The Great Commentary (Mossman/Cobb English)

And did all eat the same spiritual meat Not, as Calvin supposes, the same as we, as though Christians and Hebrews alike feed, not on the Real Body of Christ, but on the typical You will say, perhaps, that S. Augustine {tract. 25 in Johan.) and S. Thomas explain it to be the same as we eat. I reply: They understand " the same ” by analogy, for the Hebrews received typically what we receive really. But this is beside the meaning of the Apostle, who understands the same to refer, not to us but to themselves. All the Hebrews, whether good or bad, ate the same vol. 1. p Digitized by v^,ooQle 226 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE food, that is the same manna. This is evident from the context, “But with many of them God was not well pleased f that is to say, that though all ate the same manna, drank of the same water from the rock, yet all did not please God. As, then, they had one baptism and one spiritual food, so too have we ; and as, notwithstanding, they were not all saved, but many of them perished, so is it to be feared that many of us may perish, although we have the same sacraments common to us all. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Anselm, and others. And notice with them that manna is here called “spiritual food,” or mystical, or typical, because the manna was a type of the Eucharist. So the water from the rock is called “ spiritual drink," because it was a type of the blood of Christ Others take “spiritual" to mean miraculous, t'.e., not produced by the powers of nature but of spirits, viz., God and the angels; for of this kind was manna, of which the Psalmist says, “ So man did eat angels’ food” (Ps. lxxviii. 25). 1. Manna allegorically stood for Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, as is evident from S. John vL 49, 50. Especially did it represent the contained part, and the effect of the sacrament, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Cyril point out at length, in commenting on the passage of S. John just quoted. Hence the Apostle says here: “They did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink.” Even Calvin takes this of the Holy Communion, and says that the manna was a type of the body of Christ. From this you may rightly infer that in the Blessed Sacrament the flesh of Christ is truly present, since manna was a symbol of a thing really existing, and not merely imagined; for some of us as well as of the Jews will eat the spiritual meat, />., the typical and symbolical flesh, and will not have more of the truth signified than the Jews, nay, much less; for manna was sweeter than our bread, and far more clearly than dry bread represented the body of Christ A certain minister of this new flock has lately yielded this point as a clear consequence. But who does not see that it is at variance with Holy Scripture and with reason ? For the New Law is more excellent than the Old, and therefore the sacraments of the New surpass Digitized by v^,ooQle MANNA AS A TYPE 22 / those of the Old. Therefore the Apostle says : “ These things were our examples.” But the thing figured is better than the figure, as a body is than its shadow, and a man than his likeness. Therefore the sacraments of the New Law, and especially the Eucharist, as a thing figured, must be more noble than the sacraments of the Old Law, and than the manna itself, which was but a type and figure of our Eucharist Again, in S. John vi., Christ at some length puts His body in the Eucharist before the manna (vers. 48 and 59). The bread that He there speaks of is that which is Divine, consecrated and transubstantiated into the body of Christ. Who does not see that the manna was a better representation of the body of Christ than bread ? It can be shown in many ways. 2. S. Paul has most fittingly compared manna to the body of Christ in the Eucharist, and has most beautifully shadowed it out : (a) The element in the Eucharist and the manna have the same colour ; (£) the taste of both is sweet ; (c) it is not found except by those who have left the fleshpots of Egypt and the lusts of the flesh ; (tf) to the covetous and to infidels both turn to worms and bring condemnation ; ( e ) the manna was not given till after the passing of the Red Sea — the Eucharist is not given till after baptism ; (J) after the manna came, the Hebrews fought with Araalek, but before that God alone had fought for them against the Egyptians. They fought and conquered ; so the obstacles and temptations which beset the heavenly life are allowed by God to trouble those only who are fortified against them, and they are overcome by the power of the Eucharist (g) The manna was bread made by angels, without seed, or ploughing, or any human toil ; so the body of Christ was formed of the Virgin alone by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. (^) Manna gave every kind of sweet taste to those who were good and devout Hence Wisdom (xvi. 20) says of manna: “Thou feddest Thine own people with angels* food, and didst give them bread from heaven prepared without labour, containing in itself ail sweetness and every pleasant taste.” So Christ is milk to babes, oil to children, solid food to the perfect, as Gregory Nyssen says, (j) The manna was small : Christ is contained by a small Host ; (£) the Digitized by v^,ooQle 228 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE manna was beaten in a mortar : Christ was stripped of His mortality in the mortar of the Cross. (/) The faithful wonderingly exclaim, “Man-hu — What is this — that God should be with us!” (m) All collected an equal measure of manna, viz., one omer ; so all alike receive whole Christ, though the species or the Host be greater or smaller, as Rupert says. ( n ) The manna was collected in the wilderness on the six week-days only; so in our eternal Sabbath and Promised Land the veil of the sacrament will be done away, and in perfect rest we shall enjoy the sight of Christ face to face. ( o ) The manna melted under the sun, so is the sacrament dissolved when the species are melted by heat. More will be found in the commentary on Exod. xxi

For they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them . The rock which gave water to the Hebrews was a type of Christ, who is the true Rock from which flowed the blood to quench the heat of our lust. But what is meant by saying that this rock followed the Hebrews ? 1. The Hebrews reply that their tradition, and the Chaldean rendering of Num. xxi. 16, is that this rock miraculously followed the Jews everywhere in the wilderness till they came to Canaan, and supplied them with water. Hence Ephrem renders this, “ They drank of the spiritual rock which came with them;” and Tertullian (de Baptismo , c. ix.) calls this rock their “ companion.” He says : “ This is the water which flowed from the rock which accompanied the people” But farther on he interprets this rock of Christ, who in His Godhead accompanied and led the Hebrews through the wilderness. He says again ( contra Mar cion, lib. iii. c. 5 ) : “He will understand that the rock which accompanied them to supply them with drink was Christ” S. Ambrose, too (in Ps. xxxviii.) says : " There is a shadow in the rock which poured forth water and followed the people. Was not the water from the rock a shadow of the blood of Christy who followed the people , though they fled from Him, that He might give them drink and quench their thirst ', that they might be redeemed and not perish f ” Again, S. Ambrose (de Sacra mentis, lib. v. c. 1) takes the rock to be Christ He says : “ It was no motionless rock which Digitized by v^,ooQle THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST 229 followed the people . Drink , that Christ may follow Thee also” But I should like to have better authorities for this tradition, for it is against it that after this water came from the rock (Num. xx. n), the people murmured again because of the scarcity of water (Num. xxi. 5), and therefore God gave them a well of water (ver. 16). 2. Others soften down the passage and explain it thus : “ The waters which burst forth from the rock flowed for a long time and rushed forth as a torrent, and this stream followed the Hebrews till they came to a place where there was plenty of water. For had it been a supply to last but for one day, the rock would have had to be struck on the next day, and the third, and the fourth, and so on, to get a supply of water.” And this explanation they support by pointing out that the manna is literal manna, and that therefore the rock or the drink spoken are material rock and material drink ; but the objections to the first explanation are equally strong against this. 3. Photius supposes that the word for following simply means serving, and he would paraphrase the verse, “This rock satisfied the thirst of the Hebrews.” But the Greek cannot possibly bear this interpretation. 4. It is better, then, to understand this of the spiritual Rock signified, not the one signifying. The meaning is then : By the power of the Godhead of Christ, which was the spiritual Rock signified by the rock that gave water to the Hebrews, and which was their constant companion in the wilderness, water was given to them from the material rock. It is so explained by S. Chrysostom, Ambrose, Anselm, (Ecumenius. It may be said, By “ spiritual meat ” the Apostle meant manna, not the body of Christ, and by “spiritual drink” he means the water signifying the blood of Christ, not the blood itself ; therefore, by parity of reasoning, the u spiritual rock ” is the actual rock that typified Christ, not Christ Himself. I deny the consequence, for the Apostle in speaking of the Rock inverts the phrase, and passes from the sign to the thing signified. This is evident from his saying in explanation of the Rock, “ That Digitized by v^,ooQle 230 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE Rock was Christ” In other words, “ When I speak of the spiritual Rock, I mean Christ.” What can be clearer? For it was not the material but the spiritual Rock which was Christ : one was type, the other antitype. It may be urged again, that the phrase “They drank of the spiritual Rock,” means that they drank the spiritual or typical drink, for the rock giving this drink was spiritual or typical This would give the connecting idea, and the reason for saying that “ they drank the same spiritual drink,” for the rock was a type of Christ. The answer to this objection is that the sequence of thought is clear enough. The particle for gives the efficient cause of so great a miracle ; in other words, the Hebrews drank of water which served as a type, for Christ was foreshadowed by the rock which gave this water, and He miraculously gave them this typical water in order that they might know and worship Christ giving it ; but this, as the sequel shows, very many of them did not do. The rock that gave the water allegorically stood for Christ, because Christ, like a rock most firm, supports the Church, and was smitten, i.e. f killed, by Moses, ue. % the Jews, with a rod; that is, the Cross poured forth waters, that is, most fruitful streams of grace, to the faithless of contradiction, to the faithful of sanctification. This is especially true of the waters of His blood in the Eucharist, with which He gives us drink in the desert of this life, that, strengthened by them, we may attain to our country in the heavens. See S. John vii. 37 and iv. 14. S. Augustine (< contra Faustum , lib. xvi. c. 15). It may be argued : Some Catholic writers, according to the first explanation given above, say that, as “that Rock was Christ” means that it was typical of Christ, so in the same way it can be said of the Eucharist, that “ this is My body ” means “ this bread is a figure of My body.” But add that the Apostle expressly says that he is speaking of the spiritual, not the material rock. “ They drank of that spiritual Rock,” he says, and “ that spiritual Rock was Christ.” It is called a spiritual Rock, or typical, because it was a type of Christ But Digitized by v^,ooQle THE JEWS AS ENSAMPLES 231 neither Christ nor S. Paul speak then of the Eucharist. S. Paul and all the Evangelists uniformly declare that Christ said, “This is My Body,” not, “This is My spiritual or typical Body.” Secondly, I answer that that explanation of some writers is not a very probable one ; for that spiritual Rock, i.e. f the One signified, was really Christ, not a type of Him. The words of S. Paul clearly say this

For they were overthrown in the wilderness . All the Hebrews who left Egypt with Moses died for their sins in the wilderness, except Joshua and Caleb, who, with a new generation, entered the Promised I^and (Num. xiv. 29)

As some of them committed. When they worshipped Baal-peor, i.e., Priapus, and in his honour committed fornication with the daughters of Moab (Num. xxv.). And fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Chrysostom, Anselm, Cajetan, refer this to the plague which was sent because of, the fornication with the daughters of Moab, and which is related in Num. xxv. But in ver. 9 of that chapter the number slain is given as 24,000, not 23,000. (1.) Some account for this by saying that on one day only 23,000 were slain, and 1000 on the day before. But this is pure conjecture, for Scripture says nothing of this. (2.) Cajetan explains it by an error of some scribe, who wrote 23,000 for 24,000. (3.) (Ecumenius says that some read 23,000 in Num. xxv. 9 as well as here. (4.) Others say that the Apostle is not wrong, because the greater number includes the less. But it is simpler and more natural to say that the Apostle is referring to Exod. xxxii. 28, where, according to the Roman Bible, 23,000 fell for worshipping the golden calf. S. Paul, if this be so, is not referring to the punishment inflicted on the fornicators of Num. xxv., but by a Hebrew custom he looks back to the idolaters of ver. 7. We must suppose that, having forgotten to mention the punishment inflicted on them, he now gives it as an after- thought : certainly in the sins he goes on to name he in each case adds the punishment He does this to warn the Corinthians against such sins, and especially because the worship of the calf and the lust accompanying it were exactly parallel, both in punishment and guilt, to the worship and fornication in the matter of Baal-peor. S. Paul’s number agrees Digitized by Goodie PUNISHMENT OF IDOLATRY 233 with the older rendering of the Greek in Exod. xxxii. 28. The LXX. now has 3000

As some of them also murmured , and were destroyed of the destroyer , i.e., the angel by whom God inflicted punishment on the Hebrews for murmuring, because Korah and his followers were swallowed up alive by the earth. Fourteen thousand seven hundred perished by fire (see Num. xyi. 30, 35, 40, 45; Wisd. xviii. 20; Anselm in loco). This angel seems to have been Michael, the leader of the people, the giver of the law on Sinai and its vindicator, and a type of Christ, as was said just now (see Exod. xxiii. 21). Others suppose that this “ destroyer ” was an evil angel or a devil, and refer to Ps. lxxviiL 49. But the Psalmist is speaking of the plague sent on the Egyptians, but Paul of those that God inflicted on the Hebrews. Besides, it is truer to say that the plagues were inflicted on the Egyptians by good angels, not by evil ones ; for, as S. Augustine says, when commenting on Ps. lxxviii. 49, it is well known that it was by good angels that Moses turned the water into blood, and produced frogs and lice ; for it was by these miraculous punishments Digitized by v^,ooQle 234 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE that Moses and the good angels strove against the magicians cf Pharaoh and the devils : hence at the third miracle of the lice they exclaimed, “This is the finger of God.” The good angels are called, in Ps. Ixxviii. 49, “evil,” as inflicters of evil The Hebrews murmured very often in the wilderness, and nearly always were punished by God. He thus wished to show that murmuring and rebellion are worse than other sins in His sight. So, in Num. xi., He slew those who murmured through fleshly lust, and the place was therefore called “ the graves of lusts.” In the same way all who murmured because of the report of the spies, who said that Canaan was a land strongly fortressed, were excluded from it, and perished in the wilderness; and of 600,000, Joshua and Caleb alone entered it (Num. xiv. 29). So were Korah and his followers punished clearly and severely

Now all these things happened unto them for types . Viz., all those here mentioned. We are not to imagine that everything that is related in the Old Testament is merely typical, as though it contained nothing which did not figuratively represent something in the New Testament S. Augustine (de Civ. Dei y lib. xvii. c. 5) says truly : “ They seem to me to make a great mistake who think that the things recorded in the Old Testament have no meaning beyond the events themselves , just as much as those people are very venturesome who contend that everything without exception in it contains allegorical meanings .” Gabriel Vasquez (p. 1, qu. i. art. 10, disp. 14, c. 6) rightly points out that the word “figure” or “type” used here, does not mean so much an allegorical sense, or a mystical one, as an example which may be well applied for the purpose of persuasion. Thence S. Paul adds, “they are written for our admonition.” In other words, God punished the Hebrews that they might be an example to us, and teach us wisdom. Upon whom the ends of the world are come . That is, the last age of the world. The Prophets call the time of the Messiah “the last time.” (See 1 S. John ii. 18.) Ambrose and Chrysostom add that the Apostle often speaks in this way, as though the end of Digitized by v^,ooQle LIMITS OF TEMPTATION 235 the world was at hand, that he may keep every one in expectation and in fear of it, that so each one may be taught to prepare for it diligently. Ver. 1 2. — Let him that thinketh he siandeth take heed lest he fall S. Augustine (de Bono Persev. cviiL) says: “It is good for ally or nearly ally not to know what they will be, that each one , from not knowing that he will persevere in good , , may humbly and anxiously pray for the grace of God , , and with it do all he can to watch against falling and to persevere in grace?

There hath no temptation taken you, . The Vulgate reads the verb in the imperative — “let no temptation take you.” His meaning is : Be it, O Corinthians, that you are tempted to schisms, lawsuits, lust, idolatry, yet remain constant, for these temptations which take you are common to man, and therefore you can easily overcome them if you like. If you take the Roman reading, the meaning is, When, as is often the case, any temptation of those which I have mentioned, or any other, attacks your minds, do not take it in and foster it, so as to let it grow imperceptibly in power, and to become at last unconquerable : for it is impossible to exclude altogether human and light temptations so as to never feel them. Anselm says : “ To be overcome by malignant temptation and to sin from malice is devilish: not to feel its power is angelic ; to feel it and overcome it is human, .” See also S. Gregory (Pastoral, pt. i. cxi.). God is faithful who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able, . z. If God does not suffer us to be tempted beyond our strength, therefore much less, or rather in no way does God impel us to sin, as Calvin thinks. 2. Nor does God enjoin impossibilities, as Luther thinks, nor does He even permit them. 3. It follows from this that we can be so strongly tempted by the devil and the flesh as to be unable to resist if the grace of God does not succour us, as Chrysostom and Anselm say. 4. As a matter of fact there is no temptation so great but that it can be overcome by the grace of God. Digitized by v^,ooQle 236 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE . The best remedy, therefore, against temptation is prayer, by which we call down the help of God from distrust of our own strength (S. Matt xxvi. 41). 6. This grace is promised here and elsewhere, not only to the elect, but to all who duly call on God. See also decrees of the Council of Trent (Sess. xxiv. can. 9, and Sess. vi. can. 11). For the Apostle is speaking to the Christians at Corinth, many of whom were not elect, but some contentious, causing offence, and drunken (chap. xi. 21). What is more, none of them knew that they were elected, so as to be able to apply this consolation to themselves exclusively. 7. It is in the power of each Christian to obtain sufficient help to overcome all temptations and all sins; for God pledges His word to them to this, and He is One to be trusted, as the Apostle says here. His meaning is: no temptation can take you, except on your own side and by your own negligence; for on God’s side I pledge myself that God, who is faithful, will perform what He has promised, and will not suffer you to be tempted above that you are able, ie, will not allow you to be tempted, except by human temptation. Understand, however, that this is if you seek His grace and help, as is right, and co-operate with Him. “ God ” as S. Augustine says (de Nat et Gratia , c. 43), and following him, the Council of Trent (Sess. vi. can. il), “ God does not order impossibilities when He orders us to resist every temptation ; but when He orders , it is to bid us to do what we can , to seek help for what we cannot and then He lends the strength? See S. Matt xi. 30 and 1 S. John v. 3. S. Ephrem beautifully illustrates this saying of the Apostle as follows : " If men? he says, “do not put upon their beasts more weight than they can bear , much less will God put on men more temptations than they can bear Again , if the potter bakes his vessels in the fire until they are perfected , and does not remove them before they are properly baked and of the right consistency , and again does not leave them in too long lest they be burnt too much and so become useless : much more will God do the same with us , trying us with the fire of temptations until we are purified and perfected ; but beyond that point He will not suffer us to be scorched and consumed with temptation ” (de Paiientid). Digitized by v^,ooQle SUFFICIENCY OF GRACE 237 But will with the temptation also make a way to escape . God, who suffers you to fall into temptation, will also make it turn out well, as Erasmus and Augustine (in Ps. Ixii and Ep. 89) understand it. He makes it good for you and your salvation, and will enable you to come out of it without loss, nay, rather victoriously and with glory, as Anselm says. 1. The word translated “ way of escape,” according to Theophylact, CEcumenius, and the Greeks, means a happy end of the temptation, so that it turns out well and promotes the good of the tempted ; for God will either bring the temptation to a speedy ending, or not permit it to go on to the fourth day, if He knows that we cannot bear it for more than three days, as S. Ambrose says ; or if He gives it longer life He gives us the power of bearing it, as Ambrose and Anselm say. 2. It does not signify any way of escape, but such a way as when a soldier comes out victorious from a battle or a single combat, more renowned and even with increased strength and courage. So have the saints come out of temptation. The Greek word then also means a progress. Not only will God make the temptation no obstacle, but a means even of advancement, causing an increase of strength, virtue, grace, victory, and glory, a more certain walk in the way of virtue and in the road to heaven. So Photius. That ye may be able to bear it The Greek literally means, “ to more than bear it,” i.e., so to bear it that strength remains over and above to bear something farther. God gives such help that any one can overcome temptation with flying colours. Hence the Fathers often remark that men advance in virtue through temptations chiefly ; the reason is, that no one can resist them, except by putting forth contrary acts of virtue strongly and intensely, and where temptation brings out such acts it strengthens and intensifies their habits. 3. The righteous wins merit by such acts ; he seeks and receives from God an increased infusion of grace and all virtues

Wherefore , my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry . Not only avoid the worship which is given in sacrificing to and calling on idols, but also abstain from eating things offered to idols from 238 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE any feeling of their sanctity, as the heathen eat them when the sacrifice is completed, either at the altars or in the temples. So you would share in their sacrifices, and would be thought to approve of them, and even to offer them. The Apostle is now going on to speak of the eating of things offered to idols. Chapter ix. was a long digression about a paid or unpaid ministry, about the Christian contest, the prize, and the competitors ; the earlier part of chap. x. has been about the sins and punishments of the Hebrews ; and now, after this long digression, he returns to the subject of things offered to idols, which was begun in chap. viii. The “ wherefore ” signifies, then, that he had written all that precedes for the purpose of warning them against idolatry and idol-offerings

For we being many are one breads and one body : for we are all partakers of that one bread. As one loaf is made out of many grains of wheat, so of many faithful is made one holy and living bread, the one mystical body of Christ, the Church, not only generally and mystically, but properly and substantially, because all are really united to the body of Christ, and become one with it, in the Eucharist, just as food becomes one with him that eats it. Hence it may be rightly argued against Protestants that we all eat really the same body of Christ. They, however, say that in the Eucharist all Christians become one, because they eat the same sacramental bread, which is a type of the body of Christ But who would ever say of such a feast in common that it makes all who share in it one, merely because they sit at the same table and eat of the same bread ? It would be a statement at once untrue and foolish. It is, however, true when applied to the body of Christ, because we all feed on what is numerically one, especially because this holy bread, as S. Augustine says, when eaten, is not charged into our substance, but rather changes us into its own, and unites us to itself and makes us like it, which ordinary bread does not do. Here Cyril of Alexandria {in foan. lib. iv. c. 17) says: “As wax is incorporated into wax , and leaven permeates through breads so do we become fused into the body of Christ.” And Cyril of Jerusalem ( Catachesis , 4) says: “In Holy Communion we become , not only bearers of Christy but also sharers of the same body and the same blood as He.” This is because we become one with Christ and Christ with us, because we are really blended with the flesh of Christ, and therefore with His Person, His 244 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE Godhead, and His omnipotence. Irenaeus says the same (lib. iv. c. 34), and Hilary (de Trin. lib. viii.). It is for this reason that the Eucharist is called Communion by the Fathers : it really unites us to the body of Christ, so that all become one in Him and with Him. “ Communion ,” then, is the common union of the faithful, who, by feeding on the same true body of Christ in the Eucharist, are made one mystical body, the Church. So says Bede, following S. Augustine Hence, too, the Council of Trent (sess. xiii. c. 8) says : “ This sacrament is the sign of unity , the bond of charity , the symbol of peace and concord n no doubt because, in a wonderful way, it signifies and perfects the unity of the body of Christ, i.e., of the faithful of the Church. For this reason, too, the Eucharist was formerly given to infants after their baptism, that they might be perfectly incorporated into Christ (vide S. John vi. 55). Again for the same reason the Eucharist was called by S. Dionysius, Synaxis , i.e., “congregation,” because the faithful were in the habit of assembling in the church to receive the Eucharist Tertullian even says (de Oratione, cap. ult) that prayer should end when the body of the Lord has been received. The Apostle too, in the next chapter (ver. 20), says: “ When ye come together, therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lords supper For although the Church becomes the body of Christ through faith and baptism, yet this is done more truly and properly in the Eucharist. Heretics raise the objection that therefore only the good and righteous are parts and members of the Church, for the Apostle says, “ We are all one bread ; ” but bread, they say, is made from grains of wheat, not from chaff ; therefore the Church is formed from the righteous, not from the wicked ; for the righteous are the com, the wicked are the chaff. I reply (1.) that this does not follow, because a similitude is not bound to be in all points alike ; (2.) that the major premiss is false, for often chaff, grains of sand, lentils are mingled with the wheat, and with it go to make up the bread. Hence S. Paul (c. xL 29) says that even the wicked eat of this bread. But here he says that all who partake of this bread make up the one body of Christ, which is Digitized by v^,ooQle THE CHRISTIAN ALTAR 245 the Church : therefore the wicked, also, who eat of this bread are of the Church. Vide S. Cyprian (Ep. ad Magnum , lib. i. ; Ep. 6)

Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy f Ie. t to anger. Do we set up a rival to the Lord ? Do we leave Him, our Bridegroom, and cling to a devil, and the things offered to him, or at all events wish to serve both, and yoke together God and the devil? So Chrysostom, Anselm, Theophylact. S. Paul is alluding to Deut. xxxiL 21. S. Jerome, commenting on Habakkuk ii., rightly says the unclean spirits preside over all idols, and answer those who call on the idols, and give oracular replies, and lend them help. Are we stronger than He t By no means ; therefore our provoking God to anger will not go unpunished by Him

All things are lawful for me . Viz., all things that are not essentials, such as to eat of things offered to idols, not as sacred, or as things sacrificed, but as common food. So far Paul has treated of things offered to idols as such, and has forbidden the use of them. Hence, in ver. 14, he bids the Corinthians fly from idolatry, the meats of ver. 20. But in this verse he passes on to the second case, when meat that has been offered to idols is partaken of, not formally as such, but materially, as mere food or flesh ; and with Digitized by v^,ooQle LAW OF ADIAPHORA 249 regard to this he says, “ All things arc lawful to me y but all things are not expedient? because all things do not edify. Materially, you may eat of things offered to idols considered in themselves, but if there is attached to such action the giving of offence, then you may not; see vers. 27, 28, 33. Clement ( Stromata ) well said: “They who do whatsoever is lawful will easily sink into doing what is unlawful? Theophylact explains this verse differently, but his explanation is beside the drift of the context

Let no man seek his own , but every man another’s wealth . Let no one seek or buy flesh which, e.g., has been offered to idols, and which is useful and pleasant to himself, just because it is of a low price; but in such matters let each one seek his neighbour’s edification, and not to buy it or eat it, so as to cause him offence or spiritual loss. So Theophylact

Whatsoever is sold in the shambles , that eat asking no question. Eat indifferently everything, whether offered to idols or not Asking no question^ i.e., making no difference, or according to S. Ambrose, making no inquiry ; according to Theopyhlact, without hesitation. Herodotus tells us, as well as S. Augustine in the commentary he commenced on the Epistle to the Romans (c. 78), that the heathen custom was to send to the shambles whatever remained over of the sacrificed meats after the feast, and to give the priests the proceeds. In the shambles, therefore, they were looked upon as any other meats, as having returned to secular and common use. S. Augustine says : “ Some weaker brethren at that time abstained from flesh and wine , lest they should unknowingly partake of things offered to idols; for all kinds of sacrificial flesh were offered for sale in the shambles , and the heathens used to pour out libations of wine to their images , and even to offer sacrifices at their winepresses ? Hence the Apostle dispels this scruple, and bids them buy and eat freely whatever was sold in the shambles, making no distinction between meats, nor asking where they came from, as if it were a matter of conscience, or as though the flesh needed cleansing, if it came from an idol’s temple. The Christians of Antioch followed this teaching of the Apostles, Digitized by v^,ooQle 250 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE when Julian the Apostate endeavoured to force them into idolatry through idol meats. Theodoret (lib. i. c. xiv.) thus describes the incident: “Julian first polluted the water-spring with victims offered to idols, so that every one who drank of the water was infected. He then polluted in the same way whatever was offered for sale in the market; for bread, flesh, fruits, vegetables, and all other eatables were sprinkled with this water ; but when the Christians saw this, though they could not but grieve and detest the wickedness, still they ate of such things, in obedience to the injunction of the Apostle: “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles that eat, asking no question.” For conscience sake , as though you were bound to ask whether the meat which they wish to sell has been offered to idols, it being not lawful for you to buy and eat such. So Anselm, Ambrose, Theodoret It is evident from this that Paul is not speaking of the fasts of the Church, or saying that on any day, even a fast day, it is lawful to eat meat which is exposed for sale in the shambles. For these fasts do not belong to the class of non-essentials, but are precepts of the Church. Therefore S. Paul, in Acts xv., xvi., ordered the decree concerning abstinence from things strangled and from blood to be observed, though it was a mere positive precept enjoined by the Apostles alone

For the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof. Every creature, because it is the Lord’s, is good and clean; so, too, things offered to idols are not unclean, as you suppose, because they have been offered to a devil, but are clean, because created by the Lord. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Anselm. Theophylact gives another meaning as well : “ Abstain from all food sacrificed to idols, for the whole earth is the Lord’s, and you can be abundantly satisfied from other sources.” But this meaning is not suited to the context, especially, to the injunction, “ Eat whatever is sold in the shambles.”

But if any man say unto you . . . for his sake that showed it. If any unbeliever who has invited you to dinner, or any other idolater tell you that the meat on the table has been offered to idols, and is therefore sacred and to be religiously eaten, you cannot then eat it, for he will think that you are a partaker of his idolatry. Or if a Christian whose conscience is scrupulous point it out, thinking it unlawful to eat it because polluted by idolatry, do not then eat it, lest you cause him to offend. But if no offence could be caused, either to the faithful or unbelievers, it is lawful to eat of things offered to idols, even if they are pointed out and known as such. For conscience sake. Lest you wound the conscience of your brother that is weak in the faith, who is sitting at table with you, by inducing him to follow your example and eat meats offered to idols, when his conscience forbids it

Why is my liberty judged of another mads conscience ? Why should I use my liberty in such a way as gives offence and incurs condemnation by another man’s conscience? For since he is weak and untaught, he thinks that I do a thing to be condemned if I eat of idol-meats. But this I ought not to do. S. Ambrose

If I by grace be a partaker , why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks ? Although it is lawful for me to eat of things offered to idols, through the grace of Gospel liberty, and give thanks to God for them, yet why should I expose myself to the reproaches of others, that they should speak of me as an idolater or polluted by communion with idols ? From this verse it would seem to have been the custom of the ancients to ask a blessing before meals, and to give thanks afterwards. Cf. 1. Tim. iv. 4, 5