Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians

so confirms this nature of ours as loving Him. See, therefore, how all His commandments tend to our rest, our salvation, and our honor. ^A For when He says, “Blessed are the merciful, blessed are the pure in heart, blessed are the meek, blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed are the peacemakers” (Matt. 5:3-9), He Himself gains nothing from this, but He commands these things while adorning and regulating us. And when He says, “I was hungry,” it is not because He needs our service, but that He may lead you to philanthropy. For He could have fed the poor man even without you, but in order to bestow upon you a greatest treasure, He commanded these things. For if the sun, a creature of God, does not need our eyes (for it remains in its own brightness, even if no one looks upon it), yet we are the ones who gain when we enjoy the light of its rays, how much more does this happen in the case of God? But that you may learn this from another source, hear: how great do you wish the distance to be between God and us? Is it as much as between gnats and us, or much more? It is evident that it is much more, and infinite. If, therefore, we who are vain-glorious do not need help or glory from gnats, much more does the Divine, being passionless and needy of nothing. And so, He loses as much of us as we are benefited, and as much as He delights in our salvation. For this reason, He releases many of His own things, and seeks yours. For, He says, if any man has an unbelieving wife, and she is pleased to dwell with him, let him not leave her. ^B But he who puts away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery (Matt. 5:32). Do you see goodness greater than any language? If the wife is a harlot, He says, I do not force you to live together; if she is an unbeliever, I do not forbid it. Again, if you are troubled toward anyone, I command you to set aside your offering and run to him who has been grieved. For if you offer your gift, He says, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift before the altar, and go, first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift (Matt. 5:23-24). What does the parable of him who had consumed the ten thousand talents indicate? Is it not this? When he had squandered them, He had mercy on him and forgave him; but when he demanded a hundred denarii from his fellow servant, He called him wicked and delivered him to punishment; so great is His concern for your rest. The barbarian was about to sin against the wife of the just man, and He says, “I spared you from sinning against Me” (Gen. 20:6). Paul was persecuting the apostles, and He says to him, “Why do you persecute me?” (Acts 9:4). Others suffer from famine, and He says that He Himself is hungry, and wandering naked and a stranger, wishing to put you to shame, and in this way to cast you into the cause of almsgiving. ^C Reflecting, therefore, upon the love which He has shown and continues to show through all things, and having deigned to make Himself known to us—which is the greatest sum of all good things, and the light of the mind, and the instruction of virtue—and having ordained a life pleasing to Him, and having worked all things for our sake, and having given His Son, and having promised a kingdom, and calling us to ineffable goods, and having prepared for us a most blessed life, let us do and say all things so that we may appear worthy of His love, and attain to the future good things. May it be that we all attain to them, by the grace and philanthropy of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father is the glory, together with the Holy Spirit, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

AD COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

^D COMMENTARY. Chrysostom has not bestowed his usual effort upon this commentary. For in other explanations of the New Testament published by him, everything is divided and distributed into discourses or homilies, such that every discourse is closed with an ethical exhortation, and these latter moral precepts often comprise the greatest part of the homily. But in this commentary, everything is arranged otherwise. For Chrysostom explains all the verses continuously until the end of the Epistle: he intermixes moral precepts sometimes, wherever occasion offers, but not so as to close the discourse in the customary manner. Yet he addresses the people not infrequently. Wherefore I would believe that he arranged these things in this way, either so that he might read or recite them thus to the present people; or that, with the commentary divided into many parts, he might add an ethical epilogue to the individual parts later, so as to pronounce the work, distributed into homilies according to the customary manner, to the people. But in what way he acted, we can only gather by divination. Now some things occur that we must seek: namely, whether he issued this Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians at Antioch or at Constantinople: likewise, in what year or on what occasion he published it. Then some things will remain to be added concerning the method of the commentary, and concerning certain other things. That he issued this Commentary at Antioch, he clearly hints, when in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, asking why Paul was not called at the beginning of his preaching, nor with the other apostles, he speaks such things: "Although we have spoken about this matter elsewhere, when we were discoursing to you about the changed name of Paul, and were rendering the cause on account of which God first called the man named Saul, Paul. Which if they have slipped from your memory, from that book you will learn all things." Now it is asked which is that book where Chrysostom moves these questions, namely why Paul was not called immediately from the beginning, and why his name was changed. And the book is undoubtedly that of the Homilies on "Change of Names," which we have published, four in number, issued at Antioch. In the first, indeed, Vol. 3, cols. 120 and 121, Chrysostom well proves that it was after Christ's resurrection, and after he had attacked His disciples in fierce war, that he was called to the faith, and that the testimony of Christ's resurrection was accepted by him among all. But in the second and following, col. 126, he asks why Paul changed his name, and brings forward the reasons why he who was called Saul before, later received the name of Paul, and why the names of others also were changed. But he testifies in the three homilies that he discoursed on this mere name; the fourth homily on the "Change of names," col. 148: "For if you remember," he says, "you know that I discoursed for three whole days on this name only; while I was bringing forward the causes on account of which he who was called Saul before, was later called Paul." Since, therefore, these homilies were delivered at Antioch, it is proven by the testimony of Chrysostom cited above that this commentary was also made in the same city.

We are not able to know exactly in what year he issued that Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. It is certain indeed that it was adorned after he had the discourses on "The change of names." But we have never been able to discover exactly in what year these homilies were delivered, as you may see in the "Admonition to the Homilies on the Beginning of the Acts of the Apostles," Vol. 3, col. 63, and in the "Preface to the Homilies on Genesis," Vol. 5. For indeed all these homilies were delivered in the same year.

In this commentary certainly, Chrysostom explores and explains the dicta of the Apostles far more carefully than in many other homilies and commentaries. He refutes the Anomoeans not once, with distinction, and likewise the Marcionites and Manichaeans. He declaims much against the Antiochenes who followed Jewish rites. He also inveighs against others who seemed to him to have been infected by the Manichaeans with the view regarding virility.

We have retained the older Latin interpretation, corrected in many places.

OF OUR HOLY FATHER JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, ARCHBISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE, COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

CHAPTER ONE

^A Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead; 2. And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: 3. Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ.

^B The introduction is full of anger and of much spirit; and not the introduction only, but, so to speak, the whole Epistle. For to address disciples always with mildness, even when there is need of sharpness, would be the part not of a teacher, but of a corrupter and an enemy. For this reason the Lord also, having spoken many things mildly and gently to His disciples, sometimes uses a harsher discourse, now pronouncing them blessed and praising them, and now again rebuking and reproving them. Thus, when He had said to Peter, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona" (Matt. 16:17), and had promised that the foundations of the Church would be laid upon his confession, not long after He says to the same, "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me" (Ibid. v. 23); and again elsewhere, "Are ye also yet without understanding?" (Id. 15:16). And He struck such fear into them, that John says that, seeing Him talking with the woman of Samaria, they did indeed query about the food, but no one dared say, "What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her?" (John 4:27). ^C Having been taught this, Paul, adhering to the footsteps of his teacher, diversifies his discourse for the utility of the disciples, now burning and cutting, and now again applying milder remedies. And to the Corinthians he said, "What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?" (1 Cor. 4:21). But to the Galatians, "O foolish Galatians" (Gal. 3:1): and he has used this reproof not once, but twice. And near the end of the Epistle, taxing them he said, "Let no man trouble me" (Gal. 6:17). Again, however, he mitigates the bitterness when he says: "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again" (Gal. 4:19); and many other such words. But that this Epistle is full of vehemence is clear to any one even from the very beginning of the reading.

What moved Paul to write this Epistle? But it must be revealed what provoked the Apostle against the disciples: for it was not a small nor a trifling matter, otherwise he himself would not have been so bitterly carried against them; ^D for to be provoked by any chance causes is the mark of a small-minded, morose, and miserable man—just as, conversely, to be sluggish and negligent in grave matters is the mark of an inert and sleepy man. But Paul was by no means of this kind. What, then, was the thing that moved

^A him to such an extent? It was truly great and immensely grave, and something that alienated them all from Christ, as he himself declares in the progress of his discourse, saying: *Behold, I, Paul, say to you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing,* (Gal. 5: 2) and again, *Whosoever of you are justified by the law, you are fallen from grace.* What, then, was this matter? For it must be explained more openly. Those of the Jews who had believed—held fast at once by the prejudice of Judaism and intoxicated by vainglory, and wishing to arrogate to themselves the dignity of teachers—came into the nation of the Galatians and taught that it was necessary to be circumcised and to observe sabbaths and new moons, and not to tolerate Paul, who was repealing these things. For they said that those around Peter, James, and John—the foremost of the apostles, who had been with Christ—did not forbid these things. And in truth they did not forbid them; yet they did not do so because they were making them a doctrine, but because they were condescending to the weakness of those who had believed from among the Jews. Paul, however, preaching to the Gentiles, had no need of this condescension. When, therefore, he was in Judea, he himself also made use of this condescension. But those who were deceiving them, not stating the reasons for which both he and the others were condescending, misled the simpler ones by saying that Paul ought not to be tolerated ^B because he had appeared only yesterday or the day before, whereas those men, Peter and his companions, were the first; and that he was a disciple of the apostles, while they were disciples of Christ; and that he was alone, while they were many and pillars of the Church. They also maligned him with hypocrisy, saying that even this man, who was now repealing circumcision, was seen to have used it elsewhere, preaching one way to you and another way to others. Therefore, when he saw an entire nation set on fire, and a severe conflagration kindled against the Church of the Galatians, and the structure rocking and in danger of falling—possessed partly by righteous anger and partly by despondency (for he even disclosed this by saying, *I would be present with you now, and change my voice* [Gal. 4: 20])—he wrote the Epistle, defending himself against all these things. And from the very beginning he addresses that point whereby those who were undermining his reputation said that the others were of Christ, but he had become a disciple of the apostles. Hence, also, he began in this way: *Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man.* For those deceivers, as I have already said, were asserting that he was the last of all the apostles, and had been taught by them. For Peter, James, and John were called first and were the chief among the disciples, and they had received the doctrines from Christ; and it was more necessary to obey them than him, for they did not forbid circumcision nor the observance of the law.

^B 2. Saying these things and the like, and bringing him down while elevating the glory of the others—not in order to praise them, but in order to deceive the Galatians—they were persuading them to pay heed to the law out of season. Accordingly, he began in this way with good reason. Since they were depreciating his teaching, saying it was from men, while Peter’s was from Christ, he stands firm against this from the very introduction, saying that he is an apostle *not of men, neither by man.* For although Ananias baptized him, he was not the one who delivered him from error, nor did he lead him to the faith; but Christ Himself from above let loose that marvelous voice upon him, by which He drew him in. For He called Peter and his brother, and John and his brother, while He was walking by the sea; but He called Paul after having ascended into the heavens. And just as they did not need a second voice, but immediately left their nets and everything else and followed Him, so too this man, from the first call, ascended to the highest summit, at once baptized and waging an irreconcilable war against the Jews, and in this way he surpassed the apostles most of all. *I have labored,* he says, *more abundantly than they all* (1 Cor. 15: 10). But for the time being he is not establishing this, but is content to bring forward equality. For his concern was not to show himself superior to them, but to destroy the foundation of the error. The phrase, *not of men,* was common to all; for the preaching has its source and root from above. But *not by man* was proper to the apostles; for He did not call them by men, but Himself by Himself. And why did he not mention the call and say, "Paul, called not of men," instead of "apostle"? Because this was the matter about which they were whispering. For they were saying that he had been entrusted with this teaching by men, the apostles, and that he ought to follow them. And that he was not entrusted by men, Luke declared, saying: *As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Paul and Barnabas* (Act. 13: 2). From which it is clear that there is one authority of the Son and of the Spirit. For having been sent by the Spirit, he says that he was sent by Christ. This he also shows elsewhere, ascribing the things of God to the Spirit. For when he was discoursing to the elders of the Milesians, he said: *Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as overseers* (Act. 20: 28); yet in another Epistle he says, *Whom God has set in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers* (1 Cor. 12: 28). Thus indiscriminately he uses the statement, calling the things of the Spirit the things of God, and those of God the things of the Spirit. But he shuts the mouths of the heretics in another way as well, saying, *By Jesus Christ and God the Father.* For since they say that this expression is cast upon the Son as something inferior, see what he does: he places it even upon the Father, teaching us not to legislate for the ineffable nature, nor to define measures of divinity between the Son and the Father; for having said, *By Jesus Christ*

he added, *and God the Father*. For if he had made mention only of the Father, and had said "through whom," perhaps they might have devised a sophism and claimed that this particle "through whom" fits the Father, because the works of the Son are referred to Him. But now, having made mention of the Son and the Father together, and speaking of both in common, he has left no place for that sophism. For he does not ^A do this to refer what is proper to the Son back to the Father, but to declare that this expression introduces no difference of essence.

What, then, will those people say here, who invent a lower order from baptism because we are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? For if the Son is inferior because He is placed after the Father, what will they say here, where the Apostle begins from Christ and comes to the Father? But we shall say nothing blasphemous. For we must not, in contending with them, fall away from the truth; rather, even if they were to rage ten thousand times over, we must remain within the limits of piety. Just as, therefore, we would not say the Son is greater than the Father because Paul mentioned the Son first—for that would be the utmost madness and extreme impiety—so neither in this place, because the Son is placed after the Father, ought we to think the Son is less than the Father.

*Who raised Him from the dead*. What are you doing, Paul? When you desire to lead Judaizers to the faith, do you bring none of those great and brilliant points into the middle? Such as what you wrote to the Philippians, saying, *Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God* (Phil. ii, 6); or what you stated with a clear voice when writing to the Hebrews, that *he is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person* (Heb. i, 3); or again, what that son of thunder sounded at the beginning of his Gospel: *In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God* (Joann. i, 1); or furthermore, what Jesus frequently declared to the Jews, saying that He ^B has the same power as the Father, and the same ability to work (Joann. v, 17, sqq.)? You say none of these things, but omitting them all, you make mention of the dispensation according to the flesh, bringing the cross and the resurrection into the middle.

Yes, he says. If he were talking to people who had conceived nothing great about Christ in their minds, it would have been appropriate to produce those magnificent things. But since those who cause us sedition are the ones who thought they would be punished if they deserted the law, he therefore makes mention of the matter through which he excludes the entire necessity of the law—namely, by commemorating the divine munificence bestowed upon all through the cross and resurrection. For if he had said, *In the beginning was the Word*, and that *he was in the form of God*, and had made Himself equal to the Father, and other things of that nature, he would have declared the divinity of the Word, but those things would have contributed nothing to what was being treated here. Now, however, by saying, *who raised Him from the dead*, he reminds them of the highest benefit that Christ bestowed upon us; and this matter contributed not a little to the thing proposed, because most men are not accustomed to listen with such attentive ears to words that commend the majesty of God as they are to those that declare His beneficence toward men. For this reason, leaving aside the mention of these things, he speaks of the benefit bestowed upon us.

The heretics exult, saying: "Behold, the Father raises the Son." For after they have once been seized by the disease of insanity, they are willingly deaf to such sublime dogmas; but if any lower things are said, whether because of the flesh assumed, or because of the honor due to the Father, or for some other dispensation, they select these, and in pondering these alone, they bring harm upon themselves—I would not say upon Scripture. I would gladly ask them why they say these things. Is it because they are eager to show the Son as weak and not sufficiently competent for the raising of one body? ^C And yet, faith in Him caused even the shadows of those who believed in Him to raise the dead (Act. v, 15). So if those who believed in Him, mortal men, raised the dead by the mere shadow of the clay bodies they bore and by the garments brought to those bodies, and He Himself could not raise Himself? Is this not evident madness and a vehement delirium? Do you not hear Him saying, *Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up* (Joann. ii, 19)? And again, *I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again* (Joann. x, 18)?

Why, then, is the Father said to have raised Him? He is said to raise Him just as He is said to do other things, which the Son also does. For indeed, this is said partly for the sake of the honor that is due to the Father, and partly because of the weakness of the hearers.

*And all the brethren with me*. For what reason does he not add this in the other epistles? In those, he either places his name alone, or adds the names of just two or three; but here he has placed the whole multitude, and therefore he commemorates no one by name. Why, then, does he do this? They had slandered Paul on this account, that he alone preached these things and was introducing a new system of dogmas. When, therefore, he wished to remove their suspicion and at the same time to declare that he had many who were of the same opinion, he attaches the brethren to himself, signifying that he is writing what he writes from their opinion.

*To the churches of Galatia*. For the fire of this error had overrun not one city, nor two, nor three, but the whole nation of the Galatians. Behold with me here also the vehement indignation of the Apostle. He did not say, *To the beloved*, nor, *To the sanctified*, but, *To the churches of Galatia*. For this was the mark of a spirit harshly affected and opening up its own sorrow, because he did not honor them with the terms of charity or their own names, but solely by the congregation; and because he did not add, *To the churches of God*, but simply said, *To the churches of Galatia*. And yet, in the very preface, he is hastening to reduce their division into concord; ^D and therefore he placed the word "church," striking them with shame and compelling them into one. For those who are torn into various parts can by no means be called by this name, since the name of the church is a name of consensus and concord.

*Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ*. He necessarily places this particle everywhere, but most of all now when writing to the Galatians. For since they were in danger of falling from grace, he prays for them

^A to recover it again. For since they had made themselves enemies to God, he beseeches God to lead them back to the same peace. *God the Father.* From this, heretics are again easily caught. For since they say that John, in the prologue of his Gospels, when he says, *And the Word was God* (John 1:1), placed this without the article, as if it introduced the divinity of the Son as being of lesser degree; and again, that Paul, when he says the Son exists *in the form of God*, did not speak of the Father, because it also stands without the article—what would they say here, where Paul does not say, "From the God," but, *From God the Father*? He calls God "Father" here, not to flatter them, but to rebuke them severely, and to remind them of the reason through which they became sons. For it was not through the law, but through the laver of regeneration that they were deemed worthy of this honor. For this reason, he sows the traces of God’s benefits everywhere, even in his openings, as if saying: "You slaves, and enemies, and alienated ones, whence do you all of a sudden call God 'Father'? Did the law grant you this kinship? Why then, having abandoned Him who led you into this closeness, do you run again to the tutor?" Not only regarding the Father, but also regarding the Son, these names are sufficient to demonstrate this benefit to them. For the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, when examined with precision, demonstrates the whole benefit. For he says, *Jesus will be called* for this reason, *Because he will save his people from their sins* (Matt. 1:21); and the appellation of *Christ* reminded them of the anointing of the Spirit. *Who gave himself for our sins.* 4. You see that he underwent no servile ministry, nor one forced upon him, nor was he given up by anyone, but he gave himself; so that, when you hear John saying that the Father gave his only-begotten Son for us (John 3:16), you might not lessen the dignity of the Only-Begotten because of this, nor suspect anything human about him. For even if the Father is said to have given him, this is not said so that you might think of a servile ministry, but so that you might learn that this was also the will of the Father, which Paul declared here as well, saying: *According to the will of God and our Father* (Gal. 1:4); not by command, but according to the will. For since there is one will of the Father and the Son, what the Son willed, these things the Father also willed. *For our sins.* We have entangled ourselves, he says, in myriad evils, and we were liable to the ultimate punishment. And the law not only did not deliver, but it also condemned, making the sin more manifest, being unable to set [us] free, nor to stay the wrath of God; but the Son of God made even this impossible thing possible, having both dissolved the sins, and having established his enemies in the rank of friends, and having bestowed myriad other goods. Then he says: *That he might deliver us from the present evil age* (Gal. 1:4). Again, other heretics seize upon this expression, slandering the present life, and bringing forward Paul's testimony. ^B For behold, they say, he has called the present age evil. And what, pray tell, is an age? It is time, divided into days and hours. What then? Is the interval of days evil, and the course of the sun? But no one would ever say this, unless he were carried away to extreme madness. But he did not speak of the time, they say, but he called the present life evil. And yet, the words do not say this; but since you do not rest upon the words from which you wove the accusation, but rather cut for yourself a path of interpretation, you will grant us also to interpret what has been said, and so much the more, as our [interpretations] are pious and have reason. What then should we say? That none of the bad things could ever be the cause of good things; and this present life is the cause of myriad crowns and so many rewards. This very blessed Paul himself praises it with hyperbole, saying thus: *But if living in the flesh, this is fruit for me of work, and what I shall choose, I do not know* (Phil. 1:22). And having set before himself that choice, whether to live here, or to depart and be with Christ, he prefers the conduct here. If it were evil, neither would he have said these things about himself, nor would anyone else have been able to make use of it for virtue, even if he were very eager. For evil could never be put to good use; neither fornication for chastity, nor envy for friendliness. For when Paul speaks about the mind of the flesh, that *it is not subject to the law of God; for it cannot be* (Rom. 8:7), he means this: that evil, remaining evil, cannot be virtue. So when you hear "evil age," understand the evil deeds, the corrupted faculty of choice. For Christ did not come to kill us and lead us out of the present life, but that, having left us in the world, he might prepare us to become worthy of the conduct in the heavens. For this reason, while conversing with the Father, he said: *And these are in the world, and I am coming to you* (John 17:11); and again, *I do not pray that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil*, that is, from wickedness. If you do not accept these [interpretations], but still say that the present life is evil, do not blame those who destroy themselves. For just as he who removes himself from wickedness is worthy not of accusations, but even of crowns; so also he who by violent death, and by hanging or by certain other ways, dissolves his life, could not, according to you, be blamed. But now, even God punishes such people more than murderers, and we all loathe them, and rightly so. For if it is not good to kill others, it is much more so [not to kill] oneself. And if the present life were evil, it would be necessary to crown murderers, because they rid us of wickedness. Besides these things, even from what they themselves say, they fall into contradictions among themselves. For holding that the sun is God, and after him the moon, and worshipping them as causes of many goods, they contradict themselves. For the need for these and for the remaining stars toward another... [index: entries preserved]

for they confirm that they perform no other use than to provide for our present life—this life, I say, which these people claim is evil—while they nourish bodies, shine with splendor, and nurture and increase the fruits of the earth. How does it happen, therefore, that these beings—gods in your judgment—subvene so greatly to the constitution of this evil life? But neither are the stars gods, God forbid; they are works of God, fashioned for our utility; nor is the world evil. But if you remind me of murderers, adulterers, and grave-robbers, these things have nothing to do with the present life; for these sins do not belong to the life that we lead in the flesh, but to a corrupted will. For if these things were so for the present life as to be fixed to it by some fate, no one would be free or pure from these evils. Therefore, consider that no one can escape what is proper to this life. What, then, are these? To eat, to drink, to sleep, to grow, to hunger, to thirst, to be born, to die, and everything similar to these. No one will ever conquer these—not the sinner, not the righteous, not the king, not the commoner; but all of us are subject to natural necessity. Likewise, also, to commit crimes, if it belonged to the fate and condition of nature, no one could escape these, just as neither those. ^B Indeed, do not tell me that it is rare for those who live life rightly. You will find absolutely no one who has ever been superior to natural necessities. So long as even one shall be found who has achieved virtue, our account will remain fundamentally unharmed. What do you say, miserable and unhappy one? Is this life evil, in which we have recognized God, in which we philosophize about the future, in which we have been made angels from men, and together with the celestial Virtues we lead choirs? And what other proof could we seek of your evil and perverted mind?

5. Why did Paul say, ‘the present evil age’? He used common human parlance. For we, too, are accustomed to say, ‘I have had an evil day,’ blaming not the time itself, but the action and the hardship. In the same way, Paul, condemning the wicked wills of men, used this habit of speech, showing that Christ has delivered us from former sins and rendered us safe against them for the future. For he declares the former thing when he says, *Who gave himself for our sins* (Gal. I, 4); but when he adds, *that he might deliver us from this present evil age*, he opens up a defense and preservation for the future. For while the law was indeed weak regarding either of the two, grace was sufficient for both. Therefore he subjoined: *According to the will of God and our Father*. For since they thought that they were not obeying God, inasmuch as He had given the law to be kept, and they feared that they would perish if they deserted the old law and progressed toward the new; he corrects this opinion of theirs by saying that these things were pleasing to the Father as well. He did not say simply, ‘of the Father,’ but, *of our Father*; and he repeats this frequently, imbuing them with reverence, when he shows that Christ has made His own Father our Father. ^C 5. *To whom be glory unto the ages. Amen.* This is something new and unusual. For we find this expression, ‘Amen,’ nowhere else placed at the beginning of the epistles; it is usually added after many things have preceded it. But here, showing that the things said have a sufficient accusation of the Galatians, and that the discourse is perfect and absolute, he used this opening; since manifest crimes have no need of much apparatus of proof. For after he had brought back to their memory the cross and the resurrection, the redemption from sins, the protection given for the future, the paternal will, the counsel of the Son, the grace, the peace, and finally His whole gift, he closed the discourse by glorifying God. ^D Yet he did not do this for this reason alone, but also because he was marveling and astonished beyond measure at the greatness of the gift, and the immensity of grace, and at the same time reflecting with himself what we were and what God had rendered us, and that suddenly, in a single moment of time; as one who could not attain these things with speech, he ends the discourse with glorification, not the kind that might be worthy of God, but rendering what praise he himself could for the whole world. And for this reason he used a more vehement tone thereafter, as one inflamed by considering the benefits of God toward us. ^A For when he had said, *To whom be glory unto the ages, Amen*, he begins from a sharper reproof, saying: 6. *I marvel that you are so quickly turning away from him who called you in the grace of Christ, unto a different gospel.* Since they thought1 that by the observation of the law they were pleasing the Father, just as the Jews thought while persecuting Christ; he demonstrates this first, that they, while doing these things, offend not only Christ, but also the Father. For he says, you are defecting not from Christ, but also from the Father by doing these things. For as the Old Testament is not only of the Father, but also of the Son: so grace is not only of the Son, but also of the Father, and all things are common: *All things*, he says, *that are the Father’s are mine* (John XVI, 15). He strikes two faults, therefore: that they have defected, and that they have defected most quickly. And yet the contrary would also have been worthy of reproach, namely, if they had defected after a long time; but here it is a matter of circumvention. He indeed is also worthy of blame who defects after a long span of time; but he who falls at the first attack, and at the very moment the arrows are flying from afar, has offered a specimen of extreme weakness. On this account he also accuses them, saying: What is this, that those who deceive you have no need of the space of time, but their first approach suffices for them to subvert you and take you captive? What kind of pardon could you possibly obtain? For if this crime had been committed against friends, and if he who had abandoned former useful and necessary friends were worthy of condemnation: consider how great a punishment one is liable to who retreats when God calls. Moreover, when he says, *I marvel*, he brings shame upon them not only with this statement, that after such munificence, after...

such extreme kindness, they should spontaneously run to the yoke of servitude; but he also shows, at the same time, what kind of opinion he had regarding them, namely, that it was a great and earnest one. For he would not have marvelled at what had happened if he had considered them to be among the common sort and easily deceived; but since he says they were of the genuine kind and had labored much, he marvelled for that reason; which was enough to restore them and bring them back to their former state. He declares this same thing in the middle of the Epistle, saying: *You have suffered so many things in vain, if it be yet in vain.* He does not say, *You have been changed*, but, *You are being changed*, meaning: I do not yet believe, nor do I judge the deception to be complete—which itself is again a way of reclaiming them. Having premised this more clearly, he says: *I have confidence in you, that you will think nothing else.* (Gal. 5: 10). *From him who called you in the grace of Christ.* The calling is of the Father, but the cause of the calling is the Son: for He it is who reconciled us and gave it freely; for we were not saved by works done in righteousness. But rather, these things are also His, and those are of Him: for He says, *Mine are thine, and thine are mine* (John 17: 10). And he did not say, *You are being moved away from the Gospel*, but, *From God who called you*. For he put forth that which was more frightening and more capable of striking them with fear. ^B For those who wished to deceive them did not do this all at once, but little by little removing them from the realities, while not changing the names. For such is the fraud of the devil, not to put forth mere snares. For if they had said, *Depart from Christ*, they would have been guarded against as deceivers and spoilers; but now, leaving them in the faith for the time being, and putting the name of gospel upon the deception, they were with great impunity undermining the building, through these names hiding the wall-breakers as if by some veils.

6. Since, therefore, they called their own deception a gospel, he also rightly fights against the name, and speaks with boldness, saying: *Into another gospel, which is not another.* Rightly; for there is no other. But yet, what those who are ill experience, being harmed by healthy foods, this is what the Marcionites have also experienced here. For they laid hold of what was said, saying: *Lo, even Paul said, There is no other gospel.* For they do not receive all the evangelists, but only one, and even that one they cut and mangled as they wished. What then, when he says: *According to my Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ* (Rom. 16: 25)? The things said by them are indeed of much laughter; nevertheless, even if they are ridiculous, it is necessary to refute them for the sake of those who are easily deceived. What then shall we say? That even if ten thousand write Gospels, and they write the same things, the many is one, and nothing will be harmed in its being one by the multitude of those who write; just as if there is only one writing and he says opposite things, the writings are not one. ^C For the "one" and "not one" is judged not by the number of those writing, but by the identity and difference of what is said. Whence it is clear that the Gospels of the four consist as one Gospel. For when the four say the same things, they are not different and other because of the difference of persons, but one because of the agreement of what is said. For Paul is not speaking now about number, but about the disagreement of what is said. If, therefore, Matthew’s is one thing and Luke’s another according to the power of the things written and the accuracy of the dogmas, they rightly grasp at the argument; but if it is one and the same, let them cease their foolishness, and from pretending to be ignorant of things which are manifest even to mere children. *If there are some who trouble you, and want to pervert the Gospel of Christ.* This means, so long as you are of sound mind, you will not recognize another gospel, so long as you see clearly, and not cross-eyed, imagining things that are not. For just as the eye, when disturbed, sees other things than what are before it; so also the mind, being clouded by the confusion of evil thoughts, is accustomed to suffer this same thing. For this reason even those who are mad imagine things other than what are. But this madness is more grievous than that other, working harm not in the senses but in the intellect, not in the pupil of the body’s eyes but causing the ruin in the eyes of the mind. *And want to pervert the Gospel of Christ.* And yet they were bringing in only one or a second commandment, the one concerning circumcision, and were only innovating concerning the days; but showing that what is slightly altered ruins the whole, he said the Gospel is being perverted. ^D For just as in royal coinage he who has clipped a little of the impression has made the whole coin counterfeit; so he who has perverted even the smallest part of the sound faith ruins the whole, proceeding from the beginning toward worse things.

Where then are they who condemn us for contentiousness on account of our dissension with the heretics? Where now are they who say there is no difference between us and them, but that the difference arises from a love of power? Let them hear what Paul says, that those who innovate even a small thing have perverted the Gospel. What about these people, who do not innovate a small thing; for how were they not, who say the Son of God is a creature? Did you not hear that in the Old Testament one who gathered wood on the Sabbath, and broke one commandment, and not the greatest one at that, paid the ultimate penalty? And Oza, when he steadied the ark which was about to topple, died immediately, because he touched a ministry not pertaining to him? Then, if the transgression of the Sabbath and the touching of the falling ark brought God to such great indignation that those who dared these things did not obtain even a little forgiveness, then he who perverts the sacred and ineffable dogmas, will he have an excuse and obtain forgiveness? It cannot be, I say. This very thing, therefore, is of all...

evils the cause, because we are not indignant at small things. For it is because due correction is not applied to smaller matters that they have incurred greater crimes. And just as in the body, those who have neglected wounds generate fevers, putrefaction, and finally death, so too in the soul, those who despise small things bring in greater ones. "So-and-so," they say, "has slipped in fasting, and it is no great matter." Another is sound in the right faith, but because of the times he pretends, and has betrayed the freedom of confession; nor is this anything of a great evil. Another, being irritated, has threatened he would depart from the right faith; and you will say this is not worthy of punishment, because he sinned in anger and agitation of mind. And one would find ^B innumerable sins of this kind introduced daily into the Churches.

For this reason, we have become ridiculous both to the Jews and to the Greeks, while the Church is split into a thousand pieces. For if from the beginning, appropriate rebuke had been applied to those who were attempting to slip away from divine precepts and were trying to do something small, contrary to what was proper, this pestilence would never have been born, and no such storm would have seized the Churches. See, therefore, how Paul calls circumcision a subversion of the Gospel.

7. BUT now there are many among us who fast on the same day as the Jews, and who observe the Sabbath in the same way; and we bear it generously, or rather, miserably. And what do I say of the matters of the Jews? Many things of the customs of the Greeks are observed among some of our people—sortileges, auguries, omens, and observations of days, the superstitious care regarding horoscopes, and writings full of all impiety, which they impose upon the heads of children as soon as they are born, thereby bringing great evil upon them, teaching them from the very beginning to abandon the zeal for acquiring virtue and bringing them, as far as it lies in them, to the deceptive tyranny of fate. But if Christ is of no profit to those who are circumcised, why will faith be of any further profit for salvation to those who introduce such great evils? Although circumcision was given by God, yet because it brought destruction to the Gospel if observed out of its proper time, Paul did everything to amputate it. And after this, when Paul has applied such great effort to exclude Jewish customs, for the reason that they were observed unseasonably, shall we not amputate even a pagan custom? And what excuse, I ask, are we going to have? For these reasons, our affairs are in tumult and confusion, and those who ought to have been disciples, filled with much pride of mind, have overturned the order, and all things are turned upside down. And if anyone even slightly accuses them, they spit upon those under whose authority they are, because, forsooth, we have trained them incorrectly from childhood. But even if those who are in charge were wicked and full of countless evils, it would not even then have been lawful for a disciple to be disobedient. For if it was said concerning the teachers of the Jews, because they sat upon the chair of Moses (Matt. XXIII, 2), that they were laden with such evil works that the Lord charged the disciples not to imitate them, how much more worthy of punishment will they be who spit upon and trample underfoot the presidents of the Church who live modestly by the grace of God? But if it is unholy for one to judge another, how much more is it not lawful to judge teachers?

8. BUT even if I or an angel from heaven should evangelize to you besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. ^C See the apostolic prudence. Lest anyone should say that he was displaying his own dogmas, he devoted even himself. But because they were taking refuge in authority and were everywhere celebrating James and John, for this reason he also mentions the angels: "Do not," he says, "tell me of James and John; even if one of the first angels should descend from the heavens and pervert the preaching of the Gospel, let him be anathema." He did not say "from heaven" rashly; but because priests also are called angels—for "the lips of the priest will guard knowledge, and they will seek the law from his mouth, for he is the angel of the Lord Almighty" (Mal. II, 7)—lest anyone should think that the words now were spoken about these angels, by adding the particle "from heaven," he indicated the supernal Powers. And he did not say, "If they announce contrary things, or if they subvert the whole Gospel," but, "If they evangelize even a little beyond the Gospel which you have received, even if they should undermine anything whatsoever, let them be anathema."

9. As I said before, and now I say again. ^D Lest you might think those words sprang from anger, or were said by hyperbole more magnificently than the matter required, or were uttered hastily in the heat and rush of speech, he repeats the same things. For he who has said something while occupied with agitation of mind is usually soon sorry for what he said; but he who repeats the same things anew declares that he spoke with judgment, and that it was first decided and approved by the counsel of his mind, and only thus brought forth by voice. Abraham, therefore, when he was asked to send Lazarus, answered, "They have Moses and the prophets; if they do not believe them, neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the dead" (Luke XVI, 29, 31). Christ himself introduces Abraham speaking these things, declaring that he wishes more faith to be had in the Scriptures than if the dead should rise. But Paul (when I say Paul, I again say Christ himself; for it was He who was ruling his mind) even prefers the Scriptures to angels descending from heaven, and quite consistently. For angels, however great they may be, are yet servants and ministers; but all the Scriptures were written and sent to us not by servants, but by the Lord God of all. For this reason he says: "If anyone should evangelize to you beyond what we have evangelized to you." He did not say, "If this one or that one," and that most prudently, without hatred or envy. For what need was there to publish names, after he had used such a sublime discourse that he embraced everyone, both those who are in the heavens and those who are on the earth? For by the fact that he pronounces anathema upon evangelists and angels, he comprehends every dignity; but by the fact that he pronounces anathema upon himself also, he 671 embraces every intimacy. For do not tell me that "your apostles and companions say these things"; not even I myself spare myself from preaching such things. And these...

things he says not as condemning the apostles as transgressors of the gospel preaching—far from it! For he says, "Whether it be I or they, so we preach." But he wishes to show that one does not accept the dignity of persons when the discourse is about the truth. ^A "For am I now persuading men, or God? Or am I seeking to please men? For if I were still pleasing men, I would not be a servant of Christ." For he says, "Even if I were deceiving you by saying these things, am I able to deceive God, who knows the secrets of the mind, and whom it is my entire zeal always to please?" Do you see the apostolic spirit? Do you see the height of the gospel? And he was saying these same things also when writing to the Corinthians: "We are not making a defense to you, but giving you an occasion for boasting"; and again, "But to me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human day" (1 Cor. 4:3). For since, being a teacher, he is compelled to make a defense to disciples, he endures it indeed, but he is vexed—not out of arrogance, God forbid, but because of the easiness of mind of those being deceived, and the fact that he is not fully believed by them. Therefore he has said these things also, as though saying: "Is my discourse to you? Are humans about to judge me? Our discourse is before God, and we do all things for the sake of the account there; and we would not have come to such a depth of misery as to ruin the dogmas, being about to render an account to the Master of all for what we preach." ^B 8. Thus, while defending himself and partly stimulating them, he has placed these words here. For it was not fitting for disciples to judge their teachers, but to believe; but since the order was reversed and you sit as judges, he says, "Know that my discourse is not so much for your sake, but we do all things for the sake of God." And so that he might defend himself regarding these dogmas. For he who wishes to persuade men does many things that are deceitful and distorted, and uses trickery and lies so as to persuade and win over the mind of the hearers; but he who persuades God, and is zealous to please Him, is in need of a simple and pure mind; for the divine is not to be deceived. Whence it is clear that we also, he says, do not write these things for the sake of love of authority, nor so as to have disciples, nor longing for the glory from you; for we have not been zealous to please men, but God. "For if I were willing to please men, since I was with the Jews, I would still be persecuting the Church of God." But he who has despised an entire nation, and family and friends and kinsmen and such great glory, and exchanged these for persecutions and enmities and wars and daily deaths, it is clear that even these things which I now say, I say not longing for the glory of men. He has said this, since he is about to recount his former life, and the sudden change, and to show through clear proofs that he shifted with truth, lest they should think that he does these things as defending himself to them, and they be puffed up. For this reason he said beforehand, "For am I now persuading men?" For he knows how, at the appropriate time for the correction of those being taught, to speak something both lofty and great. Even though it was possible to make the proofs that he preaches with truth from another source—from the signs, from the miracles, from the dangers, from the prisons, from the daily deaths, from the hunger and thirst, and from the nakedness, and from other such things—yet since the discourse was not now for him to the false apostles, but to the apostles, and they had shared in these things—that is, the dangers—he manages the discourse from elsewhere; since, regarding the fact that he strained against the false apostles, he thus brings the comparison, bringing into the medium the endurance in the dangers and saying: "Are they servants of Christ? (I speak as a fool) still more I; in labors more abundantly, in stripes above measure, in prisons more abundantly, in deaths often." ^C Now, however, he speaks of the former way of life, and says: "But I make known to you, brothers, the gospel that was preached by me, that it is not according to man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but through a revelation of Jesus Christ." See how he insists up and down that he became a disciple of Christ, not a man acting as an intermediary, but He Himself through Himself deigning to reveal all knowledge to him. And what proof would there be to those who disbelieve that God reveals those secret mysteries to you through Himself, and not through some medium? The former way of life, he says; for if it were not God who was revealing, I would not have had such a sudden change. For those who are taught by men, when they are intense and ardent in the contrary things, need time and much contrivance to be persuaded; but he who shifted so suddenly, and in the very peak of madness was sobered cleanly—it is clear that having attained a divine vision and teaching, he suddenly returned to pure health. For this reason he is compelled to recount his former way of life, and calls them witnesses of what happened. For that the only-begotten Son of God deigned to call me from the heavens through Himself, you do not know; for how would you, not being present? But that I was a persecutor, you know very well. For indeed my intensity spread as far as you; even though the distance between the Palestinians and the Galatians is great; so the rumor would not have crossed so much, if there had not been a great intensity of what was happening, and intolerable to all. Wherefore he also says: "For you heard of my way of life formerly in Judaism, that I persecuted the Church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it." You see how he places each thing with intensity, and is not ashamed? For he did not simply persecute, ^D but with all intensity, and he did not only persecute, but he also tried to destroy—that is, he undertook to extinguish the Church, to overthrow, to pull down, to wipe out; for this is the work of one destroying. And

he says, I was ^A becoming increasingly zealous for my ancestral traditions, implying that he did all this from a kind of zeal, even if it were not "according to knowledge." It was not out of vainglory or a desire to take vengeance on those he hated, but because he was held by a zeal for the traditions he had received from his ancestors.

The meaning of this statement is: if I did these things against the Church, it was not out of human passion, but out of a divine zeal—erroneous, to be sure, but nonetheless a zeal. How, then, could I now, while running for the Church and knowing the truth, do these things out of vainglory? For if, when in error, such a passion did not control me, but divine zeal compelled me to this, much more so, now that I have known the truth, ought I to be free from any such suspicion. For as soon as I turned to the dogmas of the Church, I immediately cast off every Judaic prejudice that had held my mind, and I displayed such an even greater zeal—which is a sign that I was truly transformed and held by a divine zeal. And if ^B this were not the case, tell me, what else could have persuaded me to endure such a change, and to exchange honor for insults, rest for dangers, and security for afflictions? There was no reason other than the love of truth alone.

15. "But when it pleased God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by His grace 16. to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood." See what he is striving to show here: that even during the time he was left in error, he was left there for some hidden reason of divine providence. For if he was set apart from his mother’s womb to become an apostle, and was called to this ministry—and was indeed called then, and immediately upon being called, he obeyed—it is evident that God, for some hidden reason, had delayed until that point. What then is this dispensation? Perhaps you who are eager have been wanting to hear this from the beginning: why did He not call him along with the Twelve? But, lest I depart from what is more urgent and make the speech too long, I beseech your charity not to want to learn everything from me, but to investigate even of yourselves, praying to God that He might reveal it to you. Although we have spoken about this matter elsewhere, when we were discussing with you the change of Paul’s name, and why God called him who was previously named Saul, Paul. If these have slipped your memory, you will know all these things from that ^C book. Now, let us not depart from the sequence of the discourse, and let us consider how he again shows that nothing happened in him according to human fashion, but that God arranged many things with great providence; he shows this with these words: "And called me by His grace." From here he declares that God called him on account of his virtue—for He says to Ananias, "He is a chosen vessel for Me, to bear My name before Gentiles and kings" (Acts 9:15). That is to say: He is fit to sustain the ministry and the noble deed. And he puts forth here this cause of his calling; yet everywhere he attributes the whole to grace and to the ineffable humanity of the Godhead, thus speaking: "But I obtained mercy—not because I was sufficient, nor because I was fit, but—that in me He might display all longsuffering as a pattern to those who were going to believe in Him for eternal life" (1 Tim. 1:16). Do you see the exceptional humility? Therefore, he says, I obtained mercy, so that no one might despair of himself, after I, the worst of all mortals, have attained to God’s kindness. This is what he declares by saying: "That in me He might demonstrate all longsuffering, a pattern to those who were going to believe in Him." "To reveal His Son in me." Elsewhere, Christ Himself says: "No one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and he to whom the Son wills to reveal Him" (Luke 10:22). Do you see that both the Father reveals the Son, and the Son the Father? The same happens in glory; the Son glorifies the Father, and the Father the Son: "Glorify Me," He says, "that I may glorify You" (John 17:1); and again, "As I have glorified You." ^D But for what cause did he not say, "To reveal His Son to me," but "in me"? He spoke this way to show that he was instructed about the faith not only in words, but was also filled with the copious gift of the Spirit; for with revelation illuminating his soul, he had Christ dwelling and speaking within him. "That I might preach Him among the Gentiles." For it was done by God, not only that he should believe, but also that he should be chosen for the apostolic office. For so, he says, He revealed Himself to me, not only that I might know Him, but also that I might carry the knowledge of Him to others. Yet he did not simply say, "to others," but "that I might preach Him among the Gentiles," starting from here to touch upon no small point of his defense, from the very person of the disciples. For there was not the same necessity for him to preach to the Jews and to the Gentiles. "I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood." He implies the apostles here, designating them by the name of their nature. But if he says this about all men, we shall not contradict him. 17. "Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to the apostles who were before me." If anyone were to weigh these words by themselves, they seem to breathe no ordinary magniloquence, and to be very far removed from the apostolic spirit. For the fact that he gives his own verdict for himself, and does not communicate his judgment with anyone, seems to be arrogance. "I saw," he says, "a man who thought himself wise, but there is more hope for a fool than for him" (Prov. 26:12); and, "Woe to those who are prudent in their own eyes, and intelligent in their own sight" (Isa. 5:21); and Paul himself again, "Do not be wise in your own opinion" (Rom. 12:16).

^A Let us do this, then. For one ought not to examine the words nakedly, since many sins would follow; nor to scrutinize the expression by itself, but to attend to the mind of the writer. For in our own conversations, if we do not use this method and examine the intention of the speaker, we will endure many hatreds, and all things will be overturned. And why is it necessary to speak of words, where even in deeds, if one does not keep this rule, everything will be turned upside down? For indeed, physicians both cut and break some of the bones, and robbers often do the same things. Of how great unhappiness would it be, when we cannot distinguish the robber from the physician? Again, murderers and martyrs endure the same pains when tortured; but the difference between them is great. And if we do not keep this rule, we will not be able to know these things, but we will call Elijah a murderer, and Samuel and Phinehas as well, and Abraham a child-slayer, if we are to examine the deeds nakedly, without adding to them the intention of those doing them. ^B Let us therefore examine the mind of Paul, from which he wrote these things; let us consider his goal, and what scope he set for himself regarding the apostles, and then we will know from what intention these things were said. For he did not say these things to disparage them, nor to praise himself, nor the former things—how could he, when he even anathematized himself (Rom. 9:3)?—but because he was everywhere preserving the safety of the Gospel. Since those who were overturning the Church were saying that it was necessary to follow the apostles who did not forbid these things, and not Paul who did forbid them, and since from this the Jewish error was being introduced little by little, he is compelled to stand firmly against these things, not wishing to speak ill of the apostles, but wishing to curb the folly of those who were improperly exalting themselves. That is why he says: "I did not confer with flesh and blood" (Gal. 1:16). For it was of the utmost absurdity for one who had learned from God to later refer to men. For he who learns from men ^C reasonably takes men again as partners; but he who has been deemed worthy of that divine and blessed voice, and has been taught everything by Him who holds the treasure of wisdom—for what reason would he later refer to men? For such a one would be rightly considered to be not learning from men, but teaching men. He did not say these things out of arrogance, then, but so as to show the dignity of his own preaching. "Neither did I go up," he says, "to the apostles who were before me" (Gal. 1:17). Since they were saying over and over that those were before him, that those were called before him, "I did not go up to them," he says. But if it was necessary to communicate with them, He who revealed the preaching to him would have commanded this also. ^D What then? Did he not go up there? Indeed he did go up, and not simply, but to learn something from them. When? When in the city of the Antiochians, the Church which had displayed much zeal from the beginning, there arose a question about this very thing now before us, and they were asking whether it was necessary to circumcise those who believed from the Gentiles, or to force them to endure nothing of the sort. Then this very Paul and Silas went up. How then does he say, "I did not go up, nor did I confer"? Because, first, he did not go up of his own accord, but was sent by others; and secondly, he did not arrive to be a learner, but persuading others. For he himself from the beginning held this opinion, which the apostles later ratified: that it was not necessary to be circumcised; but since he did not seem credible for the time being, and they held more to those in Jerusalem, he went up, not to learn anything more himself, but to persuade those who were contradicting that those in Jerusalem also voted for these things. Thus he saw what was necessary from the beginning, and needed no teacher, but what the apostles were about to ratify after much deliberation, these things he held fixed within himself before the deliberation. And Luke, declaring this, said that Paul held a long and extended argument about these things with them even before coming to Jerusalem. And since it seemed good to the brethren to learn about those things also, he went up for them, not for himself. And if he says, "I did not go up," one can also say that he neither went up in the introductions of his preaching, nor when he did go up, did he go up to learn. For both of these things are signaled by his saying: "I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood." He did not say simply, "I did not confer," but, "Immediately." And if he went up after this, it was not to gain anything. "But I went away into Arabia" (Gal. 1:17). Look at his fervent soul! He was eager to occupy the regions that had not yet been cultivated, but were still in a wilder state. For if he had waited with the apostles, having nothing to learn, the preaching would have been hindered; for they needed to distribute the word everywhere. For this reason, this blessed man, and burning with the Spirit, immediately applied himself to the teaching of barbarian and savage men, choosing a life of conflict, and one possessing many labors.

11. And behold for me his humility. For having said, "I went away into Arabia," he added, "and returned again to Damascus" (Gal. 1:17). He does not mention his accomplishments, nor whom he catechized and how many, although from the moment he was baptized he displayed such zeal as to confound the Jews, and he brought them to such a state of resentment that they lay in wait and wished to kill him, both they and the Greeks; which would not have happened if he had not made a great addition to those who believed. For since they were being defeated in the teaching, they henceforth turned to murder—which was a sign of Paul's victory.

But Christ did not permit him to be put to death, sparing him for the preaching of the Gospel. Yet he says nothing of these accomplishments; he says everything he says, not for the sake of ambition, nor so that he might appear better than the other apostles, nor out of resentment at being despised—but because he feared that, from this, some detriment might come to the preaching. For he calls himself an untimely birth, and the first of sinners, and the ^A last of the apostles, and unworthy of the honor of the name (1 Cor. 15:8-9; 1 Tim. 1:15). And these things he said when he had labored more than them all; which is, indeed, a preeminent sign of humility. For when someone who is conscious of no good in himself speaks humbly of himself, he is proper, not humble; but one who speaks such things after such crowns, he knows what modesty is. "And again I returned," he says, "into Damascus" (1 Cor. 11:32 [cf. 2 Cor. 11:32]). Regarding this city, he relates that the prefect—to whom King Aretas delegated the care of his people—was guarding it, desiring to seize that blessed man. This, indeed, was the greatest proof that he was severely and forcefully driving the Jews. But he says nothing of these things here; and even there he was not about to mention them, but would have remained silent, had he not seen at that time that the history required it. If, therefore, even in saying here that he went and returned, he adds nothing further of the things that had happened there, it is because he had not yet arrived at the point of needing to speak of them.

18. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter.

19. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

20. Now the things which I write unto you, behold before God, that I lie not.

21. Then I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; after I had seen Peter.

22. For I was, he says, unknown by face unto the Churches of Judea: 23. only they had heard that he who persecuted us in times past now preaches...

what he had once ravaged. What could be more modest than this soul? For while he discoursed upon things that brought him accusation—such as that he had persecuted the Church and ravaged it—he set them forth with great emphasis, parading his former life; but those things that were to demonstrate him as glorious, these he passes over. And though he could, if he had wished, have recounted all his achievements, he sets down none of them, but with a single word having crossed an immense sea, and saying, "I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia," and that "they were hearing that he who persecuted us formerly now preaches the faith which he once ravaged," he added nothing more. ^B And what does his saying, "I was unknown to the churches of Judea," mean? That you may learn that he was so far from preaching circumcision to them, that he was not even known to them by sight. "And they glorified God in me." Observe here also his rule of humility, how he preserves it with precision. For he did not say, "They admired me, they praised me, they were astonished," but he showed the whole to be of grace. For they glorified God, he says, in me.

CAPUT II

1. Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation.

1. The cause of the first journey he says was Peter, and the visiting of him; but of the second, the revelation of the Spirit. "And I communicated to them the Gospel, which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run in vain." What are you saying, O Paul? You who in the beginning did not choose to communicate, nor even after three years, now, fourteen years having passed, do you communicate, lest you should run in vain? And how much better it would have been to do this immediately upon starting, rather than after so many years? ^C And why were you running, if you were not persuaded that you were not running in vain? Who is so foolish as to preach for so many years, not knowing if he preaches well? And the most perplexing part of this again is that he says he went up according to revelation. For this is more perplexing, as I have already said, than the former, yet it is sufficient to provide us with the solution to that as well. For if he had gone up on his own, even this would not have been reasonable; for it was not the nature of that blessed soul to have fallen into such folly; for he is the one who says, "So run I, not as uncertainly, so fight I, not as one that beateth the air" (1 Cor. 9:26). If then not uncertainly, how do you say, "Lest by any means I should run, or had run in vain"? From this it is clear, that even if he had gone up without a revelation, he would have suffered the fate of foolish men; nevertheless, it would not have been equally absurd; but when even the grace of the Spirit is drawing him, who will dare to suspect anything of the sort thereafter? For this reason he himself added "according to revelation," ^D that you might not, before the resolution of the question, judge him of any ignorance, knowing that what was happening was not a human affair, but a certain divine dispensation, looking far ahead to both present and future things. What then is the cause of this journey? Just as when he went up before from Antioch to Jerusalem, he did not go up for his own sake—he himself knew clearly that it was necessary to follow purely the dogmas of Christ—but because he wished to gather those who were at variance; so now also, he himself did not need to learn that he was not running in vain, but that those who were accusing him might be fully informed. Since they held a greater opinion of Peter and John, and thought they were at variance, because he was preaching without circumcision while they were permitting it, and they thought he was acting contrary to the law, and running in vain; I went up, he says, and communicated to them the Gospel, not that I myself might learn anything, which he says more clearly as he proceeds, but that I might teach those who were suspecting these things, that I do not run in vain. For the Spirit, foreseeing such contentiousness, caused him to go up and communicate. For this reason he says, "I went up according to revelation," and he took Barnabas and Titus as witnesses who would be future witnesses of his preaching. "And I communicated to them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles," that is, that which is without circumcision; "but privately to them which were of reputation." What does he mean? Privately? And yet, he who is zealous to correct common dogmas does not set these forth "privately," but publicly. But Paul is not so; for he did not wish to learn and correct, but to remove the excuse of those who were wishing to deceive. But because in Jerusalem all were offended if anyone transgressed the law, if anyone hindered the use of circumcision; therefore it was said, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are of them which believe; and they all are informed of you, that you teach apostasy from the law" (Act. 21:20-21); because therefore they were offended, he did not endure to lay forth to the public and reveal his own preaching; but privately he communicated to those of reputation in the presence of Barnabas and Titus, that these might become credible witnesses to those who were accusing him, that it did not seem contrary even to the apostles, but they confirm such preaching. When he says, "to them which were of reputation," he does not mean this as if to deny that those were great; because he also says of himself, "I think also that I have the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. 7:40), as one using restraint, not as denying that he has it. So also here. "To them which were of reputation," he says, speaking with his own voice the common vote of all. "But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised." What is, "being a Greek"? He was from the Greeks, he says, and uncircumcised. For not only did I preach in this way, but Titus also acted in this way, and the apostles did not compel him, though he was uncircumcised, to be circumcised. Which result

^A served as the greatest proof that they did not condemn what was said and done by Paul. And what is much greater than this, while the adversaries were pressing and they knew these things, not even thus were the apostles driven by them to command him to be circumcised: which Paul himself declares, saying, “because of the false brothers brought in.” There is no small question here. For if the apostles permitted circumcision here, why do you now call those “false brothers” who themselves, in accordance with the judgment of the apostles, were commanding this to be done? First, because it is not the same to command that a thing be done and to permit what is being done. For he who commands does so with zeal as if the matter were necessary and essential; but he who, while not commanding, yet does not forbid one who wishes to do it, does not grant it as a necessary matter, but fulfills a certain dispensation—a kind of thing which Paul wrote to the Corinthians regarding the congress ^B of men with wives. He subjoined, “But I say this by way of concession, not of command” [1 Cor. VII, 6], because this judgment was not brought forward by authority, but as an indulgence toward their incontinence; therefore he says, “Because of your incontinence” [ibid. 5]. For if you wish to know the judgment of Paul, hear what he says: “I want all men to be as I am” [ibid. 7], in continence. It is the same here: the apostles were not granting this as defenders of the law, but yielding to Jewish infirmity. Otherwise, if they had wished to defend the law, they would not have preached in one way to the Jews and another to the Gentiles. And if the matter were such that it was necessarily to be observed by the unfaithful, it is manifest that it ought to have been observed by all the faithful as well. Conversely, if it was decreed that no one should be troubled regarding these things among the Gentiles, they sufficiently declared that they permitted this by way of yielding to the Jews.

But the false brothers did not act in this way, but so as to cast them out ^C of grace and drag them back under the yoke of slavery. This, therefore, is the first distinction between the apostles and the false brothers, separating them by a long interval. The second was that the apostles were doing this in Judea, where the law was in force, whereas the false brothers were doing this everywhere; for they had reached all the Galatians. Whence it is clear that the matter was not done for the sake of edification, but to subvert the whole business. In one way the observance of the law was granted by the apostles; in another way it was zealously pursued by the false brothers, who “sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus.” Do you see how by the appellation of spies he expressed their hostility? For spies enter for no other purpose than that, having known the affairs of their adversaries, they might prepare for themselves the most easy approach for conquering and capturing; just as those men were doing then, studying to drag them back into ancient servitude. Whence it is clear even from this that the purpose ^D of the apostles and of these men was not the same, but was entirely contrary. For the former were conceding so as to gradually withdraw them from slavery; the latter, on the contrary, were plotting this, so as to drag them into a more severe slavery. And therefore they were watching, looking around attentively and inquiring curiously as to who had the foreskin, which Paul also declares, saying, “They sneaked in to spy out our liberty.” He demonstrated their treachery not only by the word “spies,” but also from the fact that they had entered privately and smuggled themselves in. “To whom we yielded for no time by subjection.” See the nobility and force of the language. He did not say, “We yielded in word,” but “by subjection.” For they were not doing this to teach anything fruitful, but to subdue them and drag them into slavery. Therefore we yielded to the apostles, but we did not yield to these men at all. “That the truth of the Gospel might remain with you.” That, he says, we might confirm by deeds what we had previously preached in words, namely, that “the old things have passed away, and all things have become new” [2 Cor. V, 17]: and that “if any one is in Christ, he is a new creature”; and that “to those who are circumcised, Christ will be of no profit” [Gal. VI, 15 and III, 2]. Confirming this truth, we yielded for no time. But since those things which the apostles were doing immediately stood in the way, and it was likely that some would say, “How is it then that those men command these things?” see how wisely he solves the objection. For he does not explain the true cause—namely, that the apostles were doing this to conform themselves and yield to the Jews—otherwise they would have been offended upon hearing it. For it is necessary that those to whom some fruit is to return from a dispensation should be ignorant of its cause; for if the cause of those things which are done is revealed, the entire utility will have perished. Wherefore it behooves him who employs the dispensation to know the cause of those things which are performed; but it behooves those to whom the dispensation is to be beneficial [alt-version omitted] to be ignorant of it. And that what I say may be more clear, we shall take an example from this very argument. This same blessed Paul, who abolishes circumcision, when he was about to send Timothy to teach the Jews, first circumcised him [Acts XVI], and thus sent him.

But he was doing this so that he might be more acceptable as a teacher to the listeners, and he entered with circumcision, that he might abolish circumcision. And he himself, with Timothy, knew the cause of this act; but he did not reveal it to the disciples. For if they had known that he had circumcised him with the intention that he might abolish circumcision, they would not have listened to Timothy preaching at all, and all the gain and utility would have perished; but now this ignorance brought them the greatest utility. For while they think he is doing this from a zeal to observe the law, they welcome both the teacher himself and his doctrine with benevolent minds. Having received it, and being gradually instructed, they withdrew from their former customs, which would by no means have happened if they had known the cause at the beginning. For if they had known, they would have turned away from him; and turning away, they would not have listened at all; if they had not listened, they would have remained in their former error. That this might not happen, he did not reveal the cause. Therefore, not even here did he reveal the cause of the dispensation, but approaches the matter by another way, speaking thus: “From those, however, who were seen to be something; whatever they were at one time, it makes no [difference]”

^A God accepts no man's person. Here, he not only does not apologize for the apostles but even presses the saints severely, that he might profit the infirm. And what he says is this: Even if those men permit circumcision, they themselves will render an account to God. For not because they are great and are leaders will God accept their person. He did not, however, say this clearly, but sparingly; for he did not say, “If those men muddy the preaching and preach beyond what was commanded, they will suffer the ultimate judgment and undergo punishment.” He said nothing of this, but seems to attack them more reverently, saying thus: “From those who were seen to be something, whatever they were at one time.” And he did not say, “Whatever they are at one time,” but “were,” showing that they themselves had by now ceased to preach in this way, since the preaching had shone forth everywhere. But as to “Whatever they were at one time,” he says: If they preached so, they will render an account. For they are to render an account not to men, but to God.

3. He said these things not as if doubting or as one ignorant of their disposition, but, as I said before, thinking it advantageous to manage the discourse in this way. Then, that he might not appear to accuse them as having an opposing position, and from this construct a suspicion of strife, he immediately added the correction, saying that “to me those who were seen [to be something] imparted nothing.” What is this? What you say, he says, I do not know; but this I know clearly, that they were not opposed to me, but even agreed and concurred; for the [phrase] “they gave right hands,” is indicative of this. But for the time being he does not say this, but that they did not teach, did not correct, did not add anything more than what I knew. “For to me,” he says, “those who were seen to be something imparted nothing.” That is: Learning my views, they added nothing, they corrected nothing, and this knowing that I came for this very reason, that I might communicate with them; and I came by revelation of the Spirit, that I might communicate with them, and I held Titus, uncircumcised, with me; they neither said anything more to me than what I knew, nor did they circumcise him. But the contrary. What is, “the contrary”? Some say he says this himself, that not only did they not teach him, but they were even taught by him; but I would not say this. For what more were they to learn from him? For each of them was perfect. Therefore he does not wish to say this by saying “the contrary,” but that not only did they not rebuke, but they were so far from finding fault that they even praised; for the contrary of finding fault is to praise. Then since it was likely that some would object, “If they praised, how then did they not abolish the circumcision? For if they praised, it was necessary to abolish it”; he thought it to be too shameless to say that they abolished it, and to introduce an obvious conflict against things that were agreed upon; and again, by admitting the concession of circumcision, to fall into necessity of another objection—for this was a difficulty ^B. For if they praised your preaching, he says, and they themselves again permitted circumcision, they were fighting against themselves. What then is the solution to this? It was to say that they were doing these things for the sake of Jewish accommodation; but by saying this he would have shaken the whole foundation of the economy. Therefore he does not say this, but leaves it in doubt and suspense, saying: “From those who were seen to be something, it makes no difference to me,” as if he were saying: I do not accuse, nor do I slander those saints; they themselves know what they were doing; for they are to render an account to God; but the thing studied by me is to show that they did not destroy my works, nor correct them, nor add anything as wanting in them, but even praised and concurred; and of these I have as witnesses both Titus and Barnabas. Wherefore he adds, saying: “Seeing that I have been entrusted with the Gospel of the uncircumcision, as Peter with that of the circumcision”—not calling the things themselves circumcision and uncircumcision, but the nations known by these things. He therefore added: “For he who worked in Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision, worked also in me for the gentiles.” As therefore he calls the nations uncircumcision, so also the Jews circumcision. And he shows himself to be from then on their equal, and he compares himself not to the others, but to the chief, showing that each enjoyed the same dignity. For since he had constructed the proof concerning their concord, he henceforth speaks with confidence, and no longer stops at the apostles only, but carries up the discourse to Christ, and the grace given to him by Him; and he calls the apostles as witnesses of these things, and says: that “Recognizing the grace of the Lord given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were seen to be pillars, gave right hands of fellowship to me and Barnabas.” And he did not say that hearing, but “recognizing,” that is, having understood through the very things themselves, they gave right hands of fellowship to me and Barnabas. See how by degrees he showed that this was pleasing to Christ also, and to the apostles? For neither would it have been given, nor would the grace have worked, if such a preaching were not pleasing to Him. And where he had to compare himself, he mentions Peter alone; but where he had to call testimony, [he cites] the three together, and with an encomium, saying, “Cephas and James and John, who were seen to be pillars.” And again, not by abolishing the being, he says “those who were seen,” but by taking also the opinion of the others, and saying that those great and excellent ones, and whom all everywhere mention, these are witnesses of the things said, that these things please Christ also, and that they learned these things through the facts, and through experience itself they were confirmed. Wherefore also they gave right hands to me, and not to me only, but also to Barnabas, that we [might go] to the gentiles, they however to the circumcision. O excess of wisdom, and indubitable proof of agreement! For he shows both their things to be his, and his things to be theirs. For He [God] will give these to both.

Paul’s Prudence

^B preached to the Jews in this way, and he to the Gentiles; and therefore he added, "That we indeed for the Gentiles, but they for the circumcision." You see how, here too, he calls not the thing itself the circumcision, but the Jews? For whenever he speaks of the thing itself, and sets it in contrast, he calls it uncircumcision, as when he says, "Circumcision indeed profits if you observe the law; but if you be a transgressor of the law, your circumcision is made uncircumcision" (Rom. 2.25); and again, "Neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision" (Gal. 5.6). But when he speaks of the Jews in this way, he does not wish the thing to be understood, but the people. He does not contrast the uncircumcision, but the Gentiles. For the Jews are distinguished from the Gentiles, and from the circumcision is the uncircumcision; just as when he said above, "He who worked for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision, worked also for me among the Gentiles," and here again, "We to the Gentiles, but they to the circumcision," he calls not the thing itself, but the people of the Jews, thus distinguishing them from the Gentiles.

10. "Only that we should remember the poor, which same thing I also studied to do." He says that we divided the world among ourselves by a compact; and I, indeed, received those who are from the Gentiles, but they received the Jews according to the good pleasure of God; but as to the care of the poor who were among the Jews, I contributed what was in my own power with them. But if there had been war and contention, they would by no means have accepted this. Who, moreover, were these poor? Most of the Jews who had believed in Palestine had been stripped of all their property, and were living in exile scattered through all regions. This he also wrote in the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying: "For you took with joy the plundering of your goods" (Heb. 10.34). The same he declares in writing to the Thessalonians, praising their fortitude: "For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea; for you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews" (1 Thess. 2.14). And he shows in all ways that those who had believed from the Gentiles were not persecuted in the same way by the Greeks by which those who had believed from the Jews were harassed by the men of their own race—for this nation was crueller than all others. Therefore they bear their care with the utmost solicitude, and on this account he writes concerning it both to the Romans and to the Corinthians. And he not only collects money, but he himself also carries it and distributes it (1 Cor. 16), and says: "But now I go to Jerusalem, ministering to the saints" (Rom. 15.25). For they were in need of the necessities for their livelihood. Therefore, what he signifies here is this: In this matter I thought it my duty to help them, which I also undertook, and did not cease. But after he shows his concord and agreement with the apostles in these things, he is forced to make mention of the discussion held with Peter at Antioch, saying:

11. "But when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12. For before certain ones came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision."

On the Disputation of Paul with Peter

Many who read this place in the Epistle with too little attention think that Peter is accused by Paul of simulation; but the matter is not so. Far from it! For we discover here the great prudence of both Peter and Paul, applied covertly so as to benefit the hearers. But we must first speak of the confidence of Peter, and how he always leapt before the rest of the disciples; for from this he obtained his surname on account of his immutable and immovable faith. For when all were questioned, he leapt before the rest, saying: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16.16). And he was entrusted with the keys of heaven. And on the mountain he alone appeared to speak. To these things, when there was talk of the cross, while others were silent, he himself said: "God be merciful to you" (Ibid. v. 22). And although these words were not those of a circumspect mind, they were nevertheless those of ardent love. And in all other things we shall see him more fervent than others and pressing forward into dangers. Thus, when the Lord was seen on the shore, while others were dragging the boat, he himself could not wait to arrive by ship. And after the resurrection, with the Jews breathing slaughter and raging, and seeking to tear the disciples apart, he, stepping forward first, dared to raise his voice and say that He who was crucified was assumed into heaven. But it is one thing to open a closed door and give a beginning to a matter; it is another to act confidently thereafter. So he who had exposed his own soul to so numerous a people, how could he ever have simulated? He who had been scourged, who had been bound, had wished to resign nothing of his confidence, and that at the very beginning of the preaching, in the middle of the metropolis, where there was so much peril: how, after so much time at Antioch, where there was no danger, when he had already been tested and seen to be accepted by the very facts, could he have feared those who had believed from the Jews? He who had not feared the Jews themselves both at the beginning and in the metropolis—how, after so much time, when he was in a foreign city, could he have feared those who had defected from them? Paul, therefore, does not speak against Peter in saying these things, but with the same counsel with which he had said that: "From those, however, who seemed to be somewhat, whatever they were, it makes no difference to me": with that same counsel he speaks these things too. But that we may not doubt for too long concerning these matters, it is necessary to explain the cause of what has been said. For the apostles, as I said, were indeed permitting the circumcision at Jerusalem; for they could not suddenly remove it from the law; but when they had come to Antioch, they were no longer observing any of these things, but were living indifferently with those who had believed from the Gentiles; which indeed Peter was then doing. But when those had come from the city of Jerusalem who had seen him preaching there in that way, he was no longer doing this, fearing lest he should offend them, but he withdrew, here managing two things by dispensation: one, that he might not offend those who were of the Jews; the other, that he might provide Paul with a just occasion for rebuking him. For

if he himself, who had preached among the Jews with circumcision, had changed his practice at Antioch, it would have seemed to those from Judea that he was acting out of fear of Paul, and the disciples would have harshly condemned his weakness; and this was likely to become no small scandal. To Paul, however, who knew all things clearly, a change would not have provided such a suspicion; for he knew the intention with which this was being done. Hence Paul rebukes, and Peter submits, so that while the teacher is being rebuked and is silent, the disciples might the more easily change their minds. For if, without any such occurrence, Paul had exhorted them, he would have accomplished nothing great; but now, having taken the opportunity for a more vigorous rebuke, he instilled in the disciples a greater fear of Peter. And indeed, if Peter, on hearing this, had disputed it, one might justly have blamed him for overturning the dispensation; but as it is, with the one rebuking and the other being silent, a great fear arose among those from Judea: wherefore he also uses Peter vigorously.

5. And observe with what precision he uses his speech, giving the intelligent to see that his movements were not those of a struggle, but of a dispensation. For when he came to Antioch, he says, ^A I withstood him to the face, because he was to be condemned. He did not say, "by me," but, "by others." And if he himself was condemning him, he would not have refrained from saying that, too. And the phrase, "I withstood him to the face," was a manner of speaking. For if they were truly fighting, they would not have rebuked one another in the presence of their disciples; for they would have greatly scandalized them; but as it is, the struggle acted out in public was beneficial. And as Paul yielded to them at Jerusalem, so they also [did] at Antioch. What then is the condemnation? Before some came from James (for he was the teacher at Jerusalem) he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they arrived, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision; not fearing this, that he might be in danger; for the one who did not fear at the beginning, would much less have done so then; but that they might not fall away. Since he himself tells the Galatians, "I am afraid for you, lest I have labored in vain"; and again, "I am afraid lest, as the serpent deceived Eve, so your thoughts might be corrupted." For to them the fear of death was nothing, but the fear of the loss of their disciples greatly shook their soul. ^B So that Barnabas also was carried away by their hypocrisy. Do not wonder if he calls the matter hypocrisy; for he does not want, as I said before, to reveal the intention, so that they might be corrected. Because they were tenaciously clinging to the Law, for this reason he calls what was happening hypocrisy, and rebukes it severely, so that he might uproot their preconception. And hearing this, Peter joins in the pretense, as if he were sinning, so that by the rebuke directed at him they might be corrected. For if Paul had rebuked those from Judea, they would have been indignant and rejected it; for they did not have a high opinion of him; but now, seeing their teacher rebuked and silent, they were unable to despise or gainsay what was being said. But that they saw that they were ^C not walking uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel. Let not this phrase disturb you either; for he does not say this to condemn Peter, but he so characterizes the expression as was profitable for those to hear who were to become better through the rebuke of Peter. "I said to Peter before all." Do you see how he corrects the others? For it was "before all" so that even they, hearing it, might fear. "What did you say, tell me?" "If you, being a Jew, live like a Gentile, and not like a Jew, why do you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" And yet, it was not the Gentiles who were carried away with him, but the Jews; why then do you accuse [him] of what did not happen? And why do you not turn the discourse upon those who were pretending, those from Judea, but upon the Gentiles? And why do you accuse Peter alone, if the rest also joined in his hypocrisy? But let us see what it is he accuses him of. "If you, being a Jew, live like a Gentile, and not like a Jew, why do you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" And yet, he alone was withdrawing; if then, what does he wish to construct? To make the rebuke unsuspected. For if he had said, "You do ill to keep the Law," those from Judea would have rebuked him as being bold against their teacher; but now, by accusing him on behalf of his own disciples—I mean those from the Gentiles—he makes the word acceptable in this way; and not in this way only, but also by removing the rebuke from all others, and focusing it entirely upon the Apostle. For, "If you," he says, "being a Jew, live like a Gentile, and not like a Jew" —meaning almost explicitly, "Imitate your teacher, because he himself, being a Jew, lives like a Gentile." But he does not say it that way; for they would not have received the exhortation; but under the pretext of a rebuke on behalf of the Gentiles, he reveals Peter's mind. Again, if he had said, "Why do you compel those from Judea to live like Jews?" the discourse would have been harsher; but now, not as defending the Jewish disciples, but those from the Gentiles, he thus corrects them. For reproofs, when they are not overly burdensome, then they are most able to be found acceptable. For not even one of those from the Gentiles could have accused Paul, as he was making his speech on behalf of the Jews. He accomplished this entire matter by being silent and accepting the semblance of hypocrisy ^D that Peter took upon himself, so that he might free the Jews from the true [sin of] hypocrisy. Therefore, in the first place, he focused the issue on the person of Peter, saying, "If you, being a Jew..." but proceeding further he makes the matter general, including himself as well, and so saying: "We are by nature Jews, and not sinners from the Gentiles." And while the things said are an exhortation, the form of a rebuke surrounds it for the sake of those from Judea.

6. He does this elsewhere also; for while appearing to say one thing, he accomplishes another; as when writing to the Romans he says: "But now I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints." For he did not want to say this, and to teach them simply for what reason he was going to Jerusalem, but to bring them to a zeal for almsgiving.

^B "For it has pleased them," he says, "and they are their debtors" (Rom. 15:26, 27). And again, "For if the Gentiles have been made partakers in their spiritual things, they ought also to minister to them in carnal things" (Ibid.). See, therefore, how he presses the spirit of the Jews, constructing one thing out of another, and how he speaks with authority: "We," he says, "by nature Jews, and not sinners from the Gentiles" (Gal. 2:15). What is "by nature Jews"? Truly not proselytes, but those educated from their tenderest years in the law; having abandoned the manner of life in which we had been disciplined, we fled to the faith which is in Christ, not to the law, but only through faith in Jesus Christ; and we have believed in Christ. See how even here he speaks all things firmly. For he does not say, "We abandoned it as evil," but as "infirm." Proceeding thereafter, he declares not only that it is superfluous, but also dangerous; which is indeed most of all to be observed, that whereas at the beginning he said, "A man shall not be justified by the works of the law," as he progresses, he speaks more vehemently.

^C "For if, seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves are found sinners, then is Christ the minister of sin?" (Gal. 2:17). For if, he says, faith in him is of no avail to justify, but there is need again to embrace the law; and if, after we have abandoned the law for Christ's sake, we are neither justified by the omission of the law, but are condemned, we shall find him to be the cause of our condemnation, for whose sake we abandoned the law and surrendered ourselves of our own accord. Do you see into what necessity of absurdity he has forced the discourse, and how forcefully he fights? For if, he says, it was not right to abandon the law, and yet we abandoned it because of Christ, how are we to be judged? What then do you say to Peter, what do you admonish him, who knows these things more fully than all? Did not God show him that a man who has the foreskin is not to be judged for his lack of circumcision? Did he not, when disputing with the Jews regarding these matters, freely resist them by means of this vision? Did he not again send public decrees regarding these things from Jerusalem?

Against Christians observing legal rites.

18. "For if I build up again those things which I have destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." See Paul's prudence: they were striving to show that he who would not keep the law was a transgressor; he twists the discourse in the opposite direction, showing that he who keeps the law is a transgressor—a transgressor, I say, not only of the faith, but of the law itself. For "the things which I destroyed, these I build up again," namely the law. What he says, however, is this: The law has ceased, and this we have professed, and for this reason, having abandoned it, we have fled to the salvation which is of faith. So if we contend to establish it, by this very fact we are rendered transgressors, because we contend to keep what God has made obsolete. Next, he shows how it has been dissolved: 19. "For I through the law am dead to the law." This discourse has a twofold consideration: for either he speaks concerning the law of grace—for Paul is accustomed to call this law, as when he says: "The law of the spirit of life has freed me" (Rom. 8:2); or here he speaks of the old law

and shows that it was through the law itself that he died to the law. That is to say: The law itself led me to pay no more heed to it. If, therefore, I were to continue to heed it, I would be becoming a transgressor of it. How and in what manner? Moses says: "The Lord your God shall raise up for you a prophet from among your brethren, like me; to him you shall listen" (Deut. 18:15), speaking of Christ. So those who do not obey him are transgressing the law.

But this must also be understood in another way: "Through the law I have died to the law." For the law commands that all things written be done, and punishes him who does not do them. We are therefore all dead to it, for no one has fulfilled it. And observe how he conducts his struggle with it in a measured way here: for he did not say, "The law is dead to me," but, "I have died to the law." The meaning of this statement is: Just as it is impossible for one who is dead and deceased to obey the commands of the law, so it is impossible for me, who have died from that curse of the law; for it was by that very decree that I died. ^A Let it not, therefore, give orders to one who is dead—whom it itself has also slain, and not with a physical death only, but with a spiritual one, through which it also brought about the physical one. That this is what he means, he made clear in what follows.

For, "that I might live to God," he says, "I have been crucified with Christ." Since he said, "I have died," lest anyone ask, "How then do you live?" he added the cause of life, and showed that the law killed the living, but Christ, taking the dead, made them alive through death; and he shows the double miracle: that he both brought to life the dead, and through death bestowed life. And he calls death "life"—for this is what it means: "That I might live to God, I have been crucified with Christ." And how, one asks, is one who is living and breathing crucified? That Christ was crucified is clear; but how are you crucified and yet alive? Observe how he interprets even this, saying: "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." For by saying, "I have been crucified with Christ," he hinted at baptism; but by saying, "It is no longer I who live," he indicates the subsequent manner of life, through which our members are put to death.

^B And what is it, "Christ lives in me"? Nothing is done by me, he says, that Christ does not wish. For just as he means death not of the common kind, but that which is from sins, so too he means life, which is the removal of those sins; for it is not possible for anyone to live to God unless he has died to sin. Just as Christ therefore underwent physical death, so do I [undergo it] against sin. "For put to death your members that are on the earth," he says, "which are fornication, uncleanness, adultery" (Col. 3:5); and again he says, "Our old man was crucified" (Rom. 6:6); which is what took place in the washing. But after this, if you remain dead to sin, you live to God; but if you raise it up again, you have corrupted such a life. But Paul was not such a man; rather, he remained dead throughout. If, therefore, I live to God, he says, a life different from that in the law, and I have become dead to the law, I can no longer keep any of the law.

8. And observe the precision of his character, and admire with excess that blessed soul. For he did not say, "I live," but, "Christ lives in me." Who would dare to utter such a voice? Since he made himself compliant to Christ, and cast out all worldly things, and performed everything according to His will, he did not say, "I live for Christ," but, which was much more, "Christ lives in me." For just as sin, when it gains the mastery, is the one that lives, leading the soul wherever it wills; so, if it is dead and the things that please Christ are done, such a life is no longer human, ^C with Him living in us—that is, working and ruling.

Since he said, "I have been crucified," and, "I no longer live, but I have died," and it seemed hard for many to believe, he added: "But as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God." What has been said by me, he says, is concerning the intellectual life; but if anyone were to examine even this sensory life, even this has come about for me through faith in Christ. For as far as the old manner of life and the law were concerned, I was worthy of the extreme penalty, and would have perished long ago. "For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23), and Christ has freed us, who were lying under the sentence; for all have died—if not by experience, then by the verdict; and He released those expecting the blow. Because the law accused, and God pronounced judgment, Christ having come and given Himself to death, snatched us all from death.

So then, "As I now live in the flesh, I live by faith." For if this were not so, nothing would have prevented all from being destroyed—which happened in the flood; but the presence of Christ, having stayed the wrath of God, made us live through faith. That this is what he means, listen to the following: for having said, "But as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith," he added, ^D "in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me." What are you doing, O Paul, appropriating common things and laying claim to what was done for the inhabited world? For he did not say, "who loved us," but, "who loved me." And yet the Evangelist says, "God so loved the world" (John 3:16); and you yourself say, "He who did not spare His own Son, but gave Him up, not for you, but for all" (Rom. 8:32); and again, "That He might acquire for Himself a peculiar people" (Tit. 2:14).

What then is this that he says here? Having contemplated the desperation of human nature, and the inexpressible care of Christ, and from what He delivered and what He bestowed, and being inflamed by the desire for Him, he cries out in this way. Since the prophets also [idx: entries preserved]

CAPUT III

^A ...through such a dispensation, in that not all had approached: but just as in the Gospel, the feast is readied for all, yet since those who were called would not come, he did not remove what had been prepared, but called others (Luc. 14. 16): in the same way he acts here. For notice how [Christ] treated even those who would not come, just as he acted regarding the sheep that had been separated and brought back (though there was but one, yet he did not despise even it). ^B In this same way Paul, discoursing about the Jews, signifies as much, saying: "What if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid! Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Rom. 3. 3, 4). Since he then has loved you so, that he even delivered himself up, and brought you who were destitute of every hope of salvation to such and such a life: will you, after receiving so many good things, run back again to the old ones? ^C After he has therefore carefully inserted what was to be treated by reason, he finally declares it vehemently, saying: "I do not set aside the grace of God." Let those hear this, who even in these times Judaize and attend to the law; for to them these things are said. For if righteousness is through the law, then truly Christ died in vain. What is more grievous than this sin? What is1 more effective than these words for striking shame? For if Christ died, it is certainly because the law could not justify us. But if the law justifies, Christ's death is superfluous. And how can this seem agreeable to reason, to call such a thing, so tremendous, and transcending all human thought—so ineffable a mystery, which the patriarchs labored with, which the prophets foretold, which angels seeing were astonished at, which it is agreed among all is the head of the divine solicitude toward us—to call this done in vain and to no purpose? ^D Therefore, when he considered the striking absurdity, if they said that such and such a thing had been done superfluously (for this he gathered from what they were doing), he rebukes them with reproaches, saying:

CAPUT III

"O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you? before whose eyes Jesus Christ has been written down, among you crucified."

1. Here he now passes to another chapter. In the earlier ones, he showed that he was not an apostle from men, nor through men, nor did he need the apostles' doctrine: but here, after having already declared himself a teacher worthy to be believed, he discourses with greater authority, making a comparison of faith and the law. Thus, therefore, in the beginning he says: "I marvel that you are so soon transferred" (Gal. 1. 6): but here, "O foolish Galatians!" For then he was laboring with indignation, which, when he had already answered for himself, he brought forth into the midst, now that the proof was established. But if he calls them fools, do not marvel; for he does not do this violating the law of Christ, which forbids one from calling his brother a fool (Matt. 5. 22), but by strictly observing it. For it was not simply said: "Whoever shall call his brother a fool," but, "Whoever shall call him so rashly." But some of these were worthy of this appellation, who, after so many and such things, were still lingering on the previous things, being circumvented. ^B But if for this cause you call Paul contumelious, you will also call Peter a murderer on account of Sapphira and Ananias (Acts 5). But if it be madness to say the latter, it will be much more madness to say the former. But you consider for me how he did not immediately at the beginning use this vehemence, but after so many refutations and so many proofs, when they were now receiving rebuke not from him, but from the arguments themselves. For when he had demonstrated that they were repelling the faith, that they were rendering Christ’s death superfluous, then he adds the rebuke, and not even that as they deserved; for they were worthy to be met with even more severe words. But consider for me that other point, how immediately, while inflicting the wound, he tempers the pain. For he did not say: "Who seduced you? Who abused you? Who circumvented you?" but, "Who has bewitched you?" so moderating the reprimand that it is not devoid of praise. ^C For these are the words of one indicating that they had previously done things worthy of envy, and that what happened was done by the devil's insult, who had violently resisted their successes. But when you hear "envy" here, and in the Gospel hear "the evil eye" (Matt. 6. 23) denoting the same: do not think that the glance of the eyes is accustomed to injure those whom it looks upon. The eye, that is, the member itself, can by no means be evil; but here Christ marks envy in this way. For it is the function of the eyes simply to see; but to see perversely belongs to an inwardly depraved mind. For since through this sense the consideration of things seen flows into our mind, and envy is mostly born of wealth; ^D and riches are seen by the eyes, just as are power and retinues: therefore he called it an evil eye, which would not look simply, but with spite and malice of mind. But when he says, "Who has bewitched you?" he declares that they were doing this not as having care, nor as supplying what was lacking; but rather as mutilating what there was. For it is the nature of spite, not to add what is missing, but even to take away something from the full, and to corrupt the whole. He says these things, not as if spite of itself has power, but to show that those who were teaching these things had come to this through envy. "Before whose eyes Jesus Christ was written down, among you crucified." And yet he was not crucified among the Galatians, but at Jerusalem. How then does he say, "Among you"? To show the strength of faith, which can see even things placed far away. Nor did he say, "He was crucified," but, "He was written down as crucified"; indicating that they saw [him] more exactly with the eyes of faith than some who had been present and looked upon what was happening. For many of those who had looked took no fruit from it; but these, though they had not seen with their very eyes, yet through faith had seen more evidently. This he says, both reproaching them and praising them; praising them, indeed, because they had received with such confidence that which

was done; reproaching them, because Him whom they had seen stripped naked for them, crucified, nailed to the cross, spat upon, mocked, given vinegar to drink, accused by thieves, pierced with a spear—for all these things he signified by saying, *Before whose eyes Jesus Christ was evidently set forth, crucified among you*—Him they had forsaken and run to the law, feeling no shame for those sufferings. ^A And you, observe with me how everywhere, leaving aside the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all other things, he preached the power of Christ, carrying the cross about with him. For this was indeed the chief chapter of the providence toward us. *This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?* Since, he says, you do not follow long discourses, nor do you wish to contemplate the magnitude of the dispensation, I wish by a brief speech and most rapid demonstration to persuade you, seeing your utter thanklessness. For above, he persuaded them by the things said to Peter, but here he strips himself for the contest against them, constructing his whole argument not from events that happened elsewhere, but from those that were happening within themselves, and convincing them no longer only from things commonly given, but also from those gifted to them privately; and thus he makes his demonstration. Therefore he says: *This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?* You received, he says, the Holy Spirit, you worked many powers, you performed signs, raising the dead, cleansing lepers, prophesying, speaking with tongues; did the law give you such great power as this? And yet, you used to do no such thing before. But did faith?

β. How, then, is it not the height of madness, having received such great benefits from faith, to abandon this, and desert to the law which provided no such thing for you? *Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?* Again, he opportunely brought in the reproach. For it was fitting, he says, that you should make an addition as time progressed, but not only did you not advance, but you were even carried back to the rear. For those who begin from small things, as they proceed, ascend to greater ones; but you, having begun from great things, have been carried down to the insignificant. For if, starting from carnal things, you were to advance to spiritual things, it would be logical; but now, having begun from spiritual things, you have ended in carnal things; for, to work signs is spiritual, but to be circumcised is carnal. ^B And you, after the signs, have come to circumcision; after having taken hold of the truth, you have fallen back to shadows; after looking upon the sun, you are seeking the lamp; after solid food, you are running to milk. And he did not say, "Are you made perfect in the flesh," but, *Are you made perfect by the flesh?* indicating that, like irrational cattle, they were captured, and those others were slaughtering them, while they gave themselves up to suffer whatever those wished. Just as if someone, from being a general and a hero after countless trophies and victories, were to surrender himself to the ignominy of deserters, offering his body to those who wished to brand it. *Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.* This is much more stinging than the former. For the remembrance of the signs could not so much [avail], as the display of their struggles and the endurance of their sufferings for Christ. All those things which you endured, he says, these men wish to make you forfeit, and to snatch away your crown. Then, so as not to shatter their soul and slacken their nerves, he did not stop at the verdict, but added: *if it be yet in vain.* For if you should wish, he says, to recover your senses and win yourselves back, it is not in vain. Where now are those who block out repentance? For behold, these both received the Spirit, and worked signs, and became confessors, having endured countless dangers and persecutions for Christ, and after such great achievements fell from grace. But yet, he says, if you wish, you can win yourselves back. ^C *He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles in you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?* You were counted worthy, he says, of such a gift, and performed such great wonders; was it because you kept the law, or because you kept the faith? It is clear that it was for the sake of faith. Since those men were twisting this up and down, and carrying it about, saying that faith has no power if the law is not added to it; he shows the contrary, that once the commandments are added, faith will no longer profit anything; for faith then is in force, when nothing is added from the law. *For as many as are of the works of the law,* he says, *are fallen from grace.* But this he says as he proceeds, when he also uses greater boldness, taking the occasion from things already constructed; for the time being, he constructs the argument from the past. For when, he says, you were not attending to the law, but to faith, then you received the Spirit and performed the signs. Then, since the argument was about the law, he enters upon another place most suited for the contest, bringing Abraham into the middle, and most opportunely, and with great abundance, saying: *As Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.* For he declares, he says, the power of faith, and the miracles that were done by you; but if you wish, I would persuade you also from ancient stories. Since there was much word of the patriarch among them, he brings him also into the middle, and shows that he too was justified in this way. ^D And if he who was before grace was justified by faith, although he too was within the works of the law, much more so you. For what was he harmed by not being under the law? Nothing, but faith sufficed for him for righteousness. For there was not any law then, he says. Nor is there any law now, just as there was not then. For the very reason he abolished the need for the law, he introduced him who was justified before the law, so that he might not receive this counter-argument. For just as then it was not yet given, so now, having been given, it has ceased. Then, since they were proud about having come from Abraham, and

^A this again he turns to the contrary, and dissolves the fear, showing that Paul is demonstrating that faith works for them even more than kinship. And this he had set forth more clearly to the Romans, yet no less does he work the same here, saying: 7. "Know therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." Next, he proves this very same point by the testimony of ancient Scripture. 8. "And the Scripture, foreseeing," he says, "that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed" (Gal. 3:8; Gen. 12:3). Therefore, if not those who have natural kinship with him, but those who have none with him but imitate his faith, are his children, it is manifest that the nations which have believed are grafted into this relationship; for that is what it means when it says: "In thee shall all nations be blessed."

^B Through these things he shows another great point. For since they were troubled by the fact that the Law was older, and faith was after the Law, he removes this suspicion from them also, showing that faith is older than the Law, and this is clear from Abraham; for before the Law appeared, he was justified. He shows that even the things now happening came about according to prophecy: "For the Scripture," he says, "foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, not through the Law, preached before the gospel unto Abraham." What then is this? He who gave the Law, he says, even before giving this Law, had decreed that the nations should be justified through faith. He did not say, "He revealed," but, "He preached the gospel," that you may learn that the patriarch rejoiced in this way of justification, and desired greatly for it to come to pass. ^C But since another fear also possessed them (for it was written: "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them" [Deut. 27:26]), he removes this fear, wisely and intelligently turning this again into the contrary, and showing that not only are they not cursed who abandon the Law, but that they are partakers of blessing, and that those who hold to the Law are so far from being blessed that they are even cursed. Indeed, others were saying: "Whoever does not keep the Law is cursed"; but he declares here that he who keeps it is cursed, and he who does not keep it is blessed. Again, they said, "He who relies on faith alone is accursed"; he conversely demonstrates that he who relies on faith alone is blessed. How then does he declare all these things? For we have promised nothing ordinary, therefore it is necessary to attend diligently to what follows. ^D He had indeed demonstrated this before, when he recounted that the Scripture had said to the patriarch: "In thee shall all nations be blessed." But at that time there was no law, but faith; and therefore, reasoning, he subjoined: 9. "So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham."

Moreover, lest they should take from this an opportunity for contradicting, and say: "By right he was justified by faith; for as yet there was no law; but you demonstrate to me after the law was given that faith justifies." To this he comes, and demonstrates even more than they seek, namely, not only that faith justifies, but also that the Law renders those who cling to it liable to the curse. That you may understand these things, hear the very words of the Apostle: 10. "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse." Yet this is but an assertion, not yet having its proof. What then is the proof? From the Law itself: "For it is written," he says, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." 11. "But that no man is justified in the law, it is evident." For all have sinned, and are under the curse. Yet he does not speak in this way, lest he seem to be pronouncing it of himself, but he proves the same thing again by testimony that briefly embraces both: the one, that no one has fulfilled the law, whence they were cursed; the other, that faith justifies. What then is the testimony? From the prophet Habakkuk, who speaks thus: "The just shall live by faith" (Hab. 2:4). For this shows not only that justification is by faith, but also that it is impossible for salvation to come through the law. After, he says, no one kept the law, but all were liable to the curse on account of transgression, a certain easier way was devised through faith; which is the greatest argument that no one can attain righteousness from the law. For the prophet did not say, "The just shall live from the law," but, "From faith." 12. "And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them." This is to say, the law requires not faith alone, but works also; whereas grace, through faith, saves and justifies. You see how he has demonstrated that those who cling to the law, because it cannot be fulfilled, were liable to the curse. But how does faith have this power to justify? For these things he had promised before, which he confirmed with great power. For since the Law was too weak to be able to lead a man to righteousness, a not insignificant remedy was found, namely, faith, which made that which was impossible for the Law possible through itself. Therefore, if the Scripture also says that the just shall live by faith, rejecting the righteousness which is by the law, and Abraham himself was justified by faith, it is manifest that the power of faith is great. But that he who has not persevered in the law is cursed, and he who relies on faith is just, is manifest. But from where, someone will ask, can you prove to us that that curse no longer persists? For Abraham indeed was before the law; but we, who once were under the yoke of slavery, have rendered ourselves liable to the curse. Who then is it that dissolves that curse? See how quickly he meets even this objection, although the things already said are sufficient. For one who is once justified, and has died to the law, and has embraced a new life, how can he be liable to the curse? Yet he is not content with these, but approaches the matter in other ways, writing: 13. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree" (Deut. 21:23).

But the people were liable to the curse, as it is said: "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." And what of this? For the people indeed were liable; for they had not persevered in the law, nor was there anyone who had fulfilled the entire law; but Christ exchanged this curse for another, which says: "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." Since, therefore, both he who hangs is cursed, and he who transgresses the law is also cursed, it was not fitting that he who was liable to that [original] curse...

instead of that one—such a one he received, and through it he destroyed that other. And just as when someone is condemned to die, another who is not liable chooses to die in his place, and rescues him from the punishment, so also did Christ. For since he was not subject to the curse of the transgression, Christ took that upon himself instead of the other, so as to destroy it. For he committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth.

4. Just as, therefore, by dying he rescued those who were about to die from death, so also by receiving the curse, he delivered them from the curse. "That the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles." How to the Gentiles? "In your seed," he says, "shall all the nations be blessed" (Gen. 22:18), that is, in Christ. But if this was said concerning the Jews, how could those who are liable to the curse because of the transgression be the cause of blessing for others? For no one who is cursed imparts to another a blessing of which he himself has been deprived. Hence it is clear that the whole thing was said concerning Christ; for he himself was the seed of Abraham, and through him the nations have been blessed, and thus the promise of the Spirit comes. This is what he himself, making it clear, said: "That they might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." For since it was not possible for the grace of the Spirit to come to one who was ungrateful and had offended, they are blessed first when the curse has been removed; then, having been justified through faith, they draw to themselves the grace of the Spirit. Thus, the cross destroyed the curse; faith introduced righteousness; and righteousness drew to itself the grace of the Spirit.

^A "Brothers, I speak after the manner of men: though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth it, or addeth thereto." What is, "I speak after the manner of men"? By human examples. Since he had already built up his argument from the Scriptures, from the miracles wrought among them, from what Christ suffered, and from the patriarch, he now proceeds to common custom. For it is his habit to always do this, so as to both sweeten his speech and to make it easily acceptable and more intelligible to the simpler folk. Thus, conversing with the Corinthians, he says: "Who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk? Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof?" (1 Cor. 9:7). And to the Hebrews again: "For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth" (Heb. 9:17). And in many places one may find him delighting in these kinds of arguments. For God, in the Old Testament, also does this continuously, saying: "Can a woman forget her sucking child?" (Isa. 49:15, 29:16). And again, "Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou?" And in Hosea, he mimics a husband despised by his wife (Hos. 1:2). And in the types also, one may see much of these human examples, as when the prophet takes the girdle, or descends into the house of the potter (Jer. 18:2). What then is the purpose of the example for him? That faith was older, while the law was newer and temporary, and for this reason it was given, that it might prepare the way for faith.

^B Therefore he says: "Brothers, I speak after the manner of men." Having called them foolish above, here he calls them brothers, at once rebuking and comforting them. "Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed." If a man, he says, makes a covenant, let no one dare to come afterward and overturn it, or add something; for this is what "or addeth thereto" means. Consequently, this is true much more in the case of God. And with whom did God make the covenant? "To Abraham," he says, "were the promises spoken, and to his seed." He does not say, "and to his seeds," as of many, but as of one, "and to thy seed, which is Christ." This I say, that the covenant confirmed before by God unto Christ, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, does not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Behold, therefore, God also made a covenant with Abraham, discoursing of the coming of the blessings to the Gentiles in his seed; how then can the law overturn these? Since the whole example was not sufficient to draw the meaning toward the subject, he therefore said beforehand: "I speak after the manner of men." Take nothing from the example for the majesty of God. But consider the example from the beginning: God promised to Abraham that through his seed the nations would be blessed; and his seed according to the flesh is Christ. Four hundred and thirty years later came the law. If therefore the law grants the blessings, and life, and righteousness, that promise is void. Then, if no one disannuls the covenant of a man, shall the covenant of God be disannulled after four hundred and thirty years? For if that which it promised, it does not give, but another does it instead, that promise is cast out. And how could these things have any reason?

^C Why then was the law given, he asks? "Because of transgressions." For not even this is superfluous. You see how he looks at everything? How he uses myriads of eyes? Because he had exalted faith and shown it to be older, lest anyone should think the law superfluous, he also corrects this part, showing that it was not given in vain, but very usefully: "Because of transgressions," that is, so that it might not be permitted to the Jews to live carelessly, and to slip into the abyss of wickedness, but that the law might be laid upon them as a bridle, educating, regulating, and preventing them from transgressing, if not all things, yet at least some of the commandments. Thus the profit of the law was not small. But until when? "Till the seed should come to whom the promise was made," speaking of Christ. If therefore it was given until the coming of Christ, why do you draw it further and beyond its time? "It was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." He either calls the priests angels, or he says that the angels themselves served the giving of the law. And he calls Christ the mediator here, showing that he existed beforehand, and that he himself gave the law. "Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one."

^A If, while one God is spoken of as Father, the Son is also God, it is clear that when the Father is called the only true God, the Son is also true God. But a mediator, he says, is a mediator of two parties. Of whom, therefore, was Christ the mediator? It is clear that he interceded between God and men. Do you see how he declares that he himself also gave the law? And if he gave the law, he also has the authority to abrogate it. "Is the law then against the promises of God?" For if the promises were given in the seed of Abraham, but the law introduces a curse, it is surely against the promises of God. How then does he solve the objection? First, he denies it, saying, "God forbid"; then he also proves it, speaking thus: "For if a law had been given which could give life, righteousness would have been by the law." What he says is this: If we had in the law the hope of life, and it had the power of our salvation, ^B perhaps you would speak rightly; but if it saves through faith, even if the law renders one cursed, you suffered no loss, since after faith came, it dissolved all things. For if the promise had been by the law, you would have rightly feared lest, being excluded from the law, you would be excluded at the same time from righteousness. But if the law was given for the purpose of shutting in all—that is, of convicting them and showing them their own sins—it not only does not prevent you from obtaining the promises, but it also contributes to attaining them. This, therefore, he meant when he said that the promise would be given through the faith of Jesus Christ to those who believe. For since the Jews did not even perceive their own sins, and not perceiving them, did not desire remission, he gave the law which would expose the wounds, so that they might require a physician. For what he said, "He shut in," is equivalent to saying, "He convicted and held those convicted in fear." Do you see that it was not only not given against the promises of God, but was even given for the sake of the promises? ^C For if the law had claimed this business for itself and had possessed the authority, these things would be said rightly; but if it runs to another, and does everything for his sake, how is it against the promises of God? For if the law had not been given, all would have fallen into malice, and no one of the Jews would have been about to listen to Christ; but now, having been given, the law provided these two good things: one, that it taught a moderate virtue to those who attended to it; another, that it persuaded them to acknowledge their own sins, which thing made them most ready to seek the Son. Therefore, those who did not believe the law, because they did not condemn their own sins, did not believe in Christ. And signifying this, he said: "For being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they were not subject to the righteousness of God" (Rom. X, 3). "We were kept shut up for the faith which was to be revealed to us." Do you see how clearly he declares what we have said? For what he said, "We were kept," and "Shut up," signifies nothing other than the protection afforded by the precepts of the law. For the law, like a certain wall, constrained them by fear, and through the law itself preserved them for the faith. ^D "Therefore, the law was our tutor unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." But a tutor does not oppose the schoolmaster, but assists him, restraining the youth from every vice, and rendering him fit through every study to receive the things which the schoolmaster hands down; but when he has reached a mature habit, the tutor departs. Therefore he says: "But when faith has come," which leads one to a perfect man, "we are no longer under a tutor." "For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus." If, therefore, the law is a tutor, and we were kept shut up under it, it does not oppose grace, but assists; but if, after grace has arrived, it persists in constraining, then it is an adversary. For if it shuts up those who ought to go out to it, then it corrupts our salvation. Just as if a lantern, which gave light in the night, were to forbid us to look at the sun once the day has risen, it would not perform its office, but would even harm us: so too, if the law were to stand in the way of those progressing to better things. Therefore, those who keep it now, they most of all traduce it; for in truth, the tutor even renders the youth ridiculous when, the time demanding that he depart, he retains him by himself. And therefore Paul says thus: "After faith has come, you are no longer under a tutor." Therefore, we are no longer under a tutor. "For you are all children of God." O the power of faith, and how he reveals it in the progress of the discourse! For first he showed that faith makes them children of the patriarch—"Know," he says, "that those who are of faith, these are the children of Abraham"—but now he demonstrates that they are children of God: "For you are all," he says, "children of God through faith which is in Christ Jesus"—through faith, not through the law. After these things, since the matter is great and admirable, he explains also the manner in which they become children of God. "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." And why did he not say, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have been born of God"? For this was appropriate for demonstrating that they were children. But he explains the matter in a more tremendous way. For if Christ is the Son of God, and thou hast put him on; when thou hast the Son in thee, and hast been transformed by likeness into him, thou hast been brought into the same kinship and one form. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ." Do you see the insatiable soul? For when he had said, "We have all been made children of God through faith," he does not stop his step here, but seeks to find something more, which can evidently demonstrate a closer conjunction toward Christ. And when he had said, "You have put on Christ," he is not content even with this saying, but explaining it, he proceeds beyond such a conjunction, and says, "And you are all one in Christ Jesus"; that is, you all have the same form, the same type, namely that of Christ. What could be more astonishing or reverend than these words? He who was previously a gentile or a Jew or a servant, now walks bearing a form—not of an angel, nor of an archangel, but of the Lord of all—representing Christ within himself.

you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. You see how he now demonstrates that what he had said before regarding the seed—that the blessings were given to him and to his seed—is fulfilled?

Chapter IV

^A1. *Now I say, that the heir, as long as he is a child, differs nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2. but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.* By "child," he does not here mean age, but disposition, showing that God indeed willed to grant these things from the beginning; but because we were still childish in our conduct, He allowed us to be under the elements of the world, that is, under new moons and sabbaths. For these days come to us from the course of the moon and the sun. ^B If, therefore, [men] even now lead you under the Law, they are doing nothing else but dragging you back in time into the childishness of a former age. Do you see how great a thing the observance of days is? It places the lord, the master of the house, the one who is lord of all, in the rank of a servant. *But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.* ^C He here sets forth two causes and *achievements* of the Incarnation—the removal of evils and the provision of good things—which it was possible for none but Him to accomplish. And what were these? To be freed from the curse of the Law, and to be brought into adoption. For "to redeem them that were under the law," he says, "and that we might receive the adoption of sons." He correctly said, "receive," indicating it was a debt. For he had promised it from above, just as he himself showed through many [prophets] that these promises had been made to Abraham. And whence is it evident, he says, that we have become sons? ^D He states one way: that we have put on Christ, who is the Son; he states a second: that we have received the Spirit of adoption. *And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.* For we could not have called Him Father if we had not first been made sons. If, therefore, grace made us free instead of slaves, perfect instead of children, and heirs instead of aliens and sons, how is it not absurd and the height of ingratitude to abandon this, and to turn back? *But then indeed, not knowing God, you served those which by nature are no gods; but now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?* ^A Here, addressing those who had believed from among the Gentiles, he says that such an observance of the keeping of days is akin to idolatry, and that it now brings greater punishment. Therefore he called the elements "gods," not by nature, intending to show this himself and to cast them into greater anxiety. What he says is of this sort: "At that time, being darkened and living in error, you were dragged about on the ground; but now that you have known God, or rather have been known by Him, how will you not draw upon yourselves a greater and more grievous punishment, returning to the same things after such great care? ^B For you did not find God by your own labors, but you were continuing in error, and He Himself drew you to Himself." He calls the elements "weak and beggarly" because they have no power for the good things set before us. *You observe days, and months, and times, and years.* From this it is evident that those [false teachers] were preaching to them not only circumcision, but also the feasts and new moons. *I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain.* Do you see the apostolic heart? They were being shaken, and he trembles and is afraid. Therefore he has set it forth very shamefully by saying, "I have labored for you," as if he were to say, "Do not render my labors void." ^C But by saying "I am afraid," and adding "lest," he cast them into a struggle and led them to good hopes. For he did not say, "I have labored in vain," but "lest." "As yet," he says, "this shipwreck has not occurred, but I see that you are still in labor with this storm. For this reason I fear, yet I do not despair; for it is in your power to correct the whole thing and to return to your former calm." Then, stretching out a hand as if to those in a storm, he leads himself into the middle, saying: *Be as I am; for I am as you are.* These words are to those from among the Jews. Therefore he leads himself into the middle, persuading them also from this to depart from the old things. ^D For if you had no other example, it would have sufficed to look at me alone for the sake of this change, and to be readily confident. Examine it, then; for I too endured these things of old, and I was exceedingly zealous for the Law; yet, nevertheless, afterwards I was not afraid to abandon the Law, nor to depart from that way of life. And you know this clearly, how with much excess I clung to Judaism, and how with even greater intensity I left it afterwards. And he has correctly set this forth later. For the majority of men, even if they find ten thousand logical arguments, and just ones at that, are drawn more by what is homogeneous, and when they see one doing the same things, they cling more to the same things themselves. *Brethren, I beseech you, do not wrong me.* See how he again addresses them by the name of honor; the same was also a reminder of grace. Since he had spoken very sharply against them, and had compared the situations from every side, and had shown them to be acting lawlessly and had cast them into distress from many sides, he again relaxes and restores them, using milder language. For just as continuous coddling slackens the resolve, so is it too harsh to be constantly reproved at length. Therefore it is good to use moderation everywhere. See, then, how he makes an apology to them on behalf of the things said, showing that he was not simply disaffected.

^A Since he has made the incision deeper, he pours in this consolation like oil; and, declaring that the things said did not proceed from hatred or enmity, he reminds them of the affection he had shown them, and mixes praise with his apology. *You know that because of the weakness of my flesh I preached the gospel to you before; and you did not despise my temptation which was in my flesh.* But this is not yet a great matter, to have injured no one; for even an ordinary man would not wish to injure one who has done him no wrong, nor to be troublesome in vain and without cause. But you not only did not injure me, you even showed much and inexpressible benevolence; and it is impossible that to those for whom he had such great care, he would speak these things out of malevolence. I do not, therefore, speak these things out of enmity, but out of affection and solicitude. I beseech you, you have injured me in nothing. *You know, however, that because of the weakness of my flesh I preached the gospel to you.* ^B How gentle is Paul. There is nothing more gentle, nothing sweeter, nothing more affectionate than that blessed soul. Thus, those earlier things did not proceed from uncontrolled anger or perturbation of mind, but from an abundance of solicitude. And what I do say, "You have not injured me"? You even showed much and sincere solicitude toward me. For you know, he says, that because of the weakness of my flesh I preached the gospel to you, and you did not despise or reject the temptation that was in my flesh. What then is it that he says? I was driven, he says, I was scourged, I endured countless deaths preaching to you, and not even so did you despise me: for this he implies by saying: *The temptation which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject.* Do you see his spiritual prudence? In the very purgation, he brings shame upon them, showing how much he suffered for their sake. And yet, he says, none of these things was an obstacle to you, nor were you repulsed by my afflictions and persecutions: for this is what he calls weakness and temptation. *But you received me as an angel of God.* Is it not, then, absurd for those who are agitated by persecutions and driven into exile to be received as an angel of God, while the one who is admonishing and urging them toward what is profitable is not received? ^C *Where then is your blessedness? For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes and given them to me.* *So then, have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?* Here he is at a loss and greatly wonders, and desires to learn from them the cause of the change. For who, he says, seduced you and persuaded you to be otherwise affected toward us? Are you not the ones who were serving me, who were caring for me, who held me dearer than your own eyes? What, then, has happened? Whence the enmity? Whence the suspicion? Is it because I told you the truth? And yet for that very reason it was fitting that you should have held me in higher honor and pursued me with greater zeal; but now I have become your enemy, by telling you the truth. For I, he says, know no other cause than that I spoke the truth to you. And see with what humility he excuses himself. For he does not reason from the services that he himself had conferred upon them, but from those they had rendered unto him, to show that it is impossible that these things should be said out of malevolence. For he did not speak thus: "And how can it be that one who was scourged for your sake, driven out, and suffered countless evils, would now plot against you?" But he gathers arguments from those things which they could boast of, saying: "How is it possible that he who has been so honored by you, who was received as an angel, could render the opposite?" ^D *They zealously court you, but not well; they wish to exclude you, so that you may court them.* For there is a good zeal when one so zealously pursues virtue; there is also an evil zeal, when one does things to drive another away from virtue; which this is indeed what they now attempt, endeavoring to push you away from perfect knowledge, and to lead you to a mutilated and spurious one, for no other reason than that they themselves may sit in the place of teachers, and place you, who are now more sublime than they, in the class of disciples. For this he declared by saying, *so that you may court them.* I, he says, desire the contrary, that you should surpass them and become an example to the more perfect. Which indeed happened when I was with you; and therefore he added: *when I am present with you.* Here he notes his absence as the cause of this evil, and that it is the mark of a blessed soul, that disciples should have the mind they ought to have not only when the master is present, but also when he is absent. But since they had not yet arrived at this perfection, he does everything to instruct them in it. *My little children, whom I am again laboring over, until Christ is formed in you.* See him moved, see him troubled! My brethren, I beseech you: *My little children, whom I am again laboring over.* He recalls a mother trembling for her children. *Until Christ is formed in you.* Do you see a father's heart? Do you see an anxiety worthy of an apostle? Do you see what kind of cry he emits, much sadder than those accustomed to childbearing? You have corrupted, he says, the image, lost the kinship, changed the form; there is need for you to be reborn and to be refashioned; and yet I call you children, though you are like an abortive fetus. But he does not speak in this manner, but otherwise: for he spares them and does not wish to strike, nor to add wounds to wounds; but just as learned physicians do not cure those who have fallen into long sickness all at once, but at intervals, lest they lose heart and perish; so too this blessed one. For these birth pangs are all the sharper because the affection of love was greater, and the sin was not an ordinary one, that some small transgression should have disfigured the face and form of things. *I would like to be present with you now, and to change my voice.* Consider for me one who is not self-controlled, consider the fervent one, consider one not able to bear such things. Such is, indeed, the nature of love: it is not content with words, but seeks presence over and above them. *That I may change my voice*, he says. This is, that I may turn it into weeping, that I may move to tears, so that at the same time I might draw everyone to lamentation. For by letter it was not possible to show tears, which is a groaning; and hence he burns, desiring presence. *Because I am confused about you.* For I have, he says, no...

what shall I say, what shall I think? Whence comes it that you, who had ascended to the very heights of heaven, and by the signs you displayed through your faith, have now suddenly been brought down to such a state of imperfection as to be dragged toward circumcision and the sabbaths, and to hang upon the opinions of the Judaizers? For this cause, he also says at the beginning: "I marvel that you are so quickly shifting," and here: "I am perplexed about you," ^A as if he were to say: "What am I to say? What am I to speak? What am I to think? I am at a loss." Hence also there is a need to lament, which the prophets also do in hopeless situations. This is not a small form of therapy—not only to counsel, but also to mourn. For this too he said when speaking to the Milesians: "For three years I ceased not to admonish you with tears" (Acts 20:31). This is what he says here also, saying: "To change my voice." For in straits and in difficulties that happen beyond expectation, being overcome, we turn at last to tears. Since, therefore, he has rebuked and shamed them, and has then again applied healing, he has lamented; and this lamentation is not only of rebuke, but also of cajolery. For it neither hardens, as rebuke does, nor does it relax, like the healing, but it is a mingled remedy and has great power for exhortation. Since, therefore, he has lamented and softened their minds, and drawn them to himself all the more, he enters again into the struggles, placing a greater head ^B of argument, showing that the law itself does not wish to be kept. Then, indeed, he brought the example from Abraham, but now he brings in the law itself, exhorting them not to keep it, but to depart from it—which was more powerful. So that if you wish to be obedient to the law, he says, depart from it; for this is what it itself wishes. But he does not say it exactly in this way; rather, he constructs it differently, mixing in history. "Tell me," he says, "you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?" Well did he say, "you who desire," for the matter rested not on the sequence of events, but on their untimely contentiousness. By "the law" here he means the book of the creation, which he frequently does, naming the entire Old Testament thus. "For it is written," he says, "that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman, and one by the free woman." Again he goes back to Abraham, not to repeat himself, but because the patriarch’s glory was great among the Jews, he shows that from thence the types had their beginning, and present things were foreshadowed in him. And first, having shown that they were sons of Abraham, since the patriarch’s sons were not of the same worth—but one was from the slave, the other from the free woman—he shows finally that they are not only sons, but are sons in such a way as the free and noble-born. Such is the power of faith. "But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh; but he of the free woman through promise." What is "according to the flesh"? Since he was saying that faith joins us to Abraham, and it seemed unbelievable to the hearers that he should call those who were not born of him his sons, he shows that this paradox came from above. For Isaac was not born according to the sequence of nature, nor according to the law of marriages, nor according to the strength of the flesh, ^C and he was a son and a genuine one, having sprung from dead bodies and from that womb. For neither did the flesh produce the conception, nor did the seed produce the birth; for the womb was dead, both because of her age and because of her barrenness, but the Word of God fashioned him. In the case of the slave, it was not so; rather, he is bound by the bonds of nature and the custom of marriage. But nevertheless, he who was not born according to the flesh was more honorable than he who was born according to the flesh. Let it not, therefore, disturb you that you were not born according to the flesh; for it is precisely for this reason that you are his kin, because you were not born according to the flesh. For this does not make [men] more honorable, but even more dishonorable; for that birth which is not according to the flesh and is more spiritual is more wonderful, and this is evident from those born of old. For Ishmael was born according to the flesh, but he was a slave, and not only this, but he was even cast out of his father's house; but Isaac, who was born according to promise, as he was a son and free, was lord of all. "Which things are allegorized." He called the type an allegory catachrestically. What he says is this: This history does not only signify what appears, but it also declares other things; hence it is called an allegory. And what did it declare? Nothing other than all present things. "For these," he says, "are the two covenants, one indeed from Mount Sinai, bearing children into slavery, which is Hagar." "These"—who? Of the children; their mothers, Sarah and Hagar. What are "the two covenants"? Two laws. But since there were names of women in the history, he remained in the designation of the class, and from the names he shows the great sequence of events. ^D And how from the names? For the name Hagar, he says, is Mount Sinai in Arabia. The slave was called Hagar; and Mount Sinai is so interpreted in their native tongue. 4. So that all who are born from the Old [Testament] must be slaves. For that mountain, where the Old Testament was given, takes on a like name in the slave, as does Jerusalem; for this is what it means: "It is ranked with the present Jerusalem." That is, it is a neighbor, it touches it. "And it is in slavery with its children." What then follows from this? That not only was she a slave, and bore slaves, but this too—that is, the covenant of which the slave is the type. For indeed, Jerusalem lies next to the mountain that is of the same name as the slave; and on this mountain the covenant is also given. Where then is the type of Sarah? "But the Jerusalem above is free." Consequently, those born of her are not slaves. The type of the Jerusalem below was Hagar, and it is evident from the mountain so called; but the type of the one above is the Church. But nevertheless, he is not satisfied with the types, but he also adds Isaiah as a witness to what has been said; for having said, "The Jerusalem above is our mother," and having called the Church thus, he shows the prophet voting for the same things as himself: "For he says, 'Rejoice, O barren woman who does not bear; break forth and cry out, you who are not in labor, for many are the children of the desolate more than of her who has the husband.'" Who then is the barren woman, and who was she who was desolate before this? Is it not clear that she is the Church from the Gentiles, [once]—of God's knowledge [index: entries preserved]

But who is she who has a husband? Is it not clear that this is the synagogue? And yet the barren woman surpassed this one in the multitude of her children, since that one had only one nation, but the children of the Church fill Greece, Barbary, the earth, the sea, and indeed the entire world. Do you see how what was done by Sarah, and what was said by the prophet, prefigured for us the things to come? But consider this also: Isaiah called her barren, and showed her to have become the mother of many children. This happened in a typical way in the case of Sarah, for she too, being barren, became the mother of a numerous offspring. But even these things were not enough for Paul, and he inquires into how the barren woman also became a mother, in order that he might thereby accommodate the figure to the truth; and therefore he adds, saying: ^B *We, however, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise*. For the Church was not only barren, like Sarah, and did not only become the mother of many children like her, but she also gave birth in the same way. For as it was not nature, but the promise of God that made that woman a mother (for He who said: *I will return according to this time, and Sarah shall have a son* [Gen. XVIII, 10], the same entered into the womb and fashioned the infant), so also our regeneration is not of nature, but the words of God, which the faithful know, pronounced by the priest in the laver of water, as in a womb, form and regenerate him who is baptized. If, then, we are children of the barren woman, and we are free—and what, someone might say, is this freedom, when the Jews were indeed constraining and scourging those who had believed, while those who were thought to be free were being afflicted by persecutions? For these things were happening when the persecution of the faithful was burning. But do not let this trouble you, he says, since this too happened beforehand in a figure; for Isaac also, while being free, endured persecution from the slave Ishmael. And therefore he subjoins, saying: ^C *But as then he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the spirit, so it is now*. *But what says the Scripture? Cast out the son of the slave-woman: for the son of the slave-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman*. What then? Is this the consolation, to have shown that those who are free suffer persecution from slaves? By no means, he says; for I do not stop here, but hear what follows, and then you will receive a consolation sufficient to ease the faint-heartedness of those under persecution. What then are the things that follow? *Cast out the son of the slave-woman: for the son of the slave-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman*. Do you see the signs of a temporary tyranny and an untimely arrogance? The boy is cast out from his father's possessions and becomes both an exile and a wanderer along with his mother. Now consider with me how wisely these things were said. For he did not merely say, "He persecuted," and therefore he was cast out, but, *That he might not become heir*. For he did not take this punishment upon him because of the temporary persecution (for that was a small thing and irrelevant to the matter), but he did not permit him to become a sharer in the goods prepared for the son, signifying that even if the persecution were removed, this had been destined for him from the beginning—a thing which does not take its beginning from the persecution, but from the will of God. Nor did he say, "The son of Abraham shall not be heir," but, "The son of the slave-woman," adding his title from a more ignoble race. But Sarah was barren, for the Church gathered from the Gentiles was such. Do you see how the figure is preserved in all things? For as she, when she had not given birth through all the previous years of her life, becomes a mother in extreme old age, so also this one, when the fullness of time came, brings forth. ^D Moreover, the prophets had predicted this, saying: *Rejoice, O barren one, who does not bear, break forth and cry, you who are not in labor, for many are the children of the desolate one, more than of her who has a husband* (Isai. LIV, 1). Although she did not know God, yet when she knew Him, she conquered the synagogue of numerous offspring. *Therefore, brethren, we are not children of the slave-woman, but of the free-woman*. He moves and turns all these things, studying to show that what has been done is not recent or new, but has been prefigured long ago and before many ages. Is it not therefore absurd for those chosen and made partakers of freedom for so many ages to surrender themselves voluntarily into the yoke of slavery? After these things he adds another cause, which persuades them to persevere in the dogmas.

CHAPTER V

For in freedom, he says, Christ has set you free, stand fast. Do not ensnare yourselves again in a yoke of slavery. By the name of "yoke" he indicates the burden of the matter to them; and by saying, "again," he shows their great senselessness. For if you had not experienced this burden, you would not be equally blameworthy; but if, having known by experience how heavy the weight of this yoke is, you subsequently submit yourselves again to it, what pardon could you deserve? *Behold I, Paul, say to you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing*. See what terrible threats. Rightly, therefore, he also anathematized the angels. But how shall Christ profit them nothing? For He Himself did not approve this, but declared it, because henceforth the authority of his person was sufficient for any proof (and therefore he anticipated by saying: *Behold I, Paul, say to you*: which was the expression of one confident toward those to whom he was speaking); we, as best we can, will add what we hold.

^A How will Christ profit him that is circumcised? He who is circumcised is circumcised as one fearing the law; and he who fears, lacks faith in the power of grace; and he who lacks faith, gains nothing from that in which he lacks faith. Or again, in another way: he who is circumcised makes the law his master; and thinking it to be his master—and in the greater part transgressing it, while keeping it in the lesser part—he again subjects himself to a curse; and in subjecting himself to the curse, and thrusting aside the freedom that comes from faith, how can he be saved? For if it is permitted to say something even paradoxical, such a man believes neither in Christ nor in the law, but stands in the middle, wishing to gain from both here and there; for which reason he will gain nothing from anywhere. ^B Then, having said that he will benefit nothing, he brings in the proof enigmatically and in a few words, speaking thus: *And I testify to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law*. For so that you might not think these things were said out of enmity, he says: I do not speak to you only, but *to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law*; for the legal requirements are linked to one another. And just as one who has signed himself over to be a slave from a free man no longer does what he wills, but is held by all the laws of slavery; so also in the case of the law, when you have taken upon yourself a little bit of the law, and have brought yourself under the yoke, you have dragged in the whole lordship. This is also true as regards an inheritance from without: he who has touched nothing is free from all the matters to which the deceased was liable; but if he manages some little thing, even if he does not inherit everything, he has rendered himself liable for everything by that part. This occurs also in the case of the law, not only for the reason I have stated, but also for another: for the legal requirements are linked one to another. What do I mean? Circumcision has sacrifice joined to it, and the observance of days; the sacrifice again has the observance of days and of place joined to it; the place, a thousand ways of purification; the purifications introduce a kind of swarm of varied observances. For it is not permitted for the unclean to sacrifice, or to enter into the holy of holies, or to do any other such thing. Therefore, the law draws many things along through the one commandment. If, therefore, you are circumcised, but not on the eighth day, or on the eighth day but without a sacrifice, or with a sacrifice but not in the appointed place, or in the appointed place but without the legal requirements, or with the legal requirements but not being clean, or being clean but not purified with the proper rites, all those things perish. For this reason he says that *he is a debtor to do the whole law*. If the law is master, do not keep a part, but the whole; and if it is not master, do not keep even a part. ^C *You have fallen away from Christ, you who are justified by the law; you have fallen from grace*. Since he has established the facts, he now pronounces judgment, and on the danger of the precipices that exist at the end. For when he who runs to the law cannot be saved from that side, and has fallen from grace, what is left for him other than unavoidable punishment, since one has failed him, and the other does not receive him? After having thus increased their fear, and shaken their mind, and shown the shipwreck which they are about to endure, he opens wide the harbor of grace near at hand for them; which he does everywhere, demonstrating that salvation from that source is the easiest and most secure. Therefore, he adds, saying: *For we through the Spirit, by faith, wait for the hope of righteousness*. We need none of those legal requirements, he says; for faith is sufficient for us to provide the Spirit, and through Him, righteousness, and the many and great goods. *For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love*. Do you see how he now stripped himself for the contest with greater confidence? For he who has put on Christ, let him no longer be busy with these things, he says. And yet he was saying that circumcision is harmful; how then does he call it indifferent here? It is indifferent for those who already had it before faith, not for those who are circumcised after faith. See also where he cast it out, placing it alongside uncircumcision. For that which makes the difference is faith. Just as, therefore, if you were choosing athletes, whether they be hook-nosed or snub-nosed, whether black or white, these things make no difference for the test, but you must look only to see that they are strong and skilled; so also for him who is to be enrolled into the New Testament, these bodily things harm nothing, just as they do not benefit, if they be present. And what is, *working through love*? He struck them with a great blow here, implying that this intrusion happened because they were not rooted in the love for Christ; for it is not just the believing that is required, but also the remaining in love. As if he were to say: If you loved Christ as you ought, you would not have defected to slavery, you would not have abandoned Him who ransomed you, you would not have insulted Him who set you free. He hints here also at those plotting against them, showing that even they, if they had love toward the others, would not have dared to do these things. He wishes also to correct their lives by this point. *You were running well; who hindered you?* This is not the voice of one judging, but of one at a loss and lamenting. How has such a race been interrupted? Who is it that has been so powerful? ^D You are in a position superior to all, and being in the order of teachers, you did not remain in the order of disciples. What has happened? Who has been so powerful? These are the words of one calling back and lamenting all the more, just as he said before: *Who has bewitched you?* *The persuasion is not from Him who calls you*. The One who calls you did not call you to these things, so that you should be so tossed about; He did not enact these things as laws, so that you should Judaize. Then, so that no one might say: Why do you inflate the matter so much and speak of terrible things? We have kept only one commandment of the law, and do you make such a din? Hear how he frightens them, not from things present, but from things future, saying thus: *A little leaven leavens the whole lump*. So also this little thing, he says, is powerful for you.

if it be not corrected, to lead you into perfect Judaism, even as leaven the lump.

^A 10. *I have confidence in you in Christ, that you will be of no other mind*. He did not say, "You are not of another mind," but, "You will be," which is to say, "You will be corrected." How do you know this? He did not say, "I know," but, "I have confidence." I have confidence, he says, in God, and I invoke his aid for your correction, trusting in him. And not simply did he say, "I have confidence in you," but he added, "in Christ." Everywhere he mixes praise with accusation; as if he had said, "I know my disciples; I know how easily corrected you are." I am confident in part because of Christ, who does not suffer anything at all to perish, and in part because of you, who are able quickly to recover yourselves. At the same time, he also exhorts them to contribute their own zeal, as if they could not obtain anything from God unless they also brought what lay within their power. *But he that troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he may be*. He excites them from both sides: partly from the fact that he added confidence to them, and partly from the fact that he curses the pseudo-apostles, or utters a prophecy concerning them. But you, however, consider for me how he nowhere mentions the names of those who are plotting, lest they become more shameless. What he says is this: it is not because you will be of no other mind that the authors of this seduction are ^B set free from punishment, but they shall pay the penalty; for it is not right that the probity of some should relieve the malice of others; he speaks thus so that they may not invade others again. And he did not simply say, "He that troubles," but he exaggerated the utterance, saying, "Whoever he may be."

11. *But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution?* Since the Apostle was being slandered by this name, that he was everywhere Judaizing and was preaching it, see how purely he clears himself of the suspicion, calling them themselves as witnesses. For you also know, he says, that this has been the cause of my persecutions, that I order men to depart from the Law. If indeed I preach circumcision, why do I suffer persecution? For those who are of the Jews can allege no other crime against me but this alone. For if I had allowed them to believe while observing the customs of their ancestors, they would not have laid snares for me, nor would those who believed have done so, nor those who did not believe, since nothing of their institutions would be overturned. Did he not circumcise Timothy? He did circumcise him. How then does he say, "I do not preach"? Learn here his accuracy. For he did not say, "I do not perform" circumcision, but "I do not preach." That is, I do not order men to believe it so. And indeed, so that you might not derive from this a confirmation of their doctrines, I did circumcise, but I did not preach circumcision. *Then the scandal of the cross has been evacuated*. That is, the obstacle and the hindrance have been removed, if what you say is true. For the cross was not as much an offense to the Jews as the fact that we were not obeying the ancestral laws. For when they had brought Stephen into the council, they did not say, "This is he who adores the crucified," but, "He speaks," they say, "against the law and the holy place." They had brought the same accusation against Christ, that he was breaking the law. Therefore Paul says: If circumcision is conceded, the contention which they have against us is resolved; ^C no enmity now remains against the cross and the preaching; but if they carry on slaughter against us daily, how do they intend this accusation against us? They attacked me indeed on account of this, because I had introduced an uncircumcised person into the temple. Am I therefore so foolish, he says, as to have permitted circumcision, and in vain and to no purpose to have received so much evil upon myself, such that I would place so great an offense before the cross? For you see that for no cause are they as much our enemies as they are for this, the circumcision. Was I therefore so senseless as for the sake of nothing to be afflicted myself, and to be a stumbling block to others? Furthermore, he called it the "scandal of the cross," for the reason that the word of the cross itself commanded this, and that this was the very thing that offended the Jews, and forbade them to receive the cross, namely, that they were commanded to depart from the institutions of their ancestors.

12. *I would that they were even cut off who trouble you*. See how bitter he is here against those who had seduced the Galatians. In the beginning he directed his accusation at those who had been seduced, calling them foolish again and again; but when he had rightly chastised and corrected them, he proceeds thereafter against the seducers. We must also observe this wisdom of the Apostle, how he admonishes these as his own children, and as capable of correction, and calls them back to their senses; but those who had seduced them, he excises like strangers and those who are laboring under an incurable disease, partly when he says, *He shall bear his judgment, whoever he may be*; and partly when, praying against them, he says, *I would that they were even cut off who trouble you*. And he rightly said *troublers*, that is, those who push away. For they had compelled them, leaving behind their own country, and liberty, and celestial lineage, to seek an alien and foreign land, so that, now as exiles from that upper and free Jerusalem, they might be forced, as captives, to be banished from their own soil and wander in uncertain places. Therefore he prays against them. What he says is this: I have no care for them. *A heretical man*, he says, *after a first and second admonition avoid*. If they wish, they may not only be circumcised, ^D but also be cut out.

Against those who performed self-mutilation

^A because the craftsman errs, the wicked demon, who rejoices in murders, persuaded them to shatter the instrument. How then, one says, is desire kindled when the body is fattened? Lo, again, the sin lies with the soul; for to fatten the flesh belongs not to the flesh, but to the soul. For if it wished to emaciate it, it possesses all authority to do so. You act similarly to one who, seeing a person burning a fire, and placing wood upon it, and setting a house ablaze, ignores the one who lit the pyre and accuses the fire, because by catching many pieces of wood it rose high. But the crime is not of the fire, but of the one who lit the fire. This is for nourishment, for illumination, and for other such ministries, not in order to burn houses; just as desire is for procreation and the sustainment of life, not for adultery, fornication, and wantonness; so that you might be a father, not an adulterer; that you might lawfully associate with a woman, not unlawfully destroy her; that you might leave behind seed, not ruin another's. For to commit adultery is not of natural desire, but of insolence contrary to nature; for desire seeks only union, not such a union as this.

4. These things are not spoken by me now without purpose, but we are conducting some preliminary skirmishes, and we are engaging in a preliminary battle against those who say that God's creation is evil—those who ignore the soul's laziness but rave against the body, slandering our flesh. Concerning these, the apostle Paul discourses hereafter, not in accusation of the flesh, but of ^B satanic thoughts. *You, brethren, were called for freedom; only do not use your freedom as an occasion for the flesh.* Here finally he seems to enter into moral discourse, but he suffers something new, and such as he did not suffer in any other of his epistles. For while dividing all of them into two parts, and discoursing first on doctrines and later on life, here, having fallen into moral discourse, he mixes back in the dogmatic again. For this too takes hold of that again in the battle against the Manichaeans. What is, *Only do not use your freedom as an occasion for the flesh*? Christ, he says, delivered us from the yoke of slavery, and left us masters to do whatever we wish, not in order that we might use this authority for wickedness, but that we might take it as an occasion for a greater reward, having advanced toward higher philosophy. For since he has called the Law a yoke of slavery up and down [throughout the text], and grace a deliverance from the curse; lest anyone suspect that he commands them to depart from the Law in order that it might be permitted to live unlawfully, he corrects the suspicion, saying: Not in order that the conduct might be lawless, but that the philosophy might be above the Law, for the bonds of the Law have been loosened. And I say these things, not in order that we might become lower, but that we might become higher. For both the one who commits fornication and the one who practices virginity have stepped beyond the measures of the Law, but not for the same reasons; rather, the one having been brought down to the worse, the other having been raised to the better; the one having transgressed the Law, the other having surpassed it. This, then, Paul says: that He has loosed the yoke from you, not in order ^C that you might leap out or kick, but in order that you might walk rhythmically without a yoke. Then he also shows the way by which such a thing might be easily attained. What then is the way? *Through love serve one another*, he says. Again here he hints that contentiousness, discord, love of power, and insolence became the causes of this error for them; for the mother of heresies is the desire for power. For when he said, *Serve one another*, he showed that this evil had its beginning from insolence and arrogance; therefore he introduces a fitting medicine. Since you were divided because you wished to rule over one another, *Serve one another*; for thus you will be gathered together again. But he does not openly state the sin, yet he openly lays down the correction, so that through it they might learn that too; as if one should say—though not telling the wanton person that he is wanton—that he should constantly keep sober. For he who loves his neighbor as he ought does not shrink from serving him more humbly than any slave. For just as fire, having interacted with wax, easily softens it, so also the heat of love dissolves all arrogance and insolence more violently than fire. For this reason he did not say, "Love one another" simply, but, "Serve," indicating the intensified friendship. For since he had removed the yoke of the Law, lest they leap away, he imposes another yoke upon them: that of love, stronger than that one, but much lighter and sweeter. Then, demonstrating his point, he says: 14. *For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in this, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.* Since they were turning the Law upside down, he says, if you wish to fulfill it, do not be circumcised; for it is not fulfilled in circumcision, but in love. See how he does not forget his own sorrow, but constantly stirs up the painful matter, even while having gone out into moral discourse. *But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another.* He does not affirm it, lest he be burdensome, but he knows it is happening, and speaks of it with uncertainty. For he did not say, "Since you bite one another"—and likewise for what follows; for neither did he affirm there that you *are* consumed by one another; which is the manner of one warning and securing them, not one condemning them. And he used the words emphatically. For he did not say, "Bite," only, which is that of one who is angry, but, "And devour," which is that of one persisting in wickedness. For the one biting has filled the passion of anger; the one devouring has provided a demonstration of the extreme beastliness. And by bites and devourings he does not mean the bodily ones, but those far more grievous. For one who has tasted human flesh did not so much harm as one who plants bites into the soul; for as much as the soul is more precious than the body, by so much is the wound of it more grievous. *Take heed that you are not consumed by one another*, he says. For since those who do injustice and plot, thinking they are consuming others, come to this, for this reason he says, Look to it lest the matter turn back upon you. For discord and battle is corruptive and consuming both of those who receive it and those who introduce it, and it eats through everything more than a moth. *But I say, walk in the Spirit, and you shall not finish the desire of the flesh.*

5. Lo, he also shows another way making it easy ^D

and providing the things which have been mentioned, a path which generates love, which is bound together by love. For nothing, nothing, I say, so inspires love in us as being spiritual, and no other thing so persuades the Spirit to remain with us as the force of love. And for this reason he says, *Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not finish the desire of the flesh.* Since he had already pointed out what it is that breeds the disease, he also reveals the medicine which brings health. But what is this, and what is the power of such rightly spoken words, as "to live in the Spirit"? Therefore he says, *Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not finish the desires of the flesh.* 17. *For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary to one another, so that you do not perform whatever you wish.* ^B Here some attack us, saying that the Apostle has divided the man into two parts, introducing him as if composed of contrary natures, while showing that there is a battle of the body against the soul. But these things are not so, they are not so, I say. For here he does not call the body "flesh." Otherwise, if he thought this, how would what is said immediately follow be consistent? *For it lusts,* he says, *against the Spirit.* Yet the body is not among the number of those things which move, but among those which are moved; not among those which act, but among those which are acted upon. How then does it lust, since concupiscence is not of the flesh, but of the mind? Since elsewhere it is said, "My soul desires" (Ps. LXXXIII, 2); and, "What does your soul desire, and I will do it for you?" (I Reg. XX, 4); and, "Do not walk according to the desire of your soul" (Eccli. XVIII, 30); and again, "So my soul desires" (Ps. XLI, 2). How then does Paul say, "The flesh lusts against the Spirit"? He is accustomed to name "flesh," not only the nature of the body, but also the wicked will: as when he says, "You are not in the flesh, but in the spirit" (Rom. VIII, 9); and again, "But those who are in the flesh cannot please God." What then? Is the flesh to be destroyed? Yet was he not himself, who said these things, surrounded by flesh? These are not the teachings of the flesh, but of the devil: for *he was a murderer from the beginning* (Joann. VIII, 44). What then does he say? He calls the earthly, sluggish, and lazy mindset "flesh" here. For this is not an accusation of the body, but a crime of the negligent soul; since the flesh is a tool of this; but no one hates or avoids a tool, but rather the one who handles the tool badly. For we do not hate and punish the iron, but the murderer. Yet someone might say, ^C this itself is to accuse the body, to call the sins of the mind by the name of the flesh. I, however, confess indeed that the flesh is inferior to the soul, but that this also is beautiful. For that which is inferior to the beautiful is also good itself: but evil is not less than the good, but its contrary. But if you can demonstrate that malice proceeds from the body, accuse the flesh: but if you try to build a calumny from the name, it is time for you to accuse the soul at the same time: since the "natural man" is also spoken of (I Cor. II, 14), and a "spirit of malice" (Ephes. VI, 12) is what the multitude of demons are called. Again, with the name of flesh, Scripture is accustomed to name mysteries, saying the whole Church is the body of Christ (Coloss. I, 24). If you provide for the flesh, imagine the senses extinguished, and you will see the soul destitute of all cognition, and knowing nothing of those things which it now knows. For if the power of God, while it is understood from the creation of the world through created things, is viewed, how will we be able to see without eyes? And if faith is from hearing, how shall we hear without ears? To preach, however, and to run about, consists in the adminicle of the tongue and feet: "For how," he says, "will they preach unless they are sent?" (Rom. X, 15). Do you see that the ministry of the flesh is the cause of innumerable goods? Moreover, when he says, "The flesh lusts against the Spirit," he speaks of a double cognition, one of which is contrary to the other, namely of virtue and malice, not of soul and body. For if these were contrary to one another, they would destroy themselves, not otherwise than fire by water, darkness by light: but if the soul takes care of the body, and with much solicitude provides for it, and suffers innumerable things so as not to desert it: and when it is violently torn away, it resists; and in turn the body serves the soul, and brings to it the cognition of many things, and is composed for its operation: how can these be contrary and fighting among themselves? For I see, not only not contrary, but even greatly concordant and mutually protecting each other from the very facts. Therefore he does not speak of these, that they are contrary to one another, but he proposes the battle of evil and good thoughts. For to will and not to will belongs to the soul. Therefore he says: *But these are contrary to one another, so that you would not allow the soul to proceed in its wicked affections.* Since the apostle said these things as some sort of pedagogue and instructor striking terror. 18. *But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.* This sequence is also clear. For he who has the Spirit, as he ought, through Him extinguishes all wicked concupiscence. Furthermore, he who is liberated from these, does not need the help of the law, but has been made far more sublime than those precepts. For he who does not get angry, what need has he to hear, "You shall not kill"? He who does not look with intemperate eyes, what need has he of someone to teach that there should be no adultery? For who makes words to him about the fruit of malice, who has already pulled up the root of malice? For the root of homicide is anger, and the root of adultery is the curious gazing of the eyes. Therefore he says: *If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.* But here it seems to me that he has also related great and admirable praises of the law. ^D For if the law was in the place of the Spirit according to its own powers, before the Spirit arrived, one should not therefore remain with the pedagogue. Then indeed we were rightly under the law, so that we might chastise concupiscences with fear, when the Spirit had not yet arrived. But now, after grace has been given, which does not only command to abstain from them, but even making them wither, leads to higher things, and brings to a more perfect rationale of life; what need is there of the law? For he who from himself performs in great matters...

affliction, what need is there for a tutor? For it is not the philosopher who has need of a grammarian. Why then do you render yourselves more vile than you were before you were under the Spirit, now that you are seated under the law? 19. Manifest ^A however are the works of the flesh, which are these: fornication, adultery, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20. sorcery, idolatry, enmities, contentions, wraths, altercations, heresies, envies, drunkenness, revellings, and such like, which I tell you before, as I also have told you, that they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Here, then, he who accuses your flesh, tell me, and who thinks that these words were spoken as against an enemy and a foe (for let adultery and fornication be of the flesh, according to your opinion), how can the enmities, the contentions, the jealousies, the altercations, the heresies, and the sorceries (for these also are solely of a corrupted preference, just as the others are) be of the flesh? Do you see that he is not speaking here of the flesh, but of the earthly mind that crawls upon the ground? Therefore he also strikes fear, saying, that they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. And if these things were of an evil nature, and not of a wicked preference, he would have said needlessly, *"They do,"* but rather, *"They suffer."* And for what reason do they even fall from the kingdom? For crowns and punishments are not for those things which are by nature, but for those which are by choice. Therefore Paul threatened these things also. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace. He did not say, the work of the Spirit, but, The fruit. Therefore the soul [is not] superfluous; for if the argument is about flesh and spirit, where is the soul? Does he argue about inanimate things? For when the wicked things are of the flesh, and the useful things are of the Spirit, the soul is superfluous. Not at all; for indeed the temperance of the passions is of it and concerns it; and being situated in the middle between vice and virtue, if one uses the body ^B towards a proper end, he has rendered it spiritual; but if he departs from the Spirit, and gives himself up to wicked desires, he has rendered it more earthy. Do you see how from every side he is not speaking now of the substance of the flesh, but of a wicked preference, and not such a one? But why does he call it the fruit of the Spirit? Because the wicked works arise from us alone; therefore he calls them ^C works. But the good things require not only our own diligence, but also the philanthropy of God. Then, being about to recount them, he places the root of the good things first, saying thus: 22. Charity, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. Against such there is no law. For what can one command to him who has everything within himself, and has charity as a perfected teacher of philosophy? For just as horses that are well-bridled and do everything of themselves would have no need of a whip; so also a soul that has perfected virtue from the Spirit has no need of a law that admonishes. And here too he cast out the law in an admirable way, not as a vile thing, but as being less than the philosophy given by the Spirit. They that are of Christ have crucified the flesh with the passions and the desires. For, so that they might not say: And who is such a person? he shows by their deeds those who have perfected such things—again calling wicked actions the flesh here. For they did not truly destroy the flesh; for how then were they to live? For that which is crucified is dead and inactive; but he signifies an accurate philosophy. For the desires, even if they harass, rage in vain. Since therefore so great is the power of the Spirit, let us live by Him, let us be led by Him; which he himself adds, saying: 25. Let us live therefore in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit; according to His laws living in the social order. For this is what it means, *Let us walk*; that is, Let us be content with the power of the Spirit, and not seek the addition from the law. Then, showing that those who introduce circumcision do so for the sake of empty contention, he says: 26. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, which is the cause of all evils, provoking one another, envying one another. For from vain glory comes envy, and from envy [come] these Myriad evils.

CAPUT VI

1. Brethren, if a man be overtaken. 1. Because they were protecting their own passions under the pretext of reproof, and seemed to be doing this on account of sins, but wished to establish their own love of rule, he says: Brethren, if a man be overtaken. He did not say, If he commits, but, If he be overtaken, that is, if he be snatched away. You who are spiritual instruct such a one. He did not say, Punish, nor, Condemn, but, Correct. And he did not stop even there, but, showing that it is necessary for them to be extremely mild to those who are tripped up, he added thus: In the spirit of meekness. He did not say, in meekness, but, In the spirit of meekness; showing that these things also seem good to the Spirit, and that being able to correct those ^D who sin with gentleness is a gift of the Spirit. Then, so that he who corrects another might not be lifted up, he placed him also under the same fear, saying thus: Considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. For just as the wealthy contribute collections to those in need, so that if they themselves ever fall into poverty, they may obtain the same; so also it is necessary for us to do. Therefore he also places a necessary cause, saying thus: Considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. And he makes an apology for the one who has sinned, first by saying, If he be overtaken, secondly [by using] the name of great weakness, then, Lest thou also be tempted, blaming the assault of the devil rather than the sloth of the soul. Bear one another's burdens. Because it is not possible for a human being to be without defect, he exhorts them not to be strict examiners of the faults committed by others, but also to bear the faults of their neighbors, so that his own might be borne by others. For just as in the construction of a house, not all the stones have the same seat, but one is suitable for a corner, yet not for foundations, and another for foundations, but not for a corner; so also in the body of the Church. And one might see this same thing in our own flesh; but

it is not expected by all from all. For that which is produced from a common gathering both constitutes the body and the building. And so, *fulfill the law of Christ*. He did not say, "Fulfill," but, *Fulfill ye*, that is, fulfill it all together, by bearing with one another. For instance, this one is irritable, you are slothful; put up, therefore, with his fierce outburst, that he in turn may put up with your slothfulness. And thus it will happen that neither will he sin, while being tolerated by you, nor you, while being sustained by your brother in those things in which you are burdensome. In this way, while stretching out a hand to one another where a fall is imminent, by mutual offices fulfill the law, so that each one may supply what is lacking to his neighbor through his own patience. For if you do not do this, but each one wishes to demand from his neighbor, never will anything happen among you that ought to be done. For as in the body, if anyone were to demand the same usage from all the members, the body would never stand; so also among brothers there is a great war, if we require all things from all. ^C 3. *For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.* Here again, observe the arrogance. He who thinks himself to be something, is nothing, first giving proof of his own vileness, such a levity of character. 4. *But let everyone prove his own work.* Here he shows that it behooves us to be examiners of our own life, and not lightly, but with exact care to prove the things that have been done by us. For instance, have you done any good thing? Consider lest perhaps it was for empty glory, lest from necessity, lest out of hatred, lest through simulation, or for some other human cause. For just as gold seemsened to be splendid before it is put into the furnace; but when it has been committed to the fire, then it is truly discerned, by that which is adulterine being separated from that which is sincere: so also our works, when we have diligently examined them, then they shall be clearly revealed, and we shall see ourselves liable to many crimes. And then he shall have glory in himself alone, and not in another. He says these things not as prescribing a law, but as tempering himself to them, just as if he had said, "It is indeed absurd to boast; but if you should further wish to boast, do not boast against your neighbor, as that Pharisee did." For he who has learned this will easily abstain even from that. Therefore, he also granted this, that he might little by little remove the whole. For he who has become accustomed to boast only in himself, and not against others, will immediately correct this defect as well. For he who does not think himself to be better than the rest (this is what is meant by *not in another*), but examines himself by himself, even if he should boast, will nevertheless cease to do so in the future. And that you may understand that he wishes to prove this, see how he restrains him with fear, by saying above, *Let him prove his own work*; and here by adding, 5. *For each one shall bear his own burden.* He seems indeed to propose a reason which forbids boasting against another, but he corrects the one who boasts, lest he be too pleased with himself, recalling him to the consideration of his own faults, while he names a burden, and makes mention of the carrying of a load, pressing upon his conscience. 6. *Let him however who is catechized in the word, communicate to him who catechizes him, in all good things.* For he wishes them to be diligently cared for by those who instruct them. ^D

CHAPTER VI

and the spices; there is no other end but corruption: for these things themselves are corrupted, and they corrupt the body. But the things of the Spirit are not like this, but are entirely the opposite of these. Consider: you have sown almsgiving, the treasures of heaven and eternal glory await you; you have sown temperance, honor and the prize and the praise of angels and the crowns of the ^A agonist await you. 10. *Let us not be weary in well-doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.* [Gal. VI, 9] *As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.* [Gal. VI, 10] For lest any should think that they must provide for and feed teachers, but neglect all others, he extends the discourse to the common, and opens the door of this ambition to all, and makes such an excess, as to bid them show mercy even to Jews and Greeks, with an appropriate order, but to show mercy nonetheless. And what is the order? To show greater providence toward the faithful. And what he does in other Epistles, this he works here also, not speaking only about showing mercy, but also about doing it magnanimously and continuously: for the name of ‘sowing’ and ‘not fainting’ hints at this. Then, since he has demanded something great, he also puts the reward before their eyes, mentioning a harvest that is new and paradoxical.

3. For in the case of farmers, not only he who sows, but also he who reaps, undergoes great labor, fighting with drought and dust and much hardship; but there is nothing of this here, he says: which is what he meant when he said, *For in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.* And from this he encourages and attracts them; and on the other hand, he presses and urges them, saying: *As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good.* For just as we are not always masters of sowing, so neither are we of showing mercy. For when we be taken from hence, even if we should wish it ten thousand times, we shall accomplish nothing more. And the virgins bear witness to our argument, who, though they desired it ten thousand times, because they did not go forth having abundant almsgiving, were shut out of the bridal chamber; and the rich man who looked past Lazarus; for he too, because he was destitute of this help, and lamenting and supplicating much, found mercy neither from the patriarch nor from any other, but remained continuously roasted without any forgiveness. For these reasons he says, *As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good,* and *to all*; and by this most of all he frees them from Jewish lowliness. For that person [the Jew] kept all works of philanthropy for those of his own clan; but the philosophy of grace calls both earth and sea to the table of almsgiving, even if it shows greater care for those who are close at hand.

^B *Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.* [Gal. VI, 11] Consider what great pain seizes that blessed soul. For just as those who have fallen into some mourning, or have lost one of their kin, or are suffering some unexpected things, neither rest by night nor by day, because of the mourning that besieges their soul; so, too, the blessed Paul, having said a few things about character, returns again to the previous things, which most of all troubled his soul, saying thus: *Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.* Here he hints at nothing else, but that he wrote the whole Epistle himself; which was a sign of great sincerity. For in the case of others, he would dictate, and another would write; and this is clear from the Epistle to the Romans: for at the end he says, *I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you* [Rom. XVI, 22]; but here he wrote it all himself. And he did this here also by necessity, not out of love alone, but also for the removal of evil suspicion. Since he was slandered regarding things in which he had no part, and was said to be preaching circumcision and playing the hypocrite, as if he were not preaching it, he was therefore compelled to make the Epistle entirely his own, depositing a written testimony beforehand. But by “large letters,” it seems to me he is not speaking of the size, but the deformity of the characters, saying as it were, that though I do not know how to write excellently, yet I was compelled to write by my own hand, so as to stop the mouth of the slanderers.

^C *As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.* [Gal. VI, 12] For neither do the circumcised themselves keep the law, but they desire you to be circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. [Gal. VI, 13] Here he shows that they are not undergoing this willingly, but are being forced, providing them an occasion for departure, and almost pleading in their behalf, and urging them to leap away quickly. And what is it, *to make a fair show in the flesh*? To be well-regarded by men. Since they were reproached among the Jews for having abandoned the ancestral customs. Lest they be accused of these things, he says, they desire to damage you, by making an apology to those through your flesh. And he said these things, showing that they were not doing these things for God. As if he were to say: What is occurring is not a matter of piety; for all these things happen for human ambition, for the sake of pleasing the unbelievers, because they are being cut to pieces by the faithful, and prefer to offend God so that they may please men: for this is what it is, *to make a fair show in the flesh*.

Then, showing that they are also deprived of forgiveness from another source, he reproves them again, because they are prescribing these things not only for the sake of pleasing others, but also due to their own vainglory. Therefore he added: *that they may glory in your flesh*, as having disciples, and being teachers. And what is the proof of these things? *For neither do they themselves keep the law*, he says. For, in the first place, if they even kept it, they would still be worthy of accusation; but now their very purpose is corrupted. *But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.* [Gal. VI, 14] And yet the thing is thought to be shameful, but in the world and among the unbelievers; but in heaven and among the faithful, it is glory, and very great. For poverty is shameful, but to us it is a boast; and to be despised by many is a matter for laughter, but we exalt ourselves in this. So also the cross is our boast. And he did not say, “I do not boast,” or, “I do not wish to boast,” but, *God forbid*, as if he were praying against the absurd, and [expressing] abhorrence while speaking of a thing that is [seemingly] monstrous, and at

the same time calling upon the aid of God for the accomplishment of this. And what is this boasting in the cross? That Christ for my sake took on the form of a servant, and for my sake suffered what He suffered; for my sake, I say, who was a slave, who was an enemy, who was ungrateful; yet He loved me so much that He gave Himself up. What can be compared to this? For if servants, when they are merely praised by their masters, and those of the same nature, grow proud; is it not right to boast when that Master, who is the true God, is not ashamed to undergo the cross for us?

^B Likewise, let us not be ashamed of His ineffable care. He was not ashamed to be crucified for you, and are you ashamed to profess His ineffable dispensation? And meanwhile you act as if some man, bound in chains, were not ashamed of the king, but after the king stood by him in prison and released his chains with his own hands, he began to feel shame on that account. Yet these would be the height of madness: for it is for this very thing that one ought most of all to boast. Through whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. He calls the "world" here not the heaven or the earth, but temporary things, the praise of men, the retinue, the glory, the wealth, and all those things which commonly seem to be magnificent. For these have become dead to me. A Christian ought to be such as this, and to have this saying always in his mouth. For he was not content with the former way of crucifixion, but also brought in another, saying: “And I to the world”; hinting at a double mortification, and saying, "Both those things are dead to me, and I in turn to them; neither can they capture me or take me captive, since they are once and for all dead to me; nor am I held by the desire for them, since I am dead to them." Nothing is more blessed than this mortification; for this is the foundation of the blessed life. ^C Neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And whoever follow this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. For those who hold the contrary opinions, even if they were born of him and carry his surname, have fallen from all of these, both from the kinship and from the very honor of the name itself. They are truly Israelite who keep this rule, who depart from the ancients and pursue grace. From now on, let no man trouble me. Here he does not speak as if he were weary or injured. For how would he have been broken and collapsed, since he had introduced his soul to both do and suffer all things for the sake of his disciples? He who says, *Preach the word, be instant in season, out of season*; he who says, *If God perhaps give them repentance for the acknowledging of the truth, that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil* (2 Tim. iv. 2; ii. 25, 26). For what reason, then, does he say these things? To press down their slothful spirit and cast them into greater fear, and to confirm the laws laid down by himself, and not to allow them to be always wavering. *For I bear the marks of the Lord Jesus Christ in my body.* He did not say, "I have," but, "I bear"; like someone boasting of trophies and royal signs. Although this itself again seems to be a reproach; yet here he boasts of his wounds, and not otherwise than soldiers who are standard-bearers are wont to do, he exults, carrying wounds around. But for what reason does he say this? By every word, by every voice, he says, I am clearing myself more clearly through these. ^D For these send forth a voice louder than a trumpet against those who contradict me, declaring me to be feigning a doctrine and speaking things just to please men. For if anyone were to see a soldier who had come forth from the battle line covered in blood, wounded with countless wounds, could he condemn him for cowardice and treachery, when he bears the proofs of courage on his very body? One ought to judge in the same way about me, he says. And if anyone wishes to hear my defense and to understand my intention, let him look at the wounds, which provide a more certain proof than these words, than these writings. For beginning the Epistle, from a sudden change in himself, he evidently showed his sincere mind to be free from flattery; and ending it, he declares the same from the dangers he himself underwent. For lest anyone should say, "he was indeed changed with a right mind, but he did not persist in that purpose," he alleges witnesses that he did persist: his labors, his dangers, his stripes. Then, after he has clearly cleared himself of all things, and declared that he did not say any of the things that were said in an agitated spirit or out of hatred, but that he preserves an immovable affection of love toward them, he confirms this very thing again, closing his discourse with a prayer, teeming with countless good things, and speaking thus: *The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren. Amen.* By this final word he added a seal to all that had been said before. For he did not say simply, "with you," as with others, but he says, "with your spirit," calling them away from carnal things, and everywhere demonstrating the beneficence of God, and commemorating the grace which they had received, through which he was able to recall them from all Jewish error.

reminded them of the things they had received, and all the more bound them to the dogmas of the Church; and the prayer, invoking grace and persuading them to persevere in the same, did not allow their spirit to depart. And while this was in them, every deception of such dogmas was, like dust, blown away, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and power, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

ON THE SPURIOUS OPUSCULA IN SUCCESSION

So great was the esteem for John Chrysostom in the Greek Church that writers of various ages, who devoted themselves to publishing sermons or homilies, would publish them under the forged name of Chrysostom so that they might be received with the applause of all. Booksellers, too, I suspect, in order to sell such goods more easily and at a higher price, took care to have them inscribed under Chrysostom's name. Hence it comes that such a huge number of spurious works have reached us. The greater part of these, which did not deserve the light, we would have allowed to lie in darkness, had they not already been edited by Savile and Morel.

Those places which we have marked with asterisks are either corrupt or mutilated in the Greek, or harder to understand, and were for that reason interpreted as if by divination.

THAT CHARITY ACCORDING TO GOD IS A THING WORTHY OF GOD

No man can worthily celebrate charity, the heavenly ladder. Charity sits on the throne of the Father; charity joins earthly things with heavenly things; regarding which no tongue will suffice, nor will the mind find how to praise it worthily; but the work itself shows that charity is the leader of the best way of life. For it clothes the creation of God in perfect beauty; it is the pedagogue leading the many into unity, imaging forth the multitudes of men unto the likeness of the one and holy beauty, both angels and men. For being one form, it informs every rational nature into the likeness of God; it does not rest upon those who are alienated from Him, but upon those who are to be generated by Him and have been tempered together. Since all, though many, have bent themselves into one harmony, they reveal a most beautiful and delightful concord among themselves. Thus the many and various operations of the Holy Spirit, being gathered into one and good unanimity, reveal a most godlike and most worthy beauty, most precious to God and worthy of the holy joy before the Creator.

For the sake of charity toward men, God has descended upon the earth and has lived with men, not in a hidden and separated sanctuary, as before, being worshipped, but having come down as a guest of men unto our likeness and common life, that, leading all into the intimacy of one Spirit, He might construct them as one body and one spirit. Divine charity, being a handmaid of the Lord and a minister of the Spirit, gathers things that are apart and makes those that are alienated intimate. O wondrous work of Christ, charity! O mystery of the salvation of the world! For the sake of charity the Father and God sends into the world His only-begotten Son. For Christ, he says, loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it (Eph. 5:25). Charity bears willingly the labors for one's neighbor; for the sake of charity we are commanded to be servants of one another: For by charity you serve one another (Gal. 5:13). Charity makes the private possessions of each one common to all; charity shows you your neighbor as yourself, and bears sins as if they were its own. You will be angry a little, but you will be long-suffering for the most part. For the sake of charity the flock of Christ is increased; charity calms murderous rages, blunts the weapons of enemies, and sets aside the forgetting of all one's enemies, and introduces the peaceful polity of Christ to the world. For nation shall not take up sword against nation, and they shall not learn to make war anymore (Isa. 2:4). Therefore, he says, In his days shall justice arise, and abundance of peace, until the moon be taken away (Ps. 71:7).

Brilliant too is the emblem of this peaceful polity, for charity is the leader of the blessed peace! Which drives away the enemy and the devil, the foe among men, through whom the devil indeed groans over peaceful men, but angels rejoice, seeing the image of their own peace in men; we are cheerful toward one another, and no joy is greater than when a brother is seen by a brother. Thus Paul says he is comforted in his tribulations by the presence of Titus (2 Cor. 7:6); but when he is not present, he has no rest in his spirit. Charity of God, and charity of brothers: two inseparable things. And this, says John, we have as a commandment from God, that he who loves God, loves also his brother (1 Jo. 4:21). For this is what He said also to Peter: If you love me, feed my sheep (John 21:15); that is to say, show your love for the Shepherd by busily caring for the sheep. What wall is so unbroken, fortified with harmonies of large stones and turning aside the assaults of enemies, as a gathering of saints joined by the bonds of charity, and the trials of the devil? And what beauty of plants is there like that, planted in rows, or the well-ordered arrangement of an army proceeding in decoration and seemly order? For these provide pleasure; but more delightful and sweeter than all things is the seemliness according to the natural harmony of those in charity joined to one another: for this appears honorable and precious in the eyes of the Lord. Hear David, or rather the grace of the Holy Spirit: Behold, he says, what is good, or what is pleasant? Nothing else, nothing other of the things on earth, but for brothers to dwell together (Ps. 132:1), as ointment poured upon the head. Angels dance around our choirs, and rejoice over us, because we imitate their conduct. For if there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repents, according to the word of the Lord (Luke 15:7), much more over such a multitude of those being saved. For the joy of the age to come appears from this very place, a mourning for the devil, a winnowing-fan for demons, when we form choirs with one another, in one soul and one mind for the singing of hymns to God, imitating the panharmonic and glorious melody of the Cherubim. For just as they receive in succession from one another the thrice-holy hymn, so we too, having formed two choirs according to their type, and chanting responsively to one another, sing the spiritual melody. It is a wonder to those outside, desirable to those who see it, and a longing arises in those who hear, and a divine and active sense is found in us, through which we perceive