1 Corinthians 7:35–8:7

The same holds good also in the case of poverty. For it compels the soul to desist from necessary things, I mean contemplation and from pure sinlessness, forcing him, who has not wholly dedicated himself to God in love, to occupy himself about provisions; as, again, health and abundance of necessaries keep the soul free and unimpeded, and capable of making a good use of what is at hand. "For," says the apostle, "such shall have trouble in the flesh. But I spare you. For I would have you without anxiety, in order to decorum and assiduity for the Lord, without distraction."

What Paul has just said may seem harsh to some people, which is why he adds this here.

Since widowed continence has more in itself of the nature of the honorable on account of purity, more of the nature of the advantageous on account of the removal of impediment, more of the nature of the delightful on account of the removal of burdens which follow upon the law of marriage: hence it is that widowed continence is counseled to all who are unbound; and those who wish to adhere to this counsel according to the dictate of evangelical perfection are not to be restrained but rather encouraged, that is, not only in old age but also in youth. For one is persuaded to abstain from marriage or to be continent, both by the Lord and by the Apostle himself, 1 Corinthians 7: She shall be happier if she so remain, according to my counsel. And the reason for this he himself states beforehand: Moreover, this I say for your profit, not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is honorable, and which may afford the opportunity of beseeching the Lord without hindrance.

"And this I say for your own profit, not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is seemly, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction." Let the virgins hear that not by that one point is virginity defined; for she that is careful about the things of the world cannot be a virgin, nor seemly. Thus, when he said, "There is difference between a wife and a virgin," he added this as the difference, that wherein they are distinguished from each other. And laying down the definition of a virgin and her that is not a virgin, he names, not marriage nor continence but leisure from engagements and multiplicity of engagements. For the evil is not in the cohabitation, but in the impediment to the strictness of life.

As not to perceive in this statement the higher praise which Paul accords to chastity? "And this "he says,

When anger comes upon you, or harshness, know that he is in you; and you will know this to be the case also, when you are attacked by a longing after many transactions, and the richest delicacies, and drunken revels, and divers luxuries, and things improper, and by a hankering after women, and by overreaching, and pride, and blustering, and by whatever is like to these.

But if we listen to the apostle, forgetting what is behind, let us both strain after what is before, and be followers after the better rewards. Thus, albeit he does not "east a snare upon us," he points out what tends to utility when he says, "The unmarried woman thinks on the things of the Lord, that both in body and spirit she may be holy; but the married is solicitous how to please her husband.

On the other hand, this worldly concupiscence (to which I referred) has, as its causes, glory, cupidity, ambition, want of sufficiency; through which causes it trumps up the "necessity" for marrying,-promising itself, forsooth, heavenly things in return-to lord it, (namely,) in another's family; to roost on another's wealth; to extort splendour from another's store to lavish expenditure which you do not feel! Far be all this from believers, who have no care about maintenance, unless it be that we distrust the promises of God, and (His) care and providence, who clothes with such grace the lilies of the field; who, without any labour on their part, feeds the fowls of the heaven; who prohibits care to be taken about to-morrow's food and clothing, promising that He knows what is needful for each of His servants-not indeed ponderous necklaces, not burdensome garments, not Gallic mules nor German bearers, which all add lustre to the glory of nuptials; but "sufficiency," which is suitable to moderation and modesty, Presume, I pray you, that you have need of nothing if you "attend upon the Lord; " nay, that you have all things, if you have the Lord, whose are all things.

I spoke, he says, about virginity, knowing that this state is beneficial for you, since it is free from sorrow and cares, and provides more advantages to the soul; I did not speak about this in order to compel you against your will to remain in virginity (for by "bonds" he meant compulsion).

For this reason, he says, so that you may live becomingly and in purity; for what can be more becoming and purer than virginity? And also so that you, being free from the unpleasantries of marriage, may serve the Lord without distraction and stand before Him always, casting all your cares upon Him (1 Peter 5:7).

Paul always wants the best out of Christians. If someone really wants to get married, then it is better to marry publicly according to the permission given than to behave badly and be ashamed in private.

"But if any man think that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin."

Here he seems to be talking about marriage; but all that he says relates to virginity; for he allows even a second marriage, saying, "only in the Lord." Now what means, "in the Lord?" With chastity, with honor: for this is needed everywhere, and must be pursued for else we cannot see God.

Wherefore he rejects those of the more incontinent, who, under the influence of vain-glory, would advance to this state, advising them to marry, lest in their time of manly strength, the flesh stirring up the desires and passions, they should be goaded on to defile the soul. For let us consider what he lays down:

If anyone, he says, being truly weak in soul, considers it dishonorable to leave his daughter a virgin, especially if she has passed the mature age, then let it be so, he says. How so? "Let him do as he wishes," that is, if he wants to give her in marriage, let him give her, for he will not sin. However, it is better to keep the virgin, as he says further.

But for him who of his own free will and purpose decides to preserve his flesh in virgin purity, "having no necessity"

It is clear from this that someone who has been overcome by apparent impropriety, even if married, is not yet firmly established in the work of the Lord.

Notice how he first marvels at the one who keeps his virgin: he calls him firm and steadfast and one who acts with deliberation; for he says, "standing firm in his heart." So then, the one who gives his virgin in marriage is not firm. By the words "having no necessity" he shows that the father has the authority to give his daughter a husband, and no one can compel him not to give her in marriage. So it is to his honor if he keeps his daughter unmarried; therefore the apostle also praises him, for "he does well," he says. But the one who gives his daughter in marriage also "does well"; for giving in marriage is not a sin, and everything that is not a sin is good. But it is far better not to give in marriage, for this is perfection in what is good.

The one is bound by the chains of marriage, the other is free from chains; the one is under the Law, the other under Grace. Marriage is good, for thereby the means of continuing the human race has been devised, but virginity is better, for thereby the heritage of the heavenly kingdom is regained, and the mode of attaining to heavenly rewards discovered.

The one who refrains from marriage does better because he earns merit for her with God and delivers her from the cares of this world.

That virginal continence is to be preferred to all others is shown by authority, as follows. 1 Corinthians 7: He who gives his virgin in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage does better: therefore virginal continence is to be preferred to the other differences of continence, according to the authority of the Apostle.

Right mystically and sacredly the apostle, teaching us the choice which is truly gracious, not in the way of rejection of other things as bad, but so as to do things better than what is good, has spoken, saying, "So he that giveth his virgin in marriage doeth well; and he that giveth her not doeth better; as far as respects seemliness and undistracted attendance on the Lord."

In marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth bet ter."

"Why, then, sir," I said, "do all these trees bear fruit, and some of them fairer than the rest?" "Listen," he said: "all who once suffered for the name of the Lord are honourable before God; and of all these the sins were remitted, because they suffered for the name of the Son of God. And why their fruits are of various kinds, and some of them superior, listen. All," he continued, "who were brought before the authorities and were examined, and did not deny, but suffered cheerfully—these are held in greater honour with God, and of these the fruit is superior; but all who were cowards, and in doubt, and who reasoned in their hearts whether they would deny or confess, and yet suffered, of these the fruit is less, because that suggestion came into their hearts; for that suggestion—that a servant should deny his Lord—is evil."

Thus he pronounces that the "preserver of a virgin" doeth" better" than her "giver in marriage." Thus, too, he discriminatingly judges her to be more blessed, who, after losing her husband subsequently to her entrance into the faith, lovingly embraces the opportunity of widowhood.

Paul writes this in order to make it clear that a woman who has been rejected by her husband is not free to marry again. If he should die, then she may remarry, but only in the Lord, which means without any suspicion of wrongdoing and within the bounds of the church.

The death referred to here is clearly the death of the body, not of the soul. Forgiveness and attempts at reconciliation of the offending person are offered as better solutions than divorce.

That marriage is not to be contracted with Gentiles. In Tobias: "Take a wife from the seed of thy parents, and take not a strange woman who is not of the tribe of thy parents." Also in Genesis, Abraham sends his servant to take from his seed Rebecca, for his son Isaac. Also in Esdras, it was not sufficient for God when the Jews were laid waste, unless they forsook their foreign wives, with the children also whom they had begotten of them. Also in the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: "The woman is bound so long as her husband liveth; but if he die, she is freed to marry whom she will, only in the Lord. But she will be happier if she abide thus." And again: "Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? Far be it from me. Or know ye not that he who is joined together with an harlot is one body? for two shall be in one flesh. But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit." Also in the second to the Corinthians: "Be not joined together with unbelievers. For what participation is there between righteousness and unrighteousness? or what communication hath light with darkness? " Also concerning Solomon in the third book of Kings: "And foreign wives turned away his heart after their gods."

Now when we pass from loyalty to the nation to loyalty to the family, there can be no doubt about the first and plainest difference. The difference is that the family is a thing far more free. The vow is a voluntary loyalty; and the marriage vow is marked among ordinary oaths of allegiance by the fact that the allegiance is also a choice. The man is not only a citizen of the city, but also the founder and builder of the city. He is not only a soldier serving the colours, but he has himself artistically selected and combined the colours, like the colours of an individual dress. If it be admissible to ask him to be true to the commonwealth that has made him, it is at least not more illiberal to ask him to be true to the commonwealth he has himself made. If civic fidelity be, as it is, a necessity, it is also in a special sense a constraint. The old joke against patriotism, the Gilbertian irony, congratulated the Englishman on his fine and fastidious taste in being born in England. It made a plausible point in saying "For he might have been a Russian"; though indeed we have lived to see some persons who seemed to think they could be Russians when the fancy took them. If commonsense considers even such involuntary loyalty natural, we can hardly wonder if it thinks voluntary loyalty still more natural. And the small state founded on the sexes is at once the most voluntary and the most natural of all self-governing states. It is not true of Mr. Brown that he might have been a Russian; but it may be true of Mrs. Brown that she might have been a Robinson.

Now it is not at all hard to see why this small community, so specially free touching its cause, should yet be specially bound touching its effects. It is not hard to see why the vow made most freely is the vow kept most firmly. There are attached to it, by the nature of things, consequences so tremendous that no contract can offer any comparison. There is no contract, unless it be that said to be signed in blood, that can call spirits from the vasty deep; or bring cherubs (or goblins) to inhabit a small modern villa. There is no stroke of the pen which creates real bodies and souls, or makes the characters in a novel come to life. The institution that puzzles intellectuals so much can be explained by the mere material fact (perceptible even to intellectuals) that children are, generally speaking, younger than their parents. "Till death do us part" is not an irrational formula, for those will almost certainly die before they see more than half of the amazing (or alarming) thing they have done.

And again I asked him, saying, "Sir, since you have been so patient in listening to me, will you show me this also?" "Speak," said he. And I said, "If a wife or husband die, and the widower or widow marry, does he or she commit sin?" "There is no sin in marrying again," said he; "but if they remain unmarried, they gain greater honour and glory with the Lord; but if they marry, they do not sin. Guard, therefore, your chastity and purity, and you will live to God."

You have the law from the patriarchs indeed; you have the apostle enjoining people to marry in the Lord. You have a crowning also on the making of a freeman; but you have been already ransomed by Christ, and that at a great price.

You degrade your god, O Marcion, when you make him circumscribed at all by the Creator's time. 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.

Further, if we set down in order the higher and happier grades of bodily patience, (we find that)it is she who is entrusted by holiness with the care of continence of the flesh: she keeps the widow, and sets on the virgin the seal and raises the self-made eunuch to the realms of heaven.

Let us now turn our attention to the next best advice, in regard of human infirmity; admonished hereto by the examples of certain, who, when an opportunity for the practice of Continence has been offered them, by divorce, or by the decease of the husband, have not only thrown away the opportunity of attaining so great a good, but not even in their remarriage have chosen to be mindful of the rule that "above all they marry in the Lord.

But in as far as marrying "in the Lord" is permissible, as being within our power, so far more culpable is it not to observe that which you can observe. Add to this the fact that the apostle, with regard to widows and the unmarried, advises them to remain permanently in that state, when he says, "But I desire all to persevere in (imitation of) my example: " but touching marrying "in the Lord," he no longer advises, but plainly bids. Therefore in this case especially, if we do not obey, we run a risk, because one may with more impunity neglect an "advice" than an "order; "in that the former springs from counsel, and is proposed to the will (for acceptance or rejection): the other descends from authority, and is bound to necessity. In the former case, to disregard appears liberty, in the latter, contumacy.

But it is Gentiles who "are called," I take it, not believers. But if he had been pronouncing absolutely, (in the words under discussion,) touching the marriage of believers merely, (then) had he (virtually) given to saints a permission to marry promiscuously. If, however, he had given such a permission, he would never have subjoined a declaration so diverse from and contrary to his own permission, saying: "The woman, when her husband is dead, is free: let her marry whom. she wishes, only in the Lord." Here, at all events, there is no need for reconsidering; for what there might have been reconsideration about, the Spirit has oracularly declared.

Again, the woman, if intending to marry, has to marry "in the Lord; " that is, not to an heathen, but to a brother, inasmuch as even the ancient law forbids marriage with members of another tribe.

You ought to take more pains to please him for whose sake you have not preferred to please God! Such (conduct) the Psychics will have it the apostle approved, or else totally failed to think about, when he wrote: "The woman is bound for such length of time as her husband liveth; but if he shall have died, she is free; whom she will let her marry, only in the Lord." For it is out of this passage that they draw their defence of the licence of second marriage; nay, even of (marriages) to any amount, if of second (marriage): for that which has ceased to be once for all, is open to any and every number.

Here he teaches about second marriage, and although he permits it, nevertheless he considers more blessed the one who does not enter into a second marriage; for as virginity is higher than the first marriage, so the first marriage is higher than the second. "The wife is bound by the law," that is, she is restrained by the precaution of the law from adultery, from being an adulteress through union with another while the husband is alive, but if the husband dies, she becomes free from the bonds and law of the first marriage and receives permission. "Only in the Lord," that is, only with chastity, with honor may she enter into a second marriage, for bearing and raising children, and not from the impulse of lust. "According to my counsel" he adds, so that you would not regard this as a commandment, but only as counsel, Divine counsel. "I think," he says, "that I also have the Spirit of God." In these words there is more humility; for he did not say: I have, but: "I think" that "I have," that is, I suppose, I surmise.

Paul adds that he has the Spirit of God in order to show that his advice is reliable.

This counselor, namely Christ, has many counselors, to whom he imparts his counsel. Paul said: 'She will be more blessed if she so remains according to my counsel; but I think that I also have the Spirit of God.' Whence to the Corinthians: 'You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, for your sake he became poor.' And the Apostle himself says: 'In this I give counsel, but I have no precept.' Augustine says that 'Christ became poor to such an extent that he does not have what the foxes have, because foxes have holes, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head; understand: Christ became poor so that we might imitate his poverty.' The Master says that we should imitate him in giving alms, in humility, in poverty, and in obedience.

That widowed continence according to the evangelical law ought to be vowed is shown by authority, as follows. 1 Corinthians 7: If the husband shall have died, the woman is freed from the law of the husband; but she will be more blessed if she so remains: but what is more blessed can be licitly vowed: and this is through the vow of widowed continence: therefore widowed continence is to be vowed.

On that word Augustine says, in On Widowhood: "What I say to one widowed woman I say to every widow: She will be more blessed if she so remains": therefore this is proposed to all widows: therefore it is licit for anyone to vow continence according to the evangelical law.

Because marriage has something attached which diminishes both honor and utility and spiritual joy, no one is compelled to it against his will, because rather one is persuaded to abstain from it or to be continent, both by the Lord and by the Apostle himself, 1 Corinthians 7: If her husband be dead, the woman is loosed from the law of her husband; let her marry whom she will, only in the Lord; but she shall be happier if she so remain, according to my counsel. And the reason for this he himself states beforehand: Moreover, this I say for your profit, not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is honorable, and which may afford the opportunity of beseeching the Lord without hindrance.

Happy is the woman who has a husband. Happier still is the widow who can remain chaste with little effort on her part. But happiest of all is the virgin, who can attain to the highest prize without struggling.

What Paul means is that she is blessed if she marries and has a husband to protect her, but she is more blessed if, for the sake of piety, she refuses marriage and devotes herself entirely to God.

And again I asked him, saying, "Sir, since you have been so patient in listening to me, will you show me this also?" "Speak," said he. And I said, "If a wife or husband die, and the widower or widow marry, does he or she commit sin?" "There is no sin in marrying again," said he; "but if they remain unmarried, they gain greater honour and glory with the Lord; but if they marry, they do not sin. Guard, therefore, your chastity and purity, and you will live to God."

Note that Paul does not say that a woman who contracts a second marriage will be unhappy. Rather he says that she will be happier if she remains single. It is all a matter of degree.

Paul means that knowledge is a great thing and very useful to the person who has it, as long as it is tempered by love.

Paul means that knowledge only does good in company with love. Otherwise it merely puffs a man into pride.

"Knowledge puffs up, but charity edifies"; therefore it is necessary to join charity with knowledge, so that a man may have knowledge and charity together, so that what the Apostle says may be fulfilled: "Rooted and founded in charity, that you may be able to comprehend with all the Saints what is the length, and breadth, and height, and depth, and to know also the charity of Christ which surpasseth knowledge." This is the knowledge which is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

"If any man thinketh that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know." For truth is never mere opinion. But the "supposition of knowledge inflates," and fills with pride; "but charity edifieth," which deals not in supposition, but in truth. Whence it is said, "If any man loves, he is known."

But the knowledge of those who think themselves wise, whether the barbarian sects or the philosophers among the Greeks, according to the apostle, "puffeth up." But that knowledge, which is the scientific demonstration of what is delivered according to the true philosophy, is rounded on faith.

"We know that we all have knowledge"-common knowledge in common things, and the knowledge that there is one God. For he was writing to believers; whence he adds, "But knowledge (gnosis) is not in all," being communicated to few. And there are those who say that the knowledge about things sacrificed to idols is not promulgated among all, "lest our liberty prove a stumbling-block to the weak. For by thy knowledge he that is weak is destroyed."

It is therefore better and more profitable to belong to the simple and unlettered class, and by means of love to attain to nearness to God, than, by imagining ourselves learned and skilful, to be found [among those who are] blasphemous against their own God, inasmuch as they conjure up another God as the Father. And for this reason Paul exclaimed, "Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth:" not that he meant to inveigh against a true knowledge of God, for in that case he would have accused himself; but, because he knew that some, puffed up by the pretence of knowledge, fall away from the love of God, and imagine that they themselves are perfect, for this reason that they set forth an imperfect Creator, with the view of putting an end to the pride which they feel on account of knowledge of this kind, he says, "Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth." Now there can be no greater conceit than this, that any one should imagine he is better and more perfect than He who made and fashioned him, and imparted to him the breath of life, and commanded this very thing into existence. It is therefore better, as I have said, that one should have no knowledge whatever of any one reason why a single thing in creation has been made, but should believe in God, and continue in His love, than that, puffed up through knowledge of this kind, he should fall away from that love which is the life of man; and that he should search after no other knowledge except [the knowledge of] Jesus Christ the Son of God, who was crucified for us, than that by subtle questions and hair-splitting expressions he should fall into impiety.

"Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge." Leaving alone the weak, which he always doth, he discourses with the strong first. And this is what he did also in the Epistle to the Romans, saying, "But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother?" for this is the sort of person that is able to receive rebuke also with readiness. Exactly the same then he doth here also.

And first he makes void their conceit by declaring that this very thing which they considered as peculiar to themselves, the having perfect knowledge, was common to all. Thus, "we know," saith he, "that we all have knowledge." For if allowing them to have high thoughts, he had first pointed out how hurtful the thing was to others, he would not have done them so much good as harm. For the ambitious soul when it plumes itself upon any thing, even though the same do harm to others, yet strongly adheres to it because of the tyranny of vain-glory. Wherefore Paul first examines the matter itself by itself: just as he had done before in the case of the wisdom from without, demolishing it with a high hand. But in that case he did it as we might have expected: for the whole thing was altogether blameworthy and his task was very easy. Wherefore he signifies it to be not only useless, but even contrary to the Gospel. But in the present case it was not possible to do this. For what was done was of knowledge, and perfect knowledge. Nor was it safe to overthrow it, and yet in no other way was it possible to cast out the conceit which had resulted from it. What then doeth he? First, by signifying that it was common, he curbs that swelling pride of theirs. For they who possess something great and excellent are more elated, when they alone have it; but if it be made out that they possess it in common with others, they no longer have so much of this feeling. First then he makes it common property, because they considered it to belong to themselves alone.

Next, having made it common, he does not make himself singly a sharer in it with them; for in this way too he would have rather set them up; for as to be the only possessor elates, so to have one partner or two perhaps among leading persons has this effect just as much. For this reason he does not mention himself but all: he said not, "I too have knowledge," but, "we know that we all have knowledge."

This then is one way, and the first, by which he cast down their pride; the next hath greater force. What then is this? In that he shews that not even this thing itself was in all points complete, but imperfect, and extremely so. And not only imperfect, but also injurious, unless there were another thing joined together with it. For having said that "we have knowledge," he added, "Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth:" so that when it is without love, it lifts men up to absolute arrogance.

"And yet not even love," you will say, "without knowledge hath any advantage." Well: this he did not say; but omitting it as a thing allowed by all, he signifies that knowledge stands in extreme need of love. For he who loves, inasmuch as he fulfils the commandment which is most absolute of all, even though he have some defects, will quickly be blest with knowledge because of his love; as Cornelius and many others. But he that hath knowledge but hath not love, not only shall gain nothing more, but shall also be cast out of that which he hath, in many cases falling into arrogance. It seems then that knowledge is not productive of love, but on the contrary debars from it him that is not on his guard, puffing him up and elating him. For arrogance is wont to cause divisions: but love both draws together and leads to knowledge. And to make this plain he saith, "But if any man loveth God, the same is known of Him." So that "I forbid not this," saith he, "namely, your having perfect knowledge; but your having it with love, that I enjoin; else is it no gain, but rather loss."

Do you see how he already sounds the first note of his discourse concerning love? For since all these evils were springing from the following root, i.e., not from perfect knowledge, but from their not greatly loving nor sparing their neighbors; whence ensued both their variance and their self-satisfaction, and all the rest which he had charged them with; both before this and after he is continually providing for love; so correcting the fountain of all good things. "Now why," saith he, "are ye puffed up about knowledge? For if ye have not love, ye shall even be injured thereby. For what is worse than boasting? But if the other be added, the first also will be in safety. For although you may know something more than your neighbor, if you love him you will not set yourself up but lead him also to the same." Wherefore also having said, "Knowledge puffeth up," he added, "but love edifieth." He did not say, "Behaveth itself modestly," but what is much more, and more gainful. For their knowledge was not only puffing them up but also distracting them. On this account he opposes the one to the other.

Some of the Corinthians were perfect, and knowing that what enters the mouth does not defile a person (Matt. 15:11) and that idols are wood and stone and cannot cause harm, they indiscriminately entered idol-temples and ate food sacrificed to idols. Others, less perfect, seeing such people, themselves also entered idol-temples and offered sacrifices to idols, but not with the same thought as the first group, but thinking that the idols were worthy of honor and capable of receiving sacrifices. This moved Paul to zeal, because it was harmful to both groups: to the perfect, in that they were delighting in demonic foods, and to the imperfect, in that they were inclining toward idol-worship. So the apostle hastens to correct this evil, and according to his custom, leaving aside the imperfect, he directs his speech to the perfect. And first he subdues the pride of knowledge, and says: you alone do not have this knowledge, but we all know that an idol is nothing in the world; however, this knowledge not only brings no benefit, but even causes harm, puffing up and inflating the one who possesses it, and thereby separating him from his neighbor, if together with it (knowledge) there is not also love, which, on the contrary, can build up. For what knowledge without love tears down, love restores and builds up, doing all things for the benefit of one's neighbor.

Only when a person has love can he be said to know as he ought to know.

Gratuitous knowledge teaches to know and the manner of knowing. Whence, upon that saying of the Apostle: "If any man think that he knoweth anything, he hath not yet known how he ought to know": Bernard says: "You see that the Apostle does not approve him who knows many things, but the manner of knowing: see that he places all the fruit and utility of knowledge in the manner of knowing. What does he call the manner of knowing? To know in what order, with what zeal, and to what end each one learns: in what order, so that one may first learn that which is more conducive to salvation; with what zeal, so that one may more ardently pursue that which more powerfully draws to the love of God; to what end, so that one may learn not for vainglory or curiosity, but for the edification of oneself and one's neighbor. There are those who wish to know only for the sake of knowing, and this is base curiosity. There are those who learn and wish to know in order to be known, and this is base vanity. And there are those who wish to know in order to sell their knowledge for money or honors, and this is base profit. There are those who wish to know in order to edify others, and this is charity. And there are those who wish to know in order to be edified, and this is prudence."

That we must not rashly judge of another. In the Gospel according to Luke: "Judge not, that ye be not judged: condemn not, that ye be not condemned." Of this same subject to the Romans: "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. But he shall stand; for God is able to make him stand." And again: "Wherefore thou art without excuse, O every man that judgest: for in that in which thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou doest the same things which thou judgest. 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."

Once some brothers came to visit Antony, and Joseph was with them. Antony, wanting to test them, began to speak about holy Scripture. He asked the younger monks first the meaning of text after text, and each of them answered as well as he could. To each he said, 'You have not yet found the right answer.' Then he said to Joseph, 'What do you think is the meaning of this word?' He replied, 'I don't know.' Antony said, 'Indeed Joseph alone has found the true way, for he said he did not know.'

And then he adds a third consideration, which was of force to set them down. What then is this? that although charity be joined with it, yet not even in that case is this our knowledge perfect. And therefore he adds,

"But if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know." This is a mortal blow. "I dwell not," saith he, "on the knowledge being common to all. I say not that by hating your neighbor and by arrogance, you injure yourself most. But even though you have it by yourself alone, though you be modest, though you love your brother, even in this case you are imperfect in regard of knowledge. For as yet thou knowest nothing as thou oughtest to know." Now if we possess as yet exact knowledge of nothing, how is it that some have rushed on to such a pitch of frenzy as to say that they know God with all exactness? 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.

And mark how he pulls down their swelling pride: for he said not, "of the matters before us ye have not the proper knowledge," but, "about every thing." And he did not say, "ye," but, "no one whatever," be it Peter, be it Paul, be it any one else. For by this he both soothed them and carefully kept them under.

" 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." When they raise the objection that the churches were rebuked, let them suppose that they were also corrected; let them also remember those (churches), concerning whose faith and knowledge and conversation the apostle "rejoices and gives thanks to God," which nevertheless even at this day, unite with those which were rebuked in the privileges of one and the same institution.

" "Know ye not that we are to judge angels? " Again, of how open censure (does) the free expression (find utterance), how manifest the edge of the spiritual sword, (in words like these): "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 behaves him to know I" Is he not even then "smiting some one's face," in saying, "For who maketh thee to differ? What, moreover, hast thou which thou hast not received? 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.

Paul shows not only that they have no love but that they have no knowledge either.

Here he says something more, namely, that even if knowledge is united with love, it is still imperfect. For no one, be it Peter or Paul, knows anything as it ought to be known. Why then are you puffed up, you who have knowledge without love? For even if you had knowledge together with love, you would still know nothing in perfection.

Paul says: "If one loves God, one is known by him." He certainly did not say "one knows God," a dangerous presumption, but "he is known by God." Elsewhere he remarks, "But now you know God," and then immediately corrects himself: "or rather you are known by God."

Perhaps it seems rather crude to describe glory as the fact of being "noticed" by God. But this is almost the language of the New Testament. St. Paul promises to those who love God not, as we should expect, that they will know Him, but that they will be known by Him (1 Cor. viii. 3). It is a strange promise. Does not God know all things at all times? But it is dreadfully re-echoed in another passage of the New Testament. There we are warned that it may happen to any one of us to appear at last before the face of God and hear only the appalling words: "I never knew you. Depart from Me." In some sense, as dark to the intellect as it is unendurable to the feelings, we can be both banished from the presence of Him who is present everywhere and erased from the knowledge of Him who knows all. We can be left utterly and absolutely _outside_—repelled, exiled, estranged, finally and unspeakably ignored. On the other hand, we can be called in, welcomed, received, acknowledged. We walk every day on the razor edge between these two incredible possibilities. Apparently, then, our lifelong nostalgia, our longing to be reunited with something in the universe from which we now feel cut off, to be on the inside of some door which we have always seen from the outside, is no mere neurotic fancy, but the truest index of our real situation. And to be at last summoned inside would be both glory and honour beyond all our merits and also the healing of that old ache.

"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."

Observe now, I pray, by what means he brings down their high-mindedness. First, he points out that not they alone knew the things which they knew; for "we all," he saith, "have knowledge." Next, that the thing itself was hurtful so long as it was without love; for "knowledge," saith he, "puffeth up." Thirdly, that even joined with love it is not complete nor perfect. "For if any man thinketh that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing as yet as he ought to know," so he speaks. In addition to this, that they have not even this from themselves, but by gift from God. For he said not, "hath known God," but, "is known of Him." Again, that this very thing comes of love which they have not as they ought. For, "if any man," saith he, "love God, the same is known of Him."

These words have the following meaning: whoever loves his neighbor undoubtedly loves God as well; and whoever loves God (he did not say "has known" God, but) "has knowledge" from God, that is, has become known to God and His own. And having become known to God, he receives knowledge from Him; but even this knowledge is imperfect. Therefore, even if you do have knowledge, do not be puffed up: for it is not perfect and is not your own merit, but a gift from God. See how many measures he uses to restrain their arrogance.

Paul now develops his argument in detail in order to show that knowledge without love is both useless and harmful.

Although man has made his own gods, he nevertheless became their captive once he was handed over to their fellowship by his act of worshiping them… For what are idols but things, as the Scripture says, which "have eyes and see not"? City of God

An idol is nothing, as is said in First Corinthians, chapter eight: therefore to think that God is an idol and that God does not exist is the same thing: but it is thinkable and is sometimes thought that God is an idol: therefore it is thinkable that God is nothing.

The reason a pagan thinks that God is an idol is that his apprehension of God is defective: for he does not apprehend Him as the highest and best, but as something powerful that man cannot be; and hence there arises in him the error of deception and the wavering of doubt, into which error he casts himself by his own obstinacy, so that he becomes utterly inexcusable. Nor yet is he entirely deprived of the knowledge of God, because, although out of his own perversity he wills to worship an idol, he nonetheless has a natural instinct to worship God, against which he fights by casting himself into voluntary error.

Such, then, being the case, the Greeks ought by the Law and the Prophets to learn to worship one God only, the only Sovereign; then to be taught by the apostle, "but to us an idol is no, thing in the world," since nothing among created things can be a likeness of God; and further, to be taught that none of those images which they worship can be similitudes: for the race of souls is not in form such as the Greeks fashion their idols. For souls are invisible; not only those that are rational, but those also of the other animals. And their bodies never become parts of the souls themselves, but organs-partly as seats, partly as vehicles-and in other cases possessions in various ways. But it is not possible to copy accurately even the likenesses of the organs; since, were it so, one might model the sun, as it is seen, and take the likeness of the rainbow in colours.

And concerning food, bear what thou art able; but against that which is sacrificed to idols be exceedingly on thy guard; for it is the service of dead gods.

The Evangelists, too, when they declared that the one Father was "the only true God," did not omit what concerned our Lord, but wrote: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. 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," said also that "there is one Mediator between God and men." Nor were they ashamed of the incarnation and the passion. For what says [one]? "The man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself" for the life and salvation of the world.

And the Apostle Paul also, saying, "For though ye have served them which are no gods; ye now know God, or rather, are known of God," has made a separation between those that were not [gods] and Him who is God. And again, speaking of Antichrist, he says, "who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped." He points out here those who are called gods, by such as know not God, that is, idols. For the Father of all is called God, and is so; and Antichrist shall be lifted up, not above Him, but above those which are indeed called gods, but are not. 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." For he has made a distinction, and separated those which are indeed called gods, but which are none, from the one God the Father, from whom are all things, and, he has confessed in the most decided manner in his own person, one Lord Jesus Christ. But in this [clause], "whether in heaven or in earth," he does not speak of the formers of the world, as these [teachers] expound it; but his meaning is similar to that of Moses, when it is said, "Thou shalt not make to thyself any image for God, of whatsoever things are in heaven above, whatsoever in the earth beneath, and whatsoever in the waters under the earth." And he does thus explain what are meant by the things in heaven: "Lest when," he says, "looking towards heaven, and observing the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and all the ornament of heaven, falling into error, thou shouldest adore and serve them." And Moses himself, being a man of God, was indeed given as a god before Pharaoh; but he is not properly termed Lord, nor is called God by the prophets, but is spoken of by the Spirit as "Moses, the faithful minister and servant of God," which also he was.

"Concerning therefore the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that no idol is anything in the world, and that there is no God but one." Look what a strait he hath fallen into! For indeed his mind is to prove both; that one ought to abstain from this kind of banquet, and that it hath no power to hurt those who partake of it: things which were not greatly in agreement with each other. For when they were told that they had no harm in them, they would naturally run to them as indifferent things. But when forbidden to touch them, they would suspect, on the contrary, that their having power to do hurt occasioned the prohibition. Wherefore, you see, he puts down their opinion about idols, and then states as a first reason for their abstaining the scandals which they place in the way of their brethren; in these words: "Now concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that no idol is anything in the world." Again he makes it common property and doth not allow this to be theirs alone, but extends the knowledge all over the world. For "not among you alone," says he, "but every where on earth this doctrine prevails." What then is it? "That no idol is anything in the world; that there is no God but one." What then? are there no idols? no statues? Indeed there are; but they have no power: neither are they gods, but stones and demons. For he is now setting himself against both parties; 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."

Do you mark how he writes these things, not simply as laying down doctrine, but in opposition to those without? A thing indeed which we must at all times narrowly observe, whether he says anything abstractedly, or whether he is opposing any persons. For this contributes in no ordinary way to the accuracy of our doctrinal views, and to the exact understanding of his expressions.

"An idol is nothing," says the apostle. One who makes an idol makes what is not. But what is that which is not? A form which the eye does not see but which the mind imagines for itself.

We have, I think, faithfully carried out our plan of showing in how many different ways the sin of idolatry clings to the shows, in respect of their origins, their titles, their equipments, their places of celebration, their arts; 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," as the apostle says, but that the homage they render is to demons, who are the real occupants of these consecrated images, whether of dead men or (as they think) of gods.

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." 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.

Again he generalizes knowledge, humbling them. We all know, he says, that an idol is nothing in the world. So then, are there no idols? Are there no graven images? There are, but they are nothing, that is, they have no power; they are not gods, but stones and demons. And since among the Greeks there were simple folk and wise men, and the simple folk saw nothing more in idols than stones, while the wise men thought that divine powers dwelt in them, which they also called gods: to the simple folk he said that an idol is nothing in the world, and to the wise men he said that there is no other God except the One, and therefore no divine powers dwell in idols either, because God is one, and there are not many gods.

"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as there are gods many and lords many; yet to us there is one God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and we unto Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things, and we through Him." Since he had said, that "an idol is nothing" and that "there is no other God;" and yet there were idols and there were those that were called gods; that he might not seem to be contradicting plain facts, he goes on to say, "For though there be that are called gods, as indeed there are;" not absolutely, "there are;" but, "called," not in reality having this but in name: "be it in heaven or on earth:-in heaven," meaning the sun and the moon and the remainder of the choir of stars; 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.

Next, he adduces what indeed is the greatest token of divinity; "of Whom are all things." For this implies also that those others are not gods. For it is said, "Let the gods who made not the heaven and the earth perish." Then he subjoins what is not less than this, "and we unto Him." For when he saith, "of Whom are all things," he means the creation and the bringing of things out of nothing into existence. But when he saith, "and we unto Him," he speaks of the word of faith and mutual appropriation, as also he said before, "but of Him are ye also in Christ Jesus." In two ways we are of Him, by being made when we were not, and by being made believers. For this also is a creation: a thing which he also declares elsewhere; "that He might create in Himself of the twain one new man."

"And there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things, and we through Him." And in regard to Christ again, we must conceive of this in like manner. For through Him the race of men was both produced out of nothing into existence, and returned from error to truth. So that as to the phrase "of Whom," it is not to be understood apart from Christ. For of Him, through Christ, were we created.

Nor yet, if you observe, hath he distributed the names as if belonging exclusively, assigning to the Son the name Lord, and to the Father, God. For the Scripture useth also often to interchange them; as when it saith, "The Lord saith unto My Lord;" and again, "Wherefore God Thy God hath appointed Thee;" and, "Of Whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who is God over all." And in many instances you may see these names changing their places. Besides, if they were allotted to each nature severally, and if the Son were not God, and God as the Father, yet continuing a Son: after saying, "but to us there is but One God," it would have been superfluous, his adding the word "Father," with a view to declare the Unbegotten. For the word of God was sufficient to explain this, if it were such as to denote Him only.

And this is not all, but there is another remark to make: that if you say, "Because it is said 'One God,' therefore the word God doth not apply to the Son;" observe that the same holds of the Son also. For the Son also is called "One Lord," yet we do not maintain that therefore the term Lord applies to Him alone. So then, the same force which the expression "One" has, applied to the Son, it has also, applied to the Father. And as the Father is not thrust out from being the Lord, in the same sense as the Son is the Lord, because He, the Son, is spoken of as one Lord; so neither does it cast out the Son from being God, in the same sense as the Father is God, because the Father is styled One God.

Now if any were to say, "Why did he make no mention of the Spirit?" our answer might be this: His argument was with idolaters, and the contention was about "gods many and lords many." And this is why, having called the Father, God, he calls the Son, Lord. If now he ventured not to call the Father Lord together with the Son, lest they might suspect him to be speaking of two Lords; nor yet the Son, God, with the Father, lest he might be supposed to speak of two Gods: why marvel at his not having mentioned the Spirit? His contest was, so far, with the Gentiles: his point, to signify that with us there is no plurality of Gods. Wherefore he keeps hold continually of this word, "One;" saying, "There is no God but One; and, to us there is One God, and One Lord." From which it is plain, that to spare the weakness of the hearers he used this mode of explanation, and for this reason made no mention at all of the Spirit. For if it be not this, neither ought he to make mention of the Spirit elsewhere, nor to join Him with the Father and the Son. For if He be rejected from the Father and Son, much more ought He not to be put in the same rank with them in the matter of Baptism; where most especially the dignity of the Godhead appears and gifts are bestowed which pertain to God alone to afford. Thus then I have assigned the cause why in this place He is passed over in silence. Now do thou if this be not the true reason, tell me, why He is ranked with Them in Baptism? But thou canst not give any other reason but His being of equal honor. At any rate, when he has no such constraint upon him, he puts Him in the same rank, saying thus: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God and the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you all:" and again, "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit: and there are diversities of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of workings but the same God." But because now his speech was with Greeks and the weaker sort of the converts from among Greeks, for this reason he husbands it so far. And this is what the prophets do in regard of the Son; no where making mention of Him plainly because of the infirmity of the hearers.

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." The name of Christ, however, does not arise from nature, but from dispensation; and so becomes the proper name of Him to whom it accrues in consequence of the dispensation.

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 l heaven or in earth," the meaning of his words is clear-not as if there were gods in reality, but as if there were some who are called gods, without being truly so.

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" ), yet "the blessed God," (who is "the Father) of our Lord Jesus Christ," will be understood to be no other God than the Creator, who both blessed all things (that He had made), as you find in Genesis, and is Himself "blessed by all things," as Daniel tells us.

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; " whence the greater reason why, in our view, that which is the property of God ought to be regarded as pertaining to God alone, and why (as I have already said) that should cease to be such a property, when it is shared by another being.

Paul says "so-called" here because he is showing that they do not really exist.

Although he said that there is no other God, while the Greeks said that there are many gods, lest they consider him to be openly contradicting, he says: although there are "so-called" gods, that is, those who are called such, but who in truth are not gods. "Whether in heaven," such as the sun and moon and the rest of the stars, which were worshipped as gods by the Greeks. "Or on earth," such as certain people whom they recognized as gods. "But for us there is one God the Father, from Whom are all things": by this he indicates that He is the Creator; "and we for (εἰς) Him": by this he indicates faith in Him and devotion to Him. As if he said: we have turned to Him and attached ourselves to Him.

In saying, then, "through Him," has he denied that all things were made in Him, through Whom he says that all things exist? These words, "in Him" and "with Him," have this force, that by them is understood one and like in all respects, not contrary. Which he also made clear farther on, saying: "All things have been created through Him and in Him;" for, as we said above, Scripture witnesses that these three expressions, "with Him," and "through Him," and "in Him," are equivalent in Christ.

Who, then, would dare to deny the oneness of Name, when he sees the oneness of the working. But why should I maintain the unity of the Name by arguments, when there is the plain testimony of the Divine Voice that the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one? For it is written: "Go, baptize all nations in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." He said, "in the Name," not "in the Names." So, then, the Name of the Father is not one, that of the Son another, and that of the Holy Spirit another, for God is one; the Names are not more than one, for there are not two Gods, or three Gods.

Everything which exists has been created by the Father through the Son. It is impossible for God not to be Lord as well, and since the Lord is God, it is clear that Father and Son are one.

You have made not only what is created and formed but also whatever can be created and formed. Everything which is formed from the formless must first be formless before it can be a formed thing.

"From him" means from the Father. "Through him" means through the Son. "In him" means in the Holy Spirit. It is self-evident that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God.

And if we would persuade any of our fellow-guests to virtue, we are all the more on this account to abstain from those dainty dishes; and so exhibit ourselves as a bright pattern of virtue, such as we ourselves have in Christ. "For if any of such meats make a brother to stumble, I shall not eat it as long as the world lasts," says he, "that I may not make my brother stumble." I gain the man by a little self-restraint. "Have we not power to eat and to drink?" And "we know"-he says the truth-"that an idol is nothing in the world; but we have only one true God, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus. But," he says, "through thy knowledge thy weak brother perishes, for whom Christ died; and they that wound the conscience of the weak brethren sin against Christ." Thus the apostle, in his solicitude for us, discriminates in the case of entertainments, saying, that "if any one called a brother be found a fornicator, or an adulterer, or an idolater, with such an one not to eat;" neither in discourse or food are we to join, looking with suspicion on the pollution thence proceeding, as on the tables of the demons.

Just as there is one God the Father from whom are all things, so there is one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things.

We say "one" to stop anyone dreaming that there could be another. We say "one" lest you should hear of his work under manifold names.

This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly. He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father." He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever. For to this effect John also has said, "Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." And well has he named Christ the Almighty. For in this he has said only what Christ testifies of Himself. For Christ gave this testimony, and said, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father;" and Christ rules all things, and has been appointed Almighty by the Father.

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." And again, "For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus; " and, "By Him were all things created that are in heaven, and on earth, visible and invisible; and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist."

Being mindful of your love and of your zeal in Christ, which ye have manifested towards us, we thought it fitting to write to you, who display such a godly and spiritual love to the brethren, to put you in remembrance of your Christian course, "that ye all speak the same thing, being of one mind, thinking the same thing, and walking by the same rule of faith," as Paul admonished you. For if there is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, "of whom are all things; " and one Lord Jesus Christ, our [Lord], "by whom are all things; " and also one Holy Spirit, who wrought in Moses, and in the prophets and apostles; and also one baptism, which is administered that we should have fellowship with the death of the Lord; and also one elect Church; there ought likewise to be but one faith in respect to Christ. For "there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is through all, and in all."

There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; One who is; 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." And in another place, "What is His name, or what His Son's name, that we may know? " And there is also one Paraclete. For "there is also," saith [the Scripture], "one Spirit," since "we have been called in one hope of our calling." And again, "We have drunk of one Spirit," with what follows. And it is manifest that all these gifts [possessed by believers] "worketh one and the self-same Spirit." There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honour.

The Father is one, just as the Son is one. If the Son is called Lord, that does not make the Father any less Lord, just as when it is said that God the Father is one, the Son is no less God.

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." Now, from whom do all things come to us, but from Him to whom all things belong? And pray, what things are these? You have them in a preceding part of the epistle: "All things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come.

Note once more the apostle's wisdom. For having first demonstrated that the words Lord and God are synonymous, he then splits them up, calling the Father one and the Son the other.

All things were brought into being through the Son, and we also through Him were brought into being and into well-being, that is, we became believers and passed from error to truth. When you hear the words "one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ," do not think that the name of God is assigned exclusively to the Father, and the name of Lord to the Son. For without distinction the Son is also called God, for example in the words: "from them is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God" (Rom. 9:5); likewise the Father is also called Lord, for example in the words: "the Lord said to my Lord" (Ps. 110:1). But since the apostle is speaking with the Greeks, who honor many gods and many lords, he did not call the Son God, lest they, being accustomed to polytheism, should think of two gods; nor did he call the Father Lord, lest they should think that we too have many lords. For this same reason, that is, sparing the weakness of his hearers, he did not mention the Spirit here either, just as the prophets did not clearly mention the Son because of the weakness of the Jews, lest they should think of a passionate begetting. Therefore he constantly adds "one"; he says: "there is no God but One"; and "one God"; and "one Lord." Thus, he called the Father the one God to distinguish Him from the falsely-named gods, and not from the Son; likewise he called the Son the one Lord to distinguish Him from the falsely-named lords, and not from the Father.

"For I would not that ye should have fellowship with demons," says the apostle; since the food of those who are saved and those who perish is separate. We must therefore abstain from these viands not for fear (because there is no power in them); but on account of our conscience, which is holy, and out of detestation of the demons to which they are dedicated, are we to loathe them; and further, on account of the instability of those who regard many things in a way that makes them prone to fall, "whose conscience, being weak, is defiled: for meat commendeth us not to God." "For it is not that which entereth in that defileth a man, but that which goeth out of his mouth."

"But not in all is knowledge," saith he. What knowledge doth he mean? about God, or about things offered in sacrifice to idols? For either he here glances at the Greeks who say that there are many gods and lords, and who know not Him that is truly God; or at the converts from among Greeks who were still rather infirm, such as did not yet know clearly that they ought not to fear idols and that "an idol is nothing in the world." But in saying this, he gently soothes and encourages the latter. For there was no need of mentioning all he had to reprove, particularly as he intended to visit them again with more severity.

"But some being used to the idol eat as of a thing sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience being weak is defiled." They still tremble at idols, he saith. For tell me not of the present establishment, and that you have received the true religion from your ancestors. But carry back your thoughts to those times, and consider when the Gospel was just set on foot, and impiety was still at its height, and altars burning, and sacrifices and libations offering up, and the greater part of men were Gentiles; think, I say, of those who from their ancestors had received impiety, and who were the descendants of fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers like themselves, and who had suffered great miseries from the demons. How must they have felt after their sudden change! How would they face and tremble at the assaults of the demons! For their sake also he employs some reserve, saying, "But some with conscience of the things sacrificed to an idol." Thus he neither exposed them openly, not to strike them hard; nor doth he pass by them altogether: but makes mention of them in a vague manner, saying, "Now some with conscience of the idol even until now eat as of a thing sacrificed to an idol; that is, with the same thoughts as they did in former times: 'and their conscience being weak is defiled;'" not yet being able to despise and once for all laugh them to scorn, but still in some doubt. Just as if a man were to think that by touching a dead body he should pollute himself according to the Jewish custom, and then seeing others touching it with a clear conscience, but not with the same mind touching it himself, would be polluted. This was their state of feeling at that time. "For some," saith he, "with conscience of the idol do it even until now." Not without cause did he add, "even until now;" but to signify that they gained no ground by their refusing to condescend. For this was not the way to bring them in, but in some other way persuading them by word and by teaching.

"And their conscience being weak is defiled." No where as yet doth he state his argument about the nature of the thing, but turns himself this way and that as concerning the conscience of the person partaking. For he was afraid lest in his wish to correct the weak person, he should inflict a heavy blow upon the strong one, and make him also weak. On which account he spares the one no less than the other. Nor doth he allow the thing itself to be thought of any consequence, but makes his argument very full to prevent any suspicion of the kind.

But, so sinning, by shocking the weak consciences of the brethren thoroughly, they will sin against Christ." By this time, indeed, (he mentions individuals) by name: "Or have we not a power of eating.

Not all, he says, know that God is one and not many gods, or that idols are nothing.

He said indefinitely: "some," wishing to expose them before all. For there were many who had passed from idol-worship to the faith, but who even until now, that is, even after they had believed, eat idol-sacrifices as sacrifices to idols. "With a conscience acknowledging idols," that is, having the same opinion about idols as they had before their conversion, regarding them as something and fearing them as able to cause harm. Therefore he did not say that the idols defile, but that "their conscience" (of those who eat) "is defiled," since it is weak and cannot understand that idols are nothing, for they in themselves cannot defile anyone. So understand that those who eat idol-sacrifices experience something similar to what would happen if someone, following the Jewish custom, regarded touching a dead body as defilement, but seeing that others touch it with a clean conscience, out of shame before them touched it himself: he would not be defiled, but would be defiled in conscience, being condemned by it.