1 Corinthians 10:13

There hath no temptation taken you. The Vulgate reads the verb in the imperative "let no temptation take you." His meaning is: Be it, O Corinthians, that you are tempted to schisms, lawsuits, lust, idolatry, yet remain constant, for these temptations which take you are common to man, and therefore you can easily overcome them if you like.

If you take the Roman reading, the meaning is, When, as is often the case, any temptation of those which I have mentioned, or any other, attacks your minds, do not take it in and foster it, so as to let it grow imperceptibly in power, and to become at last unconquerable: for it is impossible to exclude altogether human and light temptations so as to never feel them. Anselm says: " To be overcome by malignant temptation and to sin from malice is devilish: not to feel its power is angelic; to feel it and overcome it is human." See also S. Gregory (Pastoral. i. cxi.).

God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able. If God does not suffer us to be tempted beyond our strength, therefore much less, or rather in no way does God impel us to sin, as Calvin thinks.

2. Nor does God enjoin impossibilities, as Luther thinks, not foes He even permit them.

3. It follows from this that we can be so strongly tempted by the devil and the flesh as to be unable to resist if the grace of God does not succour us, as Chrysostom and Anselm say.

4. As a matter of fact there is no temptation so great but that it can be overcome by the grace of God.

5. The best remedy, therefore, against temptation is prayer, by which we call down the help of God from distrust of our own strength (S. Matt. xxvi 41).

6. This grace is promised here and elsewhere, not inly to the elect, but to all who duly call on God. See also decrees of the Council of Trent (Sess. xxiv. can. 9, and Sess. vi. can. 11). For the Apostle is speaking to the Christians at Corinth, many of whom were not elect, but some contentious, causing offence, and drunken (chap. xi. 21). What is more, none of them knew that they were elected, so as to be able to apply this consolation to themselves exclusively.

7. It is in the power of each Christian to obtain sufficient help to overcome all temptations and all sins; for God pledges His word to them to this, and He is One to be trusted, as the Apostle says here. His meaning is: no temptation can take you, except on your own side and by your own negligence; for on God's side I pledge myself that God, who is faithful, will perform what He has promised, and will not suffer you to be tempted above that you are able, i.e., will not allow you to be tempted, except by human temptation. Understand, however, that this is if you seek His grace and help, as is right, and co-operate with Him. " God," as S. Augustine says (de Nat. et. Gratia, c. 43), and following him, the Council of Trent (Sess. vi. can. ii.), " God does not order impossibilities when He orders us to resist every temptation; but when He orders, it is to bid us to so what we can, to seek help for what we cannot, and then He lends the strength." See S. Matt. xi. 30 and 1 S. John v. 3.

S. Ephrem beautifully illustrates this saying of the Apostle as follows: " If men," he says, " do not put upon their beasts more weight than they can bear, much less will God put on men more temptations than they can bear. Again, if the potter bakes his vessels in the fire until they are perfected, and does not remove them before they are properly baked and of the right consistency, and again does not leave them in too ling, lest they be burnt too much and so become useless: much more will God do the same with us, trying us with the fire of temptations until we are purified and perfected; but beyond that point He will not suffer us to be scorched and consumed with temptation. " (de Patientiâ)

But will with the temptation also make a way to escape. God, who suffers you to fall into temptation, will also make it turn out well, as Erasmus and Augustine (in Ps. lxii and Ep. 89) understand it. He makes it good for you and your salvation, and will enable you to come out of it without less, nay, rather victoriously and with glory, as Anselm says.

1. The word translated "way of escape." according to Theophylact, Œcumenius, and the Greeks, means a happy end of the temptations, so that it turns out well and promotes the good of the tempted; for God will either bring the temptation to a speedy ending, or not permit it to go on to the fourth day, if He knows that we cannot bear it for more than three days, as S. Ambrose says; or if He gives it linger life He gives us the power of bearing it, as Ambrose and Anselm say.

2. It does not signify any way of escape, but such a way as when a soldier comes out victorious from a battle of a single combat, more renowned and even with increased strength and courage. So have the saints come out of temptation. The Greek word then also means a progress. Not only will God make the temptation no obstacle, but a means even of advancement, causing an increase of strength, virtue, grace, victory, and glory, a more certain walk in the way of virtue and in the road to heaven. So Photius.

That ye may be able to bear it. The Greek literally means, "to more than bear it," i.e., so to bear it that strength remains over and above to bear something farther. God hives such help that any one can overcome temptation with flying colours, Hence the Fathers often remark that men advance in virtue through temptations chiefly; the reason is, that no one can resist them, except by putting forth contrary acts of virtue strongly and intensely, and where temptation brings out such acts it strengthens and intensifies their habits.

3. The righteous wins merit by such acts; he seeks and receives from God an increased infusion of grace and all virtues.

Ver. 14. Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. Not only avoid the worship which is given in sacrificing to and calling on idols, but also abstain from eating things offered to idols from any feeling of their sanctity, as the heathen eat them when the sacrifice is completed, either at the altars of in the temples. So you would share in their sacrifices, and would be thought to approve of them, and even to offer them. The Apostle is now going on to speak of the eating of things offered to idols. Chapter ix. was a long digression about a paid or unpaid ministry, about the Christian contest, the prize, and the competitors; the earlier part of chap. x. has been about the sins and punishments of the Hebrews; and now, after this long digression, he returns to the subject of things offered to idols, which was begun in chap, viii. The "wherefore" signifies, then, that he had written all that precedes for the purpose of warning them against idolatry and idol-offerings.

Ver. 16. The cup of blessing which we bless. (1.) That is the wine in the chalice which is blessed by the priest, and hence the chalice itself, containing this consecrated wine, does it not communicate to us the blood of Christ? (2.) It may be called the cup of blessing, because it blesses us and loads us with grace, as Anselm and Chrysostom say. (3.) More accurately, it is called "the cup of blessing," because Christ blessed it before consecration, i.e., called down the power of God to afterwards effect a change both in the bread and in the cup (S. Matt. xxvi. 26).

1. We see from the accounts of the Last Supper in S. Matthew 26:20-32., S. Luke 22:14-22, and here and in 1Co 11:23-29 that Christ, before consecration of the Eucharist, gave thanks to God thee Father, and, as He was wont, lifted up his eyes to heaven, as is enjoined in the Roman Canon of the Mass and in the Liturgy of S. James. Hence this sacrament is called the Eucharist, or Thanksgiving, because it is the greatest act of grace, and consequently is to be received with the greatest thanksgiving.

2. Christ blessed the bead and wine, not, as heretics say, His Father. And so Paul says expressly, "The cup which we bless." Christ blessed the bread and the cup, i.e., invoked the blessing and power of God on the bread and wine, that it might be present, both then and at all future consecrations, to change the bread into the body, and the wine of the chalice into the blood of Christ, when ever the words of consecration should be duly pronounced. Of the same kind was the blessing of the bread in S. Luke ix. 16. This blessing, then, was not the consecration, though S. Thomas thinks that it was (pt. iii. qu. 78, art. i. ad 1). Hence in the Liturgies of S. James and S, Basil, and in the Roman, after Christ's example, God is prayed to bless the gifts, that the Divine power may descend upon the bread and the cup to complete the consecration; and it is thence that we have "the cup of blessing," i.e., the cup blessed by Christ.

Is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? 1. The communion, or communication, of the body and blood of Christ not only signifies that we receive the same body and the same blood of Christ, but also, as is said in ver. 17, we become one body and one blood. Therefore, the sacrament is not a type of the blood, as Calvin thinks, but it is the very blood of Christ itself, and is given to us in the Eucharistic chalice. If I were to say, "I give you a golden one," you would rightly understand that I did not mean a painted one. If I were to invite you to dinner, and a feast on the hare or stag caught in the chase, and instead of the hare or stag were to put before you on a dish a picture of animals, should I not be acting ridiculously? should I not hear myself called an impostor? Are not then the Protestants who transform the blood and flesh of Christ, which He declares that He gives, into a figure of that blood and flesh, acting ridiculously? Are they not making Christ an impostor?

2. If this cup is only a figure of the blood, as the Protestants think, then we have not more, but less, in the Eucharist than the Jews had in the manna and the water miraculously provided for their drink. The apostle, too, should have said that we eat the spiritual body and drink the spiritual blood of Christ, that is that which represents them, just as he said that the Jews ate the spiritual meat the manna, and drank the spiritual drink the water from the rock. But as a fact he contrasts the blood and the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist, as the reality and the thing signified, with the manna and water, as the figure and spiritual type, signifying the flesh and blood of Christ. Moreover, he calls the manna spiritual meat, i.e., typical, and the water, spiritual drink; but he calls the body of Christ in the Eucharist the body, and the blood the blood. Who, then, can doubt that, as the manna was truly a type and shadow, so in the Eucharist there is really the blood, flesh, and body of Christ?

3. Theodoret, Theophylact, Anselm, S. Thomas expressly explain this passage in this way. Theophylact says: " He does not say the 'participation,' but the 'communion,' because he wished to indicate something more excellent, viz., the closest possible union. What he really says is this: What is in the chalice flowed from the side of Christ; and when we receive it, we have communion with, or are united to Christ. Are you not then ashamed, O Corinthians, to have recourse to the cup of idols, and to leave this cup which sets us free from idols? "

S. Chrysostom most plainly dwells on this thought (in Hom. 24, Moral.), where, exhorting Christians to mutual charity through Holy Communion, he says: " If, then, dearly beloved, we understand these things, let us also strive to maintain unity among ourselves; for this dreadful and wonderful sacrifice leads us to this: it bids us approach one another with concord and perfect charity, and, like the eagles that Christians have been made in this life, let us fly to heaven itself, or rather above the heavens." And again a little further on he thus explains what the body of Christ in the Eucharist is like: " If no one would lightly lay hold of another man's clothing, how can we receive with insults the pure and immaculate body of the Lord, which is a partaker of the Divine Nature, through which we are and live, which burst open the gated of hell and opened heaven? This is the body which was pierced by nails, scourged, unconquered by death; this is the body at the sight of which the sun hid his rays; through which the veil of the Temple was rent, and the rocks and the whole earth quaked; this is the body which was suffused with blood, pierced by the spear, and which poured forth streams of blood and water to regenerate the wwole world." And a little further on he says that the body of Christ in the Eucharist is the same as was in the manger: " This body in the manger the Magi adored, and with great fear and trembling worshipped. But thou seest Him not in a manger, but on the altar. It is not a woman holding Him in her arms that you see, but a priest is before you, and the spirit shed abundantly upon the sacrament spread forth. Let us, therefore, be stirred up and fear, and show greater devotion than ever those barbarians did." And after some other remarks he asserts mist clearly that in the Eucharist we touch and feed on God Himself, and receive from Him all good thing, saying: " This table is the strength of our soul, the vigour of our mind, the bond of mutual trust, our foundation, hope, and salvation, our light and our life, If we depart fortified by this sacrifice, we shall with the greatest confidence climb the sacred hill which leads to heaven's gate. But why speak of the future? For even while we are here in this life, this mystery makes earth heaven: for the body of the King is set before our eyes, on earth, as it is in heaven. I show you, not angels or archangels, not heaven or the heaven of heavens, but the Lord of them all. Nor do you merely gaze on Him: you touch Him, you feed on Him: you receive not a child of man, even though of kingly birth, but the Only-Begotten Son of God. Why, then, do you not shudder at such Presence, and cast away the love of all worldly things? "

A new preacher of a new word of God has lately answered these words by saying that S. Chrysostom spoke rhetorically. But this evasion is as silly as futile; for S. Chrysostom is, I admit, an orator, but he is also a teacher of Christian truth. Hence in his commentary itself, he days that he is treating of the literal meaning of the Apostle. It is true that in the application of his sermon he does enlarge on that meaning, but not so as to exceed or to deny the truth, as, i.e., if he were to say that wood is stone, that a man is a brute, that bread is flesh; else he would not be an orator, but a lying impostor, and that in matters of faith. For an orator would be false and foolish who should say that the water of baptism was the very same blood of Christ that flowed from His side, when the Jews pierced His body with nails, and smote it with scourges; if he were to say that it was the God and Lord of all, he would no doubt mean that the water of baptism is a type of the blood of Christ, who applied it to us to wash away our sins. In the same way he is false and foolish who says that the bread and wine are the very blood, the very body of Christ, which was adored by the Magi in the manger, nailed to the Cross, scourged, and crucified by the Jews, nay, that it is the very Lord of all things, and the Only-Begotten Son of God, as S. Chrysostom says. I appeal to you, reader, to read these words of his candidly and impartially, or to say whether they are true of the manna, of the Paschal lamb, or of any such type. Would S. Chrysostom have spoken of them thus? Would Calvin, or Viretus, or Zwinglius, or any of their following, no matter how eloquent an orator he might be, speak of their supper in this way? If it is lawful t sublimate and invert the meanings of authors and the words of the Fathers in this way, it will be lawful to invert all faith, all history, all the opinions of these men, and to twist them to a totally different sense, all this will better appear in the following verses.

The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? The sense is, The communication to us, or the eating of the bread which we break, communicates to us also the very body of Christ, so that each one actually partakes of it in the Eucharist.

It may be said: The Eucharist is here called the bread, therefore it is not the flesh of Christ.

I reply that bread, by a Hebraism, stands for any food (2Ki 2:22). So Christ is called manna (S. Joh 6:31), and bread (Ibid. ci. 41). The reason is that bread is the common and necessary food of all. Moreover, S. Paul does not say "bread" simply, but "the bread which we break," i.e., the Eucharistic or transubstantiated bread, which is the body of Christ, and yet retains the species and power of bread. In this agree all the Fathers and orthodox doctors. Christ, on other occasions as well as in the Last Supper, is said to have broken and distributed the bread, according to the Hebrew custom by which the head of the house was wont to break the bread and divide the food among the guests sitting at table. For the Easterns did not have loaves shaped like ours, which need a knife to cut them up, but they used to make their bread into wide and thin cakes, as, amongst others, Stuckius has noticed (Convival. lib. ii. c. 3). Hence "to break bread" signifies in Scripture "to feast," and breaking bread signifies any feast, dinner, or meal. In the New Testament it is appropriated to the Eucharist; therefore "to break bread" is a sacramental and ecclesiastical term. Hence S. Paul calls here the Eucharist "the bread which we break," meaning the species of the body of Christ which we break and consume in the sacrament. See further on c. xi. 24.

Ver. 17. For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. As one loaf is made out of many grains of wheat, so of many faithful is made one holy and living bread, the one mystical body of Christ, the Church. Not only generally and mystically, but properly and substantially, because all are really united to the body of Christ, and become one with it, in the Eucharist, just as food becomes one with him that eats it. Hence it may be rightly argued against Protestants that we all eat really the same body of Christ. They, however, say that in the Eucharist all Christians become one, because they eat the same sacramental bread, which is a type of the body of Christ. But who share in it one, merely because they sit at the same table and eat of the same bread? It would be a statement at once untrue and foolish. It is, however, true when applied t the body of Christ, because we all feed on what is numerically one, especially because this holy bread, as S. Augustine says, when eaten, is not changed into our substance, but rather changed us into its own, and unites us to itself and makes us like it, which ordinary bread does not do. Here Cyril of Alexandria (in Joan. lib. iv. c. 17) says: " As wax is incorporated into wax, and leaven permeated through bread, so do we become fused into the body of Christ." And Cyril of Jerusalem (Catachesis, 4) says: " In Holy Communion we become, not only bearers of Christ, but also sharers of the same body and the same blood as He." This is because we become one with Christ and Christ with us, because we are really blended with the flesh of Christ, and therefore with his Person, His 244 Godhead, and His omnipotence. Irenæus says the same (lib. iv. c. 34), and Hilary (de Trin. lib. viii.).

It is for this reason that the Eucharist is called Communion by the Fathers: it really unites us to the body of Christ, so that all become one in Him and with Him. " Communion," then, is the common union of the faithful, who, by feeding on the same true body of Christ in the Eucharist, are made one mystical body, the Church. So says Bede, following S. Augustine. Hence, too, the Council of Trent (sess. xii. c. 8) says: " This sacrament is the sign of unity, the bond of charity, the symbol of peace and concord," no doubt because, in a wonderful way, it signifies and perfects the unity of the body of Christ, i.e., of the faithful of the Church. For this reason, too, the Eucharist was formerly given to infants after their baptism, that they might be perfectly incorporated into Christ (vide S. John vi. 55). Again for the same reason the Eucharist was called by S. Dionysius, Synaxis, i.e., "congregation," because the faithful were in the habit of assembling in the church to receive the Eucharist. Tertullian even says (de Oratione, cap. ult.) that prayer should end when the body of the Lord has been received. The Apostle too, in the next chapter (ver. 20), says: " When ye come together, therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper." For although the Church becomes the body of Christ through faith and baptism, yet this is done more truly and properly in the Eucharist.

Heretics raise the objection that therefore only the good and righteous are parts and members of the Church, for the Apostle says, "We are all one bread;" but bread, they say, is made from grains of wheat, not from chaff; therefore the Church is formed from the righteous, not from the wicked; for the righteous are the corn, the wicked are the chaff.

I reply (1.) that this does not follow, because a similitude is not bound to be in all points alike; (2.) that the major premiss is false, for often chaff, grains of sand, lentils are mingled with the wheat, and with it go to make up the bread. Hence S. Paul (c. xi. 29) says that even the wicked eat of this bread. But here he says that all who partake of this bread make up the one body of Christ, which id the Church: therefore the wicked, also, who eat of this bread are of the Church. Vide S. Cyprian (Ep. ad Magnum, lib. i.; Ephesians 6).