural decency, manifested by the repugnance which men commonly feel to nourish their hair, show us, that it is a disgrace for a man to nourish his hair in a womanlike way.

“Nature” may also refer to the usage or custom, which is a sort of second nature. The custom among the Greeks or Hebrews was, for the woman to wear long, and the men, short hair. Of course, the Apostle does not contemplate the case in which men may have particular reasons for wearing long hair.

1 Cor 11:15. For the God of nature has given her long flowing hair as a natural veil (which should, at the same time, remind her of putting on a head-covering, in token of submission to her husband).

This precept of observing propriety in dress is obligatory on women, not only on occasions of public prayer, but at all times.

1 Cor 11:16. But if any person, anxious for superiority in argument, will insist on the propriety of woman appearing unveiled in public, my only reply to him—(and this is the last and the strongest that can be adduced, viz., that of authority)—is, that neither we Apostles (or Jewish converts), nor the Church of God, know any such custom.

His last and most forcible argument on this subject, is the practice of the Church—the safest rule that can be followed in all matters appertaining to either faith or morals. “Contentious.” The Greek word, φιλονεικος, means, fond of superiority in argument. “No such custom,” may either refer to the custom animadverted upon, of men wearing long hair, and of women appearing in church without veils, or, to the custom and practice of pertinaciously resisting apostolic authority. “Nor the Church of God.” In Greek αἱ εκκλησιαι, the churches.

1 Cor 11:17. But with regard to what I am now about to prescribe to you, I enter on the subject, instead of praising you (as heretofore, verse 2), rather disposed to censure you, for causing your religious assemblies to be attended with greater spiritual detiment than profit.

The Apostle now proceeds to treat of another abuse of a still more serious nature, which called for the most rigorous measures of correction. It appears that for the purpose of perfectly representing the institution of the Adorable Eucharist at which our Divine Redeemer, in common with his Apostles, had first partaken of the ordinary Jewish Paschal supper, and afterwards (as we learn from the Evangelists), gave them his adorable Body and Blood, the primitive Christians were wont to go in the evening to the church or room set apart for religious meetings, and there partake in common, rich and poor, of an ordinary repast, to which the rich principally contributed and invited the poor.—(Vide Calmet, Dictionnaire de la Bible). These suppers—termed Agapes, or Charity feasts, from commemorating the love of the faithful for one another—were intended to represent the Paschal and ordinary Jewish suppers, of which our Redeemer and his Apostles partook, before he gave them the Holy Eucharist. The Eucharist itself sufficiently represented its own institution. These banquets were made the occasion of very great abuses; for, the rich, instead of joining in the Agapes, and contributing towards them, according to the primitive institution, brought with them, to the Church, each one, his own supper, and indulged to excess in eating and drinking. On this account, they disedified the faithful; they sowed divisions, in consequence of excluding from their tables the poor and hungry, and immediately after received the body and blood of the Lord, unworthily, to their own condemnation. What wonder, then, that the Apostle should have exerted all his zeal to put a stop to such fearful evils. “Now this I ordain.” Some Expositors join these words with the preceding, thus:—these injunctions I have given about women wearing veils, &c., and then, they say, he commences the subject of the Eucharist in the words, “not praising you,” &c., as if he said: while praising you in general (verse 2), I must except your conduct in reference to the following abuse. The arrangement adopted in the Paraphrase seems to be the more natural. In the common Greek, the words, “this I ordain, not praising,” &c., run thus: τοῦτο δὲ παραγγελλων ουκ επαινω, while ordaining this, I praise you not. The Vulgate is the reading of the Alexandrian and other MSS., and of the ancient versions. The Codex Vaticanus has, τουτο παραγγελλων ουκ επαινων, “while ordaining this, not praising you.” The meaning is the same in all.

1 Cor 11:18. For, in the first place, I hear, that when you assemble together in the church, especially destined for the sacred meetings of the faithful, instead of being united in brotherly concord, you, on the contrary, have schisms and divisions among you, and I am inclined to believe these charges to be true of some of you, or some of these charges to be true of you all.

“In the Church” (εν εκκλησια, in church—the article is wanting in the chief MSS.) may either mean the place set apart for sacred assemblages (as in Paraphrase), or, the collection and assemblage itself. So that the words may mean, when you meet together in the assembly of the faithful, which assembling together is calculated to bind them firmly in concord. “There are schisms among you.” What the cause of these “schisms,” or divisions, was, the Apostle does not explain. It appears, however, from the context, that they were occasioned by the manner in which they assembled and celebrated the Agapes: the rich not waiting for, nay, excluding the poor. “And in part I believe it.” “In part,” may refer either to the people; and mean, I believe these charges to be true of some of you; or, to the charges, and mean, I believe some of these charges to be true of all of you.

1 Cor 11:19. Nor does it cause me surprise to witness such breaches of charity and concord amongst you; for, looking to the nature of man, there must be divisions even in the dogmas of faith, which divisions in faith God permits, in order that those who are genuine and sincere amongst you may be made manifest by the contrast with those who err.

“There must be also heresies.” (In the Greek is added, ἐν ὐμιν, among you). By “heresies,” are commonly meant, errors in faith. St. Chrysostom understands the word here to signify the same as “schisms” (verse 18), but improbably; for, by saying, “there must be heresies also,” the Apostle implies that they are different from the others. They “must be,” as a matter of consequent necessity, considering the corruption of human nature; just as “scandals must be.” “That,” may mean the consequence, or, the final cause which God has in view in suffering heresies to exist. “Melius judicavit de malis benefacere quam mala nulla esse permittere.”—(St. Augustine, Enchirid., 27). “Who are approved.” The Greek word, δοκιμοι, means those who are tested and tried, like gold in the furnace, the genuine, sterling believers.

1 Cor 11:20. When, therefore, you assemble together in the meetings referred to, it is no longer to eat the Lord’s Supper.

“Therefore,” is resumptive of the subject referred to, verse 18. “The Lord’s supper.” This was a supper of charity, concord, and love; a supper celebrated in common, to which even Judas was admitted; whereas, their banquets were the occasion of divisions; private banquets from which the poor were excluded. By “the Lord’s supper,” it is clear he means the Agape, and not the Eucharist itself; for, no one would be permitted to drink to excess of the Eucharist, as the ministers of religion would not have given it so abundantly. Moreover, the abusive practice of not waiting for each other could not regard the Eucharistic supper, which was not celebrated until all were assembled. Again, the excesses on account of which he taxes them with unworthy communions, must have preceded the Eucharist; for, though the circumstance of sinning after the communion would aggravate the sin, it would not still prove the preceding communion to be bad or sacrilegious. Hence, from his charging them with bad communions, in consequence of the excesses which took place at the “supper of the Lord,” these excesses, and the supper consequently, must have preceded communion.

1 Cor 11:21. For each one takes with him beforehand his own supper to eat; the consequence is, that while one party, viz., the poor, stands by hungry, another, viz., the rich, drinks to excess.

“The abuse which the Apostle here denounces was occasioned by the fact, that the rich, instead of partaking of a supper in common with the poor, brought their own suppers to the church, and partook of them apart, without waiting for, or inviting the poor; nay, even excluding them.” The consequence was that some of them committed excess (“is drunk”), approached holy communion in mortal sin, and thus became guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

“One man is hungry,” who probably fasted until evening, and hoped to join in the Agape, from which he is excluded.

“And another is drunk.” This word here simply implies excessive indulgence, which, however, did not reach a deprivation of reason.

1 Cor 11:22. If you wish to enjoy your private suppers, have you not your own houses?—or do you despise the house of God by such profanation, and the whole Christian congregation, by outraging and causing shame in those who have nothing to contribute? Surely, for conduct like this I cannot praise you.

“The church of God,” may either mean the congregation, or the place of meeting (as in Paraphrase). Respecting these Agapes, to which reference is made here, it is to be observed, that at the time referred to by the Apostle, they were celebrated immediately before holy communion, as is clear from this entire passage, verse 20 (although St. Chrysostom and others are of a contrary opinion), and continued to be celebrated in the same way, for a considerable time after, in some churches. Sozomen relates, that such was the case in some churches of Egypt, even in his own time; and from the decree of the third Council of Carthage, at which St. Augustine assisted and over which Aurelius, Primate of Africa, presided, prohibiting all who were not fasting beforehand, to receive the Holy Eucharist, Maunday Thursday excepted (canon 29), it is inferred, that the contrary usage generally prevailed throughout the several churches of Africa. It is, however, asserted by many, that those Agapes were, after the time referred to hear, celebrated throughout the church generally after holy communion; and some assert that this change in the time of the celebration was one of the points of reformation promised by the Apostle (verse 34). St. Augustine (Epistola ad Januarium), and others, refer the discipline of fasting before holy communion to the age of the Apostles. This is, however, called in question by many. But although the precise period at which this discipline of fasting before holy communion was introduced, cannot be defined for certain, it is universally agreed that it is of the highest antiquity. In consequence of the abuses to which these Agapes or charity feasts gave occasion, whether they were celebrated before or after communion (and we are told by Baronius, ad annum Christi 57, that they were frequently celebrated on the feasts of the martyrs, and on the occasion of the dedication of churches), the Council of Laodicea (canon 28) prohibited them altogether in the church, and forbade any such banquets in the house of God. The same prohibition was renewed by the Council of Quinisextum (canon 14).

1 Cor 11:23. For I have received by revelation from the Lord himself immediately and directly (as, indeed, I have the entire Gospel, of which the doctrine of the Eucharist forms a prominent part), what I have already described to you by word of mouth touching this subject, viz., that the Lord Jesus, on the very night on which he was betrayed, took bread into his venerable and creative hands;

In order to point out the enormity of the sacrilegious communions, which were the great evils resulting from the excesses committed at the Agapes, the Apostle repeats the loving history of the institution of the adorable Eucharist, which he had already, when among them, described orally, and to their forgetfulness of which, as well as of the sanctity of the mystery they were about to approach, their irreverences, their contempt of the entire church, their neglect of the poor, their excesses might be attributed.

“The same night on which he was betrayed.” This circumstance the Apostle mentions, in order to commend the excessive charity of Christ for us in this adorable institution, wherein our amiable Saviour poured forth all the riches of his Divine love for man (Council of Trent, SS. 13, ch. 2), and exhausted all the treasures of his infinite riches, all the inventions of wisdom, and all the efforts of infinite power.—(St. Augustine). Oh! how calculated is not the frequent consideration of the boundless love of our Blessed Jesus in the Sacrament of the altar—wherein he makes it his delight to remain with the children of men, even unto the end of the world, although the greater part of mankind are quite insensible to the incomprehensible prodigy of love, which he there never fails to exhibit—wherein he is prodigal of himself, to an extent that the mind of man could not fathom, and faith alone could believe—to draw us, to force us to love this disinterested lover who first loved us. What is the gift bestowed? On whom is it bestowed? How long is it to last? When was it given? Why was it given? At how great a sacrifice was it given? Shall not the consideration of these and the other circumstances of this Divine institution, force us to love our Lord Jesus in the Holy Eucharist!

1 Cor 11:24. And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat, this is my body which shall be delivered for you. What I have now done, do you and your successors also to the end of time, in commemorat on of my bitter passion and death.

“And giving thanks.” These words express the act of returning thanks to his Heavenly Father, as well for his great benefit, which he had long pre-ordained, and which he is now immediately about to give, as for all his other blessings bestowed on mankind. The Evangelists add, in the history of the institution of the Eucharist—“he blessed”—the object of which benediction was, to implore upon the bread which he was about to consecrate, the Divine beneficence. In the Canon of the Mass, wherein the whole action is minutely and circumstantially detailed, are added the words, elevatis oculis in cœlum, which he is presumed to have done on this as well as on the other occasions when he performed miracles; he did so in multiplying the bread (Matt. 14), and in raising Lazarus from the grave (John, 11)

“Broke.” According to some Expositors, he did this before consecration. These say, there was a two-fold breaking, the one referred to here, the other in the words, “this is my body which shall be delivered for you,” or, as in the Greek, which is broken for you, very expressive of his immolation and subjection to great tortures on the altar of the Cross. It seems, however, more probable that only one breaking took place, viz., that which occurred at the consecration, and of which the Apostle only gives a summary account, neglecting the order in which things took place.

“This is my body, which shall be delivered for you.” In Greek, τὁ ὑπερ ὑμῶν κλωμενον, which is broken for you, of course in the external species or appearances. The words, “which is broken,” although in the present tense, are used for a proximate future; they have a pregnans significatio, equivalent to “broken and given.” It corresponds with διδομενον, in St. Luke (Lk 22:19). Hence, it is well expressed by the Vulgate, tradetur. The word, κλωμενον, is wanting in the Vatican and Alexandrian MSS. From these words is derived a most solid and unanswerable proof of the real presence of the body and blood of our Lord in the blessed Sacrament.—(Concil. Trid. SS. xiii. c. 1). The words must have been understood in their plain, literal sense by the Apostles at the Last Supper; for, the Redeemer gave them no clue, that we are aware of, for understanding them, figuratively. On the contrary, the words of promise, which they had heard a year before (John, 6), and of which the fulfilment was deferred to the present moment, should have made them expect, that he would leave them his real body and blood, which it is clear, from the offence his words caused them, they understood him to promise.—(John, 6:62, &c.) Hence, our Blessed Redeemer could not have employed figurative language on this occasion, unless he had forewarned his Apostles, that he intended doing so; since, according to all the acknowledged laws of language, the man would be guilty of a he, who would employ language, in a figurative sense, which he knew his hearers were prepared to understand, literally. Now, the Apostles could be prepared to understand our Redeemer’s words, in the literal sense only: and his words, therefore, could be uttered in that sense only by our Divine Reedeemer. Taken literally, they clearly enunciate, and, therefore, prove the real presence. “Which shall be delivered for you;” according to this reading, adopted by the Vulgate, reference is made in these words to our Redeemer’s death upon the cross. If we follow the Greek reading, which is broken for you, the words express the present breaking of his body under the appearance or species of bread; and this breaking, which affects only the species, is referred to the substance contained under them, viz., the body and blood of Christ.

“This do for a commemoration of me,” i.e., in commemoration of his death and passion (as in verse 24). It is to be observed, that the three Evangelists (Matthew, 26.; Mark, 14.; Luke, 22), and St. Paul here, give the same precise words in the consecration of the bread, “This is my Body;” to which St. Luke adds, “which is given for you,” and St. Paul here, “which shall be delivered for you.”

1 Cor 11:25. In like manner, after having first partaken of the Paschal supper, and also of the ordinary Jewish supper, he took the chalice, saying, this chalice, i.e., the contents of this chalice, is the authentic instrument of the New Testament, sealed and sanctioned in my blood, or, the thing contained in this chalice of my blood, it is, that ratifies and confirms the New Testament. As often as you shall drink of this, do it in commemoration of me.

“After he had supped.” These words are added in the account given by St. Paul of the consecration of the chalice; because, as is clear from the history of the Last Supper by St. Luke (22:17–20), there were two different chalices used on the occasion; one, the cup employed by the Jewish householder, before the Paschal supper; the other, the Eucharistic chalice, which is not to be confounded with the former—for, it was only after the Paschal Supper, and after the Jewish common supper also, that the Eucharistic chalice was consecrated. It is to be borne in mind, that it was only after the Paschal and the Jewish common suppers, which were used on the occasion of the Pasch (for the Jews had two suppers on this occasion, the Paschal and the common one), the bread also was transubstantiated; but this circumstance is omitted by the Apostle when describing the consecration of the bread; because, no confusion would result from such omission; whereas, if omitted in the history of the consecration of the cup, this Euchariastic cup might be confounded with that used at the common supper.

“This chalice,” the container for the thing contained.

“Is the new testament.” It is a “testament,” being the instrument through which a dying testator bequeathes a gift.

“New,” in opposition to the old, given by Moses; and, moreover, it conveys new blessings of a more exalted and spiritual character.

The form of the consecration of the chalice left us by St. Paul and St. Luke, is perfectly the same; “this chalice is the new testament in my blood,” to which St. Luke adds, τό ὑπερ ὑμῶν εκχυνομενον, “which shall be shed for you,” (Lk 22:20). The form recorded by St. Matthew, which is the same as that of St. Mark, is somewhat different from that employed here by St. Paul and by St. Luke. In Matthew and Mark, the form is, “this is my blood of the new testament which shall be shed for many,” to which is added in St. Matthew, “unto the remission of sin.” The meaning of which is, that the new covenant of God with man, promising grace here and glory hereafter, on certain conditions, is ratified and sanctioned by the blood contained in the chalice; for it was by the effusion of the blood of Christ that these blessings were secured to man. The form here employed by St. Paul, and by St. Luke, “this chalice is the new testament,” &c., is reconciled by Piconio and A’Lapide with the form used by St. Matthew, “this is my blood of the new testament,” &c., in this way: they attach a different meaning to “testament,” in both cases. With St. Matthew, it means, the will itself. Here, according to them, it means the authentic instrument or copy of that will. Estius gives the word, “testament,” the same precise signification in both cases; he says, that the form here used by St. Paul means precisely the same thing with the form of St. Matthew. This chalice, or what is contained in this chalice of my blood, it is, that ratifies and confirms the new testament. Estius transposes the words, “in my blood,” as they are found in the form used here by St. Paul, and joins them with the word “chalice,” “this chalice in my blood,” which, according to him, means the same as “this chalice of my blood;” and he appears to insinuate that the difference of case “in my blood,” for, “of my blood,” is owing to some idiomatic peculiarity of language. This exposition has the advantage of giving the words used on this solemn occasion, the same fixed and definite meaning.

From this is clearly proved that the real blood of Christ was there; for, it was real blood that was shed in the testament of Moses, to which these words are allusive, and it would be perfectly unmeaning to suppose that the type was dedicated in real blood, and the antitype, only in the figure of blood.

“This do ye, as often as you shall drink,” &c. It is the doctrine of the Council of Trent (SS. xxii. chap. 1, de Missæ Sacrif.) that, at the institution of the adorable Eucharist, our Redeemer constituted his Apostles priests of the new testament, and commanded them and their successors in the priesthood to offer up (his body and blood), under the symbols or appearances of bread and wine, when he uttered the words, “Do this in commemoration of me.”

The precept conveyed in this and the preceding verses, by no means implies that the faithful are bound to receive communion under both kinds. For, our Redeemer directly addresses his priests, and commands them to offer sacrifice; to do, what he has done, to the end of time, in commemoration of his bitter death and passion. The only precept indirectly, or, rather, by correlative obligation binding on the faithful, is, to receive the Eucharist from the hands of their pastors, and in receiving it, to commemorate the death of Christ. But there is no command imposed on them to receive it under two kinds. Nay, the very conditional form in which our Redeemer speaks, when referring to the chalice, “this is ye as often as you shall drink.” &c., would imply the contrary; for why employ a condition if it were absolutely imperative? The command goes no farther in reference to the faithful, than to commemorate the death of Christ, when approaching to Holy Communion, and this may be done even under one kind. No doubt, Holy Communion was given in the early ages under both kinds; but, this was only a matter of discipline which might vary, but not of precept, which it was not in the power of the Church to change. She, for wise reasons, changed the discipline of former ages, and now allows Communion to be given to the faithful under one kind only. The precept of receiving under both kinds, only regarded the priests offering sacrifice, and the sacrifice most perfectly “shewed” forth the death of Christ, under the two distinct kinds.

1 Cor 11:26. As often, then, as you shall partake of this bread (transubstantiated into the body), and drink the chalice (changed into the blood of Christ), you shall announce the death of the Lord until he comes to judge the world.

In this verse, the Apostle explains the precept included in the institution of the Eucharist, as regarded the faithful, viz., that as often as they partook of the body and blood of Christ, they should announce his death, until he comes to judge the world. The Eucharist, therefore, is to continue till the end of time. “And drink the chalice,” the common Greek has, ποτηριον τουτο, this chalice, but, this, is cancelled by the best critics, on the authority of the chief MSS. “You shall shew.” The Greek is in the present, “you do show,” καταγγελλετε.

1 Cor 11:27. Whosoever, therefore, shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, i.e., in the state of mortal sin, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

“Therefore,” shows the object which the Apostle had in view in referring to the institution of the Eucharist, viz., to impress the Corinthians with the enormity of the sin of unworthy Communion. As, then, the Eucharist is a real representation of the suffering and death of Christ (verse 26), “whosoever, therefore,” receives him unworthily in the Eucharist “is guilty,” &c.

“Unworthily,” by positive irreverence, in the state of mortal sin, such as was the state of those referred to here, who committed excesses, and were harsh to the poor at the Agapes.

“Guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” These words evidently suppose his body and blood to be present: otherwise, how could so strong an assertion be warranted? Who could, with any degree of propriety, say, that by insulting or maltreating the picture of a king, a man is guilty of the body and blood of the king? Such a man might be justly charged with irreverence or disrespect to the king, whose image he abuses; but, surely, it would be preposterous to say of him, that he would be guilty of the body and blood of the king. Hence, the body and blood of Christ must be present in the Eucharist, to warrant so strong an assertion on the part of the Apostle.

From this verse it follows, that both species are not necessarily, as a matter of precept, to be taken together at Holy Communion. For, the Apostle supposes that a man may receive either one or the other unworthily; and as it is evident from the entire context, this unworthiness is made by him to consist, not in the separate taking of one species without the other, or in disjoining what should be taken jointly, but in the previous unworthy dispositions of the recipient; for, he speaks of the abuses against morals committed at the Agapes. Hence, it follows, that one part could be received worthily without the other, provided the previous dispositions of the recipient were worthy. In the Protestant Bibles, the words of this verse, contrary to the original Greek, are corruptly rendered. “Whoesoever shall eat this bread, and drink,” &c. The Greek is ἤ πίνη, &c., “or drink,” &c.

1 Cor 11:28. If, then, a man feels conscious of being in mortal sin, let him prove himself by good sacramental confession; and, then, he may eat of this flesh and drink of this chalice.

“Prove himself.” This proof is made by the Council of Trent (SS. 13, chap. 7). to consist, should a man be conscious of a mortal sin, in a good sacramental confession, and this the Council commands, should there be an opportunity of confessing—“and so let him eat of that bread,” &c. The meaning of the words is—he may then, after such proof, partake of that bread and drink of the chalice. The proof here required does not regard faith, as the sectaries pretend; for the Apostle is referring to breaches of morality.

1 Cor 11:29. For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment—that is to say, entails damnation on himself, in punishment of his not discerning the body of the Lord, treating it with no more respect than he would treat common bread.

“For he that eateth and drinketh” (or does one or the other, as is clear from verse 27, of which this is but a fuller repetition), “unworthily” in the sense already assigned—such a man “eateth and drinketh judgment,” i.e., damnation to himself. He receives his judge, Christ, who will condemn him.

“Not discerning the body of the Lord.” Now, if the body of the Lord were not really there, how incur guilt for not discerning it? This verse is the same as verse 27, the words of which, “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord,” show that the guilt of those who received him unworthily in holy Communion, was equal to that of those who crucified Christ; since receiving him in Communion, his death is commemorated. And a man is said to be guilty of the body and blood of another, not simply by killing him, but when he murders him in a cruel, barbarous manner. O God of mercy! pardon us the many outrages committed against thee in the Sacrament of thy love. Preserve us from murdering, by an unworthy Communion, Him who was tortured for our sakes, to save us from the eternal tortures of the damned.

1 Cor 11:30. In punishment of these bad communions, many amongst you are afflicted with divers maladies and infirmities, and many, punished with death.

Many were visited in the primitive Church, with corporal infirmities and premature death in punishment of unworthy Communions.

1 Cor 11:31. If, then, we would examine and prove ourselves, and expiate our sins by a good confession, we would avert these judgments and punishments from us.

While referring to the visible punishments inflicted on many of them, he consoles them at the same time by the assurance, that these punishments were only the paternal and salutary corrections which God, as a merciful and tender lather, had inflicted on them for their greater good, viz., to save them from the eternal punishment of the damned, in store for the infidels and sinners of “this world.” The visible punishment here referred to is that of death, verse 30.

From this it follows, that although the guilt and eternal debt or liability of sin be remitted, as happened in this case, “that we may not be condemned with this world,” still, the temporal debt sometimes remains to be remitted, “whilst we are judged, we are corrected [i.e., punished] by the Lord.” This proposition, viz., that sometimes, after the remission of the guilt and eternal punishment due to sin, a temporal debt remains to be expiated, either in this life or in Purgatory, is, de fide Catholica, defined in the Council of Trent, (SS. xiv., chap, viii.):—“Sancta Synodus declarat falsum omnino esse, et a verbo Dei alienum, culpam a Domino nunquam remitti, quin universa etiam pœna condonctur;” and (Can. xii.):—“Si quis dixerit totam pœnam simul cum culpa remitti semper a Deo—Anathema sit.”

1 Cor 11:32. Whilst, however, we are thus punished, we are only experiencing the correction which the Lord administers to us as children, to save us from being involved in the same judgment of condemnation with the sinners and infidels of this world.

No commentary on this verse is offered beyond the paraphrase

1 Cor 11:33. Wherefore, on the occasion of all your future meetings at your Agapes; let them be in reality the Lord’s suppers, common to all, and wait for one another.

This shows that the Apostle does not intend to abolish the Agapes, but only to correct the abuses committed in them, and have them reformed.

1 Cor 11:34. If any man be too hungry to remain fasting so long, let him eat at home, in order that your meetings may not serve as so many occasions of damnation on account of your excesses, your pride, and contempt of the poor. Other matters connected with this subject, I will prescribe and arrange as soon as I shall have come amongst you.

“If any man be hungry,” i.e., unable to fast until evening, when the Agape was celebrated, “let him eat at home,” and not make these religious assemblies, intended for their salvation, the occasion of damnation. He is contented with inculcating this one point. He reserves all other points of reformation for his advent amongst them. What these were, cannot be determined. St. Augustine says (Epistle 118), that receiving the Communion in a state of fasting, was one of the points arranged by him.