He rebuketh the learned vvho in pride of their knovvledge did eate Idolothyta, that is things offered to Idols, vsing (as they said) their libertie: but not considering that the ignorant tooke their doing as an example for them to frequent such meates so, as they did before in their Paganisme, vvith opinion that they did sanctifie the eaters.
1Now concerning those things that are sacrificed to idols: we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up: but charity edifieth.Riguardo poi alle cose immolate agli idoli, noi sappiamo, che tutti abbiamo scienza. La scienza gonfia, ma la carità edifica.AND concerning those things that are sacrificed to Idols, vve knovv that vve al haue knovvledge. Knovvledge puffeth vp: but charitie edifieth.De iis autem quæ idolis sacrificantur, scimus quia omnes scientiam habemus. Scientia inflat, caritas vero ædificat. 2And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he hath not yet known as he ought to know.Che se uno si tiene di saper qualche cosa, non ha per anco saputo, come bisogna sapere.And if any man thinke that he knoweth something, he hath not yet knovven, as he ought to knovv.Si quis autem se existimat scire aliquid, nondum cognovit quemadmodum oporteat eum scire. 3But if any man love God, the same is known by him.Ma chi ama Dio, questi è da lui conosciuto.But if any man loue God, the same is knovven of him.Si quis autem diligit Deum, hic cognitus est ab eo. 4But 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.Quanto adunque al mangiare delle cose immolate agli idoli, sappiamo, che l'idolo è un niente nel mondo, e non v'ha Dio, se non un solo.But as for the meates that are immolated to Idols, vve knovv that an Idol is nothing in the vvorld, and that there is no God, but one.De escis autem quæ idolis immolantur, scimus quia nihil est idolum in mundo, et quod nullus est Deus, nisi unus. 5For although there be that are called gods, either in heaven or on earth (for there be gods many and lords many):Imperocché quantunque sianvi di quelli, che sono chiamati dii, o in cielo, o in terra (dappoiché sono molti dii, e molti signori):For although there be that are called gods, either in heauen, or in earth (for there are many gods, and many lordes)Nam etsi sunt qui dicantur dii sive in cælo, sive in terra (siquidem sunt dii multi, et domini multi): 6Yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him: and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.Quanto a noi però un solo Dio, il Padre, da cui tutte le cose, e noi per esso: e un solo Signore Gesù Cristo, per cui tutte le cose, e noi per mezzo di lui.yet to vs there is one God, the Father, of vvhom al things, and vve vnto him: and one Lord, IESVS Christ, by vvhom al things, and vve by him.nobis tamen unus est Deus, Pater, ex quo omnia, et nos in illum: et unus Dominus Jesus Christus, per quem omnia, et nos per ipsum.
7But there is not knowledge in every one. For some until this present, with conscience of the idol, eat as a thing sacrificed to an idol: and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.Ma non è in tutti la scienza. Ma alcuni con in cuore tuttora l'idea dell'idolo, mangiano una cosa come immolata agli idoli: e la coscienza di essi essendo debole, resta contaminata.But there is not knovvledge in al. For some vntil this present vvith a conscience of the Idol, eate as a thing sacrificed to Idols: and their conscience being vveake, is polluted.Sed non in omnibus est scientia. Quidam autem cum conscientia usque nunc idoli, quasi idolothytum manducant: et conscientia ipsorum cum sit infirma, polluitur. 8But meat doth not commend us to God. For neither, if we eat, shall we have the more: nor, if we eat not, shall we have the less.Ma un cibo non ci rende commendabili presso Dio. Imperocché né se mangeremo, avrem qualche cosa di più: ne se non mangeremo, avrem qualche cosa di meno.But meate doth not commend vs to God. For neither if vve eate, shal vve abound: nor if vve eate not, shal vve lacke.Esca autem nos non commendat Deo. Neque enim si manducaverimus, abundabimus: neque si non manducaverimus, deficiemus. 9But take heed lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumblingblock to the weak.Ma badate, che per disgrazia questa vostra licenza non divenga inciampo pe' deboli.But take heede lest perhaps this your libertie be an offense to the vveake.Videte autem ne forte hæc licentia vestra offendiculum fiat infirmis. 10For if a man see him that hath knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened to eat those things which are sacrificed to idols?Imperocché se uno vegga colui, che ha scienza, stare a mensa nel luogo degli idoli: non sarà ella la coscienza di lui, che è debole, mossa a mangiare delle cose immolate agli idoli?For if a man see him that hath knovvledge, sit at table in the Idols temple: shal not his conscience, being vveake, be edified, to eate things sacrificed to Idols?Si enim quis viderit eum, qui habet scientiam, in idolio recumbentem: nonne conscientia ejus, cum sit infirma, ædificabitur ad manducandum idolothyta ? 11And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ hath died?E per la tua scienza perirà il debole fratello, per cui Cristo è morto?And through thy knovvledge shal the vveake brother perish, for whom Christ hath died?Et peribit infirmus in tua scientia, frater, propter quem Christus mortuus est ?
12Now when you sin thus against the brethren and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.E in tal guisa peccando voi contro i fratelli, e offendendo la loro debole coscienza, contro Cristo peccate.But sinning thus against the brethren, and striking their vveake conscience: you sinne against Christ.Sic autem peccantes in fratres, et percutientes conscientiam eorum infirmam, in Christum peccatis. 13Wherefore, if meat scandalize my brother, I will never eat flesh, lest I should scandalize my brother.Per la qual cosa se un cibò serve di scandalo al mio fratello: non mangerò carne in eterno per non dare scandalo al mio fratello.Vvherfore if meate scandalize my brother: I vvil neuer eate flesh, lest I scandalize my brother.Quapropter si esca scandalizat fratrem meum, non manducabo carnem in æternum, ne fratrem meum scandalizem.
8:1
Calmet
Now concerning those things. It appears from this whole passage that the Corinthians had, in a former letter, consulted this apostle, upon the subject of eating meats offered to idols. It was not unusual to reserve some part of the sacrifice of which they made a supper, either in their own family, with their friends, or sometimes even in the temple. Some of the Christians of Corinth attended without scruple at these sorts of feasts, and eat of the meats offered to idols; whilst others, on the contrary, took scandal at this conduct, and thought it a tacit approbation of idolatry. St. Paul being consulted upon this difficulty, gives them his advice in this chapter. (Calmet)
Witham
We know that we all have knowledge about it. That is, all we, who are sufficiently instructed, have knowledge enough to be convinced, that idols are nothing in themselves, nor the meats offered to them better nor worse upon that account. (Witham)
Challoner
Knowledge puffeth up, etc. Knowledge, without charity and humility, serveth only to puff persons up. (Challoner)
8:4
Calmet
An idol is nothing. The apostle seems to allude in this place to the Greek signification of this word, eidolon, signifying a false representation; as for instance in ghosts, which are said to appear sometimes at night. Umbroe tenues, simulacra luce carentium. (Calmet)
8:5
Challoner
Many gods, etc. Reputed for such among the heathens. (Challoner)
8:6
To us there is but one God, the Father; of whom all things, and we unto him. Of or from the Father are all things, even the eternal Son and the Holy Ghost, though they are one and the same God with the Father.
Witham
And one Lord Jesus Christ: by whom are all things, and we by him. All things were created by the Son of God, the eternal and uncreated wisdom of the Father, from whom he proceeds from eternity, and also by the Holy Ghost, all creatures being equally the work of the three divine persons. The Arians and Socinians pretend from this place, that only the Father is truly and properly God. The Catholics answer, that he is called the God, of whom all, because from him always proceeded, do proceed, and shall always proceed the Son and the Holy Ghost, though one and the same God in nature, substance, etc. And that when he is called the one God, by these words are excluded the false gods of the heathens, not the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who are but one God with the Father. St. Chrysostom also here observes, (hom. xx.) that if the two other persons are excluded, because the Father is called one God, by the same way of reasoning it would follow, that because Jesus Christ is called the one Lord, neither the Holy Ghost, nor even the Father, are the one Lord, whereas the Scriptures many times express the divine majesty, as well by the word Lord as by the word God. (Witham)
8:7
Witham
But knowledge is not in every one, etc. The new converts, who had been Jews, thought that things which had been offered to idols were defiled, unclean, and could not be lawfully eaten: they who had been Gentiles looked upon them as victims offered to idols, in which there was some virtue of enchantment, etc. Their weak consciences judged they could not be lawfully eaten: and when they were induced to eat them by the example of others, it was still against their consciences. The infidels also might sometimes think that the Christians, in eating such things, honoured their idols; in such cases, they who were better instructed, were to abstain, not to give offence to weak consciences, and lest they should make them sin. And a weak brother shall perish, for whom Christ died; where we may learn, that Christ died also for those that shall perish, and not only for the predestinate. (Witham)
8:8
Witham
Meat doth not commend us to God. It is an admonition to those, who because they knew that meats offered to idols were not worse, would not abstain, even when this scandalized the weak brethren: he tells them that eating or not eating of them, does not make them more acceptable to God, nor puts them to any inconvenience, since they may get other meats: therefore they ought not to make use of their liberty, when it proves a stumbling-block to the weak, and makes them sin. (Witham)
8:10
Witham
In the idol's temple.[Ver. 10. In idolio, en eidoleio. Though the Greek word may sometimes be used to signify the temple itself of idols, yet it may in general signify a place, or thing some ways belong to idols. See Estius, P. Alemain, etc.] It does not seem likely that any Christians would go to eat with idolaters in their very temples, of things offered to their idols: so that we may rather understand any place where infidels and Christians eat together, and where it happened that some meats were brought which had been first offered to idols, which the well-instructed Christians regarded not, nor asked any questions about, but the weak scrupled to eat them. (Witham)
Estius
Shall not his conscience. The meaning of St. Paul's words is this: Will not your weak brother, who is not endowed with so great a knowledge as you, be induced, from your example, to eat these meats offered to idols, believing that he will derive therefrom some benefit. (Estius)
8:13
Challoner
If meat scandalize. That is, if my eating cause my brother to sin. (Challoner)
Can we put any meat, or life itself, in competition with a soul, and the blood of Christ, which has been shed for that soul, when we know the value of each!
8:1
Knowledge puffeth up, etc.... Knowledge, without charity and humility, serveth only to puff persons up.
8:5
Gods many, etc.... Reputed for such among the heathens.
8:13
If meat scandalize.... That is, if my eating cause my brother to sin.
8:1
1. Vve al haue knovvledge.] The spiritual and perfectly instructed Christians knevv no meates, No meates vncleane. novv to be vncleane, neither for signification, as in the Lavv of Moyses nor alwaies by nature and creation, as the Manichees thought: nor by any other pollution, as in that they vvere offered to Idols: and therefore they did eate boldly of such meates as vvere sacrificed, contemning and condemning their Idols as mere nothing, and the vvorship of them as the honour of things imaginarie. Giuing of scandal reprehended. vvhich their facte, for their vvant of discretion and charitie, and for the vse of that their libertie to the offense and scandal of the vveake, the Apostle doth here reprehend.
Knowledge vvithout charitie pusseth vp in pride, and profiteth nothing at al. vvhē it is ioyned vvith charitie, then it edifieth. Aug. li. 9 ciu. Dei c. 20.
8:7
7. Some vvith a conscience.] The perfecter mans fault vvas, that they gaue offense by their eating, to the vveaker Christians. Who seeing them vvhom they reputed vvise and learned, to eate the meates offered to Idols, conceiued that there vvas some vertue and sanctificatiō in those meates, from the Idol to which they vvere offered: and though: that such things were or might be eaten vvith the same conscience and deuotion as before their conuersion. The Heretikes ridiculously apply S. Paules wordes agaīst the Churches fastes and abstinence.
Therfore the case standing thus, and the Apostles discourse of eating or not eating meates being so as is declared (a thing so euident that it admitteth no other interpretation) if the Protestants apply any of this admonition against our fastes in the Cath. Church, they be to to ridiculous.
8:10
10. In the Idols temple.] Like as novv, some Catholikes haue said, they knovv that Caluins communion is but as other bread and vvine. But yet the ignorant seing such goe to the Communion, thinke that it is a good act of Religion. Yea vvhatsoeuer they pretend, it must needes seeme an honour to Caluins Communion, Going to the Communion, vvhat a sinne in Catholikes. when they are seen in the Idols temple solemly sitting or communicating at the abominable table.
8:11
Concordanza Ro. 14, 15
8:13
Concordanza Ro. 14, 21.
8:1
Mathetes (A Diogneto) † fl. 130 d.C. Epistle to Diognetus 12
… For neither can life exist without knowledge, nor is knowledge secure without life. Wherefore both were planted close together. The Apostle, perceiving the force [of this conjunction], and blaming that knowledge which, without true doctrine, is admitted to influence life,
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 2.26.1
… And for this reason Paul exclaimed, “Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth:”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Confessions 7.20
… Of these things was I indeed assured, yet too weak to enjoy Thee. I chattered as one well skilled; but had I not sought Thy way in Christ our Saviour, I would have proved not skilful, but ready to perish. For now, filled with my punishment, I had begun to desire to seem wise; yet mourned I not, but rather was puffed up with knowledge.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 55.39
39. I beseech you therefore also, my dearly beloved, whether studying these or other writings, so to read and so to learn as to bear in mind what hath been most truly said, “Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 73.9
… Let us content ourselves with smaller attainments in that [knowledge] which puffeth up, if we can thereby preserve unharmed that [charity] which edifieth.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 167.11
… Knowledge, when it is of the right kind, is the handmaid to love, for without love “knowledge puffeth up,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 188.13
… 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.” He affirms that God distributes to every man, and that we receive divine assistance to live piously and justly, not only by the revelation of that knowledge which without charity “puffeth up,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 9.20
However, the very origin of the name suggests something worthy of consideration, if we compare it with the divine books. They are called demons from a Greek word meaning knowledge. Now the apostle, speaking with the Holy Spirit, says, “Knowledge puffeth up, but charity buildeth up.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On Christian Doctrine 2.13
20. And men are easily offended in a matter of this kind, just in proportion as they are weak; and they are weak just in proportion as they wish to seem learned, not in the knowledge of things which tend to edification, but in that of signs, by which it is hard not to be puffed up,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On Christian Doctrine 2.41
62. But when the student of the Holy Scriptures, prepared in the way I have indicated, shall enter upon his investigations, let him constantly meditate upon that saying of the apostle’s, “Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 12.11
… For when he neglects the love of wisdom, which remains always after the same fashion, and lusts after knowledge by experiment upon things temporal and mutable, that knowledge puffeth up, it does not edify:
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 12.14
For knowledge also has its own good measure, if that in it which puffs up, or is wont to puff up, is conquered by love of eternal things, which does not puff up, but, as we know, edifieth.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 15.8
… for she asks earnestly, and seeks humbly, and knocks meekly. She sees that no fault is found with the law, when it is said, "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life," any more than with knowledge, when it is said, "Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth."
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin 1.27
… so that the holy Church may cease to be harassed by his stubborn persistence, and rather rejoice in his sincere conversion. Let him distinguish between knowledge and love, as they ought to be distinguished; because “knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 4.11
… For the knowledge of the law without love puffeth up, does not edify, according to the same apostle, who most openly says, “Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 40
… and although they allow that we have the knowledge of the law from God, they will yet have it that love is from our very selves. Nor do they listen to the apostle when he says, “Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 1.1.3
… and rightly, inasmuch as the wind also is called spirit. And hence it is written, “Fire, hail, snow, ice, spirit of tempest.” But, indeed, who does not know that the proud are spoken of as puffed up, as if swelled out with wind? And hence also that expression of the apostle, “Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 27.5
… not as when it is quickened by the Spirit. Wherefore it is said that “the flesh profiteth nothing,” in the same manner as it is said that “knowledge puffeth up.” Then, ought we at once to hate knowledge? Far from it! And what means “Knowledge puffeth up”? Knowledge alone, without charity. Therefore he added, “but charity edifieth.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 2.8
8. All these things, my brethren,—“because we have known That which is from the beginning, because we are strong, because we have known the Father,”—do all these, while they in a manner commend knowledge, not commend charity? If we have known, let us love: for knowledge without charity saveth not. “Knowledge puffeth up, charity edifieth.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 119.9
… but for so great, as may not be extinguished by the weight of the chastening:…so much in fact as to enable him to endure with the utmost patience the discipline. In the third place is mentioned knowledge; since, if knowledge in its greatness outstrips the increase of love, it doth not edify, but “puffeth up.”
8:2
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. The Prescription Against Heretics 27
… removed from Him, who hath called you as His own in grace, to another gospel.” That they likewise (remember), what was written to the Corinthians, that they “were yet carnal,” who “required to be fed with milk,” being as yet “unable to bear strong meat;” who also “thought that they knew somewhat, whereas they knew not yet anything, as they ought to know.”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On Modesty 14
… “Ye are already enriched! ye are already satiated! ye are already reigning!” and, “If any thinks himself to know, he knoweth not yet how it behoves him to know!”
san Tascio Cecilio Cipriano † 258 d.C. Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 3.22
… But dost thou hope, who judgest those who do evil, and doest the same, that thou thyself shalt escape the judgment of God?” Also in the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: “And let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” And again: “If any man thinketh that he knoweth anything, he knoweth not yet in what manner he ought to know.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 20
… Whereas, though we had an exact knowledge of all other things, not even so were it possible to possess this knowledge to such an extent. For how far He is apart from all things, it is impossible even to say.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Thessalonians 7
… Knowing these things therefore, let us put a curb upon our reasonings. Let us not transgress our bounds, nor the measures that have been assigned to our knowledge. For, “If any man,” he says, “thinketh that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.” (
Tirannio Rufino † 411 d.C. The Apology of Rufinus. Addressed to Apronianus, in Reply to Jerome's Letter to Pammachius 1.40
“Another contends that he speaks thus because of the body of our humiliation and the chain with which we are encompassed, so that we
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 9.1
… “Seek God,” he says, “and your heart shall live;” and lest any one should rashly rejoice that he has, as it were, apprehended it, “Seek,” he says, “His face evermore.” And the apostle: “If any man,” he says, “think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of Him.”
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 109
… For, though I have spent much time in teaching, I still need one to teach me. “We know,” says the divine Apostle “in part,” and again he says, “If any man think that he knoweth anything he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.”
8:3
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 14.23
… hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives;” for example, because of our hardness of heart, it has been written on account of our weakness, “But because of fornications, let each man have his own wife and let each woman have her own husband;” and this, “Let the husband render unto the wife her due, and likewise also the wife unto the husband.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 20
Ver. 3 . “But if any man love God, the same,” he doth not say, “knoweth Him,” but, “is known of Him.” For we have not known Him, but He hath known us. And therefore did Christ say, “Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you.” And Paul elsewhere, “Then shall I know fully, even as also I have been known.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 8.7
… For as there are two commandments on which hang all the Law and the prophets, love of God and love of our neighbor; not without cause the Scripture mostly puts one for both: whether it be of God only, as is that text, “For we know that all things work together for good to them that love God;” and again, “But if any man love God, the same is known of Him;”
8:4
sant'Ignazio di Antiochia † 108 d.C. Epistle to the Antiochians 4
… All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.” And concerning the incarnation: “The Word,” says [the Scripture], “became flesh, and dwelt among us.” And again: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” And those very apostles, who said “that there is one God,”
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 3.6.5
… And Paul himself says that this is true: “We know that an idol is nothing, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth; yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we through Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him.”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. The Shows, or De Spectaculis 13
… and we may hold it as a thing beyond all doubt, that for us who have twice renounced all idols, they are utterly unsuitable. “Not that an idol is anything,”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. The Five Books Against Marcion 5.7
… He introduces his discussion about meats offered to idols with a statement concerning idols (themselves): “We know that an idol is nothing in the world.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen Against Celsus 8.24
… that they too are God’s creatures, and that we must believe in them, sacrifice to them according to the laws, and pray to them that they may be propitious.” In reference to this statement, it would be profitable for us to take up and clearly explain the whole passage of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in which Paul treats of offerings to idols.
Antipapa Novaziano † 258 d.C. On the Jewish Meats 7
… and as soon as this is done, it belongs no longer to God, but to the idol. And when this creature is taken for food, it nourishes the person who so takes it for the demon, not for God, by making him a fellow-guest with the idol, not with Christ, as rightly do the Jews also.
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 2.3
33. Yet what think ye, who deny the goodness and true Godhead of the Son of God, though it is written that there is no God but One?
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.3
… But the Father and the Son, being of one substance, are not two Gods, but “One God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things.” “One God,” he says, “and one Lord Jesus;” and above: “One God, not two Gods;” and then: “One Lord, not two Lords.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 20
… both the grosser sort among them, and those who were accounted lovers of wisdom. Thus, seeing that the former know of no more than the mere stones, the others assert that certain powers reside in them , which they also call gods; to the former accordingly he says, that “no idol is anything in the world,” to the other, that “there is no God but one.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Morals of the Manichæans 14
… and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh forever, lest I make my brother to offend."
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 1.13
… Sin, indeed, was not made by Him; and it is plain that sin is nothing, and men become nothing when they sin. An idol also was not made by the Word;—it has indeed a sort of human form, but man himself was made by the Word;—for the form of man in an idol was not made by the Word, and it is written, “We know that an idol is nothing.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 97.9
… “The things,” brethren, saith the Apostle, “which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice unto devils, and not to God; we know that an idol is nothing: and that what the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God; and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 136.3
… wherefore they cannot be frightened, for nothing which has no sense can be frightened. How then can it be said of the Lord, “He is terrible above all gods, because the gods of the Gentiles are idols,” if the devils which may be terrified are not understood to be in these images. Whence also the Apostle says, “We know that an idol is nothing.”
8:5
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. The Five Books Against Marcion 3.15
… For the name of God, as being the natural designation of Deity, may be ascribed to all those beings for whom a divine nature is claimed,—as, for instance, even to idols. The apostle says: “For there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth.”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. The Five Books Against Marcion 5.7
… Assuredly also, when (the apostle) rules that marriage should be “only in the Lord,” that no Christian should intermarry with a heathen, he maintains a law of the Creator, who everywhere prohibits marriage with strangers. But when he says, “although there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth,”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. The Five Books Against Marcion 5.11
If, owing to the fault of human error, the word God has become a common name (since in the world there are said and believed to be “gods many”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. Against Hermogenes 4
… For “although there be that are called gods” in name, “whether in heaven or in earth, yet to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things;”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. Five Books in Reply to Marcion 4
40 God all things made;” to whom he plainly owns
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen Against Celsus 4.29
… and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen Against Celsus 8.4
… and the same is true in regard to the use of the word “lords.” To this effect Paul says, “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there are gods many, and lords many.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.34
… There are some gods of whom God is god, as we hear in prophecy, “Thank ye the God of gods,” and “The God of gods hath spoken, and called the earth.” Now God, according to the Gospel, “is not the God of the dead but of the living.” Those gods, then, are living of whom God is god. The Apostle, too, writing to the Corinthians, says:
san Basilio † 379 d.C. The Letters 8.3
… Paul, “For as there be gods many and lords many, but to us there is but one god, the Father, of whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ by Whom are all things.”
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 10.0
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 10.10
… For though there be many that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth , and so on, yet to us there is One God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and One Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.1
23. This idea of these blasphemers Paul puts aside; for he said: “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.3
… Singleness has to do with a person; unity with a nature. That those things which are of a different substance are wont to be called, not one alone, but many, though already proved on the testimony of the prophet, the Apostle himself has stated in so many words, saying: “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
… For the adoption came of His grace, and so too the glory, and the promises, and the Law. After taking all these things then into consideration, and reflecting how earnest God along with His Son, had been for their salvation, he lifts up his voice aloud, and says, “Who is
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 20
… for these too the Greeks worshipped: but upon the earth demons, and all those who had been made gods of men:—“yet to us there is One God, the Father.” In the first instance having expressed it without the word “Father,” and said, “there is no God but one,” he now adds this also, when he had utterly cast out the others.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 9.23
… and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 2.10
… as e.g. the apostle says, “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 136.3
… The whole then of that question the Apostle has briefly expounded, when he says, “For though there be who are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there are gods many and lords many; yet we have one God the Father, from whom are all, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 136.9
… 27 ). For what he here says, “the God of Heaven,” I suppose that he meant to express in other words what He had before said, “the God of gods.” For what there he subjoined, he has here also repeated. “Give thanks unto the Lord of lords.” “But to us there is but one God,” etc., “and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him;”
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 147
… This is distinctly taught us by the admirable Paul in the words “For though there be that are called gods whether in heaven or in earth, as there are gods many and lords many, but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord by whom are all things and we by Him.”
san Giovanni Damasceno † 749 d.C. An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3.10
… For, indeed, we apply all the divine names simply and unconditionally to each of the subsistences in imitation of the divine Apostle’s words. But to us there is but one God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and we in Him: and one Lord Jesus Christ by Whom are all things, and we by Him
8:6
sant'Ignazio di Antiochia † 108 d.C. Epistle to the Tarsians 4
And [know ye, moreover], that He who was born of a woman was the Son of God, and He that was crucified was “the first-born of every creature,” and God the Word, who also created all things. For says the apostle, “There is one God, the Father, of whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things.”
sant'Ignazio di Antiochia † 108 d.C. Epistle to the Philippians 1
… For if there is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, “of whom are all things;”
sant'Ignazio di Antiochia † 108 d.C. Epistle to the Philippians 2
… and there is no other besides Him, the only true [God]. For “the Lord thy God,” saith [the Scripture], “is one Lord.” And again, “Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? And there is also one Son, God the Word. For “the only-begotten Son,” saith [the Scripture], “who is in the bosom of the Father.” And again, “One Lord Jesus Christ.”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. The Five Books Against Marcion 5.7
… “We know that an idol is nothing in the world.” Marcion, however, does not say that the Creator is not God; so that the apostle can hardly be thought to have ranked the Creator amongst those who are called gods, without being so; since, even if they had been gods, “to us there is but one God, the Father.”
sant'Ippolito † 235 d.C. Against the Heresy of One Noetus 3
… The proper way, therefore, to deal with the question is first of all to refute the interpretation put upon these passages by these men, and then to explain their real meaning. For it is right, in the first place, to expound the truth that the Father is one God, “of whom is every family,” “by whom are all things, of whom are all things, and we in Him.”
san Gregorio Taumaturgo † 270 d.C. A Sectional Confession of Faith 7
… for the one divinity showing itself forth according to nature in the Trinity establishes the oneness of the nature; and thus there is a (divinity that is the) property of the Father, according to the word, “There is one God the Father;”
san Gregorio Taumaturgo † 270 d.C. A Sectional Confession of Faith 8
… For Paul addresses the Father as one in respect of divinity, and speaks of the Son as one in respect of lordship: “There is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him.”
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 4.16
16. Since, therefore, the words of the Apostle, One God the Father, from Whom are all things, and one Jesus Christ, our Lord, through Whom are all things
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 4.39
… God had said, They shall make supplication, for God is in Thee . Now mark and digest these words of the Apostle:— God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself . And then the prophecy continues, And there is no God beside Thee . The Apostle promptly matches this with For there is one Jesus Christ our Lord, through Whom are all things
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 8.34
… For the same Apostle says, But for us there is one God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and we in Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things, and we through Him
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 9.34
… I appeal to the sense of the reader: what must we believe Christ to be, when we are commanded to believe in Him also, as well as the Father the only true God? Or, perhaps, if the Father is the only true God, there is no room for Christ to be God. It might be so, if, because there is one God the Father, Christ were not the one Lord
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. On the Incarnation of the Word 39
… but rather let him marvel that by so ordinary a means things divine have been manifested to us, and that by death immortality has reached to all, and that by the Word becoming man, the universal Providence has been known, and its Giver and Artificer the very Word of God. 3. For He was made man that we might be made God
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. De Decretis. (Defence of the Nicene Definition.) 3
… This God Himself shews us, when He says, ‘All these things hath My Hand made ;’ while Paul taught us as he had learned , that ‘There is one God, from whom all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. De Decretis. (Defence of the Nicene Definition.) 4
… was nothing else than the Son, says, ‘God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom He hath appointed Heir of all things, by whom also He made the ages .’ And again, ‘There is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. De Decretis. (Defence of the Nicene Definition.) 5
… ‘from God,’ and is ‘Word’ and ‘Wisdom,’ and not creature or work, but a proper offspring from the Father, Eusebius and his fellows, led by their inveterate heterodoxy, understood the phrase ‘from God’ as belonging to us, as if in respect to it the Word of God differed nothing from us, and that because it is written, ‘There is one God, from whom, all things
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. De Sententia Dionysii. (Defence of Dionysius.) 2
… xlv. 1 , LXX), whom they allege to be in thought only, and originated from nothing. Further, whereas John once more says in the Gospel ( i. 3 ), ‘all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made,’ while Paul writes, ‘there is one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things’ (
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.6
… for ‘there is One God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we for Him; and One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.18
… And ‘God said’ is explained in ‘the Word,’ for, he says, ‘Thou hast made all things in Wisdom;’ and ‘By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made fast;’ and ‘There is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.23.4
… And so, since they are one, and the Godhead itself one, the same things are said of the Son, which are said of the Father, except His being said to be Father :—for instance , that He is God, ‘And the Word was God ;’ Almighty, ‘Thus saith He which was and is and is to come, the Almighty ;’ Lord, ‘One Lord Jesus Christ
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.27
… He asked then glory, yet He had said, ‘All things were delivered unto Me .’ And after the resurrection, He says that He has received all power; but even before that He had said, ‘All things were delivered unto Me,’ He was Lord of all, for ‘all things were made by Him;’ and ‘there is One Lord by whom are all things
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. On the Symbols 'Of the Essence' And 'Coessential.' 1
… Thus, it is said, ‘in the beginning God,’ not ‘generated,’ but ‘made the heaven and the earth, and all that is in them’ ( Gen. i. 1 ). And not, ‘who generates,’ but ‘who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire’ ( Ps. civ. 4 ). And though the Apostle has said, ‘One God, from whom all things’ (
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Synodal Letter to the Bishops of Africa. (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica.) 5
… But Eusebius and his fellows, drawn on by their own error, kept conferring together as follows: ‘Let us assent. For we also are of God: for “there is one God of whom are all things
san Basilio † 379 d.C. De Spiritu Sancto 1.3
3. Lately when praying with the people, and using the full doxology to God the Father in both forms, at one time “ with the Son together with the Holy Ghost,” and at another “ through the Son in the Holy Ghost,” I was attacked by some of those present on the ground that I was introducing novel and at the same time mutually contradictory terms.
san Basilio † 379 d.C. De Spiritu Sancto 2
… In proof of this statement he drags in the words of the Apostle, “One God and Father of whom are all things,…and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things.”
san Basilio † 379 d.C. De Spiritu Sancto 5
… and that there is no truth in these men’s ruling that the Son refuses to admit the Holy Spirit to a share in “of whom” or in “through whom,” according to the limitation of their new-fangled allotment of phrases. “There is one God and Father of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things.”
san Gregorio Nazianzeno † 389 d.C. Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 34
… And sometimes he attributes the operation of God to the Spirit, as in no respect different from Him, and sometimes instead of the Spirit he brings in Christ; and at times he separates the Persons saying, “One God, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him;”
san Gregorio Nazianzeno † 389 d.C. Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 42.8
… thou countest the dust which is without number, I the vessels of election. For nothing is so magnificent in God’s sight as pure doctrine, and a soul perfect in all the dogmas of the truth.—For there is nothing worthy of Him Who made all things, of Him by Whom are all things, and for Whom are all things,
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 7.1
… For the prophet says in the person of the Father, “My Hand made all these things” , meaning by “Hand,” in his dark saying, the power of the Only-begotten. Now the Apostle says that all things are of the Father, and that all things are by the Son
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 10.4
… For what fellowship is there between the creed of Christians and the wisdom that has been made foolish ? But if he leans upon the support of the Scriptures, let him show one such declaration from the holy writings, and we will hold our peace. I hear Paul cry aloud, “There is one Lord Jesus Christ
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 12.1
… But as much as comes within our compass we will set down in few words, following the guidance of the Fathers. He Who is by nature Father of existent things, from Whom all things have their birth, has been proclaimed as one, by the sublime utterance of the Apostle. “For there is one God,” he says, “and Father, of Whom are all things
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. On the Holy Spirit 1.2
… “Yet to us there is one God the Father, of Whom are all things, and we by Him.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. On the Holy Spirit 1.3
32. But perhaps some one may say that there was a reason why the writer said that all things were of the Father, and all things through the Son,
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. On the Holy Spirit 2.5
… Of his substance, as the Son, Who says: “I came forth of the Mouth of the Most High;” as the Spirit, “Who proceedeth from the Father;” of Whom the Son says: “He shall glorify Me, for He shall receive of Mine.” But of the power, as in the passage: “One God the Father, of Whom are all things.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. On the Holy Spirit 2.9
85. Another similar passage is that which they say implies difference, where it is written: “But to us there is one Father, of Whom are all things and we unto Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things, and we through Him.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. On the Holy Spirit 3.11
84. Paul, too, says: “For in Him were all things created in the heavens and in the earth, visible and invisible.” Does he, then, when he says, “in Him,” deny that they were made through Him? Certainly he did not deny but affirmed it. And further he says in another place: “One Lord Jesus, through Whom are all things.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.1
6. Now this is the declaration of our Faith, that we say that God is One, neither dividing His Son from Him, as do the heathen, nor denying, with the Jews, that He was begotten of the Father before all worlds,
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.3
26. The Apostle, careful to prove that there is one Godhead of both Father and Son, and one Lordship, lest we should run into any error, whether of heathen or of Jewish ungodliness, showed us the rule we ought to follow, saying: “One God, the Father, from Whom are all things, and we in Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by Whom are all things, and we by Him.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.8
… and thus we believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as each existing from and to eternity in this divine and wonderful Mystery: not in two Fathers, nor in two Sons, nor in two Spirits. For “there is one God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by Whom are all things, and we by Him.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.11
139. Now we come to that laughable method, attempted by some, of showing a difference of Power to subsist between Father and Son, on the strength of apostolic testimony, it being written: “But for us there is One God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and we in Him, and One Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things, and we through Him.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.3
… But the Father and the Son, being of one substance, are not two Gods, but “One God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 1
… they may abide perpetual and unmoved, so that no other war may again be blown into flame, and beseeches Him that gave, to keep these things firmly settled, saying as follows, “Grace be unto you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” See in this passage, the “from” is common to the Son and the Father, and this is equivalent to “of whom.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on 1 Timothy 7
… As therefore He became Man, so was He also God. A man could not have become a mediator, because he must also plead with God. God could not have been mediator, since those could not receive Him, toward whom He should have mediated. And as elsewhere he says, “There is one God the Father,…and one Lord Jesus Christ” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on 2 Timothy 3
“The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day.” He had compassion on me, he says, he shall therefore have the like return in that terrible Day, when we shall have need of much mercy. “The Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord.” Are there two Lords then? By no means. But “to us there is one Lord Christ Jesus, and one God.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 4
… Dost thou see how great is the difference? He sanctifies, we are sanctified. And above he said, “the Captain of their salvation. For there is one God, of whom are all things.” (
Tirannio Rufino † 411 d.C. A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed 8
… For all other sons, though they are called sons, are so called by the grace of adoption, not by verity of nature; and if there be others who are called lords, they are called so from an authority bestowed not inherent. But Christ alone is the only Son and the only Lord, as the Apostle saith, “One Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom are all things.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Confessions 12.19
… It is true, that not only every created, and formed thing, but also whatever is capable of creation and of form, Thou hast made, “by whom are all things.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 1.6
12. Also, when the same apostle says, “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On Two Souls, Against the Manichæans 7
They might have cited against me those words of the gospel: "Ye therefore do not hear, because ye are not of God;" "Ye are of your father the devil." I also should have cited: "All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made," and this of the Apostle: "One God of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things,"
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 68.34
34. “Command, O God, Thy Virtue” ( ver. 28 ). For one is our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 146.5
… “Blessed is he whose Helper is the God of Jacob;” of this Jacob. Wherefore is he happy? Meanwhile, while yet groaning in this life, “his hope is in the Lord his God.”…Who is this, “Lord his God”?…“To us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.”
Giovanni Cassiano † 435 d.C. The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 4.6
But perhaps you think it a trifle to make this clear: not because it fails in clearness, but because the obscurity of unbelief always causes obscurity even in what is clear. Hear then how the Apostle sums up in a few words this whole mystery of the Lord’s unity [of Person]. “Our one Lord Jesus Christ,” he says, “by whom are all things.”
Giovanni Cassiano † 435 d.C. The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 6.21
And yet to return to what we said before, though all these things are so, as we have stated: how do we read that Jesus Christ (whom you assert to be a mere man) was ever existing even before His birth of a Virgin, and how is He proclaimed by prophets and apostles as God even before the worlds? As Paul says: “One Lord Jesus, through whom are all things.”
Giovanni Cassiano † 435 d.C. The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 6.22
… And this: “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before,” where He gives the name of Him who was born of man, but affirms that He ever was up on high. And the Apostle also, when considering what happened in time, says that all things were made by Christ. For he says, “There is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things.”
Giovanni Cassiano † 435 d.C. The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 7.7
… “We speak wisdom among the perfect:” and presently: “Whom none,” says he, “of the princes of this world knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” Or this: “For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” And: “One Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things.”
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 3
Eran. —But the divine Scripture says that Jesus was weary, and Jesus is God; “And our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things.”
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 83
In the same manner we call those men corrupt and exclude them from the assembly of the Christians, who divide our one Lord Jesus Christ into two persons or two sons or two Lords, for we have heard the very divine Paul saying “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” and again “One Lord Jesus Christ by Whom are all things”
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 84
… They ought to listen to those words of the Apostle which openly declare “one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things,”
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 146
… It were the wildest folly to believe that there are two sons, and to give the doxology to one alone. And who is so distraught as, while hearing the words of the divine Paul “one Lord, one faith, one baptism,” and again “there is one Lord Jesus Christ by Whom are all things,”
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 147
… for the Christ is none other than the only begotten Son of God. So we may quote the divine Paul writing to the Corinthians, but teaching the world, that “There is one God the Father of whom are all things…and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things.”
8:7
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On Modesty 14
… Why gloriest thou as if thou have not received?” Is he not withal “smiting them upon the mouth,” (in saying): “But some, in (their) conscience, even until now eat (it) as if (it were) an idol-sacrifice. But, so sinning, by shocking the weak consciences of the brethren thoroughly, they will sin against Christ.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 20
… For there was no need of mentioning all he had to reprove, particularly as he intended to visit them again with more severity.
san Giovanni Damasceno † 749 d.C. An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.17
… lest knocking we grow weary. For thus it will be opened to us. If we read once or twice and do not understand what we read, let us not grow weary, but let us persist, let us talk much, let us enquire. For ask thy Father , he saith, and He will shew thee: thy elders and they will tell thee . For there is not in every man that knowledge
8:8
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On Fasting 2
… “Behold, a gormandizer and a drinker:” (finally), that so, too, does the apostle teach that “food commendeth us not to God; since we neither abound if we eat, nor lack if we eat not.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen Against Celsus 8.29
… But those things which proceed out of the mouth are evil thoughts when spoken, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.” Paul also says, “Meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 11.12
… And the Apostle, however, knowing that it is not the nature of meats which is the cause of injury to him who uses them or of advantage to him who refrains from their use, but opinions and the reason which is in them, said, “But meat commendeth us not to God, for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 11.14
… for the cause of our lacking is wickedness and sins, and the cause of our abounding is righteousness and right actions; so that such is the meaning of what is said by Paul, “For neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse.”
san Tascio Cecilio Cipriano † 258 d.C. Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 3.61
In Isaiah: “Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we shall die. This sin shall not be remitted to you even until ye die.” Also in Exodus: “And the people sate down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” Paul, in the first to the Corinthians: “Meat commendeth us not to God; neither if we eat shall we abound, nor if we eat not shall we want.”
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 48
… Then he adds exactly whence they go out, namely from the heart. For there, as he knows, are the evil treasures of profane thoughts and other sins. But the Apostle teaches the same thing more concisely, saying, ‘But meat shall not bring us before God
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 26
… For your good is charity, love of the brotherhood, being united, being bound together, living at peace, living in gentleness ( ἐπιεικείας ). He again, to put an end to his fears and the other’s disputatiousness, says, “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink.” Is it by these, he means, that we are to be approved? As he says in another passage too,
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 20
… So far then he hath signified that the thing itself is superfluous, and as nothing. For that which being done profits not, and which being left undone injures not, must be superfluous.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 23
… or descend lower than all, being circumcised and shaving my head, it is that they may not be subverted. This is, “not uncertainly.” But thou, why dost thou eat in idol-temples, tell me? Nay, thou canst not assign any reasonable cause. For “meat commendeth thee not to God; neither if thou eat art thou the better, nor if thou eat not art thou the worse.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 25
… For the thing is not the same. For in the one case, great is our gain from bearing the reproach; but in the other, there will be no advantage. Wherefore also he said before, “for neither if we eat, are we the better; nor if we eat not, are we the worse.” (c.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Confessions 10.31
… and from Thee, too was it, that both might know from whom it was. I heard another voice of Thine, “Go not after thy lusts, but refrain thyself from thine appetites.” And by Thy favour have I heard this saying likewise, which I have much delighted in, “Neither if we eat, are we the better; neither if we eat not, are we the worse;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Confessions 13.21
… “Be ye,” saith he, “as I am, for I am as you are.” Thus in the living soul shall there be good beasts, in gentleness of action. For Thou hast commanded, saying, Go on with thy business in meekness, and thou shalt be beloved by all men; and good cattle, which neither if they eat, shall they over-abound, nor if they do not eat, have they any want;
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. 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:” “for neither if we eat are we the better, neither if we eat not are we the worse;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Morals of the Catholic Church 33
… They remember, "Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats; but God shall destroy both it and them;" and again, "Neither if we eat shall we abound, nor if we refrain from eating shall we be in want;"
papa san Gregorio I Magno † 604 d.C. The Book of Pastoral Rule 3.19
… but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man ( Matth. xv. 11 ). Let the former hear, Meat for the belly, and the belly far meats; but God shall destroy both it and them ( 1 Cor. vi. 13 ). And again, Not in rioting and drunkenness ( Rom. xiii. 13 ). And again, Meat commendeth us not to God (
8:9
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.21
… hundred and forty-second Psalm, ‘I do remember the time past, I muse upon all Thy works, yea I exercise myself in the works of Thy hands .’ Therefore if by the Hand of God the works are wrought, and it is written that ‘all things were made through the Word,’ and ‘without Him was not made one thing ,’ and again, ‘One Lord Jesus, through whom are all things
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.7
52. Christ, then, is the beginning of our virtue. He is the beginning of purity, Who taught maidens not to look for the embraces of men, but to yield the purity of their bodies and minds to the service of the Holy Spirit rather than to a husband. Christ is the beginning of frugality, for He became poor, though He was rich.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 20
Ver. 9 . “For take heed,” saith he, “lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to the weak among the brethren.” ( τῶν ἀδελφῶν not in rec. text.)
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on Colossians 12
… “Say to Archippus,” he saith, “Take heed.” This word is everywhere used to alarm; as when he saith, “Take heed of dogs.” ( Philip. iii. 2 .) “Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you.” ( Col. ii. 8 .) “Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to the weak.” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 228.6
… For the wolf will come,—not man, but the devil, who has very often perverted to apostasy believers to whom the daily ministry of the Lord’s body was wanting; and so, not “through thy knowledge,” but through thine ignorance, “shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died.”
papa san Gregorio I Magno † 604 d.C. The Book of Pastoral Rule 3.35
… Hence it is that Paul says to those who ate certain unclean things without pollution, but in this their eating put a stumbling-block of temptation in the way of the imperfect, Take heed, lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak (
8:10
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On Idolatry 10
… What schoolmaster, without a table of the seven idols, will yet frequent the Quinquatria? The very first payment of every pupil he consecrates both to the honour and to the name of Minerva; so that, even though he be not said “to eat of that which is sacrificed to idols”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. The Chaplet, or De Corona 11
… Shall he, forsooth, either keep watch-service for others more than for Christ, or shall he do it on the Lord’s day, when he does not even do it for Christ Himself? And shall he keep guard before the temples which he has renounced? And shall he take a meal where the apostle has forbidden him?
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 20
Ver. 10 . “For if a man see thee who hast knowledge, sitting at meat in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience if he is weak, be emboldened to eat things sacrificed to idols?”
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. The Letters of St. Jerome 22.29
… Accordingly they find pleasure in what I may call an adultery of the tongue. For “what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial?” How can Horace go with the psalter, Virgil with the gospels, Cicero with the apostle? Is not a brother made to stumble if he sees you sitting at meat in an idol’s temple?
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 12.0
On the words of the Gospel, Matt. viii. 8 , “I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof,” etc., and of the words of the apostle,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 12.7
… The border was proposed to you just now to be touched, when out of the same Apostle there was read, “For if any one see him which hath knowledge sit at meat in an idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him who is weak, be emboldened to eat things offered to idols? And through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish, for whom Christ died!”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 12.9
… “Was not then Christ a man? Was He not crucified?” This hast thou learned of the Pagans. Thou hast lost thy soul’s health, thou hast not touched the border. On this point then touch again the border, and receive health. As I taught thee to touch it in this that is written, “Whoso seeth a brother sit at meat in the idol’s temple;”
8:11
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 3.18.3
… “But now, in Christ, ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.” And again: “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree.” And again: “And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died;”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 13.22
… But if we were to give more careful consideration to these things, we should be on our guard against sinning against the brethren, and wounding their conscience when it is weak, lest we sin against Christ;
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 20
Ver. 11 . “And through thy meat he that is weak perisheth, the brother for whose sake Christ died.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 31
“Lest any man” (he says) “fail of the grace of God.” (He means the good things to come, the faith of the gospel, the best course of life: for they all are of “the Grace of God.”) Do not tell me, It is [but] one that perisheth. Even for one Christ died. Hast thou no care for him “for whom Christ died”? (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 73.8
… alas, I cannot hope to do—so strong are my agitation, grief, and fear, that I think I would cast myself at your feet, and there weeping till I could weep no more, would, with all the eloquence of love, appeal first to each of you for his own sake, then to both for each other’s sake, and for the sake of those, especially the weak, “for whom Christ died,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 93.21
… What will the arrogance of insignificant mortals not dare to do? To what extremities will the presumption of flesh and blood not hurry men? Is this your well-doing, on account of which you are not afraid of the power? You place this grievous stumbling-block in the way of your own mother’s son, for whom Christ died,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 3.4
… So that, even though they themselves knew that they were pressing true charges against certain of their neighbors, yet in this way a weak brother, for whom Christ died, was perishing through their knowledge;
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace 48
… For not for nothing was it said, “Evil communications corrupt good manners;” and, “The weak brother shall perish in thy knowledge, on account of whom Christ died.”
8:12
san Basilio † 379 d.C. The Letters 213
… that I may never be found by the Lord neglectful of my stewardship and asleep; never discharging it amiss, and wounding the conscience of my fellow-servants;
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Treatise Concerning the Christian Priesthood 6.1
… For if for him who causes one only, and that the least, to stumble, it is profitable that “a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea;” and if they who wound the consciences of the brethren, sin against Christ Himself,
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 20
Ver. 12 . “And thus sinning against the brethren, and wounding their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 12.7
… if thou didst disregard the weak, wouldest thou disregard a brother also? Awake. What if so thou sin against Christ Himself? For attend to what thou canst not by any means disregard. “But,” saith he, “when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 32.4
… but that thou hadst been lost, if he had not gained thee. For if thou wouldest not have been lost, how hath he gained thee? Let no man then disregard it, when he sins against a brother. For the Apostle saith in a certain place, “But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ;”
Pseudo-Clement The Second Epistle of the Same Clement 5
… For the sake of meat thou causest him to perish for whose sake Christ died.” For, in “thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their sickly consciences, ye sin against Christ Himself. For, if for the sake of meat my brother is made to stumble,” let us who are believers say, “Never will we eat flesh, that we may not make our brother to stumble.”
8:13
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen Against Celsus 8.28
… 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;” and again, “If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.”
san Tascio Cecilio Cipriano † 258 d.C. The Epistles of Cyprian 61.2
… But if they are unwilling or unable to persevere, it is better that they should marry, than that by their crimes they should fall into the fire. Certainly let them not cause a scandal to the brethren or sisters, since it is written, “If meat cause my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.”
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 1-2.37
… He, who declares that “everything is good, and nothing to be rejected, if it be received with thanks ,” on some occasions, because of the ‘conscience of the weak brother,’ puts some things back from the number which he has accepted, and commands us to decline them. “If,” he says, “meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 46
… What then? Was it their duty to desist for that? By no means. For let us not look to this only, whether some be offended, but whether they are justly offended, and so that it is no hurt to ourselves (to give way). “If meat,” saith (Paul), “offend my brother, I will eat no meat as long as the world lasts.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 13
Wilt thou see also the belly with its proper beauty? Hear what he saith about it, (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 20
… And he said not, “Lest I destroy my brother,” but simply, “That I make not my brother to stumble.” For indeed it comes of folly in the extreme that what things are greatly cared for by Christ, and such as He should have even chosen to die for them, these we should esteem so entirely beneath our notice as not even to abstain from meats on their account.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. The Letters of St. Jerome 123.15
… And, though he might have lived by the gospel, he laboured day and night with his own hands, that he might not be burdensome to the believers. “If meat,” he says, “make my brother to offend. I will eat no flesh while the world standeth.”
8:1
1. DE IIS AUTEM QUAE IDOLIS SACRIFICANTUR, SCIMUS, — quod, scilicet, immolata idolis ab aliis cibis non different, nec plus habeant numinis vel religionis, ut quidam vestrum, o Corinthii, persuasi videntur. Vide Chrysostomum. QUIA OMNES (bene et plane in fide Christi instituti) scientiam (id est, sufficientem rerum Christianarum cognitionem) HABEMUS, — ex qua scimus idolothyta esse adiaphora. Scientia inflat. — q. d. Scientia haec vestra, qua scitis idola nihil esse, et consequenter licitum idolothytis vesci, iisque vescimini cum scandalo ignorantium hoc: haec, inquam, scientia facit vos superbire contra ignorantes, eosque despicere. Pro «inflat» graece est φυσιοῖ, id est, tumet, turget instar follis vento distenti. Talis enim est ventosa scientia. Hinc superbus diabolus dictus est δαήμων quasi δαίμων, id est doctus, peritus, sciens, inquit Plato in Cratylo. Vere S. Augustinus in Sentent., n. 241: «Humilium, ait, virtus est, de scientia non gloriari, quia communis est omnibus sicut lucis, ita participatio veritatis.» Hinc patet hanc scientiam inflantem contrariam esse charitati: inducit enim contemptum proximorum, cum charitas pro proximis sollicita sit, ut eos aedificet. Apposite S. Bernardus, serm. 36 in Cantica: «Sicut, inquit, cibus indigestus malos generat humores, et corpus non nutrit, sed corrumpit, ita ex multa scientia ingesta stomacho animae, qui est memoria, si igne Christi decocta non fuerit, et sic per quosdam artus animae, mores scilicet atque actus, transfusa atque digesta, nonne reputabitur in peccatum, tanquam cibus conversus in pravos noxiosque humores?»
8:2
2. SI QUIS SE EXISTIMAT SCIRE ALIQUID, NONDUM COGNOVIT QUEMADMODUM OPORTEAT EUM SCIRE. — Id est, qui putans se aliquid scire inde inflatur, hic necdum scit quis sit finis, usus et modus scientiae, videlicet ut per scientiam non superbias, prosis quibus possis, nemini obsis, neminem scandalizes; et sic a Deo agnoscaris et ameris, ut sequitur. Notat ostentantes suam scientiam de idolothytis quod liceret iis vesci, quodque iis vescerentur cum scandalo rudiorum. Pulchre S. Bernardus, serm. 36 iam citato, explicans hunc Apostoli locum: «Vides, inquit, quoniam non probat multa scientem, si modum sciendi nescierit. Modus est, ut scias quo ordine, quo studio, quo fine quaeque nosse opus. Quo ordine? ut id prius quod maturius ad salutem. Quo studio? ut id ardentius quod vehementius ad amorem. Quo fine? ut non ad inanem gloriam, curiositatem aut aliquid simile, sed tantum ad aedificationem tuam vel proximi. Sunt namque qui scire volunt, eo fine tantum ut sciant, et turpis curiositas est. Et sunt qui scire volunt ut sciantur et ipsi, et turpis vanitas est, qui profecto non evadent subsannantem Satyricum: Scire tuum nihil est, nisi te scire hoc sciat alter. Et sunt qui scire volunt ut scientiam suam vendant, et turpis quaestus est. Sed sunt quoque qui scire volunt ut aedificent, et charitas est: et item scire volunt ut aedificentur, et prudentia est. Horum omnium soli ultimi duo non inveniuntur in abusione scientiae, quippe qui ad hoc volunt intelligere ut benefaciant.» Idem, lib. De Conscientia, cap. II: «Multi, ait, quaerunt scientiam, pauci conscientiam. Si vero tanto studio et sollicitudine quaereretur conscientia, quanto quaeritur saecularis et vana scientia, et citius apprehenderetur, et utilius retineretur.»
8:3
3. SI QUIS DILIGIT DEUM (et propter Deum proximum, ut eum idolothytorum esu aliave re non scandalizet, sed aedificet), HIC COGNITUS EST AB EO, — id est, hic a Deo approbatus et dilectus est, in huius scientia complacitum est Deo. Nota: Qui diligit Deum, diligit et proximum, quia dilectio Dei iubet et imperat ut proximus diligatur propter Deum; et in dilectione proximi probatur et cernitur dilectio Dei, ut ait Ioannes, epist. I, cap. iv, 20.
8:4
4. DE ESCIS QUAE IDOLIS IMMOLANTUR, SCIMUS QUIA NIHIL EST IDOLUM (q. d. Idolum non est id quod existimatur, et quod repraesentat, non est Deus. Unde explicans subdit), ET QUOD NULLUS EST DEUS, NISI UNUS. — q. d. Idolum nihil est, id est, nihil tale est quale prae se fert, quia nihil habet numinis; materialiter est lignum, formaliter nihil: quia imago est falsae rei, sive Dei qui non est; ac consequenter idolothytum qua tale, nihil est, id est nihil habet numinis vel sanctitatis ex idolo, cui est oblatum. Alludit Apostolus ad hebraeum אליל elil: nam idolum dicitur אליל elil, id est vanitas, res vana, inanis: vel potius, ut elil sit diminutivum ab אל el, id est, Deus fortis, q. d. Elil, id est deiculus, forticulus: vel, ut alii, elil quasi אל אל al el, id est, non Deus, non habens potentiam, fortitudinem Dei, inops ad consolandum et iuvandum, q. d. Idolum non est Deus, sed vana, falsa et inanis umbra Dei. Sic idolum Graecis priscis erat imago quaevis inanis et mendax, qualia sunt vana phantasmata, spectra, umbrae mortuorum et, ut Virgilius ait: «Tenues sine corpore vitae,» et «cava sub imagine formae.» Id patet ex Platone in Theaeteto, ex Luciano in dialogo De Mortuis, ex Homero Odyssea XI, et Eustathio, ibidem. «Εἶδος graece formam sonat, ab eo per diminutionem εἴδωλον deductum idem est quod formula,» ait Tertullianus, lib. De Idolol., cap. III. Unde sacra Scriptura et scriptores Ecclesiastici nomen «idoli» arctarunt ad imaginem Dei qui habetur Deus, revera non est, ut patet hic ex Apostolo. Et passim simulacra et deos Gentium Septuaginta in veteri Testamento vertunt et vocant «idola.» Quare falluntur et fallunt Henricus Stephanus et Ioannes Scapula in lexicis suis asserentes idolum apud scriptores Ecclesiasticos vocari omne simulacrum numen aliquod repraesentans, quod honore et cultu dignamur. Non enim omne simulacrum, vel imago numinis cuiuslibet, est idolum, sed tantum numinis falsi. Ita Cyprianus, De Exhort. mart., cap. I; Tertullianus, lib. de Idololatria; Athanasius, orat. Contra Idola, sub finem. Fraus ergo illa Novantium cavenda, qui idolum cum imagine confundunt, ut, cum idola in Scripturis vetantur, inde concludant omnes imagines vetari. Vide Bellarminum, lib. II De Imaginibus, cap. v, ubi solide demonstrat quod idolum sit similitudo rei falsae, imago vero rei verae.
8:5
5. Nam etsi sunt qui dicantur dii (a Paganis, et apud eos sunt dii et domini multi, ut sequitur: dii, inquam, tam coelestes, uti sol, luna, stellae; quam terrestres, ut Iupiter, Apollo, Hercules), 6. NOBIS TAMEN UNUS EST DEUS, PATER, EX QUO OMNIA, ET NOS IN ILLUM, — in illius scilicet gloriam et cultum creati sumus. Nota: Scriptura tribuit Patri praepositionem «ex,» ut primo principio; Filio «per,» quia idea est et Verbum, per quod omnia facta sunt. Unde hic Apostolus: «Et unus Dominus Iesus Christus, per quem omnia, et nos per ipsum,» scilicet creati et redempti sumus. Spiritui Sancto tribuit «in,» quia Spiritus Sanctus est vinculum et amor Patris et Filii. Vide dicta Rom. cap. XI, vers. ultimo. Nota contra Arianos: Cum ait Paulus: «Unus Deus,» excludit tantum falsos deos, non Filium et Spiritum Sanctum; sic cum subdit: «Unus Dominus Iesus,» excludit tantum falsos dominos, puta deos, non Patrem et Spiritum Sanctum.
8:7
7. SED NON IN OMNIBUS EST SCIENTIA, — iam dicta, quod idolum et idolothytum nihil sit. Nam, ut sequitur: QUIDAM AUTEM (id est, «quidam enim,» iuxta Can. 25) CUM CONSCIENTIA IDOLI (ex erronea conscientia putantes quod idolum habeat aliquid divinitatis) QUASI IDOLOTHYTUM MANDUCANT, — id est, cum reverentia, quasi venerandum, quod numini in idolo latenti sit oblatum et sanctificatum. Ita Anselmus. Aliter explicat Theophylactus, q. d. Paulus: Quidam comedunt idolothytum cum erronea conscientia, qua putant, quod idolothytum ab idolo sit immutatum, et physice a daemone afflatum, perinde ac si halitu diabolico infectum esset, vel certe ac si moraliter vitiatum et pollutum esset ex eo, quod censeatur iam esse res diaboli et cibus daemonis, itaque comedentem immutet et contaminet; comedunt ergo idolothytum cum CONSCIENTIA IPSIUS, CUM SIT INFIRMA, AEDIFICABITUR AD MANDUCANDUM IDOLOTHYTA? — «In idolio,» id est, inquit Erasmus, in epulo idolorum; secundo, proprie, «in idolio,» id est, templo vel mensa idolis consecrata. Nam ibi accumbebant comesturi idolothyta: tales enim epulas, utpote sacras, in templo instrui solere, docet Herodotus in Clio, Virgilius VIII Aeneid., in sacrificio Evandri et epulo cum Troianis. Sic et Iudaei victimas pacificas comedebant in atrio templi, Deuter. xvi, 11. Hinc Syrus hic vertit, «si quis te viderit accumbentem inter idola.» Unde patet, idolothyta edere in idolio, non tantum esse malum propter scandalum, sed etiam per se, quia est professio idololatriae, ut dicetur in cap. x. Tropologice Anselmus: Scientia idolothytorum est scientia vanitatis philosophorum, poetarum, oratorum Gentilium; haec cavenda est. Absit ut ore Christiano sonet: «Iupiter omnipotens,» et «me Hercules,» et «me Castor,» et caetera portenta magis quam numina. Nota: «Aedificabitur,» id est provocabitur, erigetur ut comedat idolothyta quasi sacra, et quasi quid gratiae inde accepturus; aut sacrificaturus numini cuipiam, sicque redeat ad idololatriam. Alii: «aedificabitur,» inquiunt, id est provocabitur, ut contra conscientiam, qua putat cibum idolo oblatum ab eo esse afflatum et contaminatum, indeque se contaminandum, cum manducet, ut dixi vers. 7. CONSCIENTIA EORUM CUM SIT INFIRMA (non plene in fide instructa circa idolothyta), POLLUITUR. — Quia contra conscientiam, aliorum exemplo manducant idolothyta. Ita Chrysostomus. Insaniunt Libertini, dum ex hoc loco docent nec fornicationem, nec ebrietatem, nec quid aliud esse peccatum, nisi quis ea in re sibi formet peccati conscientiam et scrupulum. Suadent itaque ipsi deponendam esse omnem conscientiam, ut non pecces, quidquid agas. Libertini ergo nullam habent conscientiam; ac proinde videntur et hominem, et rationem, et virtutem omnem exuisse: quae vero dementia est hoc Apostolo tribuere? Quis enim non videt Apostolum hic loqui non de peccatis rebusve illicitis, sed adiaphoris, quale est manducare idolothyta.
8:8
8. ESCA AUTEM NOS NON COMMENDAT DEO. — q. d. Idolothytorum, vel aliorum ciborum esus per se nihil facit ad pietatem, qua Deo placeatur; ideoque non debemus nos firmiores, quasi pietatis causa, velle passim omnibus indifferenter uti. Convertit enim hic se Apostolus ad perfectiores, eos monens, ut vitent scandalum infirmorum. Inepte ergo, imo perperam abutuntur hoc loco haeretici contra delectum ciborum et ieiunia Ecclesiae: esca enim non commendat nos Deo, quia non est virtus: sed abstinentia ab esca vetita est actus temperantiae, obedientiae et religionis, ideoque nos Deo commendat, sicut commendavit Danielem cum sociis, Rechabitas, Ioannem Baptistam et alios. Vide dicta Rom. xiv, 17. NEQUE ENIM SI MANDUCAVERIMUS (idolothyta), ABUNDABIMUS, — scilicet virtute, merito et gratia, quae nos commendet apud Deum, uti praecessit, q. d. Per esum idolothytorum nihil magnum, abundans, copiosum, nihil gratiae spiritalis nobis accedet, ut iis inhiare non debeamus. Ita Chrysostomus. Secundo, et simplicius, ut sit nova ratio dissuadens esum idolothytorum. Sensus est, q. d. Sive edamus idolothyta, non ideo escis et deliciis bonisque abundabimus; sive non edamus, non ideo escis et deliciis deficiemus: aliis enim vesci licebit. Sic vulgo dicimus, sive ad convivium hoc vocer, sive non, non ideo saturabor vel esuriam, non ideo pinguior ero vel macrior, ditior vel pauperior. Ostendit quam escae sint res viles et exiles, ideoque omittendae ob scandalum, et postponendae aedificationi proximorum. Ita Anselmus.
8:9
9. VIDETE, NE HAEC LICENTIA VESTRA (comedendi idolothyta) OFFENDICULUM FIAT INFIRMIS. 10. Si enim QUIS VIDERIT EUM, QUI HABET SCIENTIAM (idolothytum nihil esse), IN IDOLIO RECUMBENTEM: NONNE conscientia eius, cum sit infirma, aedificabitur ad manducandum idolothyta?
8:12
12. SIC PECCANTES IN FRATRES, ET PERCUTIENTES (scandalizantes, et per scandalum vulnerantes) CONSCIENTIAM EORUM INFIRMAM, IN CHRISTUM PECCATIS. — Christus enim sibi factum arrogat quod uni ex minimis suis factum fuerit, Matth. xxv, 40. Rursum qui scandalizant proximum, in Christum peccant: quia Christi fabricam, puta proximorum probitatem et salutem, quam Christus suo sanguine construxit, malo suo exemplo destruunt et evertunt.
8:13
13. QUAPROPTER SI ESCA SCANDALIZAT FRATREM MEUM: NON MANDUCABO CARNEM IN AETERNUM. — «Hoc magistri (inquit Chrysostomus) optimi est officium, suo exemplo docere quae praecipit. Et non dicit, sive iuste, sive iniuste, sed quomodocumque. Et non dico, inquit, idolothytum, quod et propter aliam causam prohibetur: sed si quod licet et permittitur, scandalizat, etiam illo abstineo; neque una aut altera die, sed toto vitae tempore. Non enim manducabo, inquit, carnes in aeternum. Et non inquit: Ne perdam fratrem, sed simpliciter: Ut non scandalizem. Etenim ultimae amentiae est, quae Christo pretiosissima sunt, et talia, ut eorum gratia mortem obire non recusaverit, ita nos despicatissima arbitrari, ut escis propterea non abstineamus.» Vide de scandalo S. Basilium in Regulis brevioribus, Reg. 64, ubi in fine ait, eo scandalum esse gravius, quo is qui illud dat, maiori scientia aut gradu praeditus est; additque quod Deus de manu eius sanguinem peccantium, qui illius malum exemplum sequuntur, requiret et reposcet.
8:1
Excluso errore circa correctionem criminum, cap. V et VI; item circa virginitatem et matrimonium, cap. VII, hic excludit errorem circa esum et abstinentiam ciborum, cap. isto, IX et X, loquens de his quae idolis immolabantur, a quibus, quamvis in se licitis, abstinere monet, primo allegando eis scandalum infirmorum, cap. isto; secundo exemplum sui, qui propter alios abstinet a receptione sumptuum licitorum, cap. IX; tertio exemplum poenae Iudaeorum post tanta beneficia Dei in deserto prostratorum, cap. X. Ergo propter scandalum proximi, exemplo apostoli, non propter timorem supplicii debemus abstinere a cibis aliquando licitis. In primo ostendit quod in se licita est comestio idolothitorum; secundo monet nihilominus abstinere propter scandalum fratrum infirmorum, ibi videte ne forte, et cetera. In prima, primo proponit quod maiores eorum habent scientiam de idolothitis; secundo ostendit qualem scientiam habent de eis, ibi de escis autem quae idolis immolantur, etc.; tertio quod quidam infirmi hac scientia carent, ibi sed non in omnibus est scientia, etc.; quarto quod alii coram eis idolothita edere non debent, ibi esca autem nos non commendat Deo. In prima, primo dicit, quod de idolothitis scientiam habent; secundo quod eam sine charitate inutiliter habent, ibi scientia autem inflat, etc.; tertio ostendit a quibus habeatur haec scientia insufficienter, ibi si quis autem existimat; quarto a quibus sufficienter, ibi si quis autem diligit, et cetera. Dicit ergo de his autem, etc., quasi dicat: de praedictis quaesivistis a me, scilicet de pertinentibus ad matrimonium: de aliis autem, ut de immolatis idolo, non fuit necesse quaerere; quia omnes scitis super hoc veritatem. Et hoc est quod dicit de his autem quae idolis sacrificantur, an liceat edere vel non, scimus ego et vos, quod liceat ea comedere secundum illud ad Tit. I, 15: omnia munda mundis. Scimus quia omnes scientiam habemus, ego scilicet et vos perfecti inter alios, id est, scientiam de creatore et creaturis; et ideo minus excusabiles si male facimus. Deinde cum dicit scientia autem inflat, etc., hic ostendit quomodo sine charitate scientiam inutiliter habent, quasi dicat: habetis quidem scientiam, sed non valet vobis, quia inde superbitis contra ignaros; scientia autem si sola est, inflat. Eccle. I, 18: in multa sapientia, multa est indignatio. Act. c. XXVI, 24: multae litterae te faciunt insanire. Haec enim fuit plaga Aegyptiorum, id est, sapientium huius mundi, vesicae turgentes, Ex. IX, 9. Charitas vero aedificat infirmos, quae quod eis obesse potest, dimittit, quia non quaerit quae sua sunt. Unde addenda est scientiae charitas. Augustinus: addite ergo scientiae charitatem, et utilis erit scientia. Per se quidem est inutilis, ex charitate vero utilis. Philosophus: scire aut nihil, aut parum prodest ad virtutem. Deinde cum dicit si quis autem existimat, etc., hic ostendit a quibus haec scientia habetur insufficienter, quia ab illis, qui ea utuntur in nocumentum proximi. Et est sua ratio talis: quicumque habet scientiam et non modum utendi ea, habet scientiam insufficienter; sed qui habet scientiam sine charitate est huiusmodi: ergo qui habet scientiam sine charitate, habet insufficienter scientiam. Primo ergo supponit scientiam sine charitate; secundo ostendit insufficientiam talis scientiae, ibi nondum cognovit, etc.; tertio rationem insufficientiae, ibi quemadmodum oporteat, et cetera. Dicit ergo si quis autem, etc., quasi dicat: habetis scientiam, sed non sufficientem, quia si quis vestrum existimat se scire, habens scientiam sine charitate, aliquid scit, scilicet quod liceat comedere idolothita.
8:2
Nondum tamen cognovit, quia non se cognoscere facto ostendit, quomodo oporteat eum scire, id est, qualiter debeat uti scientia, quia in aedificationem, non in nocumentum aliorum. Scire autem contingit dupliciter, scilicet habere scientiam et uti scientia: sicut videre, habere visum, et uti visu. Glossa Bernardi: hic non approbat apostolus multa scientem, si modum sciendi nescierit. Modus enim sciendi est, ut scias quo ordine, quo studio, quo fine scire quaeque oporteat: quo ordine, ut id prius quod maturius ad salutem; quo studio, ut id ardentius quod efficacius est ad amorem; quo fine, ut non ad inanem gloriam vel curiositatem velle aliquid, sed ad aedificationem tui et proximi. Sunt namque qui scire volunt eo fine tantum, ut sciant, et curiositas est; quidam ut sciantur, et vanitas est; quidam ut scientiam vendant, et turpis quaestus est; quidam ut aedificentur, et prudentia est; quidam ut aedificent, et charitas est.
8:3
Deinde cum dicit si quis autem diligit, etc., hic ostendit a quibus haec scientia habetur sufficienter, quia ab illis qui utuntur ea ex charitate. Primo ergo supponit scientiam cum charitate; secundo ostendit sufficientiam talis scientiae, ibi hic cognitus est. Dicit ergo si quis, etc., quasi dicat: ille perfecte non scit qui nescit quemadmodum oporteat eum scire. Si quis autem diligit Deum, et ita cum scientia habet charitatem, hic cognitus, id est approbatus, est ab eo. Novit enim dominus qui sunt eius, II Tim. c. II, 19. Unde talis vere scit Deo approbante, quia bene utitur scientia propter charitatem annexam. Notandum est hic, quod ad hoc quod aliquis sciat quemadmodum oporteat scire, novem sunt necessaria. Primo humiliter sine inflatione. Phil. IV, v. 12: scio humiliari. Ps. CXXX, 2: si non humiliter sentiebam. Secundo sobrie sine praesumptione. Supra c. II, 2: non iudicavi me scire. Rom. XII, v. 3: non plus sapere quam oportet. Tertio certitudinaliter sine haesitatione. II Tim. I, 12: scio cui credidi, et certus sum. Quarto veraciter et sine errore. II Tim. III, v. 7: semper discentes, et numquam ad scientiam veritatis pervenientes. Quinto simpliciter sine deceptione. I Tim. c. VI, 20: oppositiones falsi nominis scientiae. Sexto salubriter cum charitate et dilectione. Infra XIII, 2: si habuero omnem scientiam, charitatem autem non habuero. Septimo utiliter cum proximorum aedificatione. Infra XII, 8: alii datur sermo scientiae in eodem spiritu. Octavo liberaliter cum gratuita communicatione. Sap. VI, 24: ponam in lucem sapientiam eius. Nono efficaciter cum bona operatione. Iac. IV, 17: scienti enim bonum, et non facienti, peccatum est illi. Primum, scilicet humilitas scientiae, arguit sapientes superbos, sobrietas curiosos, certitudo dubiosos, veritas haereticos, simplicitas advocatos, salubritas magnos, utilitas iniquos, liberalitas avaros, efficacia otiosos.
8:4
Deinde cum dicit de escis autem quae idolis, etc., hic ostendit qualem scientiam habent de idolothitis, ostendens primo quod sciunt idolum nihil esse; secundo quod sciunt omnia a Deo esse, ibi nam etsi sunt qui dicantur dii. In prima, primo dicit idolum nihil esse; secundo iuxta hoc ad declarationem ostendit Deum non nisi unum esse, ibi et quod nullus Deus, et cetera. Dicit ergo de escis autem, etc., quasi dicat: praedictis modis non valet scientia, sed tamen, de escis quae immolantur idolis, scimus, scientia vera scilicet, quod in se sunt licitae, nec propter idolum sunt immundae; et hoc quia idolum nihil est in mundo. Hoc tripliciter exponitur. Primo modo sic: idolum nihil est in mundo, id est, inter creaturas mundi quantum ad formam idoli; licet enim materia idoli sit aliquid, scilicet aurum, vel argentum, vel huiusmodi, tamen nil est forma, scilicet quae creditur ibi esse ab idololatris, qui credunt idolum esse Deum. Is. XLI, 24: ecce vos estis ex nihilo, et opus vestrum ex eo quod non est. Secundo modo sic: idolum nihil est, scilicet persona subsistens ex simulacro et spiritu praesidente. Ex istis enim duobus nihil fit, sicut ab idololatris putatur. Ier. X, 14: confusus est omnis artifex in sculptili, quia falsum est quod conflavit, et non est spiritus in eo. Tertio modo sic: idolum nihil est in mundo, id est, nullius rei quae sit in mundo habens similitudinem. Est enim differentia inter idolum et simulacrum, quia simulacrum dicitur quod fit ad similitudinem rei alicuius naturalis: idolum autem ad nullius rei est similitudinem, ut si corpori humano addatur caput equinum. Is. XL, 18: cui similem fecistis Deum, et cetera. Et scimus etiam quod nullus Deus nisi unus. Deut. VI, 4: audi Israel, dominus Deus tuus, Deus unus est.
8:5
Deinde cum dicit nam etsi sunt qui, etc., hic ostendit quod sciunt omnia a Deo esse, non a diis nuncupativis vel adoptivis, ut sunt idola, vel sancti, sed ab uno summo. Primo ergo dicit, quomodo potest intelligi deorum pluralitas, scilicet per adoptionem vel nuncupationem; secundo quomodo est divinitatis unitas, scilicet per essentiam, ibi nobis tantum unus Deus, et cetera. Ubi primo tangit unitatem in patre; secundo in filio, ibi et unus dominus, et cetera. In prima tangit tria, scilicet essentiam, quia unus Deus; personam, quia pater; potentiam, ex quo omnia; clementiam, quia et nos in illo; similiter ista tangit in filio. Dicit ergo nam etsi sunt, etc., quasi dicat: et vere non est nisi unus Deus, nam etsi sunt qui dicantur dii, vere participatione divinitatis, ut sancti, Ps. LXXXI, 6: ego dixi, dii estis, sive in caelo, ut sancti comprehensores, sive in terra, ut sancti viatores; siquidem sunt dii multi vere participatione divinitatis, ut sancti et iusti domini apostoli et praelati, nobis tamen, et cetera. Alio modo legitur sic nam etsi sunt qui dicuntur dii a gentibus, scilicet falsa nuncupatione, sive in caelo, ut sol et luna, sive in terra, ut Mercurius et Diana. Siquidem sunt dii multi, sola scilicet nuncupatione secundum gentiles. Ps. XCV, 5: dii gentium Daemonia. Et domini multi, qui aliis praesunt, nobis tamen tantum unus est Deus essentialiter, scilicet pater, ex quo omnia secundum naturam et per paternam auctoritatem, Rom. c. XI, 36: ex quo omnia, et nos in illo per gratiam. Act. XVII, 28: in ipso vivimus, movemur et sumus.
8:6
Et unus cum patre Deus dominus Iesus Christus. Io. X, 30: ego et pater unum sumus. Per quem omnia, scilicet facta sunt secundum naturam, Io. I, 3: omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Et nos per illum, scilicet sumus in Deo per gratiam. Rom. I, v. 5: per quem accepi gratiam, et cetera. Ergo unus est altissimus creator omnium omnipotens. Ex his elicitur talis ratio: non est nisi unus Deus qui fecit omnia, sed multa sunt idola, ergo non sunt Deus qui fecit omnia, nec creduntur aliquid, ergo nihil.
8:7
Sed non in omnibus est scientia. Habito quod maiores illorum habent scientiam de idolothitis, hic ostendit quod minores hac scientia carent. Ubi primo ostendit quod in quibusdam defuit praedicta de idolothitis scientia; secundo quod propter hoc, esu scilicet idolothitorum, polluitur eorum conscientia. Ubi primo tangit pollutae conscientiae rationem; secundo ipsam pollutionem, ibi et conscientia ipsorum, et cetera. Dicit ergo sed non in omnibus, etc., quasi dicat: hoc scimus nos, scilicet quod idolum nihil est, sed non in omnibus, ut in infirmis, est scientia haec. Et vere non est in omnibus: quidam tamen, et cetera. Vel sic: nos scimus quod idolum nihil est in mundo, quidam enim cum conscientia idoli, quia scilicet putant idolum aliquid divinum esse, usque nunc, id est, post conversionem, sicut ante manducant idolothitum, id est, de sanctificatis idolis, et hoc non quasi cibum simpliciter, sed quasi idolothitum, scilicet ad reverentiam idoli, et conscientia illorum, cum sit infirma, polluitur, per illos scilicet qui habent rectam scientiam, sed non cum charitate, per quos in hunc errorem infirmi inducuntur. Deut. XXVII, 19: maledictus qui errare facit caecum in itinere. Hic innuit quod non cibus, sed conscientia polluitur per peccatum, comedendo ad exemplum malorum. Deinde cum dicit esca autem non commendat, etc.; hic, quarto, ostendit quod coram eis idolothita comedere non debent. Ubi primo ostendit quod huiusmodi comestio nihil prodest apud Deum; secundo probat quod non praestat aliquod bonum augmentum, ibi neque enim si non manducaveritis. Dicit ergo esca autem, etc., quasi dicat: illis nocet vestra comestio, vobis autem non prodest. Esca enim nos non commendat Deo, sed recta fides in edendo. Nam nec Esau esu lenticulae iustificatus est, nec Elias esu carnium pollutus est. Rom. XIV, 17: non est regnum Dei esca et potus. Hebr. ult.: bonum est gratia stabilire cor, non escis. Deinde cum dicit neque enim si non manducaverimus, etc., hic probat quod proposuit, et est sua ratio talis: non comedere idolothitum non diminuit bonum, comedere non auget, ergo talis esca sumpta vel non sumpta nihil prodest apud Deum.
8:8
Et hoc est quod dicit neque enim si non manducaverimus, deficiemus, id est, minus ab eo habebimus, neque si manducaverimus, abundabimus in virtutibus, quia esca ventri, non menti proficit, et ita cum non sit de veritate vitae, iustitiae et doctrinae, dimittenda est propter scandalum.
8:9
Haec est secunda pars huius capituli; superius enim ostendit quod in se licita est comestio idolothitorum, hic monet abstinere ab ea propter scandalum infirmorum. Ubi primo monet ne offendant fratres sua comestione; secundo quod potest offendere, ibi si enim quis viderit, etc.; tertio ostendit malum quod inde potest accidere, ibi et peribit infirmus, etc.; quarto praebet se in exemplum abstinentium, ibi quapropter si esca scandalizat, et cetera. Dicit ergo: videte, quia quantum ad nos nihil prodest vel obest esca ipsa, sed tamen videte ne forte haec licentia vestra, qua scitis licere vobis comedere de idolothitis, offendiculum fiat infirmis in fide, qui nondum sciunt idolum nihil esse. Lev. XIX, 14: coram caeco non pones offendiculum.
8:10
Deinde cum dicit si quis viderit, etc., hic ostendit quomodo possunt offendere, quia comedendo idolothitum coram infirmis: ubi implicantur quatuor concurrentia ad scandalum. Primo maiorum scientia; secundo comestio idolothiti publica, ibi in idolio recumbentem, tertio occasio scandali accepti, ibi nonne conscientia eius? Dicit ergo si enim quis, etc.; quasi dicat: et vere potest esse offendiculum, si enim quis infirmus viderit eum qui habet scientiam, recumbentem in idolio, id est, in praesentia idoli, nonne conscientia eius cum sit infirma, per te, aedificabitur, id est, per factum tuum, ad manducandum idolothita, id est, sacrificata in reverentiam idoli? Quasi dicat: sic videns enim quis fratrem peritum in idolio sacrificata comedere, incipit ipse edere non illa conscientia qua ille, scilicet peritiae causa, sed id putat esse numen in cuius reverentia hoc fiat.
8:11
Deinde cum dicit et peribit infirmus, hic ostendit malum quod inde potest accidere, et hoc duplex: primo scandalum proximi; secundo offensam proximi, ibi sic autem peccantes, et cetera. In prima implicantur tria, peccantis conditio, quia infirmus; peccandi occasio, quia in tua conscientia; peccati exaggeratio, quia propter quem Christus mortuus est. Dicit ergo: et ita peribit infirmus, in fide idest, in tua scientia, frater, id est, occasione accepta a tua scientia, quia te sapientem videt comedere, putans quod sub idoli veneratione comedas, propter quem salvandum Christus mortuus est, et ita graviter peccas. Rom. XIV, 15: noli cibo perdere illum pro quo mortuus est Christus.
8:12
Sic autem peccantes in fratres, peccato scandali, et percutientes conscientiam eorum infirmam, gladio mali exempli, Amos IX, 1: percute cardinem, id est conscientiam, et commovebuntur superliminaria, id est, intellectus et affectus; in Christo peccatis, cuius membra sunt. Non ait in Christum, secundum Glossam, quia in Christum peccare, est Christum negare, id est, peccare in fide. In Christo peccare est in his quae Christi sunt peccare, scilicet in moribus; sicut ille qui in lege est, dicitur in lege peccare: qui autem in lege non est, dicitur peccare in legem.
8:13
Deinde cum dicit quapropter si esca, etc., hic ultimo proponit se in exemplum abstinentiae, ubi primo implicat scandalum; secundo ex hoc explicat abstinentiae propositum, ibi non manducabo, etc.; tertio praevenit dubium, ibi ne fratrem meum, et cetera. Dicit ergo: quapropter, ne scilicet peccem in Christum, si esca scandalizat fratrem meum, non manducabo carnem aliquam, non solum idolothita, in aeternum: si ergo propter scandalum fratrum abstinendum est quasi a necessariis vitae, multo magis a superfluis. Et hoc, non ideo quod esca in se mala sit, sed ne scandalizem fratrem meum. Nam qui scandalizaverit unum de pusillis istis, expedit ei ut suspendatur in collo eius mola asinaria, etc., Matth. XVIII, 6. Rom. XIV, v. 20: omnia munda mundis, sed malum est homini qui per offendiculum manducat. Hic quaeritur super illud scientia inflat, Glossa: scientia per se inutilis est. Contra, scientia per se bona est, ergo et utilis. Responsio. Inutilis est ad salutem, utilis tamen ad multa alia. Item charitas aedificat. Contra: sicut scientia inflat, non per causam, sed per occasionem, sic et charitas. Responsio. Non est simile, quia scientia habenti se manifestat, sed non sic charitas, quia nemo certus est de charitate. Item super illud idolum nihil est, Glossa: naturam Deus formavit, sed stultitia hominum formam dedit. Contra: omne esse est a Deo, ergo omnis forma. Responsio. Glossa loquitur de forma putativa in natura, non de vera. Item ibidem Glossa: forma hominis in idolo non est facta per verbum. Contra Io. I, 3: omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Responsio: quamvis forma hominis in illo sit facta per verbum, non tamen in idolo, id est, ad colendum. Item ibidem Glossa: idolum nihil est, quia nullius rei quae sit in mundo similitudinem habet. Contra: non potest artifex cogitare vel formare nisi qualia vidit. Responsio. Non habet similitudinem in toto, sed in partibus. Item super illud nullus Deus nisi unus, Glossa: hoc dicit ne putetur esse Deus in idolo. Contra: Deus, licet sit unus, tamen est ubique. Responsio. In idolo est per potentiam, non per praesentiam vel unionem, ut putabant gentiles. Item ibidem Glossa: pars Trinitatis non potest esse quicumque unus in tribus. Contra: cuiuslibet numeri pars est unitas. Responsio. Trinitas non est numerus simpliciter, sed numerus personarum. Item super illud et si sunt qui dicuntur dii, Glossa: participatione divinitatis. Contra: divinitas est imparticipabilis. Responsio. Participatio haec per causam est, non per essentiam. Item ibid. Glossa quaeritur utrum Angeli vocandi sint dii. Responsio. Quamvis participent divinitatem, tamen, secundum Glossam, non sunt dicendi dii propter periculum adorationis. Item super illud nobis tamen unus pater, Glossa: Trinitas est nobis unus pater, non tamen ille qui tertia in Trinitate persona alius. Contra: idem et diversum dividunt ens. Respondeo, quod quamvis idem et diversum dividant ens creatum, non tamen increatum, quia ibi est identitas in essentia cum diversitate in personis. Item non in omnibus est scientia. Contra, supra eodem: omnes scientiam habemus. Responsio. Illud non intelligitur universaliter, sed de maioribus. Item super illud esca non commendat nos Deo, dicit Glossa sumpta vel non sumpta. Contra: ergo abstinentia nihil meretur. Responsio. Non virtus escae, sed virtus abstinentiae prodest. Item si esca scandalizat, et cetera. Contra: ergo pro scandalo fratris a pane et vino abstinendum est in perpetuum. Responsio: non est simile de necessariis et superfluis; vel loquitur hic de scandalo activo, non passivo. Vel perfectionis est hoc, non necessitatis. Notandum est hic super illud: unus Deus, quod Deus potest accipi multipliciter, scilicet falsa nuncupatione, et sic idola dicuntur dii. Ps. XCV, 5: omnes dii gentium Daemonia, Ier. X, 11: dii qui caelum et terram non fecerunt, pereant de terra. Vera adoptione, et sic sancti dicuntur dii. Ps. LXXXI, 6: ego dixi: dii estis, et filii excelsi omnes, vos autem sicut, et cetera. Mundana praelatione, et sic praelati dicuntur dii. Ex. XXII, 28: diis non detrahes. Io. c. X, 35: si illos dixit deos, ad quos, et cetera. Essentiae proprietate, et sic Trinitas dicitur Deus. Deut. VI, 4: audi, Israel, dominus Deus tuus unus est. Item notandum quod Christus unus sine pari multipliciter dicitur. Primo unus Deus propter naturam divinitatis; unde sic nullus est Deus nisi unus. Secundo unus creator propter infinitatem potestatis. Eccli. I, 8: unus est altissimus creator omnium. Tertio unus homo propter singularem eminentiam sanctitatis. Ps. XIII, 1: non est qui faciat bonum, et cetera. Io. XI, 50: expedit ut unus moriatur homo. Quarto unus dominus propter gubernationem praelationis. Eph. IV, 5: unus dominus, una fides, et cetera. Et hoc modo unus dominus Iesus Christus. Quinto unus magister propter infusionem cognitionis. Matth. XXIII, 10: non vocemini magistri, quia magister vester unus est Christus. Sexto unus pater propter productionem universitatis. Matth. XXIII, 9: unus est enim pater vester qui in caelis est. Septimo unus pastor propter generalem refectionem populi fidelis. Io. X, 16: fiet unum ovile et unus pastor. Octavo una hostia propter singulare pretium nostrae redemptionis. Hebr. X, 14: una enim oblatione consummavit in aeternum sanctificatos.
8:1
1. De iis autem, quae idolis sacrificantur. Transit ad reprehensionem et instructionem quorundam, qui freti scientia, quam de idolis atque idolothytis habebant, passim etiam coram infirmis fratribus utebantur licentia vescendi immolatis. Nam et de his vorisimile est Apostolum a Corinthiis fuisse consultum. Graece T:spi dh ruiv siScoXoOutojv ^ de idolothytis autem. Qua composita voce significantur ea, quae idolis immolata sunt, id est, carnes immolatitiae, tanquam si dicat: Quod autem attinet ad immolatitia. Vel, cobaerenter cum sequentibus: De immolatitiis autem.
Scimus, quia omnes scientiam habemus. Quam scientiam? Postea propositionem absolvit, quadam parenthesi necessariae admonitionis interim suspensam, quando repetit et dicit: De escis autem, quae idolis immolantur, scimus, quia nihil est idolum in mundo, etc. Sed quomodo omnes, cum ipse Paulus post pauca affirmet, non in omnibus esse scientiam? Quod et confirmant sequentia de infirmis, quorum ob scientiae defectum conscientia polluebatur edendis idolothytis. Dicendum est, Apostolum loqui in persona eorum, qui iuter Christianos doctiores atque intelHgentiores erant; quos alibi vocat spirituales, perfectos, magistros, etc. De quibus phira diximus supra cap. 3. Hos enim toto capite alloquitur, et ad eo9 siguificandos usus est verbo primae personae, habemus; quomodo et Rom. 15. dicit: Debemus nos firmiores imbecillitates infirmorum sustinere. Sensus igitur est: Scimus, qui perfectiores sumus, ac plenius in religione Christiana instituti, nos omnes scientiam habere; nec aggredior docere tanquam scientiae expertes: sed tamen admonendi estis, ut scientia bene et prudenter utamini. Porro scientiam vocat, etsi de iis esset, quae fides Christiana tradit tenenda, ut, omnem creaturam Dei bonam esse, nihil in ea esse per se immundum, idolum uibil esse: quia talia sunt, quae etiam naturalis ratio dictat esse verissima. Sic Rom. 14. Scio et confido, quia nihil commune, etc. Quare ex hoc loco et ex sequentibus satis intelligitur, ejusdem esse posse in eodem homine scientiam et fidem, ut fuit in Paulo et ahis perfectis. Id jam admonuimus ad dictum locum epist. ad Rom.
Scientia injlat. Generali sententia doctos admonet, quam nitil ipsis prosit scientiam habere, imo quam sit eis damnosa scientia, si non utantur, ut oportet. Scientia inflat, id est, facile extollit hominem in superbiam: non quidem natura sua, cum omnis scientia sit a Deo, quo autore nemo potest superbire: sed accipienda est haec Scriptura, quomodo multaealiae: Litera occidit, 2Cor. 3. Luxuriosa res vinum, Proverb. 20. Fallacia divitiarum, Matth. 13. Dicuntur enim hujusmodi res tales aut talium naalornm causae, non proprie, nec suo vitio: sed per modum occasionis, propter ejus, qui habet aut utitur, ad mala propensam voluntatem; quemadmodum et dici a quibusdam solet, astra homines inclinare ad haec aut illa vitia; nempe propter concupiscentiae corruptionem, quae facile occasione qualitatum et affectionum corpori forinsecus impressarum, excitatur ad actus respondentes. Vide, quae commentamur ad illud Eph. 5. Nolite inebriari vino, in quo est luxuria. Quidam de sola humana scientia, qualis est, grammatica, physica, mathematica, dictum Apostoli exponunt; sed male: nam scientia, quam perfectiores habebant de idolothytis, non omnino humana erat, sed pars quaedam doctrinae Christianae. Sed et de scientia pure revelata alibi similiter Apostolus loquitur, ut 2 Cor. 12. Ne magnitudo revelationum extollat me. Generaliter ergo loquitur de scientia: sed eam considerat solam et sine caritate. Sic enim inflat; quomodo et litera sine spiritu occidit, 2 Cor. 3. Et lex auget praevaricationem sine gratia, Rom. 5. et caro sine spiritu nihil prodest, Joann. 6. Ad hunc modum Apostoli sententiam passim exponit Augustinus, ut tract. 27. iu Joann., lib. de grat. ct lib. arbit. cap. 19.etpleniuscontraduasepistol.Pelagian. lib. 4. cap. 5. et aliis locis a Beda col- lectis. Item Leo papa serm. in natali septem Machabaeor. et ante euni Coele- stinus in epistola ad episcopos Galliae cap. 10., verbis ex concilio Milevitano citatis, quod ab eo Carthaginense vocatur. Quin ipse Paulus ita semetipsum interpretatur infra cap. 13., quum docet nec linguas nec prophetiam, nec omnium mysteriorum notitiam, nec omnem scientiam, nec iidem monteg transferentem prodesse quicquam ei, qui caritatem non habeat. Quem sensum ut significet, etiam hic adjungit.
Caritas vero aedificat. Hoc est: caritas facit, ut homo non contentus suo bono, studeat bono communi, id est, proximorum etiam saluti. Id enim est aedificare, proximos ad salutem promovero; cui e contrario opponitur scandali peccatum, quo proximus destruitur, hoc est damno salutis afficitur. Hinc collige eos, qui ita quaerunt salutem propriam, ut de proximis non curent, non habere caritatem, sed fallere seipsos. Quod ad metaphoram aedificandi jam declaratam attinet, ea Paulo familiaris est, ac pene propria: quam videri potest accepisse ex Scriptura veteris testamenti, in qua simili tropo aedificare dicuntur, qui rem publicam aut domesticam augent, promovent, illustrem reddunt: ut Deuter. 25. Sic fiet homini, qui non aedificat domum fratris sui. Ruth. 4. de Rachel et Lia: Quae aedificaverunt domum Israel. Prov. 14. Sapiens mulier aedificat domum suam. Cujusmodi phrasis et Deo tribuitur, ut Exod. 1. Quia timuerunt obstetrices Deum, aedificavit eis domos. 1 Reg. 2. de Sadoc sacerdote: Et aedificabo ei domum fidelem. Psalm. 27. Destrues illos, et non aedificabis eos. Porro non est hic vicissim intelligenda caritas sine scientia; sicut in membro priori, scientia sine caritate: sed caritas simpliciter, sive scientiam conjunctam habeat, sive non. Nam scientia caritatem secum uoi. trahit: caritas autem, quia vult consulere proximo, trahit secum scientiam, vel certe studium scientiae, saltem ubi res postulat. Ita sacrificium offerri potest sine obedientia, quemadmodum fecit Saul 1 Reg. 13. et 15. At obedientia non est sine sacrificio, quando illud Deus sibi offerri praecipit. Eodem modo lex esse potest sine gratia; verum gratia non est sine lege; quin potius ad hoc gratia datur, ut lex impleatur. Similiter existimandum de litera et spiritu. Nam in litera lex intelligitur, in spiritu gratia. Patet ex his, quam stulte errent, qui, quasi studio humilitatis, scientias fugiunt, ne in superbiam extollantur. De quibus Augustinus in enarr. Psalm. 130. Suntj inquit, quidam homines, qui cum audierint, quia humiles esse debent, dimittunt se, nihil volunt discere, putantes, quia si aliquid didicerint, superbi erunt; et remanent in solo lacte. Quos reprehendit Scriptura dicens: Et facti estis opus habentes lacte, non solido cibo etc, et concludit: Ergo non debet homo extollere cor suum in superbiam: sed debet elevare in doctrinam verbi Dei. Sic ille.
8:2
2. Si quis autem se existimat scire aliquid. Inutilem ostendit scientiam inflantem. In Graeco non additur se, et verti poterat hoc modo: Si quis autem videtur (^oxeT) scire aliquid. Verum rectius, ac pro exigentia textus, supplent interpretes sententiam reciproco pronomine, quod ex consuetudine linguae Graecae subintelligitur: Si quis se existimat, sibi videtur etc, quemadmodum et Gal. 6. Si quis existimat se aliquid esse. Vide, quae annotavimus ad illud capitis superioris: Si quis turpem se videri existimat. Dicit ergo Paulus: Si quis se putat aliquid scire, vel quod ad idolothyta pertineat, vel in genere de iis, quae sunt religionis Christianae; id est: Si quis sibi placet in hac sua scientia, et in ea tanquam bono suo acquiescit, non referens eam ad aliorum utilitatem, sed quomodocumque cupiens eam ostentare. Sequitur:
Nondum cognovit quemadmodum oporteat eum scire. Graece: Nondum quicquam novit sicut oportet nosse. Nam illud eum nec commentator Ambros. legit. Additum videri potest, quod putaretur sensui deesse. Porro geminatur quidem in Graeco negatio, nondum nihil novit: sed ea fortius negat, ut sensus sit: Haudquaquam adhuc is pervenit ad illam scientiae perfectionem earum rerum, quas novit, quam oportet habere: nondum scit eo modo, quo scire oportet. Modus ille et perfectio est, ut scientiam habeat cum caritate, id est, ut utatur scientia ad proximorum aedificationem. Sic enim fiet, ut per scientiam caritas aedificet. Vide, quae de modo sciendi scribit S. Bernardus hunc Apostoli locum tractans, sermone 36. super Cantica. Cujus verba, quia multum aedificant, haud piguit S. Thomam contracta nqnnihil, inserere suo commentario. Nec certe nos pigebit eadem huc adscribere. Non approbat Apostolus, inquit, multa scientem, si modum sciendi nescierit. Dicit autem modum sciendi, ut scias quo ordine, quo studio, quo fine scire quaeque oporteat. Quo ordine; ut id prius, quod maturius ad salutem. Quo studio; ut id ardentius, quod vehementius est ad amorem. Quo fine; ut non ad inanem gloriam, aut curiositatem, aut aliquid simile: sed tatitum ad aedificationem tuam vel proximi. Sunt namque, qui scire volunt eo fine tantum, ut sciant: et turpis curiositas est. Et sunt, qui scire volunt, ut sciantur ipsi: et turpis vanitas est. Et sunt, qui scire volunt, ut scientiam suam vendant: et turpis quaestus est. Sed sunt quoque, qui scire volunt, ut aedificent: et charitas est. Et item qui scire volunt, ut aedificentur: et prurdentia est. Horum omnium soli ultimi duo non inveniuntur in abusione scientiae, quippe qui ad hoc volunt intelligere, ut bene faciant. Haec Bernardus. Igitur de caritate aedificante, quae praestat, ut aedificet et ipsa scientia, nunc sequitur:
8:3
3. Si quis autem diligit Deum, hic cognitus est ab eo. Hoc est: Si quis habet caritatem, qua diligat Deum, et consequenter proximum, studens scientiam suam caeterasque dotes divinitus acceptas conferre ad Dei gloriam et fratrum utilitatem, hic demum aut dumtaxat cognitus est a Deo, id est, a Deo dilectus, ac Deo placens; cum prior ille iu sua scientia sibi, non Deo placeat. Significatur enim notitia approbationis, ut et infra cap. 13. Tunc cognoscam sicut et cognitus sum, et Gal. 4. Cum cognoveritis Deum, imo cogniti sitis a Deo. Sic enim et hoc loco sentit, eum qui scientiae suae caritatem conjungit, non solum cognoscere Deum, sed etiam cognitum esse a Deo; cum is, qui scientiam habet sine caritate, Deum quidem et res divinas cognoscat, non tamen vicissim a Deo cognoscatur^ aut cognitus sit: sed cum malis Prophetis et miraculariis auditurus sit a Domino: iVwnquam novi vos, Matth. 7. Notandum est enim, Paulum non dicere, cognoscitur ab eo, quomodo dixerat diligit Deum, praesentis temporis verbo: sed cognitus est; utique ad commendandam gratiam Dei piaevenientem, ipsamque adeo praedestinationem aeternam, quae causa est, ut homo Deum in tempore diligat, ac si dicat: Si quis Deum diligit, ideo diligit, quia cognitus est a Deo; id est, ad hoc praecognitus, praedilectus ac praedestinatus. Quidam ilhid cognitus est ab eo, sic interpretatur, cognitione donatus: at minus recte. Nam et qui scire se existimat, isto sensu cognitus est a Deo, id est, scientia ab eo donatus.
8:4
4. De escis autem, quae idolis immolantur. Redit ad declarandam scientiam, quam habeant doctiores de idolothytis. Graece sic est: De esu igitur idolothytorum, id est, quod attinet ad esum eorum, quae idolis et omnino falsis diis immolata sunt:
Scimus quia nihil est idolum in mundo. Posset etiam verti: Scimus quod nullum est idolum in mundo. Sed rectius nihil, ut opponatur ei, quod est aliquid, juxta id quod infra cap. 10. negatur idolum et idolis immolatum esse aliquid. Atque ita legit etiam Tertull. hb. 5. contra Marc. cap. 7. vertitque Irenaei interpres lib. 3. cap. 6. Quo sensu idohim in mundo nihil esse dicatur, variae sunt opiniones, quas commemoratHugo Victorinus quaest. 72. Nobis maxime probatur hic sensus: idolum nihil esse in mundo, quia quamvis idolum, si spectes materiam, figuram, colores et lineamenta, sit aliquid, non tamen formaliter et quatenus idolum; quia nihil est in genere signi relati ad rem significatam; quippe cum res, quae per idolum significatur, nulla sit. Nam etsi existant in rerum natura sol, luna, stellae, vitulus, hircus, talpa, canis, et hujusmodi plurima, quae stulta gentilitas coluit pro diis: etsi quoque fuerint olim homines, Saturnus, Jupiter, Juno, Venus, atque alii quos ethnici in Deos retulerunt: non tamen illi revera dii sunt aut fuerunt unquam. Quocirca verissime dicitur idolum in mundo nihil esse, veluti nomen sine re: quia res, quae per illud significaturutDeus, nusquam est aut fuit in rerum natura; sed merum est humani cordis figmentum. Non igitur repugnat huic sententiae, quod ait Psalmographus: Omnes dii gentium daemonia, Psalm. 95. Nam gentes daemonia non colebant ut daemonia, id est, ut malos spiritus, quales vere sunt; sed ut Deos ac divina virtute praeditos, cujusmodi revera non sunt. Quanquam idem illud Psalmi hemistichium, ut in Hebraeo legitur, plane facit ad illustrandam hanc Apostoli sententiam. Sic enim habet: Omnes dii populorum vana, Hebraice □■•V^^N- Q"'J nomine in ea lingua significari solent idola gentium, ut Levit. 19. et 26. et Habac. 2., eo quod vana sint et mendacia, videlicet hoc significantia, quod non est. Unde et idolum mendacium vocatur Jes. 44. Feque dicet, inquit, forte mendacium est in dextera mea. Quin et ipsos idolorum fabricatores ibidem Propheta nihil esse pronunciat dicens: PJastae idoli omnes nihil sunt, Hebraice inf^, id est, inanitas, nempe secundum iUud Psalm 113. Similes iUis fiant qui faciunt ea. Porro idolum, cf^toAOV, vox est a LXX. interpretibus usurpata; non pro quocumque simulacro vel imagine, sed pro eo peculiariter, quo falsum numen repraesentatur, sive res, cui divinitas affingitur exsistat, sive non; tametsi vulgatus interpres, quod proprluin desit vocabulum Latinum, plerumque generali nomine vertat simulacrum, Jam ex eo, quod scitur idolum nihil esse in mundo, relinquit intelligendum Apostolus illud etiam sciri, quod affirmat infra cap. 10., idolotbytnm nihil esse; quatenus scilicet idolo conseci'atum aut immolatum est; ut ab eo possit immutationem aliquam suscipere vel in melius vel in deterius. Quare ut sanctificare edentem non poterat, ita nec contaminare. Atque haec ei-at scientia, qua inflati quidam apud Corinthios idolothyta libere edebant, etiam coram infirmis. Porro sicut idolum nihil est, ita et omne illud, quod pro Deo colitur, et non est Deus, pari ratione nihil est.
Et quod nullus est Deus nisi unus. In Graeco post Deus additur ziepoc, alter, sive alius. Et illud scimus, inquit, nullum alium esse Deum, praeter unum verum Deum. Haec pars rationem continet superioris, et quoad rem et quoad scientiam. Nam si unus tantum est Deus, igitur nihil est idolum; ut puta ad hoc effictum, ut alium Deum repraesentet. Et si scimus unum tantum esse Deum, proclive etiam nobis est scire, idolum nihil esse, sensu prius allato. Similis ratio de omni falso Deo.
8:5
5. Nam etsi sunt qui dicantur dii. Quaedam occupatio est in bis verbis. Nam unitati Dei, quam asseruit, obstare videbatur multitudo Deorum ubique recepta, quibus saltem aliquid numinis tribuendum esset: ut proinde non omnino nihil in mundo dici debeat idohim: ex quo deinde consequens sit, etiam idolothytum nun ita prorsus virtute vacuum esse, ut edentem nullatenus afficiat. Qui dicantur dii, Graece AeYOjxcVoi %zq\, qui dicuntur, vocantur dii, scilicet ab hominibus a veri Dei notitia ahenis: id est, dii nomine et appellatione, non veritate.
Sive in coelo sive in terra. Vel super terram. Graece Itz\ ztiq y^g. Referenda haec partitio ad verbum sunt, non ad dicantur. Erant enim gentilibus dii coelestes et terrestres; sub quibus etiam dii marini et inferni comprehenduntur. Tot enim deorum genera ab ilHs colebantur.
Siquidem sunt dii multi et domini multi. Siquidem, Graece &OTZzp sicut. Ob quam similitudinis notam nonnulH partem banc exponunt de iis, quos Scriptura aliquando Deos nuncupat, propter eminentiam potestatis inter homines: velut principes ac judices, ut P.sa]m. 81. Ego dixi, dii estis, et Exod. 22. Ad deos utriusque causa perveniet. Secundum hos sensus est, quosdam esse deos opinione hominum: sicut ahi quidam dii sunt participatione quadam potestatis. Verum magis apparet, non de aliis diis et dominis Apostolum hic loqui, quam de quibus aute loquebatur; praesertim cum mox addat: Nobis tamen unus Deus, etc. Igitur adverbium sicut seu qucmodo declarantis est, ut non incommode per siquidem redditum sit ab interprete: et pars haec parenthetice legatur. Erasmus suspicatur interpretem in Graeco legisse cTTtcp pro ojausp. Est autem urgendum in verbis Apostoli, quod ait multi, quasi dicat: passim omnia in mundo plena sunt diis et dominis. Erat enim innumera deorum turba apud gentiles. Sed ex parte piaecedenti supplendum qui dicuntur, id est, ab hominibus habentur et coluntur pro diis, utique falsa opinione. Nam ut ait Tertull. ad hunc Apostoli locum respiciens, lib. 1. contra Marcion. cap. 11. Deus commune vocabulum factum est vitio erroris humani: quatenus plures Dii dicuntur atque creduntur in saeculo. Quo modo intellecta sententia nullam habet off^ensiouem, cujus removendae causa fortasse sublata fuit olim a quibusdam e textu: quod adstruere videretur deorum multitudinem. Nam commentator Ambros. hujus partis prorsus non meminit. Tantum vocabulum Domini transfert ad partem praecedentem, licet sint qui dicantur dii et Domini, etc. Porro dominos intelligit Apostohis eo sensu, quem statim exponit.
8:6
6. Nobis tamen unus Deus pater, ex quo omnia. Graece: Sed nobis unus Deus, etc. quod optime reddunt interpretes: nobis tamen. Et sensus est: Attamen nobis, id est, fidelibus qui de Deo per fidem recte instituti sumus, ideoque et secundum veritatem, unus tantum est Deus, scilicet pater, ex quo vel a quo tanquam primo autore seu principio sunt omnia, id est, res omnes a Deo diversae; nimirum per creationem. Non enim Filium intendit Apostolus hac voce omnia comprelaendere, nitilo magis quam in eo, quod statim post dicit, per quem omnia: quemadmodum nec Joannes comprehendere vohiit aut potuit dicens: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Neque enim per seipsum fieri quicquam potest. Ita locum hunc expendit Ambros. lib. 1. de Spiritu sancto cap. 2. Caeterum et illud observa, Paulum sic asseverare Dei unitatem, ut tamen etiam innuat numerum personarum. Nam Patrem nominando consequenter et Filium in divinis esse significat. Itaque perverse ex hoc loco colligebant olim Ariani, Filium non esso Deum: cum oporteat utique Filium ejusdem esse naturae cum Patre.
Et nos in illum. Nonnulli codices in illo, sufifragantibus etiam Ambrosiano commentario et textu Syriaco. Verum Graece est sk auxov in eum, vel ad eum. Sed et verus Ambrosius loco jam citato legit in illum, Itaque sensus est, juxta quorundam eXpositionem: Nos in tUum, scilicet unum Deum esse; quatenus ad Deum ut finem ultimum conditi sumus, non solum generali ratione, qua caeterae creaturae; sed ut eum cognoscentes, per amorem ipsi inhaereamus. Unde B. August. libro 1. confession. cap. 1. Deum sic alloquitur: Fecisti nos ad te, et inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te. Sed sciendum est, illud rnielQ nos, a Paulo dici non in persona omnium hominum, sed fidelium tantummodo, de quibus dixerat: Nobis tamen unus Deus, etc, quemadmodum et in sequenti sententia, quae huic respondet, eadem vocula nos ad solos fideles refertur. Itaque potior sensus hujus partis est: Et nos ad ilhim, tanquam salvificum nostrum principium, ex quo pendemus, adducti sumus per fidem ac verum ejus cultum. Hic sensus est in Graecorum commentariis: quem et inter Latinos tradit Ambros. commentator, et post eum alii nonnulli. Quod ad structuram verborum Apostoli pertinet, ea duplex esse potest: Prior: ex quo omnia, et ex quo nos iu illum., Altera: ex quo omnia, et in quem nos: non quo significetur nos non esse ex illo; sed praeter hoc, quod nos ex illo sumus, insuper ac propria quadam ratione, nos esse ad eum. Et hanc esse germaniorem constructionem probat sententia sequens; quae cum similis sit formae, non aliam constructionem admittit.
Et unus Dominus Jesus Christus, per quem omnia, et nos per ipsum. Quod supra dixit nobis, huc quoque referendum est: ut pars haec respondeat ad illud, quod dixerat, et domini multi. Sicut ergo dixit unum Deum, ita nunc unum Dominum. Quodsi, ut Ariani volunt, ex priori sententia consequens est Filium non esse Deum: quoniam unus Deus ab Apostolo Pater dicatur: pari ratione ex his verbis, quibus unum Dominum vocat Jesum Christum, inferre licebit Patrem non esse Dominum, quod adeo non concedunt Ariani, ut Patrem potius ac magis Dominum dicant, quam Filium. Nos ergo dicimus, Apostolum illic solum Patrem nominasse, quia Pater est fons Deitatis, utpote divinum esse etiam aliis personis communicans: tum quia sic ex eo omnia, quae sunt ab eo diversa, ut tamen etiam Filius et Spiritus sanctus ex eo procedant; hic vero solum Filium nominasse, quia is jureredemptionis incruce factae, Dominus noster sit. Unde non dixit Filius, sed Jesus Christus, scilicet humanam ejus naturam volens intelligi, secundum quam uds redemit. Eadem ratione etiam ad Eph. 4. distincte dixit: Unus Dominus, scilicet Christus, et: Unus Deus etpater omnium. Vide, quae ad eum locum commentatur Hieronymus, iis quae jam diximus consentanea. Certe ad horum sacrae Scripturae testimouiorum imitationem, patres tam Nicaeni concilii quam Constantinopolitani, in symbolis fidei, qtiae tradiderunt ecclesiae, professi sunt se credere in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem, deinde: Et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum Filium Dei, etc. Qua loquendi forma adeo nihil detractum voluerunt divinitati Filii, ut eam sequentibus verbis apertissime astruant dicentes: Deum de Deo, Deum verum de Deo vero: genitum non factum, consubstantialem Patri, etc. Sensus igitur hujus partis est: Item nobis fidelibus vera religione imbutis, unus estDominus, nempe JesusChristus; per quem quidem ut Verbum Patris omnia sunt; quoniam, ut de eo loquitur Joannes, omnia per ipsum facta sunt: omnia, sicuti dictum est, a Deo diversa (quanquam et toti Trinitati commune est, ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso omnia esse. Rom. 11.). Sed per quem ut hominem factum peculiari ratione nos sumus, quia per ejus meritum redempti sumus et salutem exspectamus. Bis ergo sumus per ipsum: et quod creati, et quod redempti.
8:7
7. Sed non in omnibus est scientia. De infirmis et imperfectis nunc agit, quibus ad destructionem cedebat aliorum scientia. Non omnes, inquit, Christiani scientiam habent eorum, quae dixi nos scire; videlicet idolum in mundo nihil esse: et nulhim esse Deum nisi unum. Quamvis enim fide teneant, nec idola, nec res per ea repraesentatas esse deos, nec ullum esse Deum praeterquam unum: non tamen hanc fidem applicant ad conclusiones particulares; scilicet idohim ut tale nihil habere virtutis, ut sanctificare vel inquinare possit cibos ipsi immolatos: ac propterea nuUum prorsus esse discrimen inter esum talium ciborum et aliorum, si in sc spectentur, cum idolum nihil sit, atque id, quod nihil est, hand queat ullam differentiam rebus adducere. Ad hujusmodi conchisiones applicare principia, quae simpliciter credimus, cujusdam scientiae est; quam negat Apostohis omnibus inesse Christianis.
Quidam autem cum conscientia usque nunc idoli, quasi idolothytum manducant. Explicandi gratia praepositionem addidit quispiam, cum non sit in Graecis exemplaribus: ut nec in omnibus Latinis, nominatim in textu commentatoris Ambros. Et quidem in Graecis esse non potest: quia jistoc non jungitur dativo casui. Tertull. lib. de pud. cap. 14. legit, in conscientia: quemadmodum et Pelagium, Primasium atque Sedulium legisse, produnt eorum commentarii: ut suspicio sit olim Graeca quaedam exemplaria additam habuisse praepositionem sv. Alioqui quae nunc exstant omnia, et quibus usi Graeci interpretes, sic legunt: Quidam vero conscientia idoli usque nunc tanquam idolothytum edunt. Ubi ambiguum est, utrum illud usque nunc, praecedentibus adhaereat, quod voluit noster interpres, qui eam particulam loco motam posuit inter duas dictiones praecedentes conscientia et idoli: an vero sequentibus, quod placet Cajetano. Utrumque probabile est: ac plenior erit sensus, si, quod Graeci tractatores facere videntur, ad totam sententiam referatur, hoc modo: Quidam fideles, quamvis idolis ex animo renunciaverint, et credant illa non esse deos; tamen adhuc ea laborant infirmitate ac scientiae defectu, ut habentes conscientiam idoli, quasi idolothytum manducent. Conscientiam idoli vocat Apostolus, non scientiam, qua quis recte de simulacris sentiat, ut male interpretatur et male probat Cajetanus, ea in re singularis; sed judicium, quo quis existimet idolum esse aUquid, id est, alicujus virtutis: ac proinde cibos immolatitios ab idolo pati mutationem aliquam, sicque afficere et coinquinare posse edentes. Quod quidem judicium erroneum est: atque ex eo sequitur, ut talem habens conscientiam, si edat idolothytum, edat illud quasi idoli)thytum: id est, quasi immutatiun aliquo modo per hoc, quod ido hs sacrificatum sit: ut ejus opinione tam idolum quam idolothytum sit aliquid.
Et conscientia ipsorum, cum sit infirma, polluitur. Illative pars haec exponenda est, ut sensus sit: Atque ita animus eorum erronea hujusmodi conscientia imbutus, cum sit infirmus, eo quod scientia careat, qua fidem unius Dei, quam habet, applicet ad particulares conclusiones, ut supra dictum est, polluitur peccato; dum videlicet contra conscientiam, quam de idolothyto habent, existimantes edentes contaminari, de illo edunt. Obligat enim erronea conscientia, et peccatorem constituit eum, qui contra illam facit; juxta doctrinam ejusdem Apostoli scribentis ad Rom. 14., ubi de Judaica ciborum discretione disserens ait inter caetera: Qui discernit, si manducaverit, damnatus est; quia non ex fide. Porro ne dicant firmiores se vesci quibuslibet, etiam immolatitiis, ut per hoc Deo placeant, qui omnia creavit, subjicit:
8:8
8. Esca autem nos non commendat Deo. Sic eodem ad Rom. loco: Non est enim regnum Dei esca et potus. Sensus est: Usus ciborum per se nihil facit ad pietatem, qua Deo placetur; ideoque non debemus nos firmiores quasi pietatis obtentu passim et indiscrete velle quibuslibet cibis uti. Sequitur probatio:
Neque enim si manducaverimus abundabimus. Graece verba sunt praesentis temporis, hic et in parte sequenti: manducemus, ahundamus, Tispioasijoficv. Sensus: Non enim si quidvis indifferenter comedwmus, idcirco meliores erimus coram Deo. Significantius ex Graeco vertit Oecumenii interpres: Neque si comedamus, aliquid nobis magni accedit.
Neque si non manducauerimus deficiemus. Graece manducemus, deficimus. Sensus: Neque si non comederimus indifferenter quidlibet, sed a quibusdam cibis abstinuerimus, idcirco minus quicquam habenimus (hoc enim Graeca vox uaTcpo'j;jis&a significat), id est, deteriores erimus, minusque Deo grati. Nonnulli totxxm huncversum: Esca autem nos non commendat Deo, et caetera huc usque, accipiunt ut verba pseudoapostolorum obloquentium, quod edere et non edere res sit indiflPerens: ideoque libere et inoflfenseutrumque agi posse: quae verba Paulus sibi deinceps refutauda sumat, dicendo: Videte autem ete. Sedmelius est, ut ex persona Pauli, prout ea jam exposuimus, continuo sermone dicta accipiantur, congruenter cum loco ad Rom. citato: No7i est regnum Dei esca et potus etc. Atqui perverse locum hunc contra ciborum abstinentiam ecclesiasticam adducunt haeretici, tanquam ea secundum Apostolum nihil faciat ad pietatem. Non enim dicit Apostolus, abstinentiam cibi nos non commendare Deo, sed cibum; neque negat nos, si non manducaverimus, abundaturos; sed si manducaverimus. Nam nec carnes edeie, proprie actus virtutis est, ut nec vinum bibere: sed a carnibus aut vino abstinere ea ratione, qua id ecclesia praecipit ac laudat. Siquidem abstinere ab eo, quod vel male concupiscitur, vel male concupiscendi fomitem praebet, ad temperantiae virtutem spectat. Fit autem actus religionis, quoties hujusmodi abstinentia assumitur, ut per eam carne edomita spiritus promptior reddatur ad Deo serviendum.
8:9
9. Videte autetn iie forte haec licentia vestra offendiculum fiat infirmis. Graece: Videte autem, ne quo modo potestas vestra haec offendiculum fiat iis, qui infirmantur, id est, infirmi sunt. Caeterum potestatem, l^ODOiav, intellige jus seu facultatem agendi quippiam, quam vulgo licentiam vocant. Interpres ipse tam praeced. cap. quam seq. et passim alibi vertit potestatem: tametsi Graeci in malam partem accipiant, potestatem bauc interpretantes immodestiam et arrogantiam; sed concomitanter, ut arbitror. Removet autem Apostolus tacitam objectionem, qua dicere poterant firmiores, se uti suo jure ac libertate, quod scirent idolum nihil esse, proindeque nihil difi"erre idolothyta a caeteris cibis. Sed videte, inquit, id est, providete et cavete, ne potestate hac vesti-a cum oflPendiculo fratrum infirmorum utamini. Oflfendiculum hoc declarat sequentibus verbis.
8:10
10. Si enim quis viderit eum, qui habet scientiam, in idolio recumbentem. Eum qui habet scientiam, Graece os tov £-/ovTa Yvcijaiv, te qui habes scientiam. Interpres legisse videtur absque as. Verumtamen et in versu proxime sequenti. quo sermonem suum Paulus continuat, pronomen est secundae personae, in tua scientia. Idolium alibi significat templum idolorum, ut 1 Mach. 10. Et intraverunt in Bethdagon idolium suum (sic enim legendum, non idolum suumj, ut ibi se liberarent. Item 3 Esdrae 2. Et reclusit ea in suo idolio, ubi nos legimus, et consecravit ea idolo suo. Nam et 1 Esdr. 1. idipsum sic explicate dicitur: Et posuerat ea in templo Dei sui. Similiter usurpasse videtur Aug. epist. 154. ad Publ. agens de viatore cibum in idolio positum inveniente. Nam idolium ibi quid vocet non video, nisi sacellum idolo dicatum; cujusmodi in viis publicis erant constructa. Putat Arias Montanus, etiam hoc loco significari templum, aut certe atrium templi idolorum. Nec aliter Theophylacti interpres, qui vertit idolorum locum vel delubrum. Sed quia non est verisimile eos, cum quibus nunc agit Paulus, in templis accubuisse, ubi idolis oiferebantur sacrificia; nec si fecissent^ id Paulum fuisse praetermissurum absque graviore et aperta reprehensione: idcirco alii idolium interpretari malunt epulum simulacrorum sive idolorum, ut Erasmus et Hentenius. Alii mensam, in qua carnes idolo consecratae proponebantur: quam Paulus infra cap. 10. vocat mensam daemoniorum. Alii in genere locum destinatum hujusmodi epulo, quod instruebatur ex carnibus immolatitiis. Atque haec vocabuli illius acceptio minus recedit a primasignificatione quam caetera, et quidem optime convenit huic loco: ut sensus sit: Si enim quispiam frater infirmus viderit te, qui de idolis veram habes scientiam, ideoque ab idolothytis non abhorres, accumbere in loco, ubi apposita sunt idolothyta, iisque vesci.
Nonne conscientia ejus, cum sit infirma, aedificabitur ad manducandum idolothyta? Ejus cum sit infirma, Graece Tou at3i)£vo^i(: ovTog, ejus qui infirmus est, aiit potius (quoniam hoc cum epitasi dicitur) ejus cum sit infirmus: quemadmodum et nostrum interpretem vertisse credibile est: ut postea femininum genus pro masculino irrepserit, ex eo quod superius habetur: Et conscientia ipsorum, cum sit infirma, polluitur. Quanquam et ex Syriaco translatum habemus hoc loco: Nonne conscientia ejus cum sit infirma etc. In verbo aedificabitur, praeter metaphoram etiam antiphrasin agnoscit Theophyl. eo quod proprie tantum ad profectum, qui in bono est, transferatur, velut supra, caritas aedificat, et infra cap. 10. Non omnia aedificant, et cap. 14. Omniaad aedificationem. Certe nusquam alibi quam hoc loco, reperitur acceptum in malam partem. Verum id non tam per antiphrasin, quam ex adjunctione ejus quod sequitur, ad m,anducandum idolothyta, per quod abstrahitur aedificandi verbum anietaphora consueta: quemadmodum et dicere solent Theologi, mala exempla aedificare ad gehennam. Sic proficere per se in bono accipitur; ex adjuncto in malum: ut 2 Timoth. 3. Mali homines et seductores proficient in pejus, errantes et in errorem mittentes. Sensus verborum Pauli: Nonne frater ille hoc videns, tuo exemplo provocabitur et inducetur ad comedendum immolatitia, non cum ea scientia, qua tu id facis; sed, ut supra dictum est, cum conscientia idoli, videlicet existimans pro sua infirmitate, idolum et idolis immolrttum esse aliquid?
8:11
11. Et peribit infirmus in tua scientia frater, propter quem Christus mortuus est. Non conscientia, ut vitiose quidam codices habent, reclamantibus omnibus vetustioribus, Graecoque ac Syriaco textu, quibus legitur scientia. Graeca sic habent: Et peribit is qui infirmus est (6 aa&svd)vj frater in tua scientia. Sensus: Et peccabit frater infirmus comedendo idolothytum, quo putat edentem coinquinari, proindeque rem illicitam facere: et peccando peribit, id est, a salute excidet in aeternum periturus, quantum est ex parte peccati. Peribit autem in tua scientia, id est, per tuam scientiam; qua dum tu male uteris, praestas illi peccandi occasiuncm, eumque perdis, quem Christus in tantum dilexit, ut pro ejus salute mortem oppetere non dubitarit. Ad hunc modum loquens Apostolus, plane significat fratrem iufiiTQum ac scientia, de qua hic agitur, destitutum, peccare mortaliter, dum exemplo fratris scientiam habentis idolothyto vescitur. Sic Rom. 14. Noli cibo tuo illum perdere, pro quo Christus mortuus est. Vide commentarium ejus loci. Notandum est, Apostolum in iis, qui scientiam habentes ex idolothjto comedunt, hoc quidem loco non aliud culpare, quam quod fratres infirmos scandalizent: verum idem infra cap. 10. culpat et aliud non minus grave, quod mensae daemoniorum participando, socii fierent eorum, cum Dei injuria; nec id sine scandalo infirmorum tam fidelium quam infidelium: quemadmodum late et pulcre docet Augustin. sermon. 6. de verbis Domini cap. 4. et sequentibus.
8:12
12. jStc autem peccantes in fratres, et percutientes conscientiam eorum infirmam, in Christum peccatis. Gravitatem hujus peccati, id est, scandali fraterni, nunc exaggerat a persona ejus, in quem peccatum hujusmodi redundat. Nam injuria membrorum redundat in caput, et servi in dominum, et redempti in eum qui redemit; quemadmodum bene locum hunc explicat Theophylactus. Si vos, inquit Apostolus, non muveat interitus f ratrum; saltem moveat injuria Christi, quae ex fratrum interitu consequitur. Dum enim tali modo peccatis in fratres, ut percutiatis, laedatis, vulneretis eorum conscientiam, eamque infirmam atque languentem (est enim participium ao&cvouoav in Graeco), provocantes eos exemplo vestro ad id faciendum, quod sibi minime licitum credunt: peccatis in Christum, cujus illi membra sunt, et cujus servi sunt: utpote sanguine et morte ejus redempti: qua ratione Dominus eorum est. Ad hoc posterius magis videtur respexisse Paulus in eo quod dicit: In Christum peccatis. Dixerat enim: Propter quem Christus mortuus est.
8:13
13. Quapropter si esca scandalizat fratrem meum, non manducabo carnem in aeternum, ne fratrem meum scandalizem. Generali sententia superiorem doctrinam concludit. Hic rursus iu Graeco duplex est negatio, vehementiam addens orationi, quasi dicat: Nequaquam edam carnem, vel ut in Graeco est, xpsa carnes. Quo nomine etiam caro piscium comprehenditur; ut patet cx hac eadem epistola cap. 15. AUa caro piscium. Verbum scandalizare, pro eo quod est offendiculo esse, et peccandi occasionem praebere, ex Graeco nobis Latinis usu receptissimum est. Dicit ergo Paulus: Quapropter, id est, cum tam graviter peccet, qui fratrem scandalizat, ut etiam in Christum fratris injuria recidat: si futarum est, ut me comedente carnes frater meus scandalizetur; potius per omnem vitam carnibus abstinebo, non solum immolatitiis, sed et aliis quibuscumque pecudum, avium, piscium; quam ut fratrem meum edendo scandalizem Illud simile Rom. 14. Bonum est non manducare carnem et non bibere vinum, neque in quo frater tuus offenditur, aut scandalizatur, aut infirmatur. Quae quidem sententia, perinde ut ista hujus loci, significat, quid Christianus ad evitandum fratris scandalum ex caritate facere vel omittere teneatur: quemadmodum illic anno tavimus. Quare si quis nunquam posset sine scaadalo fratris comedere carnes, aut alium quemlibet cibum: deberet ille tota vita ab eo cibo abstinere. Quanquam casus hujusmodi non facile evertat. Cum enim intelligatur haec doctrina de scandalo hominis infirmi, non autem malitiosi; id est, ut Theologi loquuntur, de scandalo dato, non accepto; potest is, qui infirmus est, sufficienter instrui et doceri, fratrem bene agere; quodque ejus facto offendi non debeat. Post quam sufficientem ac plenam instructionem, si adhuc in scandalo perseveret, non erit illud scandalum datum, sed acceptum; quia non jam ex infirmitate procedet, sed ex malitia: quale erat scandalum Pharisaeorum, quod Dominus in Evangelio docuit non esse curandum, Matth. 15. Hinc igitur responsio patet ad istam quaestionem et similes: An Catholicus debeat potius emori fame, quam in sacra quadragesima carnes comedere, constitutus inter infideles, aut ab iis detentus, si nihil aliud in promptu sit aut haberi possit, quod edat: aut si ad esum carnium ursjeat valetudinis necessitas. Nam si qui sive fideles, sive infideles per infirmitatem scandalum ex ejus facto sint passuri, durante scandalo abstinendum est, etiam cum vitae seu valetudinis pericialo. Par ratio, si cederet ejusmodi comestio in detrimentum honoris divini: ut si carnes offerantur in contemptum religionis, aut legis divinae vel ecclesiasticae: quemadmodum olim Eleazaro seni, et septem fratribus Machabaeis, quorum martyria describuntur 2 Machab. 6. et 7. Porro locus hic Apostoli, totaque ejus disputatio satis ostendit, quam grave sit peccatum scandali fraterni: id quod etiam manifestius declarant verba Christi, quibus affirmat, satius esse, ut suspensa ad coHam mola asinaria demergatur quis in profundum maris, quam ut scandalizet unum ex pusillis, Matth. 18. Quaeri hic posset de idolothytis, utrum extra casus supra dictos, vel Apostolorum tempore, quorum exstabat decretum de non edendis immolatis simulacrorum Actor. 15., licitus fuerit eorum esus, vel nunc licitus sit. Sed quoniam infra cap. 10. resumit Apostohis argumentum de idolothytis; idcirco nos opportunius ad eum usque locum hujus quaestionis explicationem differemus.
8:7
Corinthii illi, qui idolothytis uti sibi putabant licere, ad scientium suam de idolorum inanitate provocabant; Paulus igitur veram scientiam sine caritate esse non possc praefatus (1-3) rationem eorum approbat quidem (4-6), sed solam, 418 non omnes Christiani eadem scientia sint instructi, ad quaestionem integram solvendam non sufficere innuit (v. 7). ficantur (περὶ δὲ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων, quod ad idolothyta attinet, dc quibus me interrogastis), scimus, quia omnes scientiam habemus. (οἴδαμεν ὅτι πάντες γνῶσιν ἔχομεν). Num sententia haec est completa, an incompleta? Cum C/Ays. aliisque Graecis eam completam esse censent plerique; ultimum enim membrum (quia omnes scientiam haberaus) obiectum esse aiunt verbi scimus (nd idolothyta quod attinet, scimus, nos omnes scientiam habere), cui explicatio verae scientiae per parenthesin (1"-3) addatur, antequam v. 4 sqq. argumentatio continuetur (Es/. ust. etc., Bisp. LR. Dr. etc., — Mey. God. Schn. etc.). Fateor autem, me non satisintelligere, quid haec sententia (scimus, nos omnes scientiam habere) sibi hoc in loco velit, nisi quis forte cum TAeod. Xpostolum scientiam Corinthiorum ironice carpere voluisse censeat; at a tali ironia, quae sarcasmo non erat dissimilis, tractatum hunc inchoare non potuit. Itaque cum aliis multis (Thom. Lyr. Dion. etc., Mat. MEv. etc.) phrasin incompletam dicere atque anacoluthum ndmittere malo. Revera quia iisdem fere verbis v. &. inchoatur (de esu autem idolothytorum scimus, quia...) vix potest dubitari, quin Paulus scientiae commemoratione abreptus inchoatam sententiam abruperit eamque explicatione quadam verae scientiae inserta nonnisi v. kh. constructione aliquantulum mutata resumserit et compleverit. Hac igitur fere ratione Apostolum scribere voluisse arbitramur : « ad idolothyta quod attinet, scimus, quum (ὅτι) omnes scientiam habeamus, nihil esse idolum in mundo » etc. (cfr ad v. 5.); particula ὅτι (quia) igitur in v. 1. nobis est causalis, in v. τ. autem obiectum verbi scimus introducit. Porro omnes, quos secum Paulus scientiam habere dicit, non cunctos esse fideles, docet v. 7. (non in omnibus est scientia); sed « valentiores, infirmioribus relictis » (Chrys. Theod. etc.), seu « perfectos » (TÀom. etc.), i. e. illos, quorum maior accuratiorque erat doctrinae christianae scientia quosque velut spirituales carnalibus opponere solet (cfr ad 2,13), sibi eadem ratione adiungit, qua lom. 15,1 eosdem secum velut firmiores ab infirmioribus distinguit !. ad quaestionem propositam solvendam sufficere monet : Scienita inflat, caritas vero aedificat. Scientiam, quae homines superbos reddit, hoc in loco non intelligi mere humanam, contextus docet; de illa - enim sermo est, quam Paulus sibi ipsi perfectioribusque Corinthiis adscribit quaeque inter alia etiam de idolis et idolothytis recte iudicare nos docet. At hinc etiam patet, scientiam hanc non per se suaque natura homines superbos reddere; nam, uti recte iam monuit S. Iren. (c. haer. 11. 26,1), Apostolus, si veram scientiam de Deo culpasset, se.ipse primum accusasset ; inflat autem , si ἃ caritate seiuncta male adhibetur. Scientia enim haec, quae perfectioribus competit, ad divina charismata perlinet (19,8), quae hominibus in proximorum potius quam in proprium ipsorum utilitatem conceduntur ideoque abusui facile sunt exposita, quum et ad superbiam adducerc et magna mala provocare possint ; sicut reliqua igitur charismata , scientia quoque nihil omnino prodest, nisi simul adsit caritas (13,9). « Proinde, inquit S. Aug. (in loan. tract. 27,5), sic dictum est : caro non prodest quidquam, quomodo dictum est : scientia ἐμαί. lam. ergo debemus odisse scientiam? Absit! Et quid est : scientia inflat? Sola, sine caritate; ideo adiunxit : caritas vero aedificat. Adde ergo scientiae caritatem, et utilis erit scientia, non per se, sed per caritatem ». Quibus Augustini verbis 7A0m. addit : « per se quidem inutilis est, ex caritate vero utilis Philosophus; scire autem nihil vel parum prodest ad virtutem »; immo vero nuda scientia obest, quia hominem inflans efficit, ut alios despiciat, severius diiudicet, proterve tractet, eisque impedimentum et obstaculum virtutis fiat. Caritas vero aedificat. Vocabulo aedificandi S. Paulus metaphoricam significationem hodie tam usitatam primus attribuit; integram enim Ecclesiam et singulos fideles velut templum Dei considerans illos hoc templum aedificare dicit, qui ad Ecclesiae οἵ membrorum eius profectum conferunt, qui igitur doctrina vel exemplo omnes ad divinum servitium exhortantes efficiunt, ut omnes in gratia et in cognitione Domini nostri Iesu Christi crescant. Recte igitur caritas, qua impellimur et incitamur, ut proximorum non minus quam nostram ipsorum salutem et perfectionem promoveamus, aedificare dicitur. Caritas autem a scientia non intelligitur separata, sed cuin ea coniuncta , quia eam quasi necessario post se trahit; « nam qui diligit, inquit CÀrys., quum praestantissimum praeceptum impleat, cito, si quid forte desit, per caritatem scientia fruetur ». | | Utrumque membrum Apostolus ex ordine accuratius explicat ideoque asyndete (cfr VV. LL.) pergit : 2. δὲ quis (autem) se existimat scire aliquid, nondum cognovit, quemadmodum oporteat eum scire. Scientiam a caritate seiunctam non veram sed fictam esse ostendit: ideo non dicit : sz quzs scit aliquid, sed si quis superbia inflatus aliquid, quod ad intimiorem rerum christianarum cognitionem pertinet, scire sibi videtur (δοκεῖ), ille nondum eo pervenit, ut modum, quo scire debeat, cognoverit ac proin multo minus rem ipsam, quam sese scire existimat, cognovit, siquidein ad veram scientiam necessario requiritur, ut sit practica et utilis. Scientiam enim cum fide comparare licet; sicut fides, nisi caritate sit informata et operibus sese manifestet , mortua est nec vera fides appellari meretur, ita scientia, nisi caritate informetur dirigaturque atque ad aedificationem inserviat. mortua est nec scientiae nomine digna! : 3. δὲ quis autem diligi! Deum (in cuius vera dilectione, ut merito Lyr. supplet, dilectio proximi includitur), À:c cognitus est ab eo. Yn oppositione ad superiorem sententiam exspectavimus : Ac scit, quemadmodum eum oporteat scire aut Aic veram scientiam. possidet, sed aliquid plus Apostolus dicit : « hic ἃ Deo approbationis scientia cognitus est, ex qua omnia bona fluunt » vel « hic amicus ac familiaris Dei effectus ideoque omnibus bonis divinis ditatus est », inter quae scientia vera quoque continetur; suis enim viribus hominem ad eam pervenire non posse, Paulus iam ostendit (2,7 sqq.). Haec Chrys. aliorumque Graecoruin fere est explicatio, atque merito /ust. velut consonun: affert illud Domini : « Si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit, et Pater meus diligel cum et ad eum veniemus et mansionem apud eum faciemus » (Joan. 14,23). In quae verba fus. . « prius utique Deus nos diligit amore beneplaciti, mox vero suum in nobis amorem ingenerat, demum iam diligentes ampliore benevolentia prosequitur suisque divinis muneribus ornat ». Haud longe dissentiunt aliqui moderni : « hic lamquam vere sapiens i. e. vera scientia donatus a Deo est cognitus et agnitus » (Hai. ctc.). Recte quoque alii Latini (GU interl. Thom. etc.) verbo cognoscendi sensum approbandi tribuunt?, in eo autem ab explicatione 1. Praeclare de modo sciendi S. Jjernarduim (in Cant. serm. 36,3) secutus Thom. : « Modus sciendi est, quo ordine, quo studio, quo fine scire quaeque oporteat : quo ordine, ut id prius, quod maturius ad salutem; quo studio, ut id ardentius, quod efficacius est ad amorem ; quo finc, ut non ad inanem gloriam vcl curiositatem , scd ad acdificationem tui οἱ proximi. Sunt namque, qui scire volunt co fine tantum, ut sciant, ct curiositas est; quidam, ut sciantur, et vanitas cest; quidam, ut scientiam vendant, et turpis quaestus est; quidam, ut aedificentur, οἱ prudentia cst; quidam. ut aedificent, et caritas est ». Eadem explicat suis verbis Thom. - « Notandum cst, quod ad hoc, ut aliquis sciat, quemadmodum oporieat scire, novem sunt necessaria : 1. humiliter sine inflatione, 2. sobrie sine praesumtione; 3. certitudinaliter sine haesitalione, 4. veraciter sine errore, 5. simpliciter sine dcceptione, 6. salubriter cum caritate et dilectione, 7. utiliter cum proximi aediticatione, 8. liberaliter cum gratuita communicatione, 9. efficaciter cuim bona operatione ». 2. Verbum. γινώσχειν (cognoscere) quum ab Alexandrinis (Ps. 1,6; Sep. 4,1 etc.) tum a nostra dissentiunt, quod sciontiam veram velut causam , non vero volut offectum, huius approbationis indicatam vident : « Si quis habet caritatem studens scientiam suam ceterasque dotes divinitus acceptas conferre ad Dei gloriam et fratrum utilitatem , hic demum cognitus est a Doo, i. e. dilectus ac Deo placens » (£st. cfr Thom. ctc.); at concinnior οἱ contextui magis adaptata est prior explicatio. Minus recte quoque pauci moderni cum S. Aug. verbo passivo γινώσχεσθαι sensum hebraici Hophal attribuunt, ut sit idem quod edoceri, cognitione donari; nam ne ipsum quidem hebr. z1in hoc sensu usquam invenitur, sed pro mero passivo (cognosci) adhibetur. Plane miro modo pauci moderni ad eundem sensum pervenire volunt monentes verbum cognoscendi (γινώσχειν y'1*) hebraico modo de viro generante usurpari ; iuxta eos igitur a Dco scienlia in hominc, a quo diligitur, generatur (ΒΡ. — Olsh.). Quibus de vera scientia praemonitis Paulus inchoatam sententiam resumit et complet : &. De escis «utem , quae idolis àmmolantur (περὶ τῆς βρώσεως οὖν τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων : de esu tdolothytorum igitur, i. e. quod igitur ad esum idolothytorum attinet) scànus, quia niil est 1dolum in. mundo et quod nullus est Deus nzsi unus (i. e. scimus nihil esse idolum in mundo neque ullum esse Deum nisi unum). Prioris membri graecum textum (ὅτι οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν xócp.9) moderni plerique reddunt : « quod nu//um idolum est in muudo », ut alteri membro (« et quod nu//us cst Deus nisi unus ») accuratius respondeat. At cur latinam versionem inde a Tertulliani aetate in Occidente retentam relinquamus, non tantum nulla adest ratio, siquidem eandem interpretationem Graeci (CArys. Theod. etc.) exprimunt; sed neque novam adoptare licet. Etenim οὐδὲν non minus apte sensu substantivo quam adiectivo per se sumitur, atque hic pro substantivo sumatur oportet, nisi vocabulo εἴδωλον significatio indebita altribuatur; nam εἴδωλον non est idem, quod /aísus deus (nullus falsus deus est in mundo), sed imaginem, quae ceu deus colitur vel potius deus esse creditur, significat; iam vero eiusmodi simulacra multa quidem erant in mundo, sed ea nihil esse asserit Paulus. Scilicet prae oculis videtur habuisse verba Psalmistae : « quoniam omnes dii gentium ΟΝ ὮΝ i. e. vani (s. vanitas), Dominus autem coelos fecit ! » atque unico verbo idem expressit, quod Ieremias pauperibus exsulibus Babyloniam Novi Test. scriptoribus (loan. 10,14. 27; Gal. 4,9; Phil. 3,10; 2 Tim. 2,10 etc.) haud raro significantiore agnoscendi et approbandi sensu adhibetur. 1. Ps. 95 (06), 5 cfr 1. Par. 16,26. — Simili modo idola frequenter appellantur nan (vanitates) cfr Deut. 23,21, ubi in membro parallelo respondet expressio ON p (non Deus); abducendis fuse explanavit (Bar. 6,1-72) aliique prophetae et Vet. Testamenti scriptores Iudaeis toties inculcarunt (Is. 41,94; 42,17; εἷς, 9 sqq.; 46,5 sqq. etc. ; Ps. 113*,& sqq. etc.), idolis nec ullam esse virtutem, nec ullum sensum, nec ullam vitam, uno verbo illa nihil esse ratione deitatis. Ita cum aliis Graecis CArys. : « Numquid igitur non sunt idola? non sunt statuae? Sunt quidem, sed nullam vim habent » ; atque cum multis Latinis TAom. : « idolum nihil estin mundo, quantum ad formam idoli; licet enim materia idoli sit aliquid, sc. aurum vel argentum vel huiusmodi; tamen nihil est forma, quae ibi ereditur adesse ab ethnicis, qui credunt idolum esse deum » : ἃ qua vix dissentit alia explicatio, quam post Herv. Lom. etiam atfert TAom. atque Cai. his verbis exprimit : « idolum nihil cst in mundo formaliter, i. e. simulacrum, quatenus est repraesentans deum, nihil est, quia non repraesentat deum. Imago enim, quae nullius est imago, nihil est quatenus imago; similiter simulacrum, quod nullius est simulacrum, nihil est quatenus simulacrum » (cfr Est. lust. etc.). Idolum igitur est nomen sine re, merum humani erroris figmentum, nihil in rerum natura. Ab hac autem explicatione etiam vix differt sensus alterius versionis (nullum est idolum, i. e. falsus Deus, in mundo). Ne quid nimium dixisse videatur, Paulus assertum suum, idola nihil esse atque unum solum esse Deum, explicat et probat : 5. Nam etsi sunt , qui dicantur (lege : dicuntur, λεγόμενοι) dii sive in coclo sive in terra — siquidem sunt dii multi et domini multi — 6. nobis tamen unus est Deus, Paler, ex quo omnia et nos in illum, et unus Dominus, Iesus Christus, per quem omnia. et nos per ipsum. Uti facile apparet , inter varias significationes, quae cum nominibus dei et domini coniungi solent, Apostolus distinguit atque ex vera nominum significatione argumentum suum desumit. Nam « deus commune vocabulum factum est vitio erroris humani » (Tert. c. Marc. V. 11), ut de multis quidem abusive praedicetur, sed genuino suo sensu de uno solo praedicari possit ac debeat. Haec igitur Pauli est argumentatio : Multos sic dictos deos esse non negamus, siquidem multis iam.rebus sive terrestribus sive coelestibus nomina dei et domini vulgo attribui non ignoramus; nobis tamen Christianis, quibus vera et genuina nominum istorum significatio cognita est, unus solus est Deus, unus solus Dominus. Nam genuino suo sensu nomen dei illum designat, qui prima omnium rerum causa et ultimus noster finis est ; similiter nomen domini proprio sensu illi soli competit, a quo omnia omnino dependent; atqui Deus Pater solus est rerum omnium creator atque ultimus noster finis supranaturalis; ἃ Deo Filio autem omnia plene dependent, quia per Verbum omnia sunt creata atque per Verbum nos eliam sumus redemti, ut duplici titulo dominio eius simus subiecti ; crgo unus est Deus, unus Dominus; idola vero, etsi dci et domini ab ethnicis vulgo nominantur, ratione deitatis et dominii nihil sunt; nomeu hoc abusive gerunt, quia res ipsa eis deest. perftue nomen Pater addidisset, ut ingenitum designaret; suffecisset euim Dei nomen, si hoc per sc solum iam ingenitum designaret ». Porro animadverte, in utroquc membro et creationem et redemtionem attingi. Atque creationem quidem, quum dicitur ex quo omnia et per quem omnia; ex Patre enim vcl a Patre, cui potentia appropriatur et qui est principiuin sine principio, omnia sunl crcata, sed pcr Filium, cui sapientia appropriatur, per quam artifex operatur. Nam « artifex, inquit ZÀAom. per verbum in intellectu conceptum et per amorem suac voluntatis ad aliquid rclatuni operatur : unde et Deus l'ater operatus est creaturam per suum Verbum, quod est Filius, ct per suum amorem, qui est Spiritus ». Eadem idco ratione qua S. Ioannes omnia per Verbum facta esse dicit (Joan. 1,3), l'aulus per unum Dominum Iesum Christum omnia csse asserit. Itedemlionem porro Paulus tangit dicens : nos in illum (Deum Patrem) et nos per illum (Iesum Christum). Pronomen nos enim praecedenti nobis respondens solos Christianos designat : nequo igitur generalem finom omnibus creaturis communem, ut sint in Deum i. c. eum glorificent, respexit, sed specialem Christianis praestitutum, ut fide ct caritate in Deum, finem suum supranaturalem, tendant : « IIaec cst vita acterna, ut cognoscant te solum Deum verum et quem misisti Iesum Christum » (Joan. 17,3). Ad quam supranaturalem cognitionem et caritatem Dei pervenimus pcr Christum ; per Verbum enim non tantum sumus creali, sed per Verbum incarnatum eliam sumus redemti ct regenerati , ut ei ct naturalem et supranaturalem vitam debeamus ac proin omui ex parte cius dominio simus subiecti. Iam vero si idola nihil sunt nec quidquam, utpote omni vita et virtute destituta, efficere possunt, consequens est, ut etiam idolothytum nihil sit (cfr 10,19), i. e. ut carnes idolis immolatae hac oblatione non mutentur, nec virtutem aliquam acquirant, uti ethnici censebant, nec polluantur, uti ludaei putabant, ideoque eos, qui illis vescantur, nec sanctiores reddant nec impuriores : omnia ex Deo Patre et per Iesum Christum sunt; omnium igitur usus per se plane est licitus. Quae aperta et clara consectaria Paulus lectoribus colligenda relinquit, ut his non obstantibus usum idolothvtorum interdum illicitum esse demonstret : quae enim per se sunt licita, per accidens illicita esse possunt, atque idolothyta, quamvis scientiam necessariam habenlibus sint adiaphora, scientia debita carentibus sunt nociva. 7. Sed non £n omnibus est scientia, ἡ γνῶσις, scientia illa, de qua sermo erat. Procul dubio, unum solum esse Deum vcrum neque idola esse veros deos, omnes neophyti sciebant; at ingenio tardiores idola nzA:/ csse et posse forte ignorabant, aut ex theoretica hac scientia ad practicam conclusionem, idola carnibus sibi oblatis nullam omnino virtutem sive malam sive bonam tribuere, non perveniebant. Neque ideo nimiae stultitiae primos Christianos accusare licct; nam « noli cogitare, inquit CArys., praesentem rerum síatum , postquam iam ἃ maioribus piam fidem accepisti, sed cogitationem in illud transfer tempus, quo vix inchoata erat Evangelii praedicatio, impietas dominium suum retinebat, arae ardebant, sacrificia et libamina offerebantur, longe maior hominum numerus ethnicismo erat imbutus, et repraesenta tibi illos, qui ἃ maioribus impietatem acceperant, ethnicorum patrum avorum atavorum filios, tunc subito conversos ». Profecto omnium idearum religiosarum requirebatur completa immutatio, quam paucorum annorum spatio in omnibus fieri non potuisse, quis mirabitur? Itaque facile intelligitur, quod circiter sex annis postquam Paulus Corinthi Evangelium annuntiare coepit, nondum omnes neophyti reverentiam vel timorem idolorum deposuerint : Quidam autem (cum) conscientia usque nunc idoli quasi idolothytum manducant, et conscientia 1psorum, quum 514 infirma, polluitur. Nomine conscientiae idoli eam designat exsistentiae idolorum persuasionem, qua aliquis in suis actionibus regitur, sicut conscientia Dei (1 Petr. 9,19) est illa voluntatis divinae cognitio, quae in agendi ratione sese manifestat. Quodsi Paulus ea, quae de idolothytorum ad daemones relatione infra (10,90) tradit, iam antea Corinthios docuerat, conscientia idoli etiam explicari potest impiae illius consecrationis daemonibus factae superstitiosus timor, qui effecit, ut idoloth ytis interna quaedam virtus aut impuritas attribueretur. Ceterum συνείδησις (pro qua voce, quia expressionem conscientia idoli non intellexerunt, aliqui scribere maluerunt : συνήάθειχ consuetudo vel assuetudo, cfr VV. LL.) est conscientia stricto sensu, ille scilicet iudex internus, qui quid faciendum fugiendumve sit edocet atque bene facta approbat, male facta improbat, qui tamen non solus iudicat, sed cum altero, a quo hanc boni malique scientiam habet (συνείδησις, conscientia), quare vox etiam genitivum adsciscit personae illius quae tamquam imperans vel vetans cogitatur (συνείδησις Θεοῦ, συνείδησις εἰδώλου !). Ante conversionem suam ethnici velut conscientiarum suarum moderatores idola habuerant, atque in infirmis Christianis, quamquam fidem in unum verum Deum receperant, etiam tunc conscientia idoli perdurabat, qua ducti carnes idolis immolatas tamquam (ὡς) idolothyta, i. e. sub ratione formali idolothyti, manducantes peccabant; erronee quidem existimabant, se manducatione illa pollui, sed quia nihilominus manducantes contra suam conscientiam agebant, peccati erant rei et conscientia corum polluebatur. Simili modo Apostolus Romanos docet, eum peccare, qui contra erroncam suam conscientiam agit, quia « omne, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est » (Atom. 15,23), i. e. « omne, quod fit contra propriam existimationem et iudicium, etiamsi talis existimatio falsa sit, est peccatum » (cfr To/et.). Ethnicochristianos a Paulo hic designari plerique moderni putant, eo quod usque nunc conscientiam idoli habuisse dicantur (Maz. Bisp. LR. — God. eic.); at conclusio non est legitima, siquidem etiam Iudaeochristiani de idolis erronee sentire et aliorum exemplo seducti idolothytis vesci potuerunt, quamvis iis se pollui existimarent. Apostolus in tota hac parte infirmos Christianos sapientioribus opponit, nec utrum ex ethnicis an ex ludaeis conversi fuerint, indicat. 9. Idolothytorum usus interdum periculo scandali prohibetur (B, 8-13). Itaque idolothytorum usus, etsi per se est licitus, iis tamen prohibetur, qui ad perfectam scientiam de idolorum inanitate nondum pervenerunt; iam vero ex hac doctrina Apostolus nunc derivat, eos quoque, qui scientia illa pollent, ab immolatis interdum sese abstinere debere, nisi peccare velint. Etenim in idolothytorum usu, quum ad salutem nihil omnino conferat, quam maxime cavendum est, ne quis fratrem scandalizet (8. 9); utqui fieri facile potest, ut eorum, qui perfectam scientiam possident, exemplo seductus infirmus quoque idolothytis vescatur et ita peveat (10. 11); quod si accidit, seductores flagitium gravissimum committunt (19. 13). Praeprimis Apostolus velut principium statuit, esum idoloth ytorum ad salutem nihil omnino conferre :
8:8
8. Esca autem nos non commendat Deo. Neque enim si manducavertmus, abundabimus, neque si non manducaverimus , deficiemus. Verbum παριστάναι, cui Vulg. sensum commendandi (ac si esset συνιστάναι Rom. 16,1; 2 Cor. 3,1; &,2; 5,12; 10,17 ete.) attribuit, a nonnullis explicatur : propiorem reddere i. e. ad familiaritatem adducere (Gr.), sed rectius velut vox media sumitur : « esca nos non exhibet Deo » sc. neque ceu meliores neque ceu peiores; hac enim ratione utrumque membrum sequens complectitur. Sunt, maxime inter acath. (Calv. Pott. Heznr.), quimtegrum versum Corinthiorum obiectionem esse censeant, «qua suum idoloth ytorum usum velut rem indifferentem excusent, quam Apostolus vero in sequentibus reiiciat. At non tuntum formula deest, qua aliorum sententiam afferri insinuetur, sed verba quoque ipsa obiectioni parum sunt adaptata : obiici polius debuit : « neque enim si manducaverimus, deficiemus, neque si nos abstinuerimus, abundabimus ». Cum longe plerisque igitur Paulum suam sententiam exprimere tenemus; quemadmodum alibi regnum Dei non esse escam et potum dicit (Rom. 15,17), hic quoque esca (in genere, βρῶμα sine artic.) ad regnum Dei per se nullam habere relationem asserit : qui esca aliqua vescitur, ideo in vita spirituali per se non proficit, et qui ab illa se abstinet, ideo spirituale detrimentum per sc non patitur. Itaque escae omnes, ac proin etiam idolothyta sunt adiaphora, quorum usus utilis aut nocivus adiunctis redditur :
8:9
9. Videte autem, ne forte haec licentia vestra offendiculum fiat infirmis. De qua licentia vel potius de quo iure (ἐξουσία) sermo sit, contextus docet; de iure enim manducandorum idolothytorum agitur, quod iis competit, qui idola nihil esse sciunt. Priusquam vero aliquis eo utitur, considerare iubetur, annon ita agens o/fendiculum {πρόσκομμα causa vel occasio peccandi) fiat infirmis fratribus, qui ad perfectam rerum chri- Stianarum scientiam nondum pervenerunt; nam « omnia quidem sunt munda, sed malum est homini, qui per offendiculum manducat » (Rom. 14,20). Vocabulo ἐξουσίας (licentiae) adhibito Paulus ad Corinthiorum nonnullorum axioma : πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν (omnia mihi Jicent 6,12; 10,23) alludere videtur; quare eum hoc vocabulo « temeritatem, petulantiam, arrogantiam » neophytorum carpere voluisse, Chrys. haud immerito censet. Atqui facile fieri posse, ut aliquis hoc iure usus infirmis offendiculum sit, accuratius explicat :
8:10
10. Sz enim quis viderit eum, qui habet scientiam (lege : (e qui habes scientiam) in. 1dolto! recumbentem : nonne consctentta eius, quum sit infirma (lege : infirmus), aedificabitur ad manducandum 1dolothyta? Eousque igitur aliqui neophyti erant progressi, ut scientia sua de idolorum inanitate confisi in ipsis deorum fanis epulis sacrificalibus accubuerint; quae agendi ratio quantopere legi christianae repugnet, Apostolus infra docebit (10,14 sqq.), hoc autem in loco id unum intendit, ut eam proximis nocivam esse ostendat, quippe qui eius exemplo allecti idem facere coeperint, quamvis idolothytorum usum omnem pro illicito haberent. Acerbo igitur et mordaci sarcasmo Paulus illos destringit, quum illos fratrem infirmum ad manducandum aedificare dicat. Etenim verbum hoc non est vox media, quae vel in bonam vel in malam partem (promovere vel in bono vel in malo) sumitur, sed ubicumque metaphorice adhibetur, de aeterna salute promovenda intelligitur (cfr ad 8,1). lamvero Christiani omnes, atque illi imprimis, qui perfectiores sapientioresque esse sibi videntur, exemplo suo fratribus praelucere eosque in salutis via promovere, i. e. aedificare tenentur : en, inquit Paulus, aedificationem, quam vos fratri vestro praebetis, considerate; aedificatis eum ad peccandum, siquidem exemplo vestro ad idolothyta manducanda eum invitatis, quamvis timeat, ne carnibus illis, quas pollutas esse existimat, ipse quoque polluatur :
8:11
11. e£ peribit infirmus 1n tua sctenti« frater, propter quem Christus mortuus est. Efficacioribus verbis gravitas iniuriae infirmo illati atque scandali, quod dicitur pusillorum, deScribi non potuit. Infirmo enim iniuria infertur, qui propter suam infirmitatem maiore cum sollicitudine tractari debet; fratrz, cui maior, quam aliis proximis, caritas debetur ; immo fratri, propter quem Christus mortuus est , quem igitur Christus Dominus tanti fecit, ut pro eo vitam dare non recusaret. Atque haec quidem, si sola persona laesa consideratur; sed iniuria ipsa quoque ei illata in se est gravissima : perit enim frater omniaque amittit, quae alicuius pretii aut momenti sunt; illo autem pereunte etiam sanguis, quem Dominus pro eo fudit, fructu suo spoliatur (attende ad verborum collocationem : perit infirmus... Christus mortuus est). Accedit demum , quod ob levissimam causam injuria gravissima inferatur : ?n (ua scientia vel rectius propter tuam scientiam (ἐπὶ τῇ σῇ γνώσει), quam tu in idolio publice recumbens ostentare vis, perit frater. Gravius esset ultimum membrum, si cum CÀ*ys. paucisque lectionariis legere liceret : ἐπί τῇ σῇ βρώσει (propter tuam escam) : frater perit, quia tu gulae indulges; at haec lectio, quamvis argumentandi modo Pauli prorsus consonet (cfr Hom. 15,15 noli czóo tuo illum perdere, pro quo Christus mortuus est; 15,90 noli propter escam destruere opus Dei), hoc in loco nec codicum nec versionum auctoritate fulcitur. Lectio vero, quam ex mediae aetatis codicibus (cfr Thom. Ly». etc.) Biblia Sixtina receperant (in tua conscientia) parum apta est. Porro ut criminis geavitatem augeat, Paulus iniuriam non soli fratri, sed ipsi Christo inferri docet : 19. Sc autem peccantes àn fratres et percutientes conscientiam illorum infirmam , in. Christum peccatis, siquidem íratres vestri infirmi non minus, quam vos ipsi, membra sunt corporis Christi'. Iterum attende, quomodo ipsa vocabulorum electione Paulus scandalum pusillorum exaggeret. Qui enim exemplo suo infirmos ad peccatum seducit , non tantum iniustus est et eorum iura laedens ?n eos peccat, sed etiam immanem et crudelem se exhibet, quia fratres eosque infirmos percutit; « quid autem saevius, inquit CÀrys., quam aegrum et infirmum percutere? » Qua criminis gravitate commotus Apostolus exclamat :
8:13
13. Quapropter, st esca scandalizat fratrem meum , non manducabo carnem in aeternum , no fratrem. meum scandalizem. Coniunctione quapropter (διόπερ) omnia quidem illa complectitur, quibus scandali immanitatem descripserat; maxime tamen ad ultimum membrum (v. 129), quocum haec sententia arctius cohaeret, respicere videtur : quia scandalum est peccatum contra ipsum Dominum, ideo, ut illud evitet, ad plenam abstinentiam ab omnibus cibis, quibus fratres scandalizari possunt, sese paratum esse declarat : s? esca qualiscumque (βρῶμα sine artic.) fratri scandalo est, non manducabo carnes (χρέα, carnes in genere, sive diis sunt oblatae, sive non) : ab omnibus carnibus me abstinebo non semel aut bis, sed £n aeternum , idque ob eum solum finem, ne fratri sim offendiculum ; namque « bonum est, non manducare carnem, et non bibere vinum, neque (quidquam facere), in quo frater tuus offenditur, aut scandalizatur, aut infirmatur » (Itom. 15,21). Nonnulli codd. et interpretes latini (cfr A/e" Pel. Prim. etc.) olim in v. 12 legerunt : in Christo peccatis) quam lectionem cum Herv. Tom. aliisque ita explicat Lom. : « Quum caritatis non aemuli sunt, qua Christus nos liberavit, peccant in CAristo, non ín Christum; quia in Christum peccare est negare Christum; in Christo autem peccare, est in his, quae Christi sunt, peccare. Sicut hic, qui sub Lego est, in Lege dicitur peccare, ita hi, qui in Christo sunt, in Christo peccare dicuntur ». Quam explicationem haud aptam esse atque iure merito a iunioribus interpretibus esse praetermissam, patet; hoc enim sensu omnia Christianorum peccata dicenda esseut facta « in Christo », atque non recte Paulus in co specialem characterem scandali vidisset. Praeterea qui ad Apostoli usum loquendi attenderit, locutionem ἐπ Christo, quam tantopere amat, ab co cum verbo peccandi coniungi non potuisse sine haesitatione asseret. II. — Apostoli exemplum, qui alios salvaturus omnium offensionem evitlaest. (9, 1-10, 14). Pro more suo Apostolus ultimis pericopae superioris verbis novum, quod explicare sibi proposuit, argumentum iam insinuavit et praeparavit; ad completam enim carnium abstinentiam , ne fratribus offendiculo esset, paratum sese declarans se ipsum velut exemplum Corinthiis imitandum proposuerat, ut ipsi quoque a re per se licita sed ad salutem non necessaria ad fratrum scandalum vitandum abstinerent. Neque maiora se promisisse, quam quae, si ea utilia iudicasset, opere essct exsecuturus, longa digressione quadam demonstrat, in qua, uti recte iam CArys. monct, sese non tantum ad neophytorum damnum avertendum sed etiam ad eorum bonum promovendum a multis, quae sibi licuissent, magna cum sollicitudine abstinuisse ostendit; suo igitur exemplo, quomodo ad maiorem perfectionem anhelare et securiorem viam ad salutem aeternam eligere debeant, eos edocet. Duplici ratione, quam a principio interrogatione duplici innuit (non sum hber? non sum Apostolus?), vitam suam apostolicam eis velut exemplum proponit digressionemque exhortatione terminat. Unde tres sectiones apte dislinguimus : 1.) Apostolus privilegio apostolico, quo ab ecclesiis ca, quae ad vivendum necessaria sunt, postulare potuit, non est usus, ut ad maiorem perfectionem tenderet (9, 1-18); 2.) quamvis liber esset, omnium servus fieri voluit, ut quam plurimos ad fidem adducens suam ipsius salutem securius obtineret (9,19-23); 3.) Corinthiis igitur ipsis quoque magno cum zelo laborandum est, ut ad finem sibi praestitutum perveniant; neque enim Christianum esse sufficit (9,94-10,13). 1. Apostolus ad maiorem mercedem anhelans sustentationis zuri renunciavit (9, 1-18). Completo quasi syllogismo haec pericope constat, cuius tamen conclusio non exprimitur, quia in exhortatione (9,24 sqq.) uberius explicabitur. Paulus, quum genuinus sit Apostolus, eandem vivendi rationem, quam alii Evangelii praecones, tenere potest, ita ut ab ecclesiis, in quibus laborat, sustentetur (9,1-1*); atqui huic iuri renuntiavit, ne fratribus esset offendiculo et ut maiorem perfectionem assequeretur (9,15-18); ergo ex suo exemplo Corinthii discant oportet , a licitis ob maius bonum obtinendum interdum debere abstineri. Intime igitur haec particula cum superiore cohaeret. 1. Paulus, utpote genuinus Apostolus, us sustentationis accipiendae possidet (9, 1-14). Duplicem rationem, qua apostolicum suum agendi modum Corinthiis velut exemplum proponere vult, Paulus duabus, uti diximus, interrogationibus indicat, quae ipsa sua forma sese indubitatas assertiones esse manifestant :
8:1
In I Cor. 8, 1-11, 1 s. Paolo pone e risolve il caso morale: i fedeli sono spesso invitati a mensa dai pagani; come devono comportarsi, dinanzi agli idolotiti, serviti a tavola? …
8:3
… beati Pauli in unam, richiesto dallo stesso cardinale, che in 73 capitoli raggruppa logicamente quanto s. Paolo ha scritto su ogni virtù (ad es., il cap. 7 De Caritate è così composto: Rom. 5, 5; 8, 28. 35-39; 13, 8-10; 12, 9-11; I Cor. 6, 17; 8, 3. 11; 10, 24; 12, 31; 13, 1-8. 13; 14, 1; 16, 14. 20. 22. 24; II Cor. 6, 11-13; 8, 24; 11, 2; Gal. 5, 13-14; Eph. 5, 1; Col. 3, 14; I Thess. 4, 9-10; I Tim. 1, 5-6; Hebr. …
8:4
Tale verità ebbe conferma dalla predicazione di Cristo o degli Apostoli (cf. Mt. 19, 16-17; Mc. 10, 17-18; Lc. 18, 18-19; e ancora: Mt. 4, 10; Mc. 12, 30; Lc. 4, 8; 10, 27: la fonte comune di questi ultimi testi è Deut. 6, 5; cf. pure I Cor. 8, 4-6). E in seguito, come giustamente osserva A. Harnack, il contrasto tra m. e politeismo fu veramente, fin entro il
8:6
… prologo del quarto Vangelo si legge, detto del Verbo: «Tutto si fece per mezzo di lui e senza di lui nulla fu fatto di quanto si fece» (Io. 1, 3). Ora, quando tutto si fa, si crea. È familiare a s. Paolo la dottrina che tutto viene da Dio (cf. Rom. 11, 36; I Cor. 8, 6). Parlando di Cristo, egli dice come in Lui furono fatte tutte le cose ed anche gli angeli tutti: «In Lui sono state fatte tutte le cose nei cieli e in terra, le visibili e le invisibili, …
8:7
… suppone un'indole contemplativa (ibid., II, 45, 4), una tendenza intellettualistica e un interesse scientifico (ibid., VII, 56, 21) cosicché praticamente la maggior parte dei cristiani non potrà raggiungerla: la gnosi non è per tutti (in riferimento a I Cor. 8, 7; cf. Strom., IV, 97, 1; V, 17, 5; 61, 3; VI, 120, 3; VII, 104, 3). Questo non significa però che C. volesse escludere la maggior parte dei fedeli dalla perfezione evangelica. …
Douay-Rheims (Challoner) · Vulgata Clementina · Douay-Rheims originale (Reims 1582), trascrizione 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')). Pubblico dominio.