NOTE ON THE HOMILY CONCERNING CHRIST THE SHEPHERD AND THE SHEEP
Concerning this homily, Savile notes the following on page 759: "We corrected this homily, edited at Rome in the year 1581, from a manuscript in the Royal Library at Paris, also making use of the conjectures of Florent Chrestien; and first, having removed the title of the Roman Codex—which Florent very rightly condemns, since there is not a word about Acacius in this whole discourse—we substituted another, more suitable one from the Royal Codex. Florent, for 'Acacius,' substituted 'innocent' based on his own conjecture, so that it might be understood of Christ." Fronton du Duc says things consonant with this in his Notes: "In the Roman edition," he says, "of the year 1581, the title prefixed to this discourse was, *On St. Acacius the Shepherd and on the Sheep*; but the Savile edition corrected the Greek text from the Royal manuscript and substituted the title which we have presented; for indeed, no mention of Acacius is made throughout the entire course of the oration. There was a certain bishop of Caesarea in Palestine of this name who attended the Synod of Seleucia, as is evident from the *Tripartite History*, book 5, ch. 34. Another was bishop of Beroea in the times of the Emperor Gratian, from the same history, book 9, ch. 3. Perhaps it was written here, *on the innocent shepherd*." Whether this reading, *On St. Acacius*, originated from the error of copyists, or whether it was introduced by the daring of some Greekling, it is not so easy to determine. Certainly, the title is thus, not only in the Roman Codex but also in the Royal one, the readings of which we have placed at the bottom of the pages. And I would wish you to observe that, although at the beginning the memory of the martyrs is said to be celebrated in the plural, at the end of the homily A [811] one martyr alone is mentioned as having been commemorated.
IN MEMORIAM MARTYRUM, ET QUOD CHRISTUS SIT PASTOR ET OVIS; NECNON DE VELO ET PROPITIATORIO
B Again the memory of the martyrs, again the feast days of the pious, again the theme of the angels, again the celebration of the Church. It is the memory of those who have suffered martyrdom; but the honor of martyrs is the glory of Him for whom they underwent martyrdom. The martyrs are honored because they suffered for Christ; Christ is adored, who suffered for all. They, indeed, through punishment raised themselves from a humble station to a sublime one; but the Savior descended from the sublimity of the Godhead to the humility of human nature, not that He departed from His dignity, but that He might accomplish His economy. For we have heard Him saying: *I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd layeth down his life for his sheep* (John 10:11); with which statement He both showed His kindness and proclaimed His power. For that He should suffer for the sheep, that belongs to kindness; but that He should Himself lay down His life, that is of His power: for He does not suffer force, but accomplishes the economy. C For although the Apostle says that the Father delivered Him up for us (Rom. 8:32), he does not argue that the Son underwent the punishment of necessity, but shows that the will of the Son concurred with the paternal will. The Son delivers Himself up, not serving out of necessity, but cooperating with the Father's sentence. For it is one thing to minister in the manner of a servant, another to cooperate in the divine manner. For the Only-Begotten cooperates with the Father, even if the heretics, who by their own wickedness divide the indivisible nature, do not wish it to be so, they who proclaim the Father as Creator, the Son as a sub-minister, and the Holy Spirit likewise as a minister; and who do not even reverence the words of Paul, who called the ministers of preaching not "sub-ministers," but "cooperators of God," when he said, *We are God's cooperators* (1 Cor. 3:9). Is Paul a cooperator, but the Son a sub-minister? Do not seek, therefore, what Christ said through Isaiah, but what He said through Himself. For He is the shepherd for His own sake, and for your sake He is the sheep; for these two readings have converged today. D Isaiah certainly provided the reading about Him to the eunuch: *He was led like a sheep to the slaughter* (Isa. 53:7; Acts 8:32); but the Savior says: *I am the good shepherd* (John 10:11). Therefore, show me the difference between the sheep and the shepherd; in what way He is the sheep, and in what way the shepherd. For unless you know the difference between the names, whence will you recognize the dignity of excellence? It is clearly manifest that He is the sheep on account of the economy of the punishment, but the shepherd on account of the power of kindness. Nor is God ashamed to be called shepherd. It was indeed fitting that we should recognize Him as God and King: but because we do not know God as men endowed with reason, He wishes us, as irrational sheep, at least to recognize the Shepherd. For if the Savior, when He came into the world, had found you a rational man, He would necessarily have appeared to you as God; but because He did not find you a man, but as a sheep wandering from the most ancient times, and calling upon the Lord through the prophets: *I have gone astray like a sheep that is lost; seek thy servant* (Ps. 118:176), therefore He hides His royal dignity, and puts forward the care of a shepherd. For this reason He ordained from the beginning that His body should be placed in a manger: 812 and He leads his mother and the minister of the economy, Joseph, into straits; for I would not call him either the father of the Savior or the husband of Mary, but a partner and mediator of the mystery. Since he was the betrothed of the virgin, not her husband; or husband indeed in name, but in reality a minister of the economy. He is therefore brought into straits with Mary in Bethlehem: so that, because of the narrowness of the inn, it was necessary for the infant to be laid in a manger. But those straits were the work of God, so that the Kind One might necessarily be deposited in that place; deposited, I say, because of the carnal economy. Why does He manage it in this way? Because the manger is the table of the brute beasts; but humanity had degenerated into the nature of brute beasts (*Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he was compared to senseless beasts, and was made like unto them* [Ps. 48:13]): He places the heavenly food on the table of brute beasts, so that those who had the mind of a brute might no longer find the hay of the brutes in the manger, as if in their own proper table; but [might find] Him who said, *I am the bread that came down from heaven, and which giveth life to the world* (John 6:35, 41). The sheep, therefore, is for the sake of the economy, but God is for the sake of His own glory. He lays down, therefore, His own life for the sheep, not of necessity, as it were...
homage to the sheep (John 10:11) not by any necessity, as I have already said, but by undertaking this dispensation. For all things that were accomplished in the ancient service bear their recapitulation toward the Savior: whether prophecy, or priesthood, or kingship, or the temple, or the altar, or the veil, or the ark, or the mercy-seat, or the manna, or the rod, or the jar, or anything else, all have their reference to Him.
Why did God grant sacrifices to the Jews? From the beginning of the ministry of sacrifices, God did not acquiesce to the sacrifices, but wished to tear them away from the customs of the gentiles. From that point, having steered them toward what He wills, He puts upon Himself that which He does not will. Since the mind of the Jews was not yet able to receive spiritual operation, but was enslaved to the custom of the nations and gaping after altars and sacrifices, God took the idolatrous feasts and transformed them by the rhythm of piety, and endured what He did not will. And just as a good father, when he sees his own child engaged in trifles, draws him away from the marketplace, but permits him to do B whatever he wishes within the house, both preserving his decorum and correcting the indecency of his childhood: so too God, wishing to reform them into piety by this apparent festival of feasts, permitted them to sacrifice, and gives them an altar, and commands sheep to be sacrificed, and a goat and an ox, and to do everything that pleased them. For it was not God He delighted.
2. That these things were done for the sake of the economy, hear how He who allowed the sacrifices through Moses, and commanded various forms of sacrifices to be made, overthrows through the prophets what was done by concession, showing that just as to infants He conceded milk, He did not give them solid food; and he says through David: *Hear, O my people, and I will speak to you, O Israel, and I will testify to you, because I am God, your God. I will not reprove you for your sacrifices, and your burnt offerings are before me continually. I will not take calves from your house, nor he-goats from your flocks* (Ps. 49:7-9). And lest anyone think that withdrawing, He does not accept—He explains the manner, that it is through the needlessness of these, not through their offering—and adds: *Shall I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Sacrifice to God a sacrifice of praise, and pay your vows to the Most High* (Ps. 49:13-14): showing that it is not by rejecting them that He casts them off, but he calls them to the better and intellectual sacrifice. He permitted the sacrifices, then, from the beginning, not being pleased with them themselves, but transforming those who had begun thus into piety. But yielding to the Jewish purpose, as wise and great, in the very concession of sacrifices He prepared beforehand the image of things to come, so that even if the sacrifice were useless on its own account, it might be found useful through the image. Observe accurately; for the thought is subtle. The sacrifices were not pleasing to God, nor were they done according to His will, but according to concession; and to those that were happening, He added C a type according to the image of the future economy of Christ, so that even if they were not acceptable on their own account, yet they might be acceptable through the image. And He puts through all things an image of Christ, and sketches the future. Even if it be a sheep being sacrificed, it is an image of the Savior; if an ox, an image of the Lord; if a calf, if a heifer, if anything else of those being offered, if a dove or a turtledove, all had their reference toward the Savior. For this reason also the temple, so that the image of the Lord’s temple might be prepared beforehand; for this reason a sheep, for this reason a priest, for this reason this entire life (Heb. 8:5-6), but first that tabernacle was a figure of the Old Testament (Exod. 30); the holy of holies was a figure of the New Testament (Lev. 26). Apply your mind, I pray, diligently. The temple was indeed one in its entirety, but it was divided into different parts; into the holy place, and into the holy of holies. The temple was a type of the Lord’s body: and hear the Lord saying: *Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up* (John 2:19). Just as therefore in that temple some things were seen by all, and some by the high priest alone: so too in the Savior’s economy, the divinity, and the operation of the divinity, was hidden, while working in the manifest. You have the image of the temple; seek for me the middle veil, dividing the holy place from the holy of holies, what kind of veil it is; again the veil is an image of the body. For just as the veil stood in the middle of the place, and divided the outward view from the inward mystery: so the body of the Lord was the veil of the divinity, not permitting mortal eyes to look intently upon the sight of the Immortal. Not my word, but hear Paul saying: *Having, brethren, a new and living way, which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, let us approach* (Heb. 10:19-20). Observe accurately. He called the flesh a temple, and the veil a type of the flesh. Again, the priest entered through the veil once in the year: not even this did Paul leave out, but he takes it as a type of the Savior, and says: *Christ did not enter into sanctuaries made with hands, antitypes of the true, but in Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us* (Heb. 9:24). You see the high priest, see the place. Again, a sheep was sacrificed, and it was an image of the Savior: *As a sheep led to the slaughter* (Isa. 53:7). A calf was sacrificed, a bull, and all the rest, and from the blood of the sacrifices the high priest took with his finger, and entered into the holy of holies, and sprinkled seven times in the presence of the mercy-seat. And the mercy-seat itself was a type of the Savior, and the blood that was appearing was a type of Him, in order that both He who is worshipped and the gift offered to Him who is worshipped might be one and the same. Now of these animals, whose blood was offered into the holy places, the bodies were burned outside the camp, and their ashes sanctified the people, and set apart the remains of the dead animals to sanctify those who were defiled. See then. While alive they did not sanctify, but when reduced to ashes, and completed into a sacrifice, they brought sanctification to the defiled, and the same animals were both burned outside and offered inside. Hence the Apostle: *For of these animals*, he says, *whose blood is brought into the holy of holies, their bodies were burned outside the camp* (Heb. 13:11). He stated the type, he interprets the truth, and says: *Wherefore also Jesus, that He might sanctify the people, suffered outside the gate* (ibid. v. 12). And what does he add? *Let us go forth therefore to Him, bearing His reproach* (ibid. v. 13). You have the type; see the truth. Seek again the blood and the mercy-seat. The blood was sprinkled, and the mercy-seat received it, the propitiation was placed upon it. What is the mercy-seat? Hear Paul again saying in that to the Romans: *For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace, through the blood of Him, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation* (Rom. 3:23-25). And His blood, and His propitiation. These things are all said by me, because the Savior is all things for us, and He is the only-begotten Son, not for any other reason. But as for that other thing which was being done for His sake, that which is worshipped on account of His divinity: it is not one thing and another thing, but it is considered as one, in a combined dispensation.
3. When, therefore, you hear of the high priest, or the sheep, or the temple, or the veil, or the propitiation, or the sprinkling of blood, or similar things, by all these recognize the economy accomplished for your sake. No one should be scandalized that Christ, being equal to God,
is preached; what is said about Christ, some things refer to the divinity, others to the humanity. But when you see the Only-Begotten upon the throne (for the Church has preached him, the Church has celebrated him with pomp), do not be embarrassed by the divine oracles. For Wisdom is celebrated at the crossroads, she acts with confidence in the streets, she is preached at the summit of the walls (Prov. 1:20-21). But when you see the wisdom and power of God being preached, consider the excellence of his glory, the dignity that is before the ages, unharmed, immutable, invariable. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1). Everywhere that "Was," but that "Was not" is nowhere. If you consider the excellence of his glory, you will not be offended by the incarnation. For the sake of example, hear the heretic saying: *The Father, who sent me, is greater than I* (John 14:28). Say to him: it is no wonder if he is less than the Father on account of the economy of the incarnation, when he was thus less even than the angels. You, out of wickedness, attempt to demonstrate that he is less than the Father; I, however, show that he is less than the angels according to the incarnation. And you, indeed, when you wish to establish a difference between the substance of the Father and the Son, bring forward that saying: *The Father, who sent me, is greater than I*; but I show that he, according to that same reasoning, is less not only than the Father, but even than the angels. For Paul, who brings forward that testimony of David: *What is man, that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels* (Ps. 8:5-6), explains it in the epistle to the Hebrews: *But we see him who was made a little lower than the angels, Jesus, because of the suffering of death* (Heb. 2:9). B Why, therefore, do you labor so hard to show that the Son is less than the Father, when he is less even than the angels themselves, not on account of dignity, but on account of the economy? Furthermore, you indeed pay attention to this: *The Father, who sent me, is greater than I*; but do you not hear this evangelical voice, which today cried out to everyone: *I and the Father are one* (John 10:30)? And weigh the difference in your mind. Where that *One* is, he did not say, "He who sent me," but, "The Father"; where he wished to show union and identity, he did not say, "I and he who sent me are one," but, "I and the Father." Between the Father and the Son, there is nothing intervening; but where that word *Greater* is held, there he adds, *Who sent me*. For to send is a work of the economy; but being sent is not an interpretation of divinity, but an interpretation of the economy. For God neither sends nor is sent corporally. But how, listen. He who sends, sends into those places where he himself is not present. Show me, therefore, a place empty of the Father, show me a place destitute of the Son, show me a place empty of the Holy Spirit. Certainly that has a place, if you understand according to the letter that the one sent, and the other was sent. That saying, therefore, *He was sent*, does not declare a transition from a place, but a bodily appearance. For neither when the Scripture says, *There was a man sent from God, whose name was John* (John 1:6), do we understand John to have come from heaven: for if he was there, you will ask, how was he sent? But because the economy had been committed to him, he called the economy a mission. Isaiah saw in Jerusalem, in the temple itself, the Lord C sitting upon a throne exalted and elevated. Because he was in the world, in the temple and in the vision, since he had been accounted worthy to see God, as was proper for a man, he heard God saying: *Whom shall I send to this people* (Isai. 6:8)? He was among the people, and how is he sent to the people? Thus, the mission signifies not a local transition, nor a servile ministry, but a human economy. Otherwise, indeed, if you serve the letter, you should revere the letter. If he was sent, how does he say: *And he who sent me is with me* (John 8:29)? For no one who sends accompanies him whom he sends. For that is not sending, but going together. *I in the Father, and the Father in me* (John 14:11). Where then is the mission? But lest anyone think that *He who sent me, the Father, is with me* is said according to operation and according to help, he says, *The Father abiding in me* (John 14:10), according to that saying, *I in the Father, and the Father in me*. This voice, indeed, Isaiah also uttered previously, saying: *Egypt has labored, and the merchandise of the Ethiopians, and the Sabæan men, men of stature, shall pass over to thee, and shall follow thee bound in fetters, and they shall adore thee, and in thee they shall pray: for God is in thee, and there is no God besides thee* (Isai. 45:14). How can it be that if another is in him, there is not another besides him? *In thee God is, and there is no God besides thee*. Is this not the interpretation of this Gospel, by which it is said, *I in the Father, and the Father in me; and, We two are one*? For that, *There is no God besides thee*, is an interpretation of that, *We are one*. And observe for me the wisdom of the saying, and the power. That, *We are one*, is a two-edged sword cutting apart the heretics. For that, *One*, refutes the insanity of the Arians; but that, *We are one*, [refutes] the confusion of Sabellius. *For God is in thee, and there is no God besides thee*. And that he might show the same God to be in God, he adds: *For thou art God, and we knew it not* (Isai. 45:15). You were ignorant that he was God? Did Moses not preach him before you? Did you not come after the twenty-first generation from Moses? For from Moses to David there are seven generations, but from David to Isaiah twelve: for Isaiah was two generations before the Babylonian captivity. Whom, therefore, the prophets preached for twenty-five generations, that he was indeed God; and Moses said: *Hear, Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is one* (Deut. 6:4); and Samuel was crying the same; and David himself also, and whoever prophesied similarly: why, I say, does Isaiah say, *For thou art God, and we knew it not*, unless he truly indicates the Savior, who was indeed, but was not recognized? For that, *Thou art God, and we knew it not*, does not refute his ignorance, but looks to the person of the people. But this doctrine, *God, and we knew it not*, agrees with that saying: *Lord, thy arm is high, and they knew it not* (Isai. 26:11). And yet, to say, *Thou art God, and we knew it not, the God of Israel the Savior of all*, hear the angels saying and evangelizing to the shepherds, *Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, that this day is born to you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord* (Luke 2:10). For you are the God of Israel, the Savior of all. Behold, all who oppose you will be affected with shame, and they will go with ignominy. *For they shall be as if they were not, and shall be as an old garment* (Isai. 45:16 and 41:11, and Ps. 101:27): calling those who contradict the word his adversaries. For if you say to a Greek or another alien to pious religion that he is God, he does not contend; but if you say that he is Christ, then he rages like a demon, as blessed David says: *The Lord has reigned, let the peoples be angry: who sitteth upon the Cherubim; let the earth be moved* (Ps. 98:1). And who is someone who sits, if not the one to whom the same prophet says: *Who sittest upon the Cherubim, appear and stir up thy power, and come to save us* (Isai. 57:16 and Ps. 79)? D [to have such things?] But where quality is concerned, it is said: *I and the Father*; but where it is a matter of the economy, *He who sent me is greater than I*—less on account of the state of the mission, but greater through the union of the deity. You should apply your mind to the Scriptures, nor should the divine oracles be passed over. Already, however, you condemn the whole Gospel, but the Savior does not [condemn] even one letter. For he wished us to have such faith toward the Scripture, that he said: *Amen, amen I say unto you, it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle or one yot of the law to fall* (Luke 16:17). The Savior, therefore, does not disregard even one iota, yet you tear apart the whole Scripture. But it is clearly shown that the knowledge of the Scriptures is more powerful than the resurrection of the dead itself. For the resurrection of the dead is not as powerful as the knowledge of the Scriptures. Attend to the patriarch Abraham, who hears the rich man saying to him: *Father Abraham, have mercy on me: and send Lazarus that he may tell my brethren, lest they also come into this place of torments* (Luke 16:24; 16:28).
And what does he say? *They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.* But he says: *Nay, father Abraham; but if one go from the dead, they will do penance.* And he says to him: *Amen I say to you, if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead* (Luke 16:31). A Mark this precisely. So then, if one had risen from the dead, would they not have believed? By no means. And see the consequence. If one of the ancients had appeared, or one unknown to us, or one known; now if he were unknown, ignorance would have overshadowed the miracles. If Moses had appeared today, whence would you know that it was Moses? If Isaiah had appeared today, whence would you know that it was Isaiah? But if another of those who have died in our time were raised, yet again the miracle would be overshadowed, with some saying, "This is the one who died," and others asserting, "This is not the dead man, but a demon and a phantom." For disbelief is never at a loss for a wicked way out. And what is surprising if the ingratitude of men could calumniate even one who had risen from the dead, when even B when the blind man was healed, *Some said, that he is the same; and others said: No, but he is like him* (John 9:9), while he himself was saying, *I am he*. And he was testifying to himself, and the miracle was crying out, yet ingratitude denied it. For did not many rise at the time of the Savior? Many bodies of the saints that had slept, as the Scripture says, rose after the economy of the cross from the graves, and came into the holy city, and appeared to many (Matt. 27:52). Did the miracle extinguish disbelief, or conquer ingratitude? Signs were given to the unbelievers, and not to the believers; but the unbeliever is always prepared to despise signs. But see whether they were moved to shame by one who had risen, as they would have been by Lazarus. Lazarus rose from the dead, and because many, C on account of the resurrection of Lazarus, were coming to see the Savior, the Jews took counsel to kill Lazarus. See how ingratitude never departs from itself. Therefore the patriarch also rightly said: *If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.* And so now, children of heretics, if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets and the Gospels, even if one breaks into ten thousand voices, they will not listen. But let us not depart from the way. *I am the way*, says the Lord (John 14:6); therefore, whoever departs from the way goes astray; whoever walks outside the Scriptures is tempest-tossed. For just as at sea one who is carried about by many winds does not have a course steered straight, but is driven hither and thither by different winds; so also the man who gives himself to different teachings, and does not walk in the evangelical D teaching, differs nothing from a ship tossed by waves. For this reason the Scripture also says: *Do not winnow with every wind;* and the interpreter adds, *and do not believe every word* (Eccl. 5:11 and 19:16). And that you may learn that by "every wind" the Scripture calls "every teaching," hear Paul saying: *That we may not be children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, in the wickedness of men, in craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive* (Ephes. 4:14). "Every wind of doctrine." Therefore, "with every wind" means "with every teaching." The one who gives himself over to this is tossed, is tempest-tossed, is shipwrecked. For there is one course, one way, one harbor: the faith; it guides, it gathers, it receives. But he who falls from the faith is shipwrecked, as Paul says, writing to Timothy: *This charge I commit to thee, son Timothy, that thou mayest fight in them a good warfare, having faith and a good conscience, which some rejecting, have made shipwreck concerning the faith* (1 Tim. 1:18, 19). He, therefore, who departs from the faith, suffers shipwreck; but he who follows the faith moors his ship in a calm harbor. Let us not, then, be led away by every wind. After the Lord, there is no other teaching; for after Moses, Christ was expected; but after Christ, no other is expected. For this reason, Moses, wishing to teach the people that they should not follow only his own laws, but should await the perfection, said: *The Lord thy God will raise up to thee a Prophet... him thou shalt hear* (Deut. 18:15). For if he had known that his own teaching was complete, he would not have referred them to another teacher, saying: *The Lord thy God will raise up to thee a Prophet from the midst of thy brethren, like unto me.* For this reason, "a prophet," because he is from you. For God is not from you, but a prophet is from you; for the one is of God, but the prophet is from you, as to the flesh. For this reason also, "as me," that is, a lawgiver. For since Moses was the first lawgiver, and the Savior was the second lawgiver, not of one nation, but of the inhabited world, therefore he says "as me," according to the pattern and the legislation. For who will bear witness to this word? David, who came a few generations after Moses, cried out: *Arise, O Lord, let not man be strengthened; let the nations be judged in thy sight. Appoint, O Lord, a lawgiver over them* (Ps. 9:20, 21). If, then, David was before Moses, he would rightly have supplicated on behalf of Moses; but if Moses shone forth first, and David was later than Moses, why did the prophet David wish to call another lawgiver, when there was another [as he thought], and say, "Appoint, O Lord, a lawgiver over them"? For whom, if not for the nations? For "Arise," he says, "O Lord, let not man be strengthened; let the nations be judged in thy sight." For to the nations the lawgiver is given. Let the nations know that they are men; for before the lawgiver they were treated like irrational animals. But if God the Word comes, he restores them to the rational nature. Moses, therefore, as I have already said, said: "The Lord thy God will raise up to thee a Prophet, like unto me"; David said: "Appoint, O Lord, a lawgiver over them"; but Paul, having come after the Savior, and being a herald of the Savior, seeing the first [believers], that it was [the time] to await Christ, but after Christ no one else, for this reason he says: *If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema* (Gal. 1:9). He shuts out all knowledge, and takes the keys of the kingdom. And that after the instruction of Christ it is not possible to expect another teaching, he says: *If any one preach a gospel to you besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.* And that he might shut out not only the craftiness of men, he adds and says: *even if we*. Why ever is it, "even we"? Did the Apostle have another way to teach? Surely it is evident that the divine Paul used an hyperbole; that "even if you hear me preaching other things, understand that I am not speaking from God." For this reason he says: "Even if we." For a human tongue is indeed overthrown, but the tongue of God is not changed. For this reason, "Even if we, even if an angel from heaven." For he was securely coming to such a suspicion, that an angel from heaven was about to introduce a strange teaching. But he does not make angels secure, but cuts off the craftiness of the devil: "Even if an angel from heaven"; not because he knew such things of angels—for one must know that among angels the truth is unerring—but because Satan often transforms himself, and demons often, having transformed themselves into the likeness of angels, introduce their own teaching toward their own design, according to what is said: *Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light* (2 Cor. 11:14); wherefore he shuts the way against them, and puts an indictment against the angels, if they should bring in anything else, not merely to afflict them, but to close the way to the demons. Nor is it an indignity offered to the Apostle to say: *Even if an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which you have received, let him be anathema*, if they [the Galatians] were to rejoice in the confident preachers, and confirm that divine preaching. Therefore, the angels themselves know that no one is to be listened to, except by the word of the apostles, which confirms and does not preach anything else. For angels are sent sometimes to men, as to Cornelius; and indeed it appears, that he was a minister for him: "Cornelius," he says, "thy prayers and thy alms are ascended for a memorial in the sight of God" (Acts 10:3, 4). "To announce [that] is ours," but to preach is the task of the ministers and the apostles. An angel, even if he is the leader of the ministry and of prayers, does not allow himself, but the apostles [to preach]. Therefore he says, "Send to Joppa, and call Simon, who is surnamed Peter; he will tell thee words, by which thou and all thy house shall be saved" (ibid. v. 5, 6). And what was preventing him from preaching himself? Was not the preaching of an angel more worthy? Is it not a more certain...