The strong must bear with the weak. Cautions against judging and giving scandal.
Like a moderator and peacemaker betvvene the firme Christians (vvho vvere the Gentils) and the infirme (vvho vvere the Christian Ievves, hauing yet a scruple to cease from keeping the ceremonial meates and daies of Moyses Lavv) be exhorteth the Ievv 〈◊〉 to condemne the Gentil vsing his libertie: and the Gentil againe, 〈◊〉 to condemne the ••rupulous •ew: but rather to abstaine from vsing his libertie, and them offending the Ievv, 〈◊〉 be an occasions vnto him of aposting.
1Now him that is weak in faith, take unto you: not in disputes about thoughts.Porgete la mano a colui, che è debole di fede, non disputando delle opinioni.AND him that is vveake in faith, take vnto you: not in disputations of cogitatiōs.Infirmum autem in fide assumite, non in disceptationibus cogitationum. 2For one believeth that he may eat all things: but he that is weak, let him eat herbs.Imperocché uno crede di mangiare qualunque cosa: quegli poi che è debole, mangi degli erbaggi.For one beleeueth that he may eate al things: but he that is vveake, let him eate' herbes.Alius enim credit se manducare omnia: qui autem infirmus est, olus manducet. 3Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not: and he that eateth not, let him not judge him that eateth. For God hath taken him to him.Colui, che mangia, non dispregi colui, che non mangia: e colui che non mangia, non condanni uno, che mangia: perché Dio lo ha preso per se.Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not: and he that eateth not: let him not iudge him that eateth. for God hath taken him to him.Is qui manducat, non manducantem non spernat: et qui non manducat, manducantem non judicet: Deus enim illum assumpsit. 4Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own lord he standeth or falleth. And he shall stand: for God is able to make him stand.Chi se' tu, che condanni il servo altrui? Egli sta ritto, o cade pel suo padrone: ma egli starà ritto: perché potente è Dio per sostenerlo.Vvho art thou that iudgest an other mans seruant? To his ovvne Lord he standeth or falleth, and he shal stand: for God is able to make him stand.Tu quis es, qui judicas alienum servum ? domino suo stat, aut cadit: stabit autem: potens est enim Deus statuere illum. 5For one judgeth between day and day: and another judgeth every day. Let every man abound in his own sense.Imperocché uno distingue tra giorno, e giorno: un altro poi tutti i giorni confonde: ognuno segua il proprio parere.For one iudgeth betvveene day and day: and an other iudgeth euery day. let euery one abound in his ovvne sense.Nam alius judicat diem inter diem: alius autem judicat omnem diem: unusquisque in suo sensu abundet. 6He that regardeth the day regardeth it unto the Lord. And he that eateth eateth to the Lord: for he giveth thanks to God. And he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not and giveth thanks to God.Chi tien conto di un giorno, ne tien conto per amor del padrone. E chi mangia, mangia pel padrone: imperocché rende grazie a Dio. E chi non mangia, non mangia pel padrone, e a Dio rende grazie.He that respecteth the day, respecteth to our Lord. And he that eateth, eateth to our Lord: for he giueth thankes to God. And he that eateth not, to our Lord he eateth not, and giueth thankes to God.Qui sapit diem, Domino sapit, et qui manducat, Domino manducat: gratias enim agit Deo. Et qui non manducat, Domino non manducat, et gratias agit Deo.
7For none of us liveth to himself: and no man dieth to himself.Imperocché niuno di noi per se medesimo vive, e niuno per se muore.For none of vs liueth to him self: & no man dieth to him self.Nemo enim nostrum sibi vivit, et nemo sibi moritur. 8For whether we live, we live unto the Lord: or whether we die, we die unto the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s.Imperocché se viviamo, viviamo per il padrone: se muoiamo, muoiamo per il padrone. O muoiamo adunque, o viviamo, siamo del padrone.For whether vve liue, we liue to our Lord: or vvhether we die, we die to our Lord. Therfore vvhether vve liue, or vvhether vve die, vve are our Lords.Sive enim vivemus, Domino vivimus: sive morimur, Domino morimur. Sive ergo vivimus, sive morimur, Domini sumus. 9For to this end Christ died and rose again: that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.Imperocché Cristo ed è morto, ed è risuscitato, alfine di essere Signore dei vivi, e de' morti.For to this end Christ died and rose againe: that he may haue dominion both of the dead and of the liuing.In hoc enim Christus mortuus est, et resurrexit: ut et mortuorum et vivorum dominetur. 10But thou, why judgest thou thy brother? Or thou, why dost thou despise thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.Ma tu perché giudichi il tuo fratello? ovvero perché disprezzi il tuo fratello? Imperocché tutti compariremo davanti al tribunale di Cristo.But thou, vvhy iudgest thou thy brother? or thou, vvhy doest thou despise thy brother? For vve shal al stand before the iudgement seate of Christ.Tu autem quid judicas fratrem tuum ? aut tu quare spernis fratrem tuum ? omnes enim stabimus ante tribunal Christi. 11For it is written: As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess to God.Conciossiachè sta scritto: Vivo io, dice il Signore, a me piegherassi ogni ginocchio: e tutte le lingue confesseranno Dio.For it is vvritten, Liue I, saith our Lord, that euery knee shal bovve to me: and euery tongue shal confesse to God.Scriptum est enim: Vivo ego, dicit Dominus, quoniam mihi flectetur omne genu: et omnis lingua confitebitur Deo. 12Therefore every one of us shall render account to God for himself.Ognun di noi adunque renderà di se conto a Dio.Therfore euery one of vs for him self shal render account to God.Itaque unusquisque nostrum pro se rationem reddet Deo. 13Let us not therefore judge one another any more. But judge this rather, that you put not a stumblingblock or a scandal in your brother’s way.Non ci giudichiamo adunque più gli uni gli altri: ma piuttosto vostra sentenza sia, che non ponghiate inciampo, o scandalo al fratello.Let vs therfore no more iudge one an other. but this iudge ye rather, that you put not a stumbling blocke or a scandal to your brother.Non ergo amplius invicem judicemus: sed hoc judicate magis, ne ponatis offendiculum fratri, vel scandalum.
14I know, and am confident in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.Io so, ed ho fidanza nel Signore Gesù, che non v'ha cosa impura di per se stessa, eccetto che per chi tiene, che una cosa è impura, per lui ella è impura.I knovv and am persuaded in our Lord IESVS Christ, that nothing is cōmon of it self, but to him that supposeth, any thing to be cōmon, to him it is common.Scio, et confido in Domino Jesu, quia nihil commune per ipsum, nisi ei qui existimat quid commune esset, illi commune est. 15For if, because of thy meat, thy brother be grieved, thou walkest not now according to charity. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.Ma se per un cibo il tuo fratello resta conturbato, già tu non cammini secondo la carità. Non volere per il tuo cibo mandar in rovina uno, per cui è morto Cristo.For if because of meate thy brother be greeued: novv thou vvalkest not according to charitie. Do not vvith thy meate destroy him for vvhom Christ died.Si enim propter cibum frater tuus contristatur, jam non secundum caritatem ambulas. Noli cibo tuo illum perdere, pro quo Christus mortuus est. 16Let not then our good be evil spoken of.Non sia adunque bestemmiato il bene nostro.Let not then our good be blasphemed.Non ergo blasphemetur bonum nostrum. 17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink: but justice and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.Imperocché il regno di Dio non è cibo, e bevanda: ma giustizia, e pace, e gaudio nello Spirito santo:For the kingdom of God is not meate and drinke: but iustice, and peace, and ioy in the holy Ghost.Non est enim regnum Dei esca et potus: sed justitia, et pax, et gaudium in Spiritu Sancto: 18For he that in this serveth Christ pleaseth God and is approved of men.Imperocché chi in queste cose serve a Cristo, piace a Dio ed è approvato dagli uomini.for he that in this serueth Christ, pleaseth God, and is acceptable to men.qui enim in hoc servit Christo, placet Deo, et probatus est hominibus. 19Therefore, let us follow after the things that are of peace and keep the things that are of edification, one towards another.Attenghiamoci adunque a ciò, che giova alla pace: e osserviamo quello, che fa per la mutua edificazione.Therfore the things that are of peace let vs pursue: and the things that are of edifying one tovvard an other let vs keepe.Itaque quæ pacis sunt, sectemur: et quæ ædificationis sunt, in invicem custodiamus. 20Destroy not the work of God for meat. All things indeed are clean: but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.Non volere per un cibo distruggere l'opera di Dio. Tutte le cose veramente sono monde: fa però male, un uomo, che mangia con iscandalo.Destroy not the vvorke of God for meate. Al things in deede are cleane: but it is il for the man that eateth by giuing offence.Noli propter escam destruere opus Dei, omnia quidem sunt munda: sed malum est homini, qui per offendiculum manducat.
21It is good not to eat flesh and not to drink wine: nor any thing whereby thy brother is offended or scandalized or made weak.Bene stadi non mangiar carne, a di non ber vino, né cosa per cagion della quale il tuo fratello inciampa, od è scandalizzato, o si indebolisce.It is good not to eate flesh, and not to drinke vvine, nor that vvherein thy brother is offended, or scandalized, or vveakened.Bonum est non manducare carnem, et non bibere vinum, neque in quo frater tuus offenditur, aut scandalizatur, aut infirmatur. 22Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Blessed is he that condemneth not himself in that which he alloweth.Tu hai la fede? Abbila presso di te dinanzi a Dio; beato chi non condanna se stesso in quello, che elegge.Hast thou faith? haue it vvith thy self before God. Blessed is he that iudgeth not him self in that vvhich he approueth.Tu fidem habes ? penes temetipsum habe coram Deo. Beatus qui non judicat semetipsum in eo quod probat. 23But he that discerneth, if he eat, is condemned; because not of faith. For all that is not of faith is sin.Ma chi fa distinzione, se mangia, è condannato: perché non secondo la fede. Or tutto quello, che non è seconda la fede è peccato.But he that discerneth, if he eate, is damned: because not of faith, for al that is not of faith, is sinne.Qui autem discernit, si manducaverit, damnatus est: quia non ex fide. Omne autem, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est.
14:1
Witham
Not in disputes about thoughts.[Ver. 1. Non in disceptationibus cogitationum, me eis diakriseis dialogismon. Non in condemnationem rationum vel cogitationum.] That is, without blaming or condemning the thoughts, and reasonings (as it appears by the Greek) of those new converts, who had been Jews, and who were still of this opinion, that they ought to abstain from meats forbidden by the Jewish law, and observe the Jewish festival days. You must charitably bear with the weakness of such converts. (Witham)
Be tender with him who is weak in faith; enter not into disputes with him, which only serve to extinguish charity, and create inveterate prejudices.
14:2
Challoner
Eat all things. Viz. without observing the distinction between clean and unclean meats, prescribed by the law of Moses: which was now no longer obligatory. Some weak Christians, converted from among the Jews, as we here gather from the apostle, made a scruple of eating such meats as were deemed unclean by the law: such as swine's flesh, etc. which the stronger sort of Christians did eat without scruple. Now the apostle, to reconcile them together, exhorts the former not to judge or condemn the latter, using their Christian liberty; and the latter to take care not to despise, or scandalize their weaker brethren, either by bringing them to eat what in their conscience they think they should not: or by giving them such offence, as to endanger the driving them thereby from the Christian religion. (Challoner)
Witham
For one that is not so weak, but well instructed, believeth, is persuaded, that he may eat all things, the distinction of clean and unclean meats being no longer obligatory under the new law of Christ. He that is weak, and not convinced of this Christian liberty, let him eat herbs, or such things as he esteems not forbidden. It is likely some of them abstained many times from all manner of flesh, lest they should meet with what had been offered to idols, or lest something forbidden by the law might be mixed. (Witham)
14:3
God hath taken him to him, that eats of any meats; he accounts him his servant, and will reward him as such.
Witham
God is able to make him stand, and will justify him before his tribunal. (Witham)
14:5
Challoner
Between day, etc. Still observing the sabbaths and festivals of the law. (Challoner.)
Witham
And another judgeth every day. That is, thinks every day to be taken away, that was to be kept, merely because ordered under the Jewish law. And now since both they who keep days, or do not keep them; and they who eat, or who abstain, do these things which a regard to God, and according to their conscience, let no one judge, or condemn the one party, nor the other; in these things, let every man abound in his own sense. It is without grounds that some would pretend from hence, that Christians cannot be bound to fast, or abstain from flesh on certain days. The apostle speaks only of the distinction of meats, called clean and unclean, and of fasts or feasts peculiar to the law of Moses. It does not follow from hence, that the Catholic Church hath not power to command days of fasting, and abstaining, for self-denial or humiliation. (Witham)
Estius
The apostle here treats only of the subject in hand, viz. the Mosaic distinctions of clean and unclean meats: and in this he allows, for that present time, each one to follow his own private judgment. St. Chrysostom observes that St. Paul did not wish the weak to be left to their own judgment in this, as in a point of no consequence; but that they should wait for a time. The converts were not immediately prohibited their accustomed practices, but they were tolerated in them for a while, till fully instructed. This we see in many of the converts at Jerusalem, who were still observers of the Mosaic ordinances; this was tolerated, that the synagogue might be buried with honour. (Estius)
14:11
Calmet
The apostle here gives a remarkable proof of the divinity of our Saviour. He could not possibly be more express. He had said in the preceding verse, that all men should appear before the tribunal of Christ; to prove this assertion, he adduces this testimony of the prophet Isaias: "As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bend before me, and every tongue shall confess to God." (Isaias 45.) Thus shall all acknowledge the power, the divinity, and sovereign dominion of Christ, by bending the knee; and by confessing to him, shall acknowledge him for the master and judge of all mankind. (Calmet)
14:14
Witham
Nothing is unclean of itself. Because the law that made them unclean, is not now binding of itself, yet a man must not act against his conscience, neither must he, when he can avoid it, scandalize or offend the weak: nor cause divisions or dissensions. (Witham)
14:15
St. Paul repeats this, in almost the same words, in (1 Corinthians 8.) and plainly gives us to understand, that Christ died for the salvation of all men, by supposing a Christian brother, for whom Christ had died, in danger of perishing by the scandal given by another. This supposition could never have been made, if the death of Christ was only offered up for the elect: but we here learn from St. Paul, that they for whom Christ shed his blood and suffered the death of the cross, may perish eternally; and therefore all, even the greatest reprobates, may be saved, if they effectually desire it, by virtue of the death of our divine Redeemer.
14:16
Witham
Let not then our good, or which we have a Christian liberty to do with a good conscience, be evil spoken of, because of the disputes and quarrels you have about it. (Witham)
14:17
Witham
The kingdom of God is not meat, etc. It does not consist in eating, nor in abstaining, both which may be done without sin, but in justice, peace, etc. (Witham)
14:20
Witham
Destroy not the work of God for meat. That is, do not hinder your brother's salvation, for whom, whoever he be, Christ died, who may be so offended at the liberty which you take, as to quit the Christian religion; or you may make him sin against God, by eating by your example against his weak conscience. (Witham)
14:22
Hast thou faith? [Ver. 22. Tu fidem habes? upon which St. Chrysostom, om ks. p. 209. ou ten peri dogmaton (pistin) alla ten peri tes prokeimenes upotheseos.] He doth not here mean, saith St. Chrysostom, a faith to believe divine truths. But art thou by faith persuaded in mind and conscience, that to eat meats formerly forbidden, is now lawful, have it within thyself, remain in this faith and conscience, but make it not appear, when it is prejudicial to thy weak brother.
Witham
Happy is he that condemneth not himself, that maketh not himself liable to condemnation, by giving scandal, by using that liberty, which he is convinced is allowed. Or happy is he that acteth not against his conscience, by doing what he sees is allowed of by others, but which his conscience tells him he ought not to do. (Witham)
14:23
Witham
He that discerneth, or who judgeth that he ought to abstain from such meats, if he eat, is self-condemned, because he acts not according to his faith. For whatever a man doth, and is not according to what he believeth he may do, or whatever is against a man's conscience, is sinful in him. It is a mistake of the sense of this place, to pretend that every moral action done by an infidel, must needs be a sin, as when he gives an alms to relieve the necessities of the poor. (Witham)
Discerneth. That is, distinguisheth between meats, and eateth against his conscience, what he deems unclean.
Challoner
Of faith. By faith is here understood judgment and conscience: to act against which is always a sin. (Challoner)
14:2
Eat all things.... Viz., without observing the distinction of clean and unclean meats, prescribed by the law of Moses: which was now no longer obligatory. Some weak Christians, converted from among the Jews, as we here gather from the apostle, made a scruple of eating such meats as were deemed unclean by the law; such as swine’s flesh, etc., which the stronger sort of Christians did eat without scruple. Now the apostle, to reconcile them together, exhorts the former not to judge or condemn the latter, using their Christian liberty; and the latter, to take care not to despise or scandalize their weaker brethren, either by bringing them to eat what in their conscience they think they should not, or by giving them such offence, as to endanger the driving them thereby from the Christian religion.
14:5
Between day, etc.... Still observing the sabbaths and festivals of the law.
14:23
Discerneth.... That is, distinguisheth between meats, and eateth against his conscience, what he deems unclean. Of faith.... By faith is here understood judgment and conscience: to act against which is always a sin.
14:2
2. Eate al things.] By similitude of vvordes the simple are soone deceiued, and Heretikes make their vauntage of any thing to seduce the vnlearned. There vvere diuers meates forbidden in the Lavv of Moyses, and for signification, made and counted vncleane, vvhereof the Ievves might not eate a• al, The Apostles meaning about eating or not eating certaine meates. as porke, hare, conny, and such like, both of fishes, foules, and beasts, a great number: Christ discharged al them that became Christians, after his Passion of that obseruance and al other ceremonies of the old Lavv: Notvvithstanding, because diuers that vvere brought vp in the Lavv, had a religion and conscience, sodenly to foresake their former maner, the Apostle here admonisheth such as bestronger and 〈◊〉 instructed in the case to heare vvith the vveaker sort, that being Christians could not yee finde in their hartes to eate and vse the meates forbidden by God in the Lavv: as on the other side he vvarneth the vveake that vvould not eate, not to take offence or scandal at them that did eate vvithout scruple, any of the irregular or forbidden meates in the Lavv, nor in any vvise to iudge or condemne the eater, but to commit that to God, and finally that neither nother should condemne the other for eating or not eating. The Heretikes fondly abuse this place against the fastes of the Church. Now the Protestants fōndly apply al this to the fastes of the Church, and differences of meates in the same: as though the Church did forbid any meate vvholy neuer to be eaten or touched, or made any creatures vncleane, or othervvise prescribed any abstinence, then for chastising of mens bodies and seruice of God. It is a great blindnesse that they can put no difference betvvixt Christes fast of fourtie daies, Mat. 4. Iohns abstaining from al delicate meates and drinkes, Mat. 11. the vvidovv Annes, Luc. •, 1•. the Nazareites, Num. 6. the Recabites, Ierem. 15, 14. the Niniuities, Ion. 3. S. Paules, 2 Cor. 11, 27. S. Timothees, 1 Tim. 5, 23. Iohns Disciples and Christs Disciples fast Mat. 9, 14. 15. Folish Heretikes see not the differēces of things. (which he said they should keepe after his departure from them:) and the ceremonial distinction of creatures and meates, cleane, and vncleane, in the old Lavv. of vvhich it is euident the Apostle treateth in al this chapter, & of none other at al. Therfore vvhen the Protestants by the vvordes of this place vvould proue, that vve be either made free: from fasting and from obeying the Churches commaundement or folovving Christes example in that matter, or that the obseruers of Christian fastes be vveake in faith, & ought not in any vvise cōdemne of sinne the breakers of the prescribed fastes of the holy Church, they doe abuse ignorantly or vvilfully the Apostles vvordes and discourse.
eateth.
14:5
5. Betvvene day and day.] Distinction of daies. By the like deceite they abuse this place against the Holydaies of Christ and his B. mother and Saincts, vvhich concerneth onely the Ievves festiuities and obseruation of times, vvhereof in the Epistle to the Galatians c, 4. 10.
14:6
6. Euery one in his ovvne sense.) The text explicated concerning euery mans cōscience in Iudaical meates and drinkes. The Apostle doth not giue freedom; as the Churches enemies vvould haue it, that euery man may doe or thinke vvhat he list. but in this matter of Iudaical obseruation of daies and meates, & that for a time onely, til the Christian religion should be perfectly established, he would haue no restrainte made, but that euery one should be borne vvithal in his ovvne sense: yet so, that they should not condemne one an other, nor make necessitie of saluation in the obseruation of the Iudaical rites of meates, daies, &c.
14:10
Concordance 2. Cor. 5, 10.
14:11
Concordance Es. 45, 23.
14:14
Common, that is, vncleane. See Annot. Marc. 7, 2. Though he vvish the vveake to be borne vvithal, yet he vttereth his minde plainly, that in deede al the meates forbidden and vncleane in the Lavv, are novv throught Christ cleansed & lawful for euery mā to vse.
14:15
Concordance 1. Cor. 8.
14:17
17. Not meate and drinke.] The substance of religion or the kingdom of God standeth not in meate or drinke, Not, eating, but disobedience damnable. and therfore the better might they vse indifferencie and toleration in that point for a time, for peace sake and to auoid scandal. but if the precept of Moyses Lavv had bound still as before, then (not for the meates sake, but for the disobedience) it had been damnable to haue eaten the vncleane meates.
14:20
Concordance Tit. 1, 15.
14:22
22. Haue it vvith thy self.] Thou that art perfect, and bleeuest or knovvest certainely that thou art free from the Lavv concerning meates and festiuities, yet to the trouble and hinderance of the feeble that can not yet be brought so far, be discrete & vtter not thy self out of season.
14:23
23. He that discerneth.] If the vveake haue a conscience, and should be driuen to eate the things vvhich in his ovvne hart he thinketh he should not doe, To doe against our conscience, is sinne. he committeth deadly sinne, because he doth against his conscience, Chrys, h•, 26. in ep. R•. or against his ovvne pretensed knovvledge.
••. Al this is not of faith] The proper sense of this speach is, that euery thing that a man doeth against his knovvledge or conscience, is a sinne, for so by the circumstance of the letter, Vvhat actions of infidels are sinne, and what are not. faith must here be taken though S. Augustine sometimes applieth it also to proue that al the actions of infidels (meaning those vvorkes vvhich directly procede of their lacke of faith) be sinnes. But in any vvise take heede of the Heretikes commentarie, vvho hereby vvould proue that the infidel sinneth in honouring his parents, fighting for his countrie, tilling his ground, Luther. and in al other vvorkes. And no maruel that they so hold of infidels, vvho maintaine. that Christian men also offend deadly in euery good deede.
14:1
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus i.pref.6
… the reader of our reply to Celsus might fall in with it first, and see that this book has been composed not for those who are thorough believers, but for such as are either wholly unacquainted with the Christian faith, or for those who, as the apostle terms them, are “weak in the faith;” regarding whom he says, “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye.”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 The Epistles of Cyprian 73.6
… the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify it, cleansing it with the washing of water.” If, then, she is the beloved and spouse who alone is sanctified by Christ, and alone is cleansed by His washing, it is manifest that heresy, which is not the spouse of Christ, nor can be cleansed nor sanctified by His washing, cannot bear sons to God.
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 7
8. For the righteous man, being nurtured in faith and knowledge, and the observance of divine precepts, has his soul always in health. Wherefore it is commanded to ‘receive to ourselves him who is weak in the faith
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 10
… The saints on the other hand, take such to themselves and look upon them as friends; as also the blessed David, using openness of speech, says, ‘Mine eyes are on the faithful of the earth, that they may dwell with me.’ But those that are weak in the faith
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 30
… This is not the state of things now. Why not? The love of many has waxed cold; brotherly concord is destroyed, the very name of unity is ignored, brotherly admonitions are heard no more, nowhere is there Christian pity, nowhere falls the tear of sympathy. Now there is no one to receive “the weak in faith,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans the-argument
… For when I see him writing to the Romans and to the Colossians about the same subjects, and yet not in a like way about the same subjects; but to the former with much condescension, as when he says, “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations; for one believeth that he may eat all things, another, herbs” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Second Corinthians 29
… v. 23 .) For all these denote bodily sickness. Again, the not being established firmly in the faith is called ‘weakness;’ the not being perfect and complete. And denoting this Paul said, “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye but not to doubtful disputations:” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Thessalonians 10
… He who cannot endure trial is feeble-minded. This is he who is sown upon the rock. There is also another sort, that of weakness. “Support the weak,” he says; now weakness occurs in regard to faith. But observe how he does not permit them to be despised. And elsewhere also in his Epistles he says, “Them that are weak in the faith receive ye.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Titus 3
This then is soundness, to introduce nothing spurious, nor foreign. But if they who are scrupulous about meats are not sound, but are sick and weak; for, “Them that are weak,” he says, “receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 8.12
… And he thus disclosed to me what was wrought in him, which I knew not. He asked to look at what I had read. I showed him; and he looked even further than I had read, and I knew not what followed. This it was, verily, “Him that is weak in the faith, receive ye;”
14:2
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.31
… which Abraham gave at the weaning of his son, would seek here and in every Scripture food which is different, I think, from that which is meat, indeed, but is not solid food, and from what are figuratively called herbs, which are food to one who has been weaned and is not yet strong but weak, according to the saying, “He that is weak eateth herbs.”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 10
… ‘I have fed you with milk, not with meat .’ To those who have advanced beyond the full stature of childhood, but still are weak as regards perfection, He is their food, according to their capacity, being again administered by Paul
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 2.45
… Others require the wisdom which is spoken among the perfect, and the higher and more solid food, since their senses have been sufficiently exercised to discern truth and falsehood, and if they were made to drink milk, and fed on the vegetable diet of invalids,
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Concerning Virgins 1.6
24. I am not indeed discouraging marriage, but am enlarging upon the benefits of virginity. “He who is weak,” says the Apostle, “eateth herbs.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose 63.24
39. And so like a good physician, desiring to preserve the stability of virtue in the strong, and to give health to the weak, he gives counsel to the one, and points out the remedy to the others: “He that is weak eateth herbs,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 25
… For by calling him weak ( ἀσθενοὕντα ), he points out that he is not healthy ( ἄρρωστον ). Then he adds next, “receive,” and point out again that he requires much attention. And this is a sign of extreme debility. “Not to doubtful disputations.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 46.2
… those by which the saints sat down and wept when they remembered Zion, and Chebar’s flood, whence Ezekiel was carried to Jerusalem by the hair of his head. All this Abraham undergoes that he may dwell in a land of promise watered from above, and not like Egypt, from below, no producer of herbs for the weak and ailing,
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 54.10
… “it is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine” ) but of vegetables as well. Everything provocative or indigestible is to be refused. Be assured that nothing is so good for young Christians as the eating of herbs. Accordingly in another place he says: “another who is weak eateth herbs.”
St Jerome † AD 420 Against Jovinianus 2.10
… For if because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer in love. Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of: for the Kingdom of God is not eating and drinking.” And that no one may suppose he is referring to fasting and not to Jewish superstition, he immediately explains,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Morals of the Catholic Church 33
… See what he adds: "For if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably."
14:3
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 2.54
… His loving kindness? And on the other hand his strictness? And the combination and blending of the two; in such wise that his gentleness should not enervate, nor his severity exasperate? He gives laws for slaves and masters, rulers and ruled, husbands and wives, parents and children, marriage and celibacy, self-discipline and indulgence,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
… For if you follow not in the steps of his faith, though you were ten thousand times in a state of circumcision, you will not be Abraham’s offspring. For even he received the circumcision for this end, that the man in a state of uncircumcision might not cast thee off. Do not then demand this of him too.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 25
Ver. 3 . “Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not.”
St Jerome † AD 420 Against Jovinianus 2.10
… Nor need we wonder if the Apostle commands that everything sold in the market be bought and eaten, since with idolaters, and with those who still ate in the temples of the idols meats offered to idols as such, it passed for the highest abstinence to abstain only from food eaten by the Gentiles. And if he says to the Romans:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 36.8
26. In this question, however, of fasting or not fasting on the seventh day, nothing appears to me more safe and conducive to peace than the apostle’s rule: “Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not, and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth:”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 2.18
… “Let not him that eateth,” says he, “despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth.” There also he says: “Who art thou that judges another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 17.20
… “Who,” says he, “is weak, and I am not weak? Who is offended, and I burn not?” and in this way he fulfilled what he had commanded the Corinthians to do when he said: “Be ye without offence to Jews and Greeks and the Church of Christ, as I also please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit but that of the many, that they may be saved.”
Pope St Gregory I the Great † AD 604 The Book of Pastoral Rule 3.19
… For he foresaw that the patience which he admonished them to have would be wanting to the abstinent. Again, were it not that the sin of pride sometimes pierces through the cogitations of the abstinent, Paul would by no means have said, Let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth (
Pope St Gregory I the Great † AD 604 Register of the Epistles of St. Gregory the Great 2.52
As to your alleging to me the testimony of the apostle Paul, where he says, Let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth (
14:4
Tertullian † AD 220 On Modesty 2
… who art thou, to judge another’s servant?’
St Hippolytus † AD 235 The Refutation of All Heresies 9.7
… If also, however, any one who is in holy orders should become married, Callistus permitted such a one to continue in holy orders as if he had not sinned. And in justification , he alleges that what has been spoken by the Apostle has been declared in reference to this person : “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 The Epistles of Cyprian 51.18
… To his own master he standeth or falleth; yea, he shall stand, for God is able to make him stand.”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 3.22
In the Gospel according to Luke: “Judge not, that ye be not judged: condemn not, that ye be not condemned.” Of this same subject to the Romans: “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. But he shall stand; for God is able to make him stand.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 23
What then? Ought we not to blame them that sin? Because Paul also saith this selfsame thing: or rather, there too it is Christ, speaking by Paul, and saying, “Why dost thou judge thy brother? And thou, why dost thou set at nought thy brother?” and, “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 25
Ver. 4 . “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 29
He had said, “Inasmuch as I am the Apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office.” ( Rom. xi. 13 .) He had said, “Take heed lest He also spare not thee.” ( ib. 21 .) He had said, “Be not wise in your own conceits” ( ib. xii. 16 ); and again, “Why dost thou judge thy brother?” ( ib. xiv. 10 ) And, “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?” (
Rufinus of Aquileia † AD 411 The Apology of Rufinus. Addressed to Apronianus, in Reply to Jerome's Letter to Pammachius 1.10
… And Origen, he says, teaches further that souls have been made before their bodies, and have been brought down from heaven and inserted into their bodies. I am not now acting on Origen’s behalf, nor writing an apology for him. Whether he stands accepted before God or has been cast away is not mine to judge: to his own lord he stands or falls.
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 11
… So, too, when the prodigal son returns, his father receives him with joy. Nay more, the apostle says: “Judge nothing before the time.” For “who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 22.37
… In every act we do, in every step we take, let our hand trace the Lord’s cross. Speak against nobody, and do not slander your mother’s son. “Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? To his own lord he standeth or falleth; yea, he shall be made to stand, for the Lord hath power to make him stand.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 45.1
… Some consider me a wicked man, laden with iniquity; and such language is more than justified by my actual sins. Yet in dealing with the bad you do well to account them good. It is dangerous to judge another man’s servant;
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 46.10
… Whosoever is last is here regarded as first. Their dress neither provokes remark nor calls for admiration. In whatever guise a man shows himself he is neither censured nor flattered. Long fasts help no one here. Starvation wins no deference, and the taking of food in moderation is not condemned. “To his own master” each one “standeth or falleth.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 125.9
… In loneliness pride quickly creeps upon a man: if he has fasted for a little while and has seen no one, he fancies himself a person of some note; forgetting who he is, whence he comes, and whither he goes, he lets his thoughts riot within and outwardly indulges in rash speech. Contrary to the apostle’s wish he judges another man’s servants,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 87.5
… Perhaps you reply that it would as little become you to accuse him. Granted, by all means. Take, then, the course which lies between defending and accusing him. Say, “Every man shall bear his own burden;” “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 95.3
… and this saying of Scripture, “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth: yea, he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him stand;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 20.10
… ” As to what they say about nothing being able to rise again but what falls, whence they conclude that resurrection pertains to bodies only, and not to souls, because bodies fall, why do they make nothing of the words, “Ye that fear the Lord, wait for His mercy; and go not aside lest ye fall;” and “To his own Master he stands or falls;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 2.7
… Wherefore, then, have ye severed yourselves? If there is any sense left in you, you must surely see that you can find no possible answer to these arguments. "We are not left," they say, "so utterly without resource, but that we can still answer, It is our will. ‘Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth.’"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 2.10
… And if they have in them a tinge of Christianity, they say further, "Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace 36
… To his own master he standeth or falleth;” yet he at once had regard to the predestinated, and said, “But he shall stand;” and that they might not arrogate this to themselves, he says, “For God is able to make him stand.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 2.19
… For that which the apostle says, checks many from mischievous elation: “Wherefore let him who seems to stand take heed lest he fall.” But he who falls, falls by his own will, and he who stands, stands by God’s will. “For God is able to make him stand;”
Anonymous A Treatise Against the Heretic Novatian by an Anonymous Bishop 12
… And yet thou, O Novatian, judgest and declarest that the lapsed have no hope of peace and mercy, nor inclinest thine ear to the rebuke of the apostle, when he says, “Who art thou, who judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall stand. God is mighty to establish him.”
14:5
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 25
Ver. 5 . “One man esteemeth one day above another, another esteemeth every day alike.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 48.15
… Moreover, when the people were about to receive the law on Mount Sinai they were commanded to keep away from their wives for three days. I know that at Rome it is customary for the faithful always to receive the body of Christ, a custom which I neither censure nor indorse. “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 144.1
… Not, indeed, that I think anything in them needs correction, but that I recall the Apostle’s words: ‘One judges in this way, another in that; let every man give full expression to his own opinion.’
St Jerome † AD 420 Against Jovinianus 2.10
… Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of: for the Kingdom of God is not eating and drinking.” And that no one may suppose he is referring to fasting and not to Jewish superstition, he immediately explains, “One man hath faith to eat all things: but he that is weak eateth herbs.” And again,
St Jerome † AD 420 Against Vigilantius 7
… Christ did not need the ointment, nor do martyrs need the light of tapers; and yet that woman poured out the ointment in honour of Christ, and her heart’s devotion was accepted. All those who light these tapers have their reward according to their faith, as the Apostle says:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 172
… not that I think anything said in them demands correction, but because I am mindful of the words of the blessed apostle in regard to the variety of men’s judgments, “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”
14:6
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 25
Ver. 6 . “He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.” And, “He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 22.37
… yea, he shall be made to stand, for the Lord hath power to make him stand.” If you have fasted two or three days, do not think yourself better than others who do not fast. You fast and are angry; another eats and wears a smiling face. You work off your irritation and hunger in quarrels. He uses food in moderation and gives God thanks.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4.3
… she is the only one of her mother;" for she herself is without spot or wrinkle. Or else let him who can assert that those are members of this dove who renounce the world in words but not in deeds. Meantime there is one thing which we see, from which I think it was said, "He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord,"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 4.10
… And to one, indeed, is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit. One man regardeth the day to the Lord;
14:7
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 25
… Still he is not satisfied with saying this, but proceeds further. For after saying, “Whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s,” and passing from that death to the physical one, that he may not give an appearance of harshness to his language, he gives another very great indication of His care for us. Now of what kind is this?
14:8
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philemon 2
… For how is it not absurd, if we bear with masters beating their servants, knowing that they will spare them, because they are their own; and yet suppose that God in punishing will not spare? This also Paul has intimated, saying, “Whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.” (
14:9
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.18.2
… the dead.” Then he continues, “If thou shall confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shall be saved.” And he renders the reason why the Son of God did these things, saying, “For to this end Christ both lived, and died, and revived, that He might rule over the living and the dead.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 2.65
… I think, moreover, that the following statement regarding Him has an apologetic value in reference to our subject, viz.: “For to this end Christ died, and rose again, that He might be Lord both of the ‘dead and living.’”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 6.18
… he, bending down in his mind and going with Jesus as He goes down into Hades, and descending from heaven and the mysteries of Christ’s deity to the advent He of necessity made with us when He took on man (as His shoes). Now He who put on man also put on the dead, for
St Methodius † AD 311 From the Discourse on the Resurrection, Part III 2
XX. The saint says at the end: The words, “For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and living,”
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 15.26
… Only let none of us be condemned and cast out; that we may with boldness meet Christ the Everlasting King, who reigns for ever. For He doth reign for ever, who shall be judge of quick and dead, because for quick and dead He died. And as Paul says, For to this end Christ both died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and living
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 4.3
… Of this new creation therefore in Christ, which He Himself began, He was called the first-born, being the first-fruits of all, both of those begotten into life, and of those quickened by resurrection of the dead, “that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Decease of His Brother Satyrus 2.6
… and that, as through one death is ours, so should be also the resurrection; and that we should not refuse the misery, that we may attain to the gift. For, as we read, Christ “is come to save that which was lost,” and “to be Lord both of the dead and living.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 67
How then doth He say elsewhere, “That He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 38
… “Having given assurance to all men,” i.e. He has given proof in the rising (of Jesus) from the dead. Let us repent then: for we must assuredly be judged. If Christ rose not, we shall not be judged: but if he rose, we shall without doubt be judged. “For to this end,” it is said, “did He also die, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 25
Ver. 9 . “For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and living.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Thessalonians 7
Ver. 14 . “For if we believe,” he says, “that Jesus died and rose again,” and lived,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 20.9
… for their works do follow them.” The Church, then, begins its reign with Christ now in the living and in the dead. For, as the apostle says, “Christ died that He might be Lord both of the living and of the dead.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 1.9
… But in order to intimate the Trinity, some things are separately affirmed, the Persons being also each severally named; and yet are not to be understood as though the other Persons were excluded, on account of the unity of the same Trinity and the One substance and Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 120
But before a man can receive the commandment, it is necessary that he should live according to the flesh. But if once he has received the grace of regeneration, death shall not injure him, even if he should forthwith depart from this life; “for to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and the living;”
14:10
St Polycarp † AD 155 Epistle to the Philippians 6
… If then we entreat the Lord to forgive us, we ought also ourselves to forgive; for we are before the eyes of our Lord and God, and “we must all appear at the judgment-seat of Christ, and must every one give an account of himself.”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 On the Incarnation of the Word 41
… “Henceforth ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven in the glory of the Father.” 5. And for this very reason there is also a word of the Saviour to prepare us for that day, in these words: “Be ye ready and watch, for He cometh at an hour ye know not.” For, according to the blessed Paul: “We
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 22.2
The voice should be modulated; no one ought to answer another, or do anything, roughly or contemptuously, but in all things moderation and respect should be shewn to every one. No wily glances of the eye are to be allowed, nor any behaviour or gestures which grieve a brother and shew contempt.
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 197
… Here you have that unconquered athlete. These bones, which shared in the conflict with the blessed soul, are known to the Lord. These bones He will crown, together with that soul, in the righteous day of His requital, as it is written, “we must stand before the judgment seat of Christ, that each may give an account of the deeds he has done in the body.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 An Exhortation to Theodore After His Fall 2.5
… Wherefore, I beseech thee, avoid the deep water, avoid the stormy billows, and seize some lofty spot where it is not possible to be captured. There is a resurrection, there is a judgment, there is a terrible tribunal which awaits us when we have gone out of this world; “we must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 23
What then? Ought we not to blame them that sin? Because Paul also saith this selfsame thing: or rather, there too it is Christ, speaking by Paul, and saying,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 38
… If Christ rose not, we shall not be judged: but if he rose, we shall without doubt be judged. “For to this end,” it is said, “did He also die, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.” ( Rom. xiv. 9 .) “For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive according to that he hath done.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 13
… Now be not thou afraid because thou art compassed about with a dead body. Let it have the Spirit, and it shall assuredly rise again. What then, shall the bodies which have not the Spirit not rise? How then must “all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ?” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 25
Ver. 10 . “But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 29
He had said, “Inasmuch as I am the Apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office.” ( Rom. xi. 13 .) He had said, “Take heed lest He also spare not thee.” ( ib. 21 .) He had said, “Be not wise in your own conceits” ( ib. xii. 16 ); and again, “Why dost thou judge thy brother?” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 11
… At least in another place, even though men’s sins be notorious, he permits not judgment unto others, because the occasion required it. “For why dost thou judge thy brother,” saith he, (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 20
“Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge.” Leaving alone the weak, which he always doth, he discourses with the strong first. And this is what he did also in the Epistle to the Romans, saying, (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 2 Timothy 2
… the feet would be uppermost, the head below. Hear Paul saying, “But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment.” ( 1 Cor. iv. 3 .) And again, “Why dost thou judge thy brother?” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Titus 5
… nay, but “to be ready to every good work, to speak evil of no man.” Hear the exhortation, “To speak evil of no man.” Our lips should be pure from reviling. For if our reproaches are true, it is not for us to utter them, but for the Judge to enquire into the matter. “For why,” he says, “dost thou judge thy brother?” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 23
… “For who maketh thee to differ” (he says) “and what hast thou which thou didst not receive? But if thou hast received it, why dost thou glory, as though thou hadst not received it?” ( 1 Cor. iv. 7 .) “And thou, why dost thou judge thy brother” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 45.7
7. Salute Paula and Eustochium, who, whatever the world may think, are always mine in Christ. Salute Albina, your mother, and Marcella, your sister; Marcellina also, and the holy Felicitas; and say to them all: “We must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 110
… And accordingly it is plain that the services which the church celebrates for the dead are in no way opposed to the apostle’s words: “For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad;”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Cœnobia, and the Remedies for the Eight Principal Faults 5.30
… to his own master he standeth or falleth.” And this: “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 3.7
… “We shall all stand before the judgment seat of God: for it is written: As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 79
… We cannot fight against the apostolic decrees, for we remember the word of the Apostle which says, “We ought to obey God rather than men,” and more terrible to us than any of the pains of this life is the “judgment seat of Christ”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 147
… or why dost thou set at naught thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, as I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”
14:11
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 25
Ver. 11, 12 . “For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.”
14:12
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 The Epistles of Cyprian 75.17
… prescribing to no one, so as to prevent any prelate from determining what he thinks right, as he shall give an account of his own doings to the Lord, according to what the blessed Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans writes and says: “Every one of us shall give account for himself: let us not therefore judge one another.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 3.5
… "Let every man prove his own work; and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden," —the burden, that is, of rendering an account; for "every one of shall give an account of himself. Let us not therefore judge one another any more."
14:13
Tertullian † AD 220 To His Wife 2.1
… so great a good, but not even in their remarriage have chosen to be mindful of the rule that “above all they marry in the Lord.” And thus my mind has been thrown into confusion, in the fear that, having exhorted you myself to perseverance in single husbandhood and widowhood, I may now, by the mention of precipitate marriages, put “an occasion of falling”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 55
… I do not suppose that a man of three score years and ten lives with a woman from any such feelings, and I have not decided, as I have decided, on the ground of any crime having been committed. But we have learnt from the Apostle, not to put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in a brother’s way;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 7.4
… but God being free from passion, whether He exercise kindness, or whether He punish, He is alike good. Nor less does the threat of hell serve to show His goodness, than the promise of the kingdom. But how? I answer. If He had not threatened hell, if He had not prepared punishment, there are not many who would have attained the kingdom.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 25
Ver. 13 . “Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philippians 4
… For wherefore did God, being alone, create so many beings? was it not through goodness? was it not through love to men? If you ask why such and such things are, you will always find your answer in Goodness. Let us show mercy to our neighbors, that mercy may be shown to us. These acts of mercy
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 2 Timothy 6
… And often not only from a bad life, but from one defect, we enter into Hell, where there are not good qualities to counterbalance it, since the virgins were not accused of fornication or adultery, nor of envy or ill-will, nor of drunkenness, nor of unsound faith, but of a failure of oil, that is, they failed in almsgiving, for that is the oil meant.
14:14
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Instructions to Catechumens 1.2
… On this account Paul also, discoursing to us about this uncleanness which does not come naturally but by reason of the weakness of the conscience, speaks somewhat in this way, “Nothing is common of itself save to him who accounteth anything to be common.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 25
… Then that they might not be observed if they kept from swine’s flesh only, they abstained in consequence from all flesh, and ate herbs only, that what they were doing might have more the appearance of a fast than of observance of the Law.
St Jerome † AD 420 Against Jovinianus 2.10
… and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth,” he does not make fasting and fulness of equal merit, but he is speaking against those believers in Christ who were still judaizing: and he warns Gentile believers, not to offend those by their food who were still too weak in faith. In brief this is clear enough in the sequel:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 2.23
… For, as the apostle says, when speaking of food, "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean;"
14:15
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.18.3
… “Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 8.28
… We do not indeed deny that the divine word does seem to command something similar to this, when to raise us to a higher and purer life it says, “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak;” and again, “Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Concerning Lowliness of Mind 5
… Shall we not do everything, and take every trouble, so that the men who have been thus valued may enjoy every solicitude at our hands? And what kind of defence shall we have? what allowance? This at least is the very thing by way of declaring which Paul also said, “Do not by thy meat destroy him for whose sake Christ died.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 26
Ver. 15 . “But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 20
Ver. 11 . “And through thy meat he that is weak perisheth, the brother for whose sake Christ died.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 3
… be preached that He rose from the dead,’ he adds, giving the reason of His incarnation, ‘For since by man came death by man came also the resurrection of the dead,’ and on all occasions in reference to the passion, the manhood and the dissolution of the Lord, he uses the name of Christ as in the text, ‘Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died,’
Pseudo-Clement The Second Epistle of the Same Clement 5
… For “if for the sake of meat our brother be made sad, or shocked, or made weak, or caused to stumble, we are not walking in the love of God. For the sake of meat thou causest him to perish for whose sake Christ died.”
14:16
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 26
Ver. 16, 17 . “Let not then your good be evil spoken of. For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 9.2
… so that all who looked on this act of mine, and saw how near was the vintage-time I desired to anticipate, would talk of me a great deal as if I were trying to appear to be a great person. And what purpose would it serve that people should consider and dispute about my intention, and that our good should be evil spoken of?
14:17
Tertullian † AD 220 On Fasting 15
… And if he has “delivered you the keys of the meat-market,” permitting the eating of “all things” with a view to establishing the exception of “things offered to idols;” still he has not included the kingdom of God in the meat-market: “For,” he says, “the kingdom of God is neither meat nor drink;”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 3.61
… neither if we eat shall we abound, nor if we eat not shall we want.” And again: “When ye come together to eat, wait one for another. If any is hungry, let him eat at home, that ye may not come together for judgment.” Also to the Romans: “The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”
Novatian † AD 258 On the Jewish Meats 5
… The apostle cries out: “The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy.”
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 On the Making of Man 18.9
… but he may expect that freedom from this function will one day be bestowed upon our nature in the life we look for; for, as the Apostle says, “the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 3.20
156. And what wonder is it if the Holy Spirit is in the throne of God, since the kingdom of God itself is the work of the Holy Spirit, as it is written: “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 26
By their “good,” he means here either their faith, or the hope of rewards hereafter, or the perfectness of their religious state.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 4.28
… For not even when that shall have come for which we pray when we say, “Thy kingdom come,” will there be in that kingdom of God no righteousness; since the apostle says, “The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 1.13
… and of this kingdom the Apostle describes the character, when he says “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.”
14:18
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 26
Ver. 18 . “For he that in these things serveth Christ, is acceptable to God, and approved of men.”
14:19
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 26
Ver. 19 . “Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify one another.”
14:20
Tertullian † AD 220 On Fasting 15
… abstaining from things which we do not reject , but defer . But further: when writing to the Romans, the apostle now gives you a home-thrust, detractors as you are of this observance: “Do not for the sake of food,” he says, “undo
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Instructions to Catechumens 1.2
… And again: “All things indeed are clean, howbeit it is evil to that man who eateth with offense.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 26
Ver. 20 . “For meat destroy not the work of God.”
St Jerome † AD 420 Against Jovinianus 2.5
… of wild ducks and fig-peckers? of woodcocks? of coots? of thrushes? Why do hens run about our houses? If they are not eaten, all these creatures were created by God for nothing. But what need is there of argument when Scripture clearly teaches that every moving creature, like herbs and vegetables, were given to us for food, and the Apostle cries aloud
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 10.31
46. Thou hast taught me, good Father, that “unto the pure all things are pure;” but “it is evil for that man who eateth with offence;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 36.8
… For as it is true that, in the words of the apostles, “it is evil for that man who eateth with offence,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 73.1
… Not that it is wrong to eat flesh, for the apostle, speaking of this very thing, says, “Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused which is received with thanksgiving; but because, as he also says, “It is evil for that man who eateth with offense;”
14:21
Tertullian † AD 220 On Fasting 15
… abstaining from things which we do not reject , but defer . But further: when writing to the Romans, the apostle now gives you a home-thrust, detractors as you are of this observance: “Do not for the sake of food,” he says, “undo the work of God.” What “work?” That about which he says,
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 8.28
… We do not indeed deny that the divine word does seem to command something similar to this, when to raise us to a higher and purer life it says, “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak;”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 22.1
… Any one who comes in ought not to be able, of his own free will, to accost or speak to any of the brothers, before those to whom the responsibility of general discipline is committed have approved of it as pleasing to God, with a view to the common good. The Christian ought not to be enslaved by wine; nor to be eager for flesh meat,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 26
Ver. 21 . “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 13
Wilt thou see also the belly with its proper beauty? Hear what he saith about it, ( ch. viii. 13 .) “If meat make my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth: (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 22.8
… He evidently feared that Timothy might succumb to weakness, and might prove unequal to the constant moving to and fro involved in preaching the Gospel. Besides, he remembered that he had spoken of “wine wherein is excess,” and had said, “it is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 54.10
… but if your digestion is weak, hear what the apostle says to Timothy: “use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.” Then as regards your food you must avoid all heating dishes. I do not speak of flesh dishes only (although of these the chosen vessel declares his mind thus: “it is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 79.7
… It is not the number of feet that makes the difference but delicacy of flavour. I know that the apostle has said: “every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving.” But the same apostle says: “it is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine,”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 108.1
… “I keep under my body and bring it into subjection; lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway;” and “It is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine;”
St Jerome † AD 420 Against Jovinianus 1.18
… But once Christ has come in the end of time, and Omega passed into Alpha and turned the end into the beginning, we are no longer allowed divorce, nor are we circumcised, nor do we eat flesh, for the Apostle says,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Morals of the Manichæans 14
31. But, you reply, the apostle says, "It is good, brethren, neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine."
Pope St Gregory I the Great † AD 604 The Book of Pastoral Rule 3.19
… and a little after, Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth ( 1 Tim. iv. 1, 3 ). Let those hear, It is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth (
14:22
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 26
Ver. 22 . “Hast thou faith? have it to thyself.”
14:23
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.14
… inasmuch as our own mortal bodies will be quickened in precisely the same way as He was raised; and that was in no other way than in the body. I have here a very wide gulf of expunged Scripture to leap across;
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 11.12
… for not only does the suspicion that things have been sacrificed to idols condemn him who eats, but even the doubt concerning this; for “he that doubteth,” according to the Apostle, “is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 11.14
… And the saying is I think, not to be despised, and on this account, demands clear exposition, which seems to me to be thus; as it is not the meat but the conscience of him who eats with doubt which defiles him that eateth, for “he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith,”
St Dionysius of Alexandria † AD 265 Containing Various Sections of the Works 5.4
As to those who are overtaken by an involuntary flux in the night-time, let such follow the testimony of their own conscience, and consider themselves as to whether they are doubtfully minded in this matter or not. And he that doubteth in the matter of meats, the apostle tells us, “is damned if he eat.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 6.7
… And to prove that what I say is not untrue, ascend to the tops of the mountains, and observe the monks who are there; some in sackcloth; some in bonds; some in fastings; some shut up
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 26
Ver. 23 . “And he that doubteth is condemned if he eat.”
Rufinus of Aquileia † AD 411 The Apology of Rufinus. Addressed to Apronianus, in Reply to Jerome's Letter to Pammachius 1.22
… or else his former praises were mistaken, and he is now condemning himself, and in that case what judgment does he think others will pass upon him, when, according to the words of the Apostle,
Rufinus of Aquileia † AD 411 The Apology of Rufinus. Addressed to Apronianus, in Reply to Jerome's Letter to Pammachius 2.8
… and in which he proves those to be heretics with whom he is now in communion, thus incurring the condemnation of our Apostle (not his, for those whom he calls ‘his’ are Flaccus and Tully) who says, “He who judges
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 188.13
… of that grace which the apostle vehemently commends, who says that “God has given to every man the measure of faith,” “without which it is impossible to please God,” “by which the just live,” “which worketh by love,” before which and without which no works of any man are in any respect to be reckoned good, since “whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Continence 26
… but, whereas that is not to be called faith, on this account, because it is false; without doubt that also is unworthy the name of continence. For what? are we prepared to call continence, which we must truly say is the gift of God, sin? Far be from our hearts so hateful madness. But the blessed Apostle saith “Every thing that is not of faith is sin.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius 34
… Surely faith does work in a very real way, for it “worketh by love.” Preach up, however, as much as you like, the works of unbelieving men, we still know how true and invincible is the statement of this same apostle: “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin 1.27
… Or how could we help doing good if we have love? For although God’s commandment appears sometimes to be kept by those who do not love Him, but only fear Him; yet where there is no love, no good work is imputed, nor is there any good work, rightly so called; because “whatsoever is not of faith is sin,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 1.4
… Or must these endowments, perchance, be not regarded as gifts of God at all, when they are not believers who exercise them; according to the apostle’s sentiment, when he says, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 1.5
… For though consecrated virginity is rightly preferred to marriage, yet what Christian in his sober mind would not prefer catholic Christian women who have been even more than once married, to not only vestals, but also to heretical virgins? So great is the avail of faith, of which the apostle says, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 1.7
… But this will, which is free in evil things because it takes pleasure in evil, is not free in good things, for the reason that it has not been made free. Nor can a man will any good thing unless he is aided by Him who cannot will evil,—that is, by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. For “everything which is not of faith is sin.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3.14
… Wherefore, if not on account of faith? Which, although without works it saves no man (for it is not a reprobate faith, since it worketh by love), yet by it even sins are loosed, because the just by faith liveth; but without it, even those things which seem good works are turned into sins: “For everything which is not of faith is sin.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 1.20
… But if He promised the works, and not the faith of the Gentiles certainly since they are not good works unless they are of faith (for “the righteous lives of faith,” and, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 86.2
… For if thou wert believing in Him, then hadst thou already chosen Him. But listen: “Ye have not chosen me.” Not that thou mayest say, Before I believed I was already doing good works, and therefore was I chosen. For what good work can be prior to faith, when the apostle says, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin”?
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 46
… For he whose heart is polluted with no misbelief prepares himself with true and reasonable purification for the Paschal Feast, in which all the mysteries of our religion meet together. For, as the Apostle says, that “all that is not of faith is sin
14:1
1. RECEIVE HIM THAT IS WEAK IN FAITH, — that is, support him. Thus it is often said in the Psalms: "The Lord hath received me, and the Lord is my receiver;" receiver, that is, my helper, patron and protector. Note: Some Jews converted to Christ thought that according to the old law they ought still to abstain from foods forbidden by the old law and from things offered to idols, that is, foods which had been offered to idols. These the Apostle calls "weak"; for they erred, and this either because they were not yet sufficiently instructed in the faith, or certainly because from the ancient pagan persuasion concerning idols and things offered to idols, as if they were sacred and possessed something divine, or from Jewish observance and custom they could scarcely be drawn away: whence they also condemned others acting against it. But others, perfect in the Christian faith and fully taught, held the contrary, and did so boldly, especially Gentiles, who opposed to Jews and Jewish abstinence the freedom of the Gospel. And thus these often disputed with Jews about this abstinence and about free eating; and by eating whatever foods, even those forbidden by the Mosaic law, they scandalized the Jews: the Jews on the other hand judged and condemned them, as if they acted unjustly against the law, and still had communion with idols. The Apostle corrects both in this chapter, and indeed in this verse he admonishes the more perfect not to reject the weak, but to receive and support them, and to teach them Christian truth and freedom. Thus St. Augustine here, and Clement of Alexandria, book II of the Pedagogue, chapter i, and St. Basil in the Shorter Rules, rule 64. Therefore the Apostle cuts off in this chapter the practical cause of the dissension of Jews and Gentiles, namely the difference in abstinence and Jewish observances: just as at the beginning of the epistle and afterwards he cuts off the quasi speculative cause of the same dissension, namely the difference in the cause and manner of justification, teaching us that we are justified not by the law, but by faith in Christ. And so just as he began this epistle from this dissension of Jews and Gentiles and the cutting off of the dissension, so also he ends it in the same; for this reason, and with this scope and end, he wrote this epistle. And although in epistles it is not necessary, indeed often it cannot be, that one chapter be connected to another, because in the manner of epistles they treat of things altogether diverse and disparate; nevertheless these can be so connected to the preceding, as if Paul said: I have inculcated in you, O Romans, chapters xii and xiii, the love of neighbors, and that you all put on Jesus Christ; but I wish this to be done by you in such a way that nevertheless you do not despise the weak in faith and in the charity of Christ, who have not yet fully put on Christ; but receive, tolerate, support, teach and care for them with the same charity. NOT IN DISPUTATIONS OF THOUGHTS, — that is, of opinions, as if to say: Receive the weak, but not in such a way that you contend and dispute with them as to which of you think well or badly, you namely, or they. Whence more clearly in Greek, μὴ εἰς διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν, you would translate, not in altercations of disputations.
14:2
2. FOR ANOTHER BELIEVES HIMSELF TO EAT ALL THINGS. — That is to say, Another thinks it is permitted to eat all things as if they were clean, because in the law of the Gospel nothing is legally unclean. For "believes" here does not signify faith, but opinion, or credulity, as I shall say in the last verse. WHO IS WEAK, LET HIM EAT HERBS. — Thus the Roman Bibles read; but the Greeks, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius and St. Augustine read, "eats herbs." Now various ones give various senses here. First, Origen thus explains it: "Who is weak, let him eat herbs," that is, let him follow the easy and common doctrine which is given to the weak. Second, St. Chrysostom: "Who is weak, let him properly eat only herbs," under the pretext of abstinence, lest, if he eat meat and by chance pork is set before him and he abstain from it, he be discovered from the observance of the law to be abstaining and to be a Jew and to be judaizing. Third, St. Augustine: "Who is weak, let him eat only herbs," lest, if he eat meat, perhaps by error of things sacrificed to idols, which he scrupulously thinks must be abstained from, it happen that he eat them. Thus also nearly Anselm. Fourth, Ambrose: "Who is weak, let him eat herbs," because, he says, there were then some who thought that all meat must be abstained from by Christians. Fifth, Toletus thus explains it, that is to say, There are some who, even if they have no other foods except herbs which it is permitted to eat, choose these rather than to eat meat forbidden by law, or sacrificed to idols. But truly and most plainly, Pererius here understands by herbs the vegetables, and whatever was not forbidden to be eaten by the old law as unclean. For the weak judaizing one may eat this. The Apostle names herbs particularly, because nothing of herbs was forbidden to the Jews, when many fish and birds, and beasts were forbidden. In herbs therefore there was nothing dangerous for the weak, nothing scrupulous; that is to say, A Jew who is weak in faith and in the freedom of the Gospel, and thinks that he must still abstain from foods forbidden by the old law, let him abstain from those, and eat herbs and other things permitted by the law.
14:3
3. HE THAT EATS (anything whatever, namely a Gentile), LET HIM NOT DESPISE HIM THAT EATS NOT (certain foods forbidden by law, namely a Jew): AND HE THAT EATS NOT (a Jew), LET HIM NOT JUDGE HIM THAT EATS (a Gentile), — let him not condemn him as a transgressor of the law, or addicted to gluttony. FOR GOD HAS TAKEN HIM UP, — that is to say, God called him to the faith and grace of the Gospel, by sensible charisms also, which were visibly given then in baptism, such as were the gift of tongues, of prophecy, etc. That is to say, Who therefore shall judge and condemn him whom God has approved and called? The Apostle here proves that rash judgment must be guarded against, and that no one ought to judge his neighbor, by four reasons: The first is this verse, because in the law of the Gospel nothing is legally unclean, because the Lord took his neighbor to himself as a servant; but a servant stands or falls to his own master; therefore it does not pertain to you to judge concerning him. The second is verse 5, because in things indifferent this rule must be observed: "Let each one abound in his own sense." The third is verse 6, because both he that eats and he that eats not does it unto the Lord, for unto the Lord we die and live; therefore neither is to be blamed, but both are to be praised. The fourth is verse 10, because Christ the Lord is the judge of all; therefore it is not ours to judge one another. For if we do this, we rob Christ of his judgment.
14:4
4. WHO ART THOU THAT JUDGEST ANOTHER MAN'S SERVANT? — The Apostle addresses the one not eating, "who judges," that is, condemns, the one eating foods forbidden by the law. This is clear from the preceding and following words. For "judges" refers to the one not eating. He commands, therefore, that the non-eating Jew should not judge the eating Gentile, but should leave him to the judgment of God, whose servant he is. Whence he adds: HE STANDETH OR FALLETH TO HIS OWN LORD. — That is to say, whether he act well or ill in eating, it pertains to his lord, namely to God's honor or injury. Thus some. Secondly and genuinely: "He standeth or falleth to his own lord," that is, his case will fall before his lord, and he will be condemned; or he will stand, that is, he will be absolved, as if to say, It is God's concern, and it is His judgment, whose servant the man is, let Him see and judge whether in eating anything he acts well or ill; it is no concern of thine: therefore do not thou judge him, but leave him to God's judgment; for the Apostle is acting to avoid rash judgment, and that which does not pertain to us. BUT HE SHALL BE HOLDEN UP: FOR GOD IS ABLE TO MAKE HIM STAND. — That is to say, Fear not, O weak Jew, the Gentiles, if they eat things sacrificed to idols and foods forbidden by the law, as if they would easily return to gentilism: conversely, O Gentile, fear not the Jew, if he keeps the law and abstains from foods forbidden by the law, as if he would return to Judaism; because if he falls into Judaism or gentilism, he falls not to thee, but to the Lord God, whose servant he is: but I hope for better things, namely that he will not fall, but will stand in faith and holiness, since his Lord, namely God, is able to make him stand and establish him. Do not therefore scrupulously judge or condemn anyone. Secondly and more aptly: "He shall stand," that is, he will be absolved, and his case will not fall in the judgment of his Lord, because namely the weak one imposes a false charge of violated law upon him who eats; for he who eats has not violated the law, inasmuch as he knows it to be abolished. For God is able to make him stand, that is, to absolve him, and in fact will absolve him. For this is signified by meiosis through "is able," as I said at chapter xi, verse 23.
14:5
5. FOR ONE MAN JUDGETH ONE DAY TO BE BETTER THAN ANOTHER DAY, AND ANOTHER MAN JUDGETH EVERY DAY. — The particle for does not give a cause, nor is it causal in this place, but distinctive: for in Greek it is μέν, that is, indeed. Now various interpreters give various senses here. First, Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ambrose, Anselm, thus explain it, that is to say: One man fasts on certain days with intervals between them, another on all days, and each acts rightly. But there were none at that time so weak as to think from the law that they ought to fast every day. Second, Theodoret and Theophylactus thus explain it, that is to say: Some abstain from pork and other unclean meat only on a certain day, some truly abstain from the same on every day; but the former is not likely, since the law forbade pork and similar things every day and absolutely. Third, Augustine here in his Propositions thus explains it: Another, namely a man, when he judges present things, "judgeth one day to be better than another day," because the neighbor whom he judges evil today he will find tomorrow and will judge to be good and corrected, or conversely, that is to say: Man changes his judgment from day to day; "but another," that is, God, "judgeth every day," because he foreknows and knows not only what sort each one is today, but also what sort he will be every day in the future; and therefore we ought to judge no one, even the wicked: because we are ignorant what sort he will be. This sense is more subtle and lofty; but it is not according to the mind and purpose of the Apostle: for the Apostle treats of the various practices of various men, not however of the different judgments of God and men. Fourth, St. Jerome, book II Against Jovinian, and Salmeron give this sense: "One man," namely a Jew, judgeth one day to be better than another and more holy from the precept of the law, for example the Sabbath, the new moon, the day of expiation; but another man, namely a Gentile, thinks and judgeth every day to be equal, equally festive and holy. This exposition is very likely. But because the Apostle in the preceding and following passages does not treat of feasts, but only of the choice of foods, hence you would better understand here days, not festive, but of fasting and abstinence. That you may understand this, note: A twofold abstinence from foods was prescribed to the Jews, one perpetual, namely that they should always abstain from pork, hare, and every animal that does not divide the hoof or does not chew the cud, Leviticus xi. The second temporary, by which they fasted on certain days, or abstained from certain foods, as at Passover they abstained from leaven, on the days in which they had a vow of Nazarite, they abstained from wine, vinegar, grapes, Numbers 6. The Apostle therefore speaks of this second abstinence. A Jew weak in the faith of Christ, on one day according to the precept of the old law abstains from certain foods, on other days does not abstain; a Gentile truly judgeth every day to be equal, and indifferently eats any food every day, enjoying the freedom of the Gospel: and each acts well. It is a Hebraism: for the Hebrews take a simple verb for compound verbs, which they lack: thus here κρίνω, that is, I judge, is taken for διακρίνω, that is, I discern, just as in verse 13 it is taken for κατακρίνω, that is, I condemn. The sense therefore is, that is to say: One man judgeth, that is, discerns and separates one day as holy and dedicated to abstinence, from another as if less holy, and not dedicated to abstinence; but another man judgeth all days to be equally holy, on which it is permitted either to eat or to fast according to each one's pleasure. Note, the Apostle speaks only of the Jewish feasts and fastings, as Melanchthon, Bucer, and Beza confess, and this is evident from the preceding, and because at that time there were not yet feasts of Saints, or fastings prescribed and instituted to Christians by the Church. Whence the Novatians wrongly twist these against them. Certainly if they had been instituted and commanded by the Church at that time, the Apostle would surely have commanded them to be observed absolutely, as he commanded similar decrees of the Apostles to be observed elsewhere, Acts xvi, 4. LET EACH ONE ABOUND IN HIS OWN SENSE. — For "abound," the Greek is πληροφορείσθω; Budaeus, Erasmus and others translate it, let him be fully persuaded, let him have full proof and certainty. Our interpreter, consistently and more properly and faithfully to the word, as Ribera well proves in chapter vi of Hebrews, verse 11, translates it, let him be full, let him have fullness, let him fulfill, let him abound. For the Greek πληροφορείν is not derived ἀπὸ τοῦ πλήρης, that is, full, and φωρᾶν, that is, to discover, to detect, as Erasmus wishes; for φωρᾶν is written with ω, πληροφορείν with o micron: but ἀπὸ τοῦ πλήρος and φέρειν, that is, to bear full, to have fullness. Thus from it are derived and composed καρποφορείν, that is, to bear fruit; κερατοφορείν, that is, to bear horns; βιβλιοφορείν, that is, to bear a book; δαφνοφορείν, that is, to bear laurel; δωροφορείν, that is, to bear a gift; and many similar words. In the same way therefore πληροφορείσθαι is the same as to be full, or (actively) to fulfill, to abound; and πληροφορία is the same as fullness. This is the first and genuine signification of this word: from this, however, the Greeks, attributing this verb to the intellect and to the act of the mind, take it for full persuasion, faith, certainty; because the fullness of intellect, reason and judgment is its full persuasion: for just as a purse is filled with money, the stomach is filled with food, so the capacity of the intellect and its eagerness to know is filled with such proof as gives full faith to the intellect and persuades it of the matter, and thus satisfies and fulfills its desire for truth, which it has for knowing the truth: as if πληροφορείσθαι were to bring πλήρη πίστιν, that is, full faith and persuasion. LET EACH ONE THEREFORE ABOUND IN HIS OWN SENSE, — that is, let each one enjoy his own judgment, let him follow it fully, let each one abundantly fulfill his own sense; for this, as I have said, is properly the Greek πληροφορείσθαι, that is, to be full, and the Latin to abound in one's own sense, and thus in indifferent matters we commonly say: "Let each one abound in his own sense," that is, let each one follow his own judgment, his own sense: for in other matters which are not indifferent, it is not permitted to advise and do this. That this is the sense of this passage is clear from the following verse, where the Apostle praises both the one who eats and the one who does not eat. For each one, following his own sense, acts well: for each one eats or does not eat unto the Lord. Thus Basil in the Moral., rule LIV, chapter 1, and Ambrose: "Let each one," he says, "be released to his own counsel." It can, however, secondly, with Erasmus, Budaeus, Vatablus and others, the Greek πληροφορείσθω be translated, be certain, as if Paul said: Let each one be certain in his own mind, and fully persuaded, namely, that what he does by eating or not eating is lawful and pleasing to God. Whence the Syriac: "Let each one," it says, "be confirmed in the knowledge of his own soul." Thus also our "abound" could be taken, so that it is the same as to be fully and abundantly certain, as if: Let each one be abundantly and fully certain that what he does is good and lawful; let him do nothing with half-full, that is, wavering and doubting conscience. But the former sense, which I set forth a little before, is more apt and more significant. Thirdly, St. Augustine thus expounds it: "Let each one abound in his own sense," that is, let each one dare to judge as much as is granted to human intellect; let him not be wise about, let him not judge, higher things which surpass men. Fourthly, some recent interpreters thus explain it: "Let each one in his own sense," that is, whether he thinks this or that, "abound," namely in charity, so that namely from charity for the edification of others he may think and do this. But these do not correspond to the Greek πληροφορείσθω. Note: The Apostle speaks of indifferent matters, as if to say: Let each one follow his own sense, whether to eat all foods, if he be perfect in faith, even unclean ones, and either always or on a certain day forbidden by the law, just as foods clean and permitted in the law; or whether to abstain from the same, if he be weak in faith and scrupulous, either out of reverence for the law of Moses, or out of inculpable ignorance, by which he thinks it still binds. Whence note secondly: Although the legal ceremonies and the obligation of the law were abrogated and made dead after the death of Christ at Pentecost, nevertheless those ceremonies and legal observances were not immediately everywhere and for all deadly, but only after sufficient promulgation, explanation and confirmation of the Gospel and Christian faith. Those ceremonies could therefore be observed up to that point, on account of scandal to the weak and in order to bury the Synagogue with honor, but not as necessary for salvation, or as binding from the old law, unless this were done from invincible ignorance, which many then labored under, even the Apostles, until the vision of St. Peter, which is narrated in Acts x. Note thirdly: Although these Jews erred, nevertheless the Apostle wishes them to be permitted in this error in this chapter, on account of the immaturity of the time, until they are more fully instructed in the faith; lest, if they were immediately recalled from customary rites and observances, being troubled they should fall away from the faith, because they are weak. Hence the Apostles permitted the Jews to observe the law of Moses together with the Gospel for a time, both so that they might gradually change the law, which was otherwise good and holy, into the Gospel; and so that they might more easily attract the Jews who were accustomed to the law to Christianity. You will say: Why then does the Apostle rebuke the Galatians so harshly in chapter I, because they observed the old law? I answer: Because the Galatians were Gentiles, not Jews; hence they themselves had assumed foreign sacred things, namely Jewish ones, as if necessary for salvation, which was a manifest error, and one to be cut off by the Apostle. See therefore how contrary to the mind of the Apostle libertines draw these things to the liberty of faith, so that it is permitted to each one to believe what he wishes. Others indeed draw these things to the liberty of not fasting, of not obeying the precepts of the Church: whereas these precepts are, as is supposed; but the Apostle speaks of things not precepts, but indifferent, as I have already shown.
14:6
6. HE WHO SAVORS THE DAY, SAVORS IT TO THE LORD. — "He who savors," that is, he who judges and discerns the day of abstinence from the day on which abstinence is not required. It is a metalepsis. For by taste we discern foods: hence to savor here signifies to discern, and by discerning to observe the day of abstinence: he therefore who thus savors and discerns the day of abstinence, "savors it to the Lord," that is, he does and discerns it for the obedience of God the legislator. Thus St. Chrysostom. The Greek texts add καὶ ὁ μὴ φρονῶν τὴν ἡμέραν Κυρίῳ οὐ φρονεῖ, "and he who does not savor, or discern the day, does not discern it to the Lord," as if to say: Whether one discerns the day or not, a good judgment should be made of him, and he should be interpreted well (unless the contrary be established), namely that he does this to the honor of God: the sign of which is that he gives thanks to God. Whence explaining further the Apostle adds: AND HE WHO EATS (things offered to idols and foods forbidden by the law), EATS TO THE LORD (to the honor of God the Lord). AND HE WHO DOES NOT EAT (he who abstains from things offered to idols and foods forbidden by the law), DOES NOT EAT TO THE LORD (that is, abstains from them to the honor of the Lord): AND GIVES THANKS TO GOD, — not so much because he abstains from forbidden things, as because he uses foods permitted by the law. Where note, that not to eat is not a pure negation, but has mixed with it an affirmation, and is the same as to feed on food permitted by the law, rejecting what is forbidden; for it is for this that he gives thanks. Note that the Jews from the ancient custom of the fathers used thanksgiving in the taking of food: concerning which matter I shall say more at I Timothy iv, 4.
14:7
7. FOR NONE OF US LIVETH TO HIMSELF, AND NO MAN DIETH TO HIMSELF. — That is to say, We do not live and die chiefly for our own use and convenience, but for the obedience of God; for He is the Lord of our life and death, to whose use and praise all our things, and consequently all our abstinence as well as our eating ought to tend: just as servants are accustomed to and ought to refer all their things to the use and convenience of their masters. 8. FOR WHETHER WE LIVE, WE LIVE UNTO THE LORD; OR WHETHER WE DIE, WE DIE UNTO THE LORD. WHETHER WE LIVE THEREFORE, OR DIE, WE ARE THE LORD'S. — That is to say, We as servants refer our life, death and all things to the honour of God as our Lord, Creator and Redeemer: if all things, then also the observance and discretion of days and foods, or the difference and freedom of the same: therefore these are not sins. For sin is against the honour of the Lord, and is disobedience against the Lord, that is to say, All that we are, all that we do, all that we live, all that we die, is Christ the Lord's: for we are His servants. To His obedience and use therefore our life, death and all things tend and are directed, and we willingly as His servants refer all things to Him: for He is our Lord and Judge; by Him we are to be judged: therefore let us not judge one another. Now both points of the Apostle are evident, namely first, that in this choice of foods, or abstinence there is no sin, because both are done to the honour of the Lord, to whom we live and die, is clear from the preceding verse: The Lord, he says, eateth, or eateth not; for he giveth thanks to God. And secondly, that in this choice the faithful ought not to judge one another, since they are servants, but ought to leave all judgment to Christ the Lord, is clear from verse 10. Secondly, Anselm expounds it not badly thus, that is to say, We seek the glory of the Lord by living and dying, that we may be possessed by Him as servants, whether we be living or dead. Hence for His glory we willingly spend our life and all things, we pour out death and blood: therefore let us not dispute or wrangle minutely and anxiously about foods and the free use of foods. This sense follows from the former, and perfects and completes it. Whence also St. Chrysostom: "By these words," he says, "Paul shows that God has greater care for us than we have for ourselves, and that He esteems our life as His riches, and our death as His loss: for we do not die to ourselves alone, but if we die, we die unto the Lord: but he here calls that death which is from faith." Tropologically Gregory, homily 22 on Ezekiel: "The saints," he says, "neither live nor die to themselves. They do not live to themselves, because in all that they do, they pant after spiritual gains, and by praying, preaching, and persisting in holy works, they desire to multiply the citizens of the heavenly country. They do not die to themselves at all, because in the sight of men they glorify God by their death, to whom they hasten to come even by dying."
14:9
9. FOR TO THIS END CHRIST DIED AND ROSE AGAIN; THAT HE MIGHT BE LORD BOTH OF THE DEAD AND OF THE LIVING. — The Apostle proves what preceded: "Whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we die, we die unto the Lord;" that is, he proves that the living and the dead are the Lord's, or that Christ the Lord rules over the living and the dead. He proves it, I say, from the cause; for for this cause Christ died and rose again, that from His death and resurrection He might acquire dominion over the living and the dead, or rather the use and exercise of this dominion of His, and that He might rule over all. It is to be noted that He does not say: "that He might become Lord," namely, that He might receive the right and power of ruling; but "that He might rule," that is, that He might exercise the use of the power and dominion received. For Christ from the first instant of His incarnation, by reason of the hypostatic union, was Lord of all: but after His death He received the full exercise of this dominion. In like manner Christ merited the judicial power, as well as the glory of His body, although due to Him by reason of the hypostatic union, by suffering and dying, and He obtained it by the merit of His humility and death after His resurrection. Add that the Apostle here remembers the resurrection of Christ, because this is the exemplar of our resurrection. For as Christ died that He might rule the dead, so He rose that He might rule the living: therefore we shall rise to eternal life, that Christ may rule over us living eternally.
14:10
10. BUT THOU, WHY JUDGEST THOU THY BROTHER? OR THOU, WHY DOST THOU DESPISE THY BROTHER? FOR WE SHALL ALL STAND BEFORE THE JUDGMENT SEAT OF CHRIST. — That is to say, There shall be one Judge, namely Christ: therefore let us not judge one another. For we are not lords of ourselves, or of others; but we are all under another's power, all servants of Christ, and consequently all are to be judged by Him, not appointed as judges of others. Morally St. Chrysostom: "Let us remember," he says, "perpetually that terrible tribunal, the river of fire, the insoluble bonds, the depths of darkness, the gnashing of teeth, the poisonous worm."
14:11
11. FOR IT IS WRITTEN (Isaiah XLV, 24): AS I LIVE (I swear by my life), SAITH THE LORD, BECAUSE (that) TO ME EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW (all nations shall worship and adore me: for this place contains a prophecy of the conversion of all nations to Christ), AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL CONFESS TO GOD. — That is to say, All men shall acknowledge me, Christ the man, as God and supreme judge, and shall praise my clemency or justice, but the good willingly, the wicked unwillingly and by compulsion. Isaiah has: "Every tongue shall swear to me." Shall swear, that is, shall confess. For an oath is a true and open profession of that God, whom we call upon as witness and avenger of perjury; so that sometimes by synecdoche an oath declares the whole worship of God, and to swear in God, or by the true God, is the same as to worship the true God, as is evident from Isaiah XIX, 18; Psalm LXII, verse 12: "All shall be praised," says the Psalmist, "who swear in him," that is, all who worship him.
14:13
13. JUDGE THIS RATHER (determine, decree), THAT YOU PUT NOT A STUMBLING BLOCK TO YOUR BROTHER, OR A SCANDAL. — The Syriac takes these two as the same; but the Apostle disjoins and distinguishes them. "Stumbling block" therefore, in Greek πρόσκομμα, is that into which you strike, offend, fall and sin. Whence πρόσκομμα, says Budaeus, is πταίσμα, that is, a fall, an offence, a sin. "Scandal" truly is that into which you strike, that is, you stumble, are troubled and tempted; but you do not fall, do not collapse, do not sin. Note: σκάνδαλον from σκαμβός, that is, crooked, is among the Greeks a curved or crooked piece of wood, by which a mousetrap is held up, to which bait is attached, so that the mouse, gnawing at it, overturns the mousetrap upon itself. Hence Theologians call "scandal" that which is to another an occasion of sin and ruin; as here is eating things offered to idols, or foods forbidden by the old law, before Jews new in the faith of Christ, who think it to be unlawful.
14:14
14. I KNOW AND AM CONVINCED (πέπεισμαι, that is, as Chrysostom says, I am persuaded, I have full knowledge, or I trust, I hold confidently and teach, I am secure that I am not deceived) IN THE LORD JESUS (from whom I have learned, and I know what I say and teach) THAT (which) NOTHING IS COMMON THROUGH HIM (that is to say, I know through Christ, that is, through Christ's law and liberty, no food is common, that is, unclean), EXCEPT TO HIM WHO (through error or erroneous conscience) ESTEEMETH ANY THING TO BE COMMON, TO HIM IT IS COMMON (that is, unclean and forbidden). — Because foods unclean among the Jews by the Mosaic law, all Gentiles used and ate indiscriminately and commonly, and so these unclean things were common to the Gentiles among the Jews; hence "common" is the same as unclean; and to communicate, or to make common, is the same as to defile and profane, as is evident from Acts x, 14, Mark vii, 18. See Jerome on xv Matthew. Secondly, Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylactus and the Syriac thus explain it: through it, namely the food, that is to say, No food through itself is unclean. Where note, that food in itself was clean, but was unclean because it was forbidden by law: yet the more simple thought foods were forbidden because they were in themselves unclean; but they erred, because they were ignorant of the true meaning and reason of the law, namely the moral and mystical signification of this abstinence, of which I have spoken on Leviticus xi. See St. Augustine, book VI Against Faustus, VII.
14:15
15. FOR IF (in Greek εἰ δέ, if truly) THY BROTHER BE GRIEVED WITH THY MEAT, NOW THOU WALKEST NOT CHARITABLY. — That is to say, If thy brother esteemeth the food to be common and to be avoided, and thou nevertheless eatest it, and thus grievest and scandalizes thy brother, thou sinnest against charity: for thou provokest him, so that against his conscience he eateth the same food; or so that, offended by this scandal of thine, he may withdraw from thee and thy faith and religion, and return to his former Judaism or paganism. DESTROY NOT HIM WITH THY MEAT, FOR WHOM CHRIST DIED. — Here is a sharp stimulus and sting, with which Paul pricks the faithful, that they may most carefully beware of scandals, that is to say, Christ gave his life for thy brother, do thou for him give, or rather leave the food; Christ restored life to him by his death, do thou not take away this life from him with thy vile food, do not destroy him.
14:16
16. LET NOT THEN YOUR GOOD BE EVIL SPOKEN OF (by the Gentiles on account of your discord and scandal), — Thus read the Roman Bibles and the Syriac; but the Greek reads ὑμῶν, that is, your. You will ask what this good is? First, Origen answers, it is the Christian religion; secondly, Theodoret, it is faith; thirdly, Ambrose, it is the doctrine of Christ; fourthly, Chrysostom, it is the hope of future reward, or perfect piety; fifthly, Anselm, it is the eating of good and lawful things. All these come to the same thing. Namely, the good, that is, the liberty and Christian faith, which the Apostle here warns and urges the faithful not to expose to the blasphemy of the Gentiles through scandal. Thus Anselm and St. Thomas. For the Gentiles were scandalized and turned away from Christianity, when they saw Christians thus contending among themselves about foods and the choice of foods.
14:17
17. THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS NOT FOOD AND DRINK; BUT JUSTICE, AND PEACE, AND JOY IN THE HOLY GHOST. — That is to say, Piety, faith and charity, by which God reigns in us, do not consist in themselves in certain food and drink, as if these were in themselves necessary for obtaining grace and beatitude, and by these we become pleasing to God, since they are in themselves indifferent things. I say, in themselves, because by obedience they can be necessary, as is evident in Adam, to whom the eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was forbidden and other things were permitted: the same is evident in the fastings of the Church; for when these are appointed by the Church, then as objects or acts of obedience and temperance they produce justice, peace and joy of the Holy Ghost, in which the kingdom of God already mentioned properly and in itself consists. Add: Paul does not say, "The kingdom of God is not abstinence;" but, "The kingdom of God is not food." Let the Novatians note this, who, in order to contend for their foods, attack the fastings of the Church. Thus I Cor. cap. viii, vers. 8: "Food," he says, "commendeth us not to God." Note: The Apostle here and elsewhere calls "the kingdom of God" the grace by which God reigns in us, by which sins are blotted out, and by which we are reconciled to God, or made more pleasing to Him, and acquire the right to the kingdom and eternal beatitude: it is evident from what follows. Grace therefore is called "the kingdom of God" inceptively, because by grace God begins to reign in us, and because grace is the beginning of glory and of the heavenly kingdom, in which God will reign fully and perfectly in us. It is a metonymy. For "kingdom" here is the same as the manner, reason, form of God's kingdom and rule; for this form and norm is not situated in food and drink, but in justice, peace and joy of the Holy Ghost. Secondly, another metonymy might take "kingdom" here for the subjects who are ruled, so that "the kingdom of God" here calls the Christians themselves and the saints, whom God rules and governs: these are not food and drink, that is, they are not made so by food and drink, so that the word is taken not formally, but causally for by metonymy, that is to say, We do not become holy and good Christians, in whom God reigns, because we freely eat foods forbidden by law; but by justice, peace and joy of the Holy Ghost we become holy and true Christians, and consequently we become the kingdom of God. Thirdly, Anselm properly takes the kingdom of heaven, in this sense, that is to say, In heaven there will be no carnal delights, no food, no drink; but justice, peace and joy. But this is anagogical. Morally hear St. Bernard, serm. 2 on these very words of the Apostle: "Sons of men, how long will you be heavy of heart? because of a fat body; why do you love vanity and neglect truth? The fatness of flesh, the delights of the body, the fullness of the belly, either will desert you before death, or you will leave them at death. For (says the saint) when he shall be dead, he shall take nothing away, neither shall his glory descend with him. As sheep they are laid in hell, death shall feed upon them. How well as sheep? because when the fleece of worldly riches is taken away, harshly and closely shorn they shall be appointed naked to eternal fires. Death shall feed upon them, because they shall always be dying unto life, and always living unto death. Therefore here the flesh to worms, there the soul to fires is appointed, until again joined to that unhappy company they shall be united with torments of punishment, who were companions in vices. O you who are delicate, who surrounded and confused by delights and riches, expect confusion and death; the kingdom of God is not food and drink, not purple and fine linen: because that rich man abounding in both, in a moment descended to hell; but justice, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."
14:18
18. HE WHO IN THIS (in these things which I have said, namely in peace, justice and joy of the Holy Ghost, in which the kingdom of God consists) SERVETH CHRIST, PLEASETH GOD.
14:20
20. DESTROY NOT THE WORK OF GOD FOR MEAT. — "Work," namely the building of God, that is, faith, charity and Christian religion in your neighbor. Or "the work of God," that is, your neighbor himself, whom God made Christian, faithful, pious, indeed His own house and temple. See what is said at vers. 16. Thus Ephes. II, vers. 10, it is said: "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works," etc.
14:21
21. IT IS GOOD NOT TO EAT FLESH AND NOT TO DRINK WINE, NOR (to do any other like thing) IN WHICH THY BROTHER (thy neighbor) IS OFFENDED. — Thus the Roman Bibles read; others read "offendeth": for in Greek also it is προσκόπτει, that is offendeth, stumbleth, that is is scandalized; therefore here "offendeth" and "is offended" are the same; for he who is scandalized offendeth and is offended.
14:22
22. YOU HAVE FAITH? KEEP IT TO YOURSELF BEFORE GOD. — First, Toletus takes "faith" here properly, namely true and Christian faith, by which you rightly believe any food to be clean, and therefore you eat it. Second and better, faith is the same as certain and secure persuasion: "you have faith," that is, you are certain and secure in conscience, that nothing among Christians is unclean legally, that all foods, even those forbidden by the old law, are permitted to them. Thus St. Chrysostom and Ambrose, and this according to the mind of the Apostle, as will be evident from the last verse. The Apostle here meets a tacit objection of those saying: Faith dictates to me that the legal ceremonies are abolished, and that I may lawfully eat of any foods; I shall therefore follow my faith, I shall eat foods forbidden by the law, even if the weaker are offended by it. The Apostle responds: You have faith, but keep it. KEEP IT TO YOURSELF, — that is, do not flaunt it and use it to the scandal of your brother. For faith must always be confessed, but not always professed; "for to profess is to publish faith willingly, to confess is to answer when questioned," says St. Cyprian, epistle 83. I say the same of faith, that is, of persuasion, or of the credulity of conscience, of which the Apostle properly treats here. BLESSED IS HE WHO DOES NOT JUDGE HIMSELF IN THAT WHICH HE APPROVES. — On the occasion of what he said, "You have faith," the Apostle here passes to the instruction of the weak one, who either by the example of the teacher eating, or enticed by gluttony, ate pork or something else forbidden by the law against conscience, and thus sinned. He says therefore: "Blessed is he who does not judge (who does not condemn scrupulously: thus Ambrose and Theodoret) himself in that which he approves," which he chooses, which he embraces, that is, Blessed is he who does nothing against conscience, who does not raise doubts and scruples for himself in a matter otherwise lawful and indifferent, such as eating things sacrificed to idols, or foods forbidden by the Jews. Second, Salmeron: "Blessed is he," he says, "who does not judge himself" to act well, so as to flatter himself about virtue, to reckon himself just and holy; but rather with the Apostle says: "I am not conscious to myself of anything; but in this I am not justified: but he that judgeth me, the Lord is." Third, others explain it thus, that is, Blessed is he who executes the judgment of that thing which he approves, does not take it from himself and his own head, but from learned, upright and wise men; for in matters to be done it is the part of the prudent to rely not on his own, but on the counsel of the wise. Fourth, Toletus: "Blessed," he says, "is he who does not judge himself to act rightly while he eats with scandal to his neighbor that which he otherwise approves," that is, which he otherwise approves by faith, namely this food which he eats, as also any other, permitted and lawful. But the first sense is required by what follows.
14:23
23. WHO DISCERNETH (food from food, as if unlawful and forbidden from lawful and permitted), IF HE SHALL EAT, IS CONDEMNED (he incurs the guilt of sin and damnation), BECAUSE NOT OF FAITH,—that is, because not from the dictate of conscience and belief, whereby he believes it to be lawful to eat of this food, supply, he eats, as if to say: Because he eats and acts against conscience, hence he binds himself to sin and damnation. Thus St. Chrysostom. For who discerneth, in Greek it is διακρινόμενος, which can also be translated, "who disputes," "who doubts," whether it be lawful, for example to eat swine's flesh, or not. Thus St. Chrysostom, Theophylactus, Œcumenius. ALL THAT IS NOT OF FAITH, IS SIN.—Note, "faith" here includes not only the general and speculative truth, but also the particular and practical. Faith therefore is the dictate of conscience, or the persuasion and belief, whereby according to the rules of faith and prudence you believe that here, for example, by eating things offered to idols, or foods forbidden by the old law, you act not badly, but rightly and pleasingly to God: for whatever is not according to this belief, that is, whatever is against conscience, this is sin. Thus St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ambrose, Theophylactus, Œcumenius. That this is the meaning, and that faith signifies this here, is evident both from the Greek πίστις: for faith in Greek is called πίστις, that is persuasion, from πείθειν, that is to persuade, to convince; and from the very discourse of the Apostle. For the Apostle speaks to the weak, that is to those erring and scrupulous, who from error of conscience thought it was not lawful for them to eat foods forbidden by the law. To these he says: He who discerneth this food as unlawful from another lawful, if he eat that which he discerneth as unlawful, is condemned; because not of faith, that is, because not from the belief that it is lawful, but against the dictate of conscience he eats. The same is evident from I Cor. viii, 1, where the Apostle, explaining this faith, calls it knowledge. For he says: "Now as touching those things that are sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge." And verse 4: "But as for the meats that are sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one." Faith therefore is knowledge, whereby one knows that an idol is nothing, and consequently that things offered to idols contract nothing of the false deity, or vice from the idol to which they are sacrificed, so that therefore their eating should be unlawful to the faithful; and consequently that the faithful can lawfully eat of them, just as if they had not been sacrificed to an idol. Again, just as faith is called the belief whereby one believes something to be true and revealed by God; so likewise faith can be called (as it is called here) the belief whereby one believes something to be lawful; for this is a practical truth, which as it were faith regards as its object, this practical faith: just as the former speculative faith has speculative truth as its object. Moreover Cicero, in book I of the Offices, says: "Faith is the constancy and truth of words and agreements. From which we believe, because what is said is done, faith is called." By the same reasoning therefore, when what is said in the mind is done, namely what the mind and reason dictate should be done, faith is and should be called; and he who does this is said to act faithfully and from faith, and in good faith. Hence Theologians teach that conscience, even if erroneous, always binds, so that it is never lawful to act against it; but it should be set aside by prudent counsel of reason or of a wise man; or, if that cannot be done, it must be followed, namely if the resolution and the matter itself cannot be deferred. You will say: St. Augustine, in book IV Against Julian, III, and in the book On the Grace of Christ, chapter xxvi, and epistle 105; Prosper also in book VIII On the Contemplative Life, chapters I and v; Bernard, in the book On Precepts and Dispensations, take faith here properly; therefore when the Apostle says: "All that is not of faith, is sin," from this I rightly infer, that all the works of all unbelievers, even good ones, such as almsdeeds, since they are not, nor are done from faith, are sins. Some Scholastic Doctors admit this inference, such as Gregory of Rimini, Capreolus, Catharinus. But I answer: St. Augustine with his followers understands that which is not of faith, by a diminution, thus, as if the Apostle said: That which is of infidelity, or that which is against faith, and that which is done for the worship of an idol, this is sin, as is evident. And because St. Augustine thought that most works done by unbelievers are done for this end, namely for worshipping an idol, hence consequently he thought most of their works to be sins. But this is not true of all; rather it is certain that unbelievers can do and in fact do many works that are morally good, such as honoring parents, giving alms, keeping promises, not for the worship of their idol (of which they often do not think) but only for this reason, that those things are honorable, that right reason dictates them, so that these works of theirs are morally good, and are not vitiated by any evil end or circumstance. Again, Origen, Anselm, St. Leo, sermon 2 On the Fast of Pentecost, and Prosper by an amplification thus expound: "All that is not of faith is sin," that is, it is joined with sin: because all the virtue of unbelievers is vain, empty and false virtue, and is not able to free man from sin, or to make him absolutely good before God. "All the life of unbelievers," says Prosper in Sentences excerpted from St. Augustine, sentence 106, "is sin, and nothing is good without the supreme good. For where knowledge of eternal and unchangeable truth is lacking, it is false virtue, even in the best morals." But, as I have said, these are not the genuine sense in this place, nor according to the mind of the Apostle: for the Apostle by faith here does not understand Christian faith, but credulity, persuasion and the dictate of conscience.
Machine translation from the Latin, not reviewed.
14:1
Postquam apostolus ostendit quomodo aliquis debeat perfectus fieri, hic ostendit quomodo perfecti debeant se habere ad imperfectos. Et primo ostendit quod non debeant eos scandalizare vel iudicare; secundo ostendit quod debent eos sustentare, cap. XV ibi debemus autem nos firmiores, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo prohibet inordinata iudicia; secundo prohibet infirmorum scandala, ibi sed hoc iudicate magis, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo proponit admonitionem; secundo exponit eam, ibi alius enim etc.; tertio rationem assignat, ibi Deus enim illum et cetera. Circa primum considerandum est quod in primitiva Ecclesia aliqui ex Iudaeis conversi ad Christum, credebant legalia cum Evangelio esse servanda, ut patet Act. XV, 1 s. Et hos apostolus vocat infirmos in fide Christi, quasi nondum perfecte credentes quod fides Christi sufficiat ad salutem. Perfectos autem vel firmos in fide vocat eos qui fidem Christi sine legalibus credebant esse servandam. De utrisque tamen erant aliqui Romae inter fideles Christi. Alloquitur ergo apostolus perfectos in fide, dicens: dictum est quod sic debetis induere dominum Iesum Christum, assumite autem, id est affectu charitatis vobis coniungite ad supportandum, infirmum in fide, sicut expositum est, de quo potest intelligi illud Sap. c. IX, 5: infirmus homo et exigui temporis, et minor ad intellectum iudicii et legum. Infra XV, 7: suscipite invicem, sicut et Christus suscepit vos. Eccli. XXIX, 12: propter mandatum assume pauperem. Et hoc non in disceptationibus cogitationum, id est non disceptando propter hoc quod unus contra alium cogitat, dum scilicet illi qui legalia servabant, iudicabant tamquam transgressores eos qui non servabant. Et illi qui non servabant, contemnebant tamquam errantes et ignorantes qui servabant. Supra II, 15: cogitationum invicem accusantium aut defendentium, et cetera. Deinde, cum dicit alius enim, etc., exponit quod dixerat. Et primo ostendit qui sunt infirmi in fide; secundo ostendit qualiter sint disceptationes cogitationum vitandae, ibi is qui manducat, et cetera. Circa primum considerandum est quod inter caeteras legales observantias una erat discretio ciborum propter aliquos cibos in lege prohibitos, ut patet Lev. XI, 2 ss.; et hac quidem observantia quotidie erat utendum vel non utendum. Et ideo de hoc mentionem fecit specialiter apostolus, dicens alius enim, inter vos, qui scilicet est perfectus in fide, credit se posse licite manducare omnia, eo quod non reputat se astrictum ad legales observantias. Matth. XV, 11: quod intrat in os non coinquinat hominem. I Tim. IV, 4: omnis creatura Dei bona est, et nihil reiiciendum, quod cum gratiarum actione accipitur, et cetera. In veteri autem lege prohibebantur aliqui cibi, non quia naturaliter essent immundi. Sicut enim in verbis hoc nomen stultus significat aliquod malum, quamvis hoc nomen sit bonum, ita in rebus quoddam animal bonum est secundum naturam, sed significatione est malum, sicut porcus, qui significat immunditiam. Et ideo prohibitus est antiquis esus illarum carnium, ut significaretur in eorum vitatione vitatio immunditiae. Tota enim illius veteris populi vita figuralis erat, ut Augustinus dicit in libro contra Faustum. Veniente autem Christo qui est veritas, cessaverunt figurae.
14:2
Subdit autem quantum ad infirmum qui autem infirmus est, olus manducet, quasi dicat: illis cibis utatur quibus non occurrit aliquod immundum in lege prohibitum. In singulis enim generibus animalium, puta terrestribus, volatilibus et aquaticis, quaedam genera erant concessa et quaedam prohibita; sed in herbis et arboribus nihil erat prohibitum, ut patet Levit. XI, T. Et huius potest esse ratio duplex. Una est quia terrae nascentia fuerunt a principio concessa homini ad edendum, secundum illud Gen. I, 29: ecce dedi vobis omnem herbam afferentem semen super terram, et universa ligna quae habent in semetipsis sementem generis sui, ut sint vobis in escam. Sed post diluvium primo legitur homini concessus carnium esus. Unde dicitur Gen. IX, 3: quasi olera virentia tradidi vobis omnia, scilicet animalium genera. Alia ratio est, quia primam prohibitionem de abstinendo a quibusdam terrae nascentibus homo in Paradiso transgressus fuerat, ut patet Gen. III, T.; et propter hoc non erat ei similis prohibitio iteranda. Sed cum legalia cessaverunt in Christi passione, videtur quod inconvenienter apostolus infirmis in fide permittat quod a cibis prohibitis in lege abstineant, quod nunc in Christianis non sustinetur ab Ecclesia. Sed distinguendum est triplex tempus, secundum Augustinum, quantum ad legalia. Quorum primum est tempus ante passionem Christi, in quo legalia suum robur obtinebant quasi adhuc viventia. Secundum autem tempus est post passionem Christi ante divulgationem Evangelii, in quo quidem tempore legalia mortua erant, quia nullus ad ea tenebatur, nec observata aliquid conferebant alicui, nondum tamen erant mortifera, quia sine peccato poterant Iudaei ad Christum conversi legalia observare: et pro illo tempore loquitur hic apostolus. Tertium autem tempus est post divulgationem Evangelii, in quo legalia non solum sunt mortua sed mortifera, ut quisquis ea observet, peccet mortaliter. Exponitur autem et aliter in Glossa, ut dicatur infirmus qui est ad lapsus vitiorum carnalium pronus, et huic consulendum est quod comedat olus, id est, tenues et aridos cibos qui non sunt fomentum vitiorum, et abstineat ab illis quibus excitatur libido. Sed alius qui est fortior credit se absque periculo posse omnia manducare. Et haec differentia apparet inter discipulos Christi qui non ieiunabant, tamquam confortati praesentia Christi et discipulos Ioannis Baptistae qui ieiunabant. Unde et poenitentiam agentes a quibusdam cibis abstinent non propter eorum immunditiam, sed ad libidinem refrenandam. Deinde, cum dicit is qui manducat, etc., exponit quomodo sunt vitandae disceptationes cogitationum. Et primo quantum ad perfectos, dicens is qui manducat, scilicet cum secura conscientia omnia vel etiam sine periculo libidinis, non spernat non manducantem, scilicet indifferenter omnia, tamquam infirmum in fide, vel quasi pronum ad vitia. Is. XXXIII, v. 1: vae qui spernis, nonne et ipse sperneris? Lc. X, 16: qui vos spernit, me spernit. Secundo loquitur quantum ad infirmos, dicens et qui non manducat, scilicet indifferenter omnia, vel quia est infirmus in fide, de quo loquitur apostolus, vel etiam quia pronus est ad libidinem, non iudicet manducantem, scilicet indifferenter omnia, quasi transgressorem legis, vel quasi in libidinem praecipitem. Matth. VII, 1: nolite iudicare, et non iudicabimini. Supra II, 1: inexcusabilis es, o homo omnis qui iudicas.
14:3
Deinde cum dicit Deus enim illum assumpsit, etc., assignat tres rationes propter quas debemus a falso iudicio abstinere. Secunda ponitur, ibi suo domino, etc.; tertia, ibi tu autem qui iudicas, et cetera. Prima ratio sumitur ex auctoritate iudicantis. Unde primo ostendit hanc charitatem Deo competere; secundo concludit quod iudicium ad homines non pertinet, ibi tu quis es, et cetera. Dicit ergo primo: recte dictum est quod qui non manducat manducantem non iudicet, Deus enim assumpsit illum, scilicet in servum a se iudicandum. Zac. XI, 7: assumpsi mihi duas virgas, id est duos populos. Ps. XVII, 17: assumpsit me de aquis multis. Ille autem qui assumitur ad superioris iudicium, non debet ab inferiori iudicari.
14:4
Et ideo concludit tu quis es, id est, cuius auctoritatis vel virtutis es, qui iudicas alienum servum? Id est proximum tuum, qui est servus Dei? Requiritur enim in iudicante auctoritas, secundum illud Ex. II, v. 14: quis constituit te principem et iudicem super nos? Et, Lc. XII, 14: quis me constituit iudicem aut divisorem super vos? Sed ex hac ratione sequi videtur hominis iudicium de alio homine esse illicitum. Sed dicendum est quod intantum hominis iudicium licitum est, inquantum agitur auctoritate concessa divinitus. Unde dicitur Deut. c. I, 16: audite illos, et quod iustum est iudicate, et postea sequitur quia Dei est iudicium, id est auctoritate divina agitur. Si quis vero velit sibi usurpare iudicium super ea quae non sunt ei divinitus concessa ad iudicandum, est iudicium temerarium, sicut si quis iudex delegatus a Papa vellet in iudicando transgredi mandati fines. Deus autem soli sibi reservavit iudicare occulta, quae praecipue sunt cogitationes cordium et futura. Et ideo si quis de his iudicare praesumpserit, est temerarium iudicium. Unde Augustinus dicit in libro de sermone domini in monte: in his duobus temerarium est iudicium, cum videlicet incertum sit quo animo quid factum sit; vel incertum qualis futurus sit qui nunc vel bonus vel malus apparet. Deinde cum dicit suo domino stat, aut cadit, etc., ponit secundam rationem, quae quidem sumitur ex fine meriti vel demeriti. Posset aliquis dicere quod licet homo non habeat iudiciariam auctoritatem, tamen intromittere se debet iudicio alterius propter damnum vel fructum qui inde provenit; sed apostolus ostendit hoc ad Deum magis quam ad homines pertinere. Et sic etiam propter hoc debemus Deo proximorum iudicia relinquere, nisi inquantum vice ipsius fungimur in iudicando per auctoritatem nobis commissam: circa hoc tria facit. Primo proponit quod intendit; secundo exemplificat, ibi nam alius iudicat, etc.; tertio probat propositum, ibi qui sapit diem, et cetera. Circa primum duo proponit. Primo quod quidquid circa hominem accidit, ad Deum pertinet, cum dicit suo domino stat, scilicet recte agendo Ps. CXXI, 2: stantes erant pedes nostri in atriis tuis, Ierusalem; aut cadit, scilicet peccando Amos V, 1: domus Israel cecidit, et non adiiciet ut resurgat. Ponit autem sub disiunctione stat aut cadit, propter incertitudinem, quia multi videntur cadere qui stant, et e converso, secundum illud Eccle. VIII, 10: vidi impios sepultos, qui cum adhuc viverent, in loco sancto erant, et laudabantur in civitate quasi iustorum operum. Loquitur autem hic apostolus secundum similitudinem hominis servi, ad cuius dominum pertinet omne quod circa servum agitur. Nec intelligendum est quod Deo aliquid proficiat vel noceat, si homo stet aut cadat. Dicitur enim Iob XXXV, 6: si peccaveris, quid ei nocebis? Porro si iuste egeris, quid ei donabis? Sed quantum ad homines, id quod iuste agimus, ad gloriam Dei spectat. Matth. V, 16: ut videant opera vestra bona, et glorificent patrem vestrum qui in caelis est. Quod autem cadimus peccando, est hominibus occasio blasphemandi Deum. Supra II, v. 24: nomen Dei propter vos blasphematur inter gentes. Vel quod dicit suo domino stat, aut cadit, exponendum est in iudicio domini sui. I Cor. c. IV, 4: qui iudicat me, dominus est. Secundo ostendit quod hominis statum iudicare ad Deum pertinet, dicens stabit autem. Quasi dicat: et si aliquis nunc cadat per peccatum, tamen potest esse quod iterum stabit. Et hoc omnino implebitur, si est praedestinatus. Ps. XL, 9: numquid qui dormit non adiiciet ut resurgat? Mich. VII, 8: ne laeteris, inimica mea, quia cecidi, resurgam. Et propter hoc si videmus aliquem manifeste cadentem, non debemus eum despicere, temerarie iudicando de eo quod numquam resurget, sed magis debemus praesumere quod iterum stabit, non ex consideratione conditionis humanae, sed considerando virtutem divinam. Unde cum dicit potens est Deus statuere illum, propter eius bonitatem praesumere debemus, quod iterum statuet eum, Ez. III, 24: ingressus est in me spiritus, et statuit me supra pedes meos, sicut et supra dictum est: si non permanserint in incredulitate, inserentur; potens enim est Deus iterum inserere illos. Deinde, cum dicit nam alius iudicat, etc., exemplificat quod dictum est. Et, primo, proponit diversitatem humanae sententiae, dicens: ideo dico quod suo domino stat, aut cadit, nam alius iudicat inter diem et diem, id est iudicat inter unum diem et alium, ut scilicet uno die abstineat et non alio. Quod quidem videtur pertinere ad infirmum in fide, qui reputat adhuc legalia esse observanda. Dicitur enim Lev. c. XXIII, 27: decimo die mensis septimi dies expiationum erit, affligetisque animas vestras in eo. Et Iudith VIII, 6 dicitur quod Iudith ieiunabat omnibus diebus vitae suae praeter sabbata et Neomenias et festa domus Israel. Alius autem iudicat omnem diem indifferenter esse observandum quantum ad caeremonialia legis, quae iam cessaverunt. Unde hoc videtur pertinere ad eum qui est perfectus in fide. Ps. CXLIV, 2: per singulos dies benedicam tibi. Potest hoc etiam referri ad abstinentias quae fiunt causa cohibendae libidinis, quibus omni die aliqui vacant, puta qui perpetuo a carnibus vel vino abstinent vel ieiunant, quidam autem interpositis diebus abstinent et ab abstinentia cessant, secundum illud Eccle. c. III, 1: omnia tempus habent. Secundo ostendit haec omnia posse ad Dei gloriam pertinere, dicens unusquisque in sensu suo abundet, id est suo sensui dimittatur. Abundare enim in sensu suo est sensum suum sequi. Eccli. XV, 14: Deus ab initio constituit hominem, et reliquit illum in manu consilii sui. Vel in sensu suo, id est secundum sensum suum studeat abundare ad gloriam Dei, secundum illud I Cor. XIV, 12: ad aedificationem Ecclesiae quaerite ut abundetis. Sed hoc videtur locum habere in his quae non sunt secundum se mala. In his autem quae sunt secundum se mala, non est homo suo sensui relinquendus. Quod autem aliquis iudicet diem inter et diem, videtur esse secundum se malum, secundum primam expositionem. Dicitur enim Gal. IV, 10 s.: dies observatis, et menses, et tempora, et annos, timeo ne sine causa laboraverim in vobis. Et loquitur ibi ad litteram de his qui dixerunt dies observandos secundum caeremonias legis. Sed dicendum, quod apostolus hic loquitur secundum tempus illud in quo, Iudaeis ad fidem conversis, licitum erat legalia observare, ut dictum est.
14:5
Sed quantum ad secundam expositionem videtur esse illicitum, quod dicit: alius iudicat omnem diem. Sunt enim quidam dies in quibus non est licitum ieiunare. Dicit enim Augustinus in epistola ad Casulanum: quisquis diem dominicum ieiunio decernendum esse putarit, non parvo scandalo esset Ecclesiae, nec immerito. Illis enim diebus quibus nihil certi statuit Ecclesia vel Scriptura divina, mos populi Dei et instituta maiorum, pro lege tenenda sunt. Et in decretis dicitur D. 30: si quis presbyter propter publicam poenitentiam a sacerdote acceptam absque alia necessitate die dominica pro quadam religione ieiunaverit, sicut Manichaei, anathema sit. Sed intelligendum est quod hic apostolus loquitur quantum ad illas abstinentias, quae quolibet die licite fieri possunt absque dissonantia communis consuetudinis, vel eorum quae sunt a maioribus instituta.
14:6
Deinde, cum dicit qui sapit diem, etc., probat propositum, quod scilicet unusquisque suo domino stet aut cadat: et hoc tripliciter. Primo per actum fidelium; secundo per intentionem eorum, ibi nemo enim vestrum, etc.; tertio per eorum conditionem, ibi sive ergo vivimus, sive morimur, et cetera. Probat ergo primo quomodo unusquisque fidelium suo domino stat aut cadit, per hoc quod de omnibus quae fecit secundum suam conscientiam gratias agit Deo. Unde dicit qui sapit diem, ut scilicet uno die abstineat et alio die ab abstinentia cesset, domino sapit, id est ad reverentiam Dei cibos discernit, sicut etiam nos discernimus vigilias festorum in quibus ieiunamus, a diebus festis quibus ieiunium solvimus propter reverentiam Dei. Eccli. XXXIII, 7: quare dies diem superat, et iterum lux lucem. Deinde loquitur quantum ad illos qui iudicant omnem diem, quorum quidam omni die a ieiunio cessabant, sicut dicitur Matth. c. IX, 14 quod discipuli Christi non ieiunabant. Unde dicit et qui manducat, scilicet omni die, domino manducat, id est ad gloriam domini, quod per hoc patet, gratias enim agit Deo, scilicet de cibo assumpto. I Tim. IV, 3: abstinere a cibis quos Deus creavit ad percipiendum cum gratiarum actione fidelibus. Ps. XXI, 27: edent pauperes et saturabuntur, et cetera. Ulterius quantum ad eum qui sic iudicat omnem diem, ut scilicet omni die abstineat, subdit et qui non manducat, id est abstinet omni die, domino, id est, ad honorem domini, non manducat. Et hoc patet per hoc quod gratias agit Deo qui sibi dedit voluntatem, et virtutem abstinendi. I Thess. ult.: in omnibus gratias agite. Sed quod hic dicit apostolus de his qui omni die vel abstinebant vel ab abstinentia cessabant, debet intelligi quantum ad illud tempus in quo hoc non erat contrarium statutis maiorum, nec communi consuetudini populi Dei. Deinde cum dicit nemo enim vestrum sibi vivit, etc., probat idem ex intentione fidelium.
14:7
Et, primo, excludit inordinatam intentionem, dicens: recte dico quod unusquisque domino suo stat aut cadit, nemo nostrum sibi vivit vel naturali vita vel spirituali, de qua dicitur Hab. II, 4: iustus autem meus ex fide vivit. Sibi, id est propter seipsum, quia hoc esset frui seipso. I Cor. X, 33: non quaerens quod mihi utile est. Ps. CXIII, 9: non nobis, domine, non nobis, etc.; vel sibi, id est, secundum suam regulam, sicut qui dicunt Sap. II, 11: sit fortitudo nostra lex iniustitiae; vel sibi, id est suo iudicio, I Cor. c. IV, 3: sed neque meipsum iudico. Et nemo moritur, scilicet morte corporali vel morte spirituali peccando, vel etiam morte spirituali qua quis moritur vitiis, puta in Baptismo, secundum illud supra VI, 7: qui mortuus est iustificatus est a peccato; vel sibi, id est suo iudicio, vel propter seipsum aut suo exemplo; sed exemplo Christi moritur aliquis a vitiis. Rom. VI, 10: quod enim mortuus est peccato, mortuus est semel; et infra: ita et vos existimate vos mortuos esse peccato. Secundo ostendit qualis sit recta intentio fidelium, dicens sive enim vivimus, vita corporali, domino vivimus, id est ad gloriam domini; sive morimur, morte corporali, domino morimur, id est ad honorem domini. Phil. I, 20: magnificabitur Christus in corpore meo sive per mortem sive per vitam. Vel sic exponatur quod dicit vivimus et morimur de vita et morte spirituali, exponendum est quod dicit domino, id est iudicio domini qui constitutus est a Deo iudex vivorum et mortuorum, ut dicitur Act. X, 42. Deinde cum dicit sive ergo vivimus, etc., ostendit propositum ex conditione fidelium. Et, primo, concludit ex praemissis conditionem fidelium, scilicet quod non sunt sui, sed alterius. Illi enim qui sui sunt, sicut liberi homines, sibi vivunt et sibi moriuntur.
14:8
Quia ergo dictum est quod fideles non sibi vivunt aut moriuntur sed domino, concludit sic sive ergo vivimus, sive morimur, domini sumus, quasi servi eius qui habet potestatem vitae et mortis. I Cor. VII, 23: pretio empti estis, nolite fieri servi. I Cor. VI, 20: empti enim estis pretio magno. I Par. XII, 18: tui sumus, o David, et tecum, fili Isai.
14:9
Secundo assignat causam huius conditionis, dicens in hoc enim Christus mortuus est, et resurrexit, id est hoc adeptus est sua morte et resurrectione, ut vivorum dominaretur, quia resurrexit, vitam novam et perpetuam inchoando, et mortuorum, quia mortem nostram moriendo destruxit. II Cor. c. V, 15: pro quibus mortuus est Christus, ut qui vivunt, iam non sibi vivant, sed ei qui pro eis mortuus est, et resurrexit. Sic igitur per omnia praedicta apostolus probavit, quod unusquisque domino suo stat aut cadit, per hoc scilicet quod fideles gratias agunt Deo, et quod domino vivunt et moriuntur, et quod domini sunt et in morte et in vita.
14:10
Deinde cum dicit tu autem quid iudicas, etc., ponit tertiam rationem quae sumitur ex futuro iudicio. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo proponit superfluitatem praesentis iudicii, dicens tu autem quid iudicas? Id est qua utilitate vel necessitate iudicas, fratrem tuum, temere de occultis, quae tuo iudicio non sunt commissa? Aut tu, alius qui iudicaris, quare spernis fratrem tuum, pro nullo reputans ab eo iudicari? Mal. II, 10: quare despicit unusquisque fratrem suum? Secundo praenuntiat futurum Christi iudicium, quasi dicat: recte dico cur iudicas, quia non debes timere quod absque iudicio remaneat, omnes enim stabimus ante tribunal Christi. Dicitur enim tribunal Christi eius iudiciaria potestas, sicut et Matth. c. XXV, 21 dicitur: cum venerit filius hominis in maiestate sua, tunc sedebit super sedem maiestatis suae. Dicit autem omnes stabimus, quasi iudicandi, tam boni quam mali, quantum ad remunerationem vel punitionem. II Cor. V, v. 10: omnes nos manifestari oportet ante tribunal Christi, ut referat unusquisque propria corporis prout gessit, sive bonum sive malum. Sed quantum ad discussionem non omnes stabunt ut iudicandi, sed quidam consedebunt, ut iudices. Matth. XIX, 28: sedebitis super sedes, iudicantes duodecim tribus Israel. Tertio, ibi scriptum est enim, etc., probat quod dixerat. Et primo inducit auctoritatem; secundo infert conclusionem, ibi itaque unusquisque, et cetera. Dicit ergo primo: dictum est quod omnes stabimus ante tribunal Christi, et hoc patet per auctoritatem sacrae Scripturae. Scriptum est enim, Is. XLV, 23, vivo ego, dicit dominus: quoniam mihi flectetur omne genu, et omnis lingua confitebitur Deo. Littera nostra sic habet: in memetipso iuravi, quia mihi curvabitur omne genu et iurabit omnis lingua. Tria autem in his verbis ponuntur. Primo quidem iuramentum, quod interdum in verbis Dei ponitur ad ostendendum id, quod dicitur, firmum esse immutabilitate divini consilii, non autem esse mutabile sicut ea quae praenuntiantur secundum causas inferiores, ut prophetia comminationis. Unde dicitur in Ps. CIX, 4: iuravit dominus, et non poenitebit eum. Homines autem, ut apostolus dicit Hebr. VI, 16: per maiorem sui iurant. Quia vero Deus non habet maiorem in quo maior firmitas consistat veritatis, per seipsum iurat. Ipse autem est ipsa vita et fons vitae, secundum illud Deut. XXX, 20: ipse est enim vita tua, et longitudo dierum tuorum, etc., Ps. XXXV, 10: apud te est fons vitae, etc.; et ideo forma iuramenti domini est vivo ego, quasi dicat: iuro per vitam qua ego singulariter vivo. Secundo praenuntiatur subiectio communis creaturae ad Christum, cum dicitur quoniam mihi, scilicet Christo, flectetur omne genu. In quo designatur perfecta subiectio rationalis creaturae ad Christum. Solent enim homines in signum subiectionis maioribus flectere genua. Unde Phil. II, 10 dicitur: in nomine Iesu omne genu flectatur caelestium, terrestrium et Infernorum. Tertio praenuntiat fidei confessionem qua omnes gloriam Christi confitebuntur.
14:11
Unde sequitur et omnis lingua confitebitur Deo, id est confitebitur Christum esse dominum, secundum illud Phil. II, 11: omnis lingua confiteatur, quia dominus noster Iesus Christus in gloria est Dei patris. Omnis enim lingua intelligi potest expressio cognitionis sive hominum, sive Angelorum, secundum illud I Cor. XIII, 1: si linguis hominum loquar et Angelorum, et cetera. Hoc autem impletur nunc in hac vita, non quantum ad singulos homines sed quantum ad genera singulorum. De quolibet enim genere hominum nunc aliqui Christo subiiciuntur et ei confitentur per fidem, sed in futuro iudicio omnes et singuli ei subiicientur: boni quidem voluntarie, mali autem inviti. Unde dicitur Hebr. II, 8: in eo quod ei omnia subiecit, nihil dimisit non subiectum ei: nunc autem necdum videmus omnia subiecta ei.
14:12
Deinde, cum dicit itaque unusquisque, etc., infert conclusionem ex dictis. Et primo conclusionem intentam ex eo quod immediate dixerat, dicens itaque, ex quo Christo flectitur omne genu, unusquisque nostrum per se reddet rationem Deo, scilicet ante tribunal Christi. Matth. XII, v. 36: de omni verbo otioso quod locuti fuerint homines, reddent Deo rationem in die iudicii. Et XVIII, 23: assimilatum est regnum caelorum homini regi qui voluit rationem ponere cum servis suis. Sed videtur quod non quilibet per se rationem reddet, sed unus pro alio. Hebr. ult.: obedite praepositis vestris et subiacete eis. Ipsi enim pervigilant quasi rationem reddituri pro animabus vestris. Sed dicendum quod in hoc ipso quod praelati pro aliis rationem reddent, reddent rationem pro suis actibus quos circa subditos agere debuerunt. Si enim fecerunt quod competebat eorum officio, non eis imputabitur si subditi pereant. Imputaretur autem eis si negligerent facere quod eorum officium requirebat. Unde dicitur Ezech. III, 18 s.: si dicente me ad impium, morte morieris, non annuntiaveris ei, ipse in iniquitate sua morietur, sanguinem autem eius de manu tua requiram. Si autem tu annuntiaveris impio, et ille non fuerit conversus, ipse quidem in iniquitate sua morietur, tu autem animam tuam liberasti. Secundo infert conclusionem principaliter intentam in tota praecedenti parte, dicens non ergo amplius invicem iudicemus, scilicet temerario iudicio, quod includitur rationibus supradictis. I Cor. IV, 5: nolite ante tempus iudicare, et cetera.
14:13
Postquam apostolus prohibuit humana iudicia, hic prohibet scandalum proximorum, et circa hoc duo facit. Primo proponit quod intendit; secundo manifestat propositum, ibi si enim propter cibum, et cetera. Circa primum proponit tria. Primo enim docet scandala esse vitanda, dicens: dixi quod non iudicetis invicem sed unusquisque de suis actibus iudicare debet, ne sint in scandalum aliorum. Et hoc est quod dicit sed hoc iudicate magis ne ponatis fratribus offendiculum, vel scandalum. Scandalum autem, sicut dicit Hier. super Matthaeum, notat offendiculum vel ruinam, quam impactionem pedis possumus dicere. Unde scandalum est factum vel dictum minus rectum, praebens alicui occasionem ruinae, ad similitudinem lapidis ad quem in via positum homo impingit, et cadit. Maius autem aliquid videtur esse scandalum quam offendiculum. Nam offendiculum potest esse quicquid retinet seu retardat motum procedentis: scandalum autem, id est, impactio, videtur esse cum aliquis disponitur ad casum. Non ergo debemus fratri ponere offendiculum ut aliquid faciamus, unde impediatur proximus a via iustitiae. Is. LVI, 14: auferte offendiculum de via populi mei. Neque etiam debemus fratri ponere scandalum, aliquid faciendo, unde ipse inclinetur ad peccatum. Matth. XVIII, 7: vae homini illi per quem scandalum venit. Secundo docet id ex quo scandalum putabatur esse, secundum suam naturam, sive secundum se licitum. Circa quod sciendum est quod, sicut supra dictum est, apud Romanos erant quidam ex Iudaeis ad fidem Christi conversi, qui cibos secundum legem discernebant; alii vero habentes fidem perfectam indifferenter omnibus cibis utebantur, quod quidem secundum se licitum erat.
14:14
Unde dicit scio et confido in domino Iesu, quia nihil est commune per ipsum. Circa quod notandum est, sicut dicit Hier. super Matth., quod populus Iudaeorum partem Dei se esse iactans, communes cibos vocat quibus omnes utuntur homines, verbi gratia suillam carnem, lepores et huiusmodi; et caeterae gentes, quae talibus utebantur cibis, non erant de parte Dei, ideo talis cibus immundus appellatur. Quod ergo dicit nihil commune est, idem est ac si diceret: nihil immundum est. Et hoc quidem apostolus, primum, dicit se scire, quia ita est secundum rerum naturam, secundum illud I Tim. IV, 4: omnis creatura Dei bona, et nihil reiiciendum quod cum gratiarum actione percipitur. Secundo dicit se confidere in Christo Iesu, quia per seipsum nihil est commune, quia scilicet cibi secundum suam naturam nunquam fuerunt immundi, vitabantur tamen aliquo tempore ut immundi, secundum legis praeceptum propter figuram, sed hoc Christus removit implendo omnes figuras. Et ideo apostolus per fiduciam quam habet in domino Iesu, asserit nihil esse commune vel immundum per ipsum, id est, ipso hoc faciente. Act. X, v. 15: quod Deus purificavit, tu ne commune dixeris. Tertio ostendit quomodo hoc posset esse per accidens illicitum, inquantum scilicet est contra conscientiam manducantis. Unde dicit: dictum est quod nihil est commune, sed hoc intelligendum est nisi ei qui, erronea conscientia, aestimat quid, id est aliquid ciborum, commune esse, id est immundum, illi commune est, id est ita est illicitum sibi, ac si esset secundum se immundum. Tit. I, 15: omnia munda mundis, coinquinatis autem et infidelibus nihil mundum est, sed inquinata est eorum mens, et conscientia. Et sic apparet quod aliquid, quod est secundum se licitum, efficitur illicitum ei qui id contra suam conscientiam agit, licet conscientia sua sit erronea, quod rationabiliter accidit. Nam actus iudicantur secundum voluntatem agentium, voluntas autem movetur a re apprehensa. Unde in id voluntas tendit quod ei vis apprehensiva repraesentat, et secundum hoc qualificatur, vel specificatur actio. Si igitur ratio alicuius iudicet aliquid esse peccatum et voluntas feratur in id faciendum, manifestum est quod homo habet voluntatem faciendi peccatum; et ita actio eius exterior, quae informatur ex voluntate, est peccatum. Et eadem ratione si aliquis aestimet id quod est veniale peccatum, esse mortale peccatum, si hac conscientia durante illud faciat, manifestum est quod elegit peccare mortaliter, et ita actio eius propter suam electionem est peccatum mortale. Si tamen aliquis post factum habeat conscientiam erroneam, per quam credat id quod est licitum a se factum fuisse peccatum, vel quod est veniale fuisse mortale, non propter hoc efficitur id quod est prius, vel peccatum, vel mortale, quia voluntas et actio non informantur ex apprehensione sequenti, sed ex praecedenti. Haec autem quae dicta sunt dubitationem non habent, sed dubium potest esse, utrum si aliquis habeat erroneam conscientiam ut credat esse necessarium ad salutem quod est peccatum mortale, puta si aliquis aestimet se peccare mortaliter nisi furetur vel fornicetur, utrum talis conscientia eum liget, ita scilicet si contra conscientiam agat, mortaliter peccet. Et videtur quod non. Primo quidem quia lex Dei quae prohibet fornicationem et furtum, fortius ligat, quam conscientia. Secundo quia hoc posito esset perplexus, peccaret enim et fornicando et non fornicando. Sed dicendum est quod etiam in per se malis conscientia erronea ligat. In tantum enim conscientia ligat, ut dictum est, inquantum ex hoc quod aliquis contra conscientiam agit, sequitur quod habeat voluntatem peccandi; et ita si aliquis credat non fornicari esse peccatum mortale, dum eligit non fornicari, eligit peccare mortaliter, et ita mortaliter peccat. Et ad hoc etiam facit quod hic dicit apostolus. Manifestum est enim quod discernere cibos quasi necessarium ad salutem erat illicitum, quia nec Iudaeis conversis etiam ante divulgationem Evangelii licebat servare legalia, spem ponendo in eis, quasi essent necessaria ad salutem, ut Augustinus dicit. Et tamen apostolus hic dicit quod si quis habens conscientiam cogentem discernere cibos, quod est aestimare aliquid esse commune, et non discernit eos, scilicet abstinendo ab eis, peccat ac si manducaret immundum. Et ita etiam in per se illicitis conscientia erronea ligat. Nec obstat quod primo obiicitur de lege Dei, quia idem est ligamen conscientiae etiam erroneae et legis Dei. Non enim conscientia dictat aliquid esse faciendum vel vitandum, nisi quia credit hoc esse contra vel secundum legem Dei. Non enim lex nostris actibus applicatur, nisi mediante conscientia nostra. Similiter etiam nec obstat quod secundo obiicitur. Nihil enim prohibet aliquem esse perplexum aliquo supposito, licet nullus sit perplexus simpliciter, sicut sacerdos fornicarius, sive celebret Missam, sive non celebret quando debet ex officio, peccat mortaliter; non tamen est perplexus simpliciter, quia potest peccatum dimittere et celebrare. Et similiter potest aliquis conscientiam erroneam dimittere, et a peccato abstinere. Est autem adhuc alia dubitatio. Non enim dicitur scandalizare qui facit opus rectum, licet etiam ex eo aliquis sumat materiam scandali, legitur enim Matth. XV, v. 12 quod Pharisaei audito verbo Christi, scandalizati sunt. Sed non discernere cibos est opus rectum: ergo non est dimittendum propter scandalum eius qui perversam conscientiam habet errans in fide. Nam secundum hoc Catholici deberent abstinere a carnibus et matrimonio, ne inde haeretici scandalizarentur secundum erroneam conscientiam. Sed dicendum est quod aliquis scandalizare alium potest, non solum faciendo aliquod malum, sed etiam aliquid faciendo quod habet speciem mali, secundum illud I Thess. c. ult.: ab omni specie mali abstinete vos. Dicitur autem aliquid habere speciem mali dupliciter. Primo videlicet secundum opinionem eorum qui sunt ab Ecclesia praecisi; secundo, secundum opinionem eorum qui adhuc ab Ecclesia tolerantur. Infirmi autem in fide, aestimantes legalia esse observanda, adhuc tolerabantur ab Ecclesia ante Evangelii divulgationem. Et ideo non erat comedendum cum eorum scandalo de cibis in lege prohibitis. Haeretici autem non tolerantur ab Ecclesia, et ideo de eis non est similis ratio.
14:15
Deinde cum dicit si enim propter cibum, etc., manifestat quod dixerat. Et primo primum, scilicet quod non sit ponendum scandalum fratribus; secundo, secundum et tertium, quomodo scilicet sit aliquid commune, ibi omnia quidem munda sunt, et cetera. Circa primum ponit quatuor rationes quarum prima sumitur ex parte charitatis, dicens si enim frater tuus contristatur, de hoc quod reputat te peccare, propter cibum quem tu comedis, quem ipse reputat immundum, iam non secundum charitatem ambulas, secundum quam aliquis proximum suum diligit sicut seipsum. Et ita vitat eius contristationem et non praefert cibum quieti fratris, quia, ut dicitur I Cor. c. XIII, 5: charitas non quaerit quae sua sunt. Secundam rationem ponit, ibi noli cibo tuo, etc., quae sumitur ex parte mortis Christi. Videtur enim parum appretiare mortem Christi, qui pro cibo fructum eius evacuare non recusat. Unde dicit noli cibo tuo, quem tu scilicet indifferenter comedis non discernendo cibos, illum perdere, id est scandalizare, pro quo, id est pro cuius salute, Christus mortuus est. I Petr. III, 18: Christus semel mortuus est pro peccatis nostris, iustus pro iniustis. Dicit autem illum perdi qui scandalizatur, quia scandalum passivum sine peccato scandalizati esse non potest. Ille enim scandalizatur qui occasionem sumit ruinae. I Cor. c. VIII, 11: peribit infirmus in tua conscientia frater, pro quo Christus mortuus est. Tertiam rationem ponit, ibi non ergo blasphemetur, et cetera. Quae sumitur ex donis spiritualis gratiae. Et primo ostendit inconveniens quod sequitur contra huiusmodi dona ex eo quod alios scandalizamus; secundo manifestat quod dixerat, ibi non enim, etc.; tertio infert conclusionem intentam, ibi itaque quae pacis sunt sectemur, et cetera. Circa primum considerandum est, quod ex hoc quod aliqui indifferenter cibis utebantur in primitiva Ecclesia cum scandalo infirmorum, hoc inconveniens sequebatur, quod infirmi fidem Christi blasphemabant, dicentes eam voracitatem ciborum inducere contra legis mandatum.
14:16
Et ideo apostolus dicit: ex quo per dominum Iesum factum est quod nihil est commune, non ergo bonum nostrum, id est fides vel gratia Christi, per quam libertatem a caeremoniis consecuti estis, blasphemetur ab infirmis dicentibus eam gulae hominum indulgere. Iac. c. II, 7: ipsi blasphemant nomen bonum quod invocatum est super vos; de hoc bono dicitur in Ps. LXXII, 28: mihi adhaerere Deo, bonum est. Deinde cum dicit non enim, etc., manifestat quod dixerat, scilicet in quo bonum nostrum consistat.
14:17
Et primo ostendit in quo non consistat, dicens non enim est regnum Dei esca et potus. Regnum autem Dei dicitur hic id per quod Deus regnat in nobis et per quod ad regnum ipsius pervenimus; de quo dicitur Matth. VI, 10: adveniat regnum tuum; et Mich. IV, 7: regnabit dominus super omnes in monte Sion. Deo autem coniungimur et subdimur per interiorem intellectum, et affectum, ut dicitur Io. IV, 24: spiritus est Deus, et eos qui adorant eum, in spiritu et veritate adorare oportet. Et inde est quod regnum Dei principaliter consideratur secundum interiora hominis, non secundum exteriora. Unde dicitur Lc. XVII, 21: regnum Dei intra vos est. Ea vero quae sunt exteriora ad corpus pertinentia, intantum ad regnum Dei pertinent, inquantum per ea ordinatur, vel deordinatur interior affectus, secundum ea in quibus principaliter consistit regnum Dei. Et ideo cum esca et potus ad corpus pertineant, ipsa secundum se non pertinent ad regnum Dei, nisi secundum quod eis utimur, vel ab eis abstinemus. Unde dicitur I Cor. VIII, 8: esca autem nos non commendat Deo. Neque enim si non manducaverimus, deficiemus, neque si manducaverimus, abundabimus. Pertinet tamen usus, vel abstinentia escae et potus ad regnum Dei, inquantum affectus hominis circa hoc ordinatur, vel deordinatur. Unde Augustinus dicit in libro de quaestionibus Evangelii, et habetur hic in Glossa: iustificatur sapientia a filiis suis qui intelligunt non in abstinendo, nec in manducando esse iustitiam, sed in aequanimitate tolerandi inopiam, et in temperantia non se corrumpendi per abundantiam atque importunitatem sumendi. Non enim interest quomodo, ut in Glossa dicitur, quid alimentorum, vel quantum quis accipiat, dummodo id faciat pro congruentia hominum cum quibus vivit, et personae suae et pro valetudinis suae necessitate; sed quanta facultate et severitate animi careat his, vel cum oportet vel cum necesse est his carere. Secundo ostendit in quo consistat bonum nostrum, quod regnum Dei vocat, dicens sed regnum Dei est iustitia, et pax, et gaudium in spiritu sancto. Ut iustitia referatur ad exteriora opera, quibus homo unicuique reddit quod suum est et ad voluntatem huiusmodi opera faciendi, ut dicitur Matth. VI, 33: primum quaerite regnum Dei et iustitiam eius. Pax autem referatur ad effectum iustitiae. Per hoc enim pax maxime perturbatur, quod unus homo non exhibet alteri quod ei debet. Unde dicitur Is. c. XXXII, 17: opus iustitiae pax. Gaudium autem referendum est ad modum quo sunt iustitiae opera perficienda; ut enim dicit philosophus in I Ethic.: non est iustus qui non gaudet iusta operatione. Unde et in Ps. XCIX, v. 2 dicitur: servite domino in laetitia. Causam autem huius gaudii exprimit dicens in spiritu sancto. Est enim spiritus sanctus quo charitas Dei diffunditur in nobis, ut dicitur supra V, 6. Illud enim est gaudium in spiritu sancto, quod charitas parit, puta cum aliquis gaudet de bonis Dei et proximorum. Unde I Cor. XIII, 6 dicitur, quod charitas non gaudet super iniquitate, congaudet autem veritati. Et Gal. V, 22 dicitur: fructus autem spiritus est charitas, gaudium, pax. Haec autem tria quae hic tanguntur, imperfecte quidem in hac vita habentur, perfecte autem quando sancti possidebunt regnum Dei sibi paratum, ut dicitur Matth. XXV, 34. Ibi erit perfecta iustitia absque omni peccato. Is. LX, 21: populus tuus omnes iusti. Ibi erit pax absque omni perturbatione timoris. Is. c. XXXII, 18: sedebit populus meus in pulchritudine pacis, in tabernaculis fiduciae. Ibi erit gaudium. Is. XXXV, 10: gaudium et laetitiam obtinebunt, et fugiet dolor et gemitus. Tertio probat quod dixerat, scilicet quod in his regnum Dei consistit. Ille enim homo videtur ad regnum Dei pertinere, qui placet Deo et a sanctis hominibus approbatur; sed hoc illi contingit in quo invenitur iustitia, pax et gaudium: ergo in his est regnum Dei. Dicit ergo: dictum est quod regnum Dei est iustitia, pax et gaudium in spiritu sancto, qui ergo in hoc servit Christo, qui est rex huius regni, secundum illud Col. I, 13: transtulit nos in regnum filii dilectionis suae, ut scilicet vivat in iustitia, pace et spirituali gaudio, placet Deo, qui est huius regni auctor, Sap.
14:18
IV, 10: placens Deo factus dilectus et probatus est hominibus, id est ab eis approbatur, qui sunt huius regni participes. Eccli. XXXI, 10: qui probatus est in illo, et perfectus inventus est. Deinde cum dicit itaque, etc., infert admonitionem intentam, dicens: ex quo regnum Dei consistit in iustitia, pace et spirituali gaudio, itaque, ut ad regnum Dei pervenire possimus, sectemur ea quae pacis sunt, id est ea studeamus adimplere per quae Christianorum pacem conservemus, Hebr. XII, v. 14: pacem sequimini et sanctimoniam, et cetera. Custodiamus invicem ea quae sunt aedificationis, id est ea per quae invicem nos aedificemus, id est bonum conservemus, et in melius provocemur. I Cor. XIV, 12: ad aedificationem Ecclesiae quaerite ut abundetis. Quod quidem fiet si in iustitia et spirituali gaudio vixerimus. Quartam rationem ponit, ibi noli propter escam, et cetera. Quae sumitur ex reverentia divinorum operum, quibus hoc reverentiae debemus, ut ea quae Deus operatur non debeamus destruere propter aliquod commodum corporale.
14:20
Et hoc est quod dicit noli propter escam, quae ad corporis utilitatem pertinet, destruere opus Dei. Quod quidem non intelligitur de quocumque Dei opere. Nam omnia quae in cibum hominis veniunt, Dei opera sunt, sicut terrae nascentia et animalium carnes, quae sunt hominibus in cibum a Deo concessa, ut patet Gen. c. I, 29 et IX, 3. Sed intelligitur de opere gratiae, quod in nobis ipsis specialiter operatur. Phil. II, 13: Deus enim est qui operatur in nobis velle et perficere pro bona voluntate. Hoc igitur opus Dei non debemus in proximo destruere propter escam nostram, sicut facere videbantur illi qui, turbatione et scandalo proximorum, indifferentibus utebantur.
Postquam apostolus posuit rationem ad ostendendum, quod non debemus cum scandalo proximorum indifferenter sumere omnia, hic ostendit qualiter aliqui cibi possunt esse mundi et immundi. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo proponit quae sunt munda ex sua natura, dicens omnia quidem, quae scilicet ad escam hominis pertinere possunt, munda sunt, scilicet ex sui natura, quia ex sui natura non habent quod animam hominis inquinent, secundum illud Matth. XV, 11: non enim omne quod intrat in os inquinat hominem. I Tim. IV, 4: omnis creatura Dei bona. Dicebantur autem in lege quaedam immunda, non natura, sed significatione, ut patet Lev. XI, 2 ss. Sed et hanc immunditiam Christus removit, implendo veteris legis figuras. Unde dictum est Petro, Act. X, 15: quod Deus purificavit, tu ne commune dixeris, id est immundum. Secundo, ibi sed malum est homini, etc., ostendit qualiter aliquis cibus homini possit fieri immundus, ut scilicet ex eius esu secundum animam inquinetur, quod quidem ostendit fieri dupliciter. Primo ex eo quod aliquis cibum quemcumque cum scandalo proximorum manducat; secundo ex eo quod contra conscientiam manducat, ibi beatus qui non iudicat, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ostendit quid circa esum ciborum sit malum, dicens: licet omnia ex sui natura sint munda, sed tamen malum est homini qui manducat, quemcumque cibum, per offendiculum, id est, cum confusione et scandalo proximorum. Matth. XVIII, 7: vae homini illi per quem scandalum venit.
14:21
Secundo ostendit quid circa huiusmodi usum ciborum sit bonum, dicens bonum est non manducare carnem et non bibere vinum; quorum primum praecipuum esse videtur inter cibos, secundum inter potus. Et ab his quidem abstinere ponit bonum esse, vel propter carnis concupiscentiam edomandam, secundum illud Eph. V, 18: nolite inebriari vino in quo est luxuria; vel etiam ut homo reddatur habilior ad spiritualia contemplanda, secundum illud Eccle. II, 3: cogitavi a vino abstrahere carnem meam, ut animum meum transferrem ad sapientiam. Sed hoc non intendit hic apostolus dicere, sed quod bonum est his non uti cum scandalo proximorum, quod quidem apparet ex hoc quod subditur neque in quo frater tuus offenditur, et cetera. Quod dico, non solum dico de vino et carnibus quod bonum est eis non uti, sed quocumque alio cibo; frater tuus offenditur, id est turbatur contra te, quasi illicite agentem, per quod pax eius perturbatur, aut scandalizatur, id est, ad casum peccati provocatur, propter quod laeditur eius iustitia, aut infirmatur, id est saltem in dubitationem venit, utrum hoc quod agitur sit licitum, per quod eius spirituale gaudium diminuitur. Unde et ipse apostolus dicit I Cor. VIII, 13: si esca scandalizat fratrem meum, non manducabo carnem in aeternum, ne fratrem meum scandalizem. Sed cum licitum sit his cibis uti, si est ab his abstinendum propter hoc quod vitetur scandalum proximorum, videtur pari ratione quod ab omnibus licitis quae non sunt necessaria ad salutem, sicut sunt necessaria iustitia, pax et spirituale gaudium, sit propter proximorum scandalum abstinendum. Et ita videtur quod homini non liceat sua repetere cum scandalo proximi. Sed dicendum est quod si scandalum ex infirmitate vel ex ignorantia proveniat eorum qui propter hoc scandalizantur, ad vitandum hoc scandalum, debet homo a licitis abstinere, si non sunt necessaria ad salutem. Hoc enim est scandalum pusillorum, quod dominus vitari iubet, Matth. XVIII, 10: videte ne contemnatis unum ex his pusillis. Si vero huiusmodi scandalum ex malitia proveniat eorum qui scandalizantur, tale scandalum est quasi Pharisaeorum, quod dominus, Matth. c. XV, 12 ss., docuit esse contemnendum. Unde ad vitandum huiusmodi scandalum non oportet a licitis abstinere. Sed tamen circa scandalum pusillorum attendendum est, quod propter illud vitandum tenetur homo usum licitorum differre, quousque reddita ratione hoc scandalum amoveri possit. Si vero ratione reddita, adhuc scandalum maneat, iam non videtur ex ignorantia vel ex infirmitate procedere sed ex malitia: et sic iam pertinebit ad scandalum Pharisaeorum. Tertio excludit quamdam excusationem. Posset enim aliquis dicere: licet proximus scandalizetur de hoc quod indifferenter ego cibis utor, tamen ad ostensionem meae fidei, per quam certum est hoc mihi licere, volo indifferenter cibis uti. Sed hanc rationem excludens apostolus dicit tu, qui scilicet indifferenter cibis uteris, fidem habes, rectam apud temetipsum, per quam constat licitum esse his cibis uti. Bona quidem et laudabilis est fides ista, sed habe eam in occulto, coram Deo, cui talis fides placet, Eccli. I, 34 s.: beneplacitum est Deo fides et mansuetudo. Quasi dicat: non oportet quod fidem istam manifestes per operis executionem, ubi hoc fit cum scandalo proximorum. Sed contra videtur esse quod dicitur supra X, 10: corde creditur ad iustitiam, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem. Non ergo videtur quod sufficiat corde solum coram Deo fidem habere, sed oportet huiusmodi fidem proximo manifestare, confitendo. Dicendum est autem quod eorum quae sunt fidei, quaedam sunt quae non sunt perfecte per Ecclesiam manifestata, sicut in primitiva Ecclesia nondum erat perfecte declaratum apud homines quod illi qui erant ex Iudaeis conversi non tenerentur legalia observare, et sicut tempore Augustini nondum erat per Ecclesiam declaratum quod anima non esset ex traduce. Unde in huiusmodi sufficit homini quod fidem habeat coram Deo, nec oportet quod fidem suam propalet cum scandalo proximorum, nisi forte apud eos qui habent de fide determinare. Quaedam vero sunt ad fidem pertinentia iam per Ecclesiam determinata, et in talibus non sufficit fidem habere coram Deo, sed oportet quod coram proximo fidem quis confiteatur, quantumcumque ex hoc aliquis scandalizetur, quia veritas doctrinae non est dimittenda propter scandalum, sicut nec Christus veritatem suae doctrinae propter scandalum Pharisaeorum dimisit, ut habetur Matth. c. XV, 12 ss. Sciendum etiam quod licet circa talia oporteat quod homo fidem suam manifestet confessione verborum, non tamen oportet quod eam manifestet executione operis, sicut si aliquis tenet fide uti matrimonio esse licitum, non requiritur ab eo quod matrimonio utatur ad fidei suae manifestationem. Et sic etiam non requirebatur ab eis, qui rectam fidem habebant, quod fidem suam usu ciborum manifestarent. Poterant enim manifestare verbotenus confitendo. Deinde cum dicit beatus qui non iudicat, etc., ostendit quomodo ciborum usus efficitur aliquibus immundus, ex eo quod est contra conscientiam. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit quid circa hoc sit bonum, ut scilicet de eo quod homo non facit non habeat conscientiam remordentem.
14:22
Unde dicit beatus qui non iudicat semetipsum, id est cuius conscientia eum non reprehendit vel condemnat, in eo quod probat, id est approbat esse faciendum. Sed hoc est intelligendum, si recta fide approbet esse aliquid faciendum. Si autem falsa opinione approbat aliquid esse faciendum, puta si arbitratur obsequium se praestare Deo, de eo quod discipulos Christi interficit, ut dicitur Io. XVI, 2, non excusatur ex eo quod circa hoc non iudicat semetipsum; imo beatior esset si circa hoc eum conscientia reprehenderet, inquantum per hoc a peccato magis prohiberetur. Sed in his quae sunt licita, est intelligendum quod hic apostolus dicit. Hoc enim ad gloriam hominis pertinet quod eum sua conscientia non reprehendat. II Cor. I, 12: gloria nostra haec est, testimonium conscientiae nostrae. Iob XXVII, 6: neque enim reprehendit me cor meum in omni vita mea. Secundo ostendit quid circa hoc sit malum, ut scilicet contra conscientiam agat. Unde dicit qui autem discernit, id est, qui habet opinionem falsam quod oportuit cibos discernere, si manducaverit, scilicet cibos quos reputat esse illicitos, damnatus est, ex hoc quod quantum in ipso est, habet voluntatem faciendi quod est illicitum, et sic delinquit proprio iudicio condemnatus, ut dicitur Tit. III, 11. Tertio assignat causam eius quod dixerat dicens quia non ex fide; ideo scilicet condemnatus est. Potest autem hic fides dupliciter accipi: uno modo de fide quae est virtus, alio modo secundum quod fides dicitur conscientia. Et hae duae acceptiones non differunt nisi secundum differentiam particularis et universalis. Id enim quod universaliter fide tenemus, puta usum ciborum esse licitum vel illicitum, conscientia applicat ad opus quod est factum vel faciendum. Dicitur ergo, ideo eum qui manducat et discernit, esse condemnatum, quia hoc non est ex fide, imo est contra fidem, id est contra veritatem fidei et contra conscientiam facientis. Hebr. XI, 6: sine fide impossibile est placere Deo. Et quod haec sit sufficiens causa condemnationis, ostendit subdens omne autem quod non est ex fide peccatum est. Ex quo videtur quod, sicut dicitur in Glossa omnis vita infidelium peccatum sit, sicut omnis vita fidelium est meritoria, inquantum ad Dei gloriam ordinatur, secundum illud I Cor. c. X, 31: sive manducatis, sive bibitis, sive aliquid aliud facitis, omnia in gloriam Dei facite. Sed dicendum est quod aliter se habet fidelis ad bonum, et infidelis ad malum. Nam in homine qui habet fidem formatam nihil est damnationis, ut supra VIII, 1 dictum est. Sed in homine infideli cum infidelitate est bonum naturae. Et ideo cum aliquis infidelis ex dictamine rationis aliquod bonum facit, non referendo ad malum finem, non peccat. Non tamen opus eius est meritorium, quia non est gratia informatum. Et hoc est quod in Glossa dicitur: nihil bonum est sine summo bono, id est, nullum bonum meritorium est sine gratia Dei, et ubi deest agnitio vitae aeternae et incommutabilis veritatis, quae scilicet est per fidem, falsa virtus est in optimis moribus, inquantum scilicet non refertur ad finem beatitudinis aeternae. Cum vero homo infidelis aliquid agit ex eo quod infidelis est, manifestum est quod peccat.
14:23
Unde in Glossa cum dicitur: opus omne quod non est ex fide, peccatum est, sic est intelligendum: omne quod est contra fidem vel contra conscientiam, peccatum est, et si ex genere suo bonum esse videatur, puta si Paganus ad honorem suorum deorum virginitatem servet, vel eleemosynam det, hoc ipso peccat. Tit. I, 15: coinquinatis et infidelibus nihil mundum est, sed inquinatae sunt eorum et mens, et conscientia.
14:1
1. Infirmum autem in fide assumite. Hujus capitis doctrina proprie ad Judaeos pertinet, ut diximus in argum. Epist. Nam qui ex Judaeis erant fideles, aegre adduci poterant, ut pro christiana libertate, qua per Christum inter alia liberati erant ab onere legis Mosaicae, vescerentur cibis lege vetitis, a quibus semper abstinuissent, utque dierum discrimina lege praescripta et a majoribus accepta negHgereiit. Aegre, dico, propterea quod vel in fide parum firmi essent ac provecti, vel ab antiqua et inolita consuedutine sese revocari moleste ferrent. Quod nihilominus etiam ad infirmitatem fidei pertinebat. Imo probabile est, infirmos, de quibus Apostolus, in eaplerosqueopinionefuisse, ut existimarent, cibos, a quibus lex prohibebat, per se suaque natura immundos esse, et ob eam causam lege prohibitos, maxime quum eos immundos identidem lex appellet. Indicat hoc Paulus infra, quum econtra dicit se scire et persuasum esse, quia nihil commune per se ipsum. Quae res illic pluribus a nobis explicabitur. Nec ideo tamen illi mortaliter peccabant, tanquam mediante creatura culpam in Deum refunderent, quod adversus hanc rationem objicit Hugo Victorinus. Cum enim infirmi essent fide, nec subtiles ingenio, non videbant eam consecutionem, quam Hugo facit; ut in multis aliis contingit affirmari aliquid, ex quo sequantur absurda, quae assertor antecedentis nunquam concesserit. At vero qui in fide erant firmiores, indifierenter et promiscue quibuslibet cibis utebantur, scientes legem mortuam esse, et nihil rejiciendum, quod cum gratiarum actione percipitur, 1 Tim. 4. Porro utraque pars in alteram peccabat. Nam qui abstinebant, edentes judicabant velut legis ac paternae consuetudinis violatores. Hi contra despiciebant illos ut infirmiores; nec habebant rationem salutis eorum. Imo scandalum praebebant, exemplo suo provocantes eos ad comedendum contra conscientiam ea, quae lege erant vetita. Huic dissidio cum periculo fratrum conjuncto Paulus curationem adhibens corripit utrosque ac docet, sublatum quidem esse discrimen ciborum ac dierum lege praescriptum, nec quicquam esse per se immundum, sed ea libertate et scientia prudenter ac sine scandalo fratrum utendum esse. Quo in argumento immoratur usque ad finem capitis. Dixi, doctrinam hanc peculiariter ad Judaeos dirigi. Nam ad gentiles extendi non potest, ut quibus simpliciter non licebat observare legalia, ne quidem propter infirmos Judaeos. Quod puto satis esse manifesturaexEpistola adGalatas. Quare nec ad id faciendum ullo modo exhortandi erant. Adde, quod Apostolus vult, ut non manducans manducantem non judicet, scilicet tanquam legis aut moris patrii violatorem. Quod profecto nihil ad gentilem, cui lex data non fuerat. Quare nec propterea firmior dicendus erat. Itaque placere non potest, quod expositores quidam manducantes hic intelligunt gentiles, quamvis et Hieronymus inveniatur ita sensisse lib. 2. contra Jovinian. cap. 11. Ex quibus apparet, etiam illos sensum Apostoli minus assecutos esse, qui praesentem ejus doctrinam cura ea, quam de idolothytis tradit 1 Cor. 8. et 10., ita confundunt, ut etiam hunc locum ad imraolatitios cibos aut referant aut extendant. Nam esum idolothytorum non Judaeis, apud quos id fuisset intolerabile, sed solis gentilibus, extra scandali periculum, permittit. Cur autem secum ipse non pugnet Apostolus, qui hic tolerari vult Judaeos ciborum adhuc discrimina servantes, alibi vero in hoc genus Judaeorum tanquam in haereticos acriter invehitur, ut ad Tit. 1. dicemus post pauca ad illud: Unus-. quisque in suo sensu abundet. Nunc ad Pauli verba veniamus, quae in Graeco sic habent: Eum, qui infirmatur fide, assumite. Ex quo satis intelligitur illud: fide referendum esse ad infirmum, quod Graece participium est praesentis temporis, non ad verbum assumite. Nam et infra sic absolute loquitur; Deus enim illum assumpsit. Item sequenti capite: Propter quod suscipite invicem. Et utique, de qua loquatur iniirmitate, additiuncula quapiam erat significandum. Igitur sensus est: Vos, qui firmiores estis in fide, eum, qui fide infirmus est, id est, de beneficio Christi ac libertate per eum adepta nondum satis instructus ac persuasus, ut ea uti audeat; denique nec scientiam habens, quod nihil per se sit immundTim, — aasumite, id est, ad conversationem vobis adjungite, et habete ut fratrem; nec repellite tanquam alienum a Christo, quin potius ut infirmum et cura egentem fovete.
Non in disceptationibus cogitationum. Graece: fiTj e?g Siaxptasig SiaAoy.ajjLcuv. Quod Erasmus vertit: non ad dijudicationes disceptationum. Rectius ita vertas: non ad certamina disputationum. Nam verbum fiiaxptvsaOai inter alia significat certare verbis, altercari, ut inEpist. Judae, ubi duo verba, quorum hic derivata nomina habentur, itidem conjuncta legimus: Cum Michael archangelus cum diabolo i3iaxpiv6|jisvo':: dieXijexo, certans disputaret. Non est autem hic repetendum verbum assumite: nisi forte demutata paululum ejus significatione. Alioquin huic parti non convenit. Nam in bonam partem accipitur assumere, prout jam explicatum est; quemadmodum et infra, locis jam citatis, ubi in Graeco semper idem est verbum 7:pocXa|JiPa'v£a{^c. Proinde vel supplenda vel exponenda erit oratio in hunc modum: Infirmum assumite, non autem provocate ad certamen disputandi. Nolo, inquit, cum eo sub praetextu doctrinae Evangelicae contendatis. Quamvis enim ignoret et erret opiaione, tamen adhuc tolerandus est, nec importunis disceptationibus inquietandus, ne forte oflFensus resiliat ab incepto.
14:2
2. Alius enim credit se manducare omnia. Rem velut exemplo ob oculos ponit, hinc firmum statuens, inde infirmum: ut utrumque sui moneat officii. Graece: Hic quidem credit edere omnia, id est, credit ac persuasum habet, seposse, sibi licitum esse, quibuslibet uti cibis. Et recte ita credit. Similis locutio est Gen. 3.: De fructu lignorum, quae sunt in paradiso, vescimur, id est, vesci nobis licet. Et Luc. 1.: Virum non cognosco, id est, cognoscere mihi non licet. Porro manducare proprie quidem est cibum dentibus conficere. Sed interpres sui saeculi consuetudinem secutus id passim usurpat pro comedere, vesci.
Qui autem infirmus est, olus manducet. Graece Xdxoc^cn. Ig^Ui, olera manducat, comedit: quemadmodum et citat Clemens Alexand. initio lib. 6. Stromatum. Ita veteres Latini, ut Tertull. lib. de jejuniis, cap. 15. olera vescitur, Graeco nimirum casu retento. Hieronjmus scribens in Ecclesiastae 2.: oleribus vescitur. Idem lib. 2. adversus Jovinianum et in commentariis Jesaiae 1.: olera manducat. Quae eadem lectio est commentatoris Ambros. nec non ipsius Ambrosii in expositionePsalm. 36. Sjriace, olusmanducat; quod etiam in nonnulUs est MSS. Latinis. Sensus: Qui autem infirmus est fide, comedit olus, vel quid simile, quod lege Mosaica constat non esse prohibitum, abstinens a prohibitis. Speciatim olus nominat, quo significatur omnis herba sativa, quae in usu cibario est: eo, quod nihil herbarum lege vetitum fuerit. Qaidam sic: Olus manducat a carne penitus abstinens, ne forte incidat in carnem immolatitiam. Sed jam ostendimus, hic de immolatitiis non agi. Caeterum Hieronjmus alicubi praeceptive legit, accommodans sententiam suo instituto, ut epist. 10. ad Furiam cap. 4.: Nihil, inquit, ita scias conducere Christianis adolescentibus ut esum olerum. Unde Apostolus: Qui infirmus est, olera manducet; ardorque corporum frigidioribus epulis temperandus est. At sane modus praeceptivus haud convenit huic loco. Nondum enim docet aut praecipit Apostolus, sed factum ponit. Jam autem sequuntur praecipientis verba.
14:3
3. Is, qui manducat, non manducantem non spernat. Hoc est: Qui firmus in fide vescitur quibusHbet, eum, qui ob fidei infirmitatem abstinet a quibusdam, non spernat, id est, non prae se contemnat tanquam fortis imbecillem. Sic nonnuUi. Sed rectius alii: 7ion spernat, id est, non habeat vilem ejus salutem, scandalum ei ponendo, dum exemplo suo facit eum comedet*e contra conscientiam. Sic et Satyricus loquitur: Nec tu pueri contempseris annos. Et huic sensui conveniunt, quae infra dicuntur de scandalo, nominatun illud: NoU cibo tuo illum perdere, pro quo Christus mortuus est. Et iterum: Noli propter escam destruere opus Dei. Quod enim hic dixit spernere, illic dicit perdere, destruere. Est hoc loco verbum Graecum eCoui^svsitco, id est, pro nihilo reputet, Tertullianus, nullificet. Idemque verbum infra repetitur. Vere enim fratrem nullificat^ qui exemplo perdit.
Et qui non manducat, manducantem non Judicet. Id est, non condemnet tanquam legis transgressorem, aut immundo cibo se contaminantem.
Deus enim illum assumpsit. Illum, scilicet manducantem, assumpsit in servum et cultorem suum: et proinde non est ab alio judicandus. Qui sensus patet ex sequentibus. Non dicit, non esse judicandum, eo quod non peccaret. Hoc enim nondum erat infirmo persuasum, ut qui putaret, illicitum esse quibuslibet, vesci. Quapropter argumento utitur generaliori, quod explicatur verbis sequentibus: Tu quis es, etc. Quidam hoc quod dicit, Deus enim illum assumpsit, referunt ad non manducantem, quem dixerat non esse spernendum. Cujus optima ratio est, quia Deus illum assumpsit, id est, non sprevit, non abjecit, sed in curam suam suscepit. Quare nec tibi spernendus est, sed assumendus; sicut initio monuit: Infirmum in fide, assumite, ut haec aetiologia similis sit illi, quae est capite sequenti: Suscipite invicem, sicut et Christus suscepit vos. Quod si placet, dicendum esset, singulas rationes singulis essereddendas, sententiis transpositis ad hunc modum: (^ui manducat, non manducantem non spernat. Deus enim illum assumpsit. Et qui non manducat, manducantem non judicet. Tu enim quis es, qui judicas alienum servum? Expositio non improbanda.
14:4
4. Tu quis es, qui judicas alienum servum? Graece oixexryV^ id est, famulum domesticum. Est enim alhisicj ad hominem alienae famiUae curiosum, et quae in ea aguntur judicantem, acsidicat: etiamsi peccaiet edendo (quod tibi non liquet), non tamen a te judicandus et condemnandus esset, sed domino suo relinquendus, ut ille de facto famuli sui inquit-eret et judicaret. Augustinus in expositione hujus propositionis colligit ex ea doctrinam generalem: ut in his rebus, quaepossunt et bono animo fieri et malo, judicium Deo dimittamus, nec audeamus de alterius corde, quod non videmus, ferre sententiam. Porro Chrysostomus et Theophylactus hac parte putant objurgari manducantem, id est, firmiorem in fide, quod infirmum judicet tanquam male agentem. Nam ad infirmum pertinere videtur quod sequitur: Domino suo stat aut cadit. Verum longe probabilius est, Apostolum hic alloqui non manducantem, de quo jam exposui. Is enim peccabat judicando, sicut manducans spernendo, ut patet ex superioribus. Unde et postea compellans utrumque dicit: Tu autem quid judicas fratrem tuum? aut tu quare spernis fratrem tuum? videlicet singula referens ad singulos: judicare ad non manducantem, spernere ad manducantem. Quod ergo nunc sequitur:
Domino suo stat aut cadit, graece proprio domino, hoc de manducante dicitur, et hunc habet sensum: Non tuum est, eumjudicare quasi peccantem edendo, quae tu putas immunda. Habet dominum ac judicem suum Deum, sive Christum; a quo absolvetur, si bene agat, vel condemnabitur, si male. Hoc enim est domino suo stare aut cadere, a domino suo absolvendum esse aut condemnandum. Alii stat aut cadit domino suo, sic interpretantur: Bene agit aut male, commodo aut detrimento domini sui. Sed prior sensus germanior est. Sunt enim haec vocabula stare, cadere, fori judicialis. Et alioqui nec ratio valeret. Non enim si absque meo detrimento quis male agit, ideo mihi non est judicandus. Jam et id, quod sequilur, sensum exigit quem dixi.
Stabit autem. Stabit graece oxaOT^asTat statuetur, stabilietur, tametsi bene vertit interpres, stabit. Est autem verbum fiduciae, quo veluti corrigit praecedens disjunctum stat aut cadit, ac si dicat: Imo tibi afiirmo, quod non cadet, non condemnabitur judice domino suo, sed stabit, id est, absolvetur. De hoc loco vide August. lib. de corrept. et gratia cap. 12.
Potens est enim Deus statuere ilium. Statuere, id est, efficere ut stet, sensu jam dicto. Quamvis, inquit, homines in fide non satis instructi eum judicent, id est, condemnent, tamen Deus potens est, eum absolvere et suo judicio justificcre: quod et faciet. Hac parte satis significat Apostolus, quo sensu dixerit, servum domino suo stare aut cadere. Manducans enim ex fide, et per hoc bene faciens, quantum quidem ad hoc attinet, non erat erigendus a domino suo, ut staret; sea absolvendus a falso crimine violatae legis aut immunditiae ex cibo contractae, quod ei infirmus imponebat.
14:5
5. Nam alius judicat diem inter diem. Quemadmodum de cibis, ita et de diebus disceptatio erat inter fideles ex Judaismo conversos. Sicut enim discretio ciborum erat legeMosaica constituta, ut alii mundi essent, alii immundi; sic et dierum, quorum alii serviles erant, alii non serviles, ut maxime sabbatum. De diebus igitur agit nunc Apostolus. Graece legitur haec pars absque caasali vocula: 6g }i£v xpivsi. 7}ixipav Tcap' rjnipav. Hic quidem judicat diem ad, vel juxta diem. Pro quo Hieronymus in Jovinianum scribens, legit, ylus quam diem, Syi-us vertit prae die. Quae omnia praepositione Tiapa possunt significari. Nam quod habet versio, qua utitur Augustinus, judicat alternos dies, minus huic loco potest accommodari. Cujus sensus est hujusmodi: qui fide adhuc infirmus est, diem cum die comparat, et inter eos discernit; dierum facit discrimen, alium prae alio eligens, dum sabbata, neomenias et alia festa secundum legem observat, intellige, quantum extra sacrificii locum observari poterant.
Alius autem judicat omnem diem. Id est: Qui firmior in fide est, et novit sublatum esse per Christum Mosaicum ilhid discrimen dierum, peraeque aestimat omnem diem; inter dies nec judicio nec opere discernit. Non solum autem ciborum, sed et dierum discrimina fuisse Judaizantibus in observatione, constat ex Epistolis ad Galat. 4. et Coloss. 2. Caeterum ex data jam interpretatione totius hujus loci, quae, quod ad summam rei pertinet, omnium commentatorum est, atque ex ipsius Apostoli scopo liquet, quam prave ea, quae hic dicuntur, detorqueant haeretici contra certoium dierum jejunia, quorundam ciborum abstinentias, ac festorum dierum observationem, lege vel consuetudine in Ecclesia praescriptam: cum utique constet, Apostolum loqui de discrimine ciborum ac dierum observato ab iis, qui ex Judaeis Christiani facti, legi Mosaicae ac pristinis observantiis adhuc tenacius inhaererent. Nam quod ad Ecclesiae leges attinet, dubium esse non debet, quin illae ut justam habent obligandi rationem pro tempore novae legis, ita vere et in conscientia filios Ecclesiae obligatos teneant.
Unusquisque in suo senm abundet. In suo sensu, graece iv toT iSito vol, id est, iu propria mente. Et pro verbo abundet legitur TiXrjpocpopstoOcu. De cujus significatione plura dicemus infra. Porro sententiam plerique non solum Latini, verum etiam Chrysostomus et ejus sequaces ita exponunt: Quisque suo sensui permittatur, etjuxta hoc quod judicat sinatur agere. Liceat unicuique suae mentis judicio frui: et, ut habet textus Ambrosii commentatoris, suo quisque consilio remittatur. Quo sensu etiam ab Hieronymo citatur in epist. ad August. num. 94. Ad hunc vero modum intellecta sententia multi abusi sunt ad statuendam religionis in republica libertatem, qua scilicet unusquisque libere et impune permittatur credere quod voluerit. Nam id vocant abundare in suo sensu. Quidam, ut his respondeant, dictum Apostoli restringunt ad actiones adiaphoras, cujusmodi erat illo tempore apud Judaeos tideles delectus ciborum legis. Nam qui discernebant inter cibos atque inter dies, id facere poterant; non ex errore, sed recta opinione de talibus imbuti, suamque hanc observationem ad bonum aliquem finem referentes, velut ad hoc, ut carnem suam castigarent, Deum placarent, rebus divinis vacarent. Haec responsio non placet. Nam manifestum est, Apostolum adscribere erroremei, qui discernit: quia vocat eum infirmum in fide, et dicit, eum scandalizari et contristari alio non discernente. Proinde respondendimi, imprimis Apostolum loqui non de quacunque materia religionis, sed de re praesenti, id est, de dierum et ciborum discrimine secundum legem Mosaicam et morem paternum observando vel non observando. Nec enim de quaestione justificationis, utrum ex lege sit an ex fide, dixisset: Unusquisque in suo sensu abundet, ac de aliis ejusmodi. De quibus graviter Theophylactus Chrysostomum secutus: Quando sermo est, inquit, de dogmatibus vel doctrina, non oportet nos proprio sensu abundare, sed quae accepitnus firmiter tueri; etiamsi vel angelus e coelis aliud praedicaret. Praeterea dicimus cum Chrysostomo, non id velle Paulum, infirmos illos simpliciter animi sui judicio permittendos esse, tanquam in re vel indiflferenti vel levicula; sed temporis maturitatem exspectandam. Non enim statim ac simal avocandos esse (quod fieri noa potest) a suis consuetis observationibus, ne forte turbati retrocedant ac deserant fidem susceptam; sed ad tempus tolerandos, atque paulatim instruendos plenius. Quod et factum est opera Apostolorum, non Romae tantum et per loca gentilium, verum etiam Jerosoljmis; ubi, sicut Actor. 21. legitur, ex Judaeis plurimi in Christum crediderant; qui tamen omnes erant aemulatores legis. Tolerabantur autem ad tempus, cum ob rationem memoratam, tum ob reverentiam Mosaicae legis, utque synagoga cum honore sepeliretur. Quae etiam causa fuit, ut et ipsi Apostoli, et inter hos Paulus, infirmis fratribus sese accommodantes, ubi h^cus et tempus postulabant, legalia adhuc observarent, etsi certissimi, se ad ea non teneri. Quod autem ad eos attinet, qui pertinaciter retinere volebant ciborum mundorum atque immundorum discrimina, quique suumhoc dogmapassim inter fideles disseminabant; non de eis diceret Apostolus: Unusquisque in suo sensu abundet: quippe quos alibi tanquam seductores et eiTorum magistros acriter insectatur; ut in Epist. ad Tit. 1., cui et praecipit dicens: Increpa illos dure, ut sani sint in fide. Cur autem et Galatas ad instituta Judaica delapsos idem Apostolus tanta verborem asperitate castiget, ut dicat eos translatos in aliud Evangelium, ut vocet insensatos et fascinatos, utque propter illam legalem dierum observationem dicat eis: Timeo, ne forte sine causa laboraverim in vobis, Galat. les erant, quibus ut jugum Mosaicae legis, quam nunquam acceperant, imponeretur, nullo modo ferendum erat; ne lex conniventibus Apostolis etiam ad gentes propagata, putaretur ad salutem esse necessaria; quod pseudoapostoli Galatis persuadere nitebantur. At infirmi, qui hoc loco tolerari jubentur inter Romanos, Judaei erant, in observatione legis patrum suorum a cunabulis educati. Jam vero pro meliori intelligentia Paulinae sententiae paulo pressius expendenda nobis est significatia verbi Graeci, pro quo nos legimus abundet. Budaeus quidem in commentario linguae Graecae verbum uArjpocpopoijpiat vult idem esse, quod compertum habeo, certissime novi. Et Erasmus in annotatione super praefatione Evangelii secundum Lucam, 7:XTrjpo9&psTv_, exponit plenam facere fidem. Et hujus verbalia T:kT^r)0'^ooi.av, certam fidem, quae fit argumentis aut re exhibita, et 7tXrypocp6p7;iia_, quod nos vulgo dicimus certificationem. Huc primum allegatur ilhid hujus Epistolae, cap. 4., plenissime sciens. Graece, iiATjpocpop7^&£tg. Item quod in memorata praefatiuncula legitur, quae iji nobis completae suntrerum, Graece, tcov TiSTiArjpocpopTjijilvcov ev TJijilv TipaYjiaTcov. Quod ita vertit Origenis interpres (Eufl5num arbitror): quae in nobis manifestissime sunt cognitae, compertae, ostensae: quodtamen, inquit, uno verbo latinus sermo non explicat. Erasmus autem ita reddidit: quae inter nos certissimae fidei sunt. Adteruntur et alia loca, quae mox citabimus. Hanc porro Graecaevocis significationem nonnulli persuasi veram ac genuinam esse, censent eam scribendam in tertia syllaba per U)_, iiArjpo^cope^.v^ TcATjpocpu)psTo^at^ et caetera: videlicet, auo xou ^topav^ quod est comperire, deprehendere. Sed hos falli perspicuum est. Nusquam enim verbum illud (de derivatis eadem ratio), nisi cum o parvo tertiae syllabae legitur apud autores. Deinde, si a verbo cptopav deduceretur, scribendum esset TiAr^pocptopa v^ eadem terminatione: quod aeque alienum est a scriptoribus. Adde, quod non ubique congrait illa significatio plenae ac certae cognitionis, ut 2 Timoth. 4. Ministerium tuum imple. Et iterum: ut per me praedicatio impleretur. Quocirca magis hic assentior Joanni Hasselano et Francisco Riberae, quorum ille in commentario hujus loci, quem manuscriptis apud me habeo, iste vero exponens illud Hebr. 6., ad expletionem spei usque in finem, docent non plus significare verbum TiXr^pocpopETv, quam plenitudinem ferre sive adferre, id est, uno vocabulo, implere: quemadmodum et itATjpo^opsTa^ai^ plenitudinem habere, id est, impleri, abundare, et nAripQffXjptav, plenitudinem, abundantiam. Componuntur haec a verbo ^lpsiv ferre, sicut multa alia similis formae, ut ScupocpopcTv, dona ferre, xuo^opslv, uterum ferre, OTi- AocpopsTv, arma ferre,paP<5o90psTv,virgam ferre. Sic ergo uATjpo^opsTv^ plenitudinem adferre. Cujus autem plenitudinem, id ex re sitbjecta, de qua sermo habetur, intelligendum. Nam interdum quidem cognitiu nis ac fidei; interdum spei; nonnunquam officii, vel cujuspiam ejusmodi plenitudo significatur. Cognitionis, ut hujus Epistolae, cap. 4., plenissime sciens, et Coloss. 2., in omnes divitias plenitudinis intellectus. Fidei, ut Hebr. 10. Accedamus cum vero corde in plenitudine fidei. Spei, Hebr. 6. Ad expletionem spei usque in finem. Officii, ut 1 Thessal. 1. In plenitudine multa sicut scitis quales fuerimus in vobis. Item in duobus locis 2 Timoth. 4., paulo ante citatis. Denique rerum actarum, ut Luc. 1. Quae in nobis completae sunt rerum (sic enim et Hieronymus legit in prooemio commentarii super Matthaeum), id est, quae apud nos in Judaea actae sunt, et usque ad finem perductae. Nam res Christi salvatoris in terra gestae complentur et finiuntur ejus ascensione in coelum, in qua et Lucas Evangelium suum concludit. Sensum vero, quem Ruffinus et Erasmus illuc intulerunt, minus congruere sentiet, qui mentem Evangelistae eo loco propius introspexerit: ut non hoc etiam dicam, nullius Graeci scriptoris testimonio doceri, quod 7iS7tAT|pocpopr;fjieva dicantur ea, quorum plena facta fides. Usi sunt et LXX. interpretes verbo passivo Ecclesiastae 8. Qui locus apud Hieronymum latine sic legitur: Quia non est contradictio facientibus malum cito: ideo repletum est (luATrjpocpopTjilig) cor filiorum hominum in eis, ut faciant malum. Ubi certe non aliud in verbo graeco, quam quod latine redditum est, intelligi oportere, patet ex Hebraeo. Sic enim ad verbum habet: Idcirco plenum est cor filiorum hominisin eisad faciendum malum, id est, pleno et toto corde dedunt se malis agendis. Quod sua versione sic expressit Hieronymus: Absque timore ullo filii hominum perpetrant mala. Declaratur autem ex loco simili Gen. 6., ubi scribit Moses, vidisse Deum, quod cuncta cogitatio cordis hominum intenta esset ad malum. Ut igitur ad nostrum institutum redeamus, — quod Paulus Grsecus hoc loco dicit, ita sonat: Unusquisque in propria mente plenitudinem habeat. Sed quaeritur, quam aut cujus rei plenitudinem? Multi, de quibus ante, referunt ad libertatem opiuandi.seu judicandi, quasi dicat Apostohis: Cuique plene ac plane liberum sitmentis suaejudicium. Cujus commentarii sanum intellectum itidem supra dedimu s. AUt vero plenitudinem intelligunt persuasionis, hoc sensu: Unusquisque in mente sua plene persuasus sit, licere sibi id quod facit; nihil faciat repugnante aut dubitante conscientia, ne peccet. Quem sensum volunt aliorum quorundam versiones, ut Erasmi: Unicuique sua mens satisfaciat. Fabri: Unusquisque in sua mente satisfaciat. Hentenii: Unusquisque propriae menti satisfaciat. Huc spectat etiam Sjriaca translatio latine reddita ad hunc modum: Unusquisque in scientia seu cognitione animae suae confirmetur. Huic expositioni probabilitatem conciliant, quae infra dicuntur, ubi persuasionem ejusmodi vocat fidem, docetque peccatmn esse, quicquid ex fide non fit. Cum qua utique sententia valde congruit, quod juxta expositionem jam datam hic praecipitur^ ut unusquisque in sensu suo abundet, plenitudinem habeat, id est, in animo suo plene persuasus sit, sibi licere quod agit, alioqui peccaturus, eo quod agat contra conscientiam. Est igitur haec instructio tam discernentis, quam non discernentis, quae ad hoc saltem valeat, ut neuter peccet sciens. Neque enim discernentem omnino a peccato liberat. Porro, quae sequuntur, doctrinam continent eo pertinentem, ut uterque ab altero vel spernendo vel judicando deinceps abstineat.
14:6
6. Qui sapit diem, Domino sapit. Domino, intellige Christo: similiter in sequentibus, Domino manducat, Domino non manducat, Domini sumus. Hunc enim intellectum postulat id, quod pro ratione subjungit: In hoc enim Christus mortuus est et resurrexit, ut et mortuorum et vivorum dominetur. Et quidem passim in epistolis Apostolicis Domini vocabulo Christus significatur, ut qui sit omnium nostrum Dominus, nosque servos suos fecerit jure redemptionis. Addunt Graeci Syrique codices: Et 'jui non sapit diem, Domino non sapit. Quod et Graeci interpretes Chrysostomus et posteriores exponunt. Verum apud Origenem non legitur, nec apud quemcumque Latinorum. Nec temere suspicatur Erasmus, a quopiam additam hanc partem, ut esset negatio, quae praecedenti affirmationi responderet. Sapere diem, quod Erasmus vertit curare diem, Graece ^povclv ttjv "^ijispav, est, diei habere rationem, diem observando discernere: tametsi putat Cajetanus, nullum exstare verbum latinum, quod huic graeco proprie respondeat. Certe ejusmodi est, quod in bonam partem accipi soleat; ut ad extenuationem infirmitatis fratrum videatur hic a Paulo usurpatum. Sensus: Qui ita sapit, ut discemat diem a die, dum alium diem prae alio secundum legem observat; id facit ad honorem Christi Domini, utpote Christianus, qui didicerit et noverit omnia, quae facit, in nomineDomini Jesu Christi facienda esse Col. 3. Vel certe ad honorem Christi Domini id facit, quem ut Deum, etiam Mosaicae legis agnoscit ac veneratur auctorem. Et qui ita sapit, ut non discernat dies, sed indifferenter habeat omnem diem: id quoque facit ad honorem Christi, utens libertate Evangelica sibi per Christum concessa. Sentit x\postolus, ita utrumque de altero existimare debere, quod nimirum ad Christi Domini faciant honorem idipsum, quod faciunt: etiamsi in altero, id est, sapiente diem, zelus sit non secundum scientiam, ideoque factum ejus peccato non careat.
Et qui manducat, Domino manducat. Id est, qui sine delectu vescitur quibuslibet, existimandus tibi est id facere ad Domini gloriam. Tacite significat, id quod paulo post apertius docet, quicquid agimus, agere nos debere non nobis, sed Domino. Unde Zach. 7. reprehenduntur Judaei, quod sibi, non Domino, jejunassent, comedissent atque bibissent.
Gratias enim agit Deo. Scilicet manducaturus; juxta illud ejusdem apostoli 1 Timoth. 4. Nihil rejiciendum, quod cum gratiarum actione percipitur. Sanctificatur enim per verbum Dei et orationem. Adeoque ex Evangelio manifestum est, Christum solere cum gratiarum actione cibum ac potum benedicere, priusquam sumeret aut sumendum daret, Matth. 15. et 26. Marc. 8, et 14. Luc. 22. et Joan. 6. Quod et habet perpetua fidelium consuetudo. Gratias, inquam, agit Deo pro largitate ejus et beneficentia, qua cibos creavit et dedit in usum hominum. Quae gratiarum actio manducantis argumentum esse debet non manducanti, illum Domino manducare, id est, ad honorem Christi Domini, (;ui gratias agit.
Et qui non manducat, Domino non manducat. Qui abstinet, inquit, a cibis lege vetitis, licet id ex infirmitate fidei faciat, tu tamen existima, id eum, quia Christo nomen dedit, propter honorem Christi Domini sui facere. Praecipit, ut proximorum facta in meliorem partem interpretemur, et id in eis' consideremus, quod bonum est. Sic enim solemus aliorum errata excusare, dicentes, fecit bona intentione. Pulchre S. Bernardus sermone 40. super Cantica: Etiamsi, inquit, perperam actum quid deprehendas, nec sic judices proximum, magis autem excusa. Excusa intentionem, si opus non potes: puta ignorantiam, puta subreptionem, puta casum, et quae sequuntur. Neque hoc diceret Apostolus, si abstinentia ejusmodi, licet ex iml)ecillitate fidei profecta, non posset ad Domini gloriam referri. Qua ratione multa, quae in ecclesia a simplicioribus utriusque sexus aguntur in cultu Dei et veneratione sanctorum ejus, etsi censuram alicujus superstitionis apud severos Theologos omnino effugere nequeant, excusari tamen poterunt, atque a fide et intentione, qua ad Dei gloriam i-eferuntur, etiam commendari. Denique ex his probabilis fit eorum sententia, qui dicunt, hominem posse eodem actu peccare et benefacere, si ad diversa respiciatur. Quod manifestius apparet in iis qui, quia parce seminant, parce et metent 2 Cor. 9.
Et gratias agit Deo. Nimirum pro cibis lege concessis, quibus utitur. Non dixit Apostolus sicul de manducaute: Gratias enim agit Deo. Nam illic gratiarum actio, veluti dictum est, argumento erat, n^anducantem Domino manducare. Qui vero non manducat, in eo quod non manducat, non agit Deo gratias de cibis concessis, sed in eo, quod quibusdam utitur, licet ab aliis abstineat. Nec necesse est, hanc gratiarum actionem, quod nonnulli faciunt, ad donum abstinentiae referri: praesertim quod haec abstinentia non virtutis erat sed infirmitatis. Locum hunc de manducante et non manducante Oecumenius refert ad jejunia spontanea; ut manducans dicatur non jejunans; non manducans vero jejunans. Sed hoc praeter mentem Apostoli; qui non manducare tribuit ei, qui fide infirmus est, putans aliquem cibum esse communem, id est, immundum, ut infra dicitur. Porro si quis indicta ecclesiae jejunia nuUa necessitate solvit, non in ejus excusationem dici poterit: Qui manducat, Domino manducat; sed is tanquam manifestus ecclesiasticae legis transgi-essor increpandus est et puniendus.
14:7
7. Nemo enim nostrum sibi vivit, et nemo sibi moritur. Loquitur ex persona cujusque boni fidelis, qualem quisque alium existimare debet, nisi diversum constet. Quomodo etiam accipiendum quod sequitur:
14:8
8. Siive enim vivimus, Domino vivimus, sive morimur, Domino morimur. Sensus hujus loci est: Nemo nostrum vivit propter se, id est, ad suam ipsius gloriam aut commodum, tanquam finem suae vitae; sed ad gloriam Domini, cujus est servus: et nemo nostrum eligit mori propter se, sed propter Dominum, juxta quod de seipso dicit idem Apostolus Philip. 1. 3Iagnificabitur Christus in corpore meo, sive per vitam, sive per mortem. Probat superiora argumenta a toto ad partem. Nam si boni fideles ad Dei gloriam referant totam suam vitam, adeoque et mortem: igitur et in eo quod manducant, et quod non manducant, Dei ac Domini gloriam spectare censendi sunt.
Sioe ergo vivimus, sive morimv/r, Domini sumus. Domini casu gignendi. Id est, Christo Domino addicti sumus, tanquam servi, utpote qui vitam et mortem et omnia nostra ad illius (ut ita dimus. Quod est eorum, qui bene serviunt. Infert autem hoc Paulus ex eo, quod proxime praecedit. Nam ideo Domino vivimus et Domino morimur, quia Domini sumus. Nec tantum vult dicere, nos Domini esse, dum vivimus hac vita mortali, et Domini esse in ipsa morte, qua vitam hanc amittimus: verum etiam et maxime post mortem in saeculo futuro, quemadmodum patet ex subjuncta confirmatione, qua non morientes sed mol-tuos nominat.
14:9
9. In hoc enim Christus mortuus est et resurrexit, ut et mortuorum et vivorum dominetur. In hac parte varietas est lectionis. Primum multa Latina MSS. cunjunctionem, quae in posteriori membro geminata est, etiam congeminant in priori: et mortuus est et resurrexit. Quod et decorum addit dictioni, et Graecis codicibus consonat. Qui quidem sichabent: In hoc enim Christus etmortuus fuit et resurrexit et revixit, ut et mortuorum et viventium dominetur. Nisi quod in nonnullis pro a.\i'C,rpzv revixit, legitur sCTjaev vixit, quemadmodum et habent graeca Chrysostomi, Theophylacti et Oecumenii commentaria. VerbumvmfetiamapudAmbrosium habetur: sed primo loco positum. Et vixit, et mortuus est et resurrexit. Quae eadem ferme lectio est Irenaei lib. 3. cap. 20. et Augustini de morib. Manich. cap. 14. Syrus idipsum in medio collocavit; Mortuus est et vixit et surrexit. Origenes, ut ex ejus commentario plane constat, tantum legit: Mortuus est et vixit. Jam et veterum codicum Latinorum quidam non contemnendi pro resurrexit habent revixit. Quod et legitur in Epist. 1. Anacleti Papae: ut merito suspectum haberi possit verbum resurrexit occupati loci alieni; quum ad alterum explicandum forte in margine adscriptum fuisset. Nam et Chrysostomi Graeca quaedam exemplaria verbum avsoTYj, non agnoscunt. Itaque sic arbitror, alteram harum esse lectionem germanam: Et mortuus est et revixit, vel: ei mortuus est et vixit. Nam harum utrique, praesertim posteriori aptius respondet quod sequitur, ut et mortuorum et vivorum (Graece: Cwvxwv^ viventium) dominetur, ac si dicat Apostolus: Quomodo mortuus est Christus, ut mortuorum dominetur, ita rursum vixit, ut dominetur viventium. Prioii quidem lectioni simile est illud Luc. 15. Frater tuus hic mortuus erat et revixit. Posterior autem, cui dixi partem subjunctam aptius respondere, Hebraismum redolet, vixit, id est, vitam accepit sive recepit: sicuti passim, possedit, id est, acquisivit, possessionem accepit; quemadmodum et capite superiori, credidimus, id est, fidem suscepimus. Ita dictum est Apoc. 20. de animabus martyrum: Et vixerunt, et regnaverunt cum Christo, id est, vitam beatam acceperunt. Et mox de aliis: Caeteri mortuorum non vixerunt, donec, etc. id est, vitam non receperunt. Quo secundo loco, perinde ut in priore, noster interpres haud dubie legit in Graeco eCYjoav, quod et Aretae textus habet et Complutensis editio; licet in aliis plerisq^ue codicibus, hae parte mihi suspectis, aveCi^oav legatur. Hanc certe lectionem praesentis loci maxime probat exacti judicii vir 1". Lucas, ad cujus notationem te remitto. Porro confirmat Apostolus illationem superiorem, docens, quamobrem nos et viventes et morientes, sive mortuos, Domini esse dixerit, et proinde omnia facere Domino, id est, Christo. Id docet ex jure redemptionis. Nam Christus morte sua nos redimens, servos sibi fecit, factusque est omnium nostrum Dominus. lusinuatur hac sententia, Christum, quamvis sit Dominus omnium hominum, peculiari tamen ratione esse Dominum bonorum et fidelium. Hos enim non solum sibi subjecit (quod et malis ac reprobis ipsisque daemonibus commune est), verum etiam redimendo sibi servos, id est, servientes et obedientes fecit; nec solum pro tempore vitae praesentis, cujus fines excedere non possunt servitutes humanae; sed etiam, multoque perfectius, pro saeculo futuro et nunquam terminaudo, de quo scriptum est Apoc. 22. Et servi ejus servient illi^ utique beata servitute. Nam sequitur: et regnabunt in saecula saeculorum. Addit Apostolus, et resurrexit, seu potius, et vixit, scilicet post mortem; non quod resurgens ad vitam Christus nos redemerit, sed quod illius resurrectio fuerit idea quaedam et exemplar nostrae resurrectionis^ qua resuscitandi sumus ad vitam aeternam et beatam: ex quo futurum sit, ut ipse perfecte mortxlorum et vivorum dominetur. Vel secundum alios: quia nisi revixisset, dominari non poterat. Non enim dominaretur Christus homo, nisi esset homo. Ponit autem vivos post mortuos, ut ostendat, sententiam suam maxime veritatem habere de iis, qui vivunt post mortem. Quaeret aliquis, cur Apostolus dicens, Christum dominaturum etiam mortuis, non contradicat ipsi Christo dicenti: Non est Deus mortiwrum sed inventium, Matth. 22. Responsio: Aliud est vocari Deum mortuorum, aliud esse Dominum mortuorum, Nam multa sunt, quorum Dominus est Deus, quorum tamen Deum se vocari nolit. Deinde mortui in verbis Christi intelliguntur omnino mortui et non resurrecturi, quomodo de mortuis hominibus sentiebant Sadducaei: Paulus vero de mortuis loquitTir spe certissima victuris, quales Abraham, Isaac et Jacob.
14:10
10. Tu autem quid judicas fratrem tuum? Compellat hac parte non manducantem, id est, eum qui fide infirmus est, nt patet ex supradictis. Sequenti autem parte manducantem alloquitur.
Aut tu quare spernis fratem tuum? Graece, aut etiam tu, quasi dicat: sed nec tu, quamvis fide firmior, reprehensione cares, quod infirmi fratris tui rationem non habeas, ac salutem ejus curare non videaris, ut qui manducando scandalum ei praebeas. Spernis, graece: iiou- ^•sveT^;^ pro nihilo habes. Nam qui tiatri scandalum ponit, ita agit, ac si salutem ejus nihili jienderet. Quoniam autem in confesso erat, fratrem non esse spernendum, id est, scandalizandum: idcirco omissa ejus probatione solum id, quod priori loco dixit, probandum suscipit; nempe fratrem non esse a nobis judicandum, elianisi forte delinquat. Postea quidem etiam de scandalo repetit sermonem, verum id agit non tam docens quam objurgans. Porro non judicandum esse docet ex eo, quod Christus est omnium nostrum judex.
Omnes enim stabimus ante tribunal Christi. Stabimus, graece7iapaoT7]o6/i,s{^a^ statuemur, sistemur. Omnes, inquit, sistendi sumus ad tribunal Christi, nimirum ab eo tanquam omnium Domino judicandi. Tribunal enim judiciariam potestatem significat. Omnes intellige sine exceptione: tum quia ratio generalis est, nullam admittens exceptionem, videlicet universale Christi dominium in omnes homines; tum quia testimonium Propheticum, quo sententiam suam mox confirmat Apostolus, omnes sine exceptione homines comprehendit. Stabunt igitur a Christo judicandi etiam illi, quibus dixit Matth. 19.: Cum sederit filius hominis in sede majestatis suae, sedebitis et vos super sedes duodecim, judicantes duodecim tribus Israel. Nam sessuri et judicaturi dicuntur, non quod judicandi non sint, sed quia tantae perfectionis omnibus apparebunt, ut si humano more de judiciis loquamur, merita eorum non videantur examini subjicienda ad hoc, ut praemium eis decernatur, sicut illorum, qui tantum erunt mediocres meritis: sed ipsi potius ob insignem sanctitatem digni habeantur, qui judici appropinquent, eique assideant, ac de aliis etiam sententiam ferant. Hoc est, quod dici solet, omnes judicandos esse judicio retributionis, sed non omnes judicio discussionis. De qua re vide, quae disputari solent lib. 4. sent. ad dist. 47.
14:11
11. Scriptum est enim. Confirmat testimonio Scripturae, quae est apud Jesaiam cap. 45.
Vivo ego, dicit Dominus. Vivo ego, Hebraice: In me vel per me juravi. LXX. per me ipsum juro. Quod sequitur, dicit Dominus, aut de suo Pyuhis addidit ad significandum, cujus ex persona haec dicantur, ^it repetivit ex superioi-ibus ejusdem capitis apud Prophet.im, versu 18. Porro sensus convenit estque hujusmndi: Memet ipsum, ait Dominus, ac vitani meam testor, verum esse hoc, quod affirmo. Sicut enim jurandi f ormula erat in p opulo D ei: vivit Dominus; quod erat jurare per Deum viventem, sive per vitam Dei: ita Deus iu Scripturis introducitur jurans his verbis: vivo ego, ut Num. 14., Jes. 49., Ezech. 14. et alibi. Hoc autem est Deo jurare per semet ipsum viventem. Caeterum an proprie Deo competat jurare, expendemus in comment. Epist. ad Hebraeos cap. 6.
Quoniam mihi flectetur omne genu, et omnis lingua confitebitur Deo. Flectetur, graece '/.dix^tf. flectet, quod etiam legitur quibusdam. Sed sensus est: Flectet se, id est, flectetur: hebraice curvabitur. Quod in quibusdam codicibus Graecis post omne genu sequitur: coelestium, terrestrium et infernorum, ascititium est ex Epist. ad Philip. 2., ubi caetera similia verba leguntur. Neque vero apud Jesaiam, cujus hic citatur testimonium, tale quid legitur. Apud eundem non est confitebitur, sed jurabit, non addita voce Deo: nam repetendum est mihi ex priori membro; LXX. vero addiderunt. Sic enim habent: Kal o^jiclTat 7:aaa pMoaa. tov O^cOv, et jurabit omnis lingua Deum, ut appareat, Paulum (quod adnotant nonnulli) dixisse Deo pro Deum. Adducit autem hoc ex Propheta testimonium, ut ostendat Christi dominium in omnes humines, bonos ac malos. Quod inchoatur quidem a primo ejus adventu, sed perficitur in extremo judicio, ubi sistentur omnes ad ejus tribunal, et implebitur ilhid: Ponam inimicos tuos scabel- Jum pedum tuorum, Psalm. 109. Est igitur sensus: Mihi tanquam domino ac judici suo omnes cujuscunque gentis et linguae homines subjicientur ac substernent sese: Dominum ac Deum suum, per quem solum jurandum sit, me confitentes: boni quidem voluntarie, mali vero vel inviti. In persona Christi Domini haec dici, manifeste declarat locus similis Phil. 2.: Ut in nomine Jesu omne genu flectatur, coelestium, terrestrium et infernorum: et omnis lingua confiteatur, quia Dominus Jesus Christus. I^nde etiam intelligitur, nonbonorum tantum, sed et malorum hominum, imo et daemonum genua Christo Domino curvanda esse. Nam et daemonum judex Christus a patre constitutus est, ipsis etiam confitentibus in Evangelio ac dicentibus ad eum: Venisti huc ante tempus torquere nos? Matth. 8. Observa contra Arianos Christum hic expresse ab Apostolo vocari Deum. Jam enim constat ex praecedentibus, de Christo sermonem esse. Sic in eo, quod sequitur:
14:12
12. Itaque unusquisque nostrum pro se rationem reddet Deo. Sequitur hoc ex praecedentibus. Nam idcirco omnes sistendi sumus ad tribunal Christi, ut quisque pro se respondeat ac rationem reddat. Pro se, Graece Tispi ia^zoo, de se ipso, id est, de factis propriis, non de alienis. Quod intellige, nisi quatenus aliorum vita ad nostram curam pertinet, et aliorum peccata ex officii nostri negligentia proveniunt. Hac enim ratione dicitur Heb. 13. de praepositis: Ipsi enim pervigilant, quasi rationem pro animabus vestris reddituri. Porro rationem Deo reddere, est Dei judicium subire de iis, quae bene aut male quis egit. Sumta metaphora ab iis, qui de bonis alienis a se dispensatis rationem dominis eorum reddunt. Sic autem et alibi loquitur Scriptura, ut Matth. 12. et 1 Pet. 4. Quod autem hic dicit, idem aliis verbis ac diversa metaphora dicit Galat. 6.: Unusquisque onus suum portabit.
14:13
13. Kon ergo amplius invicem judicemus. Graece: Non amplius igitur alius alium judicemus. Nam pro invicem, legitur aXAr;Aouc; qua voce non solum significantur, qui mutuo sive reciproce quidpiam agunt, sed quorum alius erga alium, etsi non vices referentem; quomodo manifeste sumitur Ephes. 5. Subjecti invicem. Non igitur ex vocula invicem consequens est, tam firmum quam infirraura argui ab Apostolo temerarii judicii. Verumtamen quia generalis est conchisio, ue quisquam alium judicet, quam infertex eo, quod omnes unum judicem habemus Christum: recte intelligitur, etiam firmiorem fratrem hac sententia perstringi, tanquam iniquum judicem adversus fratrem infirmum. Namquomodo noneum aliquomodo judicabat, quem spernebat, et de quo non illud potius suspicabatur: Qui non manducat, Domino nonmanducat? Sane etiam ex parte subsequenti: 8ed hocjudicate magis etc, satis apparet ab hac generali admonitione iirmiores excludi non debere. Notabis obiter, judicium proprie esse earum rerum, quae per se non satis patent. Unde est, quod absolute Dominus nobis prohibet: Nolite judicare, Matth. 7. Nam in re manifesta non opus est judicio, quo nimirum discernatur ac dijudicetur, qualis sit. Hinc in extremo judicio quidam dicuntur non judicandi, quod manifestam adferant causam suae condemnationis, ut infideles, testante Domino Joan. 3.: Qui non credit, jam judicatus est, id est, portat secum judicium suum, quia non credidit. Bed hocjudicate magis. Quoniam praecedens conclusio generaliter omnes fideles a judicandis fratribus repellebat, etiam firmiores ac doctiores, quibus potiori ratione judicandi potestas alioqui concedenda videbatur, ac si dixisset: Nulli deinceps judicent alios, ac ne firmi quidem infirmos: idcirco nunc ad firmiores sermone converso docet, quod judicium eis pei-mittat, atque adeo commendet. Repetit enim idem judicandi verbum, sed alio sensu, quasi dicat: Si omnino libet judicare, exercete vos in hoc genere judicii, id est, hoc statuite apud vos firmo animi judicio ac proposito; hanc adhibete cautelam.
Ne ponatis offendiculum fratri vel scandalum. Hoc est, ne libertate vestra abutentes, dum passim quibuslibet cibis utimini, praebeatis offendiculum fratri infirmo. Nam duplex erat illi pericuhim: vel ne fratrem edentem judicaret; vel certe ne exemplo provocatus contra conscientiam ederet ea, quae lex prohibebat. Addunt et tertium, idque caeteris gravius: ne frater offensus ea Christianorum licentia susceptam semel religionem desereret, et ad Judaismum totus relaberetur. Sed de hoc tacet Apostolus, Potest hic locus ita verti: Ne ponatur offendiculum etc, quomodo vertit Erasmus. Nam Graece est to /itj v.^i^ai, non ponere. Sed in eundem sensum redit utrumque. Porro scandalum graecum vocabulum est, quo significatur omne id, quod prolapsionis et ruinae causam adfert; latine uno verbo offendiculum. Igitur inter offendiculum, graece 7ip6;xofJifia, et scandalum, non opus est hoc loco distinguere, quod a quibusdam factum video; sed varie et parum solide: quemadmodum nec distinguendum inter lapidem offensionis et petram scandali supra cap. 9. et 1 Pet. 2. Nam hujusmodi repetitio, quae fit ad inculcationem ejusdem rei, Scripturis familiaris est, maxime Propheticis, ad quas libenter alludunt Apostoli.
14:14
14. Scio, et confido in Domino Jesu. Confido, graece r:k'KZiz\i.a<., idem verbum, quod supra cap. 8. vertit interpres, certu^s sum: de cujus verbi significatione sufficiant, quae ibi diximus. Sane et hoc loco magis ad mentem Pauli vertisset: certus sum vel persuasum habeo, quae propria est Graeci verbi significatio, quibus modis verterunt Faber, Erasmus, Hentenius et alii. Quippe rem certam ac fide tenendam hic affirmat Apostohis. Quare Chrysostomus hoc verbum exposuit alio verbo Graeco TiXrjpo^opoiijJiai^ id est, plenitudinem habeo, scilicet persuasionis, plenissime persuasus sum. De quo satis dictum in superioribus. Dicit autem, scio, quia de eo loquitur, quod etiam naturali himine rationis cognosci potest. Docet enim ratio naturalis, omnem creaturam Dei bonam esse; nec ejus usu spiritualiter hominem coinquinari posse, nisi vohmtatis iniquitas male utentis accesserit. Eadem ratione scientiam nominat, ubi de immolatitiis disserit, 1 Cor. 8.: De iis, inquit, quae idolis sacrificantur, scimus, quia omnes scientiam habemus. Et iterum: Sed non in otnnibus est scientia. Sensus igitur est: ludnbitate c,cio, natura docente, et pro certo teneo, sic institutus et edoctus a Domino Jesu; vel, sic institutus in religione Christi.
Quia nihil communeper ipsum. Graece di eauTou. Sic enim habent omnes codices annotati a. R. Stephano: nisi quod regii libri ex editione Complutensi legunt contracte di aGTOij cum notula densi spiritus, quod tantundem valet; id est, per se ipsum, pronomine reciproco. Quod proinde non potest ad Christum referri, quo ipsum referunt commentator Ambrosius et eum secuti Pelagius et Sedulius, aliique Latini posteriores. At verisimile est intorpretes, qui verterunt per ipsum, legisse dC «utoD, vel tenui vel certe nuUo spiritu annotato. Nam et Graeci Theodoretus et Oecumenius ita legerunt. Quorum posterior tres adfert hujus loci expositiones. Per ipsum, id est, juxta legem evangelicam. Nam vd/jioc (id est lex) Graecis masculinum. Sic autem et Theodoretus exponit. Vel: per ipsum, hoc est per se, ex natura, vel: per ipsum, nempe Deum. Atqui media expositio magis postulat, ut legatur dC lauTOu, vel di auTOU^ quemadmodum legerunt Chrysostomus et Theophylactus nec non Origenes, ut ex ejus comment. colligitur. Eidem lectioni vult textus Sjriacus, qui habet ex se ipso. Inter Latinos quoque per se ipsum Hieronymus lib. 2. contra Jovin. cap. 11. et Augustinus lib. de morib. Manich. cap. 14. semel et iterum. Commune vocat Apostolus immundum: non tam idiotismo linguae Hebraeae (nam in libris sacris Hebraice scriptis non exstat ea phrasis), quam posteriorum Judaeorum consuetudine; quibus id, quod vel lege vel majorum traditione immundum erat, commune dicebatur, quia in usu communi esset caeterarum gentium, sibi vero solis, ut populoDei, declaratum immundum, ideoque sub pollutionis reatu vitandum: ut commune Judaeis pene idem fuerit, quod Latinis profanum. Quam istius vocabuli rationem tradit Hieronymus exponens Matth. cap. 15., licet ahi metaphoram putent acceptam a rebus, quae quod communes sint et a multis tractentur, facile sordes contrahunt. Tale igitur est, quod Apostolus dicit: Quod ad me attinet, certa scientia et fide teneo, nihil esse immundum (cujus scilicet usus immundum ac deteriorem reddat hominem) per se ipsum, id est, ex sua natura: nihil, inquam, non solum in cibis, sed nec in tota Dei creatura, secundum illud 1 Tim. 4.: Omnis creatura Dei bona est. Sic particulam per se ipsum interpretantur Origenes, Chrysostomus et Theophylactus et ex parte Oecum., ut vidimus: atque inter Latinos Hervaeus, non obstante lectione per ipsum, et alii ex recentioribus. Neque vero id inconvenienter huic loco. Quamvis enim agat Apostolus de iis, qui cibos quosdam refugiebant velut secundum legem immundos, ac propterea videri possit, ad rem non pertinere, si illis dicatur, nihil per se et natura immundum esse (id enim adversus hunc commentarium objicitur): sciendum tamen est, Judaeos plerosque, qui legis et caerimonia'^ rium verum usum ignorabant, et signa pro rebus amplectebantur, prohibitionem certorum ciborum non ad significationem retulisse, sed magis (quod consequens videbatur) ad illorum naturam, quasi prohibiti fuerint, quiaimmundi: non im immundi, quia prohibiti: cum res contrario modo sese habeat. Nam idcirco solum quaedam legaliter immunda sunt, quia prohibita, ad significandum nobis ea, quae in vita ac moribus sunt fugienda; quemadmodum docet Augustinus lib. 6. contra Faustum Manichaeum cap. 7. et alibi. Hanc vero, quam dixi Jndaeorura persuasionem fuisse, manifeste probat locus ad Tit. cap. 1., ubi eos, qui de circumcisione erant, vult redargui, quod in creaturis Dei aliquid immundum dicerent, eamque docti-inam refert ad mandata hominum; utique loquens de eo, quod immundum est per se, sicut et loquitur 1 Tira. 4.: Abstinentes a cihis, quos Deus creavit, etc. Hinc igitur apparet ratio, cur multi, qui ex Judaeis in Christum crediderant, adeo tenaciter inhaeserint observantiis ciborum. Eas enim non tam ad legem caerimonialem, quam ad moralem ac naturalem referebant, aeque ut ipsum decalogum. Cui rei insuper argumento est, quod Judaei gentiles reputabant immundos ex usu ciborum lege Mosaica vetitorum: non tamen existimabant, eos in legem peccare, quam sciebant illis non esse datam. Quare consequens est, ut immundos eos judicaverint ex ipsorum, quibus utebantur ciborum natura, tanquam per se immundi essent. Denique postulathunc intellectum antithesis, quam facit Apostolus inter id, quod est commune per se et quod commune est utentium opinione. Hanc enim antithesim complet hoc, quod sequitur:
Nisi ei, qui existimat, quid commune esse, illi commune est. Verbum est non exprimitur in Graeco, sed intelligitur. Nihil, inquit, est immundum per se, sed tantum illi immundum est aliquid, qui existimat, id immundum esse: non quod hominis existimatio proprie rem faciat ipsi immundam; sed quia taliter existimantis conscientia eum obligat ad abstinendum, perinde ac si res per se immunda atque illicita esset. Quam rem docte declarat S. Thomas in commentario. Simile illud Tit. 1.: Omnia munda mundis; coinquinatis autem et infidelibus nihil est mundum; quia nimirum eorum errans conscientia non sinebat quidquam eorum, de quibus ibi loquitur Apostolus, ipsis esse mundum. Porro nisi pro sed tantum, Hebraismus est, isque frequens in Scripturis. Exceptive sumi non potest hoc loco, quia sententia praecedens, nihil cofnmune per se ipsumj universe et absolute vera est, exceptionem non admittens.
14:15
15. Si enim propter cibum frater tuus contristatur, jam non secundum caritatem ambulas. Graeci codices paucis exceptis legunt £i dk, si vero propter cibum etc, annuente etiam Syriaca versione. Non enim hic redditur ratio superioris sententiae; sed tacita removetur objectio, qua dicere quis posset: Si nihil est immundum per se, cur igitur, lege per Christum nunc abrogata, non permittor semper uti quolibet cibo? Respondet Apostolus ex lege caritatis, quae dictat, etiam a licitis abstinendum, ne proximus infirmior contristetur aut scandalizetur. Si, inquit, vides fratrem tuum, id est, proximum tuum Christianum propter cibum, quovesceris, conturbatum iri, et vel peccaturum temerario adversum te judicio, vel tuo exemplo provocandum ad edendum contra conscientiam, nec tamen abstines: jam non conversaris cum fratre secundum cantat^^m, id est, secundum caritatis regulam et dictamen; quia salutem ejus negligis, imo ipsum perdis. Nam sequitur:
Noli cibo tuo illum perdere, pro quo Christus mortuus est. Exaggeratio est peccati ejus, qui comedit cum scandalo fratris; addito argumento efficacissimo ab exemplo Christi. Perdere intelligunt quidam propter apostasiae periculum. Verum Apostolus toto hoc capite non urget nisi illa duo, quae modo dixi: judicium et exemplum. Sensus est: Non habeas fratrem tuum tam vilem, ut eum edulio tuo perdas, quem tanti fecit Christus, ut pro eo mortem oppetere non dubitarit. Perdas, inquam, daturus occasionem vel temere judicandi te, vel infeliciter imitandi. Sic et 1 Cor. 8.: Et peribit in tua scientia frater, propter quem Christus mortuus est. Ex utroque loco probant, Christum etiam pro reprobis mortuum esse, videlicet quoad sufficientiam pretii, quod Patri moriens obtulit. Alii locum utrumque exponunt de fratre electo, quem quantum in se est perdit, qui ei peccandi occasiones ingerit. Mihi verisimilius est, Apostolum absolute quidem loqui de perditione fratris, pro quo tamen mortuus sit Christus, non ob solam generalitatem pretii sufficientis, sed quod fructum mortis ac redemptionis Christi vere perceperit, utpote baptizatus ac justificatus; licet hunc fructum perimat, qui eum scandalizat.
14:16
16. Non ergo blasphemetur bonum nostrum. Graece vestrum bonum, quod in nonnullis etiam Latinis legitur: quanquam ad sensum non refert, nostrum an vestrum legas. Hoe bonum non uno modo exponunt interpretes. Chrysost. intelligit fidem, aut futuram praemiorum spem, aut perfectam pietatem. De quibus male loquitur frater, qui scandalizatur. Non dissimiliter Origenes, qui religionem Christianam significari vult, a qua alienatur infirmus, nec a maledictis abstinens, dum per eam provocari se videt ad cibos promiscuos. Hoc tamen alii ad infideles referunt ac si sensus sit: Ne committe, ut male audiat Evangelium seu religio Christiana apud eos, qui foris sunt, propter acerbas contentiones, quas habetis iuter vos de cibis edendis aut non edendis. Sed quia neque hoc loco neque iu superioribus ulla infidelium mentio est, ut ad eos commode referri possit haec blasphemia boni nostri: magis placet, quae complurium sententia est, ut referatur ad fratrem infirmum, quod volunt priores expositiones; ita tamen, ut cum Hervaeo et Aquinate et aliis recentioribus sentiam, per bonum nostrum rectius intelligi beneficium libertatis per Christum nobis concessae, qua a servitute legalium observationum exempti sumus (nam in persona Judaeorum fidelium loquitur), ut sensus ait: Haec libertas nostra, vescendi quibuslibet cibis, non sit obnoxia maledictis infirmorum fratrum, sugillantium eam tanquam licentiam carnis et, ut Thomas loquitur, indulgentiam gulae. Sensum hunc bene probat Toletus ex altero loco simili 1 Cor. 10.: Vt quid libertas mea judicatur ab aliena conscientia? Si ego cum gratia participo, quid blasphemor pro eo, quod gratias ago? Ubi de fratre infirmo judicante eum, qui vescebatur idolothyto, sermonem esse, contextus ipse docet.
14:17
17. Non est enim regnum Dei esca et potus. Occupatio est. Nam quia dicere poterant fratres firmiores, se uti debere sua libertate, propterea quod participes facti essent regni Dei et Christi, quo sublata sit servitus legis: docet Apostolus, in quibus rebus principaliter regnimi Dei consistat, ac non solum refellit hujusmodi objectionem ex parte regni Dei sumptam, verum etiam in ipsos objicientes eam retorquet, uti mox patebit.
Regnum Dei non solum hic intelligitur, quo Deus regnat aut regnaturus est in beatis patriae coelestis, sed generaliter illud, quo regnare dicitur Deus in hominibus, tanquam in populo sibi beneplacito. Quod fit per ea bona nobis collata, quae statim recensebit. Fit autem imperfecte quidem in hoc saeculo; perfecte vero in futuro. Quod Dei regnum etiam in oratione Dominica significatum est, qua dicimus: Adveniat regnum tuum. Hoc igitur Dei regnum non est cibus et potus, id est, non consistit in cibo et potu, neque in libertate his indifferenter ac promiscue vescendi; licet hujusmodi libertatem secundario annexam habeat: qua tamen utendum sit salva lege caritatis, quae ad substantiam regni Deipertinet. Eandem sententiam aliis verbis expressit Apostolus 1 Cor. •'"'. dicens: Esca nos non commendat Deo. Neque enim si manducaverimus, abundabimus: neque si non manducaverimus, deficiemus. Porro non caret allusionis gratia graecus sermo ppoooig xal Tiooig: cum alioqui vocabulo ^pojjiaTOg utatur tam supra quam infra. Quod vero interpres nunc escam nunc cibum vertit, in Graeco nihil est diversum.
Sed justitia et pax et gaudium in Spiritu sancto. Sed, inquit, regnum Dei, quo scilicet Deus in nobis regnat, principaliter consistit in justitia, qua lex Dei obsei-vatur; et in pace, id est, pacifica et tranquilla conversatione cum proximis; et in gaudio non carnali, sed spirituali, quod ex justitia et pace nascitur. Hoc est enim gaudium in Spiritu sancto. Sub his tribus caeteras Christianas virtutes intelligit, quas plenius enumerat et fructum spiritus vocat Gal. 5., ubi caritatem in capite posuit, ac deinde gaudium et pacem ac caetera attexuit. Jam si regnum Dei in justitia et pace et gaudio spirituali consistit, non debet quisquam Christianus uti sua libertate vescendi quibuslibet, cum scandalo et contristatioae fratris infirmi, cumque Dei injuria, cujus servus contemnitur et opus destruitur; sed magis abstinere, caritate suadente, quae principatum obtinet in regno Dei. Hanc Pauli sententiam, qua regnum Dei negat esse escam et potum, torquet haereticus adversus abstinentiam ciborum ab ecclesia praescriptam: quasi senserit Apostolus, vesci aut non vesci quolibet cibo, rem esse prorsus adiaphoram, ac nihil conferre ad justitiam et salutem. Cui primum respondeo, sententiam Apostoli non dirigi ad abstinentem, sed solum ad edentem. Unde nec dixitregnum Dei non esse abstinentiam cibi et potus, sed cibum et potum: quemadmodum et ad Cor. scribens ac simileversansargumentum dicit: Esca nos non commendat Deo. Quin potius utrobique vult, ut abstineatur a cibis ob sahitem fratris; hic, ab immundislegaliter: illic, ab immolatitiis. Deinde plenior responsio est, certorum ciborum abstinentiam, etsi per se non conducat ad veram pietatem, conducere tamen ut praecipitur ab ecclesia, et ut assumi debet a filiis ecclesiae, quibus praecipitur. Et quidem in hujusmodi abstinentia, si bene consideremus, invenimus haec tria, justitiam, pacem et gaudium Spiritus sancti: Justitiam, quia per ejusmodi abstinentiam Deo pro peccatis in eum commissis satisfacimus, quod est opus justitiae; pacem, quia per eam subjugamus carnem spiritui, quod pertinet ad veram pacem interiorem, quae in hoc sita est, ut spiritus Deo, spiritui autem pars animae inferior subjecta sit; gaudium Spiritus sancti, quia per abstinentiam cibi et potus mens redditur alacrior ad contemplandum divina. Quae contemplatio verum et solidum et summum praestat gaudium rationali creaturae.
14:18
18. Qui enim in hoc servit Christo, placet Deo, et probatus est hominibus. In hoc, graece in his, ut ad tria superiora referatur, justitiam, pacem et gaudium Spiritus sancti. Nec desunt tamen codices, qui legant sv xouTaj in hoc, quemadmodum et Origenem legisse constat, qui interpretatur in hoc, id est, in Spiritu sancto. Nam hoc proxime praecesserat. Placet, Graece, suapsOTOc; beneplacitus, acceptus, nec additur, sed intelligitur verbum est. Sensus: Qui non contendit de cibis, sed in eo quod dixi, id est, in virtutibus, quas recensui, studet Christo servire, acceptus est Deo et hominibus: Deo, quia per illas virtutes promovet in se regnum Dei; hominibus, quia pacem conservat.
14:19
19. Itaque quae pacis sunt, sectemur, etquae aedificationis suntininvicem, custodiamus. Verbum custodiamus Graeca non addunt, ut nec Syriaca. Sed nec Augustinus agnoscit, qui totum hunc locum citat lib. de morib. Manich. cap. 14. Multa quoque Latina MSS. non habent. Nec opus, ut addalur, cum utrique membro commune sit verbum sectemur. IDud in invicem (seu potius invicem absque in praeposito, ut habebat codex Laudensis et veteres concordantiae) cohaeret cura aedificatione, ut ex Graeco liquet, ac verti poterat, aedificationis mutuae. Sensus est: Itaque sectemur ea, quae pertinent ad pacem inter nos conservandam, et quae ad mutuam aedificationem; videlicet praebentes invicem bona exempla, quibus aedificentur et confirmentur proximi in fide et pietate. Confer, quae diximus ad 1 Cor. 8. v. 1. Pacem opponit disceptationibus seu concertationibus, quas inter se habebant; aedificationem scandalo, de quo superius egerat. Nam scandalum destructio proximi est. Unde sequitur:
14:20
20. i\oh propter escam destruere opus Dei. Destruere, graece, xaxaXosiv, dissolvere, Tertulliano, solvere. Opus Dei quidam interpretantur ea bona, quae superius commemoravit, justitiam, pacem et gaudium Spiritus sancti. Alii fidem et pietatem in fratribus infirmis inchoatam. Verum rectius opus Dei intelligas ipsum fratrem in quantum frater, id est, Christianus est, fide et pietate jam imbutus, rectius, inquam, et ad Pauli mentem accommodatius: tum quia simili sententia supra dixerat: Noli cibo tuo illum perdercj pro quo Christus mortuus est, id est, fratrem infirmum: tum quia aedificare et destruere sive dissolvere, ad idem referri debent. Quare cum aedificatio respiciat ad proximum, referenda est ad etindem destructio. Proinde sensus est: Summopere tibi cavendum, ne propter cibum, rem indifferentem, dissolvas, destruas et perdas opus et aedificium Dei, id est, fratrem, quem Deus fecit fidelem. Hinc disce, quemque Christianum, in quantum bonus est et bene vivit, opus et creaturam esse Dei, juxta illud Ephes. 2. Ipsius enim sumus factura, creati in Christo Jesu in operibus bonis. Qui locus servit ad praesentis loci intelligentiam. Idem enim est opus Dei et factura Dei. Minus convenit per opus Dei intelligi templum spirituale, quae Chrysostomi est expositio: nisi templum cogites, non quatenus habitaculum est Dei, sed quatenus aedificatum est a Deo.
Omnia quidem sunt munda. Et hoc idem est cum eo quod supra dixit: Nihil esse commune per seipsum. Est autem occupatio seu concessio: quod autem sequitur, exceptionis est.
Sed malum est homini, quiper offendiculum manducat. Malum, id est, peccatum est homini, id quod per se mundum est, edere per offendiculum, id est, cum ofi"endiculo et destructione proximi. Qui enim sic manducat, is re bona male atitur, et male utendo seipsum redditimmundum. Similiter autem, quamvis omnia munda sint, malum est homini, qui per inobedientiam manducat. Quod faciunt qui comedunt contra prohibitionem ecclesiae. Posset malum referri etiam ad cibos, hoc modo: Omnia quidem munda sunt, sed quod per se mundum est, malum est homini per oftendiculum manducanti, quemadmodum supra dixit: Nihil commune per se: sed commune est ei, qui existimat, quid commune esse. Verum ut mahim potius interpretemur peccatum, antithesis urget inter malum et bonum. Nam de bono opposito sequitur:
14:21
21. Bonum est, non manducare cartiein et non hihere vinum, neque in quo frater tuus offenditur, aut scandalizatur, aut infirmatur. Carnem, Graece carnes. Docet, ad vitandum scandalum et off"ensionem fratris non solum ab iis, quae lege prohibita fuerant, abstinendum esse, verum etiam a non prohibitis: ut omnino a carnibus et vino. Id quod 1 Cor. 8. hujusmodi sententia expressit: Si esca scandalizat fratrem meum, non manducabo carnem in aeternum, ne fratrem meum scandalizem. Neque solum sentit, gratum fore Deo, si quis id faciat; sed necessarium, si quo casu fratris infirmi salus hoc postularet, prout alibi dicit, quoniam sic laborantes oportet suscipere infirmos, Act. 20. De qua re vide docte disputantem S. Thomam 2. 2. Pro verbo offenditur, meliores codices, inter quos Laudensis, habent offendit: quod et in textu legitur commentatoris Ambr. Graecum quoque verbum 'Jipooy.OTiTS'. significat impingit: quod latinius dicitur offendit, quam offenditur. Sic enim latine loquimur, ofi"endit in lapidem, in mutum. IUud neque inquo frater tuus, etc. duobus modis suppleri potest: neque quidquam aliud edere aut bibere; vel (nuod magis placet): neque quidquam aliud facere. In quo frater tuus offendit, id est, per quod frater tuus scandalizatur. Posterius enim expositio prioris est. Quomodo autem scandalizetur, patet ex ante dictis. Caeterum infirmari dicitur in facto nostro frater jam infirmus, dum infirmitas fidei ejus latens in animo, occasione facti nostri foris ostenditur, vel etiam augetur: adeo ut periculum sit, ne fidem prorsus amittat, atque ex infirmo fide mortuus fiat.
14:22
22. Tu fidem habes? Rursus occupatio: quam alii interrogative legunt, alii sine interrogatione. Utrique tamen in eundum sensum. Dices mihi, inquit, te fidem habere, qua credas ac certo persuasum habeas, omnia esse munda, ac legem cessare pev Christum, proindeque licitum tibi esse vesci quibuslibot; atque eam fidem te velle profiteri libero ciborum usu. Sequitur responsio:
Penes temetipsum habe coram Deo. Id est: Sufficiat tibi, quod fidem rectam de cibis habeas apud teipsum in animo et coram Deo, qui videt in occulto; ut non eam prodas cum off^endiculo fratris. Non enim sentit Apostolus, licitum esse cuique, fidem corde premere, ore autem et factis contrarium ostendere, vel etiam dissimulare ac tacere, ubi confessio fidei exigitur: sed vult, ut non imprudenter, intempestive ac temere fidem nostram aut verbo profiteamur aut facto prodamus, ut apud eos, quibus illa fidei manifestatio, sive propter eorum infirmitatem, sive etiam propter malitiam, offensioni sit futura, sine compensatione boni cujuspiam melioris. Sicut enim in aliis plerisque rebus veritas non semper propalanda est, sed interdum prudenter reticenda, nunquam autem neganda: sic et in mysteriis fidei. Hinc et illi merito reprehenduntur, qui ad fidem prgfitendam ultro sese persecutoribus ingerunt. Quod ne fiat, plebem suam admonet Cyprianus in ea Epistola, quam postremam scripsit martyrio vicinus: Apprehensus, inquit, et traditus loqui debet: siquidem in nobis Dominus positis in illa hora loquatur; qui nos confiteri magis voluit quam profiteri. Profitetur enim, qui ultro et palam enuntiat; confitetur, qui loquitur interrogatus. Discrimen etiam Ciceroni agnitum in orat. pro Caecin. Porro mentem Pauli minus assecuti sunt, quiparticxalam penes temetipsum, sejunctam a verbo sequenti habe, conjungunt praecedenti habes.
Beatus qui non judicat semetipsum in eo quod probat. Transit ad instructionem fratris infirmi, qui exemplo, forte etiam gula provocatus edebat suillam aut quid aliud lege prohibitum contra conscientiam: sicque edendo peccabat. Beatus est, inquit, id est, benecum illo agitur, quia non peccat, qui seipsum non judicat, id est, quem propria conscientia non condemnat in eo quod agendum eligit. Nam verbo probandi hic significari videtur electio, seu mavis ultimum judicium practicum, quale circa suam actionem habet etiam ille, qui contra conscientiam agit. Ita sequenti capite: Probaverunt Macedonia et Achaia, collationem aliquam facere, id est, jam statuerunt, concluserunt, id agendum. Sententia Pauli, quemadmodum bene admonet S. Thomas, veritatem habet in rebus simpliciter licitis, quale est tempore gratiae, suillam aut leporinam edere: non in rebus divina aut humana lege vetitis. In his enim non excusatur a peccato, si quis seipsum non judicet. Aut certe formaliter accipiendum, quod beatus dicitur, qui semetipsum non judicat, id est, in quantum seipsum non judicat. Scio hanc partem multos interpretari velut directam ad fratrem firmiorem, cui dixerat: Tu fidem habes, etc. quorum expositiones (valde enim variant) apud Toletum videre est. Mihi certe coactiores videntur. Atqui nostra expositio, quam eandem tradunt Aquinas, Eickelius et Sasboldus, plena est et ad instruendum infirmum (qui Pauli scopus est) accom modatissima. Et huic intellectui bene tanquam alteram sententiae membrum respondet, quod sequitur:
14:23
23. Qui autem discernit, si manducaverit, damnatus est. Qui discernit, Graece, 6 ^iaxpivo/icvog. Erasmus et Hentenius, qui dijudicat, ut sensus Apostoli sit: Qui adhuc dijudicat inter cibos, ut vel lege vel natura alios reputet mundos, alios immundos, si cibum suo judicio immundum ederit, peccat, et poenae obnoxius fit. Ita fere Latini interpretes. Alii vertunt, qui haesitat, ambigit, secum disceptat. Quae versio nobis probatur. Nam verbum medium oiay.ptVcO^ai passim in scripturis Apostolici.'» haesitare ac disceptare significat, ut Matth. 21. et Marc. 11. Si habueritis fidem, et non haesitaveritis. Act. 10 et 11. Nihil dubitans, haesitans. Jac. 1. Postuletin fide, nihil haesitans. Qui enim haesitat, etc. Et hujus epistolae cap. 4. Non haesitavit diffidentia. Quo accedit et illud Apostoli Judae: Cum Michael Archangelus cum diabulo disputans, sive disceptans, altercaretur. Nunquam vero sumitur pro discernere aut dijudicare: sed ubi haec significatio occurrit, in Graeco verbum activum est Staxptvsiv, ut Matth. 16. Faciem coeli dijudicare nostis. Act. 15. Nihil discrevit inter nos et illos. 1 Cor. 4. Quis te discernit? et cap. 11. Non dijudicans corpus Domini, etiterum: Quod si nos?netipsos dijudicaremus, etc. et cap. 14. Caeteri dijudicent. Est igitur sensus secundum Graecos interpretes: Eum, qui adhuc ita infirmus est, ut non statuat sibi licitum esse cibum propositum, sed haesitet utrum edere sibi liceat an non, si comedat, damnatum esse. Favet item Syriaca versio: qui divisus est, id est, dubius, anceps. Ostendit autem hic locus, id quod tradunt Theologi, eum qui facit de quo dubitat an sit peccatum, peccare. Quod nec Tullius ignoravit, qui libro 1. Ofiic. dicit nihil agendum, quod dubites aequum sit an iniquum. Porro nomen damnationis in scripturis generale est, ac saepe extenditur ad poenam temporalem, interdum etiam ad poenam venialis peccati, ut Matth. 12. Ex verbis tuis condemnaberis, ubi de verbis otiosis sermo erat. Unde ex hoc loco non sequitur, omnem eum peccare mortaliter, et obnoxium fieri gehennae, qui manducat, aut quid aliud agit contra conscientiam. Si enim conscientiam habet peccati mortalis, peccat mortaliter; si venialis, venialiter. Hic generalis intellectus patet etiam ex probatione statim sequente, omne quod non est ex fide, peccatum est. Itaque damnationem intelligit, quae peccato respondet in genere: tametsi magis respicere videtur ad mortale. Nam supra dixit: Noli cibo tuo tUum perdere, pro quo Christus mortuus est, et 1 Cor. 8. Peribit in tua scientia frater, propter quem Christus mortuus est. Sequitur ratio sententiae:
Quia non ex fide. Subaudi manducat. Et sensue est: quia non edit cum ea animi persuasione, qua credat sibi licitum hoc esse. Nondum enim eo profecerat, ut vel legem ad se jam nihil pertinere crederet, vel omnes cibos pro mundis Guil. £stii Comm. Tom. I. haberet: ex quo illa animi fluctuatio procedebat de edendo aut non edendo cibos per legem immundos. Ita fidem hic accipi, facile colligitur ex superioribus, ut ex eo, quod paulo aute dixit: Tu fidem habes, et quod multo superius: Alius enim credit se manducare omnia. Quibus locis planum est, fidei nomine significari persuasionem et assensum animi determinatum in alteram partem, sive assensus ille sit certitudinis divinae, sive tantum humanae, sive utriusque simul. Unde et hanc fidem supra miscuit cum scientia, cum ait: Scio et confido quia nihil commune, etc.
Omne autem, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est. Hanc sententiam quidam generaliter interpretati sunt de fide, qua Christiani sumus, et a qua fideles vocamur: tanquam sensus sit, omneillud opus esse peccatum, quod non procedit ab ejusmodi fide. Ex quo deinde tanquam consequensessevolunt, omuiainfideliumopera esse peccata. Sic Origenes in comment. diserte ex his Apostoli verbis omnia infidelium opera peccati condemnans: licet ambigat nonnihil, au idem de haereticorum operibus dicendum sit. Pro eadem expositione et doctrina allegatur August. lib. 4. contra Julian. cap. 3., ubi ex professo de operibus infidelium agens, ex hoc Apostoli loco concludit, omnia, iu quantum ex fide non sunt, esse peccata. Ad eundem sensum alias quoque locum hunc adducit, ut lib. de gTatia Christi cap. 26., lib. 1. de adulterinis conjugiis cap. 18., epist. 105. ad Sixtum. et 143. ad Juliauam. Sic et Prosper lib. 3. de vita contempl. cap. 1. contra collat. cap. 22. et 28. et in epist. ad RuflSn., itemque Fulgentius lib. 2. de remiss. peccat. cap. 1. Nos, quod ad opera infidelium attinet, utrum omnia peccata sint, nec ne, et quo sensu pos.sit intelligi id dictum a patribus Augustino, Prospero et Fulgentio, discutiendum remittimus ad lib. 2. sent. dist. 41. etad comment. B. Pererii iu hunc locum, ubi per quinque disputationes eam controversiam tractat et absolvit. Certe praesenti loco sensus illorum, quos dixi, congniere non videtur. Neque enim agit Apostolus adversus infideles, qui fide Christiana carebant, sed de infirmis in fide loquitur; id est, de iis, qui nondum in fide satis instructi erant, ut crederent, discrimina ciborum lege Mosaica praescripta non jam esse observatu necessaria, nihilque in cibis per se esse immundum. Itaque fides hic accipitur, quomodo proxime et in superioribus ostendimus eam accipi; videlicet secundum materiam subjectam, ut sit persuasio, qua quis credit aut existimat aliquid sibi licitum. Hanc fidem de cibis legaliter immundis habebant firmi, non infirmi. Nam soli firmo dicitur: Tu fidem habes; quemadmodum et de fidelibus loquens idem Apostolus ait 1 Cor. 8. Noninomnibusestscientia. Sensus igitur est: Omne quod quis agit non persuasus id sibi licere, sed vel illicitum putans, vel dubitans utrum liceat; peccatum est. Ita fidem acceperunt in hac sententia Chrysostomus ac caeteri post eum omnes Graeci interpretes. Inter Latinos vero commentator Ambrosius et Hugo Victorinus, et, ut de aliis taceam, etiam patres concilii Lateranensi^ sub Innocentio III. can. 41. qui sichabet: Quoniam omne, quod non est exfide, peccatum est; synodali judicio definimus, ut nulla valeat absque bona fide praescriptio, tam canonica quam civilis, etc. Recte autem ejusmodi persuasio Graeco nomine TzhxKZ, id est, fides vocatur. Nam Tiioxic, dicitur aTto xou T^sit^saO^at persuasum esse. Et hanc fidem nihil prohibet esse in hominibus a fide Christi alienis. Unde liquet, ex hac sententia rite intellecta non esse consequens, omne quod agit infidelis, esse peccatum. Est autem Aposloli probatio syllogistica, continens argumentum a genere ad speciem: Quicumque agit non ex fide, peccat et damnatus est: qui manducat discernens seu dubitans, agit ncn ex fide: peccat igitur et damnatus est. Nonnulli volentes fidem Christianis propriam intelligi, interpretantur, non ex fide, id est, contra fidem, et probationem instituunt hoc pacto: Quidquid fit contra fidem seu fidei regulam, peccatum est: atqui sumptio cibi, quem putes immundum, fit contra fidei regulam dictantem, nihil agendum esse contra conscientiam; igitur ea peccatum est. Verum contorta est haec probatio. Deinde nec agebatur in praecedentibus de fide, qua creditur, nihil agendum contra conscientiam; sed de ea, qua creditur, in cibis nihil esse immundum et per hoc illicitum. Rursus alii, fidem Christianam subjectae materiae applicantes, hoc modo Paulum exponunt: Qui discernit, et tamen manducat, peccat: quia non id agit ex fide Christiana, qua edocti sumus inter alia, nullum cibum esse immundum. Quidquid autem non est ex fide, id est, quidquid fit in cibo sumendo sine tali fide, peccatum est; quia semper tunc cibus sumitur contra conscientiam. Sed haec expositio generalem Apostoli sententiam nimium restringit: ac praeterea verum non est, omnem cibi sumptionem, quae fit absque tali fide proprie dicta seu Christiana, peccatum esse. Suflicit enim moralis aestimatio liciti tam fidelibus quam infidelibus, ut in cibo sumendo sicut et in aliis actionibus contra conscientiam non peccent. Nec aliam persuasionem Apostolus hoc capite in eo, qui infirmus est, ut ad non peccandum (si manducet) necessariam, exigit. Alias expositiones hujus Apostolicae sententiae a diversis allatas praetereo: quas nosse qui volet, legat ultimam Pererii in hunc locum disputationem, ubi septem enumerat; quarum postremam, quae eadem est cum nostra, solam ut germanam verborum Apostoli interpretationem suo calculo probat. Haec satis de extrema pericope hujus capitis. Post quam in Graeco apud Chrysostomum caeterosque Graecos posteriores sequuntur et ab iisdem exponuntur haec verba: Ei autem qui potens est vos confirmare juxta Evangelium meum, et caetera (Cap. 16. v. 25 — 27.), quae in nostra vulgata editione et apud omnes Latinos interpretes, imo et apud Origenem, atque iu Graecis codicibus, qui apud nos in manibus versantur, nec non in textu Syriaco, habentur adjecta pro coronide ad finem epistolae, prout ibi videbimus. Idque rectius sane et opportunius, ut arbitror, quam ut hic collocentur. Nam initium sequentis capitis quaedam continuatio est argumenti superioris de suscipiendis infirmis. Unde verisimile non est, Apostolum hic in medio sermone verba illa doxologiae interposuisse, quae magis totam aliquam disputationem vel exhortationem claudere soleant. Quare et Erasmus censet, ea verba huc non pertinere. Scio R. Stephanum affirmare, quod ea repererit hoc loco in omnibus autigraphis Graecis, videlicet suis. Sed illa ab aliis aliarum regionum exemplaribus hac in parte dissidere, non est dubium. Certe etiam regia nostra, quae sunt de Complutensibus expressa, nobiscum faciunt. Denique nec ipse Robertus probat, ut illis verbis hic locus detur. Quaenam vero ea transponendi fuerit occasio, dicemus suo loco.
14:1
1. Zufirmum autem in. fide (-2v2& aoü:vzovza f, ioc (eum autem qui respectu fidei infirmatur) assumite , non in disceptationibus cogitationum (iuxta graecum : yz, £i; Xuxgícei; Suoyuwgov melius : non ad dirudicationes cogitationum vel opinionum). Particulam 2£ (autem) hic non esse adversativam, sed metabaticam , satis clarum videtur. Parum apte enim sententia nostra a CArys. etc. praecepto negativo immediate praecedenti, quo immoderata carnis cura vetatur, et & Thom. positivo praecepto opponitur, quo neophyti Christum induere iubentur; a generali potius caritatis praecepto (13,8-10) oratio ad speciale quoddam traducitur. Porro in locutione infirmus fide (320209 z1, zi575:) nomen fidei diversimode explicatur; aliis enim hic (simili modo ac 4,19) est virtus theologica, qua divinam revelationem assensu mentis amplectimur, ita ut infirmus fide dicatur aut ille, « qui in aliqua parte fidei dubitat neque. perfecte cvedit, sicut credendum est » (cfr Haym.i vel « qui nondum perfecte credit, quod fides Christi sine legalibus ritibus sufficiat ad salutem » (TÀom. cfr Herr. etc.), aut ille, qui fidem suam non tamquam unica agendi normam sequi audet, sed in suis actionibus interdum rationibus a fide alienis regitur. Alis autem fides est ipsa doctrina revelata. et infirmus fide ille, « qui de lege catholica minus sufficienter est instructus » (cfr Lyr.) vel « qui de beneficio Christi et de libertate per eum adepta nondum ita instructus et persuasus est, ut ea uti audeat » (Est. cfr Dion. Cai. Tol. [ust. Nat. M Ev. W'einh. ete). Accuratius tamen moderni plerique ad vr. 22. 23 attendentes , ubi fides sine ullo dubio dictamen conscientiae actionem quandam velut licitam permittens designat !, hic quoque fidem significare 1 Cfr Thom. àd. v. 23 ; « Potest hic fides dupliciter accipi, uno modo de fide quae esl dicunt persuasionem de rebus homini christiano licitis vel illicitis, atque re saltem nihil aliud esse quam conscientiam , quo nomine Paulus alibi de eodem idolothytorum argumento tractans utitur; nulla enim adest ratio, cur nomen fidei alio significatu hic, alio vv. 22. 33 usurpatum dicatur. Unde infirmus fide est ille, qui infirma conscientia (cfr 1 Cor. 8/1. 12 coveianot; &s0:vi; vel 250:v22oz) laborans de licitis illicitisque non recte sentit eaque, quae vetita non sunt, pro vetitis habet (cfr K/ee Reithm. Mai. Beel. Bisp. LR. Dr. etc.). Quamvis autem Apostolus fidei infirmitatem, de qua loquitur, hic nondum definierit, dubium tamen non est, quin in hoc iam praecepto scrupulosos illos neophytos intelligat, quorum agendi rationem statim expositurus est, qui scilicet ob erroneam conscientiam metuentes, ne idolothytis contaminarentur, a carnium vinique usu penitus se abstinebant et cum ludaeis sabbatha, neomenia etc. celebrare pergebant. Hos ergo a firmis vel potius validis, quorum persuasio de licitis et illicitis, utpote cum evangelica praedicatione consonans, sana erat et recla, assumi (xposkauóxv:s0x! vult, idque non ad agapas tantum celebrandas, uti moderni nonnulli interpretantur, neque proxime ad eos corrigendos vel erudiendos, uti antiquiores haud pauci interpretatisunt, sed in quotidianam consuetudinem ac familiaritatem. Quid enim verbo zpecAayaveca: significare voluerit, ex v. 3 et 15,7 elucet, ubi Deus et Christus neophytos assumsisse, i. e. in suam amicitiam recepisse secumque .coniunxisse dicuntur (cfr etiam Ps.26,10; 65,5 etc.) : itaque firmi infirmis amice familiariterque uti eosque velut genuinos fratres amare, honorare, tractare iubentur. Verum ne infirmi absterreantur, Apostolus addit : non «a d'iudicationes cogitationum ; Ya enim eos recipi vult, ut firmi de eorum cogitationibus neque iudicium sibi arrogent neque sententiam ferant, sed eos suas opiniones, licet erroneae sint, sequi patiantur. Egregie S. 1i. (expos. n. 78), qui in suo codice legit : in dziudicationibus cogitationum, membrum hoc explicat : « ne diiudicemus cogitationes eius, quasi ferre audeamus sententiam de alieno corde, quod non videmus ». Multi quidem cum V/g. graecum Zueíszu; latino d/sceptationes vel disputationes reddere malunt, acsi id unum vetetur, ne firmi cum infirmis de eorum opinionibus disputent; at Zug, licet apud profanos interdum disputationem significet, hoc sensu in Novo Test. non invenitur /cfr 1 Cor. 19,10; febr. 5,15; saepius non legitur), et in sequentibus de iniquis iudiciis quidem, quae utique contemtu externe manifestantur, at non de disputationibus agitur. Priusquam hoc praeceptum, quod ad solos firmos pertinet, diligentius explicet, Paulus quaestiones, de quibus Romani inter se dissentiebant, explanandas duxit, ut hac occasione etiam infirmos a fratribus suis diiudicandis et condemnandis averteret. A ciborum autem distinctione exorditur (2-5), quae praecipua ut videtur dissensionis causa fuit, ut deinde (v. 5) dierum discretionem obiter tantum commemoret.
14:2
29. Alius enim credit. se manducare omnia (cum S. Aug. c. Adim. 15,2 et S. Hier. c. lovin. II. 1& lege : alius quidem credit manducare omnia 2; piv xiazsost gxyety xiva); qiü autem infirmus est, olus manducet (cum Tert. de ieiun. 15., cum S. Hier. c. lovin. Il. 15 ctc. lege : manducat icis). Obscurior neque satis accurata est versio, quam Vulg. Clem. exhibet. Atque primum quidem particulam causalem (eni) immerito inseruit, quia nostra sententia neque probandae vel confirmandae neque explicandae praecedenti inservit. Deinde pro simplici infinitivo (credit manducare zwiéve ga yet») haud recte atque etiam contra fidem meliorum codicum (Fuld. Amiat. etc.) habet accusativum cum iutin. (credit se manducare). Etenim verbum z:z::2: (i. q. zzv £7: fidem habere) hic, eodem modo ac nomen «zz: in praecedente praecepto, de practica persuasione conscientiae usurpatur. Infinitivus zx;::v autem, uti saepius infinitivus post verba dicendi vel credendi icfr. /jeele) Gramm. p. 324; Winer Gramm. p. 302: Buttmam Gramm. p. 235). non id exprimit, quod est vel fit, sed id quod facere licet; unde antiquiores verbum ££stva: (licere) per ellipsin omissum esse putarunt. Hinc prioris membri sensus est : Alius (ille nimirum cuius conscientia sana est ct valida) persuasum habet sibi licere omnia ;i. e. quaevis: manducare, vel etiam : fiduciam habet quaevis manducandi, vel iuxta Tert. il. c.; interpretationem : « credit omnia manducanda esse ». Demum Vulg. Clem. in altero membro pravam lectionem graecam secuta (efr VV. LL.. coniunctivum manducet (isfhi-o) pro indicativo manducat (220: erronee posuit. Neque enim in hac sententia praecipitur, quid faciendum sit, sed enarratur id, quod in ecclesia romana tunc fiebat; sicut in priore membro firmorum , ita in altero infirmorum ratio vivendi describitur, qui ob infirmam videlicet suam conscientiam metuentes, ne idolothytis contaminarentur, iis solis vescebantur, quae idolis offerri non solebant; i.e. oleribus. Ex ipsa oppositione inter qiaecis iietd'ucare el olera manducare elucet, infirmos Romanos ab omnibus semper carnibus sese abstinuisse. Quaestionis statui exposito Apostolus praeceptum subiungit :
14:3
3. is qui manducat (5 isüiov), non manducantem (zz v3, &c0izv-z) non spernaL eL qui non manducat, manducantem non ndicet ; Deus enim illum assumsit (xposesafszz). Nomine 225 £c0iovez; firmum , cui promiscue quaevis manducare sibi licere persuasum est, et nomine -z9 y, i20iovzzg infirmum, qui ab omnibus carnibus sibi abstinendum esse putat, hic designari contextus docet. Bene autem Paulus prohibet, ne prior alterum spernat (i2o90zvstv i. q.. nihili facere) neve alter priorem iudicet et condemnet (zoivzv cfr ad 2,1). Facile quippe fieri potuit, ut firmus infirmum pro homine scrupuloso et superstitioso haberet, ad cuius opiniones utpote erroneas, quin etiam stultas ac ridiculas, attendere operae pretium non esset; quanta vero cum cura firmi ad eas attendere debeant, gravissima verba ostendunt, quibus Apostolus eos mox (v. 15 sqq. ; cfr 1 Cor. 8,9 sqq.) allocuturus est. Similiter scrupulosi proniores esse solent ad iniquam et sinistram censuram agendam de omnibus, quae suae ipsorum cogitandi agendique rationi non consonant. Iure igitur infirmus firmum zudicare, i. e. tamquam hominem levem et impium, qui divinas leges non servet, vel etiam tamquam hominem gulae deditum condemnare vetatur. Quia autem Apostolus in hac tantum sectione infirmos instruit, secundo membro rationem addit, quae eos a fratribus suis diiudicandis et condemnandis retinere debeat. Id enim considerent oportet, quod Deus illum (sc. firmum) assumserit, i. e. in suam amicitiam, immo velut servum domesticum quodammodo in suam familiam receperit, vel iuxta C/ys. interpretationem « ineffabili gratia exornaverit et ab omni crimine absolverit ». Sunt quidem, qui pronomen 25:2» (//lum) ad utrumque, ad manducantem simul et ad non manducantem, referri censeant, ut utrique praecepti membro confirmatio addatur (cfr Mai. etc.), aut qui totam sententiolam Deus illum assumsit) per hyperbaton ad prius membrum trahant (cfr Est. etc.), ut infirmus a Deo assumtus dicatur; sed neutrum apte fieri evidens est. Nam sequens quoque sententia, licet CArys. eam nescio cur de firmo intelligat, ad solum infirmum spectat, siquidem Apostolus, uti ex eius verbis clare apparet, eum solum alloquitur, quem fratres suos rudicare vetuerat :
14:4
&. £u quis es, qui uudicas alienum servitim (5 «gius Xrtitzgazs i25»)? Domino suo (melius et fortius : proprio domino seu hero zà 3i wagipl stat. aut cadit; stabit autem, potens est euim Deus (5$ Ozzs, vel Dominus i. e. Christus 3 K3gi; cfe VV. LL.) statieve eium (szzzx x2:£» |. e. efficere ut stet, seu eum stabilire). Magna cum vi, quam compellationis forma (25 -i; st; cfr ad 9,20) non parum auget, arrogantiam infirmi de fratre suo iudicantis castigat. Legitimus servorum iudex non est nisi eorum herus, idque quam maxime valet de servis illis, qui ad domestica servitia electi eandem cum hero domum incolunt et quasi membra familiae eius habentur. Ad aggravandum igitur argumentum suum Paulus nomen ziz£-v; (servus domesticus cfr Act. 10,7; Luc. 10,13; 1 Petr. 2,10), quo alibi numquam usus est, hoc in loco praetulisse recte dicitur. Atqui proprius Christianorum herus est Christus Dominus (cfr v. 6 sqq.); in illius ergo iura invadit summaeque insolentiae reum se facit, quicumque fratrem suum, servum alienum , iudicare audet, Quod ut clarius appareat, Apostolus similitudinem pluribus exsequens monet, omnia quae servus agit ad herum proxime pertinere in eiusque utilitatem aut damnum cedere, ad eum ergo etiam approbationem vel reprobationem actionum servi sui spectare. Itaque soli Domino, et non homini, cognitio et iudicium competit, utrum aliquis e Christianorum numero s/^/, i. e. in christiana fide et pietate perseveret (cfr ad 1 Cor. 10,13; 2. Thess. 2,18; 1 Thess. 3,8 etc.), an cadat, i. e. peccando ex pristinosuo pietatis statu delabatur; nam « sive stat sive cadit, utrumque ad Dominum spectat, cuius est damnum, servo cadente, et lucrum, servo stante et perseverante! » (CArys. cfr Theod. Theoph. Euth. etc., Herv. Thom. Cai. Tol. Iust. etc., Mai. Beel. L R. Weinh. etc.). Minus apte alii verba stare et cadere sensu forensi sumunt, ut stare dicatur, qui in iudicio absolutus causa vincit, cadere autem, qui condemnatus causam perdit : « Hoc est domino suo stare aut cadere, a domino absolvendum esse aut condemnandum » (Est. efr Thom?. Lap. Nat. Picon. Bisp. M Ev. Ag. etc.). Licet enim proximum membrum (s'abit vel stabilietur autem czaficszax 6£), quo Paulus disiunctionem suam quasi corrigens omne dubium de firmi quaevis manducantis bono statu removet (i. q. divina gratia adiuvabitur, ut in pietate perseveret), haud inepte etiam de absolutione in iudicio intelligi possit, nullo tamen modo haec interpretatio ad alterum membrum (potens est enim Deus statuere illit) quadrat. Neque enim pro sua potentia, sed pro sua misericordia ac iustitia Deus in iudicio absolvit aut condemnat, pro sua benignitate autem et potentia nobis gratias concedit, quibus confirmati perseverare possumus (cfr 2 Cor. 9,8; Eph, 3,20; 1 Cor. 1,8; PÀil. 1,6; 2.13 etc.?. Complementi gratia addere hic liccat, quae S. Aug. et 8. Thom. ex hoc loco de iudicio temerario colligunt. « Quod autem, inquit SN. 4ug. (expos. n. 79), dicit : tu quis et qui iudices alienum servum ? ad hoc dicit, ut in rcbus, quae possunt et bono animo fieri et malo, iudicium Dco demittamus, ncque audeamus de alterius corde quod non videmus ferre sententiam. In his vcro rebus, quae ita comprehenduntur, ut eas bono et casto animo non posse ficri manifestum sit, non improbatur si iudicemus. Itaque hoc quod de cibis dicitur, quia ignoratur quo animo fiat, non vult nos esse iudices sed Deum; de illo autem nefario stupro. ubi uxorem patris sui quidam habucrat, praecepit debere iudicari (I Cor. 5.1); non enim poterat ille dicere, bono animo se tam immane flagitium commisisse. Ergo quaecumque facta ita manilestantur, ut non possit dici : Bono animo feci, iudicanda sunt a nobis; quaecumque autem ita fiunt, ut quo animo fiant incertum sit, non sunt iudicanda sed reservanda iudicio Dei ». Plenius et accuratius Thom. : « Ex hoc loco sequi vi-etur, hominis iudicium de alio homine esse illicitum; sed dicendum est, quod in tantum hominis iudicium licitum sit, in quantum agitur auctoritate divinitus concessa tcfr Peut. 1,16 sq.); si quis vero velit sibi usurpare iudicium super ea. quae non sunt ci divinitus concessa ad iudicandum, est iudicium temerarium, sicut sí quis iudex delegatus a Papa vellet transgredi mandati fines. Deus autem soli sibi reservavit iudicace occulta, quac praecipue sunt cogitationes cordium et futura. Et ideo si quis de his iudicare praesumserit, est iudicium temerarium. Unde Augustinus (de serm. Domini in monte 18,59-61) dicit : In his duobus est temerarium iudicium, quum videlicet incertum est, quo animo aliquid factum sit, vel incertum, qualis futurus sit. qu: nune vel bonus vel malus apparet ». Cir ad 1 Cor. 4,5. Sequitur altera dissensionis causa, quae obiter tantum attingitur, aut quia minus videbatur periculosa aut quia iuxta superiora facile diiudicari poterat :
14:5
5. (nam) «lius iudtcat. «zivzc diem inter diem (cum S. Hier. c. lovin. Il. 16 melius : ein plis quem . diei, vel etiam : diem prae die tuípxw zxp d$aigx), lits autein iudicat («zia omnem diem : unusquisque in suo sensit (3 c 330 vzi) abundet (melius : certus sib zhnozg22:20e). Coniunclionem causalem «nam zz: hic non esse genuinam, testium criticorum, maxime antiquarum versionum, fide abunde constat (cfr VV. LL.). Revera quid in principio huius sententiae sibi velit, nemo facile dixerit, quoniam in superioribus nihil reperitur, cui confirmando vel illustrando seu explicando inservire possit. Asyndete potius haec quaestio sicuti prior '». 2) afferlur, ne quis eam cum priore arcte coniunzat, acsi altera. esset eius forma. Minus clara porro minusque accurata est nostra. versio, quia non tantum in duobus prioribus membris zraccum ziv: eodem modo ac vv. 3. 4 latino iudicare reddit, quamvis hic latino aestimare vel probare magis respondeat, sed cliam in primo membro comparativam vim praepositionis z22z plane neglexit (cfr 19,3 za2' 8 2: sujira id quod oportet vel magts quam oportet; Lic. 13, 2 xuxgzozi zxpX zivta; peccatores prae omnibus; Hebr. 1,9 £,ziiv c:... xxpX 9625 pit2,co5 unxit te... prae participibus tuis etc.). Duas enim iterum classes distinguens (ig pív... i; 8£ alius quidem... alius autem) Paulus significat, alios ex fidelibus romanis (scilicet tide infirmos) dierum discrimen facere, quuin unum diem prae altero (seu unum magis quam alterum) probent, i. e. digniorem vel sanctiorem habeant, alios vero (scilicet fide firmos) omnem seu quemvis diem probare eiusdemque dignitatis vel sanctitatis ac reliquos aestimare. Utram ex his duabus opinionibus ipse praeferat. nec dicit nec insinuat; sed quia de re agitur, quae per se indifferens est et de qua nihil eousque ab Ecclesia statutum erat, utrosque, et qui discernunt et qui non discernunt dies, in sua propria sentiendi ratione (i& proprio suo sensu i» xà 2e vel) vult esse certos (z*x2222gsisfixt proprie pleniun fieri dicitur hic de eo, qui de re quadam plenam seu certam habet scientiam cfr 4,91; Col. 4,12), ne cum conscientia practice dubia agentes periculo peccandi sese obiiciant (cfr ad v. 23:. Sicut antea diximus, cum iunioribus modernisque fere omnibus tenemus, Paulum hic ad Iudaeochiristianos maxime respicere, qui sabbatha ac neomenia et si qui alii eiusmodi fuerunt dies, quos a pueris sanctius celebrare assueverant, etiam post conversionem suam observare pergebant. Multo minus placet, quod antiquiores plerique coniecerunt, eum de diebus ieiunii vel potius abstinentiae loqui; arbitrantur enim, Romae nonnullos certis tantum diebus, alios autem omnibus diebus ab aliquibus cibis (sive idolothytis sive in Lege vetitis) sese abstinuisse ! efr Chrys. PZ'heod. etc., Att Haym. Herv. Thom. eic.). Satis clare enim Apostolus duas quaestiones ita distinguit, ut eas in unam contrahere non liceat, ac mirum profecto esset, si quis Iudaeochristianus carnes porcinas, quas Lex absolute vetabat, aut idolothyta, quae decretum apostolicum absolute. prohibuerat. certis tantum diebus sibi interdici putasset. S. Aug. (expos. n. 80, latina sua versione (alius quidem iudicat alternos dies) in errorem est inductus. Namque verbum iudicandi eodem sensu ac vv. J.Á. sumens non de duabus hominum classibus sed de hominibus et de Deo agi sibi persuasit. Unde haec est eius interpretatio : « Qui enim alternos dies iudicat, homo est: potest enim hodie aliud, cras aliud iudicare, i. e. ut quemcumque hodie malum convictum confessumque damnaverit, cras bonum inveniat, quum se erexerit; contra quum aliquem iustum hodie laudaveril , cras inveniat depravatuni. Qui «item iudicat omnem diem, Deus est, quia non solum qualis quisque sit, sed ctiam qualis omni die futurus sit novit ». Quam interpretationem neque verbis neque contextui Apostoli ullo modo consonare, probatione non indiget. Alterius quoque controversiae statu indicato S. Apostolus ad superius suum praeceptum, ne fideles ob diversa quae sequantur vitae instituta inter se contemnant aut condemnent (vv. 3. &), revertitur, ut illud argumentis corroboret et inculcet. Primum igitur utrosque, et firmos et infirmos, si inique de fratribus suis iudicent, iniuste agere declarat, quia utrique suam vivendi rationem cum illa intentione teneant, quae sola Christianos decet (6-9). Quae vero utrorumque intentio sit, ostendit pergens :
14:6
6. qui sapit diem (& epovàv ctv fu£gav), Domino sapit (egovsi), et qui manducat, Domino manducat, gratias entm agit Deo; et qui non manducat , Domino non manducat et gratias agit Deo. Graecum opzvziv zv (Vulg. : aliquid sapere) idem valet quod « rei alicuius studio teneri » (cfr ad 8,5; PAi/. 3,19; Col. 3,2 etc.) atque hic verbo «zgazvps!v (religiose observare seu celebrare cfr Ga/. 4,10) respondere recte dicitur. Iuxta Apostolum ergo infirmus, qui diem prae die probat (vr. 5), 2//um diem quem praeferendum arbitratur (:5» $uépav) velut sanctum observat Domino, i. e. propter Christum Dominum, ut ei placeat fidelemque se exhibeat eius servum. Per se quidem satis apte graecus /ezxtus rec. alterum membrum addit : xa: 6 93, sgovov ti,» fju£pxv Kopie o3 opovet (et qui non observat statum diem. propter Dominum eum non observat); ob criticorum tamen testium auctoritatem (cfr VV. LL.) rectius omittitur. Nam scioli librarii probabiliter est interpolatio, qui priorem versus partem posteriori exaequare voluit, at alteram de dierum discretione controversiam ab Apostolo negligi non animadvertit. Itaque uno illo membro contentus Paulus ad praecipuam dissensionum causam revertitur, ut in hac maxime doceat , firmos infirmosque, quamvis diversum sequantur vitae genus, eadem bona intentione regi. qua se genuinos esse Christi servos probent. Namque eum qu? quaevis manducat (& is0:ov), 1. e. firmum qui libertate per Christum acquisita utitur, ita agere dicit propter Christum, idque ex eo demonstrat , quod manducaturus de cibis sibi concessis Deo gretias agat. Christi nempe exemplum sequentes fideles cibum potumque antequam manducarent. cum gratiarum actione benedicere solebant (cfr Matth. 15, 36; 26,26; Marc. 8,1 etc.; Act. 91,35; 1 Tim. &,5 etc.); atqui fieri non posse iuremerito censet, ut firmus de carnibus Patri gratias referat, nisi persuasum ei sit, se earum manducatione voluntatem Christi non transgredi sed adimplere. Similiter eum q«i non quaevis manducat (5 ys, £sfiov).. i. e. infirmum, qui a carnibus sibi abstinendum esse putat, solis oleribus vesci dicit propter Christum eumque, dum a carnibus abstinet, de cibis sibi datis gratias agere Deo, quia persuasum habeat, se per suam abstinentiam Christo obedire et placere. Utraque igitur precatio, qua de sua quisque coena Deo gratias agit, utrumque sicuti pium erga Deum ita obedientem erga Christum esse demonstrat, ita ut neutrum aut condemnare aut spernere liceat. Antiquioresiunioresque vix non omnes nomine Domini hic Deum intelligunt, moderni autem plerique Christum; utraque explicatio per se apta est atque utramque sine ullo argumentationis detrimento tenere licet. Modernorum tamen explicationem praeferendam ducimus, quia ex v. 9 satis ni fallor elucet, Apostolum in tota hac pericope de Christi dominio loqui. Omnes neoph ytos romanos, sive carnibus vescantur sive ab eis se abstineant, ea esse pietate, ut non nisi propter Christum suam vivendi rationem elegerint ac sequantur, Paulus in sua argumentatione pro certo supponit. Haud temere autem se illud supponere, ex eo iam confirmat, quod nemo esse possit Christianus, nisi vitam suam ac mortem ad Christum referat, cuius dominio sit plane subiectus :
14:7
7. nemo enti nostrum sibi vivit, el nemo sibi moritur;
14:8
8. sive enim vivimus, Domino vivimus, sive morimur, Domino morimur; sive ergo vivimus, sive morimur, Domini sumus. In oppositione ad hominem naturalem, qui a primo usque ad ultimum vitae momentum suam ipsius solam voluntatem sequitur, omnia ad semetipsum refert, in omnibus quae agit aut quae ei accidunt non nisi suam ipsius utilitatem, delectationem, gloriam quaerit, cum emphasi nemo ex numero Christianorum (nemo nostrum cj3siz dy óv) sibi vivere et sibi mori dicitur. Revera omnis vere Christianus, utpote fide edoctus, se non esse sui iuris sed servum Christi a quo emptus est pretio soluto :1 Cor. 6,90), totam vitam non ad suam ipsius utilitatem ac gloriam, acsi sibi ipse sit finis, verum ad Christi, cuius servus est, gloriam et utilitatem dirigit, atque in omnibus actionibus solam voluntatem Domini sui Christi sequi studet. Neque quisquam Christianus sibi moritur. i. e. mortem eaque quae mortem sequuntur ad suum ipsius usum et obsequium refert, ac si sui ipsius sit dominus, verum mortem quoque ad Dominum refert, uteum et in morte ipsa et post mortem glorificet. Itaque Christianus vi ut ita dicamus naturae suae uti in vita ita in morte non suus est, sed Christi Domini, ul ei serviat eiusque gloriam et utilitatem promoveat. Quam conclusionem Paulus morte ac resurrectione Christi comprobat:
14:9
9. in hoc (sig xd9x2 i. q. in. hunc finem) enim Christus mortuus est et resurrerit (vícoze vel : revirit àv£znssv , vel vixit i. e. vitam vecepit [uti Apoc. 90,8. 5] £znocv cfr VV. LL.), ut et mortuorum et vivorum dominetur, ut nos ergo, sive vivamus sive moriamur, illius simus neque iam nobis ipsis sed illi vivamus ac moriamur. Similiter Corinthiis scripsit : « Pro omnibus mortuus est Christus, ul qui vivunt iam non sibi vivant, sed ei qui pro ipsis mortuus est et resurrexit » (2 Cor. 5.15). Mortesua supremum dominium sibi acquisivit (cfr PAi/. 2,8 sqq. etc.) illoque potitus est (vel si mavis, illud exercere coepit cfr 70/.), quando post gloriosam resurrectionem sibi omnem potestatem in coelo et in terra datam esse discipulis annuntiavit. Recte autem hac sententia declarari dicitur (cfr To/. Est. Nat. etc.), Christum, quamvis sit Dominus omnium hominum, peculiari ratione esse Dominum bonorum ac fidelium. « Hos enim non solum sibi subiecit (quod et malis ac reprobis ipsisque daemonibus commune est) verum etiam redimendo sibi servos, i. e. servientes et obedientes, fecit; neque solum pro tempore vitae praesentis, cuius finesexcedere non possunt servitutes humanae, sed etiam et quidem multo perfectius pro saeculo futuro et nunquam terminando, de quo scriptum est (Apoc. 22,& sqq.) : et servi eius servient illi, utique beata servitute, nam sequitur : et regnabunt in saecula saeculorum » (Est.). Aliquid miri in eo a nonnullis invenitur, quod quasi ordine inverso (cfr 2 Tim. 5,1; Act. 10,52; 1 Petr. 5,5) mortuorum et vivorum Christus dominari dicatur; verum hic ordo electus videtur, ut verbis praecedentibus mortuus est et resurrexit (vel revizit) accuratius responderet. Morte sua Christus mortem devicit eiusque regnum destruxit, ut ipse deinceps sit mortuorum Dominus, et resurrectione sua vitam reparavit, ut viventium dominetur. Altero iam argumento Apostolus superius suum praeceptum (v. 3) ita corroborat, ut fideles simul ad severam rationem attentos faciat, quam de suis quisque actionibus aliquando sint reddituri (10-12). Namque nefas esse monet, homines inter se pares et insuper fraternae caritatis vinculo coniunctos alterum de altero iudicare, quia omnes Deum habituri sint iudicem :
14:10
10. (&« autem. quid iudicas fratrem tuum? aut tu (vel iuxta graecum : ij xà: có. melius : aut tu quoque) quare spernis fratrem tuum? Omnes enim stabimus ante tribunal Christi (*& f$áuaz 129 Xpwroo, melius : ante tribunal Dei zà paz :c9. cos cfr VV. LL.). Apostolus ad v. 3 respicit; sua ergo compellatione et infirmum graviter reprehendit, qui fraternae caritatis immemor fratrem, qui libertate christiana utitur, velut hominem levem et impium divinae legis transgressorem iudicare et condemnare audet, et firmun, qui ipse quoque (7; xai c3), quamvis utpote perfectior a fratribus iudicandis longius abesse debeat, infirmum fratrem superstitionis reum esse iudicat ideoque spernit. Ratio autem duplicis reprehensionis eadem fere est, quae supra (c. ^i iam est indicata : sicuti enim solus infirmus vituperatur, quod de Christi servo iudicans sibi Christi auctoritatem arrogaverit, ita nostro in loco infirmus et firmus vituperantur, quod alter alterum iudicantes ius Dei iudicis violent, cuius iudiciariae potestati omnes sine ConNELY ulla exceptione sunt subiecti et ante cuius tribunal omnes aliquando sese sistent. Multi quidem cum graeco /eztu rec. et Vulg. Clem. hic quoque de Christo iudice agi volunt, idque eo magis, quia etiam alibi Paulus dicat : « Omnes nos manifestari oportet ante tribunal Christi, ut referat unusquisque propria corporis, quae gessit » (2 Cor. 5,10; cfr 1 Cor. 4,5). Verum haud recte; nam quamvis per se parum intersit, utrum legatur ante tribunal Dei an ante tribunal Christi (idem enim est Dei et Christi tribunal, siquidem Pater iudicaturus est mundum per Filium, cui omne iudicium commisit et potestatem dedit iudicium facere, quia Filius hominis est cfr Joan. 5, 22. 27), priorem tamen lectionem velut genuinam retinendam esse una cum testium criticorum auctoritate etiam contextus docet. Etenim ut omnes omnino homines ante illud tribunal comparituros esse demonstret, Apostolus verba Is. 45,23 allegat, quibusomnes (non Christum sed) Deum tamquam iudicem agnituros esse asseritur :
14:11
11. scriptum est enim : Vivo ego, dicit Dominus quoniam (8, hic melius : quod) mili flectetur omne genu et omnis lingua confitebitur. Deo. Alexandrinam versionem, quae toto suo sensu in hoc vaticinio a primigenio textu non dissentit, pro more secutus testimonium ex memoria potius quam ex codice satis libere affert, aliis omissis, quae ad suam rem non erant necessaria, aliis maioris claritatis gratia mutatis. Alexandrina haec habet : xzz' ipzoce9 ipvóo (si wv iIsAr)ottat Ex T0D ctbpacig wo9 Buxaiscüvm, sb AÍY0A pco T)* Azostpaghcoviat), $zt Epot xgejet mv Yívo xxi Bgiizxt ioa 000a T2» Ov, « per me iuro (profecto egredietur de ore meo iustitia, verba mea non revertentur), quod mihi flectetur omne genu et turabit omnis lingua per Deum »,seu « et omnis lingua iurando invocabit testem Deum ». Apostolus igitur praeprimis pro Dei verbis apud prophetam : per me (uro formulam vivo ego posuit, qua Deus quasi ad hominum per eius vitam iurantium (« vivit Dominus » cfr 1 Reg. 185,39. &5; 19,6 etc.) exemplum aliquoties usus esse legitur (cfr Num. 15,21. 28; /s. 49,18 etc.). Bene autem de hac iurandi formula ZAom. : « Iuramentum interdum in verbis Dei ponitur ad ostendendum, id quod dicitur immutabilitate divini consilii firmum esse, non autem mutabile, sicuti ca quae praenuntiantur secundum causas inferiores, uti vaticinia comminationis; unde dicitur : Iuravit Dominus et non poenitebit eum (Ps. 109,4). Homines autem per maiorem sui iurant ; quia vero Deus non habet maiorem, in quo maior consistat firmifas veritalis, per semet ipsum iurat. (Hebr. 6,13. 16); ipse autem est ipsa vita et fons vitae (//eut. 30,20; Ps. 35,10); et ideo forma iuramenti Dei est : Vivo ego, quasi diceret : iuro per vitam, qua ego singulariter vivo ». Totam deinde sententiam, quam uncis inclusimus et qua Deus id, quod iuramento suo hic confirmat, utpote iustum et irrevocabile certissime eventurum esse asseverat, Paulus brevitati studens praetermisit. Formulam vero dicit Dominus ex suis inseruit, ut Dei verba a propheta referri indicaret. Gravior demum ultimi membri mutatio videtur, quum pro verbis xai àpsitat zà5x /A0392 529 Oz, (e! iurabit omnis lingua per Deum) positum sit : «xi izzgoAorioitxs nà0a 1^66ca 1i) 8«à (et confitebitur omnis lingua Deo). Attamen « rurarc est actus cultus divini (cfr Js. 19,18; 44,5), quia in iuramento per Deum facto Deus publice ac sollemniter agnoscitur tamquam numen omniscium, vindex mali, veritatis ac iustitiae amaus etc., atque apud prophetam haec una cultus divini species ponitur pro quovis Dei cultu » (cfr Knabenb. Comment. in Isaiam II. p. 190). Itaque Apostolus, quum pro dictione iurabit per Deum, qua indirecte tantum significatur, perfectum cultum Deo exhibitum iri, alteram (confitebitur Deo i. e. celcbrabit et laudabit Deum velut supremum suum dominum et iudicem) eligeret, qua idem directe declaratur, a genuino vaticinii sensu non recessit, sed eum clarius reddidit, ne testimonio explicationem addere cogeretur!. Ceterum ex prophetae loco apparet, verbum i2:52727::20. hic non usurpari fatendi significatione, ac si Paulus dicere velit : « omnis lingua confitebitur propria sua peccata Deo tamquam iudici suo » (Oecum. cfr Chrys. Theoph. Euth., Mai. Bisp. etc. — Hieck. Reiche etc.). Nam licet ifogoAoyets0at zàg ápaptia; vel «3; czxisu vel zk zapaztopaza Significet confiteri peccata vel «ctus vel delicta. 5cfe Matth. 3,6; Act. 19,18; Iac. 5,16), nusquam tamen nudum verbum (sine accusativo) hanc significationem admittit. Magna cum vi in allegato Isaiae loco cerlissime futurum esse asseritur, ut omne genu Deo flectatur et omnis lingua Deo confiteatur, i. c. ut omnes ac singuli cuiusvis gentis homines aliquando, sive voluntarii sive coacti, Deo tamquam supremo suo Domino plene sese subiiciant (genuflexio enim per metonymiam signi et signati subiectionem denotat) Deumque tamquam supremum suum Dominum agnoscant et profiteantur. Atqui supremus omnium Dominus eo ipso etiam supremus omnium iudex est, cuius est ab omnibus rationem reposcere cunctorum donorum, quae singuli per totam suam vitam ab eo acceperunt. Dei autem iuri rationis reposcendae respondet hominis offi- 1. Addamus opportet, eandem lectionem éfopo)oyrottat ab alexandrinae quoque. versionis codicibus nonnullis bonis (A etc.) exhiberi, ita ut plane improbabile non sit, Paulutn eam iam in suo codice habuisse. Plerique quidem alexandrinos illos codices ex nostro loco eam transumsisse arbitrantur; notatu tamen dignum est, Apostolum eliam alibi PA. 7,10, 31), ubi isaiana verba nostra non allegat quidem, sed suo argumento libere accotinmiodt verbum éouoloyeto0z:, alia utique significatione, adhibere. Forsitan. alexandrinus interpres in suo codice hebraico pro yavn (iurabit) legerit nzgn (laudabit; cfr Frazsche. cium rationis reddendae, unde meritissimo ex verbis allatis Apostolus colligit :
14:12
19. itaque unusquisque nostrum pro se rationem reddet Deo. Cuius sententiae singula fere verba peculiare habent pondus. Dicens enim unusquisque nostrum, quod praecedenti omne (genu) et omnis (lingua) respondet, Apostolus neminem officio rationis reddendae sese subtrahere posse declarat. Nomine deinde Deo, cui ultimum sententiae locum attribuit, non minore cum vi significat, huic soli iudicium competere. Demum pro se quemque rationem redditurum esse asserens indirecte fideles exhortatur, ut ab alus iudicandis se abstineant, quorum vitae genus ac mores ad eos non spectent, sibique ipsis potius invigilent. Ad totam autem argumentationem suam respiciens particulam hanc terminat admonitione, ut omnes deinceps a temerariis iudiciis sibi caveant :
14:13
13. non ergo amplius invicem iudicemus. Qua in sententia praesertim attende ad particulam ysx£« (non amplius) , qua haud obscure indicari videtur, Romanos infirmos et firmos eousque mutuis iudiciis temerariis indulsisse. 2. — Firmi sibi caveant, ne tnfirmtoribus scandalo sint. (14,13*-23). 14,13. Non ergo amplius invicem iudi- 14,13. oj» iXXMiXoug xpiwouiw, discernit, si manducaverit, damnatus est: | $uxpwógrvoc dv gáyn xatxafxptrat, c quia non ez fde. Omne aulem quod nom | oüx ix risttoy; rüv à 0 oix ix mlottes, est ez fide, peccatum est. &papría loilv!. 13. Non ergo amplius invicem iudicemus (xgivoysv), sed hoc iudicate (xpivass) magis (lege : pottus u3XXov), ne ponatis offendiculum (xp5axou qa) fratri vel scandalum (3; exáv$aAcv). Eleganter Apostolus hac sententia a prima tractatus parte ad alteram transit; priore enim membro praeceptum hucusque explicatum , omnibus videlicet quum firmis tum infirmis abstinendum esse a mutuis iudiciis et condemnationibus, repetit atque altero ad solos iam firmos, qui praecipuam ecclesiae romanae partem constituebant, sese convertens praeceptum proponit, quod in sequentibus explanaturus est. Per antanaclasin autem (similiter ac lac. 2,4) utroque in membro verbo xzivew. (idicare) utitur, quippe quod ei in priore idem valeat ac sententiam (damnatoriam) in éudicio fe»re, in altero autem idem quod apud animum suum constituere seu sibi proponere (cfr 1 Cor. 2,3; 2 Cor. 2,6 etc.). Firmis igitur deliberatum sitoportet et constitutum sibi cavere, ne infirmis suis fratribus ullo modo fiant causa peccandi. Ig3oxouypa (offendiculum) et oxáv£xxzv (scandalum) in metaphorico suo usu synonyma quidem sunt et haud raro promiscue adhibentur (cfr 9,32. 33); utrumque enim id designat, in quo animus ita offendit, ut ad peccandum incitetur. Hic tamen Apostolus, nisi eum verbositatis incusare velimus, aliquid discriminis inter illa fecisse dicendus est ad proprias forte illorum significationes attendens. Nam «pósxogpa (& wpocxix1w) proprie est omne viae obstaculum, sive magnum sive parvum, cui quis impingit pedem ; cxavàa7sv vero (seu cxav3aAv0pov) proprie est mobile tigillum decipulae, quod si offenditur eam claudit (cfr ad 11,9). Atqui fieri potest, ut qui pedem offendiculo impingit, titubet quidem aut etiam retardetur, sed non cadat neque progredi plane impediatur. Qui vero ad cxáv2zXov offendit, in decipula certe capitur. Unde priore nomine, utpote generaliore, Apostolus leviorem, altero graviorem animi offensionem probabiliter voluit significare, quae duplici responderent periculo, quod firmorum liberior vivendi ratio infirmo crearet : eum enim incitavit, ut de illa severius et iniquius iudicaret, aut eum seduxit, ut illam cum conscientia dubia aut etiam contra conscientiam suam imitaretur. Revera de duobus his periculis Paulus in sequentibus agit; postquam enim sese de controversiae causa non aliter ac firmos sentire declaravit (v. 15), primum eos hortatur, ne fraternam caritatem violent liberiore sua vifa infirmosad convicia et maledicta provocantes (vv. 15. 16) ; neque enim usum illius libertatis tanti valere, ut propter eum vera regni divini bona, quibus Deo hominibusque probemur, destruantur (vv. 17. 18); illa igitur esse sectanda, quae mutuam pacem et aedificationem promoveant (v. 19). Deinde sibi cavere eos iubet, ne Dei opus destruant, infirmum ut contra conscientiam suam agat seducentes . (r. 20); etenim ab omnibus potius abstinendum esse quae fratribus ullo modo offensioni esse possint (v. 21). Neque vero ideo, quia eam semper sequi nequeant, abiiciendam esse firmam illam de libertate christiana persuasionem addit, siquidem sit magnum bonum, quum nunquam liceat cum dubia conscientia agere (vv. 99. 93). Simili modo, quo a Corinthiis de idolothytorum usu interrogatus, antequam eos ad pusillorum scandalum hac in re vitandum exhortaretur, genuinam de eorum usu per se licito sententiam praemisit (cfr 1 Cor. 8,1-6), Paulus etiam hic, ubi firmos Romanosa scandalizandis fratribus infirmis revocat, ante omnia apostolicum suum de quaestione controversa iudicium clare proponit, ut sese firmorum doctrinam approbare atque solam agendi rationem improbare statim declaret :
14:14
15. scio et confido (z£zsxsyax rectius : certus sum cfr 8,38; 15,18) in Domino Iesu, quia (i. e. quod ox) nihil commune (xzw$v) per 1psum (8 abxoo, melius cum S. Hier. c. lovin. Il. 16 : per se ipsum XV ixvzz5 vel &' aó:o0), nist (si wf) et qui existimat quid comnume esse , illi commune est. Nonnulli duo verba oa xat zézstyo (scio et certus sum) ita distinguunt, ut priore naturalem, altero, ad quod appositionem iv 1G Kuplo 'Insoo (?n Domino Iesu) trahunt, supranaturalem scientiam designari teneant : « indubitate scio, natura docente, et pro certo teneo, sic institutus et edoctus a Domino Iesu, vel sic institutus in religione Christi » (Es. cfr Thom. Dion. etc. — Lange, God. etc.). Quae distinctio solido caret fundamento, atque rectius longe plurimi ambo verba, quae ad perfectam scientiam et certitudinem designandam coniuncta sunt, cum illa appositione connectunt, qua certitudinis fons demonstratur. In sua quippe unione cum Domino Iesu, i. e. tamquam eius membrum et minister (cfr 9,1; 2 Cor. 9,17; 12,19 etc.), ac proinde per eius institutionem ac disciplinam cognovit et pro certissimo habet eam sententiam, quam propositurus est. Itaque non tam suam ipsius opinionem quam Christi doctrinam enuntiat : « Ne quis, inquit CArys., obiiciat : — Et quid ad nos, si tibi de hac re constat? Neque enim tu ita fide dignus es, ut contra tantam legem et contra oracula de coelo allata stare possis, — subiungit : 4 Domino Iesu, i. e. ab eo edoctus et certior factus sum ; non ergo humanae mentis opinio est ». Iamvero iudicium suum Apostolus duobus membris explicat, quorum priore axioma universale statuit, »/A// (scilicet eorum, de quibus hic agitur, i. e. eorum quae hominum victui inserviunt) conumune esse per se 1psum (i. e. ex natura sua aut virtute quadam insita ac propria), altero autem quasi exceptione quadam facta al/quid ei, qii illud commune esse existimal, revera conunune esse concedit. Qua in sententia adiectivum xowsv (commune), uti saepe in Novo Test., idem valet atque &xíüxpvov (impurum seu pollutum) atque illud significat, a quo omnis, ne coram Deo coinquinetur, sc abstineat oportet (cfr Act. 10,15. 28: 11,8). Quae vocabuli significatio, quum nondum in protocanonicorum librorum sed primum in 1 Mach. 1,50. 65 :&7. 62; versione alcxandrina inveniatur, iunioribus ludaeis originem suam debere dicenda est, a quibus omnia illa, quae ipsi iuxta Legem aut maiorum suorum traditiones velut vetita aut immunda vitabant, co»inunia dicebantur, quia in ethnicorum populorum communi usu essent. « Populus ludaeorum, inquit S. Hier. (Comment. in Matth. 15,11), partem Dei se esse iactans communes cibos vocat, quibus omnes (reliqui) utuntur homines, verbi gratia carnem suillam, ostreas, lepores...; commune ergo, quod ceteris hominibus (gentilibus) patet et quasi non est de parte Dei, pro immundo appellatur ». Pharisaeorum, uti videtur, maxime error fuit, ciborum in Lege vetitorum usum ideo esse prohibitum , quia cibi illi ipsa sua natura essent immundi hominemque iis utentem coram Deo immundum redderent virtute sua insita. Unde factum esse videtur, ut infirmi Christiani ido- Jothyta quoque, de quibus proxime ac potissimum controversiam hic agitari diximus (cfr p. 693), oblatione sua quasi intrinsecus mutari et ab idolis virtutem quandam, qua polluerent edentem, acquirere existimarent. Contra Pharisaeos Dominus iam monuerat « non illud, quod in os intrat, coinquinare hominem » (Matt. 15,11), cibos ergo per se ac natura sua neque immundos esse neque polluendi virtutem habere, licet eorum usus ratione inobedientiae, si qui scilicet a legitima auctoritate essent prohibiti, aut ratione intemperantiae vel appetitus male ordinati, una voce ratione conscientiae homines coinquinare posset (cfr Knabenbauer Comment. in Matth. Il. p. 27). Quibus edoctus S. Paulus non tantum « omnia munda esse mundis » (T4. 1,15) « omnemque creaturam Dei bonam neque quidquam reiiciendum (àz26Av:ov i. q. NC impurum) esse dicit, quod cum gratiarum actione percipiatur » (1 Tim. &,&), sed speciatim idolothyta (uti idola ipsa) nihil esse, i. e. per se nihil virtutis habere neque obesse cuiquam aut prodesse atque eis solis nocere qui contra conscientiam suam iis vescantur, Corinthios diserte docet! (cfr 1 Cor. 8,4-7 ; 10,19. 25-97). Sibi igitur plane constat, si hoc in loco una ex parte ullum cibum, ac proinde etiam idolothytum, natura sua impurum esse edentemque polluere negat, altera ex parte omnem cibum, quem aliquis pro impuro habet, illi revera impurum esse illumque, si eo utitur, coinquinare asserit, quoniam contra conscientiam suam (vel etiam cum conscientia practice dubia) eo utatur. Ceterum ad sententiae constructionem quod attinet, animadvertatur oportet, particulam «i y. hoc in: loco exceptivam quidem suam significationem (nisi) retinere, admittendam autem esse breviloquentiam quandam, qua nimirum duae sententiae quodam modo in unam sunt contractae : « nihil immundum est per se ipsum (neque enim quidquam immundum est), nisi ei, qui illud immundum esse existimat » (cfr ad Gal. 2,16). Dicere tamen etiam cum aliis poteris, particulam «i yj a Graecis interdum non ad integrum membrum praecedens (o33iv xow*v à £avtov) sed ad solam quasi negationem (o)3iv xowev) referri (cfr Math. 19,&; Luc. $,26. 971). In priore membro explicando lectionem ej3iv xowov 5€ dautoU vel $t abro (nihil commune per se ipsum) secuti sumus cum plerisque Graecis (cfr Orig. Chrys. Cyr Alez. Dam. Theoph. Sever. apud Oecum?. Euth.), haud paucis antiquioribus Latinis (cfr. S. Aug. de mor. Manich. II. 14,32, c. Adam. 14,2, S. Hier. c. lovin. IL. 46, Abael. Herv. Thom. etc.) multisque iunioribus ac modernis (cfr Cai!. Est.. Tust. Lap. Picon. etc., Reith. Mai. Beel. M Ev. Dr. Weinh. Ag. Sch. etc.). Alterius lectionis (o5ólv xowbv 5 aócov nihil commune per ipsum) duae propositae sunt interpretationes. Alii enim pronomen «vrov de Deo creatore intelligunt nihilque impurum esse censent, quia Deus omnia bona creaverit (cfr Sever. apud Oecum?. Haym. Lomb'. Lyr. Dion '. etc.); quae explicatio, quamvis sensu vix differat a nostra, admitti nequit, quia pronomen aó:o9 grammatice ad nomen 94& (v. 12) non potest referri. Alii autem per ipsum Christum nihil esse impurum interpretantur, quippe per quem Lex mosaica, quae ciborum distinctionem introduxerat , iam abrogata sit, ita ut Christiano omnibus sine pollutionis periculo vesci liceat (cfr Mopsu. Theod. Sever. apud Oecum !., Ater Pel. Prim. Lomb?. Thom? Cai'. Nat. LR. eic.). Attamen Paulus, ni fallor, si id significare voluisset, non tam negative « nihil est impurum per Christum », quam positive dixisset : « omnia iam pura sunt per Christum »; aut si negativam formam adhibere voluisset, clarius dixisset : oó3iv xowóv «i. dv ad: (nihil commune est ei, qui est in ipso). A vero demum prorsus aberrarunt pauci moderni (Bisp. — Olsh. etc.), qui ad 8,20 respicientes omnia primo Adami peccato polluta atque Christi passione in pristinum statum restituta esse sibi persuaserunt. Neque enim profecto illo in loco Apostolus docet, omnia primo peccato ita esse polluta, ut nemo eis uti possit, quin polluatur et immundus reddatur coram Deo; ac praeterea creaturae restitutio in integrum ibi non velut iam facta consideratur, sed velut futura exspectatur. Apostolus quum in altero iudicii sui (v. 1&) membro cibos quosdam infirmo ob conscientiam eius infirmam (1 Cor. 8,7) seu erroneam, qua illos pro immundis et illicitis habet, revera immundos et illicitos fieri doceat, simul iam insinuat, firmos in sua vivendi ratione ad hanc fratris infirmitatem attendere oportere, ne ei occasionem peccandi praebeant. Quae accuratius expositurus primum firmos sibi cavere iubet, ne cum caritatis detrimento vita sua liberiore infirmum ad eam iniquius diiudicandam et increpitandam provocent :
14:15
15. si enim (c ' Y&p vel melius, ni fallor : si autem «i 3€) propter cibum (&& popa propter escam aliquam cfr 1 Cor. 8,&. 8. 13 etc.) frater tuus constristatur, iam non (melius : non amplius oyx£x cfr v. 13) secundum caritatem ambulas ; noli cibo tuo (xà 2póuat azo) illum perdere, pro quo Christus mortuus est. Utra ex duabus particulis, num c! y&p an ci ££, praeferenda sit, in controversia est; priorem omnino praeferunt, qui cum modernis criticis (Lachm. Tisch. WH.) solam testium auctoritatem (cfr VV. LL.) considerant; alteram tamen aptior sententiarum nexus commendat. Nam qui causalem particulam (si 43?) retinere vult, is aut tolam doctrinae expositionem (v. 1&4) pro parenthesi obitet adiecta habere nostramque sententiam velut confirmationem immediate cum ultimo v. 13. membro conuectere cogitur (« hoc magis iudicate, ne offendiculum ponatis fratri; si enim propter cibum » etc.), aut monitum quoddam, cuius confirmationem nostra sententia afferat, ex altero v. 1&4. membro mente supplere debet (« abstine ergo ab illis, quae frater infirmus pro immundis habet; si enim propter cibum » etc.). At neutrum apte fieri plerique interpretes recte arbitrati particulam 3£ (autem), etiamsi minor sit testium. eam tuentium auctoritas, cum gravissimis Patribus graecis (cfr Orig. Chrys. Cyr Alex. Theod. Dam. etc.) praeferunt eamque transitioni (24 metabaticum) hic inservire tenent (cfr Tolet. Est. ust. Nat. Calm. etc., Rei. Mai. M Ev. Dr. LR. etc. — de W. Fr. God. Oltr. etc.). Sensus porro sententiae planus est : Apostolus firmos a cibis, quos ipsi quidem recte pro licitis, infirmi autem erronee pro illicitis habent, ob caritatem sese abstinere vult, quotiescumque se illorum usu fratri infirmo maestitiam illaturos et scandalum praebituros esse videant. Vera enim caritas non quaerit quae sua sunt, bono fratris ncglecto (cfr ad 1 Cor. 13,7), sed iure suo, ubi id fieri licet et fratri utile est, libenter cedit. Eo autem magis firmi ita agere tenentur, quo vilius est bonum, cui per abstinentiam renuntiant, nimirum esca, quae hominem Deo non commendat (cfr ad 1 Cor. 8,8), et quo maius est malum, quod non abstinentes fratri inferunt, quem velut se ipsos diligere debent. Nomine /ristitiae enim, in quam infirmus liberiore firmorum vita coniici dicitur, hic gravissimum designari malum, ex altero membro apparet, quo prius quodam modo explicatur. Animi quippe significatur aegritudo, qua infirmus inducitur et quasi compellitur, ut liberiorem firmorum vitam inique diiudicet atque maledictis conviciisque insectetur, quibus semetipsum aelernae perniciei periculo exponit. Revera ergo non amplius secundum caritatem ambulat, sed eam plane abiecit, qui rem vilem, escam suam, aeternae fratris saluti praefert, quam Christus tanti fecit, ut pro ea ipsam suam vitam cum sanguine suo fundere non recusaverit. Egzrcgie hoc argumentum, quo B. Paulus ctiam Corinthios, ut infirmorum conscientiae parcerent, permovere studuit (cfr ad 1 Cor. 8,11) Chrys. amplificat : « Numquid fratrem tanti non facis, ut pro eius salute saltem a cibis quibusdam te abstineas? Atqui Christus propter eum neque servus fieri neque mori gravatus est, et tu escae vili, ut eum salves, renuntiare gravaris! Christus, quamvis non omnes se salvaturum esse sciret, pro omnibus tamen mortuus est sua ex parte omnia implens; tu vero, quum te ciho tao summum damnum inferre scias, adhuc altercaris eumque, pro quo Christus tanta in se suscipienda duxit, contemnere audes eumque, quem Christus tantopere dilexit, nullo iu pretio habes ! Ille non pro infirmo tantum, sed etiam pro inimico mortuus est; tu vero propter infirmum ne a cibo quidem tibi temperas! Chri- Stus quod maximum erat fecit, quamvis essct Dominus; tu vero ne minimum quidem favis pro tuo fratre ! » À vero autem A'*^ aberrat, qui hoc argumentum ab Apostolo non contra firmos inlirmum ad temcraria iudicia provocantes, sed potius contra infirmum urgeri arbitratur, quippe qui inanibus suis scrupulis dubitationem, annon cibi illi vere prohibiti sint, etiam firmorum mentibus iniecerit ct effecerit, ut hi cum dubia conscientia illis vesceutes in peccatum ruerent. Aliis enim, quibus haec sententia erronea esse ostenditur. praetermissis illud unum cum Tol. adnotasse sufficit, Paulum, si hic infirmum allocutus esset, non dicturum fuisse : « noli cibo tuo », sed « noli abstinentia tua illum perdere, pro quo Christus mortuus est ». Haud pauci ad 1 Cor. 8,10 sq. respicientes monitum praecedens de illo iam scandalo interpretantur. quo infirmus exemplo firmorum seductus contra conscientiam suam idolothyta manducat. Attamen Apostolum dumtaxat de temerariis iudiciis et conviciis cogitasse, ad quae infirmus liberiore firmorum vita provocaretur, ex conclusione apparet, quam ex. monito suo derivat :
14:16
16. non ergo blasphemetur bonum nosIriin dou T9 xyaflz» vel : vestrum bonum yo» «3 37x02» cfr VV. LL.). Utra lectio pracferatur, nihil interest; utraque enim sufficiente testium auctoritate munitur et utraque apta est, dummodo pronomine zj.àv vel üpóv firmos designari teneatur, quos Apostolus in altero v. 13 membro secunda persona plur. allocutus est quibusque se ipsum statim (v. 19) prima persona plur. utens accenset. Mirum autem est, quod antiquiorum plurimi non intellexisse videantur, quidnam a Paulo hic bonum nostrum (vel vestrum) dicatur. luxta CArys. enim « aut fidem dicit aut futuram praemiorum spem aut perfectam pietatem », iuxta Orig. « spiritualem Legis intelligentiam », iuxta TAeod. (cfr etiam Phot. Theoph. etc., Abael. etc.) « perfectam fidem », iuxta A'r*" (cfr Sed. etc.) « doctrinam dominicam », iuxta Przm. (cfr Lyr. Dion. etc.) « bonam famam », iuxta Lomb. « bona opera », iuxta Cai. « regnum Dei », iuxta iuniores quosdam (cfr Nat. Picon. M Ev. etc.) « fidem et religionem nostram » etc. Ad contextum scilicet non satis atten-, dentes moneri cunctos neophytos putarunt, ne suis dissensionibus de cibis edendis aut non edendis infideles Iudaeos-et ethnicos provocarent ad contumelias in fidem aut in religionem christianam aut in ipsos fideles effundendas. Verum in toto hoc tractatu de mutuis solorum firmorum infirmorumque officiis agitur, neque apparet, cur Apostolus hic subito ad infideles transierit. Praeeunte ergo Pel. iuniores modernique fere omnes cum Herv. et Thom. recte censent, bonum nostrum hic dici « libertatem quam habemus in Domino, ut omnia nobis munda sint » (Pel. cfr To. Est. Iust. etc. , Reith. Mai. Beel. Bisp. Ag. etc.), atque firmos admoneri, ne libertatem per Christum acquisitam inconsiderato illius usu temerariis iudiciis et conviciis infirmorum fratrum exponant. Simili modo iuxta plerosque Apostolus alibi (1 Cor. 10,30) de idolothytorum usu loquens firmos, qui aliquem cibum esse idolothytum ab infirmo monentur, ab eo manducando sese abstinere iubet, ne blasphementur, i. e. ne contumeliis onerentur ac velut divinae legis contemptores aut velut homines gulosi reprehendantur propter cibum, quo per se licite uti possint (cfr Comment. in 1 Cor. p. 305). Ceterum ex isto loco evidenter elucet, contra nostram interpretationem immerito a nonnullis obiici, quod verbum £Azcegxy:tv de fratrum infirmorum iudiciis temerariis et conviciis adhiberi nequeat; nam ibi quoque non de infidelibus, sed de fidelibus blasphemantibus agitur. Quoniam autem neque monitum neque conclusio ex eo derivata valerent, nisi firmis usui libertatis illius absque suae salutis detrimento renuntiare liceret, B. Paulus confirmationis gratia addit, libertatem quaevis manducandi non esse inter ea bona, quibus homo christianus Dco hominibusque probetur :
14:17
17. non est enim regnum Dei esca et potus (826 xai xim), sed tustitia et paz et gaudium in. Spiritu sancto. Negativam argumenti partem Corinthiis clarius proposuit, ut idolothytorum usum ad salutem nihil conferre doceret : « Esca nos non commendat Deo; neque enim si manducaverimus, abundabimus, neque si non manducaverimus, deficiemus ». Cibus ergo quicumque per se non est res, quae nos Deo magis minusve acceptos reddit; si quis illo utitur, ideo per se in vita spirituali non proficit, et si quis ab illo se abstinet, ideo per se in spirituali vita detrimentum non patitur. Itaque usus potestatis quaevis manducandi non est ad salutem necessarius, quin etiam licitus esse cessat, si caritate fraterna ad infirmorum scandalum vitandum (vel alia virtute, ex. gr. obedientia etc.) a certis cibis abstinere iubemur (cfr ad 1 Cor. 8,8 sq.). Idem quoque negativo nostro membro significatur, siquidem regnum Dei, uti cum plurimis Patribus (cfr Clem. Alez. Paedag. II. 1. M. 8,388, Chrys. Theod. Dam. Phot. etc., Tert. de ieiun. 15., S. Aug. quaest. evang. II. 11, A'r» Pe/. Prim. etc.) multi quoque iuniores modernique recte tenent (cfr Aóael. Herv. Lomb. Thom. etc., Tol. Est. ust. Lap. Nat. Pic. etc., Reith. M Ev. Weinh. Ag. etc.), per metonymiam effectus pro causa « dicitur hic id, per quod Deus regnat in nobis et per quod ad regnum ipsius pervenimus » (TAÀom.). luxta Apostolum igitur libertatis evangelicae in ciborum potuumque electione usus neque efficit neque adiuvat, ut Deus in nobis regnet, seu non est necessaria causa vel conditio regni Dei, quod intra nos est (Luc. 17,27), imperfecte quidem in hac vita, perfecte autem in altera. A qua explicatione re vix dissentiunt, quamvis minus accurate loqui videantur, alii iuniores ac moderni, qui regnum Dei hic aut « rationem vitae in regno Dei instituendae » (cfr Bee/.) aut « essentiam regni Dei » (cfr Cai. Mai. Bisp. LR. Sch. etc.) interpretantur, ut sententiae negativae sensus sit : « Vita christiana (vel : essentia religionis christanae) non consistit in cibo et potu seu in usu potestatis quaevis manducandi ac bibendi ». A vero autem aberrare dicendi sunt nonnulli antiquiores, qui cum Orig. hic quoque regnum Dei significare volunt aeternam beatitudinem, in qua beati, uti neque nubent neque nubentur, ita neque escam neque potum sument : « Stultum est, de non manducandis et de manducandis nos disputare, quae in regno coelorum non erunt necessaria » (cfr Haym. etc.). Cibo porro ac potui, quibus utpote rebus per se indifferentibus non acquiritur neque promovetur regnum Dei, Paulus opponit iustitiam et pacem et gaudium in Spiritu S., quae, quum nos cum Deo coniuugant, regnum eius in nobis fundant ac promovent. Quac tria. ZÀom. bene exponit : « /ustitia. refertur ad exteriora opera, quibus homo reddit unicuique quod suum est, et ad voluntatem huiusmodi opera faciendi (MattA. 6,33). Pax autem refertur ad effectum iustitiae; per hoc enim maxime pax perturbatur, quod unus homo non exhibet alteri quod ei debet (Is. 32,17). Gaudium vero referendum est ad modum, quo sunt iustitiae opera perficienda; uti enim dicit Philosophus : non est iustus, qui non gaudet iusta operatione (Eth. 1). Causam dcmum huius gaudii exprimit dicens : in Spiritu S.; est enim S. Spiritus, per quem caritas diffunditur in nobis (5,5); illud enim est gaudium in Spiritu S., quod caritas parit, puta quum aliquis gaudet de bono Dei et. proximorum ». Quibus tamen maioris claritatis gratia cum ferr. addere iuvat, Apostolum « has tres virtutes idcirco posuisse, quoniam eas ad intentionem suam et ad correctionem Romanorum specialiter militare vidit ». Neque enim contra caritatem tantum sed etiam quodam modo contra iustitiam (stricto sensu) firmi peccarunt, quum in suae libertatis usu ad infirmi opinionem contrariam non attendentes eius ius laederent. Pacem quoque turbarunt, quum eum ad disceptationem et convicia provocarent, atque gaudium sustulerunt, quum eum sua agendi ratione contristarent (v. 15). Qui igitur ad totum contextum attenderit, neque mirabitur, quod tres tantum hae virtutes hic sint enumeratae, licet aliis quoque regnum [ci in nobis promoveatur, neque 8uxawcóvew (iustitiam) hic cum Chrys. aliisque multis de iustitia lato sensu, 1. e. de omnium virtutum exercitio, aut cum Lyr. aliisque de dono illo divino interpretabitur. quo homo ex statu peccati in statum gratiae transit et ex iniusto fit iustus. Iure merito autem regnum Dei dici iustitiam et pacem et gaudium in Spiritu S., i. e. Deum per has virtutes in nobis regnare, Apostolus probat addens :
14:18
18. qui enim in hoc (£v «z5xo vel : n. Àis £» 22022; cfe VV. LL.) servit CAristo, placet Deo et probatus est hominibus. Quam confirmationem haud male TAom. hoc syllogismo proponit : « llle homo videtur ad regnum Dei pertinere, (vel etiam : in eo Deus videtur regnare], qui placet Deo et a sanctis hominibus approbatur: atqui hoc illi contingit, in quo invenitur iustitia, pax et gaudium; ergo in his est regnum Dei ». Recte enim pronomen £v zz2zo (4n Aoc! velut collectivum ad tres virtutes enumeratas refert, id quod altera quoque lectio (£v zootei in Ais) omnino postulat. Haud multum quidem diversus erit sensus, si cum Orig. aliisque pronomen i» zziz (/n Jioc ad solam dictionem £v &yío zveopxw (in Spiritu S.) refertur; nam Spiritus S. sua inhabitatione hominem constituit verum Christi servum (8,9) in eoque virtutes illas velut fructum producit (a. 5,22 . Attamen in praecedente sententia nomina iustitia et paz et gaudium praecipuum pondus habent, verba zn Spiritu S. autem. quae ad solum nomen gaudii a plerisque recte trahuntur, vix non obiter videntur adiecta et quasi delitescunt; quare pronomen 7n Aoc ad priora rectius refertur. Qui igitur virtutum illarum exercitio servit Christo, is et Deo placet , qui in eo nihil quo offendatur deprehendit, et aó hominibus quoque approbatur, quoniam externis eius actionibus eum velut hominem, in quo Deus regnet, agnoscere omnino coguntur, dummodo recte iudicare velint. Priorem huius sectionis partem, qua firmos admonet, ne inconsiderato libertatis evangelicae usu infirmum fratrem ad disceptationes et convicia provocent, Paulus adhortatione terminat, cuius prius membrum ex superioribus (scil. ex v. 17) derivat, altero secundam nostrae seclionis partem quodam modo praeparat :
14:19
19. itaque quae pacis sunt (z& t9 sipávuc) sectemur (&woxwpev) et quae aedificationis sunt in invicem (vel clarius : quae aedificationis mutuae sunt xà f; oixo2zud,s Tis ig &AMQAsog) custodiamus (qu^a2oyuev). Ad cuius sententiae varias lectiones quod attinet, adhortativum 8wxousv (sectemur) propter versionum maxime omnium eum tuentium consen$um, et propter aptiorem quoque sensum omnino retinendum ducimus, quamvis plurimi, at non omnes (cfr VV. LL.), graviores codd. graeci indicativum (2wxzysv sectamur) exhibeant. Alterum vero verbum (guAafoygsv custodiamus) ob testium criticorum auctoritatem melius omitti concedimus, licet sensum non mutet si retineatur. Attende tamen, dictionem in invicem (dg àX$^so;) cum verbo custodiamus non esse connectendum, uti Vulg. Clem. sua interpunclione indicat, sed iuxta graecum textum ad nomen aedificationis pertinere. Priore igitur membro Paulus ad praecedens monitum respiciens firmos hortatur, ut fratris infirmi contristatione et provocatione evitata 2n ds quae pacis sunt, i. e. in iis, quae ad pacem cum infirmo conciliandam conservandamque conducunt, omnem curam et operam ponant; altero autem ad sequentia prospiciens eaque praeparans firmos non minore cum diligentia iis studere vult, guae mutuae aedi- * ficationis sunt, i. e. iis quae infirmum in virtute promovent (de metaphorico vocum aedificare, aedificatio etc. usu cfr ad 1 Cor. 8,1; 2 Cor. 10,8 etc.). Similiter Corinthiis praecepit, ut in idolothytorum usu « nemo quod suum est quaereret, sed quod alterius », i. e. non tam ad propriam utilitatem, quam ad proximi aedificationem attenderet. Eo ipso enim, quod aliquis fratrem suum iuvat, suum quoque bonum spirituale promovet (cfr ad 1 Cor. 10,24). Si vero ea quae mutuae aedificationis sunt sectemur oportet, sua sponte elucet, quantae culpae reus sit, qui contrarium agit. Quare Ápostolus non sine animi concitatione (attende ad asyndeton) praecipit :
14:20
20. noli propter escam destruere (yx... zazx&oz) opus Dei (zx £zzs «22 8cc5); omnia quidem munda sunt, sed malum est homini qui per offendiculum (à zposx5pparoz) manducat. Eum in eadem similitudine persistere , verbum xaza^ósw (destruere) ostendit, quod quum aeque atque xaüa:pei» (2 Cor. 10,5. 8 etc.) de violenta aedificiorum eversione adhibeatur (MattA. 26,61 etc.), verbo oixsscystv (aedificare) opponitur (cfr Ga/. 2,18). Opus Dei ergo hic idem est quod aedificium Dei (1; 8«c» 2ixo3oy:, cfr 1 Cor. 3,9). Pessime autem haec metaphora Pel. significari putat « hominem a Deo creatum »; melius Orig. de caritatis, CArys. de salutis, Theod. de fidei, A'*" de regenerationis nostrae aedificio spirituali cogitant, quae quasi complexus 7Aom. intelligi dicit « opus gratiae, quod in nobis ipsis Deus specialiter operatur ». At cum Est. multo rectius et ad Pauli mentem accommodatius hic intelligitur « ipse frater, in quantum frater i. e. Christianus est, fide et pietate iam imbutus ». Id enim non tantum superiora verba (v. 15 : noli cibo tuo illum perdere pro quo Christus mortuus est) suadent, sed ipsa quoque oppositio inter aedificare et destruere omnino postulat, ut utrumque verbum ad idem obiectum referamus, i. e. ad ipsum fra- - trem infirmum. [taque sensus est : « Noli propter cibum, rem vilem et indifferentem, destruere ac perdere aedificium Dei, i. e. fratrem tuum infirmum, quem Deus fecit fidelem ». Quotquot enim Christian; sumus, qua tales iuxta Paulum « Dei sumus factura (xoimpa i. q. t£pycv), creati in Christo Iesu in (zzi) operibus bonis, quae praeparavit Deus, ut in illis ambulemus » (Eph. 2,10). Quemadmodum ergo supra (v. 15) caritatem, qua Christus sese pro infirmo morti tradidit, ita hic caritatem, qua Deus infirmum meritorum Christi participem reddidit, velut causam affert, cur firmi ab eo scandalizando ac seducendo diligentissime sibi cavere debeant. De quanam enim destructione operis Dei loquatur, indicaturus iudicium suum de Romanorum controversia antea (v. 15) latum ita repetit, ut illud ad infirmum exemplo firmorum corruptum diserte adaptet. Om nes quippe cibos sine exceptione per se mundos esse ac sine peccato manducari posse iterum quidem asserit, sed mahun (xax» i. e. inhonestum ac peccatum, opponitur enim
14:21
v. 21 xa4óv bonum et honestum). esse simul asserit, si infirmus per offendiculum vel potius cum scandalo, i. e. in statu scandali ex firmorum vivendi ratione desumti (à zpoowiupaio;, de hoc praepositionis 3x usu cfr ad 2,97), persistente videlicet eius persuasione (utique erronea) de quorumdam ciborum prohibitione ac proinde contra conscientiam suam aut etiam cum conscientia practice dubia omnibus promiscue vescatur. Hac in interpretatione ex Graecis Chrys. Theoph. Qec. Euth., ex Latinis Ater Sed. nobis praeiverunt eandemque ex modernis pauci cath. (cfr Dr. Ag ?.), multi acath. (cfr Mey. Weiss God. etc.) adoptarunt. luniores vero modernique cath. vix non omnes cum Orig. et Pelag. sententiam nostram non de infirmo, qui cum scandalo passivo manducat, sed de firmo intelligere malunt, qui male agere et peccare dicatur, si cum alterius offensione seu cum scandalo activo quibusvis cibis utatur. Utraque explicatio per se vera est, atque graecum ót& xpocxóugaroc per se non minus apte « cum alterius offensione » (seu cum scandalo activo) quam « cum sua ipsius offensione » (seu cum scandalo passivo) explicari posse fatemur. Nihilominus cum Chrys. hic passivam xpesxóupato, significationem praeferimus, primum, quia tota nostra sententia (omnia quidem munda sunt ctc.), uti ipse Orig. recte iam adnotavit, superiori (v. 14 nihil commune per se etc.) parallela est; atqui illius membrum alterum de passivo scandalo evidenter agit; nostrum secundum igitur de eodem agere rite colligitur. Accedit, quod nostra explicatio contextui sit conformior, immo sola ei respondere videatur. Namque sententia haec adiicitur, ut quomodo propter escam destruatur opus Dei explicetur; atqui omnibus consentientibus nomine operis Dei aut ipse infirinus aut saltem eius status gratiae vel pietas vel salus etc. designatur; destructio ergo, de qua hic sermo est, in eo habetur, quod infirmus scandalo ex firmorum manducatione sumto cibis, quos prohibitos esse putat, contra conscientiam suam vescens peccet et pereat, minime vero in eo, quod firmi sua manducatione occasionem ruinae spiritualis infirmo praebentes ipsi peccent semetque ipsos periculo damnationis exponant. Argumentatio Pauli hic eadem est atque 4 Cor. 8,9-11 : « Videte autem, ne haec licentia vestra offendiculum fiat. infirmis » (— noli propter escam destruere opus Dei;; si enim quis viderit eum, qui habet scientiam in idolio recumbentem, nonne conscientia eius, utpote infirma, aedificabitur ad manducandum idolothyta? et peribit infirmus in tua scientia, frater propter quem Christus mortuus est » (— peccat enim infirmus, qui scaudalo ex tua manducatione sumto contra conscientiam suam vel cum dubia conscientia manducat). Itaque 3uxta Chrys. interpretationem , quam sequimur, Apostolus firmos considerare vult, quantum sit damnum. quod infirmus frater, « opus Dei », eorum improvido incautoque vel potius importuno ac pertinaci libertatis evangelicae usu patiatur. Ne vero ignorent, quid eos ex hac consideratione desumere velit, illud ipse diserte proponit : 91. bonum est (xx^:v) non manducare (75 3, 2x ii earnem et non (4723) bibere vinum et non (452i supple : zzii xc s quidquam aliud facere, in quo (£v o) frater tuus offenditur cam. Fuld. Amiat. aliisque melioribus Vulg. codd., uti etiam cum /t. efr N. Ai. 7. c. AU" ete.. lege: offendit) aut scandalizatur aut. infirmatur zzizuizu 5 sex4lxyWlitm d &c0:»::). Quoniam arliculus inlinitivo. 27 2x;:» praemissus etiam ad duo alia membra perlinet, quae coniunctione 522i adduntur. etiam pronomen iv ó ac proinde tota sententia relativa ad omnia tria referatur oportet, ita ut bona et honesta dicatur abstinentia et a carnium manducatione et a vini potione et a quavis alia actione, si qua ex his ullo modo sit infirmis fratribus scandalo. Simili modo sed fortius, licet indirecte, Corinthios monuerat : « Si esca scandalizat fratrem meum, non manducabo carnem in aeternum, ne fratrem meum scandalizem » (1 Cor. 8,13), eosque directe exhortatus erat, ut « sive manducarent, sive biberent, sive aliud quid facerent, omnia in gloriam Dei facerent » (1 Cor. 10,31). Id autem profecto fieri nequit, si quid in aliqua actione fratri sit causa ruinae spiritualis. Satis obiter tantum hic abstinentia a vino commemorari videtur; nihilominus recte ex hoc monito concludere nobis videmur, inter romanos neophytos fuisse, qui ab omni vini usu sibi abstinendum ducerent, quia illud sacrificio in ipsis torcularibus oblato inquinatum putarent (cfr S. Aug. expos. n. 79). Tertio membro (neque aliud quid facere) probabiliter ad dierum distinctionem alluditur, cuius antea (v. 3) mentio facta est. Tria porro verba (rrgoaxóntztw , axavbaA(ea0ut, dabcveiv) accumulata sunt, ut maiore cum vi omne omnino scandalum pusillorum prohibeatur. Quomodo duo prima inter sc distinguantur, ex iis quae ad v. 13 diximus satis elucet; nposxóxiew enim, quum generaliorem significationem habere videatur, etiam leviori offensioni designandae apte inservit, axavóaX(7:o6a: autem graviorem plerumque denotat; quid vero hic sibi velit as0svetv, difficilius est dictu. Nonnulli inffrmari (seu infirmum esse) hic idem esse volunt, quod « dubitationibus perturbari » (cfr Zhom. etc.), alii idem quod « latentem fidei infirmitatem externe prodere » (cfr Est. etc.), alii i. q. « tentationibus vinci » (cfr Zeel. etc.), alii aliter. Recte autem cum /vsf. infirmum infirmari dicimus, si exemplo firmorum eo est adductus, ut iam titubet ac nutet lapsuique vicinus sit, vel etiam de suae ipsius opiuionis veritate iam dubitet et cum^ hoc dubio praclico agere velit. Periculosius igitur scandali genus índicari videtur, ita ut gradatio quaedam a levi habeatur offensione ad gravissimam. Postquam hac ratione firmos ad abstinentiam a cibis per se licitis, ubicumque eorum usus offensioni vel scandalo esset fratri infirmo, exhortatus est, Paulus tacitae illorum dubitationi occurrit, annon frivola et inanis dicenda sit libertas evangelica, qua uti non possint. Ad quod dubium removendum interpellat firmum :
14:22
92. £u fidem (ziszw) habes? penes temet ipsum reclius : relate ad te ipsum seu. (ibi ipsi xazx cimozí») habe coram Deo; beatus qui non iudicat. (xoivey) semet ipsum in eo quod prübat (222,22:). Ad sensum uon refert, utrum primum membrum (£u fidem habes. cum Vulg. Clem. et plerisque graecis ac modernis interpretibus interrogative legamus, an cum S. Aug. Thom. Tol. etc. asserlive, ita ut concessionem vel conditionem ellipticam exprimat (cfr ad 13,3). Aptior tamen interrogatio videtur, quippe qua interpellati fides non tam in dubium vocetur quam vividius asseveretur. Sive vero interrogativam sive assertivam formam praefers, cave, ne cum S. Aug. Ar?» Herv. Thom. etc., verba penes temet ipsum ad primum illud membrum trahas; id enim genuinam sententiam pervertit. Fides (zíc;) porro hic, uti antea iam diximus (ad v. 1), omnibus fere concedentibus idem est quod firma persuasio , vel si mavis practicum conscientiae dictamen, et quidem iuxta totum contextum de licito omnium ciborum usu seu de potestate quibusvis vescendi per Christum facta. Quam persuasionem tantum abest ut Apostolus pro inani inutilique habeat, ut firmum illam relate ad se tpsum scilicet solum (seu siói soli cfr Act. 28,16 u£vew x20 &aoxóv manere sibimet, i.e. solum seu seorsim manere; Jac. 9,17 etc.) coram Deo retinere iubeat. Quibus verbis permissum esse simul declara t, ut firmus illam coram Deo, quippe cuius iudicium ei timendum non sit, in sua ipsius vita etiam sequatur, quando videlicet infirmi non adsint, qui scandalizari possint. Quantum vero bonum sit eiusmodi certum conscientiae dictamen, ex eo elucet, quod Peatus praedicetur, qui in eo quod approbat (8oxkáte), semet ipsum non iudicat, i. e. se ipsum in iudicium non vocat quasi dubitans, num id quod agendum eligit licitum sit necne, qui igitur semper cum certa conscientia de actionis suae liceitate agit; is quippe non peccat. Neque hac laude contentus infelicitatem illius describit, cui inagendo firma illa persuasio deest :
14:23
23. qui autem discernit (lege : qui autem haesitat vel dubitat & 3$ &xxpwbpevo;) , sí manducaverit, damnatus est (xxzaxfxpisa), quia non ez fide (ix zis:so;) ; omne autem, quod non est ex fide , peccatum est. Noster interpres, qui alibi passivum 3taxeivsc0at latino verbo Aaesitare aut dubitare recte reddere solet (cfr 4,20; Matt. 21,21; Marc. 11,93; Act. 10,20; Jac. 1,6), hoc in loco participium &uxpwwiusvo; cum activo Guxoivov videtur confudisse. Qua falsa versione in errorem inducti inde ab A''* aetate antiquiores Latini primum membrum eo fere modo quo Tom. interpretantur : « Qui autem discernit, i. e. qui habet opinionem falsam, quod oportet cibos discernere, s? manducaverit scilicet cibos, quos reputat esse illicitos, damnatus est ex hoc, quod quantum in ipso est habet voluntatem faciendi quod est illicitum, et sic delinquit proprio iudicio condemnatus ». fuxta genuinam vero loci versionem sententia cum Graecis intelligatur oportet non de eo, qui contra suam conscientiam (erroneam) , verum de eo, qui cum conscientia practice dubia agit : « Qui haesitat seu dubitat, num sibi cibus quidam sit licitus, si eum manducaverit, condemnatus est, idque quia non ex certa persuasione (ez fide) manducat ». Recte igitur Est. hoc loco ostendi asserit id quod theologi tradant, eum qui facit de quo dubitat, an sit peccatum, peccare. Sententiam videlicet specialem, qua eum, qui dubitans, num sibi liceat, cibum quendam comederit, condemnatum esse dicit, Apostolus sententia universali confirmat, qua omnem actionem, quae non ex certa persuasione eius liceitate procedat, peccatum esse pronuntiat. Hinc etiam patet, parum recte a nonnullis ad illud condemnatus est suppleri : a semet ?pso; quoniam enim de peccato agitur, supplendum omnino est : a Deo. Ceterum « nomen damnationis in Scripturis generale est ac saepe extenditur ad poenam temporalem, interdum etiam ad poenam venialis peccati, uti MattA. 19,37 : ez verbis tuis condemnaberis, ubi de verbis otiosis sermo est » (Est.). Quapropter ex paulinis verbis non sequitur, eum semper mortaliter peccare , qui cum conscientia practice dubia agit; sed si quis dubitat, num quid sit mortale, et tamen illud facit, mortaliter peccat; venialiter vero, si facit, quod num sub levi sit prohibitum dubitat. Quoniam vv. 22.23. tam arcte inter se cohaerent, ut quasi unam sententiam continuam constituant, maioris claritatis causa uno tenore eos exposuimus, discrepantibus aliorum interpretationibus, quae multae sunt, interim praetermissis; restat igitur, ut praecipuas saltem ex illis, quae auctorum suorum gravitate commendantur, breviter striclimque proponamus. Ac primum quidem haud pauci verba xaz& arauszóv Eye ivorrtov. cou Qro0 cum It. et Vulg. vertere malunt : apud temetipsum habe coram Deo, iisque prohiberi volunt, ne firmisuam persuasionem externe prodant aut in vita sua ullo modo sequantur : « Noli mihi eam ostendere, sed sufficit tibi tua conscientia et Deus qui eam videt » (Theoph. cfr Chrys. Oec. etc.), vel etiam : « noli eam opere profiteri coram hominibus, sed sufficit tibi eam habere coram Deo » (Cai. cfr Herv. etc.). Verum si hic esset sententiae sensus, Paulus sibi non constaret; namque alibi docet, firmis persuasionem suam in vita sua, ubi timendum non sit scandalum pusillorum, sequi omnino licere (cfr ad 4 Cor. 10,27-29), id quod iuxta nostram versionem hic quoque asserit. Quare alii illam versionem ita interpretantur, ut ad nostram prope accedat :« Habeto ergo fidem hanc, sed conserva eam apud te et coram Deo, qui corda respicit, neque utere illa cum scandalo proximi » (Tol. c(r Zhom. Lyr. etc., Est. [ust. Lap. etc., Beel. M Ev. Ag. etc.); sed ultimum illud membrum, licet omnino sit ad mentem Pauli, ex eius verbis iuxta Vulg. versionem desumi non potest. Maior cst dissensus in altero membro explicando : beatus qui non iudicat semet ipsum in eo quod. probat. Nonnulli his verbis infirmum instrui arbitrantur, qui exemplo firmorum seductus seu gula illectus contra conscientiam suam cibis vesci velit, quos prohibitos putat; ad eum igitur absterrendum Paulus beatum praedicare dicitur illum, quem propria conscientia non condemnet (iudicare i. q. condemnare) in eo quod agendum eligat (cfr Ater Thom. Est. Lap. Pic. M Ev. etc.). Sententia vera est ac verbis quoque congruit, quum xoivew haud rarosit i. q. condemnare. Quo autem cum iure Apostolus, qui inde a v. 13 semper (irmos allocutus est et statim 15.1 sqq. eosdem iterum alloquitur, hic subito ad infirmum instruendum transire putetur, non videmus. Si quis verbo xpivevv significationem condemnandi hic tribuere voluerit, multo rectius senlentiam de firmo interpretabitur, qui quum suam persuasionem de omnium ciborum licito usu sequatur a sua conscientia non condemnetur neque vexetur, ideoque beatus sit. Quae explicatio nostrae vicina est, nobis tamen minus probatur non tantum, quia ex paronomasia trium verborum in una hac sententia coniunctorum (xpivttv, óixxptvealat, xavaxoivevv) apparere videtur, xgivev hic diversam a xeraxpivew significationem habere, sed etiam quia sequens membrum (qui autem haesitat etc.) iuxta nostram explicationem facilius adnectitur. Condemnandi significationem Orig. quoque retinet, sed in nostro membro constantiam stabilitatemque commendari censet : « Beatus ille, qui in eo, quod semel probavit et statuit, fixus et stabilis permanet, neque postea se iudicat ac reprehendit dubitans an recte probaverit el statuerit «. Ast haec explicatio neque verbis satis congruit neque cum contextu ullatenus conciliatur. Similiter C/tjs. (cfr Zheoph. etc.) contextum non videtur perspexisse, quum praecedens membrum velut contra vanam gloriam dictum interpretatus nostrum hoc modo exponit : « Tu tibi ipsi sufficis ut sis beatus, si te ipsum non coudemnas in re, quam probasti seu elegisti ». Alias porro significationes verbo xgíve alii attribuunt. Iuxta antiquiores multos Latinos, qui S. Aug. sequi videntur, sensus sententiae est: « Beatus qui non facit damnabilem se ipsum nocendo aliis in eo facto quod laudat et probat » (Zerv. cfr Abael. Lomb. Lyr. etc.) ; sed neque verbum xpíivev hanc significationem admittit, neque haec sententia ad contextum quadrat. Iuxta iuniores quosdam xgivew est. i. q. probare; unde Sa/m. : « Beatus est, qui non iudicat se bene facere in eo quod probat neque se ideo iustum reputat et sanctum, sed potius cum Apostolo dicit : nihil mihi conscius sum, sed in hoc non iustificatus sum »; atque 7'olel. : « Beatus est atque iuste recteque agit, qui per id solum, quod approbat et licitum in se esse cognoscit, non se iudicat quasi bene faciat; non enim omnia bona bene fiunt, quum in bono faciendo multae qualitates considerentur oporteat ». Quae explicationes quam longe a mente Pauli hic absint, probatione non indiget. Sed haec specimina sufficiunt; recentiorum autem sententiae a nostra discrepantes ad unam ex enumeratis magis minusve accedunt. Ultimo in v. 23 membro : omne, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est, olim nonnulli nomen /idri de ea fide interpretati sunt, qua Christiani sumus. Unde Orij. dubitat, annon ex hoc loco recte colligatur, « si quid boni operis apud haereticos geri videatur, illud quia non fiat ex fide in peccatum converti », S, Ang. autem multis in locis (ad Sixt. ep. 194 n. 9; de adulterin. coniug. I. 18.20; de gr. Chr. 36; c. Iul. IV. 3,24 etc.) eumque secuti S. Prosp. fad Rufin. c. 8 etc.), N.. ilg. (de rem. pecc. II. 1), Gl ord., Herc. etc. ex eo desumserunt, omnia infidelium opera esse peccata. Quid istae sententiae valeant, docent theologi; id unum hic adnotemus oportet, iuxta totum contextum hoc in loco fidem non posse intelligi mentis assensum, quo divinam revelationem amplectimur, sed significare firmam persuasionem, qua non haesitantes iudicamus, nos hic et nunc licite agere. Qui autem in agendo practice dubitat, num sibi agere liceat, « exercite ita animatus est, ut nihil curet peccatum ; quod, quum summopere curari, i. e. caveri debeat, eo ipso quod parvipenditur contrahitur (Lehmk. Theol. mor. I. n. 49). 8. — Firmi ezemplum Christi $milali infirmos benigne sustineant (15,1-13).
14:1
προσλαμδάνεσθαι, prendre avec soi, dans sa compagnie, traiter selon l’affection que se doivent des frères, avec une nuance de supériorité chez celui qui agit, cf. xv, 7. L'autre, dont il est parlé au singulier, est tenté de s’isoler, se sent mal à l'aise, peut-être par scrupule; c’est au plus grand nombre à l'attirer amicalement; ils sont les plus forts, c’est à eux de prendre l'initiative. Paul ne dit pas encore en quoi consiste la faiblesse dans la foi; il va s'expliquer au v. 2 et sans doute aussi au v. 5. Le nom de « faible » (ἀσθενοῦντα) indique déjà que l’Apôtre n'est pas de son avis, quand même il aurait adopté un terme déjà courant. Il est faible en foi. La foi n'est pas simplement la conscience (contre Corn.), car on serait ainsi transporté dans le domaine entier de la morale. Ce n’est pas non plus une sorte d’hésitation réfléchie dans l'adhésion au christianisme, qui serait autrement répréhensible. Les faibles ont au contraire l'intention de faire très bien, mieux que les autres, maïs ils introduisent dans leur pratique des habitudes qui ne découlent pas des simples principes de la foi; ils ne sont donc pas assez fermes dans leurs convictions chrétiennes pour tout juger du seul point de vue de la foi. Si l'on va pour ainsi dire chercher les faibles, que ce ne 501} pas εἰς διαχρίσεις διαλογισμῶν. Trois opinions : 1) pour disputer sur les matières controversées (Zahn), comme l'indique la Vg. non in disceptationibus cogitationum (Ambrst.) et l'ancienne latine (ὦ g m) in disceptationes; 2) pour aboutir à faire naître en lui des incertitudes de conscience (Lips.); 8) pour le juger, d'après Augustin qui lisait ἐπ diiudicationibus : neque ditudicemus cogitationes eius, id est, quasi ferre audeamus sententiam de alieno corde, quod non videmus (Erpositio, ad h. 1.). — Il semble qu'il n’est point question ici de juger (contre Corn., Lietz., Jül.), car s'il s'agit de juger des intentions (Aug.), les forts doivent évidemment s'en abstenir, mais la recommandation serait trop générale; s’il s’agit du fond de la question, Paul, qui partage le sentiment des forts, ne saurait leur reprocher d’avoir un jugement ferme. Il ne veut pas qu'ils jugent (v. 3. 13) la pratique des autres, ce qui ne peut être exprimé par διαλογισμῶν. D'autre part, la seconde opinion ne serait plausible que si διαλογισμῶν était déterminé par αὐτοῦ, tandis qu'il demeure indéterminé entre les deux groupes. Le sens de la Fg, est donc le plus naturel. 11 faut aller chercher le faible avec charité, le recevoir cordialement, mais ne pas pousser le zèle jusqu’à vouloir mal à propos l’éclairer, ce qui l’exposerait à se buter. Ni l'intention, ni même la pratique du faible ne sont vraiment répréhensibles; donc point de controverse. Zahn cite avec raison dans Pozyee, XVIII, xxvin, 3 διάχρισις pour le sens de « se trouver en lutte de façon que la question soit tranchée Le contraste entre le pluriel employé comme d'habitude pour désigner l'ensemble de la communauté et le singulier employé pour « le faible monire bien que le scrupule n'avait atteint tout au plus qu'une minorité. Dans la Vg., ἐπ disceptationes serait plus littéral que ir disceptationibus.
14:2
Maintenant, pour mieux montrer l'opposition entre les deux partis, Paul les met tous deux au singulier. Maïs ce peut être un indice qu'il prend des types extrêmes. L'un prend sur lui de manger de tout. πιστεύει est souvent employé en grec dans le sens de θαῤῥῶ, « avoir confiance », et, avec l’infinitif, il a le sens de penser, se croire assuré de bien faire : πιστεύω εὖ ποιήσειν (XÉN. cité par Zhes.), Comme ce fort est opposé à un faible en foi {v. 1), c'est donc la foi chrétienne qui lui donnait cette assurance. Il estime qu'il ne doit s'abstenir d’aucun aliment par scrupule religieux. L'autre, c'est-à-dire le faible (ὁ est l'art. de ἀσθενῶν), mange des légumes. IL serait bien étonnant qu'entre ces deux extrêmes il n'y en eût pas eu qui distinguassent entre les différentes sortes d'aliments, autres que les légumes, mangeant par exemple de certaines viandes seulement, ou excluant le poisson etc. On ne conçoit guère la communauté partagée entre les végétariens purs et les chrétiens dépouillés de (out préjugé religieux alimentaire. Le faible est donc ici un échantillon. Dans la Ve., se avant manducare doit être simplement omis avec WW. manducet (Vg.) au lieu de manducat est une erreur plus grave, de nature à tromper sur le sens (ἐσθιέτω dans D F G} et qui doit être corrigée (déjà cod. Caraffa) avec Tert. (vescitur), Aug. et Jérôme lui-même (C. Lo. 11, 14).
14:3
Psychologie très fine, reconnue de tous. Les consciences robustes sont tentées de mépriser d’autres consciences, délicates peut-être jusqu'au scrupule : ce sont de petits esprits qui s’attachent à des riens; il n'y ἃ pas à en tenir compte! Les scrupuleux, eux, ne peuvent s'empêcher de juger que les autres en prennent à leur aise, ce qui pourrait bien être au détriment de leur salut! Cette compassion part d'un bon naturel, mais n'est pas sans un secret orgueil. Paul ne veut pas qu'on méprise le faible, mais c'est à lui surtout qu'il fait la leçon en 16 priant de ne pas juger son frère que Dieu a pris parmi les siens; la liberté d'esprit dont il fait preuve ne l'empêche pas d’être un vrai chrétien. Donc pas d'inquiétude sur son compte!
14:4
L'admonestation est toujours adressée au faible, en supposant qu'il se soit permis de juger son frère. Tous deux sont serviteurs du même Seigneur qui est le Christ (cf. 7. 8. 9). Mais, en jugeant, le faible s'est mis dans la situation de quelqu'un qui jugerait l’esclave d'autrui (ἀλλότριον). Il s'est dit que le chrétien trop libre est tombé au sens moral (x1, 11. 22). Or cela ne le regarde pas. Le chrétien qui mange de tout est le serviteur familier du Christ, οἰκέτης, mot que Paul n'emploie qu'ici, et qui correspond bien à προσελάδετο (v. 3). Qu'il se tienne debout ou qu’il tombe, c'est au profit ou au détriment de son maître (τῷ ἰδίῳ xuglw, dat. commodi); cela ne regarde done que ce dernier. Assurément il pourrait tomber : ὥστε ὃ δοχῶν ἑστάναι βλεπέτω μὴ πέση (1 Cor. x, 12); c’est à lui d’y songer; l’autre n’a pas à s'arrêter à cette crainte; ne vous inquiétez pas; il restera debout, son Seigneur y pourvoira. — σταθήσεται ne signifie pas que le serviteur tombé sera relevé {contre KüAl); cf. Mt. χα, 25. Des deux hypothèses, Paul choisit la plus favorable. WW. écrivent iudices au lieu de iudicas et suo Domino au lieu de domino suo. Deus (Vg.) serait à corriger en dominus, car la leçon ὁ χύριος est certaine contre ὁ θεός. Quant à potens est, c'est probablement en fait la tra: duction de δυνατὸς γάρ (leçon antiochienne); cela rend bien δυνατεῖ, leçon plus appuyée (Nesile, Soden etc.).
14:5
Soden écrit ὃς μὲν γάρ. L'existence primitive de ce γάρ demeure douteuse: Le sens est beaucoup plus facile sans γάρ, car il est impossible de voir une causalité entre les vv. 4 et 5. Si donc γάρ est authentique, il faudra l'entendre comme une conjonction assez vague. Le second exemple indiquera, lui aussi, que les actions de chacun n'en regardent pas un autre. Il s'agit d'une seconde application de la tendance à discerner des motifs de scrupules religieux ou à passer outre. Celui qui estime (χρίνω, au sens de pré= férer, PLAT. Civ. 399 e) un jour plus qu’un autre (παρά, « plus que », comme χα, 8; Le. χα, 2. 4; Heb. 1, 9), regarde certains jours comme impropres à cer: taines actions ou d’autres comme exigeant certaines prestations ou certaines abstinences. L'autre ne distingue pas plus entre les jours qu'entre les aliz ments. L'essentiel pour chacun est d’agir avec une pleine conviction, xAñpoz φορείσθω, Sans cela, il s'expose à pécher. Cette divergence est encore plus obscure que la précédente. Tandis que Paul donnera son avis personnel sur le point des aliments (v. 14), il ne reviendra pas sur la distinction des jours. Cependant il est assez clair d’après le contexte qu'il s'agit d'abstinence; Euthym. : ἐσθίειν δηλόνοτι περὶ τούτου γὰρ ὁ λόγος. C'est ce qu'ont compris presque tous les anciens, même ceux qui regardaient les faibles comme des Judéochrétiens, Orig., Chrys., Théod., Ambrosiaster, Pélage, pseudo-Prim., Thom. seu Jér. parle d'observances purement judaïques. Cornely a bien montré que l'explication d'Augustin s'écarte du texte et du contexte. On verra plus nettement encore au v. 6 que les deux scrupules sont connexes. Ambrosiaster nam sunt quidam, qui quarta feria carnem non edendarn statuerunt, sunt qui La Vg. a traduit χρίνει trop littéralement, ivdicat; diem inter diem est au contraire à la fois moins littéral et moins bon que diem plus quam diem (JÉR. C. Lovin. II, 16), mais enfin le sens général de 52 ἃ été assez bien compris. Tandis que in suo sensu abundet n'est pas conforme au texte grec. Cela ne peut signifier que : suo sensui dimittatur (Thom.), tandis que le sens est in suo sensu certus sit (Corn.).
14:6
Avant χαὶ ὁ ἐσθίων, Soden ἃ mis entre crochets καὶ ὁ μὴ φρονῶν τὴν ἡμέραν χυρίῳ οὐ φρονεῖ, qu'on pourrait en effet croire une incise omise par homoeoteleuton, si l'addition n'était si rare et si tardive. De plus l’interpolateur, qui avait sans doute pour but de mieux balancer la phrase, ne semble pas avoir bien pénétré la pensée de l'Apôtre. Celui qui ἃ un sentiment particulier pour tel jour n’est point en parallélisme, mais en opposition avec celui qui mange de tout. Paul les met donc en présence pour conclure que l'un comme l'autre agit en vue du Seigneur (Jésus-Christ). Mais, comme il s'adresse toujours au faible, il lui administre une preuve pour ce qui regarde l'homme à la conscience solide : « la preuve que mangeant librement de tout il agit pour le Seigneur, c'est qu'il rend grâce à Dieu, ce qu'il ne ferait pas s'il mangeait de tout sans se soucier de l’offenser ». Le raisonnement pouvait s'arrêter là. Mais le fort semblait avoir l'avantage, puisqu'il était dit de lui en plus qu'il rendait grâce à Dieu. Pour rétablir l'équilibre en faveur du faible qui dans tout ce chapitre apparaît comme impressionnable, et se froissant facilement, et qu'il faut ménager par charité, Paul ajoute la phrase : « celui aussi qui ne mange pas de tout » etc. (Jül., Zahn, Kühl). La Κρ. est donc correcte en refusant l'addition. Je ne sais pourquoi WW. (ed. minor) ponctuent : qui manducat Domino, manducat. Tous les anciens ont sapit pour 6 φρονῶν. Érasme : curat. 78.) Et la preuve que chacun suit sa conviction et sa pratique en vue du Seigneur, c'est que, comme tous le savent, aucun chrétien ne vit pour luimême, ni ne meurt pour lui-même. Le naturalisme moderne a repris sans s'en douter une phrase antique : « il faut vivre sa vie ». Mais l'antiquité condamnait cette maxime. Τέπενοε, Ad. V, 1v, 9 : « Jlle suam semper egit vitam, in otio, in conviviis,.… sibi pixit, sibi sumptum fecit », et PLur. Vèt. Cleom. XXXI : αἰσχρὸν γὰρ ζῆν μόνοις ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἀποθνήσκειν. En effet l'individu devait vivre pour la cité. Maïs l'horizon était toujours terrestre, Quand la pensée de la mort se présente, le païen la souhaite aussi douce que possible, comme Auguste : nam fere quotiens audisset cito ac nullo cruciatu defunctum quempiam, sibi et suis εὐθανασίαν similem... precabatur (Suér. Aug. xaix); le stoïcien la brave, mais trop souvent il s'y recherche encore par un souci exagéré de sa dignité et de sa gloire. Le chrétien consacre sa vie au service du Seigneur; il lui consacre aussi sa mort, non pas toujours ni le plus souvent par le martyre, mais parce que, même alors, il appartient au Seigneur, que ce dernier moment lui est dû comme les autres et ne change rien à ses rapports avec lui. Nous sommes au Seigneur dans la mort, comme dans la vie.
14:9
Le Christ — on voit bien clairement maintenant que c’est lui qui est le Seigneur — est en effet le Seigneur des morts, comme il l'est des vivants. L'ordre νεχρῶν χαὶ ζώντων qui paraît moins naturel que « les vivants et les morts » se rattache au v. 9 en fermant le cercle : vivre, mourir — morts et vivants. Et le Christ a acquis cette domination par sa mort qui a délivré ses fidèles de la mort, et par sa résurrection qui est le type de la leur. Le rythme est donc plus complet que dans 11 Cor. v, 18 : «et qu'il est mort pour tous, afin que ceux qui vivent ne vivent plus pour eux-mêmes, mais pour celui qui est mort et a été ressuscité pour eux ». Maintenant le chrétien sait de plus que, même sans le martyre, sa mort est due et consacrée au Christ, I sait, ou plutôt qu'il se rappelle! Par ces pensées que quelques-uns regardent comme un hors-d'œuvre, Paul ἃ élevé la question d'un coup d'ailes: Qu'il serait misérable pour des chrétiens de compromettre la charité pour des chicanes plus ou moins bien comprises! C’est de ces hauteurs que l’Apôtre va retomber sur les controversistes. La Vg. ἃ mortuus est et resurrexit (WW. et avant mortuus), soit en grec ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἀνέστη (ΕἾ G). La lecon la plus sûre ἀπέθανεν xat ἔζησεν pourrait se rendre mortuus est et revixit, ou même vixrit. L'addition de καὶ ἀνέστη (Sod.entre crochets) entre ἀπέθανεν et χαὶ ἔζησεν a eu pour but de compléter; la leçon ἔζησεν χαὶ ἀπέθανεν χαὶ ἀνέστη (D εἰ" e ren. III, xvin, 2, Aug. [I, 727], Gaudent.) a cru mieux suivre l'ordre historique.
14:10
Paul suppose que « le faible » et l'autre sont tombés dans la faute quil leur conseillait d'éviter au v. 3. Chacun est donc repris dans les termes qui Par ma vie, dit le Seigneur, tout genou fléchira devant moi, et toute langue rendra hommage à Dieu. lui conviennent, en commençant par le faible qui était en scène depuis le v. 4. La pensée de la mort et du Christ, Seigneur des morts, amènerait celle du jugement, si elle ne se soudait déjà à ce jugement que le faible s’arroge. Mépriser et faire peu de cas, c'est tout de même juger. Comment ose-t-on juger des frères quand le jugement est une chose si bien réservée à Dieu que tous doivent comparaître devant son tribunal ? Noter que si tous doivent comparaître, ce sera sans doute pour rendre compte de leurs œuvres (cf. 11, 6); ce que certains protestants nomment la conception juive, est donc encore celle de Paul. La Vg. avec aut tu rend suffisamment à καὶ σύ, car καί se met souvent dans les comparaisons simplement pour accuser davantage le rapprochement; οἵ. 11, 15; AHühner-Gerth, IT, 2, p. 256 (Liets.). La Ve.-Clém. lit Christi, mais WW. Dei, qui rend τοῦ θεοῦ, leçon certaine (contre Zahn). Paul eût assurément pu écrire τοῦ Χριστοῦ, comme dans 11 Cor. v, 10, maïs la citation qui suit s'entend de Dieu. On peut dire avec Orig.-int. : quod vero in praesenti quidem loco tribunal Deï, ad Corinthios vero tribunal Christi posuit, ego quidem nullam puto esse differentiam quominus unum atque idem tribunal Christi et tribunal Dei nominetur. Que Paul ait pu employer indifféremment les deux expressions, c'est à tout le moins une preuve que Dieu et le Christ remplissaient les mêmes fonctions, ce qui équivaut à donner au Christ les attributs de Dieu.
14:11
Is. xzv, 23 fait partie d’un couplet {v. 20-25) que le P. Condamin intitule : « Tahvé, seul Dieu sauveur, recevra les hommages du monde entier Il n'y est pas question du jugement en termes formels, mais la saveur eschatologique est incontestable, et l'attention de Paul ἃ sans doute été attirée sur ce passage par les expressions « tout genou », « toute langue qui mettent en scène les individus. Les uns se verront sauvés, les autres seront couverts de honte. Quant au texte lui-même, il est probablement cité de mémoire. κατ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ὀμνύω ἃ été remplacé par ζῶ ἐγώ, une formule de serment bien connue (Num. xiv, 28 etc.; Is. xzix, 18); ce qui suit, d'après l’'hébreu : « La vérité sort de ma bouche, parole irrévocable » (Trad. Cond.), trop littéralement traduit en grec, a été omis, ou plutôt remplacé par λέγει κύριος, explicatif. Puis : ὅτι ἐμοὶ χάμψει πᾶν γόνυ, καὶ ὀμεῖται (B N, avec hébreu: mais À εξομολογησεται) πᾶσα γλῶσσα τὸν θεόν. La leçon ἐξομολογήσεται dans ces mss. des LXX doit provenir de Paul, et l'on comprend très bien qu'il ait remplacé l'expression tout hébraïque « jurera en mon nom » par une expression plus claire et rendant la même idée d’une façon courante, « rendre hommage ». Ce n'était donc pas pour introduire l'idée d’une confession des fautes qui ne s'appliquerait qu'aux pécheurs (avec Corn.). Paul savait fort bien que ce texte pris isolément n'exprimait que la domination sur tous les peuples, puisqu'il le cite dans ce sens Phil. n, 10 5. (à propos du Christ}, mais il allait de soi que chacun de ces individus soumis à Dieu serait jugé par lui. Au lieu de flectetur, WW. lisent flectet.
14:12
L’Apôtre tire la conséquence sans hésiter. Chacun rendra compte pour soi. Et cela semble viser surtout les inquiétudes du « faible » qui craint pour le laxisme du grand nombre; on ne l'en rendra pas responsable! Mais la pensée qu'il aura un compte à rendre doit empêcher celui qui a la conscience plus dégagée de mépriser son frère. — Faut-il lire ἄρα οὖν (Sod.) comme v, 18; vu, 3. 25; vin, 12; 1x, 16.18; XIV, 19; Gal. vi, 10, ou ἄρα seul? ἄρα seul paraît une leçon un peu réduite à l'Occident si vraiment B occidentalise dans tout cet endroit. La ΝΕ. itaque peut être pour &px οὖν comme χιν, 19, quoique dans les autres cas elle ait igitur ou ergo (vit, 12; 1x, 18; Gal. vi, 10). — reddet serait ἀποδώσει (B D * F G) plutôt que δώσει (Sod.), plus largement attesté; on préférerait dabit avec Cypr. (Ep. LXIX, 17).
14:13
Tout ce qui précède s’adressait plutôt au faible. Le fort ne pouvait douter que le faible agissait pour le Christ; l'anxiété de ses scrupules le prouvait assez; tandis que le faible trouvait que le fort se dégageait avec trop de désinvolture de devoirs sacrés. Pourtant le fort jugeait aussi, regardant son frère comme une conscience étroite. Paul se met pour un moment avec eux tous dans une formule de transition : « Ne nous jugeons pas les uns les autres », puis il s'adresse aux forts. χρίνατε après χρίνωμεν est un véritable jeu sur le mot. Dans le premier cas « juger », dans le second « prendre le parti de », comme II Cor. n, 1 avec τοῦτο et une phrase commençant par τό et l'infinitif; cf. I Cor. vu, 37. — πρόσχομμα et σχάνδαλον indiquent tous les deux un objet placé sur la route et qui peut faire tomber : le premier placé là par hasard, le second avec intention, comme un piège; dans le premier cas la chute ne sera ni aussi certaine ni aussi grave. Maïs dans les deux cas il s’agit d’une chute de l'âme et il ne peut être question de répartir ce danger entre le faible et le fort (contre Zahn). Entre eux la partie n’est pas égale, et tout le raisonnement qui suit suppose cette inégalité. Le fort, sûr de sa conscience, ne risque rien, et, s’il tombe dans un mépris coupable, c'est qu'il le veutbien. Maïs le faibleest parfois contraint d'agir sans être guidé par une conscience robuste; il est fort exposé à tomber, et il dépend même du fort de le faire tomber s’il l'entraîne à agir contre sa conscience, ou avec une conscience douteuse; or pour cela il suffira peut-être de l'exemple.
14:14
Paul donne son propre sentiment, comme I Cor. vint, 1-6. οἵδα καὶ πέπεισwat est une introduction très solennelle; il s'agit d'une conviction qui a pénétré toute l'âme. Il serait trop subtil de distinguer, avec quelques anciens, une conviction naturelle et une tradition surnaturelle ou de trouver dans le second verbe une preuve que Paul se réfère à l'enseignement de Jésus (contre Zahn). Toutefois si ἐν κυρίῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ peut signifier seulement tamquam eius membrum et minister (Corn. citant 1x, 1; II Cor. 11, 17; xu, 49 etc.), on doit rappeler que la distinction des aliments en purs et impurs avait été rejetée par Jésus (Mc. vu, 1 ss.), et ce point capital de sa doctrine était précisément celui qui autorisait le mieux à soutenir l'abrogation de la Loi. On pense donc avec Weiss, Jülicher, Zahn, que Paul s'appuie ici sur cet enseignement du Seigneur Jésus. La formule ἐν χυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ (et non dans le Christ) oriente dans ce sens, car elle rappelle la carrière du Christ parmi nous sous le nom de Jésus (dans les passages cités par Ziets. pour le premier sens : Gal. v, 10; Phil. τι, 24, II Thess. ur, 4, il y a seulement ἐν Κυρίῳ, dans ceux de Corn. X:15=&), quoique non pas nécessairement (οἵ. I Thess. ιν, 1; Col. mr, 17; Phil. 11, 49). χοινόν en grec « commun », d'après le sens juif « impur ». Il est fort douteux que les Grecs aient eu anciennement la notion d'aliments purs ou impurs (Ziehen le nie, Leges Graecorum sacrae, II, 1, p. 150 et 260); elle leur serait venue de l'Orient. Chez les Juifs, avec cette haute idée de La pureté qui leur faisait un rang à part et sacré, tout ve qui était commun, permis à tous, devenait impur (οἴ. sur Mc. vu, 1 ss.}, de sorte qu'on nommait simplement communes des choses réellement impures. Le sens du mot n'étant pas douteux, les « faibles » ne sauraient être des ascètes qui auraient jugé que la profession du christianisme excluait l'usage des viandes comme trop délivates ou trop nourrissantes; ils les regardent positivement comme communiquant une impureté. De son côté Paul déclare que rien n’est impur en soi (δι΄ ἑαυτοῦ), par nature. C'est le concept rationnel, opposé aux raisons fort diverses qui détournaient de l’usage de la chair. Si Paul avait eu affaire à un Juif, ce dernier eût pu lui répondre que certaines choses, impures ou non par nature, l'étaient par l'interdiction de Dieu; ou (comme ceux qui ne mangeaient pas les viandes immolées) qu'une chose pure en soi pouvait cesser de l'être après certains contacts ou contaminations. Si l'apôtre a raisonné en rigueur, il avait donc en vue des fidèles convaincus que les viandes, de leur nature, avaient quelque chose d'impur. Naturellement si quelqu'un s'imagine qu'une chose est impure, et s’il passe outre, il se contamine; 14b est elliptique, mais parfaitement clair; ἐχείνῳ χοινόν, l’impureté, en quelque sorte personnelle, n'est cependant pas seulement dans sa persuasion, une affaire d'imagination; elle est contractée en fait, dans l’ordre moral. La Ve. aurait dû traduire πέπεισμαι certus sum, comme vuit, 38; xv, 14 (Corn.). Quant à per ipsum allégué par Ti. et Sod. en faveur de La leçon δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, c'est plutôt la traduction de δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, tandis que δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ serait per se ipsum (δέκ. C. Lovin. IT, 16); per ipsum (Thom.) doit signifier : par Jésus-Christ, qui ἃ abrogé la distinction des aliments; nous serions nettement sur le terrain de la controverse juive. On voit l'importance de cette variante. L'autorité des mss. est pour δι᾽ ἑχυτοῦ, contre la recension antiochienne. Il serait donc urgent de traduire per se ipsum ou simplement per se.
14:15
γάρ est certain après et d'après les mss.; si les Antiochiens l'ont remplacé par dé, c’est à cause de l'extrême difficulté de justifier γάρ, maïs ce n'est pas une raison de le rejeter (contre Corn.). Il reste la ressource de regarder le v. 14 comme une parenthèse (Ζαλη), la liaison du v. 15 avec le v. 18 étant assez naturelle; ou plutôt de tenir compte de la chute du faible déjà supposée par le fait que l'aliment s'est trouvé impur pour lui (Æühl), ce qui justifie γάρ dans le sens atténué de « en effet ». Le chagrin du faible est donc le chagrin euisant d’avoir offensé Dieu. On dirait que Paul s’y prend à deux fois pour montrer au fort les conséquences de sa trop grande liberté d'esprit : être cause pour un peu de nourriture qu'un frère soit contristé, ce n’est pas selon la charité, Puis l’apostrophe véhémente : ton plat de viande, un frère perdu pour lequel le Christ est mort! Tout le poids de la charité du Christ entraîne le chrétien à renoncer, non pas même à sa propre sagesse (I Cor. vin, 11), mais à quelque chose d'aussi insignifiant qu'un plat au lieu d’un autre.
14:16
Très ancienne divergence sur le sens de ce verset. D'après les uns (Chrys., son école, pseudo-Primasius, beaucoup d’anciens, Lips., Jül., Zahn, Kühl\, τὸ ἀγαθόν est le trésor de doctrine et de vie spirituelle que contient le christianisme. Si les fidèles sont en désaccord, les infidèles tiendront de fàcheux propos, voyant à quoi se réduit la foi nouvelle, à chicaner sur des riens, au risque de compromettre l'union. Avec ce sens le v. 17 se soude facilement au v. 16, le règne de Dieu est presque synonyme de τὸ ἀγαθόν. Il serait assez assuré, si le texte était ἡμῶν τὸ ἀγαθόν, car, en se rangeant parmi ceux qui participent à ce bien, Paul indiquerait le bien commun de tous les chrétiens. Mais a leçon ὑμῶν est beaucoup plus probable d'après les mss. L'Apôtre s'adresse donc toujours aux forts (TAom., Corn., SH.). Leur bien particulier, ce qu'ils ont de Lon, c'est la liberté chrétienne appuyée sur de solides principes de foi. Ils ne doivent pas l’exposer à de mauvaises interprétations. De la part de qui? Cornely : de la part des faibles; et il prouve par I Cor. x, 30 que βλασφημείσθω peut indiquer des paroles outrageantes émanant de membres de la communauté. Toutefois le contexte de I Cor. x, 30 n’est pas le même. Si le faible en proie au marasme, dont nous avions pitié, prend l'offensive, il cesse d'être intéressant, et le pathétique effet de la mort du Christ est manqué. Je crois donc qu'il faut laisser les auteurs des mauvais propos dans un certain vague. Ils ne sont pas le fait de celui qui a succombé, mais de ceux qui ont appris sa chute. Tout en distinguant les Romaïns en deux groupes pour la clarté de l'exposition, Paul n'ignorait pas que les partis tranchés sont d'ordinaire les moins nombreux; il fallait compter avec la masse flottante, où pouvait se produire la critique acerbe contre les forts. C'est encore l'effet que produisent infailliblement, même dans le peuple chrétien, les querelles d'observance monastique quand elles vont au détriment de la charité. La Ve. lit nostrum, qui rend ἡμῶν, Il faudrait lire vestrum, d'après le texte grec le plus sûr.
14:17
Sous prétexte que ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ est toujours dans Paul une idée eschatologique, Lipsius (Jül.) ne veut pas reconnaître dans ce passage une exception évidente (οἵ. d'ailleurs aussi I Cor. 1v, 20). ΠῚ s'agit du règne de Dieu, tel qu'il existe déjà ici-bas : id per quod deus regnat in nobis…. Deo autem conjungimur et subdimur per interiorem intellectum et affectum {Thom.). Dieu règne en nous par la justice, la paix et la joie dans l'Esprit- Saint, Ce sont, d'après Cornely, les vertus que Paul recommande spécialement aux Romains à propos de la controverse; c'était manquer à la justice (strécto sensu) que de violer le droit du faible à son opinion etc. Maïs il semble plutôt (Zahn, Kühl) que Paul dit en trois mots ce qu'est la vie chrétienne, telle qu'il l’a esquissée au chap. v, 1-2 : δικαιωθέντες,,, εἰρήνην ἔχωμεν... καυχώμεθχ (pour la joie). La justice est donc la justice que les chrétiens possèdent, qui les met en paix avec Dieu, leur cause une joie spirituelle; ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ne se rapporte qu'à χαρά, dont le sens avait besoin d'être déterminé. Qu'est-ce, en comparaison de ces biens, qu'une question de nourriture ou de breuvage? elle disparaît, il n'y a pas à en tenir compte (1 Cor. vi, 8). WW. suppriment enim, d'accord avec les mss. de Vg., mais contre le grec,
14:18
ἐν τούτῳ est La leçon des meilleurs mss. Soden préfère ἐν τούτοις qui ἃ tout l'air d'une correction pour répondre par un pluriel aux trois dispositions de l'âme au v. 17; Tertullien (Psych. xv}, la seule autorité ancienne, cite assez librement : nam qui in istis servit, placabilis et propitiabilis deo nostro est. La leçon ἐν τούτοις pourrait étre une objection à notre interprétation du v. 17; car ἐν τούτοις δουλεύων indiquerait l'exercice des vertus. Et c’est précisément peut-être ce que Paul ἃ voulu éviter en écrivant ἐν τούτῳ, « dans cette disposition, dans cet état »; celui qui, comprenant ce qu'est le don de Dieu, le met en œuvre dans le service du Ghrist est agréable à Dieu, première condition de la vie morale chrétienne (χα, 1-2); de plus il ne prête pas le flanc à ces attaques dont il était question au v. 16. Paul dit même qu'il a l'approbation des hommes. Et de fait l'opinion, surtout parmi les chrétiens, prend volontiers le parti de ceux qui mettent au-dessus de tout La charité.
14:19
C’est la conclusion du passage qui commence au v. 16. On comprend ainsi très bien La leçon διώχομεν, mieux attestée par les mss. « Nous voilà donc d'accord pour poursuivre ensemble la paix », etc. La leçon διώκωμεν ne doit être qu'une correction banale, qui devait s'imposer aux versions pour sa facilité (Soden préfère διώχωμεν parce que le v. 20 rentre très nettement dans le thème de l'exhortation, et διώχωμεν ferait la transition. De plus, dans les anciens mss. on trouve plus souvent o pour w que réciproquement). — Paul ne se contente pas de la paix; un bon chrétien doit se proposer quelque chose de plus positif, le bien spirituel de ses frères. — οἰκοδομή « construction » peut se dire de l'édifice spirituel. Dans 5. Paul il a tout à fait le sens moral d’« édification » (1 Cor. xiv, 26; cf. I Thess. v, 11; II Cor. x, 8; cf. I Cor. vu, 10); c’est ainsi qu'il est arrivé à cette expression étrange de οἰχοδομὴ εἰς ἀλλήλους, l'édification destinée aux autres, au lieu de l'édification des uns par les autres. C'est probablement à cause de cette étrangeté que la Ve. (Clém. et WW.) a ajouté custodiamus avec d'autres textes occidentaux; de cette façon on ponctue : quae aedificationis sunt, in invicem custodiamus, et il n'y a aucune difficulté; mais φυλάξωμεν est une variante occidentale à retrancher et donc. custodiamus. Avec διώχομεν on lirait sectamur et non sectemur (διώχωμεν).
14:20
Paul revient au v. 15, mais il n’a pas fait une parenthèse inutile. De 18 considération générale des vv. 17 ss., il résultait un nouveau motif de ne point scandaliser le faible : dépositaire des dons de Dieu, il est, comme chrétien, l’œuvre de Dieu, œuvre qu'il ne faut pas détruire. — χαταλύειν se disait des villes et des maisons (cf. Mt. xxvi, 61; II Cor. v, 1) et se trouvait par conséquent en opposition avec οἰκοδομεῖν (Gal. 11, 18). Il est donc vraisemblable que οἰκοδομή (v. 19) ἃ amené μὴ xatéhus. Tu devrais édifier ton frère; à tout le moins ne détruis pas l'ouvrage de Dieu! L'ouvrage de Dieu pourrait être la communauté, qui serait menacée tout entière, faute de paix; mais, d'après le contexte, c’est plutôt le faible, que l'action inconsidérée du fort atteint directement. Il est menacé de périr, parce que, bien que tous les aliments soient purs, C'est un mal moral (xaxév s’accordant probablement avec ἐσθίειν compris dans ἐσθίοντι) de manger, quand on mange en butant, c'est-à-dire quand la conscience succombe sous l'influence de l'exemple qu'elle suit en le condamnant. διά indique la circonstance (π, 27; 1v, 11; IL Cor. 11, 4) de l'obstacle qui se trouve sur la route, προσχόμματος. C'est le sens donné par presque tous les commentateurs (Chrys., Ambrst., Corn., Zahn, Jül., Kühl); d'autres avaient compris que le mal moral était le fait du fort qui mangeait en donnant le scandale (encore SH.). La Vg. per offendiculum (Ambrst. : per offensionem) se concilie assez bien avec le premier sens; cum scandalo serait meilleur.
14:21
Dernière exhortation au fort, appel à la noblesse de ses sentiments. Il est beau, il est bon et noble, de renoncer à ce qui peut être fâcheux pour le prochain, quand il n’est question que de manger de la viande et de boire du vin. Nous avons déjà rencontré les aliments; c’est le thème principal du 21. Ajouter : ἢ σκανδαλίζεται ἢ ἀσθενεῖ, chapitre. Mais les faibles s'abstenaient donc de boire du vin? Quelques-uns sürement; mais SIL. font remarquer avec raison que Paul emploie ἀπὸ formule tout aussi absolue pour un cas où il n'était question que de certaines viandes 1 Cor. vin, 18 : διόπερ, εἰ βρῶμα σχανδαλίζει τὸν ἀδελφόν μου, οὐ μὴ φάγω χρέα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. On ne saurait donc conclure du v. 21 à l'existence à Rome d'un groupe nettement caractérisé par l'abstention de viande et de vin. C'est ce que confirme le vague du troisième terme : μηδὲ ἐν &, sous-entendu ποιεῖν, car ἐσθίειν après οἶνον serait trop étroit; donc « faire quoi que ce soit » dans le genre de ce qui précède. S'il s'agissait de la préférence donnée à certains jours, pourquoi ne pas le dire? Ne pas manger de la chair et ne pas boire de vin sont donc comme des échantillons des abstentions par scrupule religieux. — à ©, au lieu de ᾧ, étonne avant προσχόπτει qui s'accommoderait mieux du datif. C’est un indice (AüAl) que Paul se proposait d'écrire tout ce qui se trouve dans la leçon longue προσκόπτει + ἢ σχανδαλίζεται ἢ ἀσθενεῖ (Sod. entre crochets). Les derniers mots sont attestés un peu partout par d'excellentes autorités; c'est la leçon occidentale, courante à Antioche (sauf svr.} et en Égypte (B et sah.). L'addition serait inexplicable; l'omission s'explique par la difficulté : outre que προσχόπτει paraissait répondre suffisamment à διὰ προσκόμματος (v. 20), un copiste ἃ pu se demander ce que signific ἀσθενεῖ, et si ce mot n’est pas superflu. La leçon longue admise, on peut supposer (Corn.) une gradation ascendante, qui est plausible, de rpooxénret à σχανδαλίζεται, de buter à tomber complètement; mais est-ce que ἀσθενεῖ ne pouvait pas se dire de tous les faibles ? Il faut donc admettre qu'après σχανδαλίζεται la pensée retombe : « ou même se trouve sans défense livré à sa faiblesse ». Si l'on objecte que l'Apôtre se montre ici bien exigeant envers le fort, on peut répondre qu'il a dit χαλόν, c'est beau, c’est la perfection L'obligation stricte ne naissait pour le fort que dans certaines conditions, qui sont à déterminer selon les cas par la théologie morale. Le mot offenditur (V3.-Clém.\ doit être corrigé en offendit (WW). 22 s. Les forts ont raison, c’est entendu; et leur avantage c'est l'harmonie entre leur conviction et leur conduite. Les autres hésitent, mangent malgré leur doute et par conséquent ils pèchent. Que les forts gardent donc leur avantage pour eux, quand ils ne risquent pas de faire succomber leurs frères ! 22a) πίστις est une foi solide et éclairée, réglant les décisions de la conscience : 1 enim quod universaliter fide tenernus, puta usum ciborum esse licitum vel illicitum, conscientia applicat ad opus quod est factum vel faciendum (Thom.). — κατὰ σεαυτόν se rapporte à ἔχε (19. contre Aug., Ambrst. Thom.); avec ἔχεις il n'aurait aucun sens ou un sens fâcheux : {4 qui sedes securus (Ambrst.); avec ἔχε, il signifie que le fidèle doit garder sa foi pour lui, c'est-à-dire ne pas agir selon sa conviction dans les occasions où il peut causer du scandale. La traduction penes temetipsum me paraît donc tout à fait légitime; Corn. préfère : relate ad te ipsum et l'entend d’une permission positive de mettre en œuvre sa conviction, relate ad se ipsum, in sua ipsius vita. Que le fort puisse suivre sa conviction en son particulier et dans d’autres circonstances, cela résulte de la nature des choses, mais non de ces paroles mêmes, car ἔχε ne se rapporte toujours qu'à la conviction, non à l'action, et κατὰ σεαυτόν joint à ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ indique le secret de la conscience (ef. Gal. νι, 4). — Il importe peu pour le sens qu'on lise πίστιν ἔχεις ou πίστιν ἣν ἔχεις, ἥν (Sod. entre crochets) a une excellente attestation (N Β G etc.}, quoique presque uniquement égyptienne. Il est peu vraisemblable que ce mot ait été supprimé pour se conformer à Jac. 11, 17. D'autre part, l’aurait-on ajouté après πίστιν sans article? Si l’on omet ἥν, le plus naturel sera de mettre une interrogation après ἔχεις, comme la Vg. 22b) δοχιμάζειν « examiner », « approuver », mais aussi « prendre parti, faire élection », comme προαιρεῖσθαι; PLur. De lib. educ. 4, D : ὥσπερ εἴ τις... τὸν ὃι᾽ ἀπειρίαν ἀπολέσαντ᾽ ἂν αὐτὸν προέλοιτο, À ναύχληρον τὸν ἄριστον ἀφεὶς τὸν γείριστον δοκιμάσεις, Celui qui ne se juge pas lui-même, et par conséquent ne se condamne pas; qui ne désapprouve pas dans sa conscience ce qu'ilse résout de faire; celui-là est heureux.
14:23
διχχρίνεσθαι (cf. sur Mc. x1, 23) « décider », mais dans le N. T. « hésiter», spécialement quand il s'agit de la foi (ιν, 20; Act. x, 20; Jac. 1, 6 [bis]). Ici l'hésitation est dans la conscience. On agit, néanmoïns, mais sans avoir pris parti sur la question de savoir si l’action est licite ou coupable; on est donc coupable, puisqu'on court sciemment le risque d’offenser Dieu; on est donc déjà condamné à son tribunal (καταχέκριται), parce qu'on n'a pas agi d’après le jugement d'une conscience éclairée par la foi. Sans cette condition, on pèche. Ce n'est rien moins que la question de la conscience pratiquement douteuse qui est tranchée en quelques mots. Pour d'anciennes opinions sur ce verset et le précédent, voir Cornely. Plusieurs Latins ont été induits à un sens différent par la Vg. En eltet la traduction de διχχρινόμενος par qui discernit aboutit nécessaire ment à un sens, qui est exact en soi, mais qui n’est pas celui que propose ici l'Apôtre. Au lieu d'agir avec une conscience douteuse, celui qui discerne agit avec une conscience éclairée, mais dont il ne tient pas compte. Il woït nettement qu'il ne devrait pas manger, et il mange : il est donc condamné: Encore une fois cela est très juste, mais cela n'est pas la question. Il serait donc urgent de remplacer discernit par haesitat (cf. τν, 20) ou dubitat. Les faibles et les forts. Le chap. xiv soulève une question très difficile : Quels sont les faibles que les forts doivent ménager ? Clément d'Alexandrie semble avoir pressenti que ce sont des ascètes, car il note l’analogie entre l'abstinence de chair et de vin et la pratique des pythagoriciens : αὐτός τε (Paul) ὁμολογεῖ χαὶ of ἀπὸ Πυθαγόρου (Paed. [1], ι, 11). Origène a pensé qu'il s'agissait de Juifs convertis demeurés attachés aux observances légales. De même saint Jérôme (C. Jovin. 11, 16), Théodore de Mops., Ambrst., Théodoret, pseudo-Primasius 2° /oco et saint Thomas. Chrysostome, sachant bien que la Loi mosaïque n’interdisait pas toute sorte de chair, a essayé de résoudre l'objection : les Juifs se seraient abstenus de toutes les viandes afin de dissimuler leur répugnance spéciale pour le pore. Son école l'a suivi. Pélage a pensé que les faibles étaient ceux qui ne voulaient pas manger des viandes immolées, et ce fut aussi l'opinion de saint Augustin. Ce Père a cru reconnaître dans le chap. xrv de l’épitre aux Romains le même sujet que Paul avait traité dans 1 Cor. vuir; les faibles sont ceux qui s'abstiennent de manger des viandes immolées : Quidam vero infirmiores abstinebant à carnibus et a vino, ne vel nescientes inciderent in ea quae idolis sacrificabantur. Omnis enim tunc immolaticia caro in macello vendebatur, et de primitiis vint libabant Gentes simulacris suis, et quaedam in ipsis torcularibus sacrificia faciebant (Expos. Lxxvin). Cependant les faibles sont en fait des Juifs; Augustin le conclut de xv, 7 : Quod Gentes si bene considerent, intelligunt ἰδία sua fide, qua iam credunt omnia munda mundis, non se debere insultare his, si qui forte infirmi de circumecisione fuerint qué propter communicationem idolorum nullas omnino audeant carnes altingere (eod. loc. xxx). De même pseudo-Primasius (1° loco). On dirait done que les anciens n’ont pas regardé les faibles comme des abstinents. Mais ce n'est qu'une apparence. Si l'on excepte saint Jérôme qui, défendant le jeûne contre Jovinien, tenait absolument à ce que l’Apôtre n’en ait pas parlé et qui a identifié les faibles avec de simples Judéo-chrétiens, distinguant entre certaines viandes et pratiquant le sabbat et les néoménies, les anciens ont reconnu à propos de l'observance des jours {x1v, 5) que Paul visait des pratiques ascétiques. Chrysostome : ἐνταῦθα δέ μοι δοκεῖ ἡμέρα καὶ περὶ νηστείας αἰνίττεσθαι, Pél. : Judaeï in escis diem inter diem tudicare non poterant. Ergo de teiunio, et abstinentia dicit. De même Origène, Théodoret, Ambrosiaster, ps.-Primasius, Thomas. Augustin fait exception, mais son interprétation de l’observance des jours ne répond ni au texte, ni au contexte (Corn.). De sorte que s'il existe sur ce point une opinion dominante chez les Pères, elle regarde les faibles comme des ascètes imbus d'idées juives, plutôt piquant de voir des ascètes comme ps.-Primasius défendre pied à pied l'ascétisme, souvent au détriment de l’exégèse littérale. Aujourd'hui personne ne soutint plus que les faibles étaient des judaïsants. Le P. Cornely, avec Pélage et saint Augustin, croit que les faibles s'abstenaient de manger les viandes immolées; mais, contrairement à ses devanciers, il désassocie ceux qui observaient les jours et les regarde comme un groupe judéo-chrétien qui observait les sabbats et les néoménies. L'immense majorité des commentateurs voit dans les faibles des ascètes, avec de nombreuses divergences dans le détail des opinions, On peut citer dans ce sens, parmi les plus récents, Lipsius, Sanday- Headlam, Jülicher, Lietzmann, Zahn, Kühl, et même Toussaint et le P. Lemonnyer. D'après ce dernier, Paul a signalé « les premières manifestations de cette ascèse indiscrète et compliquée de spéculations peu orthodoxes que l’apôtre combattra dans les épîtres de la captivité Rappelons les deux éléments qui peuvent nous servir de base
14:1
… Th. Zahn thinks of a minority of the community of Rome, to which Rom. 14:1 would also refer.
14:4
… Scripture also insists in this sense (v., for example, Mt. 7, 1; Lk. 6, 37; Rom. 14, 4; I Cor. 4, 5; I Cor. 4, 5, etc.). …
14:6
… Thus in the two multiplications of the loaves (Mt. 14:19; 15:36), in the Eucharistic Supper (Mt. 26:26 ff.), in the supper at Emmaus (Lk. 24:30) and elsewhere (Acts 27:35; Rom. 14:6).
14:10
2. Circumstances of the universal divine judgment. — The judge will be the God-Man (Jn. 5, 22; Acts 10, 42; Rom. 14, 10; II Cor. 5, 10), who will appear from the heights of heaven, preceded by the Cross (Mt. 24, 30), surrounded by hosts of angels and saints (Mt. 24, 31; Mk. 8, 38; Lk. 9, 26; I Thess. …
… Hence the importance of "being prepared," of "watching," so as not to fear this "day of the Lord," this "coming" of his (v. FABUSIA) which for us is sudden inasmuch as it is absolutely unknown (Matt. 24:37-51; 25:1-30; Mark 13:32-37; Luke 12:16-21, 35-46; 17:26-35; 21:24-36; Rom. 13:11-14; 14:10 f.; 1 Cor. 3:10-15; 7:20-32; 10:1-12; Phil. 2:15 f.; etc.) and the desire of the just man to "die to be with Christ" (2 Cor. 5:1-10; Phil. 1:21-26, etc.; cf. Bonsirven, pp. 311-15).
14:15
… Dogma in the Catholic Church effectively remains the foundation of morality, of mysticism, of action, according to the constant apostolic tradition (Gal. 2:19 ff.; Rom. 14:15; I Io. 4:9 ff. [cf. A. Gardeil, Le donné révélé et la théologie, 2nd ed., Paris 1910, p. 319 ff.; E. Krebs, Dogma und Leben, I, 3rd ed., Paderborn 1930; II, 2nd ed. ibid. 1925; A. …
14:17
III. EVALUATION. — Carnal millenarianism, being diametrically opposed to the Christian spirit (cf. Mt. 22:30; Rom. 14:17; I Cor. 15:50), was rejected from its very birth as a heresy. …
14:23
… If, in fact, the conscience is true, granted that it is nothing other than the application of the law to a concrete case, it is clear that it has the same binding force as a just law. And an invincibly erroneous conscience obliges in the same way: "Omne quod non est ex fide, peccatum est" (Rom. 14:23); which text is commonly interpreted, not so much with reference to supernatural faith, but in relation to conscience, in the sense that, when a man acts against his own conscience, …
14:31
… plots laid against him by some Jews (Acts 20:3). To escape an assassination attempt, Paul changed his itinerary on his way to Jerusalem, where he intended to bring the collection he had diligently gathered for the poor of that city (cf. II Cor. 8-9; Rom. 14:31). Passing again through the various Churches of Macedonia and the Asian coast, he reached Jerusalem for Pentecost of 58.
Douay-Rheims (Challoner) · Vulgata Clementina · original Douay-Rheims (Rheims 1582), transcription by EEBO-TCP (CC0) · La Sacra Bibbia, tradotta dalla Volgata da Antonio Martini (1769-1781) (LaParola (laparola.net), Martini OSIS text, Public domain (LaParola's electronic edition marks it 'Dominio pubblico')). Public domain.