Commentary on Galatians (Super Epistolam B. Pauli ad Galatas Lectura)

1 After the Apostle has shown the defect of the law, here he consequently shows the dignity of grace. And first through a human example; second through an example of Scripture, at the words tell me, you who wish to be under the law, etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows the dignity of grace above the primitive state of the old law, through a comparison taken from human law; second he shows that they themselves were made participants of this dignity through faith, at the words but since you are sons of God, etc.; third he argues against them, because they were despising this dignity, at the words but then indeed, not knowing God, etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth the comparison; second he adapts it to his purpose, at the words so also we, when we were, etc. It should be noted that in the comparison set forth the Apostle touches on four things. First, indeed, dignity, because he is not a slave, but an heir. Hence he says as long as he is an heir, etc., which is fitted and referred to the people of the Jews, who was heir of the promise of Abraham, Psalm 134:4: he chose us for his inheritance; and to Christ, who is heir of all things, Hebrews 1:2: whom he appointed heir of all things. Second, his smallness. Hence he says he is a little child, because the Jews too were little children according to the state of the law. Amos 7:5: who shall raise up Jacob, for he is a little one? Likewise Christ also was made a little child through the incarnation. Isaiah 9:6: a little child is born to us, etc. But note that the Apostle sometimes likens the state of the law to a little child, as here, and sometimes the state of the present life. 1 Corinthians 13:11: when I was a little child, etc. The reason for this is that the state of the old law is like a little child, on account of the imperfection of knowledge, in comparison itself to the state of grace and truth, which was brought about through Christ. So too the state of the present life, in which we see through a mirror in an enigma, is like a little child, compared to the state of the future life, in which there is perfect knowledge of God, because he is seen as he is. Third, his subjection, when he says he differs in nothing from a slave, though he is lord of all, but is under guardians, etc. For it is proper to a slave that he be subject to some lord. But a boy, as long as he is a little child, because he does not have perfect knowledge and the use of free will on account of the deficiency of his age, is committed to the guardianship of others, who both defend his goods — and these are called guardians — and conduct his affairs — and these are named agents. And therefore, although he is lord of all his own things, nevertheless insofar as he is subjected to others, he differs in nothing from a slave, because he does not have free will either, indeed he is compelled; and these things are adapted to the Jewish people, Isaiah 44:1: and now, my servant Jacob, etc. But it should be noted that among the Jewish people some were simply slaves, namely those who kept the law on account of fear of punishment and desire for temporal things, which the law promised. But some there were who were not simply slaves, but, though existing as it were slaves, were truly sons and heirs: who, although they attended outwardly to temporal things and avoided punishments, nevertheless did not place their end in them but received them as a figure of spiritual goods. Hence although they seemed to differ in nothing outwardly from slaves, insofar as they kept the ceremonies and the other commands of the law, nevertheless they were lords, because they did not make use of them with the intention that slaves have, since they made use of them out of love of the spiritual goods which they prefigured; whereas slaves make use of them principally out of fear of punishment and desire of earthly advantage. Christ too was as it were a slave, because, although he is lord of all, according to that word of Psalm 109:1: the Lord said to my Lord, etc., nevertheless he seemed to differ in nothing from a slave in outward things, insofar as he was man. Philippians 2:7: he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, and was found in habit as a man. But he was under guardians and agents, because he was made under the law, as is said below in the same book, made under the law, and subject to men, as is said in Luke 2:51: he was subject to them. Fourth, he sets down the fittingness of the time, when he says until the time appointed beforehand by the father, because just as an heir, according to the determination of his father, is under guardians for a time appointed beforehand, so also the law had a determined time from God, for as long as it was to endure, and for as long as the heir, namely the people of the Jews, was to be under it. Likewise the time was appointed beforehand by the father, at which Christ was not yet to work miracles and show forth the dominion of divine power. John 2:4: my hour has not yet come. He adapts this comparison when he says, consequently, so also we, etc. And first he adapts it as regards the Jews; second as regards Christ, at the words but when the fullness of time came. He says therefore: I say that as long as the heir is a little child, etc., so also we Jews, when we were little children, in the state of the old law, were serving under the elements of the world, that is, under the law, which promised temporal things — Isaiah 1:19: if you are willing and will hear me, you shall eat the good things of the land — and it threatened temporal punishments. Or the old law is called an element, because just as to boys, who are to be instructed unto knowledge, the elements of that knowledge are first proposed, by which they are led by the hand unto that knowledge, so the old law was proposed to the Jews, by which they might be led by the hand unto faith and justice. Above, 3:24: the law was our pedagogue in Christ. Or, under the elements, that is, under the bodily rites of things which they observed, such as the lunar days, new moons, and the sabbath. Nor, however, should it be insisted that on this account they did not differ from the pagans, who served the elements of this world, since the Jews did not serve them, or render them worship; but under them they served God, and worshipped him, whereas the gentiles, serving the elements, rendered to them divine worship. Romans 1:25: they served the creature rather than the creator, etc. It was, however, necessary that the Jews should serve God under the elements of this world, because this order is fitting to human nature, that men be led from things sensible to things intellectual.

Here the Apostle adapts the proposed similitude to Christ. And first the adaptation itself is set forth; second, the end of the matter to which the similitude is adapted, at the place "that he might redeem those who were under the law," etc.

It should be known that above, in the proposed similitude, he showed four things in order, as has been said. Here, however, in adapting those four things to Christ, he begins from the last, namely from the determination of time, the reason for which is that it was the same time in which Christ was humbled and in which the faithful were exalted. And therefore he says, "but when the fullness of time came," that is, after the time which had been predetermined by God the Father concerning the sending of his Son was completed; and it is taken in this way in Luke 2:6: "the days were fulfilled," etc. That time, moreover, is called full on account of the fullness of graces which are given in it, according to Psalm 64:10: "the river of God is filled with water," etc. Likewise on account of the fulfillment of the figures of the old law. Matthew 5:17: "I have not come to destroy the law," etc. Likewise, on account of the fulfillment of the promises. Daniel 9:27: "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week."

Now this that he says, "but when the fullness of time came," etc. — and likewise in other places of Scripture where the time concerning Christ is said to be fulfilled — is not to be referred to fatal necessity, but to divine ordination, concerning which it is said in Psalm 118:91: "by your ordinance the day continues," etc. A twofold reason, moreover, is assigned as to why that time was preordained for the coming of Christ. One is taken from greatness. For since he who was to come was great, it was fitting that men be disposed toward his coming by many signs and many preparations. Hebrews 1:1: "in many parts and in many ways," etc. The other is from the condition of the one coming. For since a physician was to come, it was fitting that before his coming men be convicted of their disease, both as to the defect of knowledge under the law of nature and as to the defect of virtue under the written law. And therefore it was fitting that both, namely the law of nature and the law of Scripture, precede the coming of Christ.

Second, he adapts the similitude as regards the dignity of inheritance, when he says "God sent his Son," namely his own and natural Son. And if a son, then also an heir. He says, moreover, "his Son," that is, his own, natural, and only-begotten Son, not an adoptive one. John 3:16: "so God loved the world, that," etc. He sent him, I say, not separated from himself, because he was sent by this, that he assumed human nature, and yet he was in the bosom of the Father — John 1:18: "the only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father" — eternally. John 3:13: "No one has ascended into heaven, except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven," who, although he descended through the assumption of flesh, nevertheless is in heaven. Likewise he sent him, not that he might be where before he was not; because, although he came into his own through the presence of the flesh, yet he was in the world through the presence of his deity, as is said in the Gospel, John 1:14. Similarly he did not send him as a servant, because his mission was the assumption of flesh, not the laying aside of majesty.

God therefore sent his Son to heal, I say, the deviation of the concupiscible appetite, and to illumine the ignorance of the rational creature. Psalm 106:20: "he sent his word," etc. He also sent him to free men from the power of the Devil, against the infirmity of the irascible appetite. Isaiah 19:20: "he will send them a savior, who will free them." Likewise as a remedy from the obligation of eternal death. Hosea 3:14: "from the hand of death I will free them, from death I will redeem them." Likewise to save them from their sins. John 3:17: "God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him," etc.

Third, he adapts the similitude as regards smallness, when he says "made of a woman." Isaiah 9:6: "a little child is born to us," etc. Philippians 2:7: "he emptied himself," etc. He made himself small, not by relinquishing his greatness, but by assuming smallness.

Now in this that he says "made of a woman," two errors are to be guarded against. The first is that of Photinus, who said that Christ was a mere man and took the beginning of his being from the Virgin; and so he says that he was made of a woman as though he had taken his entire beginning from her. But this is false, because it is against what is said in Romans 1:3: "who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh"; it does not say "according to the person," which is from eternity, namely the very hypostasis of the Son of God. Hence, just as when a shield newly becomes white, it is not necessary to say that the very substance of the shield newly comes to be, but that whiteness has newly come to it, so from the fact that the Son of God newly assumed flesh, it is not necessary to say that the person of Christ was newly made, but that a human nature newly came to him, just as certain things happen to a body without any change in the body itself. For some things come to a thing and change it, as absolute forms and qualities; but certain things come without change, and of this sort is the assumption of flesh, inasmuch as it expresses a relation. Hence by this the person of the Word is changed in nothing. And hence it is that in speaking of divine things we use terms that signify relation even from time. Hence we say, in that verse of Psalm 89:1, "Lord, you have become a refuge for us," and that God became man. But we do not use absolute forms and qualities, as: "God became good, wise," and the like.

Likewise the error of Ebion is to be avoided, who said that Christ was born of the seed of Joseph, moved to posit this by the fact that it says "of a woman." For, according to him, "woman" implies only corruption. But this is false, because this name "woman," in sacred Scripture, also designates the natural sex, according to that verse of Genesis 3:12: "the woman whom you gave me," etc. For he calls her "woman" who nevertheless was still a virgin.

By this also, that it is said "made of a woman," two errors are destroyed: namely that of Valentinus, who said that Christ did not take a body from the Virgin, but brought it from heaven, and passed through the blessed Virgin as through a pipe or channel. But this is false, because if what he says were true, Christ would not have been made of a woman, as the Apostle says; for this preposition, "of," designates a material cause. Likewise, the error of Nestorius, who said that the blessed Virgin is not the mother of the Son of God, but of the son of man: this is shown to be false by this, that the Apostle says here that God sent his Son made of a woman. For he who is made of a woman is her son. If therefore the Son of God was made of a woman, namely of the blessed Virgin, it is manifest that the blessed Virgin is the mother of the Son of God.

Although, however, it could be said "born of a woman," he nevertheless says pointedly "made," and not "born." For for something to be born is for it to be produced only from a conjoined principle, but to be made is also from a separate principle. For an ark is made by a craftsman, but fruit is born from a tree. The principle of human generation, however, is twofold: namely material — and as to this Christ proceeded from a conjoined principle, because he took the matter of his body from the Virgin. Hence according to this he is said to be born of her. Matthew 1:16: "of whom Jesus was born," etc. The other is the active principle, which indeed in Christ, as to that which it had as a principle, that is, as to the formation of the body, was not conjoined but separate, because the power of the Holy Spirit formed it. And as to this he is not said to be born of a woman but made, as it were from an exterior principle. From which it is clear that when he said "of a woman," this does not signify corruption, for otherwise he would have said "born" and not "made."

Fourth, he adapts the similitude as regards subjection, when he says "made under the law." But against this is what is said below, 5:18: "if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law." If therefore Christ is not only spiritual but even the giver of the Spirit, it seems unfitting to say that he was made under the law. I respond. It must be said that "to be under the law" is said in two ways. In one way, so that the word "under" denotes only the observance of the law, and in this way Christ was made under the law, because he was circumcised and presented in the temple. Matthew 5:17: "I have not come to destroy the law," etc. In another way, so that the word "under" denotes oppression. And in this way he is said to be under the law who is oppressed by fear of the law, and in this way neither Christ nor spiritual men are said to be under the law.

Consequently, when he says "that those who were under the law," etc., he sets forth the fruit of the matter to which the similitude is adapted, namely that he willed for this reason to become subject at that time, so that they might become heirs, great and free. And he sets forth these two things: first, the fruit of liberation against subjection. And therefore he says "that he might free those who were under the law," that is, under the curse and burden of the law. Above, 3:13: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law," etc. Second, the fruit of exaltation, inasmuch as we are adopted as sons of God through this, that we receive the Spirit of Christ and are conformed to him. Romans 8:9: "if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ," etc. And this adoption belongs in a special way to Christ, because we cannot become adoptive sons unless we are conformed to the natural Son. Romans 8:29: "whom he foreknew to be conformed to the image of his Son," etc. And as to this he says "that we might receive the adoption of sons," that is, that through the natural Son of God we might be made adoptive sons according to grace, through Christ.

Above, the Apostle showed the benefit bestowed upon the Jews; here he shows that this benefit pertains also to the Gentiles. And first he sets forth the benefit itself; second, the manner of obtaining it, at "God sent the Spirit," etc.; third, he makes clear its fruit, at "Therefore now he is not," etc.

He says, therefore, that the benefit of the adoption of the sons of God pertains not only to those who were under the law but also to the Gentiles. And therefore he says: "since you are sons of God," etc., that is, that you are sons of God has come about for this reason: because not only the Jews, but also all others who believe in the Son of God, are adopted as sons, etc. John 1:12: "he gave them power to become sons of God," etc.

Now the manner of obtaining that gift is through the sending of the Spirit of the Son of God into your hearts. But Augustine says that Christ, existing in the flesh, preached to the Jews principally, but to the Gentiles only cursorily. Romans 15:8: "I say that Christ Jesus was a minister of the circumcision," etc. And therefore whatever pertains to the state of the Jews is fittingly attributed to Christ.

And because these men could say that the Galatians were not adopted as sons of God, since Christ did not take flesh from them, nor did he preach to them, so that they did not seem to be joined to Christ in any way, therefore the Apostle, demonstrating the manner of this adoption, says that even if they were not joined to Christ according to the flesh — that is, as to nation — nor according to preaching, nevertheless they were joined through the Spirit, and from this they were adopted as sons of God. Hence the conversion of the Gentiles is attributed especially to the Holy Spirit. And therefore Peter, when he was rebuked by the Jews for having gone to preach to the Gentiles, excused himself by the Holy Spirit, saying, Acts 11:12, that he could not resist the Holy Spirit, at whose instinct he had done this. And therefore, because God the Father sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts — that is, of the Jews and of the Gentiles — we are joined to Christ, and through this we are adopted as sons of God.

But it must be known that if somewhere in Scripture the Holy Spirit is found to be sent by the Father — John 14:26, "But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send," etc. — and sometimes indeed by the Son — John 15:26, "When the Paraclete has come, whom I will send to you," etc. — nonetheless the Holy Spirit is common to the Father and the Son, and proceeds from both and is given by both. And this is why, wherever it is found that the Father sends the Holy Spirit, mention is made of the Son, just as in the aforementioned authority it says, "whom the Father will send in my name." And, similarly, where he is said to be sent by the Son, mention is made of the Father; hence he says, "whom I will send to you from the Father." And also here, when he says "God" — the Father — "sent" the Holy Spirit, mention is immediately made of the Son, when he says "of his Son." Nor does it matter if somewhere it is said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, because, from the fact that the Son sends him, it is manifest that he proceeds from the Son himself. Hence the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son, as of the one who sends, and as of the one from whom he proceeds, and as of the one from whom the Holy Spirit has whatever he has, just as also from the Father. John 16:14: "He will glorify me, because he will receive of mine," etc.

Now he says "into your hearts," because generation is twofold. One is carnal, which comes about through carnal seed sent into the place of generation: which seed indeed, although it is small in quantity, nevertheless contains the whole in power. The other is spiritual, which comes about through spiritual seed transmitted into the place of spiritual generation; which place indeed is the mind or heart of man, because we are generated as sons of God through the renewal of the mind. Now the spiritual seed is the grace of the Holy Spirit. 1 John, last chapter: "He who is born of God does not sin, because the generation of God preserves him," etc. And this seed, in its power, contains the whole perfection of beatitude. Hence it is called the pledge and down payment of beatitude, Ephesians 1:14; Ezekiel 36:26: "I will give a new spirit," etc.

"Crying" — that is, making to cry — "Abba, Father," not by loudness of voice, but by greatness and fervor of affection. For then do we cry "Abba, Father," when through affection we are kindled by the heat of the Holy Spirit unto desire of God. Romans 8:15: "You have not received the spirit of servitude," etc. "Abba, Father," etc. Now "Abba," which is Hebrew, and "pater," which is Latin, and "patir," which is Greek, are the same in meaning. And he sets down both in order to show that the grace of the Holy Spirit stands in common relation to each people, as far as it is in itself.

Consequently, when he says "therefore now he is not a servant," etc., he sets down the fruit of this benefit. And first, as to the removal of every evil, from which we are freed through the adoption of the Holy Spirit, and this is liberation from servitude. And as to this he says "therefore" — namely, because the Spirit cries in us, "Father" — "now," that is, from the time of grace, none of us who believe in Christ is "a servant," that is, serving in fear. John 15:15: "Now I will not call you servants, but friends," etc. Romans 8:15: "You have not received the spirit of servitude," etc. "But he is a son." Romans 8:16: "The Spirit himself gives testimony to our spirit, that we are sons of God." For although we are servants by condition — since it is said, Luke 17:10: "When you have done all the things that are commanded you, say: we are unprofitable servants" — nevertheless we are not ill-disposed servants, serving out of fear, since to such a servant are owed torture and fetters; but we are good and faithful servants, serving out of love, and therefore we obtain liberty through the Son. John 8:36: "If the Son shall have freed you, you shall be free indeed."

Second, he sets down the fruit as to the obtaining of every good, and as to this he says, "that if a son, also an heir through God," Romans 8:17: "If sons, also heirs — heirs indeed of God," etc. Now this inheritance is the fullness of every good, since it is nothing other than God himself, according to that saying, Psalm 15:5: "The Lord is the portion of my inheritance," etc. Genesis 15:1: "He said to Abraham: I will be your reward exceedingly great," etc. Now he says "through God," because just as the Jews obtained the inheritance through God's promise and justice, so also the Gentiles through God, that is, through God's mercy. Romans 15:9: "But that the Gentiles are to honor God for his mercy," etc. Or "through God," that is, through God's working. Isaiah 26:12: "You have wrought all our works in us, O Lord."

Having set forth the dignity of the benefit of grace, and having shown it by a human example, here the Apostle argues against the Galatians, who were despising this grace, as being ungrateful for so great a benefit. And first he argues against them concerning their ingratitude; second he excuses himself, that he does not do this out of hatred and envy, at the place "Brethren, I beseech you, you have not injured me," etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First he recalls their former state; second he extols and commends the benefit received, at the place "but now, since you have known," etc.; third he aggravates the sin committed, at the place "how do you turn again," etc.

He says therefore "but then," etc., as if to say: now you are sons and heirs through God, but then indeed, when you were Gentiles. Ephesians 5:8: "you were at one time darkness," etc. — not knowing God, through unbelief, you served, with the worship of latria, those who by nature are not gods, but by the opinion of men. 1 Corinthians 12:2: "when you were Gentiles, you went to mute idols, as you were led," etc. Romans 1:25: "they served the creature rather than the Creator," etc.

Now this that he says, "who by nature are not gods," is for the refutation of the Arians, who say that Christ the Son of God is not God by nature. For if that were true, the worship of latria ought not be shown to him, and whoever showed it to him would be an idolater. But it can be objected that we adore the flesh and the humanity of Christ, and therefore we are idolaters. But it must be said that although we adore the flesh, or the humanity, of Christ, we nevertheless adore it as united to the person of the divine Word, which Word indeed is a divine suppositum. Hence, since adoration is owed to the suppositum of the divine nature, whatever is adored in Christ is adored without error.

Consequently, when he says "but now, since you have known," etc., he recalls the benefit received, as if to say: if you were ignorant and were sinning, it could be tolerated, for, other things being equal, sin is graver in a Christian than in a Gentile. But now, since you have known God — that is, you have been led to the knowledge of God — you sin more gravely than formerly, by serving and placing your hope in those things in which you ought not. Jeremiah 31:34: "all shall know me," etc.

But this that he says, "or rather, are known by God," seems to contain a contradiction, since God has known all things from eternity. Ecclesiasticus 23:29: "for to the Lord God, before they were created, all things are known," etc. But it must be said that this is spoken causally, so that the sense is: "or rather, are known by God," that is, God brought it about that you should know him. For in this way God is said to know, inasmuch as he is the cause of our knowledge. And therefore, because he had said above "since you have known God," which was a true statement, he immediately corrects it and explains it beforehand, hinting that we cannot know God of ourselves, except through him. John 1:18: "No one has ever seen God, but the only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father," etc.

Consequently he reproaches the sin committed, saying "how do you turn again," etc. And first he aggravates their sin; second he shows the imminent danger, at the place "I fear for you, lest perhaps," etc.; third he brings them back to the state of salvation, at the place "be as I am," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth the sin committed; second he convicts them of the sin committed, at the place "you observe days," etc.

Now it must be known that this text is read in two ways. In one way, because these Galatians were turning from the faith to idolatry, and therefore he says "how do you turn again from the faith" — that is, anew — 2 Peter 2:21: "it would have been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after," etc. Isaiah 42:17: "they are turned back," etc. — "to the elements," namely of the world, which are "weak," not able to subsist by themselves, because they would fall into nothing unless the hand of him who governs all things held them, according to that word of Hebrews 1:3: "upholding all things by the word of his power," etc.; and "needy," because they need God, and need one another in turn, for the completion of the universe; to which — namely the elements — "again," that is anew, you wish to be enslaved, namely with the servitude of latria. The proof of this appears manifestly, because "you observe days," namely favorable and unfavorable ones, "and months, and times, and years," that is, the constellations and the course of the heavenly bodies, all of which have their origin from idolatry. Against which he says, Jeremiah 10:2: "do not fear the signs of heaven, which the nations," etc. And that observances of this kind are evil and contrary to the worship of the Christian religion is clear, because the distinction of days, months, years, and times is reckoned according to the course of the sun and moon. And therefore those who observe such distinctions of times venerate the heavenly bodies, and order their acts according to the judgment of the stars, which have no direct influence upon the will of man, nor upon those things which depend on free choice. And from this a grave danger threatens. Hence he says "I fear lest perhaps without cause" — that is, uselessly — "I have labored among you." And therefore the faithful must beware of observing such things; but they ought to have no suspicion regarding these matters, because whatever is done simply out of devotion to God can turn out favorably.

But is it in any way lawful to observe the course of the stars? It must be said that the heavenly bodies are indeed the cause of certain effects, namely corporeal ones, and in these it is lawful to attend to their course; but of certain others they are not the cause, namely of those which depend on free choice, or on good fortune, or misfortune, and in these to observe the course of the stars pertains to idolatry.

But although this reading can be sustained, it is nevertheless not according to the intention of the Apostle. For since he himself, in the whole preceding course of this epistle, and in what follows, argues against the Galatians on the ground that they transferred themselves from faith to the observance of the law, therefore it is more to the purpose that this be explained as referring to the fact that they are turning to legal observances. Hence he says: since you have known God through faith, how do you turn from faith to the elements, that is, to the literal observance of the law? Which is called "elements," because the law was the first institution of divine worship; "elements," I say, "weak," because it does not perfect by justifying — Hebrews 7:19: "the law brought no one to perfection"; "needy," because it does not confer virtues and grace, helping by itself.

But what is the meaning of his saying "you turn again"? And this seems to be said inappropriately. Likewise also this, that he says "anew." For these people had neither been Jews, nor had they otherwise observed the legal precepts. To which it must be said that the worship of the Jews is intermediate between the worship of the Christians and that of the Gentiles. For the Gentiles worshipped the elements themselves as though they were something living; but the Jews indeed did not serve the elements, but served God under the elements themselves, inasmuch as through observances of the corporeal elements they showed worship to God. Above, in the same epistle: "we were enslaved under the elements of this world." Christians, however, serve God under Christ, that is, in the faith of Christ.

Now when someone arrives at the endpoint, the middle having been passed through, if he wishes to return again to the middle, it seems the same as if he wished to return to the beginning. And therefore the Apostle, because these people had already arrived at the endpoint, namely at the faith of Christ, and then returned to the middle, namely to the worship of the Jews, hence it is that, on account of a certain conformity of the middle to the beginning, he says that they are turning to the elements, and serving them anew.

And that it is so, he proves when he says "you observe days," in the Jewish rite, namely the sabbaths, and the tenth day of the first month, and things of this kind, which are stated in the Gloss; "months," that is the new moons, such as the first and the seventh month, as is found in Leviticus 23:5 and following; "times," namely of the going out from Egypt, and that they used to come to Jerusalem three times in each year. Likewise the years of jubilee, and the seventh year of remission. And from this a danger follows, because from this the faith of Christ profits nothing. Hence he says "I fear for you, lest perhaps without cause" — that is, uselessly — "I have labored among you." Below, 5:2: "if you are circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing."

Consequently, when he says "be as I am," he brings them back to the state of salvation, as if to say: I fear so much for you, lest perhaps I have labored among you without cause; but lest it be so, be as I am. This is read in the Gloss in three ways. In the first way thus: "be as I am," namely by abandoning the law, as I have let it go. In the second way thus: "be as I am," namely by correcting your former error, as I have corrected my error; and this you are able to do, because "I" — supply "am" — "as you" are, and yet I have been corrected of my error. In the third way thus: "be as I am," namely living without the law, because "I" — supply: who had the law, and was born under the law — "am now as you" — supply "were," namely without the law.

After the Apostle has rebuked the Galatians, here he shows that he did not do this out of hatred. And first he shows that he has no true cause of hatred toward them at all; second, that he does not even have a supposed cause, at the place "Am I then become your enemy," etc.; third, he assigns the cause of the aforementioned rebuke, at the place "My little children," etc.

Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows that he has no cause of hatred toward them; second, that he has rather a cause of love, at the place "You know that through infirmity," etc.

Concerning the first it must be noted that it is the custom of a good shepherd, in correcting his subjects, to mix sweet things with harsh ones, lest, namely, they be broken by excessive severity. In Luke 10:34 it is read of the Samaritan, that in the healing of the wounded man he poured in wine and oil. On the contrary, of bad shepherds it is said in Ezekiel 34:4: "you ruled over them with austerity." And therefore the Apostle, like a good prelate, shows that he does not rebuke them out of hatred, speaking gently to them in three respects.

First, with respect to the name of charity. Hence he says "brothers"; Psalm 132:1: "Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity." Second, with respect to a word of modesty. Hence he says "I beseech you"; Proverbs 18:23: "The poor man speaks with entreaties." Third, with respect to an excusing. Hence he says "you have not injured me at all," and I am not such as to hold in hatred those who do not offend me.

Second, he shows that he has a cause of love toward them, when he says "but you know that through infirmity," etc. Where he sets down three things from which men are accustomed to love one another.

The first is mutual help in fellowship, and from this too love among men is confirmed, according to that word of Luke 22:28: "You are they who have continued with me," etc. And as to this he says "but you know," etc., where first he calls to mind the tribulation which he suffered among them; second he shows how they stood by him: "and your temptation," etc.

As to the first, then, he says: I say that you have not injured me at all — nay rather, you have served me. For "you know" — that is, you will be able to recall — "that I preached the gospel to you formerly" — that is, in time past — "through infirmity of the flesh" — that is, with the infirmity and affliction of my flesh, or with the many tribulations which I was suffering from the Jews (who are of my flesh) persecuting me. 1 Corinthians 2:3: "I was with you in fear and much trembling." 2 Corinthians 12:9: "Power is made perfect in infirmity."

And although this infirmity was a cause for despising me, and of your temptation, according to that word of Zechariah 13:7: "Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered," etc., yet you did not despise "your temptation, which was in my flesh" — that is, my tribulation, which was to you a cause of temptation. Ecclesiasticus 11:2: "Do not despise a man in his appearance." For, as the Lord says in Luke 10:2: "He who despises you despises me," etc. Nor did you reject my teaching and me, but you were willing to be companions of my tribulations. Isaiah 33:1: "Woe to you who despise, shall you not also yourself be despised," etc.

The second thing, which confirms love among men, is mutual love and mutual affection for one another, according to that word of Proverbs 8:17: "I love those who love me," etc. And as to this he says "but you received me as an angel of God" — that is, as honorably as a messenger announcing the words of God. 1 Thessalonians 2:13: "when you had received from us the word of the hearing of God," etc. And hence it is that preachers are called angels. Malachi 2:7: "they shall seek the law from his mouth," etc.

And you received me not only as an angel, but "as Jesus Christ" — that is, as if Christ himself had come — for Christ indeed had come to them in him, and was speaking in him, according to that word of 2 Corinthians, last chapter: "Do you seek a proof of Christ who speaks in me?" Matthew 10:40: "He who receives you receives me," etc.

Then he rebukes them for having grown worse in this way. Hence he says "Where then is your blessedness?" As if he were to say: did not men call you blessed on this account, that you honored me, and received my preaching? Job 4:6: "Where is your fear, and your strength, your patience, and the perfection of your ways?"

The third thing which confirms love is mutual beneficence. And as to this he says "I bear you witness, that if it could be done" — that is, could justly be done (for that can be done which is done justly), or would have been for the profit of the Church — "you would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me," as if he were to say: you loved me so much that you would have given me not only your outward things, but even your eyes.

Consequently, when he says "Am I then become your enemy," etc., he sets down the cause of the supposed hatred, and first one on the part of the Apostle; second another on the part of the false teachers, at the place "they are zealous for you," etc.

He says therefore: since you have done me so many good things, is it to be believed that I have become your enemy, by telling you the truth? Now this word which he says, "enemy," can be understood in two ways.

In one way, namely, that he himself holds them in hatred, and in this way it is read thus: "I have become an enemy" — that is, I hold you in hatred. And thus what follows, "telling you the truth," can be reckoned as a sign of hatred, which nevertheless is a sign of love — namely, to tell the truth, yet in its own place and time.

In another way "enemy" can be understood passively, namely, that he himself is held in hatred by them. And then it is read thus: "I have become an enemy to you" — that is, you hold me in hatred; and this for the reason that I tell you the truth, so that in this way, telling you the truth is set down as being the cause of hatred. For men who tell the truth are held in hatred by the wicked. For truth begets hatred. Amos 5:10: "they have hated him that rebukes in the gate," etc.

But against this is what is said in Proverbs 28:23: "He who rebukes a man shall afterward find favor with him, more than he who deceives by the flatteries of his tongue." But it must be said that this solution can be had from what is said in Proverbs 9:8: "Do not rebuke a scoffer, lest he hate you; rebuke a wise man, and he will love you."

For it is a sign of goodness if the one who is rebuked loves the one rebuking him; and conversely, if he hates him, it is a sign of malice. For since a man naturally hates that which is contrary to what he loves, if you hate him who corrects you concerning an evil, it is clear that you love the evil. But if you love him, you show that you hate sins. For because men, at the beginning when they are rebuked, are still disposed by love toward their sins, hence it is that at the beginning the sinner hates the one rebuking him, but after he has now been corrected and has laid aside his affection for sin, he loves the one who rebuked him. And therefore it is said pointedly in the authority proposed, that "afterward" he will find favor with him.

Consequently, when he says "they are zealous for you," etc., he sets down another supposed cause, namely on the part of the false teachers. And first he sets it down; second he excludes it, at the place "but be zealous for the good," etc.

As to the first, it must be known that, as was said above, certain false teachers, converted from among the Jews, going about the churches of the Gentiles, were preaching that the legal observances must be kept. And because Paul said the contrary, these men therefore disparaged him. And they did this more in order to exclude Paul than for the sake of the salvation of the Galatians. And therefore he says "they are zealous for you" — that is, they do not suffer, in you (whom they love rather with the love of concupiscence than of friendship), fellowship with us. For emulation is a zeal arising from any love whatsoever, which does not suffer fellowship in the thing loved.

But because their love toward these people was not good — both because they did not love them for their own advantage, but for their own gain (and this is clear because they wished to exclude the Apostle from them, as being contrary to their own advantage), and because this redounded to the harm of the Galatians, since they sought profit in them, by which the Galatians themselves were harmed — therefore he says "they are zealous for you, but not well," because they do not love your good. And this is apparent, because they wish to exclude you, so that you may be zealous for them — that is, so that you may receive no one except them. Proverbs 3:31: "Do not be zealous for an unjust man," etc. And Proverbs 31: "Let not your heart be zealous for sinners."

But he consequently excludes this when he says "but be zealous for the good," etc., as if he were to say: you ought not to be zealous for them in their teaching, but be zealous for a good teacher, namely myself and the like. 1 Peter 3:13: "Who is it that will harm you, if you are zealous for what is good?"

But because someone can be a good teacher in whom there can nevertheless be something evil, therefore he adds: be zealous for a good teacher, but I say, nevertheless, "in the good" — that is, in that which is good. 1 Corinthians 14:1: "Follow after charity, be zealous for spiritual things." But although the Apostle, according to the Gloss, is speaking of himself when he says "be zealous for the good," he nevertheless adds "in the good," because, as he himself says in 1 Corinthians 4:4: "I am conscious of nothing in myself, but I am not thereby justified."

But because some are zealous for a good teacher only in his presence, he therefore adds "always," and not only "when I am present with you" — because zeal for the good is a sign that it proceeds from love and fear of God, who sees all things, if it also perseveres in the absence of the teacher. Colossians 3:22: "Servants, obey in all things your masters," etc.

Above, the Apostle removed the false cause of the correction of the Galatians; here, consequently, the Apostle assigns the true cause of the said correction, which is grief over their imperfection. And therefore, first he expresses the grief of heart out of which he was speaking; second, he sets down his desire for the manifestation of this grief, at "I would that," etc.; third, he sets down the cause of the grief, at "because I am confounded," etc.

Now this grief proceeded from charity, because he grieved over their sins. Psalm 118:158: "I saw the transgressors, and I pined away," etc. And therefore he puts forth a word of charity, saying "my little children." Now he significantly does not call them "sons" but "little children," so as to designate their imperfection, by which they were diminished. 1 Corinthians 3:1: "as to little ones in Christ," etc.

But it must be noted that a child, while it is in the process of being brought forth, is called a "little child." And such were these, because they were in need of a repeated bringing-forth in labor, whereas carnal parents bring forth their children only once. And therefore he says to them, "of whom I am in labor again." For he had once brought them forth in labor at their first conversion, but because they had now been turned away from him who called them, unto another gospel, they needed that he bring them forth in labor again. Therefore he says "I am in labor," that is, with labor and grief I lead them back to the light of faith. In which the grief of the Apostle appears. Hence the conversion of a man is called a childbirth. Job 39:3: "They bow themselves down to their offspring, and they give birth." Apocalypse 12:2: "she cried out, being in labor, and was tormented that she might give birth." And hence it is that the Apostle, out of grief, corrects them harshly, just as a woman, out of the grief of childbirth, cries out harshly. Isaiah 42:14: "I will speak as one in labor," etc.

And the reason for the repeated labor is that you are not perfectly formed. Hence he says "until Christ be formed in you," that is, that you may receive his likeness, which you lost through your own fault. And he does not say "be formed in Christ" but "let Christ be formed in you," so that this might sound more terrible in their ears. For Christ is formed in the heart through formed faith. Ephesians 3:17: "that Christ dwell through faith," etc. But when someone does not have formed faith, Christ already dies in him. 2 Peter 1:19: "until the day dawn," etc. And thus, according to a man's progress in faith, Christ progresses in the man, and, conversely, according to his defect, he diminishes. When, therefore, faith in a man is made formless through sin, Christ is not formed in him. And therefore, because in these there was not formed faith, they needed to be brought forth in labor again, until Christ should be formed in them through formed faith, namely, that which works through love. Or, "until Christ be formed in you," that is, that he may appear beautiful to others through you.

But someone could say: being absent, you say such things, but if you were among us, you would not say these things, according to that word of 2 Corinthians 10:10: "his bodily presence indeed is weak, and his speech contemptible," etc. And therefore he sets down his desire to manifest his grief more harshly, saying "I would like to be present with you now, and to change my voice," as if he were to say: now I use gentle words, calling you brothers and children in your absence; but if I were present, I would correct you more harshly. For if I were now to utter in person and by mouth the things which I write through letters, the correction would be harsher, inasmuch as I would be more able to express the voice of one rebuking, and to resound the cry of one who is angry and the grief of my breast, more than I can set forth through letters, and the living voice would move your heart more, to confusion over your error and my disturbance.

And the cause of this grief is that "I am confounded in you," that is, I blush before others on your account. For, as it is said in Ecclesiasticus 22:3, "confusion is a father's, over an undisciplined son." For, since a son is the property of the father, and a disciple, insofar as he is such, is the property of the master, the master rejoices over the good which he sees shining forth in him, as over his own good, and glories in it; and conversely, over evil he grieves and is confounded. Hence, because these had been changed from good to evil, the Apostle was confounded thereby.

Above, the Apostle proved the dignity of grace through human custom; but here he proves it by the authority of Scripture. And first he sets forth the fact; second he expounds the mystery, at the words "which things are said by way of allegory," etc.; third he concludes his proposition, at the words "therefore, my brothers, we are not," etc.

Concerning the first he does two things. First he stirs up attention; second he sets forth his intention, at the words "for it is written," etc.

He says therefore, "Tell me," etc., as if to say: if you are wise, attend to what I put forward, and if you cannot contradict it, yield. Job 6:29: "Answer, I beg you, without contention," etc. But I put this objection to you: either you have read the law, or you have not read it. But if you have read it, you ought to know what is written in it; but it proves itself to be something that must be set aside; but if you have not read it, you ought not to accept what you do not know. Proverbs 4:25: "Let your eyelids go before your steps."

He says, however, "under the law," that is, under the burden of the law. For to undergo something light is not a matter of strength, but to undergo a heavy burden, such as the burden of the law is, seems to be a sign of great folly. Acts 15:10: "This is a burden which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear," etc., which is to be understood of those who wish to be under the law in a carnal manner.

Consequently, when he says "for it is written," etc., he sets forth his intention, saying: I ask therefore whether you have read the law, because in it are contained certain things which plainly say that the law is not to be kept. And the Apostle makes special mention of the two sons of Abraham. And first he sets down the one point in which they agree; second, the two points in which they differ.

They agree, indeed, in having one father. Hence he says, "it is written, that Abraham had two sons." He also had other sons besides these two, because after the death of Sarah he begot others by Keturah, as is said in Genesis 25:2; of whom the Apostle made no mention, because they do not pertain to this signification. Yet by these two, namely the son of the slave-woman and the son of the free woman, two peoples can be designated, namely the Jews and the gentiles; but by the other sons of Keturah, schismatics and heretics. And these two peoples agree indeed in one father, because the Jews are sons of Abraham according to the flesh, but the gentiles according to the imitation of faith. Or they are sons of Abraham, that is, of God, who is the father of all. Malachi 2:10: "Is not God the father of all," etc.; Romans 3:29: "Or of the Jews only?"

But they differ in two things: namely, in the condition of the mother, because one is from the slave-woman, as is said in Genesis 21:10. Yet Abraham did not sin in going in to her, because he went in to her with the affection of a spouse and by divine ordinance. But the other is from the free woman, namely Isaac, whom Sarah his wife bore to him. Genesis 18:10: "I will come to you at this time, life accompanying, and Sarah your wife," etc.

Likewise they differ in the manner of generation, because he who was of the slave-woman, namely Ishmael, was born according to the flesh; but he who was of the free woman, namely Isaac, was born through the promise. But here a twofold false understanding must be avoided. One, lest it be understood by what he says, "was born according to the flesh," that "flesh" here be taken for the act of sin, according to that word of Romans 8:13: "If you live according to the flesh, you will die," etc.; 2 Corinthians 10:3: "Walking in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh" — as though Ishmael were born through Abraham's sinning. The other understanding, that by what is said, "through the promise," Isaac be believed not to have been born according to the flesh, that is, according to carnal commingling, but through the Holy Spirit.

It must therefore be said that Ishmael was born "according to the flesh," that is, according to the nature of the flesh. For it is natural among men that a son be born from a young fertile woman, as Hagar was, and an old man. And that Isaac was born "through the promise," that is, above the nature of the flesh. For the nature of the flesh does not extend so far that a son be born from an old man and a sterile old woman, as Sarah was.

By Ishmael is signified the people of the Jews, who were born according to the flesh; but by Isaac is understood the people of the gentiles, who were born according to the promise, by which it was promised to Abraham that he would be the future father of many nations. Genesis 22:18: "In your seed shall be blessed," etc.

But he expounds the mystery when he says, "which things are said by way of allegory." And first he sets down the manner of the mystery; second he gives an example, at the words "for these are the two testaments," etc.

He says therefore: these things which are written about the two sons, etc., "are said by way of allegory," that is, by another understanding. For allegory is a trope or manner of speaking by which one thing is said and another is understood. Hence "allegory" is said from "allos," which is "other" or "foreign," and "goge," a leading, as though leading into a foreign understanding.

But it must be noted that "allegory" is taken sometimes for any mystical understanding whatsoever, and sometimes for only one of the four senses, which are the historical, the allegorical, the mystical, and the anagogical — these being the four senses of sacred Scripture, which nonetheless differ as to their signification.

For there is a twofold signification: one is through words; the other is through the things that the words signify. And this is found especially in sacred Scripture and not in other writings; for since its author is God, it is in his power not only to accommodate words for designating — which even man can do — but also the things themselves. And therefore in other sciences handed down by men, which cannot be accommodated to signify except only through words, words alone signify. But it is proper to this science that both the words and the very things signified by them signify something, and therefore this science can have several senses.

For that signification by which words signify something pertains to the literal or historical sense; but that signification by which the things signified by the words in turn signify other things pertains to the mystical sense.

Now through the literal sense something can be signified in two ways: namely, according to the propriety of speech, as when I say "the man laughs"; or according to likeness or metaphor, as when I say "the meadow laughs." And we use both ways in sacred Scripture: as when we say, with respect to the first, that Jesus ascended; and when we say that he sits at the right hand of God, with respect to the second. And therefore under the literal sense is included the parabolic or metaphorical.

But the mystical or spiritual sense is divided into three. For first, as the Apostle says, the old law is a figure of the new law. And therefore, insofar as the things that belong to the old law signify the things that belong to the new, there is the allegorical sense.

Likewise, according to Dionysius in the book On the Celestial Hierarchy, the new law is a figure of future glory. And therefore, insofar as the things that are in the new law and in Christ signify the things that are in the homeland, there is the anagogical sense.

Likewise, in the new law, the things that were done in the Head are examples of the things we ought to do, because "whatever things are written, are written for our instruction"; and therefore, insofar as the things that were done in the new law in Christ, and in those things that signify Christ, are signs of the things we ought to do, there is the moral sense.

And an example of all these is clear. For by this, that I say "let there be light," taken literally, of bodily light, it pertains to the literal sense. If "let there be light" is understood as "let Christ be born in the Church," it pertains to the allegorical sense. But if "let there be light" is said as "that through Christ we may be led into glory," it pertains to the anagogical sense. But if "let there be light" is said as "that through Christ we may be illumined in intellect and enkindled in affection," it pertains to the moral sense.

Above, the Apostle set forth the mystical understanding; here he opens up the mystery. And first as to the mothers; second as to the sons, where he says "but we, brothers," etc. By the two mothers he understands the two testaments. And therefore he first sets down what is signified; second he explains it, where he says "the one indeed from mount," etc. He says therefore: "these," namely the two wives, the handmaid and the free woman, "are the two testaments," the old and the new. Jeremiah 31:31: "I will strike a new covenant with the house of Israel" — behold the new testament; "not according to the covenant," etc. — behold the old testament. For the free woman signifies the new testament, but the handmaid the old.

But in order to know what a testament is, it must be noted that a testament is the same as a pact or covenant of those things which are confirmed by witnesses. Hence in Scripture, many times, in place of "testament" is put "covenant" or "pact." But wherever a covenant or pact intervenes, some promise is made. And therefore, according to the diversity of promises, there is a diversity of testaments. Now two things are promised to us: namely temporal things in the old law, and eternal things in the new. Matthew 5:12: "Rejoice and be glad," etc. These two promises, therefore, are the two testaments. Hence the Apostle, consequently, when he says "the one indeed," etc., explains them. And first as to the old; second as to the new, where he says "but that Jerusalem which is above," etc.

But for the clarity of the letter it must be known, concerning the first, that any citizen of some city is said to be a son of it, and the city itself is as it were his mother. Luke 23:28: "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep," etc. Lamentations, the last chapter: "The renowned sons of Sion," etc. Through this, therefore — that some become citizens of some city — they are made its sons. Now the city of God is twofold: one earthly, namely the earthly Jerusalem; the other spiritual, namely the heavenly Jerusalem. But through the old testament men were made citizens of the earthly city, and through the new, of the heavenly. And therefore concerning this he does two things: first he sets forth the mystery explained; second he assigns the reason for the mystical explanation, where he says "for Sinai," etc.

He says therefore first: I say that it signifies the two testaments, namely the old and the new. And as to this he says: "the first indeed from mount Sinai," etc. Where, first, the place in which it was given is set down, because literally on mount Sinai, as is said in Exodus 20 — whose mystical reason, according to the Gloss, is that Sinai is interpreted "commandment." Hence also by the Apostle the old law is called "the law of commandments," Ephesians 2:15; but the mountain signifies pride, Jeremiah 13:16: "before your feet stumble against the dark mountains," etc. Hence through this mountain on which the law was given, is signified a twofold pride of the Jews: one by which they were proud against God, Deuteronomy 31:27: "I know your contentiousness," etc.; the other by which they were proud against other nations, abusing that which is said in Psalm 147:20: "He has not done in like manner to every nation," etc.

Second, however, he sets forth for what purpose it was given, because not for making free persons, but sons of the handmaid mother, "generating unto servitude, which is Agar" — that is, it is signified through Agar — which indeed generates unto servitude, namely the old testament. And this in three ways: namely as to affection, as to understanding, and as to fruit. As to understanding, indeed, according to knowledge: because in man there is a twofold knowledge — one free, namely when he knows the truth of things according to itself; the other, however, servile, that is, subjected to the veilings of figures. And such was the knowledge of the old testament. As to affection, however, because the new law generates an affection of love, which pertains to freedom, for he who loves is moved from himself. But the old generates an affection of fear, in which is servitude; for he who fears is moved not from himself, but from another. Romans 8:15: "You have not received the spirit of servitude again in fear," etc. But as to fruit, because the new law generates sons to whom an inheritance is owed; but to those whom the old generates, small gifts are owed, as to servants. John 8:35: "The servant does not remain in the house forever; the son remains in the house forever."

He assigns the reason for the mystery when he says "for Sinai is a mountain in Arabia," etc. Where first a doubt arises, because since Sinai is distant from Jerusalem by nearly twenty days' journey, it seems false that Sinai is joined to Jerusalem, as the Apostle here says. But to this it is answered mystically in the Gloss thus: that Sinai is in Arabia. For Arabia is interpreted "lowliness" or "affliction," in which the old testament was given, because men, as it were servants and strangers, were afflicted under it by carnal observances. Acts 15:10: "This is a burden, which neither our fathers nor we," etc. "Which" — the mountain — "is joined" — not through continuity of space but through likeness — "to that which is now Jerusalem," that is, to the Jewish people; because just as they themselves love earthly things, and serve under sin for the sake of temporal things, so also that mountain generated unto servitude.

But this does not seem to be the intention of the Apostle. For he himself intends that the old testament, which was given on mount Sinai, should generate unto servitude from the very place of servitude; because it was given on Sinai, yet not to the sons of Israel remaining there, but to those setting out for the land of promise. For Jerusalem also generates sons of servitude, and therefore as to this, mount Sinai is joined with it. And this is what he says: "which is joined to it" — namely through the continuation of the journey of those going to Jerusalem — "which is now Jerusalem, and serves with her children" — namely with the servitude of the legal observances (from which Christ redeemed us) and the servitude of various sins, John 8:34: "He who commits sin is the servant of sin" — and (literally) from the servitude of the Romans, who ruled over them.

Then, when he says "but that Jerusalem which is above," etc., here consequently he opens up the mystery concerning the free woman. And first he explains the mystery; second he brings in a prophecy, where he says "for it is written," etc. The first indeed can be understood in two ways, according as we can understand this mother either as that through which we are generated, which is the Church Militant; or as that mother into whose sons we are generated, which is the Church Triumphant. 1 Peter 1:3: "He has regenerated us unto a living hope," etc. Thus, therefore, we are generated in the present Church Militant, so that we may arrive at the Triumphant.

Explaining it, then, in this manner, our mother is described from four things: namely from sublimity, when he says "above"; second from her name, when he says "Jerusalem"; third from freedom, when he says "is free"; fourth from fruitfulness, when he says "our mother." She is, therefore, sublime through the open vision of God and through the perfect enjoyment of God, and this as to the Church Triumphant. Isaiah 60:5: "You shall see, and abound," etc. Colossians 3:2: "Mind the things that are above," etc. Likewise sublime through faith and hope, as to the Church Militant. Philippians 3:20: "Our citizenship is in heaven," etc. Canticle 3:6 and 8:5: "Who is this that ascends," etc.

But she is also peaceful, because "Jerusalem," that is, "vision of peace." This indeed befits the Church Triumphant, as having perfect peace. Psalm 147:14: "Who has placed peace as your borders," etc. Isaiah 32:18: "My people shall sit in the beauty of peace." Likewise it befits the Church Militant, which, having peace in Christ, rests. John 16:33: "In me you shall have peace." She is also free — Romans 8:21: "The creature itself shall be freed," etc. — and this as to the Triumphant, and also as to the Militant, as Apocalypse 21:2: "I saw the holy city Jerusalem," etc.

But she is fruitful, because "our mother": the Militant indeed as generating, the Triumphant as that into whose sons we are generated. Psalm 86:5: "Shall not a man say of Sion," etc. Isaiah 60:4: "Your sons shall come from afar," etc.

"For it is written," namely Isaiah 54:1, for according to the Septuagint. Here is set down the prophecy, through which first the freedom of the aforesaid mother is proved; second her fruitfulness, where he says "for many are the children," etc.

But it must be known, concerning the first, that in a fruitful woman, first indeed there is sadness in giving birth, second there follows joy in the offspring received, according to that word of John 16:21: "A woman when she gives birth," etc. But a barren woman neither suffers in childbirth, nor rejoices in offspring. Now "to bear" and "to be in labor" differ, because "to be in labor" denotes the effort toward birth, while "to bear" denotes the bringing forth of the fetus already formed. In labor, therefore, the fruitful woman experiences pain, and in the birth, joy. But the barren woman is deprived both of the pain of labor and of the joy of birth.

But the prophet enjoins these two upon the barren woman, saying "Rejoice, you barren one," etc., where he speaks of Jerusalem, whom he calls free, signified through the barren Sarah. For the Church was barren — namely the Church Militant of the gentiles before its conversion, which was offering a son not to God, but to the Devil. Hence it is said to Babylon, Isaiah 47:9: "Barrenness and widowhood have come upon you," etc. And the Church Triumphant, before the Passion of Christ, was barren, because none were generated into her sons through entrance into glory except in hope. For a sword had been placed before the gate of Paradise, so that no one could enter.

To this barren woman, therefore, it is said "rejoice, you who do not bear," etc., as if he were to say: barren women, as has been said, do not grieve over childbirth, but over the fact that they do not bear. 1 Kings 1:10: "When Anna was of bitter spirit," etc. But you shall rejoice in the multitude of your children. Isaiah 60:5: "Then your heart shall be enlarged and shall marvel" — namely showing outwardly the joy of the mind.

For there are two things in childbirth: namely pain from the breaking of the membranes by which the fetus is contained in the womb, and a cry arising from that very pain. And therefore he says "you who are not in labor" — namely the Church Militant, which does not strive toward birth through desire, and the Triumphant, which is not in labor with grief, or because the time for receiving children had not yet come — "break forth," that is, make manifest outwardly the joy which you have within, "and cry out" with a voice of praise. Isaiah 58:1: "Cry out, do not cease," etc. And these two pertain to freedom, namely to cry out and to break forth: thus, therefore, the freedom of the mother appears.

There follows the fruitfulness: "for many are the children," etc. But since it was said above that the free Church is signified through Sarah, there seems to be a doubt whether Sarah was forsaken. To which it must be known that she was forsaken by Abraham, as is said here, not through divorce, but as to the carnal act. For Abraham did indeed engage in the carnal act, not on account of concupiscence, but for the sake of receiving offspring. When, therefore, it became known to him that Sarah was barren, he forsook her, not breaking the marriage bed, but because he did not make use of her from that precise time when Sarah brought in the handmaid to him. By which it is given to be understood, that the Church of the gentiles was forsaken by Christ, because Christ had not yet come, and that the Church Triumphant was forsaken by men, for whom access to her did not yet lie open.

Of this forsaken woman, therefore — namely the Church of the gentiles — "many are the children," that is, more than the children of her, namely of the synagogue, "which has a husband," namely Moses. 1 Kings 2:5: "The barren has borne very many, and she who had many children," etc. And this upon the coming of the bridegroom, namely Christ, by whom she had been forsaken — not in love, but with the childbearing postponed.

Having explained the mystery as regards the mothers, here he explains it as regards the sons. And first he sets forth the distinction of the sons; second, the principal conclusion, at the words "Therefore, my brothers," etc. Now he sets forth the distinction of the sons with respect to three things. First, with respect to the manner of origin; second, with respect to the affection of love, at "But as then," etc.; third, with respect to the right of inheritance, at "But what does Scripture say," etc.

Now the manner of origin by which some are born sons of Abraham is twofold: some by carnal origin, as Ishmael from the bondwoman; but some not by carnal origin, as Isaac from the free woman — not that he was not born by a natural process, but because, as was said above, it was beyond the natural power of the flesh that a son should be born from a sterile old woman. Now by these sons is understood a twofold people. For by Ishmael is understood the people of the Jews, who are derived from Abraham by carnal propagation. But by Isaac, the people of the Gentiles, who descend from Abraham through imitation of faith. And therefore he says, "But we, brothers" — namely, the faithful, both Jews and Gentiles — "according to Isaac," that is, in the likeness of Isaac, "are made the children of promise" of Abraham. Romans 9:8: "they who are the children of the promise are accounted in the seed." But note that the sons of the flesh of Abraham, according to the letter, are the Jews; but mystically, those who come to the faith on account of carnal and temporal goods.

Now they are distinguished according to affection, because "he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the spirit." But here there is a question. First, because it is not read that Ishmael carried out any persecution against Isaac, but only that he played with him. Genesis 21:9: "When Sarah had seen the son of the bondwoman Hagar playing," etc. Response: it must be said that the Apostle calls that play "persecution," because the play of a great one toward a small one is a kind of mockery, since one who is greater, playing with one who is lesser, intends to deceive him. Or also, as some say, Ishmael was forcing Isaac to worship clay images which he was making, and by this he was teaching him to turn away from the worship of the one God, which is a great persecution, since it is a greater evil to inflict spiritual death than bodily death. Yet this is called "play" in Genesis for the reason that he was doing this under the guise of play.

There is also a question as to how the sons according to the flesh persecuted, and persecute, the sons according to the spirit. But to this there is a response: because from the beginning of the primitive Church the Jews persecuted the Christians, as is evident in the Acts of the Apostles, and they would still do so now if they could. Now also carnal men persecute spiritual men in the Church, even bodily — namely, those who seek glory and temporal gain in the Church. Hence it is said in the Gloss: "All who seek earthly wealth from the Lord in the Church belong to this Ishmael." They are the ones who contradict those advancing in spiritual things, and detract from them, and have "unjust lips and deceitful and treacherous tongues." But the proud and the hypocrites persecute the spiritual sons spiritually. For sometimes some who are manifestly carnal and evil, recognizing their own fault, humble themselves before the good; but fools persecute in others the goodness which they themselves do not have.

There is also a question, because the heretics whom we persecute say that they themselves are born according to the spirit, but we according to the flesh. But it must be said that persecution is twofold. One is good, by which someone persecutes another in order to lead him back to the good, and this just men do to the wicked, and spiritual men to carnal men — either to correct them, if they are willing to be converted, or, if they are obstinate in evil, to destroy them, lest they infect the flock of the Lord. The other persecution is evil, by which someone persecutes another in order to pervert him to evil, and this those who are born according to the flesh do to those who are born according to the spirit.

But as to the right of inheritance, they are distinguished by the authority of Scripture, Genesis 21:10: "Cast out the bondwoman and her son." In which it is given to be understood that the Jews and the persecutors of the Christian faith, and also carnal and evil Christians, will be cast out from the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 8:11: "Many shall come from the east," etc. Apocalypse 22:15: "Outside are dogs and sorcerers," etc. Also the bondwoman, that is, malice, and sin itself, will be cast out. Ecclesiasticus 14:20: "Every corruptible work shall fail in the end." And the reason for these things is added, because "the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman." For in this world the good are mixed together with the evil, and the evil with the good. Song of Songs 2:2: "As the lily among thorns," etc. But in the eternal homeland there will be none but the good. Judges 11:2 it is said to Jephthah: "You cannot be heir in the house of our father, because you were born of an adulteress." This freedom indeed we have from Christ. Hence he says, "With what liberty," etc. John 8:36: "If the Son shall make you free, you shall be truly free."