Moreover, brethren, I want not that you should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
All Commentaries on 1 Corinthians 10:1 Go To 1 Corinthians 10
Cornelius a Lapide
AD 1637
s20 , 21.—But I say . . . Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord"s table and of the table of devils. The table is the altar, which Isaiah , as it were, God"s table at which He feasts with us, See Lev. i.; Malachi 1:12; Ambrose, Anselm, and the Council of Trent (sess. xxii. c1), where it lays down from this passage that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. For that the Apostle is dealing with the Eucharist and not with the sacrifice of the Cross appears plainly—1. Because the Victim of the Cross has passed away, and long ago creased; but the Apostle is here treating of a sacrifice of which the Corinthians were partakers daily.
2. From the phrase, "the Lord"s table," i.e, the altar. Where there is an altar there is a priest and a sacrifice, for the three are correlative terms. If, then, the Corinthians had an altar, they had also a sacrifice, and that of course none other than the Eucharist.
3. "The cup of the Lord" can only be the cup offered to the Lord, for the cup of devils is none other than the one offered to them.
From the context, and the line of the Apostle"s argument, which is this: As the Jews, when they eat if their peace-offerings, share in and consent to the sacrifice of them that is made on God"s altar, so do those who eat of things sacrificed to idols share in and consent to the sacrifice of them that is made to idols; and so do Christians, when they receive the Eucharist, become partakers of the Eucharistic sacrifice, and sacrifice the Eucharist to God by the priest, It is consequently unseemly altogether that they should also sacrifice to a devil, which they do by partaking of things offered to idols, as a part of the idolatrous sacrifice; for no one can at once sacrifice to God and a devil. Cf. S. Augustine (contra Advers. Legis et Prophet. lib. i. c. xix). Chrysostom in loco, Anselm, Theophylact, Å’cumenius, Ambrose, Theodoret say the same thing. S. Cyprian (de Lapsis) expressly teaches the same lesson, and confirms it by the numerous examples of those who, after eating of things offered to idols, came to the Eucharist, and were punished by God accordingly; and he adds: "An earthly commander will not suffer any one of his soldiers to fly to the camp of his enemies and there to work; how much less can God suffer His followers to take part in the banquets of devils?"
Notice (1.) that when the sacrifice was completed, the flesh which had been offered on the idol"s altar was removed from it to a table, near the altar or temple, in order that they who had offered it might, with the friends they had invited, eat of it there; for sacrifices and religious feasts were generally concluded with such a sacred banquet. Cf. the sacrifice offered by Evander and neas in Virgil (neid, viii179-183). Song of Solomon , too, the Jews were in the habit of eating in the porch before the Temple of the sacrifices which they had offered (1Sam. ix13). Song of Solomon , too, Christ concluded the concluded the Eucharistic sacrifice with a banquet in it, and a distribution of it to the Apostles. Hence, too, in the primitive Church, all the faithful communicated at the Mass, that they might be partakers of the sacrifice, and conclude it with such a banquet. Again, the heathen, who sacrificed victims to their idols, used, after the sacrifice, to carry home with them portions of it to give to those in their house, and to send to their friends, that so the absent might be partakers of the sacrifice, as Giraldus (de Diis Gentium) points out from Herodotus and others, Similarly, the Christians in the time of persecution used to carry home the Eucharist, and even sent it to the absent, as a mark of love and communion, and to enable them to be partakers of the sacrifice. Cf. Eusebius, Hist. lib. v. c24,29.
Notice (2.) that the Apostle gives a plain answer to the question whether it was lawful to eat of things offered to idols. He says that it never had been, nor was then, lawful to eat of things offered to idols, as such, or as being sacred to idols. He who so eats of them tacitly admits by the very act that the idol is sacred, has some Divine influence, and that, because of the idol, the flesh offered is sacred, because offered to a Divine being, which is idolatry. This takes place whenever such food is partaken of in such a place, in such a way, and under such circumstances, as that the eater is morally thought to eat it out of honour to the idol, as when the offerers sent portions to their friends with the intention of showing worship to the idol, when their friends received and ate them. Again, the case is still more clear, if you eat directly after the sacrifice, near the altar of the temple, together with those that offer the sacrifice, in presence of idolaters; for then you are rightly judged to eat it to the honour of the idol. It is otherwise if afterwards you feed on it alone, and from hunger of greediness, whither it be at home of at the temple, because in that case you are not thought to feed on it as being sacred to the idol, but you are seen to be merely gratifying your hunger or appetite. It may be said, S. Augustine ( Ephesians 154 , and de Bono Conj. c. xvi, and contra Faustum, lib, xxxii. c13) asks whether a Christian, when travelling and pressed by hunger, may, if he can find nothing but some food offered to an idol, and if no one is present, eat of it, or whether it is better for him t die; and he answers, It may be said that it is either known to have been offered to the idol or not; if it is known, it is better for it to be rejected by Christian virtue; if it is not known, it may be taken for his necessity without any scruple of conscience." Otherwise, as I have said, it is better to reject it, lest the eater should seem to have communicated with idols. He ought then to abstain from things offered to idols, if they are known to be such.
I reply that S. Augustine does not say that he must abstain from it, if he knows that it has been so offered. He says "it is better for it to be rejected by Christian virtue," implying pretty plainly that it is lawful to eat of it, but that it would be better and more noble if he abstained from it and preferred death. There is a parallel case in the Carthusian rule. One in extreme weakness is allowed to eat flesh to save his life; but he will do what is better and more holy if he follow his profession and abstain and so die. Cf. Victoria (Relect. de Temperant. Numbers 8), Azorius (Morals, lib. v. c6), and others. For he is not bound to save his life at all costs, but he may rank it below his vow, or rather the holiness of his profession, so as to give as example of virtue to others, and to hallow the discipline and rigour of his order. The Carthusians do not take a formal vow of abstinence from flesh, but merely have it enjoined on them by the constitution of their order.
