Thomas Aquinas Commentary 1 Corinthians 11

Having addressed the practice of eating food offered to idols—a practice contrary to the Eucharist—the Apostle now instructs the believers about the sacrament itself. He begins with a general admonition before developing his main point (1 Corinthians 11:3). Regarding the admonition, he first presents it and then shows how the Corinthians responded to it (1 Corinthians 11:2).

Regarding the first point, it should be noted that the natural order is arranged so that lower beings imitate higher beings as much as possible. Thus, a superior natural agent makes the thing it acts upon similar to itself. The primary principle in the creation of all things is the Son of God, as it says in John 1:3: All things were made through him. He is, therefore, the primary exemplar whom all creatures imitate as the true and perfect image of God. Hence, it says in Colossians 1:15: He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature, for in him all things were created.

In a special way, He is the exemplar of the spiritual graces with which spiritual creatures are endowed, as is said to the Son in Psalm 110:3: In the splendors of the saints before the morning star I begot you. This is because He was begotten before every creature through resplendent grace, having in Himself an exemplar of the splendors of all the saints.

But this divine exemplar was at first very remote from us, as it says in Ecclesiastes 2:12: What is man that he could follow the king, his Maker? Therefore, He willed to become man so that He might offer humanity a human exemplar. As Augustine says in The Christian Combat: “This perversity he does not lack who loves to inspect and imitate that man’s words and actions, in which the Son of God offered Himself to us as an example of living.” Just as angels were the first to imitate the exemplar of His divinity, and other creatures secondarily (as Dionysius says in The Celestial Hierarchy), so the exemplar of His humanity is proposed chiefly for the leaders of the church to imitate, as they are in a higher position. Hence, the Lord says in John 13:15: I have given you an example that as I have done, so do you. Secondly, the leaders who are shaped by Christ's example are presented to their people as models for living: Being examples to the flock (1 Peter 5:3); To give you in our conduct an example to imitate (2 Thessalonians 3:9).

Therefore, the Apostle expressly says that you should be without offense to anyone. This, of course, you can do if you take note of what he says: Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. For he imitated Him, first, in devotion of mind: I live, now not I, but Christ lives in me (Galatians 2:20). Secondly, in his concern for his people: Even if I am to be poured as a libation upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all (Philippians 2:17). Jesus Christ also offered Himself for us, as it says in Ephesians 5:2. Thirdly, in tolerating suffering: Always carrying in the body the death of Jesus (2 Corinthians 4:10); I bear on my body the marks of Jesus (Galatians 6:17). But it must be noted that he does not merely say, Be imitators of me, but adds, as I am of Christ. This is because believers ought not to imitate their leaders in everything, but only in those things in which they imitate Christ, who is the unfailing exemplar of holiness.

Then, when he says, I commend you, brethren, he shows how the Corinthians were acting in regard to this admonition. In this regard, it should be observed that believers follow their leaders in two ways: in their deeds and in their words. Regarding deeds, they follow when they imitate the example of their leaders; hence it says in James 5:10: As an example take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. Regarding words, they follow when they obey their instructions: Keep my commandments and live (Proverbs 4:4). But the Corinthians, especially the great majority, failed in these things. Consequently, the Apostle addressed them with irony: I commend you, brethren. It is as if he said: You should be praiseworthy on this point, but you are not, because you do not remember me in everything so as to imitate my example. For we cannot imitate the examples of those we do not remember. Hence it says in Hebrews 13:7: Remember your leaders; consider the outcome of their life and imitate their faith.

As for his words, he adds: You maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. It is as if to say: You observe them in the same manner as I delivered them to you. He says this because he himself had not departed from observing the commandments: If they keep my word, they will also keep yours (John 15:20).

This manner of speaking might seem unsuited to the truth of Sacred Scripture, which contains no falsehood, as it says in Proverbs 8:8: All the words of my mouth are righteous; and there is nothing twisted or crooked in them. The answer is that irony is a figure of speech. In irony, one does not derive the truth from the literal sense of the words, but from what the speaker intends to express in a contrary or similar way. Therefore, in irony, the truth is actually the contrary of what the words indicate, just as in a metaphor, the truth consists in a similarity.

Then, when he says, But I want you to understand, he proceeds with his intention of instructing believers in the sacrament of the Eucharist. In this, he does three things:

1. He reproves their errors regarding the rite of this sacrament.
2. He shows the dignity of this sacrament (1 Corinthians 11:23).
3. He teaches the correct rite (1 Corinthians 11:27).

Regarding the first point, he corrects three errors:

1. He refutes their error concerning clothing, namely, that the women gathered for the sacred mysteries with their heads uncovered.
2. He corrects them in their gathering, because when they came together for the sacred mysteries, they indulged in quarrels (1 Corinthians 11:17).
3. He corrects them regarding food, because they approached the sacred mysteries after they had just eaten (1 Corinthians 11:20).

Concerning the first of these errors, he does two things:

1. He lays down a teaching from which the reason for the next admonition is drawn.
2. He gives the admonition itself (1 Corinthians 11:4).

Regarding his teaching, he presents three comparisons. The first is between God and man. He says, ironically, that they hold to his traditions, but then continues, “I want you to know.” This knowledge is necessary, in keeping with Isaiah 5:13 (My people went into exile for want of knowledge), and it is this: the head of every man is Christ. This is explained using the analogy of a natural head, in which four aspects are considered:

1. Perfection. While the other members have but one sense—touch—all the senses flourish in the head. Similarly, other people have single graces, as it says in 1 Corinthians 12:8: To one is given the spirit of utterance of wisdom, to another the spirit of knowledge. But in Christ alone is found the fullness of all graces, for, as John 3:34 says, it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit.
2. Sublimity. Just as the head in a person is superior to all other members, so Christ is preeminent not only over all people but also over all angels. As it says in Ephesians 1:20, God made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places far above all power and dominion, and in Ephesians 5:22: Christ is the head of the Church.
3. Outflowing power. The head imparts sensation and movement to the other members. Likewise, from Christ comes movement and spiritual sense for the other members of the Church, according to Colossians 2:19: not holding fast to the head from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together, grows with a growth that is from God.
4. Conformity of nature. The head shares the same nature as the other members. Likewise, Christ shares the same nature as other humans, as it says in Philippians 2:7: taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of man.

The second comparison he presents is between man and woman, when he says: The head of a woman is her husband. This is true according to the same four aspects mentioned above:

1. First, man is more perfect than woman, not only in body but also in the soul’s vigor. As the Philosopher says in his book On the Generation of Animals, “the female is an imperfect male,” and as it says in Ecclesiastes 7:29: One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found.
2. Second, man is naturally superior to the woman, as it says in Ephesians 5:22: Wives, be subject to your husband as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife.
3. Third, the man has influence by governing his wife, as it says in Genesis 3:16: Your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.
4. Fourth, the man and the woman are alike in nature, as it says in Genesis 2:18: I will make him a helper like to him.

The third comparison he makes is of God to the Lord, when he says: The head of Christ is God. Here it should be noted that the name “Christ” can signify the person in His human nature. In this case, the name “God” refers not only to the person of the Father but to the whole Trinity, from whom, as from the more perfect source, all good things in Christ's humanity are derived and to whom Christ's humanity is subject. Alternatively, the name “Christ” can stand for that person in His divine nature. In this case, the name “God” stands only for the person of the Father. The Father is called the head of the Son not because of greater perfection or any subordination, but only according to origin and conformity of nature, as it says in Psalm 2:7: The Lord said to me: you are my Son; today I have begotten you.

These comparisons can also be understood mystically, regarding the spiritual union within the soul. For sensibility is compared to the woman, and reason to the man, by whom sensibility ought to be ruled. Hence, reason is called her head. Or, the lower reason, which is concerned with arranging temporal things, is compared to the woman. The higher reason, which occupies itself with contemplating eternal things, is compared to the man and is called the head of the lower reason. This is because temporal things should be arranged according to eternal principles, as it says in Exodus 25:9: Make it according to the pattern I showed you on the mountain. But Christ is called the head of the man (that is, of higher reason) because reason in its superior aspect belongs to God.

After presenting the doctrine, the Apostle adds an admonition, the reason for which is taken from the doctrine just mentioned. He addresses this in two parts:

1. He gives the admonition concerning the man.
2. He gives the admonition concerning the woman (1 Corinthians 11:5).

First, therefore, he says that since the head of the woman is the man, any man praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonors his head. It should be noted that anyone assisting a judge should display a certain dignity, especially when assisting God, who is the judge of all. Therefore, those who assist God should conduct themselves in the most well-behaved and suitable way, as it says in Ecclesiastes 5:1: Guard your steps when you go to the house of God.

Now, a man assists God in two ways. One way is by relating human affairs to God, which is done by praying: He will make supplication before the Most High; he will open his mouth in prayer, and make supplication for his sins . The other way is by bringing things down from God to men, which is done by prophesying, according to Joel 2:28: I will pour out my spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy. This is why the Apostle is careful to say, man praying or prophesying, for in these two ways a man assists God as Judge, or assists the Lord.

A person is said to prophesy in two ways. First, insofar as a person announces to others what has been divinely revealed to him, as it says in Luke 1:67: And his father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying: “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel…” A person also prophesies by uttering things that have been revealed to others; hence, those who read the prophecies or other sacred scriptures are said to be prophesying. It is taken in this sense below in 1 Corinthians 14:4: He who prophesies edifies the Church. It is also taken in that sense here.

But it pertains to a man’s dignity not to wear a covering on his head, as will be clear below. Consequently, he says that every man praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonors his head—that is, he does something unbecoming for a man. For just as in a body, beauty depends on the proper proportion of its members and on fitting light and color, so in human acts, beauty depends on the proper proportion of words or deeds, in which the light of reason shines forth. Conversely, ugliness is present when something is done against reason and proper proportion is not observed. Hence it was said above in reference to 1 Corinthians 7:36: If someone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, because she is of full age.

An objection is raised against this: Many people pray in church with their heads covered without any dishonor, as they wish to pray more privately. The answer is that prayer is twofold. One kind is private and is offered to God in one’s own person. The other is public and is offered to God in the person of the entire Church, as is clear from the prayers said in the church by priests. It is this latter type of public prayer that the Apostle has in mind here.

There is also an objection against a gloss which states that prophesying means interpreting the Scriptures. According to this, anyone who preaches is prophesying. But bishops preach with their heads covered by a miter. The answer is that one who preaches or teaches in the schools speaks in his own person. Hence even the Apostle calls the gospel his own (Romans 2:16), namely, on account of the energy he used in preaching it. But one who recites Sacred Scripture in the church—for example, by reading a lesson, an epistle, or a gospel—speaks in the person of the whole church. This is the kind of prophesying that the Apostle means here.

An objection is also raised concerning those who chant psalms in a choir with their heads covered. The answer is that psalms are not chanted as if by one person singly presenting himself to God, but as by the whole multitude.

Next, when he says, but every woman, he gives an admonition as it applies to women. He says that any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered—which is unbecoming, considering her state—dishonors her head; that is, she does something unsuitable regarding the covering of her hair. But against this is the Apostle’s statement in 1 Timothy 2:12: I permit no woman to teach in church. How, then, can it be fitting for a woman to pray or prophesy in public prayer or teaching? The answer is that this must be understood as referring to prayers and readings that women say in their own groups.

Then, when he says, it is the same as if, he proves the preceding admonition. First, he presents a proof, and second, he submits the proof to his hearers for their judgment (1 Corinthians 11:13). In presenting the proof, he first offers the argument and second, excludes an objection (1 Corinthians 11:11). He presents three proofs:

1. The first is taken from a comparison with human nature.
2. The second is from a comparison with God (1 Corinthians 11:7).
3. The third is from a comparison with angels (1 Corinthians 11:10b).

Regarding the first proof, it should be noted that nature, which provides other animals with sufficient aids for life, offers these aids to humans imperfectly. This is so that through reason, skill, and practice, a person can provide these things for himself with his hands. For example, nature gave bulls horns for defense, whereas humans prepare weapons for defense by the direction of reason through their hands. Hence, human skill imitates nature and produces things that nature cannot make.

Thus, for covering the head, nature gave humans hair. But because this covering is not sufficient, a person prepares another covering for himself through skill. The same explanation holds true for both the natural and the artificial covering. It is natural for a woman to have long hair, for she has a natural disposition for it, and there is also a definite inclination in women to care for their hair. It is true in the majority of cases that women take more pains with their hair than men. Therefore, it seems a condition suitable to women that they use an artificial covering for the head more than men do.

In this regard, he does three things.

1. First, he mentions the parallel between a natural and an artificial covering. He says that a woman not covering her head dishonors it, for being deprived of an artificial covering is the same as if she were shaven—that is, as if she were deprived of the natural covering of hair. This is predicted as a punishment for certain people: The Lord will smite with a scab the heads of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will lay bare their secret parts (Isaiah 3:17).
2. Second, he argues to an unacceptable conclusion, saying: For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair. It is as if to say: If she throws aside the artificial covering, let her for the same reason cast aside the natural one—which is unacceptable. An objection to this is the fact that nuns have their heads shaven. To this there are two answers. First, by the very fact that they take a vow of virginity or widowhood with Christ as their spouse, they are elevated to the dignity of men, being freed from subjection to men and joined to Christ himself. Second, they assume the garb of penance when they enter a religious order. Now, it is a custom for people in times of sorrow not to take care of their hair. Hence it says in Jeremiah 7:21: Cut off your hair and cast it away; raise a lamentation on the bare heights.
3. Third, he concludes his proposition, saying: But if it is disgraceful—that is, unbecoming—for a woman to be shorn or shaven, meaning to be deprived of her natural covering by skill or by nature, let her wear a veil.

Next, when he says, For a man, he presents the second proof, which is taken from a comparison with God. First, he introduces the proof, and second, he proves what he had supposed (1 Corinthians 11:8). In introducing the proof, he first lays down the reason as it pertains to the man, and second, as it pertains to the woman (1 Corinthians 11:7).

First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn, just as it is for her not to be veiled. For a man, however, it is not disgraceful. The reason is that a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God.

In saying that man is the image of God, the Apostle excludes the error of those who claim that man is only made to the image of God but is not himself the image. The Apostle states the opposite here. Those who hold this error say that the Son alone is the image, because it says in Colossians 1:15: He is the image of the invisible God. Therefore, one must say that man is said to be both the image of God and made to His image. He is an imperfect image, whereas the Son is said to be the image but not to the image, because He is the perfect image.

To clarify this, it should be noted that three things are generally involved in the concept of an image:

1. A likeness is required, not just any likeness, but one in the very species of a thing, as a human son is similar to his father. Or it can be a likeness in something that is a sign of the species, such as the shape in bodily things; hence, one who draws the shape of a horse is said to depict its image. This is what Hilary says in his book On the Councils: that an image is an undifferentiated species.
2. Origin is required. For if two men are similar in species, one is not the image of the other unless he originated from him, as a son from a father.
3. The concept of a perfect image requires equality.

Therefore, because man is similar to God in memory, intelligence, and will—which pertain to the species of an intellectual nature—and because he has this from God, he is said to be God’s image. But because equality is lacking, he is an imperfect image of God. For this reason he is said to be made to God’s image, as in Genesis 1:26: Let us make man to our image and likeness.

It should also be noted that “the glory of God” is spoken of in two ways.

1. It can refer to the glory by which God is glorious in himself. This is not how man is God’s glory; rather, God is man’s glory, according to Psalm 3:3: But you, O Lord, are a shield about me, my glory.
2. It can refer to his splendor derived from him, as in Exodus 40:34: The glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. It is in this second sense that man is said to be the glory of God, insofar as God’s splendor shines on man, as it says in Psalm 4:6: The light of your countenance has been signed upon us, O Lord.

Then, when he says, but woman, he presents the part concerning the woman, saying: But woman is the glory of man, because, as it says in Genesis 2:23: She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.

Some object that since the image of God in humanity is found in the spirit, where there is no difference between male and female (as it says in Galatians 3:28), there is no more reason for a man to be called the image of God than for a woman.

The answer is that man is called the image of God here in a special way. This is because man is the source of his entire race, just as God is the source of the entire universe. It is also because from the side of Christ dying on the cross flowed the sacraments of blood and water, from which the Church was formed. Furthermore, with regard to internal qualities, man is more especially called the image of God insofar as reason is more vigorous in him.

But it is better to say that the Apostle speaks clearly here. For he said of the man that he is the image and glory of God, but he did not say of the woman that she is the image and glory of man, but only that she is the glory of the man. This leads us to understand that being the image of God is common to both man and woman, but being the glory of God is immediately characteristic of the man.

We must now consider why the man should not cover his head, but the woman should. This can be understood in two ways:

1. A veil placed on the head signifies the power of another over the person wearing it, according to the order of nature. Therefore, the man, who exists under God, should not have a covering on his head, to show that he is immediately subject to God. The woman, however, should wear a covering to show that, besides God, she is naturally subject to another. This addresses the objection concerning servants and subjects, because that kind of subjection is not natural.
2. The covering signifies that the glory of God should not be concealed but revealed, whereas man’s glory should be concealed. Hence it says in Psalm 113:9: Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name give the glory.

Having stated that the woman is the glory of man, the Apostle now prepares to prove it. Regarding this, he does three things: first, he presents the proof; second, he assigns a reason for what he had said (verse 9); and third, he draws the intended conclusion (verse 10).

Regarding the first point, it should be noted that, as stated above, the woman is called the glory of man in a derived sense. Consequently, to prove this, he says: For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. For it says in Genesis 2:22: And the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man He made into a woman. About man, it is said that The Lord formed man of dust from the ground (Genesis 2:7).

Then, when he says, Neither was man created for woman, he assigns the reason for what he had said. To understand this, it should be noted that the relationship between the perfect and the imperfect is such that, in one and the same subject, the imperfect precedes the perfect in time; for one is a boy before he is a man. Absolutely speaking, however, the perfect precedes the imperfect in both time and nature, for a boy is produced from a man. This, therefore, is the reason the woman was produced from the man: because he is more perfect than the woman. The Apostle proves this from the fact that the end is more perfect than that which exists for the end, and man is the woman’s end. This is what he says: For man was not created for woman, but woman for the sake of man—specifically, as a helper in reproduction, just as the patient exists for the sake of the agent and matter for the sake of form. As it is written: It is not good for man to be alone; let us make him a helper like unto him (Genesis 2:18).

Then, when he says, That is why, he draws the intended conclusion, saying: For this reason—because man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man—a woman ought to have a veil on her head when she comes before God in prayer or prophecy. In this way, it is shown that she is not directly under God but is also subject to man, who is under God, for the veil on her head signifies this. For this reason, another translation says that the woman ought to have power over her head, but the sense is the same, for a veil is a sign of power, as stated in Psalm 66:4: Thou didst let men ride over our heads.

Then, when he says, because of the angels, he gives a third reason, this one related to the angels, saying: A woman ought to have a veil on her head because of the angels. This can be understood in two ways. In one way, it refers to the heavenly angels who are believed to visit congregations of the faithful, especially when the sacred mysteries are celebrated. Therefore, at that time, women as well as men ought to present themselves honorably and in an orderly manner out of reverence for them, according to Psalm 138:1: Before the angels I sing thy praise.

In another way, it can be understood in the sense that priests are called angels, in that they proclaim divine things to the people, according to Malachi 2:7: For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the angel of the Lord of hosts. Therefore, a woman should always have a covering on her head because of the angels—that is, the priests—for two reasons. First, as a sign of reverence toward them, which includes women behaving honorably before them. As it says in Sirach 7:30: With all your might love your maker and do not forsake his priests. Second, for their safety, lest the sight of an unveiled woman excite their concupiscence. As it says in Sirach 9:5: Do not look intently at a virgin, lest you stumble and incur penalties for her.

Augustine explains the above in another way. He shows that both man and woman are made in the image of God, according to what is said in Ephesians 4:23-24: Be renewed in the spirit of your minds and put on the new man, created after the likeness of God, according to the image of him who created him. Here, they are considered according to the spirit, in which there is no difference between male and female. Consequently, the woman is the image of God, just as the man is. For it is expressly stated in Genesis 1:27 that God created man in his own image; male and female he created them.

Therefore, Augustine says this must be understood in terms of a spiritual union within our soul, in which the sensory appetite or even the lower reason functions like the woman, while the higher reason, in which the image of God is considered to be, functions like the man. According to this view, the woman is from the man and for the sake of the man because the administration of temporal or sensible things, in which the lower reason is engaged, ought to be derived from the contemplation of eternal things, which pertains to the higher reason and is ordered toward it.

Therefore, the woman is said to have a veil or power over her own head to signify that in managing temporal things, one should apply a certain restraint, so as not to go beyond the proper limits in loving them. This restraint should not be applied to the love of God, since it is commanded in Deuteronomy 6:5: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart. No limit is placed on loving the end, although one is placed on the means to the end. For example, a doctor produces as much health as he can, but he does not give as much medicine as he can, but only a definite amount. Thus, a man should not have a covering on his head. And this is because of the angels, because, as a gloss says, “Sacred and pious signification is pleasing to the holy angels.” For this reason, Augustine also says in The City of God that demons are attracted by certain sensible things, not as animals to food but as spirits to signs.

Then, when he says, Nevertheless, he addresses a doubt that could arise from these statements. Because he had said that man is God’s glory and the woman is man’s glory, someone might believe either that the woman was not from God or that she should not have power in grace. He excludes the first possibility, saying: although the woman is the glory of man, who is the glory of God, nevertheless, in the Lord, neither is man created by the Lord without the woman, nor is the woman without the man.

Alternatively, the phrase can be read: neither is the man without the woman in the Lord—that is, in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ—nor the woman without the man, because both are saved by God’s grace, according to Galatians 3:27: For as many of you as were baptized have put on Christ. He then adds: There is neither male nor female, meaning they do not differ in the grace of Christ.

Second, he assigns the reason, saying: For as in the first condition of things, woman was formed from the man, so in subsequent generations, man was produced through woman, as Job says: Man born of a woman (Job 14:1). The history of human production has occurred in four ways:

1. The first production of a human was without man or woman, when God formed man from the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7).
2. The second was from man without woman, when He formed Eve from Adam’s rib, as it says in the same chapter.
3. The third is from man and woman, as Abel was born from Adam and Eve (Genesis 4:2).
4. The fourth was from woman without man, as Christ was born from the virgin, as it says in Galatians 4:4: God sent forth his Son, born of woman.

Third, he shows that this reasoning is appropriate, saying: And all things are from God. This is because the fact that the woman was first from the man, and afterward man is from the woman, is the result of God’s action. Therefore, both man and woman belong to God. As it says in Romans 11:36: For from him and through him and in him are all things.

Then, when he says, Judge for yourselves, he submits what he has said to his hearers' judgment. In this regard, he does two things: first, he submits the judgment to his rational hearers; second, he rebukes the defiant ones.

Regarding the first point, he does four things:

1. First, he submits what he has said to his hearers to judge, like someone who is confident he has sufficiently proved his point, saying: Judge for yourselves. It is the role of a good hearer to judge what is heard. As it says in Job 6:29, Judge, speaking what is just, and in Job 12:11, Does not the ear judge words?
2. Second, he proposes in the form of a question what they should judge, saying: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? This is forbidden in 1 Peter 3:3: Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair.
3. Third, he shows from where they should draw their judgment, namely, from nature itself. This is what he says: Does not nature itself teach you? By “nature” he means the natural inclination in women to take care of their hair, which is a natural covering, but not in men. This inclination is shown to be natural because it is found in the majority of people. It is “taught by nature” because it is a work of God, just as one is instructed about the skill of an artist by looking at a picture. Therefore, Isaiah 24:5 says against certain people: They have transgressed the law, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant—that is, the natural law.
4. Fourth, he takes a reason from nature. First, he presents the case regarding the man, saying: That for a man to wear long hair like a woman is degrading to him. The majority of men regard this as degrading because it makes the man appear feminine. Therefore, it says in Ezekiel 44:20: They shall not let their locks grow long. It is not a valid counterargument that some in the Old Law grew long hair, because this was a sign related to the reading of the Old Testament, as it says in 2 Corinthians 3:14. Second, he presents the case regarding the woman, saying: But if a woman has long hair, it is her glory, because it is considered part of her adornment. As it says in Song of Solomon 7:5: Your flowing locks are like purple. He then assigns the reason when he says: For her hair is given her for a covering. Consequently, the same reason applies to growing long hair and to wearing an artificial covering, as in Song of Solomon 4:1: Your hair is like a flock of goats.

Then, when he says, If anyone is disposed to be contentious, he silences defiant hearers. He says: If anyone is disposed to be contentious and does not accept the reason given above but instead attacks the truth with loud and confident assertions—which is the essence of contentiousness, as Ambrose says—contrary to Job 6:29, Respond, I pray, without contentiousness, and Proverbs 20:3, It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife.

Then let this be enough to silence them: we do not have such a practice, nor do the churches of God. This means that we Jews who believe in Christ do not have a practice of women praying with their heads uncovered, nor do the churches of God scattered among the Gentiles. Therefore, even if there were no other reason, this alone should be sufficient: that no one should act against the common custom of the Church. As the Psalm says, He makes those of one outlook to dwell in their house (Psalms 68:6). For this reason, Augustine says: “In all cases where Sacred Scripture has not given a definite rule, the customs of the people of God and the decrees of our superiors must be regarded as the law.”

After rebuking the Corinthians for their error in covering—that is, because the women came to the sacred mysteries with their heads uncovered—the Apostle then argues against their error concerning factions in the assembly, because they spent their time in contentions while gathered for the sacred mysteries. First, he touches on their shortcoming in general; second, he addresses it in particular (verse 18).

First, therefore, he says: But this I command. This refers to what was stated above, namely, that women should be veiled in church. He says this to persuade them to this observance in three ways: first, by reason; second, by custom; and third, by command, which should persuade them even without the other two. As it is written, “Keep my commandments and you shall live” (Proverbs 4:4); and, “A three-ply cord is not quickly broken” (Ecclesiastes 4:12). He continues: I do not praise you, but censure you, because you come together not for the better, but for the worse.

All social animals—for example, doves, cranes, and cows—form one group by natural instinct so that things go better for them physically. Therefore, man, being a social animal as the Philosopher proves in Politics I, should act according to reason, so that many form one group for their betterment. Just as in secular affairs many come together to form the unity of a city for their worldly benefit—namely, for security and a sufficiency of life—so too should believers come together into a unity for their spiritual betterment. As it says in Psalm 102:22: “When people gather together and kings, to worship the Lord.” And again, “In the counsel and congregation of the just the works of the Lord are great” (Psalms 111:1). But the Corinthians came together for the worse on account of the sins they committed when they assembled: “I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly” (Isaiah 1:13); “An assembly of the wicked is like two gathered together” .

Then, when he says, For in the first place, he mentions in detail how they assemble for the worse. First, he presents a judgment of guilt, saying: For in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. This refers to the contentions they practiced. This is by no means fitting for the church, which is established in unity, as it says in Ephesians 4:4: “There is one body and one spirit, just as you were called to one hope that belongs to your call.” But this was predicted: “You saw that the breaches of the city of David were many” (Isaiah 22:9).

A Gloss says: “By saying, first of all, he shows that the first evil is dissension, from which all the rest arise. For where there is dissension, nothing is right.” But this seems to be contradicted by other statements: “The beginning of every sin is pride” and “The love of money is the root of all evils” (1 Timothy 6:10). It must be said, however, that these authorities speak of the personal sins of individuals. The first of these is pride, which involves turning away from God, and greed for money, which involves turning toward created things. But the Gloss here speaks about the sins of the multitude, among which the first is dissension, by which the rule of discipline is weakened. Hence it says in James 3:16: “Where jealousy and contention exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.”

Secondly, he expresses his own belief in these reports when he says: And I partly believe it. This refers to some of you who were prone to contention, according to what was said above: “There is quarreling among you. What I mean is that each of you says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ or ‘I belong to Apollos’ or ‘I belong to Cephas’” (1 Corinthians 1:11–12). But others were not contentious, who said: “I belong to Christ.” Hence it says in Song of Solomon 2:2: “As a lily among brambles, so is my love among maidens,” that is, the good among the evil.

Thirdly, he assigns the reason for his belief, saying: For there must be factions among you. The original implies not only factions but also heresies. Two things must be considered here: first, what heresy is; and second, why it is necessary for heresies to exist.

Regarding the first, it should be known that, as Jerome comments on the epistle to the Galatians, the Greek word “heresy” means “election” or “choice,” because each person selects for himself the discipline which he considers to be better. From this, two points can be made. First, it is the nature of heresy for a person to follow his own private discipline, as if by his own choice, rather than the public discipline handed down by God. Second, it involves obstinately clinging to this discipline, for choice implies firm adherence. Therefore, a heretic is one who scorns the discipline of the faith handed down by God and obstinately follows his own error.

Something pertains to the discipline of the faith in two ways. In one way, directly, such as the articles of faith, which are proposed to be believed in themselves. An error regarding these makes one a heretic, if obstinacy is present. A person cannot be excused from such an error by pleading ignorance, especially concerning those truths about which the Church has made a solemn proclamation and which are commonly spoken of by the faithful, such as the mystery of the Trinity, the birth of Christ, and so on. Other things pertain to the discipline of the faith indirectly, in that from their denial something contrary to the faith follows. For example, if one denies that Isaac was the son of Abraham, it follows that Sacred Scripture contains something false. For such things, one is not judged a heretic unless he continues in his opinion so obstinately that he would not depart from his error, even after seeing what follows from his position.

Therefore, the obstinacy with which someone spurns the judgment of the Church in matters pertaining to the faith, whether directly or indirectly, makes a person a heretic. Such obstinacy proceeds from pride, whereby a person prefers his own judgment to that of the entire Church. Hence the Apostle says in 1 Timothy 6:3–4: “If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words.”

Secondly, we must consider how it is fitting for heresies to exist. For if it is fitting for heretics to exist, it seems they would be praiseworthy and should not be eliminated. But it should be noted that something can be described as fitting in two ways. One way is from the intention of the one who does it; for example, if we say that judgments ought to exist because judges make them with the intention of establishing justice and peace. The other way is from the intention of God, who ordains evil things for good, directing the persecutions of tyrants to the glory of the martyrs. Hence Augustine says in the Enchiridion that God is so good that He would not permit evil in any way unless He were powerful enough to draw some good from every evil. In this sense, it says in Matthew 18:7: “Woe to the world for temptations to sin. For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to that man from whom temptations come.”

According to this principle, the Apostle says that heresies must exist, inasmuch as God has ordained the malice of heretics for the good of the faithful. He says this, first, for the clearer declaration of truth. As Augustine says in The City of God: “A question raised by an adversary is an occasion for learning; indeed, many things pertaining to the Catholic faith, when they are devised by the clever energy of heretics, are, in order to be defended against them, considered more carefully, understood more clearly, and preached with more emphasis.” Hence it says in Proverbs 27:17: “Iron sharpens iron; and one man sharpens another.” Secondly, heresies serve to reveal the weakness of faith in those who believe rightly. This is what the Apostle means when he says: so that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. As it is written: “Like gold in the furnace he tried them” .

Then, when he says, When you meet together, he accuses them of a third fault: they sinned in the manner and order in which they received the body of Christ. All that follows can be explained in two ways. According to the first explanation, they are accused of receiving the body of Christ just after eating other food. In this regard, he does four things: first, he mentions the harm they incur; second, he mentions the fault (verse 21); third, he seeks the cause of the fault (verse 22); and fourth, he concludes his rebuke (verse 22b).

He says, therefore, first: When you come together, there are factions among you. Therefore, meeting in body but not in mind, you have come to this point where it is not to eat the Lord's supper. That is, it is not lawful or becoming for you to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord gave His disciples at supper. “For this sacrament,” says Augustine, “is the sacrament of unity and love.” Therefore, it is not suited for those in dissent. “Eat, O friends and drink; drink deeply, O lovers” (Song of Solomon 5:2).

Alternatively, this can be referred to what follows, so that the meaning is: not only are there disputes among you when you come together, but it has now become your custom to do what is not lawful for you, namely, to eat the Lord’s supper right after eating a common meal. Because the Lord gave this sacrament to His disciples after supper (Matthew 26:26), the Corinthians also wanted to receive the body of Christ after a common meal. But the Lord did this for three reasons. First, because the figure properly precedes the truth, and the paschal lamb was a figure of this sacrament. Accordingly, Christ gave this sacrament after the supper of the paschal lamb. For it says in Colossians 2:17 about all the practices of the Law: “These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.” Second, He did it so that from this sacrament He might pass immediately to His passion, of which this sacrament is the memorial. Therefore, He said to the disciples, “Arise, let us go from here” (John 14:31), that is, to His passion. Third, He did it so that this sacrament would be impressed more sharply on the hearts of the disciples, to whom He gave it during His last peaceful time with them. But out of reverence for this great sacrament, the Church later established that it can be received only by those who are fasting. The sick were excepted from this, as necessity knows no law, and they could receive the body of Christ without fasting.

Because water does not break the fast, some supposed that they could receive this sacrament after a drink of water, especially because, as they say, water is not nourishment any more than any other element. But although water by itself is not nourishment and therefore does not break the Eucharistic fast in that sense, it does nourish when mixed with other things. In another sense, some are said to be fasting who on the same day take neither food nor drink. Because pieces of food remaining in the mouth are swallowed in the same way as saliva, this does not prevent one from being fasting. Likewise, the fast is not broken if a person does not sleep at all during the night, or even if the food is not fully digested, provided that on that same day he took absolutely no food or drink. Since the beginning of a day is reckoned from midnight according to the custom of the Church, whoever partakes of even a little food or drink after midnight cannot receive this sacrament on that day.

Then, when he says, For in eating, each one goes ahead, he mentions the fault: first, in that they sinned against God; and second, in that they sinned against their neighbor (verse 21b).

He says, therefore, first: The reason I say that it is not lawful for you to eat the Lord’s supper is that each one of you goes ahead with his own meal, that is, of common food. For each one carried to the church a tray of food already prepared, and each one ate by himself before he received the sacred mysteries. “They banquet separately; now they shall perish” (Hosea 9:9). And in the person of the frugal man,Ecclesiastes 11:19 says: “I have found rest, and I ate of my own goods alone.”

Then, when he says, and one is hungry and another is drunk, he accuses them of sinning against their neighbor. For the wealthy ate lavishly in church and drank until they were drunk, but they gave nothing to the poor, who remained hungry. This is what he says: and one is hungry, namely, the poor man, who did not have the means to prepare anything, and another is drunk, namely, the rich man, who over-ate and over-drank. This is contrary to Nehemiah 8:10: “Go your way, eat the fat and drink sweet wine and send portions to him for whom nothing is prepared.” It is also contrary to Job 31:17: “I have eaten my morsel alone, and the fatherless has not eaten of it.”

Then, when he says, What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? he investigates the cause of this sin. First, he excludes a reason by which they could be excused. It is not lawful to apply to profane uses the house of God, which is set aside for sacred uses. Hence the Lord, when driving the buyers and sellers from the temple, said, “My house is a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves” (Matthew 21:13). And Augustine says in his Rule: “In the oratory let no one do anything except that for which it was built and from which it gets its name.” Yet in a case of necessity, when one can find no other house, he may lawfully use the church for eating or for other such lawful purposes. But the Apostle rejects this excuse, saying: Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? You would have an excuse only if you had no other place to celebrate banquets, which you ought to do in your own homes. Hence Luke 5:29 says that Levi made Christ a great feast in his house.

Secondly, when he says, or do you despise the church of God, he asserts the cause which makes them inexcusable. The first cause is contempt for the church of God. He states this, saying: Do you despise the church of God? Is that why you presume to eat your supper in the church? Here “church” can be taken for either the congregation of believers or the sacred house, which is not to be despised, as it says in Psalm 93:5: “Holiness befits your house.” And in Jeremiah 7:11: “Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes?” But they despised both when they held feasts in a holy place in the presence of the congregation of believers. Secondly, he mentions their contempt for their neighbor when he says: and humiliate those who have nothing? For the poor were humiliated, since they were hungry in the presence of the entire group while others were eating and drinking lavishly. But it says in Proverbs 17:7: “He who mocks the poor insults his Maker,” and in Sirach 4:2: “Do not grieve the one who is hungry.”

Then, when he says, What shall I say to you? he concludes his reprimand, saying: What shall I say to you in the light of the above? Shall I praise you? And he answers: In this I do not praise you. Although I praise you for other things, in this matter I cannot praise you. It should be noted that above, when he spoke about women’s apparel, he praised them at least ironically, saying: “I praise you, because you remember me in everything.” But here he does not want to praise them even ironically, because in more serious matters sinners must not be handled gently. Hence it says in Psalm 10:3: “For the sinner is praised in the desires of his soul and the wicked man is blessed. And the sinner renounces the Lord.” And in Isaiah 3:12: “My people, those who called you happy, misled you.”

According to another explanation, they are reprimanded for a different fault. In the early church, the faithful offered bread and wine, which were consecrated into the body and blood of Christ. After the consecration, the rich, who had offered much, wanted the same amount returned to them. And so they took an abundant share, while the poor, who had offered nothing, received nothing. Therefore, it is for this fault that the Apostle reprimands them, saying: When you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For the Lord’s supper is common to the whole family, but each of you takes it not as common but as his own, while trying to justify himself because he offered it to God. This is what he adds: Each one goes ahead to take his own supper to eat, that is, he presumptuously attempts to eat the consecrated bread and wine as his own, taking for his own use the things consecrated to the Lord. And so it follows that one goes hungry—the poor person who offered nothing—but another is drunk—the rich man who offered much and took too much of the consecrated wine, which he demanded as his own.

But it seems impossible for one to get drunk from consecrated wine or even be nourished by the bread. After consecration, nothing remains under the appearances of bread and wine except the substance of Christ’s body and blood, which cannot be changed into a human body so as to nourish it or cause drunkenness.

Therefore, some say that this happens not by any conversion of substance, but by a mere change in a person’s senses caused by the accidents of bread and wine, which remain after consecration. For people were known to be strengthened by the mere odor of food and to be stupefied, as it were, from the strong odor of wine. But strengthening or stupefaction that comes solely from a change of the senses lasts only a short time. However, if the consecrated bread or wine were taken in large quantities, a person would be sustained for a long time by the bread or stupefied by the wine. Besides, it is clear that the consecrated bread can be changed into another substance, since it is changed into dust by putrefaction or into ashes by burning. Hence, there is no reason to deny that it can nourish, since nourishment requires only that the food be changed into the substance of the one fed.

Therefore, others assert that the consecrated bread or wine can be converted into something else and so can nourish, because the substance of bread or wine remains there with the substance of the body and blood of Christ. But this conflicts with the words of Scripture. For what the Lord says in Matthew 26:26, “This is my body,” would not be true, because the thing pointed to would still be bread. He should rather have said, “Here, in this place, is my body.” Besides, the body of Christ does not begin to be in this sacrament by local motion, because He would then cease to be in heaven. It must be, then, that He begins to be there by the conversion of something else—the bread—into Himself. Therefore, the substance of bread cannot remain.

Others say that the bread’s substantial form remains, from which a thing’s activity springs; consequently, it nourishes just as bread itself nourishes. But this cannot be, because to nourish is to be converted into the substance of the one nourished. This does not belong to any nutrient by reason of its form, whose function is to act, but rather by reason of its matter, whose function is to be acted upon. Hence, if only the substantial form were there, it would be unable to nourish.

Still others say that the surrounding air is converted either into the substance of the one nourished or into something else of that sort. But this could not happen without a great condensation of air, which would surely be detected by the senses. Therefore, others say that by divine power the substance of bread and wine returns, so that the sacrament is not detected in these changes. But this seems impossible, because since the substance of bread was converted into the body of Christ, it does not seem that the substance of bread could return unless the body of Christ were converted back into bread. Besides, if the substance of bread returns, this occurs either with the accidents of bread remaining—and then the substance of bread and the substance of Christ’s body would be there simultaneously, which was disproved above—or it returns with the species (the appearances) not remaining, which is also impossible. For the substance of Christ’s body is there as long as the species remain.

But it is better to say that just as, by the power of the consecration, the appearances of bread and wine are miraculously given the ability to subsist without a subject and to exist in the manner of a substance, so also they are miraculously given the consequent ability to act and be acted upon in the same way as the substance of bread and wine would, if they were present. For this reason, those species of bread and wine can nourish and cause drunkenness, just as if the substance of bread and wine were there. As for the rest of the argument, there are no changes from the first explanation.

After rebuking the Corinthians for their improper behavior when they gathered for the Eucharist, the Apostle now addresses the sacrament itself. First, he discusses the dignity of this sacrament; second, he urges the faithful to receive it reverently (verse 27). Regarding the first point, he does two things: he establishes the authority of the doctrine he is about to deliver, and then he presents the doctrine concerning the dignity of this sacrament (verse 23b).

Concerning the first matter, he establishes the doctrine’s authority in two ways. First, he establishes its authority from its author, who is Christ, saying: I received from the Lord. He calls the sacrament of the Eucharist the Lord’s supper, for he received this teaching from the Lord—that is, Christ, who is the author of this doctrine, not any mere man. As it is written, Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through men, but through Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:1), and, It was declared at first by the Lord (Hebrews 2:3). Second, he establishes the doctrine’s authority from its minister, who is Paul himself, when he adds, what I also delivered to you. This is in keeping with the scriptures: What I have heard from the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, I announce to you (Isaiah 21:10); I learned without guile and I impart without envy .

Then, when he says, that the Lord Jesus, he establishes the dignity of this sacrament by describing its institution. He addresses:

1. the one who institutes it;
2. the time of its institution (verse 23c);
3. and the manner of its institution (verse 23d).

The one who institutes this sacrament is Christ. Hence Paul says, that the Lord Jesus. As was stated previously when the sacrament of baptism was discussed, Christ possesses an excellence of power in the sacraments, which includes four things. First, his virtue and merit operate in the sacraments. Second, the sacraments are sanctified in his name. Third, he can produce the effect of a sacrament without the sacrament itself. Fourth, he can institute a new sacrament. It was especially fitting that he should institute in his own person this sacrament, in which his body and blood are communicated. For this reason, he himself says in John 6:51: The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.

Next, when he says, on the night when he was betrayed, he describes the time this sacrament was instituted. This was fitting for two reasons. First, regarding the nature of the time, it was night, and the soul is enlightened by the power of this sacrament. As 1 Samuel 14:27 says of Jonathan, he put out the tip of the staff... and dipped it in a honeycomb and put his hand to his mouth, and his eyes became bright. For this reason, Psalms 139:12 says, the night is as bright as the day. Second, regarding the events taking place at that time, it was when he was handed over to his passion, through which he passed to the Father, that he instituted this sacrament, which is a memorial of that passion. As it is written, Come here, stranger, and prepare the table, and if you have anything at hand, let me have it to eat .

Then, when he says, he took bread, he shows the manner of the institution. First, he relates what Christ said and did in instituting this sacrament; second, he explains its meaning (verse 26). In the first part, he deals with the institution of this sacrament concerning the body of Christ, and then concerning his blood (verse 25).

Before explaining the text regarding the first part, we must consider the need for this sacrament’s institution. It should be noted that the sacraments were instituted because of a need in the spiritual life. And because physical things are likenesses of spiritual things, it is fitting that the sacraments correspond to things necessary for physical life. In physical life, generation comes first, to which baptism corresponds, through which one is reborn into the spiritual life. Second, physical life requires growth, by which one is brought to full stature and strength. The sacrament of confirmation corresponds to this, in which the Holy Spirit is given for strength. Third, physical life requires food to sustain the body; likewise, the spiritual life is fed by the sacrament of the Eucharist, as it says in Psalm 23:2: He makes me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside still waters.

It should be understood that the one who generates is not joined in substance to the one generated, but only in power. Food, however, is joined in substance to the one who is fed. Therefore, in the sacrament of baptism, by which Christ regenerates us for salvation, Christ is present not in his substance but only in his power. But in the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is spiritual food, Christ is present in his substance.

He is contained under another appearance for three reasons:

1. It would be abhorrent to the faithful to receive this sacrament if they ate the flesh of a man and drank his blood in their natural form.
2. It would prevent the sacrament from being a source of mockery for unbelievers.
3. It allows the merit of faith to increase, which consists in believing something unseen.

This sacrament is presented under two species for three reasons:

1. For the sake of its perfection. Since it is spiritual refreshment, it should be both spiritual food and spiritual drink, just as physical refreshment is incomplete without both. Hence the Apostle says above, All ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink (1 Corinthians 10:3–4).
2. For the sake of its symbolic meaning. It is the memorial of the Lord’s passion, through which the blood of Christ was separated from his body. That is why in this sacrament the blood is offered separately from the body.
3. For the sake of its health-giving effect. It contributes to the health of the body, and so the body is offered; and it contributes to the health of the soul, and so the blood is offered, for the life of the flesh is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11).

This sacrament is offered specifically under the appearance of bread and wine for three reasons. First, because people generally use bread and wine for their refreshment, these are used in this sacrament, just as water is used in baptism. Second, because of the effect of this sacrament, for bread strengthens the heart, while wine gladdens it. Third, because the bread, which is made from many grains, signifies the unity of the faithful. Furthermore, this Eucharist is especially the sacrament of unity and charity, as Augustine says in his commentary on John.

Having considered these points, we must now explain the text, looking first at what Christ did, and second, at what he said (verse 24).

He does three things. The first is designated when the text says, He took bread. This can signify two things: first, that he voluntarily accepted the passion, of which this sacrament is the memorial, as it says in Isaiah 53:7: He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth. Second, that he received from the Father the power to bring about this sacrament, according to Matthew 11:27: All things have been handed over to me by my Father. He touches on the second action when he says, and broke it, fulfilling the command, Share your bread with the hungry (Isaiah 58:7).

But this seems contrary to the practice of the Church, according to which the body of Christ is first consecrated and then broken. This cannot be, because when the priest is consecrating, he does not speak those words in his own person but in the person of Christ consecrating. It is clear, therefore, that Christ consecrated with the same words with which we consecrate. It should be noted that the phrase and said is not to be taken sequentially, as though Christ took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and then said the words that follow. Rather, these actions are to be understood as happening simultaneously: while he took the bread, giving thanks, he broke it and said the words. Therefore, with Matthew 26:26, it should be stated that Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it. The Apostle here did not bother to mention the blessing, understanding that the blessing was nothing other than what the Lord said: This is my body.

Then, when he says, and said, he shows what Christ said when instituting this sacrament. In doing so, he first commanded the use of the sacrament, second, expressed the truth of the sacrament, and third, taught its mystery.

He commanded the use of the sacrament, saying, Take. It is as if to say that it is not by any human power or merit that you are worthy to use this sacrament, but by an eminent gift of God: You gave your people food of angels ; What do you have that you did not receive? (1 Corinthians 4:7). And he specifies the manner of use when he says, and eat, in keeping with John 6:53: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man; and Job 31:31: If the men of my tent have not said, ‘Oh, that we had of his flesh! We cannot be satisfied.’

It should be noted, however, that these words are not part of the form of consecration. There is a difference between this and other sacraments: the latter are fulfilled not in the consecration of the matter but in the use of the consecrated matter, as in the washing with water or the anointing with oil or chrism. The reason is that in the forms of the other sacraments, the use of the sacrament is mentioned, as when it is stated, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." But this sacrament is fulfilled in the very consecration of the matter, in which Christ himself is contained, who is the end of all sanctifying grace. Therefore, the words that pertain to the use of the sacrament are not of the essence of the form, but only those containing the truth and content of the sacrament, which he mentions last, adding: This is my body.

Regarding these words, three things should be considered:

1. The reality signified by these words, namely, that the body of Christ is truly there.
2. The truth of this statement.
3. Whether this is a suitable form for this sacrament.

Concerning the first point, some have said that the body of Christ is not truly present in this sacrament, but only as a sign, explaining the words This is my body to mean, "This is a sign and figure of my body," just as it was said above, and that Rock was Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4), meaning it was a figure of Christ. But this is heretical, since the Lord expressly says, For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink (John 6:55). Others say that the body of Christ is truly there but along with the substance of bread. This is impossible, as was shown above. Still others say that only the body of Christ is there, the substance of bread not remaining because it is annihilated or reduced to prejacent matter. But this cannot be, because, as Augustine says in his Book of Eighty-Three Questions, "God is not the author of tending to non-existence." Furthermore, this position denies that the substance of bread is converted into the body of Christ. If the body of Christ begins to be in this sacrament by some means other than the conversion of something else into it, the consequence is that he begins to be there by local motion, which is impossible, as was shown above. Therefore, one must say that the body of Christ is truly in this sacrament by the conversion of the bread into it.

It should be noted that this conversion differs from all conversions that occur in nature. Natural processes presuppose matter, and therefore their action does not extend beyond changing a thing's form, whether substantial or accidental. Hence, every natural conversion is said to be formal. But God, who brings about this conversion, is the author of both form and matter. Therefore, the entire substance of bread, with the matter not remaining, can be converted into the entire substance of the body of Christ. And because matter is the principle of individuation, this whole signated individual, which is a particular substance, is converted into another particular substance. For this reason, it is called a substantial conversion, or transubstantiation.

In this conversion, the opposite of what happens in natural conversions occurs. In natural conversions, the subject remains while a change sometimes affects the accidents. But here, the substance is changed, while the accidents remain intact without a subject. This is done by divine power, which, as the first cause, sustains them without a material cause (the substance) so that the body and blood of Christ may be consumed under a different appearance, for the reasons given above. And because accidents relate to their substance in a definite order, the dimensions remain without a subject, and the other accidents remain in those dimensions as in a subject.

But if no substance remains under those dimensions except the body of Christ, there could be doubt about the breaking of the consecrated host, since the body of Christ is glorified and, therefore, unbreakable. He cannot exist under this particle, nor can it be pretended that he does, because the sacrament of truth is incompatible with any deception. Nothing is perceived by the senses in this sacrament that is not truly there. For the per se sensibles are qualities, which indeed remain as they previously existed in this sacrament. Therefore, others have said that a certain breaking occurs there without a subject, meaning nothing is actually broken. But this cannot be said either, because breaking is in the category of "being acted upon," which is a weaker category than quality; it cannot exist in this sacrament without a subject any more than quality can. Hence, it must be said that the breaking is founded, as on a subject, on the dimensions of the bread and wine which remain. But the body of Christ is not affected by such breaking, because the whole Christ remains under each part of the divided dimensions.

This can be understood in this way: the body of Christ is in this sacrament from the conversion of the substance of bread into it. This conversion does not happen because of the dimensions, for the dimensions of the bread remain; it happens only by reason of the substance. Therefore, the body of Christ is there by reason of its own substance, not by reason of its own dimensions, although its dimensions are there consequently, inasmuch as they are not separated from his substance. But as far as the nature of substance is concerned, it is entire under each part of the dimensions. Therefore, just as before the consecration the entire substance and nature of the bread was under each part of its dimensions, so after the consecration the whole body of Christ is under each part of the divided bread.

The division of the consecrated host signifies three things:

1. The passion of Christ, through which his body was broken by wounds, as it says in Psalm 22:16: They have pierced my hands and my feet.
2. The distribution of Christ's gifts proceeding from him, as it says above: Now there are varieties of gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4).
3. The various parts of the Church. For among Christ’s members, some are still pilgrims in this world, some are in glory with Christ in both soul and body, and some await the final resurrection at the end of the world. This is signified by the division of the host into three parts.

Secondly, one should consider the truth of this statement. For the statement, This is my body, seems to be false. The conversion of bread into the body of Christ occurs at the time these words are pronounced, for it is then that their signification is completed. Since the forms of the sacraments bring about their effect by signifying it, it follows that at the beginning of the statement, the body of Christ is not yet there, but only the substance of bread. The pronoun "this" points to that substance. Therefore, to say, "this is my body," would be the same as saying, "The substance of bread is my body," which is obviously false.

Therefore, some have said that the priest pronounces these words materially, as a recitation, in the person of Christ, and that the pronoun’s demonstrative function does not refer to the matter at hand, which would render the statement false as the objection supposed. But this cannot stand. First, because if this statement is not applied to the material present, it will do nothing to it, which is false. For Augustine says in his commentary on John, "The word comes to the element, and the sacrament comes to be." Hence, it is necessary to say that the words are taken formally as referring to the material present. The priest says them with the same efficacy now as when Christ first spoke them, for the power conferred on these words does not vanish with the difference of time or the variety of ministers. Second, because the same difficulty remains regarding the first time these words were spoken by Christ himself.

Therefore, others say that the sense of these words is, "This is my body," i.e., "This bread designates my body," so that "this" designates what is present at the beginning of the statement. But this cannot be, because since the sacraments bring about what they signify, these words would effect nothing except what they signify. It would follow from this that nothing would be effected by these words, except that the body of Christ would be there as if under a sign, which was disproved earlier. Others say that the "this" points out something to the intellect and indicates that which will be present at the end of the utterance, namely, the body of Christ. But this does not seem suitable either, because according to this the sense would be, "My body is my body," which is a tautology not brought about by these words, since it was true even before the words of consecration.

Therefore, there must be another explanation. The forms of the sacraments do not merely signify, but also effect; for by signifying, they effect. In every act of making, there must be some common underlying principle. In this conversion, the common factor is not a substance but the accidents, which were present in the beginning and continue to remain. Therefore, on the part of the subject in this statement, no noun is used which signifies a definite species of substance, but a pronoun, which signifies a substance without naming its species. The meaning, therefore, is: "This"—that is, that which is contained under these accidents—"is my body." And this is what occurs through the words of consecration. For before the consecration, that which was contained under these accidents was not the body of Christ, but it is made the body of Christ through consecration.

Thirdly, it is important to consider how this is a suitable form for this sacrament. This sacrament, as has been said, does not consist in the use of the matter but in its consecration. But the consecration does not occur by the consecrated matter merely receiving some spiritual power, but by the fact that it is transubstantiated in its very being into the body of Christ. Therefore, no word other than a substantive was to be used, so as to say, this is my body. For by this is signified that which is at the end, which is effected by signifying.

Then when he says, which is for you, he explains the mystery of this sacrament. For this sacrament is a memorial of the Lord’s passion, through which his body was delivered over to death for us, as it says in Isaiah 50:6: I gave my back to those who strike, and Ephesians 5:2: and gave himself up for us. And to show the reason for making frequent use of this mystery, he adds: Do this in remembrance of me, by calling to mind such a great blessing, for which I gave myself in death. Hence it says in Lamentations 3:19: Remember my affliction and my wanderings, the wormwood and the gall! and Psalm 111:4-5: He has caused his wondrous works to be remembered; the Lord is gracious and merciful. He provides food for those who fear him.