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

“"The old things you shall cast away, when the new ones come upon them" (Leviticus 26:10). These words fit the present epistle, in which the Apostle rebukes the Galatians, who had been seduced by a false apostle to such an extent that they observed the legal precepts together with the Gospel at the same time. The Apostle reproaches them for this in the words set down above, saying: "The old things you shall cast away, when the new ones come upon them." In these words the Lord points to a fourfold oldness. The first oldness is that of error, concerning which Isaiah 26:3 says: "The old error has departed." And this is removed through the newness of the doctrine of Christ. Mark 1:27: "What is this new doctrine?" The second oldness is that of figure, concerning which Hebrews 8:8 says: "I will perfect a new testament over the house of David, and over Judah, not according to the testament that I made with their fathers." In this he shows first that the first testament was old, and that it is renewed through the newness of grace, that is, of the presence of the truth of Christ. Jeremiah 31:22: "The Lord will make a new thing upon the earth," and so on. The third is the oldness of guilt, concerning which Psalm 31:3 says: "Because I was silent" — that is, in confessing my sins — "they grew old," and so on. And this is renewed through the newness of righteousness. Romans 6:4: "Let us walk in newness of life," and so on. The fourth is the oldness of punishment. Lamentations 3:4: "I have made my skin old." And this will be renewed through the newness of glory, concerning which newness Isaiah, the last chapter, says: "Behold, I create a new heaven," etc.; Apocalypse 21:21: "He who sat upon the throne said: Behold, I make all things new."”

“The Apostle, therefore, writes this epistle to the Galatians, in which he shows that, with the grace of the New Testament coming, the Old Testament ought to be cast aside, so that, once the truth has been fulfilled, the figure may be abandoned; and when these two, namely grace and truth, have been obtained, one arrives at the truth of righteousness and glory. But these two are acquired if, the observance of the legal precepts having been set aside, we fervently insist upon the observance of the Gospel of Christ. The order of this epistle is fitting, in that after the two epistles to the Corinthians — in the first of which the sacraments of the Church are treated, in the second the ministers of these sacraments — the epistle to the Galatians necessarily follows, in which is treated the cessation of the sacraments of the Old Testament. This epistle is divided into two parts: into the salutation, and the epistolary narration, at the words "I marvel that," etc. In the salutation, first the person of the one greeting is set forth; second, the persons greeted are set forth, at the words "to the churches of Galatia," etc.; third, the good that is wished, at the words "grace to you," etc. Concerning the first, first the person principally greeting is set forth, who is described from his name and from his authority. From his name, indeed, when he says "Paul," which is fitting to his humility, because it is interpreted "humble." Hence it is said in 1 Corinthians 16:9: "I am the least of the apostles," etc. Likewise it is fitting to his office, because according to another interpretation it means "mouth of a trumpet," in which the office of preaching is especially signified. Isaiah 58:1: "Lift up your voice like a trumpet," etc. But he is described from authority, when it is said "apostle." Here two things are set forth, namely his authority, and the origin of his authority. His authority, because "apostle," which is the same as "one sent." It should be known that the Apostle, in certain epistles, writes of himself as "servant," showing the name of humility, as in the epistle to the Romans; but in certain others he writes of himself as "apostle," showing his authority. The reason for this is that the Romans were proud, and therefore the Apostle, in order to lead them to humility, writes of himself as "servant," as an example of humility. But to the Galatians, because they were foolish and proud, in order to break them, he names himself "apostle"; and therefore here he sets forth his authority. He describes the origin of his authority when he says "not from men," etc. And first he removes the supposed origin; second he assigns the true one, at the words "but through Jesus Christ," etc. Now the supposed origin was this: that the Galatians had been seduced by false [teachers] to such an extent that they believed the Apostle did not have the same authority that the other apostles had, because he had not been taught by Christ or had lived with him, but had been sent by them, as it were their minister. He therefore removes this opinion when he says "not from men," etc. For some were sent by the whole college of the apostles and disciples. And therefore, showing that he was not sent by them, he says "not from men." For some were sent by some particular one of the apostles, just as Paul at times sent Luke and Titus. And therefore, showing that he was not sent in this way either, he says "nor through man," that is, through any one of the apostles in particular, but through the Holy Spirit, who says, Acts 13:2: "Separate for me," etc. But the true cause of the origin of this authority is Christ Jesus, and therefore he says "but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father." Now this distinction, when he says "through Jesus Christ and God the Father," can be understood either as to the person of the Father and the person of the Son, and then God the Father is one in person, and Jesus Christ another. But the blessed Apostle Paul was sent to preach by both, and by the whole Trinity, because the works of the Trinity are inseparable. No mention is made of the person of the Holy Spirit, because, since he is the union and bond of the two, when the two persons — namely the Father and the Son — are set forth, the Holy Spirit is also understood. Or the aforesaid distinction can be taken as to the nature assumed, namely the human nature, because according to the divine nature there is no distinction between God the Father and Jesus Christ. And then Paul was sent through God the Father, as through the author, and through Jesus Christ, as through the minister. Romans 15:8: "I say that Jesus Christ was a minister," etc. But because the Galatians disparaged the Apostle for not having lived with Christ as the others had, nor having been sent by him, therefore in this respect he especially magnifies himself, because those others were sent by Christ while he was still living in mortal flesh, whereas he himself was sent by Christ already glorified; therefore he says "who" — namely God the Father — "raised him" — namely Jesus Christ, insofar as he is man — "from the dead." As if to say: I am an apostle, not from men, namely the college of apostles, nor through man, namely Christ living in mortal flesh, but I am an apostle through Christ already raised and glorified. Romans 6:9: "Christ, rising from the dead," etc. And because the present life is signified by the left, but the future life by the right, inasmuch as the latter is heavenly and spiritual while the former is temporal, therefore Peter, who was called by Christ while he was still placed in mortal flesh, is placed on the left side in the Pope's seal; but Paul, who was called by Christ already glorified, is placed on the right side. Consequently, when he says "and who are with me," etc., the persons joined with him in greeting are set forth, whom he describes from sweet familiarity, because they are "with me," namely for comfort and help. Proverbs 18:19: "A brother who is helped by a brother," etc. Psalm 132:1: "Behold how good," etc. Likewise from inseparable charity, when he says "brothers"; John 13:35: "By this shall all know," etc. Likewise from universality, when he says "all"; which he adds for this reason, that these people were perhaps so seduced that they would not have regarded the word of Paul. And therefore he says "all who are with me," in order to show that they are witnesses of his truth, and that they might easily understand that they were in error, since they were being rebuked by all. 2 Corinthians 2:6: "Sufficient for him who is such is this rebuke, which is given by many," etc. But he sets forth the persons greeted, when he says "to the churches of Galatia," etc. Here it should be known that, as is touched on in the Gloss, Brennus, leader of the Senones, once, having gathered an army, entered Italy; having passed through it, he came into Greece before the time of Alexander the Great, where, since some of his people remained, in one part of Greece they mixed themselves with the Greeks; hence that province was called Gallograecia; then those people were called Galatians, as if [to say] "white ones." And although the Greeks are of sharp intellect, nevertheless those Galatians were foolish and unstable and rather slow to understand, like the untrainable Gauls, from whom they drew their origin. And therefore below he says to them: "O foolish Galatians," etc. To these, then, he writes this epistle, and these are the persons greeted. Consequently, when he says "grace to you," etc., he sets forth the goods which he wishes for them. And first he sets forth the goods themselves that are wished; second, the author of these goods, at the words "from God the Father," etc. The goods which he wishes for them are two, in which all spiritual things are included. The first is grace, which is the principle of spiritual life, to which is ascribed in the Gloss the remission of sins, which is the first thing in spiritual life. For no one can be in the true spiritual life unless he first dies to sin. The second is peace, which is the quieting of the mind at the end, which is said in the Gloss to be reconciliation to God. And thus, in wishing the beginning and the end of all spiritual goods, the Apostle includes, as it were between two extremes, the desire of every good that is to come to them. Psalm 83:12: "The Lord will give grace and glory." 2 Corinthians, last chapter: "The grace of our Lord," etc. But the author of these goods is God the Father, and therefore he says "from God the Father," etc. Here first the cause of the goods is set forth; second, the manner of causing, at the words "who gave"; third, the giving of thanks for these goods, at the words "to whom be honor," etc. The cause and authority of the goods is God the Father as author, insofar as he is God, and the whole Trinity, which is called the God of all through creation. Wisdom 14:3: "But you, Father, govern," etc. And therefore he says "from God the Father," etc. Likewise the Lord Jesus Christ is the author, as minister, and this insofar as he is man. Romans 15:8: "I say that Jesus Christ [was] a minister," etc. And that grace comes to us through Christ is evident from John 1:17: "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ," etc. Romans 5: "Justified freely," etc. Peace also is ours through him. John 14:27: "My peace I give to you," etc. But the manner of causing these goods is set forth when he says "who gave up," etc. Here first the efficient cause is set forth, which is the death of Christ. And as to this he says "who gave himself," etc., as if to say: Christ is therefore the author of grace and peace because he gave himself over to death and sustained the cross. Hence the very death of Christ is the efficient cause of grace. Romans 5: "Justified freely," etc.; and Colossians 1:20: "Making peace as to the things in heaven," etc. And he says first "who gave," etc., that is, he offered himself willingly. Ephesians 5:2: "Christ loved us, and gave," etc. Hebrews 2:9: "That he might taste death for all of us." Titus 2:14: "Who gave himself," etc. From which the Apostle clearly argues against them that, if the death of Christ is the sufficient cause of our salvation, and in the sacraments of the New Testament — which have their efficacy from the passion of Christ — grace is conferred, then it is superfluous to observe the legal precepts together with the New Testament, since in them grace is not conferred nor is salvation acquired, because "the law brought no one to perfection," as is found in Hebrews 7:19. Second, the end and usefulness of these goods is set forth, which is the final cause. And it is twofold: one is that we might be freed from past sins, and as to this he says "for our sins," namely to be blotted out and expiated, which is the beginning of our salvation. Apocalypse 1:5: "He loved us," etc. The other end is that he might free us from the power of death, and as to this he says "that he might deliver us from the present," etc. Colossians 1:13: "He delivered us from the power," etc. And he sets forth three things, namely "that he might deliver," he says, "from the present," and "age," and "evil." "That he might deliver [us] from the present," by drawing us to eternal things, through desire and hope. "From the age," that is, from conformity to this world which entices us, so that we may not be conformed to it. Romans 12:2: "Do not be conformed to this age," etc. "Evil," leading us back to the truth of righteousness. And the age is called "evil," not on account of its own nature, since it is good, having been created by God, but on account of the evils which are done in it, as that [text] of Ephesians 5:16: "The days are evil," etc. Genesis 47:9, Jacob said: "The days of the years of my pilgrimage are a hundred and thirty years, few and evil," etc. And although these things are ours through Christ, God the Father is nevertheless not excluded. And therefore, third, the acceptance of the divine will is set forth. Hence he says "according to the will of God and the Father." The Father, I say, of Christ by nature, according to which he proceeds from eternity, as the Word. Psalm 2:7: "Today I have begotten you." John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word," etc. Likewise, our Father through adoption. John 1:12: "He gave them power," etc. In the first way, the term "God the Father" is taken for the person of the Father alone; in the second way, for the whole Trinity. And because from God our Father, namely from the whole Trinity, all these things come to us through Christ, therefore to him — namely to the whole Trinity — be glory, in himself, and honor, from others, whether it be or is, forever and ever, that is, always. "Amen" is a mark of confirmation. You have, therefore, in sum, in the aforesaid salutation: the authority of the Apostle, by which he breaks their pride; the power of grace, by which he calls them to the observance of the Gospel; and the insufficiency of the legal precepts, that he may call them back from them.”

“Above, the greeting came first; in what follows, the epistolary narrative follows, in which the Apostle argues against their error. Second, he admonishes them to correction, in chapter 5, where he says stand fast therefore, and so on. Now he argues against their error in two ways: both through the authority of the evangelical teaching, and through the reasoning of the Old Testament, in chapter 3, where he says O foolish, and so on. He argues against their error, then, by showing the authority of the evangelical teaching. First by showing their own fickleness as regards the light dismissal of the evangelical teaching; second by commending the authority of that evangelical teaching itself, so that the more worthy what they are dismissing is shown to be, the greater their error appears — where he says for I make known to you, and so on. Concerning the first he does two things. First he aggravates the fault; second he inflicts the penalty, where he says but though we, and so on. Now he aggravates the fault both of those who are being led astray and of those who are leading them astray, where he says unless there are some, and so on. Concerning the first he does three things. First he aggravates the fault of those being seduced from the fickleness of their mind. Hence he says I marvel — as if to say: since you know how many good things have been said to have come to you through Christ, and that although you were so well instructed by me, nevertheless so, that is, to such an extent and so vehemently, that you seem already to have forgotten, so soon, that is, in so short a time, you are removed — so as to play on the name; for Galatia is said to mean "removal" or "translation." As if to say: you are Galatians, because you are removed so quickly. Ecclesiasticus 19:4: he who believes quickly is light of heart. Second, he aggravates their fault from that which they left. For if reason withdraws and is transferred away from evil, it is commendable and does well; but when it withdraws from the good, then it is culpable. And thus these men had been transferred away from the good. And therefore he says to them: and if it is to be marveled at that you are removed so quickly and thus, he nevertheless adds matter for wonder, namely that you are removed from him, that is, from God, and from his faith, who called you into the grace of Christ, that is, into participation in the eternal good, which we have through Christ. 1 Peter 2:9: giving thanks to God, who has called you into his wonderful light. Likewise 2 Peter 2:21: it would have been better for them not to have known the way of truth, than, and so on. Third, he aggravates their fault from that to which they have been turned, because they have not been turned to the good, but to evil. Hence he says unto another gospel, that is, of the old law, which is a good annunciation insofar as it announces certain goods, namely temporal and carnal ones. Isaiah 1:9: if you be willing and will hearken to me, and so on. But nevertheless it is not perfect and simply so, as the Gospel is; because it does not announce perfect and greatest goods, but small and least ones. But the new law is perfectly and simply the Gospel, that is, a good annunciation, because it announces the greatest goods, namely heavenly, spiritual, and eternal ones. And although it be another gospel according to the tradition of the false apostles, nevertheless according to my preaching it is not. For it is other in its promises, but it is not other in its figure, because the same thing is contained in the Old Testament and in the New: in the Old indeed as in figure, in the New indeed as in the reality and expressly. And thus it is another gospel as regards those things which appear outwardly, but as regards those things which are within and are contained, it is not other. But although it is not other in itself, nevertheless it can become other through the fault of others, namely of those who are leading astray. And therefore, aggravating their fault, he says unless there are some, namely seducers, who trouble you, that is, who becloud the purity of your understanding, with which you had been imbued through the truth of the faith. Because, although the same thing is contained as regards the inner understanding through the Old and New Testament, as has been said, nevertheless if after the reception of the New Testament the Old is repeated, it seems to be shown that the New is not perfect, and that the one is other than the other. And therefore he says that it is not other, unless there are some, etc., because these false apostles, after the reception of the evangelical faith, were compelling them to be circumcised, showing through this that circumcision is something other than Baptism and effects something that Baptism cannot effect, and therefore these men are troubling you. Below, 5:12: I would that they were even cut off who trouble you, and so on. And they truly trouble you, because they wish to convert the Gospel of Christ, that is, the truth of the evangelical teaching into the figure of the law, which is absurd and the greatest disturbance. For a thing ought to be converted into that toward which it is ordered; but the New Testament and the Gospel of Christ is not ordered toward the Old, but rather on the contrary the old law is ordered toward the new law, as figure toward truth; and therefore the figure ought to be converted into the truth, and the old law into the Gospel of Christ, but not the truth into the figure, nor the Gospel of Christ into the old law: which is clear from the very usage of speech. For we do not say that a man is like the image of a man, but rather the other way around, the image is like the man. Jeremiah 15:9: they themselves shall be turned to thee, etc.; and Leviticus 26:10: new things coming upon you, and so on. Consequently, after the aggravation of the fault, the infliction of the penalty is set down, when he says but though, and so on. And concerning this he does two things. First he promulgates the sentence; second he assigns the reason for the sentence, where he says for do I now persuade men, and so on. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows the authority of his sentence; second he pronounces it, where he says as I have said before, and so on. Now he shows that the authority of his sentence is great, in that it would have efficacy not only against perverters and against seducers who are subjects, but even against equals, such as the other apostles are, and even against superiors, such as the Angels are, if they were guilty of this crime, namely of converting the Gospel into the old law. And therefore he says: for the authority of our sentence which I promulgate (which is excommunication) has efficacy not only against those who intend such things, but though we, namely the apostles, or an angel, good or bad, coming from heaven should preach a gospel besides that which has been preached by us, let him be anathema, that is, he shall be guilty of this sentence, which we promulgate. Now for the evidence of what has been said, three things must be inquired into. First, what this word "anathema" signifies. Concerning which it must be known that anathema is a Greek word, and it is compounded from ana, which is "up" or "upward," and thesis, "a positing," as it were "a placing on high." And it arose from a certain ancient custom. For the ancients, when they fought, would sometimes seize some plunder from the enemies, which they did not wish to convert to their own use, but they would hang it up in temples, or in some public place of the city, as it were set apart from the common use of men, and the Greeks called every such thing thus hung up anathema; and from this the custom grew up, that everything which was excluded from common use was said to be anathematized. Hence it is said in Joshua 6:17 concerning Jericho and all the things that are in it, that Joshua straightway anathematized them. And therefore this also grew up in the Church, that those who are excluded from the common fellowship of the Church, and from participation in the sacraments of the Church, are said to be anathematized. Second, the reason must be inquired into of what he says though we or an angel, and so on. Here it must be known that there is a threefold teaching. The first is that of the philosophers, who by the guidance of their own reason arrived at the knowledge of their teaching. There is another teaching, which is handed down through Angels, as the old law is. For the law was not brought forth by human will (as is said at Galatians 3:19), but through Angels in the hand of a mediator, as is said below at 3:19. But there is a certain teaching handed down by God immediately, as the teaching of the Gospel is. John 1:18: no man hath seen God at any time, and so on. Hebrews 1:2: in these last days hath spoken to us by his Son. And afterward: which having received a beginning, and so on. Therefore the teaching which is handed down through a man can be changed and revoked through another man who knows better, just as one philosopher refutes the sayings of another; likewise through an Angel who sees the truth more keenly. Also the teaching which is handed down through an Angel could perhaps be removed through another, superior Angel, or through God. But on the other hand the teaching which is handed down immediately by God cannot be made void either through a man or through an Angel. And therefore if it should happen that a man or an Angel should say something contrary to that which has been handed down by God, his own statement is not against the teaching, so as through this to be made void and rejected, but rather the teaching is against him, because he who speaks it ought to be excluded and rejected from the communion of that teaching. And therefore the Apostle says that the dignity of the evangelical teaching, which is handed down immediately by God, is of such great dignity, that whether a man or an Angel should preach a gospel other than that which has been preached in it, he is anathema, that is, he is to be cast out and rejected. Third, it is necessary to resolve the objections which occur concerning this. Of which one is: since an equal does not have authority over an equal, and much more does not have it over a superior, it seems that the Apostle could not excommunicate the apostles who were his equals, and still less the Angels who are superiors. Matthew 11:11: he that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. Therefore it is not anathema through this. To this it must be said that the Apostle uttered this sentence, not by his own authority, but by the authority of the evangelical teaching, of which he was the minister, of which teaching the authority is such that whoever speak against it are to be excluded and rejected. John 10: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day, and so on. Another question is, because he himself says besides that which has been preached. Therefore no one ought to teach, or to preach, except what is written in the epistles and in the Gospel. But this is false, because it is said at 1 Thessalonians 3:10: that we may accomplish those things that are wanting to your faith, and so on. I respond. It must be said that nothing else is to be preached as gospel, than that which is contained in the Gospels, and in the epistles, and in sacred Scripture, implicitly or explicitly. For sacred Scripture and the Gospel preach that Christ is to be believed in explicitly. Hence whatever is contained in them implicitly, which serves toward his teaching, and toward the faith of Christ, can be preached and taught. And therefore when he says besides that, etc., that is, adding something wholly foreign. Apocalypse, at the end: if any man shall add to these things, or shall add, namely something wholly foreign, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. And Deuteronomy 4: you shall not add anything, etc., namely contrary or foreign, neither shall you take away, and so on. Consequently, when he says as I have said before, etc., he pronounces his sentence in respect of evil, saying: as I have said before concerning Angels and apostles, I say the same concerning the seducers. If any seducer shall preach a gospel besides that which you have received from me, let him be anathema, that is, excommunicated. And this is the sentence which he pronounces. But are all heretics excommunicated by this? It seems not, because it is said at Titus 3:10: a man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid, and so on. I respond. It must be said that someone can be called a heretic either because he simply errs out of ignorance, and from this he is not excommunicated; or because he errs out of obstinacy and strives to pervert others, and then he incurs the canon of a sentence already passed. But whether from that time he pronounced sentence against heretics by these words is doubtful, since nevertheless sentence has already been passed against heretics in the Councils. It can nevertheless be said that perhaps here they are shown to be worthy of excommunication. Consequently, when he says for do I now persuade men, etc., he shows the reason for the sentence. Here first he sets down the reason for the sentence itself; second he here makes clear his purpose, where he says or do I seek, and so on. For someone could say: why do you excommunicate in this way? Perhaps some are friends, or persons of some authority, therefore it ought not to be done thus. Therefore the Apostle, responding, says: nay rather, it ought to be done thus, because these things which I now say are not for the favor of men, but that I may please God, and this is what he says for do I now, that is, after my conversion, or in this epistle, persuade men, that is, does my desire tend to this, that I might please men, or God? As if to say: these things which I do, I do for this reason, that I may please God alone. 1 Thessalonians 2:4: we speak not as pleasing men, but God, and so on. Nor indeed do we speak by the authority of men, but by the divine authority. But that I do not intend to please men is clear from my intention and from my purpose. For I do not seek to please men, that is, it is not of my intention to convert men, that I may please men only, but for the honor of God. And this is clear, because if I still intended to please men, as I once pleased them, I should not be the servant of Christ. The reason for which is that these things are contrary to one another. To this extent, namely, that I should wish to please men for the sake of men, not referring that to God. For if I should intend at some time to please men for this reason, that I might draw them to God, I do not sin. But if in the first way, I am not the servant of Christ. Isaiah 28:20: the bed is straitened, so that one must fall out, and so on. Matthew 6:24: no man can serve two masters, and so on. Psalm 52:6: they are confounded that please men.”

“Above, the Apostle rebuked the Galatians for fickleness of mind, because they had so quickly abandoned the teaching of the Gospel; but here he shows the dignity of the evangelical teaching itself. And concerning this he does two things. For first he commends the authority of the evangelical teaching in itself; second, on the part of the other apostles, and his own together, in chapter 2, where it says "Then after fourteen years," etc. Again the first part is divided into two, for first he sets forth his intention; second he makes clear his proposal, where it says "For you have heard," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth what he intends; second he proves what he proposes, where it says "For neither," etc. Intending, therefore, to commend the truth of the evangelical teaching, he says "I make known to you," etc., as if to say: I am so certain of the authority of the Gospel that I would not believe anything contrary not only from men but even from angels; rather, if they were contrary, I would anathematize them. And indeed I have this certitude from this, that God is to be believed more than men, or angels. And therefore, since I have had that Gospel from God, I ought to have and do have the greatest certitude. And therefore he says: "For I make known to you, brothers, the Gospel which was preached by me to you and to the other churches, that it is not according to man" — that is, according to human nature discordant from the rule or revelation of God. And thus the phrase "according to man" here sounds in the sense of a vice. 1 Corinthians 3:3: "For since there is among you jealousy and contention," etc. And thus the Apostle takes it here. And therefore he says "not according to man" teaching me or sending me: as if to say: in no way can this Gospel be had from man, but from God. And therefore he adds "For neither did I from man," etc., where he excludes a twofold manner of receiving. First, that he did not have from man the authority of evangelizing, and as to this he says "neither from man" — namely, mere man — "did I receive it," that is, the authority of preaching the Gospel, but from Christ. Romans 10:15: "How shall they preach unless they be sent?" Isaiah 42:6: "I have given you as a light of the nations," etc. Acts 9:15: "This man is a vessel of election to me," etc. Second, that he did not receive the knowledge of evangelizing from man. And therefore he says "neither did I learn it" — namely, the Gospel — through a mere man, but "through the revelation of Jesus Christ," that is, through Jesus Christ showing all things clearly. 1 Corinthians 2:10: "But to us God has revealed," etc. Isaiah 50:5: "The Lord God has opened my ear," etc. And in the same place, 4: "The Lord has given me a learned tongue, that I should know," etc. But this revelation was made to the Apostle when he was caught up into Paradise, where he heard secret words which it is not lawful for a man to speak, 2 Corinthians 12:4. Consequently, when he says "For you have heard," etc., he proves his proposition, namely that he did not receive the Gospel from man, neither before his conversion nor after his conversion to Christ, where it says "For when it pleased," etc. That he did not receive it from man before his conversion, he shows both through the hatred which he had for the faith of Christ and for Christians, and through the fervor which he had for Judaism, where it says "And I was advancing," etc. He says therefore: I say that I did not receive it from man, and this before my conversion, which is clear from the deeds of that time, and from the hatred which I had toward the faith. For you yourselves have heard — below, in the same place: "but they had only heard," etc. — "my former manner of life," when I was an unbeliever, "in Judaism," in which I lived as a Jew. And he says "my," because whatever evil we do is from ourselves, but whatever good we do is from God. Hosea 13:9: "Your destruction is from you, O Israel; only in me is your help." This, namely, you have heard: "that beyond measure" — namely, beyond that of others — because not only by himself, but he provoked the rulers to this. For others, perhaps, being induced by the rulers, persecuted; but this man induced them. Acts 9:1: "Saul, still breathing out threats," etc., "went to," etc. And this not only in Jerusalem, but also through the whole region. Whence "he received letters to Damascus," etc. Whence that which is said in Genesis 49:27 can be understood of him: "Benjamin is a ravenous wolf," etc. "I persecuted the Church of God," namely by seeking out Christians and putting them to flight. 1 Corinthians 15:9: "I am not worthy to be called an apostle," etc. "And I laid waste it" — not indeed spiritually, since he could not turn the hearts of the faithful away from the faith, but bodily, by afflicting them with bodily punishments, and by putting them in prison. Acts 9:21: "Is not this he who," etc. Psalm 128:1: "Often have they fought against me," etc. Thus therefore it is clear, through the hatred which he had for the faith of Christ before his conversion, that he did not receive the Gospel from man. This is also clear through the love and fervor of zeal which he had for Judaism, and this as to outward advancement. Whence he says "and I advanced," etc., where he sets down three things which express the magnitude of his advancement: because "above many" — he advanced above many, not above few; not above old men unfit for advancement in knowledge, but "those of his own age," namely young men, sharp and apt for advancement. Lamentations 3:27: "It is good for a man when he has borne the yoke from his youth." Likewise not above those of his own age who were foreigners, as of an unknown tongue, but "those who are of my own race," namely of the Jews. Acts 22:3: "I am a Jewish man, educated at the feet of Gamaliel," etc. Likewise as to the interior zeal which he had for the law. And therefore he says "being more abundantly a zealot than others" — not only of the law, but "of my paternal traditions," namely those which the Jews hold as lawful, which good fathers added, as is said in the Gloss; which traditions indeed he calls his own, because he so reckoned them, as if they had been his own. Philippians 3:5: "According to the law a Pharisee, according to zeal persecuting," etc. But there is a question concerning what the Gloss says: "good fathers added." It seems that they were not good, because in Deuteronomy 4:2 it is said: "You shall not add to the word which I speak to you," etc. Therefore they acted against the commandment of the Lord, adding traditions, and thus they were not good. It must be said that this word of the Lord is to be understood thus: you shall not add anything contrary to, or foreign to, the words which I speak, etc. But to add certain things which are not contrary was lawful for them — namely, certain solemn days and other similar things, as was done in the time of Mordecai, and in the time of Judith, in memory of the benefits which they received from God. On the contrary, in Matthew 15:6, the Lord reproves them, saying: "You have made void the commandment of the Lord for the sake of the traditions of men." Therefore traditions are not lawful. I respond: it must be said that they are not reproved because they hold the traditions of men, but because on account of the traditions of men they abandon the commandments of God.”

“After the Apostle has shown that he himself did not receive the Gospel from man before his conversion, he now proves here that he did not receive it from man after his conversion either. And concerning this he does two things. First he shows that he did not receive the Gospel from man at the time of his conversion; second, that he did not receive it after his conversion either, at the place, then after three years, and so on. Concerning the first he does two things. For first he shows that he did not receive the Gospel from the apostles, nor was he taught by them; second, that he did not receive it from other believers either, at the place, but I went away into Arabia, and so on. Concerning the first he does three things. First he shows the efficient cause of his conversion; second, the end, at the place, that he might reveal, etc.; third, the manner, at the place, immediately I did not yield, and so on. Concerning the first, he notes the cause of his conversion, which is twofold, namely the good pleasure of God, which is the divine election, and the calling of the one who converts him. As to the first he says when it pleased, namely God — not when I willed, but when it was pleasing to him, because it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, etc., as is said in Romans 9:16. Psalm 146:11: the good pleasure is with the Lord, and so on. Philippians 2:13: it is God who works in us, and so on. Who, namely God, me — namely a rebel, 1 Corinthians 15:9: I am the least of the apostles, etc., because I persecuted, and so on; Acts 9:1: Saul still breathing threats, and so on — a persecutor: Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me, etc. — a blasphemer, 1 Timothy 1:13: who was a blasphemer, and so on. Me, such as I was, I say, he set apart from my mother's womb. Or according to the letter: who caused me to be born from my mother's belly. And it is truly said that God sets apart from the womb, although this is the work of nature, which is as it were the instrument of God, because our works too are attributed to God as to the principal author, Isaiah 26:12: for all our works you have wrought in us, etc., just as effects are also attributed to the principal agent. Hence it is said in Job 10:11: you have clothed me with skin and flesh, and so on. And from this womb he was set apart unto justification, because it belongs to the same one to justify to whom it belongs to create. Psalm 21:11: from my mother's womb, and so on. Or: from my mother's womb, namely of the synagogue, whose womb is the college of the Pharisees, who nourished others in Judaism. Matthew 23:15: you go about sea and land to make, and so on. Thus, then, his mother was the synagogue. Song of Songs 1:5: the sons of my mother fought against me, and so on. Her womb is the Pharisees. From this womb, then, he was set apart through the Holy Spirit unto the faith of the Gospel. Romans 1:1: set apart unto the Gospel of God. Or his mother is the Church of Christ; her womb, the college of the apostles. God, then, set him apart from the womb of the Church, that is, from the college of the apostles, into the office of apostleship and preaching to the gentiles, when he said to the apostles, Acts 13:2: set apart for me Barnabas and Paul, and so on. Now he calls the synagogue his mother because he was a Pharisee, being as it were great in it, since it is said, a Pharisee, and of the Pharisees, because he was a zealot of the law. Above: but being more abundantly a zealot, and so on. As to the other cause he says, and called, and so on. Now there is a twofold calling. One is exterior, and thus he says: he called me with a heavenly voice. Acts 9:4: Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? and so on. Go into the city, and so on. Thus he also called the other apostles. The other is interior, and thus he called through a certain interior instinct, by which God through grace touches the heart, that it may be converted to him, and thus he called him from the evil way into the good, and this through his grace, not by our merits. Romans 8:30: whom he predestined, these he also called, and so on. Isaiah 45:13: I have raised him up unto justice, and so on. Amos 5:8: who calls the waters of the sea, and so on. Now the end of his conversion is set down when he says, that he might reveal his Son, etc., which end indeed is Christ. Now his conversion is ordered to Christ in two ways: namely by deed, and thus he says that he might reveal his Son, that is, in that which he did concerning me, converting me and forgiving me my sins, he might reveal how great a mercy had been done to me. 1 Timothy 1:15ff: Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners, and so on. But I obtained the mercy of God because ignorant, and so on. Thus, then, he revealed his Son in his conversion, and this insofar as the Son is called the grace of God. Likewise he revealed him in his working; whence he himself said, Romans 15:18: for I do not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not wrought through me unto the obedience of the gentiles, in word, in deeds, and in power, and so on. And this insofar as the Son is the power of God. Likewise he revealed him in his preaching; whence he himself said, 1 Corinthians 1:23: we preach, etc., down to and the wisdom of God. And this insofar as his Son is called the wisdom of God. Likewise his conversion is ordered to Christ by word, and thus he says that I might preach him among the gentiles, because, while the other apostles were preaching Christ to the Jews, Paul, by the command of the Lord, went to the gentiles to convert them. Isaiah 49:6: for it is a small thing that you should be my servant, etc., I have given you as a light, and so on. Acts 13:47: for thus he has commanded, and so on. Below: behold I have given him as a witness to the peoples, a leader and teacher to the gentiles. Now the manner of his conversion is perfect, both as to its effect; whence he says immediately I did not yield to flesh and blood, that is, at once I was so perfectly converted that every carnal affection withdrew from me. Ecclesiasticus 11:23: for it is easy in the eyes of the Lord suddenly to enrich the poor man. And here flesh and blood is taken for carnal vices. 1 Corinthians 15:50: flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God, and so on. Below, 5:17: the flesh lusts, and so on. Or for the affection and love toward those carnally joined to oneself. Matthew 16:17: flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, and so on. Thus the Apostle both overcame his own vices and despised his own Jews. Likewise as to the intellect; because he was so instructed by Christ that it was not necessary for him to be instructed by the apostles. And therefore he says, nor did I go to Jerusalem, namely so as to be instructed by them. Likewise it was not necessary for him to be instructed by other believers. And therefore he says, but I went away into Arabia, etc., as if to say: I did not go to places where other believers were, so that they might instruct me, but I went into Arabia, where there were none instructed in the faith, but unbelievers. And again I returned to Damascus, namely to my kinsfolk. Job 38:25: who has given a course to the most violent rain shower, and so on. But against this it is said in Acts 9:25 that they let him down from the wall in a basket, and so on. And when he had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join himself to the disciples. He came, then, to Jerusalem. It must be said that he came, but not so as to be instructed. Or, better, it must be said that he did not come at once, but after some time, and therefore there follows, then after years, and so on.”

“After the Apostle has above shown that he did not receive the Gospel from man before his conversion, nor at the time of his conversion, here he proves that he did not receive it from man even after his conversion; rather, here he shows how his teaching was approved by men. And concerning this he does two things. First, he shows how his teaching was approved by the apostles; second, he shows how it was approved by the other faithful, at the place then I came into the regions, etc. And first he narrates the fact; second he confirms the truth of what he has said, at the place behold, before God, etc. He says therefore: although I did not go to the apostles in order to be instructed by them concerning the beginning of my conversion, since I was already instructed by Christ, nevertheless, driven by an affection of charity, after three years — namely, of my conversion — I came to Jerusalem, since I had for a long time desired to see Peter, not in order to learn from him, but in order to visit him. Job 5:24: "visiting your beauty," etc. And I remained with him fifteen days, being found by him to be a truthful apostle. And he says fifteen days, because this number is composed of eight and seven. Now the number eight is the number of the New Testament, in which the eighth day of those who rise again is awaited; while the number seven is the number of the Old Testament, because it celebrates the seventh day. He remained with Peter fifteen days, conferring with him about the mysteries of the Old and New Testament. And lest it be believed that, although he was not instructed by Peter, he was nevertheless instructed by others, he adds that he was not instructed by others either. Hence he says but of the other apostles I saw none, that is, no one, by whom I might have been instructed, except James the brother of the Lord. For he saw him in Jerusalem. Concerning this James it should be known that he was bishop of Jerusalem, and was called James the Less, because he had been called after the other James. Many things are said about him at Acts 15:13ff. He also wrote a canonical epistle. But why he is called the brother of the Lord is said differently by different people. For Helvidius says that he is called brother of the Lord for this reason, that he was the son of the Blessed Virgin. For he says that the Blessed Virgin conceived and bore Christ, and after the birth of Christ conceived by Joseph, and bore other sons. But this error has been condemned and rejected. Likewise it is plainly false, because James was not the son of Joseph, but of Alphaeus. Others, however, say that Joseph, before the Blessed Virgin, had another wife, from whom he had a son James and others, and when she died, he took the Blessed Virgin as wife, from whom Christ was born, yet not known by Joseph, but by the Holy Spirit, as is said in the Gospel. Because, then, kinships are named from the father, and Joseph was thought to be the father of Christ, therefore this James, although he was not the son of the Virgin, was nevertheless called brother of the Lord. But this is false, because if the Lord did not wish his mother, a virgin, to be entrusted to the keeping of anyone but a virgin, how would he have permitted her spouse not to have been a virgin, and to have remained so? Therefore others say, and it is touched on in the Gloss, that this James was the son of Mary of Cleophas, who was the sister of the Virgin. For they say that Anna, the mother of the Blessed Virgin, married first Joachim, from whom she bore Mary, the mother of the Lord; when he died, she married Cleophas, the brother of Joachim, from whom she bore Mary of Cleophas, and from her was born James the Less, Jude, and Simon; when he died, it is said that she then married a certain third man, who was called Salome, from whom she conceived and bore another Mary, who was called Salome, and from her was born James the Greater, and John, his brother. But Jerome contradicts this opinion in two ways. First, because Salome is not the name of a man, as also appears in the Greek, but is the name of a woman, who was the sister of the Blessed Virgin, and by Zebedee bore James the Greater and John, just as Mary of Cleophas by Alphaeus bore James the Less, Jude, and Simon. Now this James is called brother of the Lord specially among his other cousins, and this for two reasons: first, on account of a likeness of appearance, because he was like Christ in face; and on account of a likeness of life, because he imitated Christ in his ways. Or because Alphaeus his father was of the kinship of Joseph; and therefore, since the Jews were accustomed to trace the line of kinship from the males, and Christ was thought to be the son of Joseph, as is said in Luke 3:23, therefore he in particular was called brother of the Lord, and not the others, who were joined to him only through the mother. Here, however, "brother" is taken in the sense of kinship. For in Scripture "brothers" are sometimes said by nature. Matthew 1:2: "and Jacob begot Judah and his brothers." By kinship, as all blood relations are brothers. Genesis 13:8: "let there be no quarrel, I beg, between me and you, for we are brothers." By people, and thus all of one language are called brothers. Deuteronomy 17:15: "you may not set a man of another people as king, who is not your brother." By affection, and thus all friends, and those who have the same affection, are called brothers. 2 Corinthians 2:13: "because I did not find Titus my brother," etc. By religion, and thus all Christians who have one rule of life are called brothers. Matthew 23:8: "you are brothers," etc. Psalm 132:1: "behold how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together," etc. And commonly all men are called brothers, because they are governed and brought up by the one God. Malachi 2:10: "have we not all one father," etc. Next, when he says but the things that I write to you, etc., he confirms by an oath what he had said, as if to say: these things which I now write to you about myself, behold, they are in the open, so that it is sufficiently established that I do not lie. And this I say, before God, that is, with God as witness. Now the Apostle swears here not out of levity, but out of the necessity of those for whom it was necessary that they believe. For unless he did this, they would not believe him. 2 Corinthians 2:17: "before God, in Christ, we speak." Romans 1:9: "God is my witness," etc. What, then, does the Lord say: "let your speech be, yes, yes; no, no; what is more than this is from evil"? It must be said that it is from the evil of him who does not believe, or from the evil of the punishment by which someone is compelled to swear. Next, when he says then I came, etc., he shows how he was approved by the other churches of Judea. Here he does three things. First he shows where he stayed, namely, in Cilicia. Hence he says then I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, namely, of his homeland; whence also he had been carried off — for it is said at Acts 22:3: "now Paul was from Tarsus of Cilicia," etc. Second, how he was known by them, namely, not by face, but only by hearing and report. Hence he says for I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea that were in Christ, that is, in the faith of Christ. 2 Corinthians 6:8: "as unknown, and known." Whence it is clear that the churches of Judea did not teach me. For they had only heard, namely, of me by report, that he who persecuted, etc. Third, how he was approved by them, because they glorified God in me, that is, in my conversion they approved as great him who by his grace converted me. Isaiah 43:20: "the beast shall glorify me," etc.”

“After the Apostle, in the preceding chapter, commended the authority of the evangelical teaching in itself, now in this chapter he commends it on the part of the other apostles and of himself at the same time. And concerning this he does two things. First he commends the authority of his teaching from the approval of the other apostles; second, from the example of himself and the other apostles, at the place "We by nature Jews, not of the Gentiles," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows that the other apostles approved his teaching; second he shows that he freely reprehended the other apostles in those things which they said contrary to his teaching, at the place "When Peter had come," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he treats of the conference which he had with the apostles; second he intimates what followed from it, at the place "but neither was Titus," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets down the circumstances of the conference itself; second he sets down the conference itself, at the place "and I conferred with them," etc. As to the first he touches on four circumstances, namely the time, the place, the witnesses, and its motive. Now he describes the time when he says, "then after fourteen years." But against this: the Apostle was converted in the first year after the Passion of Christ, and after three years he went to Jerusalem, and thus there are four; and here he says "after fourteen years" he went again to Jerusalem, and thus there come to be eighteen; and then he found Peter in Jerusalem. And this cannot be, because Peter sat at Antioch for seven years, but at Rome for twenty-five years. And so there would be eighteen (two short of twenty) and seven — which are twenty-five years — before he went to Rome, and at Rome he stayed twenty-five years; therefore Peter would have lived after the Passion of Christ fifty years, which is false: because in the fortieth year from the Passion of Christ, Peter suffered at Rome, as is held in history, which was in the time of Nero. I respond. It must be said that when it is said "then," etc., it is not to be understood that after the three years fourteen more years elapsed before he went to Jerusalem, but that in the fourteenth year of his conversion he went up again. Nor are the seven years, during which Peter ruled the Antiochene Church, to be added on top of these fourteen, because he began to rule before these years. And since Antioch is near Jerusalem, it could be that at some point Peter had gone to Jerusalem, and then Paul found him there. And thus it is gathered from history that after fourteen years Peter came to Rome in the time of the emperor Claudius, and being there for twenty-five years, he completed the number of thirty-nine years, and died in the fortieth year after the Passion of the Lord. Now he says "fourteen" pointedly, to show that he had no need of the instruction of the apostles, if he was without them for fourteen years. But he describes the place when he says "Jerusalem." And he says "I went up," because it is situated on high. Now he went up to Jerusalem, in order to show himself in agreement with the prophecy which says, Isaiah 2:3: "Out of Sion shall go forth the law," etc. He describes the witnesses when he says, "with Barnabas, taking also Titus." Barnabas was a Jew, but Titus a Gentile. With them, therefore, he went up, so that he might have witnesses to his teaching, and so that he might show himself inclining to neither side, neither of the Jews nor of the Gentiles. Deuteronomy 17: "In the mouth of two or three every word stands." But he describes the motive when he says "according to a revelation of God," that is, God revealing it and commanding him that he should go up to Jerusalem. From this it can be gathered that all the acts and movements of the apostles were according to the instinct of the Holy Spirit. Job 37:11: "The clouds scatter their light," etc. Consequently, when he says "and I conferred," etc., he treats of the conference itself, where he does three things. First he sets forth the matter concerning which he conferred; second, the persons with whom he conferred; and third, the cause for which he conferred. The matter concerning which he conferred was the Gospel. And therefore he says, "I conferred with them the Gospel of God," etc. The persons with whom he conferred are the greater and more excellent among the apostles: "but apart with those," etc. But the useful and necessary cause: namely "lest perhaps in vain," etc. As to the first he says, "I went up to Jerusalem," where "I conferred with them," as with friends and equals, the Gospel which I preached among the Gentiles — not that I might learn it, since I was already taught by Christ; not that I might be certified of it, since I am so certain that even if an angel should say the contrary, I would not believe it, as is clear above in chapter 1. But I conferred for two reasons: namely, to intimate the unity of my teaching with the teaching of the other apostles. 1 Corinthians 1:10: "That you all say the same thing," etc. He therefore conferred with them, having as it were the same word as they, yet not holding them as equals. Likewise, to avoid the calumny of others. For the Apostle, because he had not lived with Christ, nor been taught by the apostles, but immediately after his conversion began to preach things that were hateful to the Jews — and especially concerning the calling of the Gentiles, and that the legal observances ought not to be kept — thus, then, he conferred the Gospel. But with whom he did this, he shows by adding, "but apart with those," etc., as if to say: not with all, but with those who were among the others of some authority and weight, namely with Peter, James and John, and the other great ones. Ecclesiasticus 9:21: "Deal with the wise and the prudent," etc. But "apart," etc. — not that he dealt or conferred with them concerning shameful or false things, as heretics do, but because he knew that there were Jews there who calumniated, on account of the fact that he had taught concerning the legal observances. And therefore, lest the truth lie open to calumny, he conferred apart with those who would not calumniate. Proverbs 25:9: "Treat thy cause with thy friend, and discover not the secret to a stranger," etc. Ecclesiasticus 8:21: "Before a stranger do not take counsel," etc. Thus, then, both the matter of the conference and the persons are clear. There follows the cause, which was, namely, "lest I should run, or had run, in vain" — that is, lest I be reckoned to have preached uselessly. Now he calls his preaching a "running," on account of the swiftness of his teaching, because in a short time he preached the Gospel from Jerusalem all the way to Illyricum, and even to Spain. Whence that saying could be said of him, Psalm 147:15: "His word runneth swiftly," etc.; 2 Thessalonians 3:1: "Brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may run," etc. But did he doubt that he was running in vain? It must be said that he did not doubt for himself, but concerning those to whom he had preached — because unless his teaching were firmly held by them, as far as they were concerned he would have run in vain; and therefore he wished to confer with them, so that, when the hearers knew that his teaching agreed with the teaching of the other apostles, and was approved by them, they would hold his teaching more firmly, and thus, as far as they were concerned, he would not run in vain. 1 Corinthians 9:26: "I so run, not as at an uncertain thing." Consequently, when he says "but neither was Titus," etc., he shows what followed from the conference held with the apostles. And he sets down three things that followed from it: namely, that he did not depart from his own position; and that nothing was added over and above to his teaching, at the place "but from those who seemed," etc. Third, that his teaching was approved, at the place "but on the contrary, when they had seen," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows that he did not depart from his position in a certain particular matter; second he shows that he did not depart from it in any other matter either, at the place "but because of false brethren brought in unawares," etc. He says, then: I say that I conferred with them concerning the teaching of the Gospel in such a way that from this it followed that my teaching and position remained firm — namely, that the legal observances were not to be kept, so that the Gentiles were not compelled to keep the legal observances — to such an extent that not even Titus, who was with me, although he was also a Gentile, was compelled, by their arguments, to be circumcised, but was received by the apostles into fellowship uncircumcised. Whence then a decision was given by the apostles concerning the legal observances not being kept, as is found in Acts 15:28. Now the reason why, after the Passion of Christ, the legal observances ought not to be kept is assigned by Chrysostom as follows: for it is manifest that an instrument which is made concerning some promise or covenant holds only until the covenant and promise be fulfilled; once these are fulfilled, the aforesaid instrument no longer holds in this regard. Now circumcision is a certain instrument of the promise and covenant between God and faithful men; whence also Abraham received circumcision as a sign of the promise, as is said in Genesis 17. And because, the Passion of Christ having been accomplished, the promise was discharged and the covenant fulfilled, therefore after the Passion circumcision no longer holds, nor is it of any effect. Thus, then, it is clear that he did not depart from his position in that he did not permit Titus to be circumcised. Consequently he shows that he did not depart from it in any other matter either, when he says "but because of false brethren brought in unawares," etc. But this text is different in different copies and obscure, and is read thus: you say that you did not permit Titus to be circumcised, but why did you not permit it? Did you not elsewhere permit Timothy to be circumcised, as is read in Acts 16:3? To this the Apostle can respond thus: because at that time, when Timothy was circumcised, circumcision was a matter of indifference, namely whether it was kept or not; but now, when the matter concerned Titus, there was a special question about circumcision, which I was saying ought not to be kept. Whence if I had permitted him to be circumcised, since I myself had settled the question, it would have been done contrary to my own decision, nor was it lawful to raise the question further about this, or to make a difficulty of it, as being already determined. And therefore he says: I say that I not only did not permit him to be circumcised by them, to whom we yielded not even for an hour by way of subjection — namely, that the Gentiles should be made subject to the law. And this on account of those brought in unawares — by the Devil or by the Pharisees — false brethren, who feign themselves to be friends. 2 Corinthians 12: "peril from false brethren." Who — namely, the false brethren — came in unawares into the place where the apostles were, "to spy," that is, to spy out our liberty from sin and the law. 2 Corinthians 3:17: "Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Romans 8:15: "For you have not received the spirit of bondage," etc. Below, chapter 4:5: "that he might redeem them who were under the law." Which — namely, liberty — we have in Christ Jesus, that is, through faith in Christ. Below, chapter 4, verse 31: "You are not the children of the bondwoman, but of the free." And for this they came in unawares: that they might bring us back into servitude — of the law and of carnal observances — as before the Passion of Christ, which is not to be done, because "no man can lay another foundation," etc., 1 Corinthians 3:11. And this "that the truth of the Gospel might remain with you" — as if to say: in nothing did we yield to them for this reason, namely lest we give occasion to those who said that without circumcision you could not be saved, which is contrary to the truth of the Gospel that I preached to you. But Ambrose reads it otherwise. For according to what has been said above, it is held that he did not yield for an hour on account of those brought in unawares. From which it follows that, had the false brethren not been brought in unawares, he would have yielded to them concerning the observance of the legal precepts. And therefore it was not on account of this, because he would not have yielded to them on account of this, but on account of the truth itself. Therefore Ambrose says that the text is corrupt, and that the word "neither" there is superfluous. Whence he wishes that "neither" not be there. And then the sense is: I did not permit Titus to be circumcised, but I permitted Timothy to be circumcised on account of the false brethren brought in unawares, in the place where I was with Timothy and the others, who came in unawares, etc. And since they had been unable to do this, they were striving to incite the people to sedition against us. To whom — namely, to the false brethren — for this reason we yielded for an hour to subjection, in the act of circumcision, by circumcising Timothy, there where it is said "that the truth of the Gospel might remain," etc., which holds that neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith. Now there was a special reason why Timothy was circumcised and not Titus: because Timothy was of a Gentile father and a Jewish mother, whereas Titus was of Gentile parents on both sides. And it was the Apostle's position that those who had been born of some Jewish parent should be circumcised, but those who had been born entirely of Gentile parents should by no means be circumcised.”

“Having shown that the Apostle in no way withdrew from his position in the aforesaid conference, he here consequently shows that nothing was added to his teaching by the other apostles. And concerning this he does two things. First, he describes the condition of the apostles, who were unable to add anything to him; second, he pursues his proposal, at the place for to me, they who, etc. Now he describes their condition from three things. First, from the authority which they had in the Church, which is great. And as to this he says but from these, etc. The text is defective, whence it ought to be supplied thus: but from these, namely from Peter and John; as if he were saying: although for a time I yielded to them, I nevertheless received nothing from them, either of power or of doctrine. And if I received nothing from these, much less from the others. But it should be noted that what he says, who seemed to be something, if this is understood according to the grace of God which was in them, is true in this way, that according to this they were great, because whom he justified, these he also magnified, as is said in Romans 8:30. But if they are understood to be something according to themselves, then it is false, because according to this they were nothing. For if they seemed to be something of themselves, they would always have been great, because what belongs to a thing through itself always belongs to it. Whence, since they were not always great, they did not seem to be something of themselves. Second, he describes their condition from their state before their conversion, which they had in the synagogue. And this state he cautiously shows to have been abject and vile. Whence he says whatsoever they once were, because they were rustic, poor, unlearned, and without letters. 1 Corinthians 1:26: not many wise according to the flesh, etc. But what they were, it is nothing, that is, it does not matter to me, namely, to speak of it. And this perhaps he introduces so that, considering the state which they had in the synagogue (which was nothing) and the state of Paul (which was great), they might clearly know that Paul, as regards the matters of the Law, is to be preferred to them, and especially since Paul, in the state of the Church of Christ, was equal to them, so that Paul, in the state of the synagogue before his conversion, surpassed them, while in the state after his conversion he was equal to them. Whence, when it was a question of the synagogue, one ought rather to stand by Paul's judgment than that of the others; but when it was a question of the Gospel, one ought to stand by his judgment just as by that of the others. And just as the others were not great through the matters of the Law, but through Christ, so too the Apostle was great through Christ in faith, and not through the matters of the Law. Third, he describes their condition from divine election, and as to this he says for God does not accept the person, etc., as if he were saying: therefore they are great, because God magnified them, not looking to their merits or demerits, but to that very thing which he intends to do. And therefore he says God does not accept the person of man, that is, he does not regard it as great or small. Wisdom 6:8: he made the small and the great, etc. But without acceptance of persons he calls all to salvation, not imputing to them their sins, and this because they have passed away. 2 Corinthians 5:17: the old things have passed away, etc. Psalm 15:4: nor will I be mindful of their names, etc. And therefore Peter says, in Acts 10:34: in truth I have found that there is no acceptance of persons, etc. Concerning this it should be known that to accept a person is properly to attend, in some transaction, to a condition of the person that contributes nothing to the transaction, as if it were the rule of that transaction itself — for example, when I give a benefit to someone because he is noble, or handsome. For nobility or handsomeness contributes nothing to his having the benefit. But if the condition of the person does contribute to the transaction, then, in considering that condition in that deed, I am not accepting the person; as when I give a benefit to someone because he is good, and will serve the Church well, because he is well-lettered and honest, I am not an accepter of persons. Therefore to accept a person, properly speaking, is nothing other than to consider a condition of the person which contributes nothing to the transaction. Since, then, God in his works and benefits regards nothing pre-existing on the part of the creature — because that very thing which belongs to the creature is the effect of his election — but regards only, as a rule, the good pleasure of his own will, according to which he works all things, and not according to any condition of the person, as is said in Ephesians 4:7, it is manifest that he does not accept the person of man. Consequently, having described their condition, he shows his proposal, namely that they were able to add nothing to him. And therefore he says for to me, they who seemed to be something, contributed nothing, as if he were saying: although they were of great authority, nevertheless they added nothing to my teaching nor to my power, because, as was said above, neither did I receive the Gospel from man, nor was I taught it through man. But the Gloss reads otherwise: whatsoever they once were, etc., as if he were saying: it does not pertain to me to recount their state before their conversion, namely what sort of men they were, because this too does not matter, since I too was a persecutor of that very Church, and yet God, by the good pleasure of his own will, chose me and magnified me, and this because the Lord does not accept the person of man. Consequently, when he says but on the contrary, when they had seen, etc., he shows how his position was approved by the apostles. And concerning this he does three things. First, he sets down the cause of the approval; second, he intimates the approval itself, at the place James and Cephas, etc. Third, he adds a certain condition attached to the approval, at the place only that we should be mindful of the poor, etc. Now he sets down a twofold cause of the approval (which moved the apostles to approve the Apostle's position), namely, the office of preaching enjoined upon the Apostle by Christ, and the effect of the office enjoined, at the place and when they had known, etc. Concerning the first, he first sets down the office enjoined, which moved them to approve; second, the manifestation of the office, at the place for he who wrought, etc. He says therefore: I say that they who seemed to be something contributed nothing to me, but rather, against the opinion of the adversaries, who had gone up against me to Jerusalem to the apostles on account of this very question, the apostles themselves approved me, and this when they had seen that the Gospel had been entrusted to me, that is, the office of preaching, of the uncircumcision, that is, enjoined to preach to the uncircumcised, namely, to the gentiles. Jeremiah 9:26: all the nations have the foreskin, but the whole house, etc. Just as authority was committed to Peter, that he should preach to the Jews only, and to Paul, to the gentiles; but afterward both Peter preached to the gentiles, and Paul to the Jews. But because someone could say: whence is it clear to us that the Gospel among the gentiles has been committed to you? Therefore, interposing, he says that it is through the operations of Christ. For just as it is evident that Peter received the Gospel from Christ on account of the wonders which Christ worked through him, so it is evident that I received it from him on account of the miracles which Christ has wrought, and works, in me. And therefore he says he who wrought in Peter, etc., that is, he who made Peter an apostle in Judea, namely Christ, he himself made me an apostle among the gentiles. And this is the cause which moves them. But because the injunction and authority of preaching does not suffice, unless a man carries it out through good knowledge and discreet eloquence, and commends it through a good life, therefore he adds the use of his authority or office, that is, its effect, saying and when they had known the grace of God, etc. And this is a suspended clause, that is, when they had seen that my preaching was gracious and fruitful, then James, and Cephas, and John, etc. In which is noted the approval, or the fellowship made between them and Paul. And first the persons are set down between whom the fellowship was made, who are James, and Cephas, that is, Peter, and John. And James is placed first, because he was bishop of Jerusalem, where these things were done. Now this John was John the Evangelist, who did not leave Judea until the time of Vespasian. Who seemed to be pillars. This is said metaphorically, that is, the support of the whole Church. For just as a whole building is sustained by pillars, so through these men the whole Church of the Jews was sustained and ruled. And of these pillars it is said in Psalm 74:4: I have made firm its pillars, that is, the apostles of the Church; Song of Songs 5:15: his legs are pillars of marble, which are founded upon bases of gold. These, namely on the one side, gave the right hands of fellowship, that is, they consented into fellowship, to me and to Barnabas, in which are designated the persons on the other side. Now by this, that they gave right hands to each other, it is signified that by their hands they received one another as a sign of conjunction and of unity of opinion. Second, the tenor or condition of the fellowship is shown, when it is said that we should go to the gentiles, and they to the circumcision, namely, that they should preach; as if he were saying: a conjunction and union was made between us, yet in such a way that, just as all the faithful obey Peter in the circumcision, that is, in the Church of the faithful Jews, so all the gentiles who were converted to Christ should obey Barnabas and Paul. This, however, was added, that we should be mindful of the poor of Christ, who, namely, had sold all their goods, and had placed the price of them at the feet of the apostles, having been made poor on account of Christ. Which indeed I was solicitous to do this same thing, no less zealous than those who had ordained it, as appears in Romans 15, and 1 Corinthians 6, and 2 Corinthians chapters 8 and 9. Now the reason why the custom of the primitive Church, of the selling of possessions, was observed in the Church from the circumcision, and not in the Church from the gentiles, is this: because the faithful Jews were gathered together in Jerusalem, and in Judea, which was soon to be destroyed by the Romans, as the outcome of the matter afterward proved; and therefore the Lord willed that possessions should not be kept in reserve there, where they were not going to remain. But the Church of the gentiles was to be established and increased, and therefore it was brought about by the counsel of the Holy Spirit, that in it possessions should not be sold.”

“Above, the Apostle showed that he himself received no benefit from the conference held with the aforesaid apostles; but here he shows that he himself was of benefit to others. And first he shows how he was of benefit to Peter in correcting him; second, he explains what he has said, at the place, "for before certain ones came," etc. He says therefore: truly they conferred nothing on me, but rather I conferred on them, and especially on Peter; for when Peter had come to Antioch, where the Church of the Gentiles was, I resisted him to his face, that is, openly. Ecclesiasticus 4:27: do not stand in awe of your neighbor in his fall, nor hold back your word, etc. Or "to his face," that is, not in secret, as one detracting and fearing, but publicly, and as his equal. Leviticus 19:17: do not hate your brother in your heart, but rebuke him publicly, etc. And this for the reason that he was reprehensible. But against this: because this was after the grace of the Holy Spirit had been received; but after the grace of the Holy Spirit the apostles sinned in no way. I answer. It must be said that after the grace of the Holy Spirit the apostles in no way sinned mortally, and they had this gift through the divine power which had confirmed them. Psalm 74:4: I have confirmed its pillars, etc. They sinned, however, venially, and this was theirs from human frailty. 1 John 1:8: if we shall say that we have no sin, namely venial, we seduce ourselves, etc. But as to what is said in the Gloss — "I resisted him as an equal" — it must be said that the Apostle was on a par with Peter in the execution of authority, not in the authority of governance. From the foregoing, therefore, we have an example: for prelates, an example of humility, that they should not disdain to be corrected by their inferiors and subjects; but for subjects, an example of zeal and freedom, that they should not fear to correct their prelates, especially if the offense is public and tends toward the peril of the multitude. Next, when he says "before certain ones came," etc., he explains what he had said. And first, that which he said, that he was reprehensible; and second, that which he said, that he had rebuked Peter, at the place "but when I saw," etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First he shows what Peter thought; second, what he was doing, at "but when he had come," etc.; third, what followed from this, at "and to his dissimulation," etc. He says therefore concerning the first, that Peter held that the legal observances were not to be kept. And this he showed by deed, because before certain ones came — namely Jews zealous for the legal observances — from James, the bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, he, namely Peter, was eating with the Gentiles, that is, he used the foods of the Gentiles indifferently; and he did this from the instinct of the Holy Spirit, who had said to him, what God has sanctified, do not call common, as is found in Acts 10:15, as he himself likewise said to the Jews in the following chapter, who rose up against him because he had eaten with the uncircumcised, as if rendering an account. But what he was doing, Paul shows here, saying that when he was with the Jews, he withdrew himself from the company of the faithful who had been from the Gentiles, adhering to the Jews only, and gathering himself with them. And therefore he says, "but when he had come," namely from Judea, Peter withdrew himself from the converted Gentiles, and separated himself from them. And this for the reason that he was fearing those who were of the circumcision, that is, the Jews — not indeed with a human or worldly fear, but with a fear of charity, namely lest they be scandalized, as is said in the Gloss. And therefore he became to the Jews as a Jew, pretending that he felt the same as the weak; but nevertheless he feared inordinately, because truth must never be abandoned on account of fear of scandal. But what followed from this dissimulation, he adds, saying that the rest of the Jews who were at Antioch consented to his dissimulation, that is, Peter's, distinguishing between foods and separating themselves from the Gentiles, although before this kind of dissimulation they had not done this. And not only did they consent to Peter, but that dissimulation was so present in the hearts of the faithful that even Barnabas, who together with me was a teacher of the Gentiles, and had done and taught the contrary, was led by them into that dissimulation, withdrawing himself from them, namely from the Gentiles. And this for the reason that, according to what is said in Ecclesiasticus 10:2: as is the ruler of the city, etc. And in the same place: according to the judge of the people, etc. Next, when he says "but when I had seen," etc., he explains what he had said about his own rebuke, by which he rebuked Peter. And concerning this he does three things. First he sets down the cause of the rebuke; second, the manner of rebuking; third, the words of the rebuke. The occasion of the rebuke, moreover, is not slight, but just and useful, namely the peril of evangelical truth. And therefore he says: thus Peter was reprehensible, but I alone, when I had seen that those who acted in this way were not walking rightly with regard to the truth of the Gospel — because through this the truth was perishing, if the Gentiles were compelled to observe the legal observances, as will be clear below. But the reason that they were not walking rightly is this: because truth, especially where danger threatens, ought to be publicly preached, and the contrary ought not to be done on account of the scandal of some. Matthew 10:27: what I tell you in darkness, speak in the light. Isaiah 26:7: the path of the just is straight; the track of the just is right for walking. The manner of rebuking, moreover, was fitting, because it was public and manifest. Hence he says, I said to Cephas, that is, to Peter, before all, because that dissimulation was to the peril of all. 1 Timothy 5:20: rebuke the one sinning before all. This is to be understood of manifest sins, and not of hidden ones, in which the order of fraternal correction must be observed. But of what sort the words were that the Apostle spoke to Peter when he rebuked him, he adds, saying, if you, though you are a Jew, etc., as if to say: O Peter, if you, though you are a Jew by nation and by race, live in a Gentile manner and not in a Jewish manner — that is, you keep the rite of the Gentiles and not of the Jews — since you know and perceive that the distinction of foods confers nothing, how do you compel the Gentiles — not indeed by command, but by the example of your conduct — to judaize? And he says "you compel," because, according to what Pope Leo says, examples are more forceful than words. In this, then, Paul rebukes Peter, that although he himself had been instructed by God — when he had previously lived in Jewish fashion, that he should no longer afterward distinguish between foods (Acts 10:15: what God has sanctified, do not call common) — he himself was feigning the contrary. It must be known, moreover, that on the occasion of these words, no small controversy arose between Jerome and Augustine. And according to what is openly gathered from their words, they seem to disagree in four points. And first, on the time of the legal observances, namely when they ought to have been kept. For Jerome distinguishes two times, one before the Passion of Christ, the other after the Passion. Jerome holds, therefore, that the legal observances, before the Passion of Christ, were alive, that is, having their own force, inasmuch as, namely, through circumcision original sin was taken away, and through sacrifices and victims God was appeased. But after the Passion he says not only that they were not alive or dead, but, what is more, that they were death-dealing, and that whoever, after the Passion of Christ, observed them, sinned mortally. Augustine, however, distinguishes three times. One time before the Passion of Christ, and, agreeing with Jerome, he says that at this time the legal observances were alive. Another time is immediately after the Passion of Christ, before grace was made known abroad (as was the time of the apostles at the beginning), in which time Augustine says the legal observances were dead, but nevertheless not death-dealing to the converted Jews, provided that, while observing them, they did not place their hope in them — so that even the Jews themselves, observing them at that time, did not sin. But if they had placed their hope in them, whoever among the converts, observing them, would have sinned mortally, because if they had placed their hope in them, as though they were necessary for salvation, as far as was in them, they would have emptied out the grace of Christ. He says there is another time after the truth and grace of Christ had been made known abroad, and in this time he says they were dead and death-dealing to all who observed them. The reason for what has been said, moreover, is that if the Jews, immediately after their conversion, had been forbidden from the observances of the legal precepts, it would have seemed that they walked with equal step with idolaters, who were immediately forbidden from the worship of idols — and that the legal observances had not been good, just as idolatry was not. And therefore, by the instinct of the Holy Spirit, it was permitted that the legal observances be kept for a little time, with the intention that has been stated, so that through this it might be shown that the legal observances had then been good. Hence Augustine says that through this it was shown that mother synagogue was to be led to the tomb with honor, since the legal observances were not forbidden immediately after the Passion of Christ. But whoever did not observe them in that manner would not honor mother synagogue, but would tear her from the tomb. Second, the aforesaid Jerome and Augustine disagree concerning the observance of the legal precepts as regards the apostles themselves. For Jerome says that the apostles never truly observed the legal precepts, but pretended to observe them, so as to avoid the scandal of the faithful who had been of the circumcision. And he says that Paul feigned in this manner when he paid a vow in the temple of Jerusalem, as is found in Acts 21:26; and when he circumcised Timothy, as is found in Acts 16:3; and when, admonished by James, he took up certain legal observances, as is found in Acts 15:20. And in doing this they were not indeed deceiving others, because they did this not intending to observe the legal precepts, but on account of certain other reasons — just as they rested on the sabbath not on account of observance of the law, but for the sake of rest. Likewise they abstained from things unclean according to the law, not on account of observance of the law, but for other reasons, such as on account of abomination and something of this kind. Augustine, however, says that the apostles observed the legal precepts themselves, and this intentionally, but nevertheless not placing their hope in them, as though they were necessary for salvation. And this indeed was lawful for them, because they were of the Jews. Yet in such a way that they observed these things before grace had been made known; hence, just as at that time other converted Jews could observe them without danger, provided they did not place their hope in them, so also could they themselves. Third, they disagree concerning the sin of Peter. For Jerome says that in the aforesaid dissimulation Peter did not sin, because he did this out of charity, and not out of any worldly fear, as has been said. Augustine, however, says that he sinned, venially nonetheless, and this on account of the lack of discretion which he had, in clinging too much to this side, namely of the Jews, in order to avoid their scandal. And the stronger argument of Augustine against Jerome is this: that Jerome adduces on his own behalf seven doctors, of whom Augustine excludes four — namely, the Laodicean, and the Alexandrian, Origen and Didymus — as being notorious for heresy. But against the other three he opposes three whom he has on his own side and for his own opinion, namely Ambrose, Cyprian, and Paul himself, who manifestly says that Peter was reprehensible. If, then, it is unlawful to say that something false is contained in sacred Scripture, it will not be lawful to say that Peter was not reprehensible. And on account of this the opinion and judgment of Augustine is truer, because it agrees more with the words of the Apostle. Fourth, they disagree concerning the rebuke of Paul. For Jerome says that Paul did not truly rebuke Peter, but only in pretense — just as Peter also observed the legal precepts in pretense — namely, that just as Peter, unwilling to scandalize the Jews, pretended to observe the legal precepts, so Paul, in order not to scandalize the Gentiles, showed that what Peter was doing displeased him, and rebuked him in pretense; and they did this as though by agreement, so that they might provide for both sets of the faithful subject to them. Augustine, however, just as he says that Peter truly observed the legal precepts, so he says that Paul truly rebuked him, and not in pretense. But Peter indeed sinned in observing them, because from this there was scandal among the Gentiles, from whom he withdrew himself. Paul, however, did not sin in rebuking, because from his rebuke no scandal followed.”

“Above he showed the truth of the apostolic doctrine preached by him, from the authority of the other apostles; here he shows the same thing from their manner of life and example. And concerning this he does two things. First he shows his proposition through the manner of life of the apostles; second, the objection of adversaries, that "if, seeking to be justified," etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First he sets forth beforehand the condition of the apostles; second he touches upon their manner of life, at the place "but knowing that a man is not justified," etc.; third, the condition intended, at the place "wherefore by the works of the law," etc. Now the condition of the apostles, and also of Paul himself, is this: that according to natural origin they proceeded from the Jews. And this is what he says: "we," namely I and the other apostles, "are by nature," that is, by natural origin, "Jews," not proselytes. 2 Corinthians 11:22: "They are Hebrews, so am I," etc. And this is great praise, because, as is said in John 4:22, salvation is from the Jews. And "not sinners of the Gentiles," that is, we are not sinners, as the idolatrous and unclean Gentiles are. But against this is what is said in 1 John 1:8: "If we shall say that we have no sin," etc.; therefore the Jews are sinners. I respond. It must be said that to be sinning is one thing, to be a sinner another. For the first denominates an act, but the second a readiness, or habit, toward sinning. Whence Scripture is accustomed to call the wicked, and those burdened with grave loads of sins, "sinners." The Jews, therefore, growing proud on account of the law, as it were restrained by it from sins, called the Gentiles, who were without the rein of the law and prone to sin, "sinners." Ephesians 4:14: "let us not be carried about by every wind of doctrine," etc. When therefore the Apostle says "not sinners of the Gentiles," it is explained thus: that is, we are not of the number of the sinners who are among the Gentiles, etc. Consequently, when he says "but knowing that a man is not justified," etc., he sets forth the manner of life of the apostles, which indeed is not in the things of the law, but in the faith of Christ. And concerning this he does two things. First he expresses the reason for the apostolic manner of life; second he sets forth the apostolic manner of life itself, at the place "and we in Christ," etc. The apostolic manner of life, then, was in faith, and not in the things of the law. The reason for this is that although we were Jews by nature and nourished in the things of the law, nevertheless, knowing for certain that a man is not justified by the works of the law, that is, through the legal works, except through the faith of Jesus Christ, therefore, forsaking those things, we conduct our lives in the precepts of faith. Romans 3:28: "For we reckon a man to be justified by faith without the works of the law." Acts 4:12: "there is no other name," etc. But against this: for in Romans 2:13 it is said: "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified," etc. It seems, therefore, that a man is justified by the works of the law. I respond. It must be said that "to be justified" can be taken in two ways: namely, to carry out justice, and to become just. Now in the first way, a man is justified who does works of justice. But no one becomes just except from God, through grace. It must be known, therefore, that of the works of the law, some were moral, and some indeed ceremonial. But the moral works, although they were contained in the law, nevertheless could not properly be called "works of the law," since man is led to them by natural instinct, and by the natural law. But the ceremonial works are properly called "works of the law." However much, therefore, a man is justified — as regards the carrying out of justice — by the moral works, and also by the ceremonial works, insofar as to observe them is a work of obedience, so far as they pertain to the sacraments; and it is taken in this way according to the saying of the Apostle in Romans 2:13. As to becoming just, however, a man is seen not to be justified by these, from the works of the law, because the sacraments of the old law did not confer grace. Below, 4:9: "you are turned again to the weak elements," that is, elements not conferring grace, nor containing grace in themselves. But the sacraments of the new law, although they are material elements, are nevertheless not weak elements, because they contain grace in themselves, whence they are also able to justify. But if any in the old law were just, they were not just from the works of the law, but only from the faith of Christ, whom God set forth as a propitiator through faith, as is said in Romans 3:20. Whence also the sacraments themselves of the old law were nothing but certain professions of the faith of Christ, just as our sacraments also are; but differently, because those sacraments configured the grace of Christ as it were future; but our sacraments make profession as containing, as it were, present grace. And therefore he says pointedly, that a man is not justified by the works of the law, except through the faith of Jesus Christ, because even if formerly some who kept the works of the law were justified, this nevertheless was not except through the faith of Jesus Christ. Now from this knowledge which the apostles had, that justification is not through the working of the law, but through the faith of Christ, he concludes the manner of life of the apostles, choosing the faith of Christ and leaving aside the works of the law. Whence there follows, "and we believe in Christ Jesus," because, as is said in Acts 4:12, "there is no other name given," etc. Whence there follows, "that we may be justified by the faith of Christ." Romans 5:1: "Being justified therefore by faith," etc. And lest anyone believe that, together with the law of Christ, the works of the law also justify, he adds, "and not by the works of the law." Romans 3:28: "For we reckon that a man is justified by faith," etc. From this he concludes the principal point intended, saying that if the apostles, who are Jews by nature, do not seek to be justified through the works of the law, but through faith, that "no flesh is justified by the works of the law," nor can any man whatsoever be justified through the works of the law. For here "flesh" is taken for man, namely a part for the whole, as in Isaiah 40: "all flesh shall see the salvation of our God." But in saying "wherefore," etc., he concludes as it were from the greater. For it seems more natural or reasonable that the Jews, rather than others, should be justified through the works of the law, not through faith; but this is not so: wherefore, etc.”

“After the Apostle showed, through the conduct of the apostles, that the legal observances were not to be kept — which he himself was saying — here he raises a question to the contrary. And concerning this he does three things. First he raises the question; second he resolves it, at the words God forbid, etc.; third he manifests the solution to it, at the words for I through the law, etc. The first can be expounded in two ways according to the Gloss. First thus: for someone could say that the apostles, in abandoning the law by coming to the faith of Christ, had sinned. But from this the Apostle introduces, as it were, a certain unfitting consequence, namely that Christ would be the author of sin, in that he calls men to his own faith. And this is what he says: "But" — that is, but — "if we," the apostles, "seeking to be justified in him," that is, through him, namely Christ, "are found" — that is, are manifestly shown — "ourselves also," we apostles, "sinners," on account of the abandonment of the law, "is Christ then the minister of sin?" That is, is he leading us into sin, he who called us from the state of the law to his own faith? Below, chapter 4: "made under the law, that he might redeem those who were under the law," namely from the burden of the law. The Apostle answers, "God forbid," because he is rather the minister of justice. Romans 5:19: "through the obedience of one, many are constituted just." 1 Peter 2:22: "who did no sin," etc. And that Christ is not the minister of sin in withdrawing men from the old law is evident, because "if I myself build up again the things which I destroyed," namely the pride that gloried in the law — wishing to return to glorying in the law — "I make myself a transgressor," taking up again what I destroyed. 2 Peter 2:22: "the dog returned to his vomit," etc. Joshua 2: "Cursed be the man who shall rebuild Jericho." Now he says "the things which I destroyed," not the law itself, as the Manichees would have it, since the law is holy (Romans 7:12), but the pride concerning the law, of which it is said in Romans 10:3: "seeking to establish their own righteousness," etc. But if someone should object that, since he himself formerly destroyed the faith of Christ, he was making himself a transgressor by building it up, the answer is clear: for he indeed attempted to destroy the faith of Christ, but he did not prevail, on account of the truth. Acts 9:4: "Why do you persecute me? It is hard for you," etc. But the pride of the law was vain, and therefore it could be destroyed, and it was not to be rebuilt. It can be expounded in a second way, so that what he says, "we ourselves also are found sinners," is referred not to the abandonment of the law, as has now been expounded, but rather to the very observance of the law. For it is manifest that whoever seeks to be justified professes that he is not just, but a sinner. The sense, therefore, is: if we, seeking to be justified in Christ, from this very fact that we seek to be justified, are found — that is, are shown by reason to have been ourselves also sinners, because we were observing the law — is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin? Namely, in that he commanded men, after his passion, to observe the legal precepts, which cannot be done without sin. And it must be noted that this exposition proceeds according to the opinion of Jerome, who held that immediately after the passion of Christ the legal observances were deadly. It can be expounded in a third way, so that what he says, "we ourselves also are found sinners," pertains indeed to the state in which the law was observed, yet not in the sense that they offended on account of the observance of the law, but on account of the defect of the law, which could not take away sin — so that the sense is: if, seeking to be justified in him, we are found ourselves also sinners, that is, having sin, the law not taking away sin, according to that saying in Romans 3:9: "we have charged that Jews and Greeks are all under sin," is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin, in that he would lead us back to the observance of the law, in which we were under sin? And this exposition proceeds according to the exposition of Augustine. And he answers, according to both expositions, "God forbid," because I destroyed the law understood carnally, by judging and teaching spiritually. Hence if I wished again to build up the observances of the carnal law, I would be a transgressor of the spiritual law. It can also be expounded in a fourth way, as follows. He had said that man is not justified by the works of the law. Someone could say that neither is he justified through the faith of Christ, because many, after receiving the faith of Christ, sin. And this is what he says: "if, seeking to be justified in Christ," that is, through the faith of Christ, "we are found," after receiving the faith of Christ, "ourselves also," we the faithful, "sinners," that is, living in sins, is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin and of damnation, just as the minister of the old law is the minister of sin and of damnation? Not that the law induced men to sin, but occasionally, because it forbade sin, and did not confer the grace that helps one to resist sin. Hence it is said in Romans 7:8: "sin, taking occasion, by the commandment," etc. But Christ gives helping grace. John 1:17: "grace and truth were made through Jesus Christ." Hence he is in no way the minister of sin, neither directly, nor occasionally.”

“Here the Apostle manifests the solution assigned above. And first he sets forth the manifestation of the solution; second he concludes his principal intention, at the words "I do not cast away the grace of God," etc. But it must be noted that the Apostle, proceeding by way of inquiry, leaves no doubt undiscussed. And therefore, although his words may seem intricate, nevertheless if they are carefully attended to, he says nothing without a reason, and this is apparent in the words proposed. Here he does three things: first he manifests the solution; second he explains the manifestation of the solution, at the words "I am fixed to the cross with Christ," etc.; third he removes a doubt, at the words "and that I now live," etc. Since, then, the Apostle had said, "for if the things I have destroyed," etc., which is understood of the old Law — for he could be reckoned by someone a destroyer of the Law, and consequently unjust, according to that word of Psalm 118:126: "The wicked have destroyed thy law" — the Apostle therefore wishes to show how he destroys the Law, and yet is not unjust, saying, "for I through the Law," etc. Here it must be known that when someone dissolves the law through the law itself, such a one is a transgressor of the law, not an unjust man. But the law is dissolved through the law when in the law some local or temporal precept is given — namely, that that law be observed at such a time, or in such a place, and not another, and this itself is expressed in the law. If someone then does not make use of the law at that time, or in that place, he destroys the law through the law itself, and in this way the Apostle destroyed the law. Hence, he says, I destroyed the law in a certain way, yet through the law, because I have died to the law through the law — that is, through the authority of the law I let it go, as one dead to the law. For the authority of the law, by which he died to the law, is found in many places of sacred Scripture: Jeremiah 31:31, though under other words: "I will confirm a new covenant upon the house of Israel," etc.; Deuteronomy 18:15: "The Lord will raise up a prophet from among your brethren," etc.; and in many other places. Therefore the Apostle is not a transgressor in destroying the law. Or otherwise: I, through the law — namely, the spiritual law — have died to the carnal law. For then does one die to the law, when, released from the law, he casts it off, according to that word of Romans 7:2: "The husband being dead, the woman is loosed from the law of the husband." Insofar as the Apostle was subject to the spiritual law, he says that he is dead to the law — that is, released from the observance of the law. Romans 8:2: "The law of the spirit of life," etc. There can be another way of letting go of the law without transgression, namely because when some law is written on paper, it is then called a dead law, and when it is in the mind of the lawgiver, it is then called a living law. Now it is clear that if someone were to act, according to the word of the lawgiver, against the written law, he would both dissolve the law and be released from the dead law, and would keep the living law according to the command of the lawgiver. According to this, then, he says: I have died to the law that is written and dead — that is, I am released from it — that I may live to God, that is, that I may direct my movements according to his own sayings, and be ordered to his honor. For the law established in writings hands something down on account of strangers, and those who cannot hear it word for word from him; but to those who are in his presence, he does not state it in writings, but by word alone. For from the beginning men were weak, unable to approach God. And therefore it was necessary to give them the precepts of the law in writings, so that through the law, as through a tutor, they might be led by the hand to this — that they might hear his precepts from him — according to what is said below, chapter 3:24: "The law was our tutor in Christ," etc. But after we have access to the Father through Christ, as is said in Romans 5:2, we are not instructed about the commandments of God through the law, but by God himself. And therefore he says: through the law that leads by the hand, I have died to the written law, that I may live to God — namely, to the very maker of the law — that is, that I may be instructed and directed by him. Next, when he says "I am fixed to the cross with Christ," etc., he explains what he has said. For he had said that he is dead to the law, and that he lives to God. And these two things he manifests. And first, that he is dead to the law, by what he says: "I am fixed to the cross with Christ"; second, that he lives to God, when he says "I live, now not I," etc. And the first indeed can be expounded in two ways. In one way, as in the Gloss, thus: every man according to his carnal origin is born a son of wrath, Ephesians 2:3: "For we were by nature children of wrath," etc. He is also born in the oldness of sin, Baruch 3:11: "Thou hast grown old in a strange land," etc. This oldness of sin indeed is taken away through the cross of Christ, and the newness of spiritual life is conferred. The Apostle therefore says, "I am fixed to the cross with Christ," that is, concupiscence, or the kindling-wood of sin, and everything of this sort, has died in me through the cross of Christ. Romans 6:6: "Our old man is crucified together with him," etc. Likewise, since I am fixed to the cross with Christ, and have died to sin, and Christ rose again, I too have risen together with him who rose. Romans 4:25: "He was delivered up," etc. Thus, then, Christ renews a new life in us, the oldness of sin having been destroyed. And therefore he says "but I live" — that is, because I am fixed to the cross with Christ, I have the vigor of acting well — "now not I" according to the flesh, because I no longer have the oldness which I had before, "but Christ lives in me," that is, the newness which has been given to us through Christ. Or otherwise: a man is said to live with respect to that in which he principally fixes his affection, and in which he takes the greatest delight. Hence also men who take the greatest delight in study or in hunting say that this is their life. Now every man has a certain private affection, by which he seeks what is his own; therefore while someone lives seeking only what is his own, he lives to himself alone, but when he seeks the goods of others, he is said to live to them also. Since, then, the Apostle had laid aside his own affection through the cross of Christ, he was saying that he was dead to his own affection, saying "I am fixed to the cross with Christ" — that is, through the cross of Christ my own or private affection has been removed from me. Hence he was saying below, at the end: "Far be it from me to glory save in the cross of our Lord," etc.; 2 Corinthians 5:14f.: "If one died for all, then all died." And Christ died for all, that they also who live may now live not to themselves, but to him, etc. "But I live" — that is, "now I do not live," as it were having my own good in my affection, "but Christ lives in me," that is, I have only Christ in my affection, and Christ himself is my life. Philippians 1:21: "To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." Next, however, when he says "and that I now live," etc., he responds to a doubt which could be twofold from the word set forth above. One is how he himself lives, and yet is not the one — namely, who lives; the second is how he is fixed to the cross. And therefore he opens up these two things. And first the first, namely how he lives, and yet he himself does not live, saying "and that I now live," etc. Here it must be noted that those things are properly said to live which are moved from an intrinsic principle. Now the soul of Paul was set between God and the body, and the body indeed was vivified and moved by the soul of Paul, but his soul by Christ. As to the life of the flesh, then, Paul himself lived, and this is what he says: "and that I now live in the flesh" — that is, the life of the flesh; but as to relation to God, Christ was living in Paul, and therefore he says "I live in the faith of the Son of God," through which he dwells in me and moves me. Habakkuk 2:4: "But my just man lives by faith." And note that he says "in the flesh," not "from the flesh," because this would be evil. Second, he shows that he is fixed to the cross, saying: because the love of Christ, which he showed to me on the cross, dying for me, causes me always to be fixed to him. And this is what he says: "who loved me." 1 John 4:10: "He first loved us." And he loved me to such an extent that he delivered himself up for me, and no other sacrifice. Apocalypse 1:5: "He loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood." Ephesians 5:25: "As Christ also loved the Church, and delivered himself up for her," etc. But it must be noted that the Son himself delivered himself up, and the Father delivered up the Son, Romans 8:32: "Who spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us all"; and Judas delivered him up, as is said in Matthew 26:48. And it is all one and the same deed, but not one and the same intention, because the Father acted out of charity, the Son out of obedience together with charity, but Judas out of cupidity and treacherously. Next, when he says "I do not cast away the grace of God," he infers the principal conclusion. And first he brings forth the conclusion; second he manifests the manner. He says therefore: since I have received so great a grace from God, that he delivered himself up, and I live in the faith of the Son of God, I do not cast away the grace of the Son of God — that is, I do not repudiate it, nor do I show myself ungrateful. 1 Corinthians 15:10: "The grace of God in me has not been void," etc. Hence another text also has: "I am not ungrateful to the grace of God" (Hebrews 12:15: "looking diligently lest any man be wanting to the grace of God"), namely by confessing oneself unworthy through ingratitude. Now the manner of casting away and of ingratitude would be, if I were to say that the law was necessary for justifying. And therefore he says: "for if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain" — that is, if the law is sufficient, that is, if the works of the law suffice to justify man, Christ died without cause, and in vain, because he died for this purpose, that he might justify us. 1 Peter 3:18: "Christ died once for our sins," etc. But if this could be done through the law, the death of Christ would have been superfluous. But he did not die in vain, nor did he labor in vain, as is said in Isaiah 49:4, because through him alone justifying grace and truth came to be, as is said in John 1:17. If any were just before the passion of Christ, this too was through faith in Christ who was to come, in whom they believed, and in whose faith they were saved.”

“Above, the Apostle refuted the vanity and inconstancy of the Galatians by the authority of the evangelical teaching, showing that his teaching was authenticated by the other apostles; but here he shows this same thing by reason and authority, namely, that the precepts of the law are not to be observed. And this in two ways. First, from the insufficiency of the law; second, from the dignity of those who have been converted to Christ; and this in chapter 4, where he says: "Now I say: as long as," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he prefaces a rebuke; second he pursues his proof, where he says: "This only I wish from you," etc. Concerning the first he does two things: first he rebukes them, showing their foolishness; second he assigns the reason for the rebuke, where he says: "before whose eyes," etc. First, therefore, he rebukes them for their foolishness, calling them senseless. Hence he says: "O senseless," etc. Now one is properly called senseless who lacks sense. But spiritual sense is the knowledge of truth; therefore whoever lacks truth is properly called senseless. Matthew 5: "And you are without understanding." Wisdom 5:4: "we senseless ones, their life," etc. But on the contrary, it is said in Matthew 5:22: "Whoever shall say to his brother: Fool," etc.; but "fool" is the same as "senseless"; therefore the Apostle is guilty of the fire of Gehenna. But it must be said, as Augustine says, that this is to be understood of one who says it without cause, and with the intention of reviling; but the Apostle said it for a cause, and with the intention of correcting. Hence it is said in the Gloss: he says this out of sorrow. Second, when he says "Who has bewitched you," etc., he shows the manner in which they had been made senseless. Here it must first be noted that one becomes senseless in many ways. Either because no truth is proposed to him which he could know; or because, although it is proposed to him, he never accepts it; or because he abandons the truth proposed and accepted, withdrawing from the way of truth; and such were these Galatians, who, abandoning the truth of the faith which they had received, refused the truth proposed to them. Above, 1:6: "I wonder that you are so soon," etc. And therefore he reproves in them this degree of senselessness, saying: "Who has bewitched you," etc. Now to know what fascination is, it must be known that according to the Gloss, fascination is properly called a deluding of the sense, which is wont to come about through magical arts; as, for instance, when it makes a man appear to the sight of others as a lion, or horned, and the like. And this can also happen through demons, who have the power of moving phantasms, and of tracing them back to the principles of the senses, by altering the senses themselves. And according to this understanding, the Apostle quite properly says: "Who has bewitched you?" As if to say: you are like a man who has been deluded, who takes manifest things otherwise than they are in the truth of the matter; because, namely, you have been deluded by deceptions and sophisms, "not to obey the truth," that is, you do not see the manifest truth received by you, nor do you receive it by obeying. Wisdom 4:12: "The bewitching of vanity obscures good things." Isaiah 5:20: "Woe to them that call good evil," etc. Fascination is taken in another way, according as someone is harmed by a malevolent gaze, and this especially in old women, who by a burning look and an envious gaze bewitch children, who from this become sick and vomit their food. Wishing to assign the cause of this, Avicenna, in his book On the Soul, says that bodily matter obeys intellectual substance more than it obeys the active and passive qualities in nature. And therefore he holds that, at the apprehension of intellectual substances (which he calls souls or movers of the spheres), many things come about outside the order of the motion of the heavens and of all corporeal agents. In the same way he says that when a holy soul has been purified from affections for earthly things, and from carnal vices, it approaches the likeness of the aforesaid substances, and nature obeys it. And hence it is that some holy men work certain wonders outside the course of nature; and likewise, because the soul of someone defiled by carnal passions has a strong apprehension in malice, nature obeys it for the transmutation of matter, especially in those in whom the matter is apt for this, as happens in tender children. And thus it happens, according to him, that from the strong apprehension of old women, a child is changed into a state of malice and is bewitched. Now this position seems true enough according to the opinion of Avicenna. For he himself held that all corporeal forms in these lower things are infused by separate incorporeal substances, and that natural agents contribute to this only as disposing causes. But this indeed is disproved by the Philosopher. For an agent must be like its subject. Now it is not form alone that comes to be, nor matter alone, but the composite of matter and form. Therefore that which acts toward the being of corporeal things must have matter and form. Hence he says that nothing can transmute matter and form except that which has matter and form, and this indeed either virtually, as God, who is the author of form and matter; or actually, as a corporeal agent. And therefore corporeal matter, as regards forms of this kind, obeys neither angels nor any pure creature at a nod, but God alone, as Augustine says. Hence what Avicenna says about fascination of this kind is not true. And therefore it must be said that, at the imagination or apprehension of a man, when it is strong, the sense, or the sensitive appetite, is changed; and this change is not without an alteration of the body and of the spirits of the body, just as we see that at the apprehension of something delightful the sensitive appetite is moved to concupiscence, and from this the body grows warm. Likewise, from the apprehension of something fearful, it grows cold. Now the alteration of the spirits especially infects the eyes, which, once infected, infect a thing by their gaze, as is evident in a clean mirror, which is tainted by the gaze of a menstruating woman. So, then, because old women are obstinate and hardened in malice, from their strong apprehension the sensitive appetite is altered, and from this, as has been said, the infection passes especially from the veins to the eyes, and from the eyes to the thing looked upon. Hence, because the flesh of a child is soft, it is infected and bewitched by their envious gaze. And sometimes, indeed, demons work toward this effect. He says, then: "Who has bewitched you not to obey the truth?" As if to say: you at one time obeyed the truth of the faith, but now you do not; therefore you are like children who, infected by some envious gaze, vomit the food you had received. Now he assigns the reason for the rebuke, saying: "before whose eyes," etc. This can be read in three ways. In one way, according to Jerome, so that it corresponds to the first understanding of fascination; as if to say: I say you are bewitched, because "before whose eyes," etc., that is, the proscription of Christ, who was condemned to death, was so manifest to you that it was as if it had been before your eyes, and "crucified among you," that is, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was in your understandings, so that you knew how it had been done; hence, if you do not see it now, nor obey it, this happens because you have been deluded and bewitched. Against which it is said in the last chapter of the Song of Songs: "Put me as a seal upon your heart," etc. In another way, according to Augustine; as if to say: you are rightly bewitched, because the truth which you received, namely Christ, through faith, in your hearts, you vomit up like children. And this because "before your eyes," that is, in your presence, "Jesus Christ was proscribed," that is, he is expelled and cast out of his inheritance, which ought to be grievous to you; because he whom you ought not to suffer to be proscribed and expelled by others has been proscribed in you, that is, he has lost his inheritance in you, that is, in your very selves. And then what follows, namely "crucified," ought to be read with weight and a show of grief, because he added this so that they might consider at what price Christ had bought the possession which he was losing in them, and might be moved the more by this. As if to say: Christ has been proscribed in you, namely, he who was crucified, that is, who acquired this inheritance by his own cross and blood. 1 Corinthians 6:20: "For you are bought with a great price," etc. 1 Peter 1:18: "Not with corruptible things, gold or silver," etc. In a third way, according to Ambrose, as if to say: you are truly bewitched, "before whose eyes," that is, in whose estimation, namely according to your judgment, "Jesus Christ was proscribed," that is, condemned, not saving others. And "crucified among you," that is, according as you understand it, that is, he only died, but did not justify others, although it is said of him, 2 Corinthians, last chapter, that "if he died from our weakness, yet he lives from the power of God." It can also, in a fourth way, be expounded according to the Gloss, so that by this the Apostle designates the gravity of their fault, because in this — that, observing the law, they abandon Christ — they were sinning in a certain way equally with Pilate, who proscribed Christ, that is, condemned him. So that, while believing Christ insufficient for saving, they are like the crucifiers of Christ in sinning, who hung him upon the wood, condemning and afflicting him with a most shameful death. The equality, however, is to be taken on the part of him against whom the sin is committed, because the Galatians were sinning against Christ, just as Pilate and the crucifiers of Christ.”

“Having set forth the rebuke, the Apostle consequently proceeds to show the insufficiency of the law and the power of faith. And first he shows the insufficiency of the law; second, he raises a question and solves it, where he says "What then is the law," etc. And concerning the first he does two things. First, he proves the defect and insufficiency of the law through the things which they themselves had experienced; second, through authorities and arguments, where he says "as it is written." Concerning the first he does two things: for first he proves his proposition, taking the experience from their own side; second he proves the same thing, taking the experience from the side of the Apostle himself, where he says "He therefore who gives to you," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows the gift which they had received; second, the defect into which they had fallen, where he says "Are you so foolish," etc. Now he shows the gift which they had received by asking them whence they had received it. Hence, presupposing the gift received, questioning, he asks them, saying: although you are bewitched and foolish, nevertheless you have not been so deluded that you cannot teach me one thing which is very manifest. And therefore I wish to learn only this from you, because this alone suffices to prove what I intend: this, I say, is that it is established that you received the Holy Spirit; I ask therefore whether you received him from the works of the law, or from the hearing of faith? For understanding this, it should be known that in the primitive Church, by divine disposition, in order that the faith of Christ might be promoted and grow, immediately after the preaching of the faith by the apostles, manifest signs of the Holy Spirit came upon those who heard. Hence it is said of Peter in Acts 10:44: "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell," etc. The Galatians themselves also had manifestly received the Holy Spirit at Paul's preaching. The Apostle therefore asks them whence they had the Holy Spirit. Now it is established that it was not through the works of the law, since, being Gentiles, before the reception of the Holy Spirit they did not have the law; therefore they had the Holy Spirit, that is, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, from the hearing of faith. Romans 8:15: "You have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear" — the spirit, namely, which was given in the law (whence also the law was given with trembling) — "but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons," which is given through faith, which is from hearing, as is said in Romans 10:17. If therefore the power of faith could accomplish this, it is in vain to seek something else by which we might be saved, since it is much more difficult to make a just man out of an unjust one, than to preserve a just man in justice. If therefore faith, without the law, had made the unjust Galatians just, there is no doubt that it could, without the law, preserve them in justice. Great, therefore, was the gift which they had received through faith. Consequently, when he says "Are you so foolish," etc., he shows the defect into which they had fallen. And the Apostle aggravates a twofold defect in them: namely, as to the gifts which they had received from Christ, and as to the evils which they had endured for him, where he says "Have you suffered so many things," etc. Concerning the first, it should be known that these Galatians, deserting what was great, namely the Holy Spirit, clung to what was lesser, namely the carnal observance of the law, and this is foolish. And therefore he says "Are you so foolish," to the point that, whereas you began by the instinct of the Holy Spirit — that is, you had the beginning of your perfection from the Holy Spirit — now, while you are more perfect, you are consummated by the flesh, that is, you seek to be preserved through the carnal observances of the law, from which not even the beginning of justice can be had? John 6:64: "The flesh profits nothing," etc. And thus you pervert the order, because the way of perfection is to tend from the imperfect toward the perfect. You, however, because you do the opposite, are foolish. Ecclesiasticus 27:12: "A holy man remains in wisdom like the sun; a fool changes like the moon." These men are like those who begin to serve God with fervor of spirit, and afterward fail into the flesh; they are also likened to the statue of Nebuchadnezzar, whose head was of gold and whose feet were of clay, Daniel 2:32. And therefore it is said in Romans 8:8: "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." And below, 6:8: "He who sows in the flesh shall reap corruption from the flesh." Consequently, when he says "Have you suffered so many things," etc., he aggravates their defect as to the evils which they endured for Christ. For those who receive something without labor guard it less dearly; but it is foolish to hold cheap, and not to guard, that which is acquired with labor. But these men received the Holy Spirit with labor and great tribulation, which they suffered from their fellow tribesmen on account of the faith. And therefore he says "Have you suffered so many things in vain," as if to say: do not despise so great a gift which you received with labor; otherwise you have suffered those things "in vain," that is, without benefit — since you endured these things in order that you might arrive at eternal life. Romans 5:3: "Tribulation works patience, and patience, proof, and proof, hope," etc. Hence, if you close off for yourselves the entrance to eternal life, deserting the faith, seeking to be preserved by carnal observances, you have suffered "in vain," that is, uselessly. And this I say, "if indeed it be in vain." He says this for the reason that it was in their power to repent, if they wished, as long as they lived. From this, moreover, it is gathered that mortified works come to life again. Wisdom 3:11: "Their labors are without fruit," etc. Galatians 4:11: "But I fear lest I have labored in vain," etc. But if it be understood of the wicked who do not repent, it can be said that they suffer without a cause that confers, namely, eternal life. Consequently, when he says "He therefore who gives to you," etc., he proves his proposition, taking the experience from the side of the Apostle. For they could say: it is true that we received the Holy Spirit from the hearing of faith, but on account of the devotion which we had toward the law, we accepted the faith which you preached. And therefore he says: I do not care whatever may be on your part; nevertheless, that which I did, giving to you through my ministry the Holy Spirit, who works among you mighty deeds — that is, miracles among you — do I do this, then, from the works of the law, or from the works of faith? Not at all from the works of the law, but from faith. But can anyone give the Holy Spirit? For Augustine, in Book XV On the Trinity, says that no mere man can give the Holy Spirit, nor did the apostles themselves give him, but they laid hands upon men, and they received the Holy Spirit. What then is it that the Apostle, speaking of himself, says here, "He who gives to you the Holy Spirit"? I respond. It must be said that in the giving of the Holy Spirit three things occur, related in order: namely, the Holy Spirit indwelling; the gift of grace and charity together with the other habits; and the sacrament of the new law, by whose ministry he is given. And thus he can be given by certain persons in three ways. For he is given by someone as having authority with respect to the three aforesaid things, namely with respect to the indwelling Holy Spirit, with respect to the gift, and with respect to the sacrament; and in this way the Holy Spirit is given by the Father and the Son alone, insofar as they have authority over him — not, indeed, of lordship, but of origin, since he proceeds from both. But as to grace or the gift, and as to the sacraments, the Holy Spirit also gives himself, insofar as the giving implies the causality of the Holy Spirit with respect to his own gifts; for, as the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 12:11, "he himself divides to each as he wills." But insofar as authority is implied in the giving, the Holy Spirit cannot properly be said to give himself. But as to the sacrament, which is given through the ministry of the ministers of the Church, it can be said that the saints, through the ministry of the sacraments, give the Holy Spirit. And it is in this way that the Apostle speaks here, according to what is touched upon in the Gloss; nevertheless, this manner of speaking is not customary, nor is it to be extended further. The Gloss also says that working miracles is attributed to faith, because from the fact that one believes things which are above nature, one works above nature; and because the apostles preached a faith which contained certain things exceeding reason, it was therefore necessary to bring forward some testimonies to their credibility, that they had been sent by God — which exceeds reason. Hence Christ gave them his sign to show this. Now there is a twofold sign of Christ. One is that he is Lord of all; hence it is said in Psalm 144:13: "Your kingdom is a kingdom of all ages," etc. The other is that he is the justifier and savior, according to Acts 4:12: "There is no other name under heaven given to men," etc. He gave them, therefore, two signs: one is that they should work miracles, by which they might show that they had been sent by God, the Lord of every creature. Luke 10: "He gave them power and virtue over all devils," etc. The other, that they should give the Holy Spirit through their ministry, by which they might show that they had been sent by the Savior of all. Acts 8:17: "Then they laid hands upon them," etc., and "then, when Paul had laid hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came upon them," etc. And concerning these two ways it is said in Hebrews 2:4: "God bearing witness with signs, and wonders, and various mighty deeds, and distributions of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will."”

“Above, the Apostle proved by experience the power of faith and the insufficiency of the law; but here he proves the same thing through authorities and reasons. And first he proves the power of faith in justifying; second, in this he shows the defect of the law, at the place "For as many as are of the works of the law," etc. The first, however, he proves using a certain syllogism. Hence concerning this he does three things. First he shows the minor premise; second, the major, at the place "But Scripture, foreseeing," etc.; third, he infers the conclusion, at the place "Therefore they who are of faith," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he proposes a certain authority, from which he elicits the minor; second, he concludes it, at the place "Know ye therefore," etc. He says therefore: truly justice and the Holy Spirit are from faith, as it is written, Genesis 15:6, and it is quoted in Romans 4:3, that "Abraham believed God," etc. Where it must be noted that justice consists in the rendering of what is due; but man owes something to God, and something to himself, and something to his neighbor. But that he owes something to himself and to his neighbor, this is on account of God. Therefore the highest justice is to render to God what is His. For if you render to yourself or to your neighbor what you owe, and you do not do this on account of God, you are more perverse than just, since you place your end in man. But whatever is in man is God's — both the intellect and the will and the body itself — yet nonetheless in a certain order, because lower things are ordered to higher things, and exterior things to interior things, namely to the good of the soul; but the highest thing in man is the mind. And therefore the first thing in the justice of man is that the mind of man be subjected to God, and this comes about through faith. 2 Corinthians 10:3: "bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ." Thus therefore it must be said in all things, that God is the first principle in justice, and he who gives to God — namely, the highest thing that is in himself — by subjecting the mind to Him, is perfectly just. Romans 8:14: "they who are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." And therefore he says "Abraham believed God," that is, he subjected his mind to God through faith. Ecclesiasticus 2:6: "Believe God, and he will recover thee," etc., and below, "ye that fear the Lord, believe him," etc. And "it was reputed to him unto justice," that is, the very act of believing, and faith itself, was for him — and is for all others — a sufficient cause of justice; and that it is reputed to him unto justice is, outwardly, from men, but inwardly it is given by God, who justifies those who have faith, through charity working, by remitting their sins to them. From this authority, however, he concludes the minor proposition, saying "Know ye therefore," etc., as if to say: from this someone is called the son of another, that he imitates his works; if therefore you are sons of Abraham, do the works of Abraham, John 8:39. But Abraham did not seek to be justified through circumcision, but through faith; therefore also those who seek to be justified through faith are sons of Abraham. And this is what he says: because Abraham is just from faith, by this — that he believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice — therefore know ye, that they who are of faith, that is, who believe by faith that they are justified and saved, these are sons of Abraham, namely by imitation and instruction. Romans 9:8: "they who are the sons of the promise are accounted in the seed," etc. Luke 19:9, it is said to Zacchaeus: "This day salvation from God has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham," etc. And Matthew 3:9: "God is able of these stones" — that is, of the gentiles — "to raise up sons of Abraham," inasmuch, namely, as he makes them believers. Consequently, when he says "But Scripture, foreseeing," etc., he sets out the major premise, which is namely, that it was foretold to Abraham that in his seed all nations would be blessed. And this is what he says, "But Scripture, foreseeing," introducing God speaking to Abraham, says — Genesis 12:3 — that God foretold to Abraham that "in thee," that is, in those who, in likeness to you, will be your sons through the imitation of faith, "all nations shall be blessed." Matthew 8:11: "Many shall come from the east and the west," etc. Consequently, when he says "Therefore they who are of faith," etc., he infers the conclusion from the premises. Hence the argument can be formed thus: God the Father announced to Abraham that in his seed all nations would be blessed; but those who seek to be justified through faith are sons of Abraham; therefore they who are of faith, that is, who seek to be justified through faith, shall be blessed with the faithful — that is, believing — Abraham.”

“Above, the Apostle showed the power of faith; here he consequently shows the defect of the law. And first through the authority of the law; second through human custom, where he says, "Brethren, I speak according to man," etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First he shows the harm that occasionally followed from the law; second, the insufficiency of the law to remove that very harm, where he says, "But that in the law," etc.; third, the sufficiency of Christ, by which that harm was removed, where he says, "But Christ has redeemed us," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth what he intends; second he proves his proposition, where he says, "For it is written: Cursed," etc. He says therefore: "For as many as," etc. For since he had said that those who are of faith will be blessed, since they are sons of Abraham, someone could say that they are blessed on account of the works of the law as well as on account of faith; and therefore, excluding this, he says: "as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse." But on the contrary: the ancient fathers were in the works of the law; therefore they are cursed, and consequently damned — which is the error of Mani. Therefore this must be soundly understood. And it must be noted that the Apostle does not say: "as many as keep the works of the law are under a curse," because this would be false for the time of the law; but he says "as many as are of the works of the law," etc., that is, as many as trust in the works of the law and think themselves to be justified through them, are under a curse. For it is one thing to be in the works of the law, and another to keep the law; for this latter is to fulfill the law, and he who fulfills it is not under a curse. But to be in the works of the law is to trust in them and place one's hope in them. And those who are in them in this way are under a curse, namely of transgression — which indeed the law does not cause, since concupiscence does not come from the law, but rather knowledge of sin, to which we are prone through concupiscence, which is prohibited by the law. Insofar, therefore, as the law produces knowledge of sin, and does not furnish help against sin, they are said to be under a curse, since they are unable to escape it through the works themselves. Now there are certain works of the law that are ceremonial, which consisted in observances. Other works are those that pertain to morals, concerning which there are the moral commandments. Hence, according to the Gloss, what is said here — "as many as are of the works of the law," etc. — is to be understood of the ceremonial works, and not of the moral ones. Or it must be said that the Apostle here speaks of all works, both ceremonial and moral. For works are not the cause of someone being just before God, but rather they are the executions and manifestations of justice. For no one is justified before God through works, but through the habit of faith — not indeed an acquired habit, but an infused one. And therefore whoever seeks to be justified from works is under a curse, because through them sins are not removed, nor is anyone justified as regards God, but through the habit of faith formed by charity. Hebrews 11:39: "All these by the testimony of faith," etc. Consequently, when he says "For it is written," etc., he proves his proposition, and this is shown, first, according to the Gloss, by the fact that no one can keep the law in the way that the law commands, Deuteronomy 28:15, that everyone who does not remain in all the things that are written in the book of the law, so as to do them — that is, whoever does not fulfill the whole law — is cursed. But to fulfill the whole law is impossible, as it is said in Acts 15:10: "Why do you tempt, to impose a yoke, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear?" Therefore no one is of the works of the law without being cursed. It can also be taken that what is said, "For it is written," etc., is not as a proof of the proposition, but so that its exposition may be shown; as if he were saying: I say that they are under the curse, namely under that curse of which the law speaks when it is written: "Cursed is everyone," etc.: so that it be understood concerning sin, that is, concerning the curse. For the law commands that good things be done or evil things avoided, and by commanding it obligates, but it does not give the power of obeying. And therefore it says "cursed," as if joined to evil, "everyone," excepting no one, because, as it is said in Acts 10:34, there is no acceptance of persons with God. "Who does not remain unto the end." Matthew 24:13: "He who perseveres unto the end." "In all things" — not in certain ones only, because, as it is said in James 2:10, whoever keeps the whole law, but offends in one point, has become guilty of all. "Which are written in the book of the law, so as to do them" — not only that he believe or merely will it, but that he fulfill it in deed. Psalm 110:10: "Good understanding to all who do it." But the holy fathers, even though they were in the works of the law, were nevertheless saved in the faith of him who was to come, trusting in his grace, and fulfilling the law at least spiritually. For Moses, as is said in the Gloss, indeed commanded many things that no one could fulfill, in order to tame the pride of the Jews who said: "It is not the one to fulfill it who is lacking, but the one to command it." But here there is a question about what is said, "cursed is everyone," etc. For it is said in Romans 12:14: "Bless, and do not curse." I respond. It must be said that to curse is nothing other than to speak evil; I can, therefore, say that good is evil, and evil is good, and again, that good is good, and evil is evil. And the Apostle indeed forbids the first, saying: "do not curse," that is, do not say that good is evil, and vice versa; but the second is permitted, and therefore when we censure sin, we do indeed curse, but not by calling good evil — rather we say that evil is evil. And therefore it is permitted to curse the sinner, that is, to say that he is given over to evil or that he is evil. Consequently, when he says "But that in the law," etc., he shows the insufficiency of the law, which was not able to snatch anyone away from that curse, from the fact that it could not justify. To show this, he uses a certain syllogism in the second figure, and it is this: justice is from faith; but the law is not from faith; therefore the law cannot justify. Concerning this, then, he first states the conclusion, when he says "But that in the law no one is justified"; second, the major premise, when he says "because the just man lives by faith"; third, the minor premise, when he says "but the law is not of faith." He says therefore: I say that through the law a curse was introduced, and yet the law does not deliver from that curse, because it is manifest that no one is justified in the law before God, that is, through the works of the law. Concerning this it must be understood that those who denied the Old Testament took an occasion from this saying. And therefore it must be said that no one is justified in the law, that is, through the law. For through it, indeed, knowledge of sin was had, as is said in Romans 5, but justification was not had through it. Romans 3:20: "By the works of the law no one shall be justified." But on the contrary, it is said in James 2:21: "Was not Abraham justified by works?" I respond. It must be said that "to justify" can be taken in two ways: either as regards the execution and manifestation of justice, and in this way a man is justified, that is, shown to be just, from the works performed. Or as regards the infused habit of justice, and in this way no one is justified from works, since the habit of justice by which a man is justified before God is not acquired, but infused through the grace of faith. And therefore the Apostle pointedly says "before God," because the justice that is before God is in the interior heart; but the justice that is from works, that is, that manifests the just man, is before men. And in this way the Apostle takes "before God." Romans 2:13: "For not the hearers, but the doers," etc. Romans 4:2: "If Abraham was justified by works, he has glory, but not before God," etc. Thus, therefore, the conclusion of the argument is clear, namely that the law cannot justify. Consequently, when he says "because the just," etc., he states the major premise, which is from the authority of Scripture, Habakkuk 2:4, and it is also introduced in Romans 1:17 and Hebrews 10:38. Concerning this it must be noted that in man there is a twofold life, namely the life of nature and the life of justice. The life of nature indeed is through the soul; hence, when the soul departs from the body, the body remains dead. But the life of justice is through God dwelling in us through faith. And therefore the first thing by which God is in the soul of man is faith. Hebrews 11:6: "He who comes to God must believe." Ephesians 3:17: "That Christ may dwell through faith," etc. And thus we say that in the soul the first indications of life appear in the works of the vegetative soul, because it is the vegetative soul that first comes to the generated animal, as the Philosopher says. So, because the first principle by which God is in us is faith, therefore faith is called the principle of living. And this is what is said here: "My just one lives by faith." And it must be understood of faith working through love. But the minor premise is stated where he says "but the law is not," etc. And first the minor itself is stated; second it is proved, where he says "but he who shall have done," etc. He says therefore, "the law is not of faith." But on the contrary, the law commands one to believe that God is one, and this pertains to faith; therefore the law had faith. But that God is one is commanded in Deuteronomy 6: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God," etc. I respond. It must be said that here he speaks of the observances of the commandments of the law, according as the law consists in ceremonial mandates and precepts, and he says that such a law is not of faith. For faith, as is said in Hebrews 11:1, is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things not appearing. And therefore he properly fulfills the commandment concerning faith who does not hope thereby to obtain any present and visible things, but invisible and eternal goods. The law, therefore, because it promised earthly and present things, as it is said in Isaiah 1:19: "If you be willing and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land," is therefore not of faith, but rather of cupidity, or of fear, especially according to those who kept the law carnally. Some, however, lived spiritually in the law, but this was not from it, but from faith in the mediator. And that the law is not of faith he proves when he says "but he who shall have done them," that is, the works of the law, "shall live in them," namely, in the present life, that is, he will be immune from temporal death, and will be preserved in the present life. Or otherwise: I say that the law is not of faith, and this is clear, because "he who shall have done," etc.; as if he were saying: the precepts of the law are not about things to be believed, but about things to be done, although it announces something to be believed. And therefore its force is not from faith, but from works; and this he proves, because when the Lord wished to confirm it, he did not say: "he who shall have believed," but: "he who shall have done them shall live in them." But the new law is of faith. Mark, last chapter: "he who shall have believed and been baptized," etc. The law, however, is a certain thing figured and made from faith, and therefore the old law is compared to the new law, as the works of nature to the works of intellect. For in the very works of nature certain works of intellect appear, not because natural things understand, but because they are moved and ordered by an intellect so that they may attain their end. So also in the old law certain things are contained that belong to faith, not that the Jews possessed them as things of faith, but they possessed them only in a figure of the faith of Christ, and as an attestation, by the power of which faith the just were saved.”

“Having set forth the harm inflicted by the law, and the law's defect in being unable to rescue man from it, here the Apostle consequently shows the power of Christ freeing us from that very harm. And first he shows how through Christ we are freed from that harm; second, how we also acquire help from Christ beyond this, at the place "that upon the Gentiles," etc. Concerning the first he does three things. For first he sets forth the authority of the liberation; second, the manner of the liberation, at the place "made for us," etc.; third, the prophetic testimony, at the place "for it is written," etc. He says therefore first: whoever kept the works of the law were under the curse, as has been said, and they could not be freed through the law. Therefore it was necessary to have someone who would free us, and this one was Christ. And therefore he says "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law," etc. Romans 8:3: "what was impossible for the law," etc., "God sending his own Son," namely Christ, etc. "He redeemed," I say, "us," namely the Jews, with his precious blood, Apocalypse 5:9: "you have redeemed us in blood," etc. Isaiah 43:1: "Fear not, for I have redeemed you," etc. "From the curse of the law," that is, from guilt and punishment. Below, chapter 4, verse 5: "that he might redeem those who were under the law"; Hosea 13:14: "I will redeem them from death." He sets forth the manner of the liberation when he says "made a curse for us." Here it should be noted that a curse is what is called an evil. And according to a twofold evil, a twofold curse can be spoken of, namely the curse of guilt and the curse of punishment. And in both ways this text can be read: in two ways he was made a curse for us. And first indeed concerning the evil of guilt. For Christ redeemed us from the evil of guilt. Hence just as he redeemed us from death by dying, so he redeemed us from the curse of guilt by being made a curse, namely of guilt — not indeed that there was any sin in him, "who committed no sin, nor deceit," etc., as is said in 1 Peter 2:22, but according to the opinion of men, and especially of the Jews who considered him a sinner. John 18:30: "If he were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over to you." And therefore concerning this it is said in 2 Corinthians 5:21: "Him who knew no sin, he made to be sin for us." But he says "a curse," not "cursed," in order to show that the Jews considered him utterly wicked. Hence it is said in John 9:16: "This man is not from God," etc.; and John 10:33: "It is not for a good work that we stone you, but for sin and for blasphemy." And therefore he says "he was made a curse for us," in the abstract; as if to say: he was made the very curse itself. Second, it is explained concerning the evil of punishment. For Christ freed us from punishment by sustaining our punishment and death, which indeed came upon us from the very curse of sin. Insofar, therefore, as he took up this curse of sin by dying for us, he is said to have been made a curse for us. And it is similar to what is said in Romans 8:3: "God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," that is, of mortal flesh. "Him who knew no sin," namely Christ, who committed no sin — God, namely the Father, "made to be sin for us," 2 Corinthians 5:21, that is, made him suffer the punishment of sin, namely when he was offered up on account of our sins. Consequently he sets forth the testimony of Scripture when he says "for it is written: cursed is everyone," etc. And this is Deuteronomy 27. Here it should be known, according to the Gloss, that in Deuteronomy, whence this word is taken, both in our texts and in the Hebrew codices it is found: "cursed by God is everyone," etc.; but that phrase, namely "by God," is not found in the ancient Hebrew volumes, whence it is believed that it was added by the Jews after the Lord's passion, for the disgrace of Christ. Now the authority can be explained concerning the evil of punishment and the evil of guilt. Concerning the evil of guilt thus: "cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree," not because he hangs on a tree, but on account of the guilt for which he hangs. And in this way Christ was reckoned cursed while hanging on the cross, because he was punished especially by such a punishment. And according to this it is connected to what precedes. For the Lord commanded in Deuteronomy that whoever was hanged should be taken down in the evening; and the reason for this is that this punishment was more base and more ignominious than the others. He says therefore: he was truly made a curse for us, because the very death of the cross, which he sustained, suffices for a curse — explaining it in this way concerning the evil of guilt, but only in the estimation of the Jews, since it is written "cursed is everyone," etc. But concerning the evil of punishment it is explained thus: "cursed is everyone who," etc., because the punishment itself is the curse, namely that he died in this way. And explaining it in this way, he was truly cursed by God, because God ordained that he should sustain this punishment, in order to free us. Consequently, when he says "that upon the Gentiles the blessing," etc., he sets forth the hope which we acquire through Christ, beyond the fact that through him we are freed from the curse — as is said in Romans 5:16: "not as the offense, so also the gift"; rather it is much greater, namely because it frees from sin, and confers grace. First, then, he sets forth the fruit, and to whom it is given, saying "that upon the Gentiles the blessing of Abraham," etc.; as if to say: he was made a curse for us, not only that he might remove the curse, but that upon the Gentiles, who were not under the curse of the law, the blessing of Abraham might come to be, as promised in Genesis 22:18: "in your seed shall all nations be blessed," etc. And this blessing indeed was made to us, that is, was fulfilled, through Christ, who is of the seed of Abraham, to whom the promises were spoken, and to his seed, who is Christ, as is said below. And this blessing and fruit is that we might receive the promise of the Spirit, that is, the promises which the Holy Spirit makes in us, namely concerning eternal blessedness — who, given to us as a kind of pledge and guarantee, promises it to us, as is found in Ephesians 1:14 and 2 Corinthians chapter 6. And indeed it is given as a pledge for the sake of certainty. For a pledge is a certain sure promise concerning a thing to be received. Romans 5: "for you have not received the spirit of servitude," etc., and below: "if sons, then heirs also." Or "that we might receive the promise of the Spirit," that is, the Holy Spirit himself; as if to say: let us receive the promise made concerning the Holy Spirit to the seed of Abraham, Joel 2:28: "I will pour out of my spirit," etc.; because through the Holy Spirit we are joined to Christ, and are made the seed of Abraham, and worthy of the blessing. Second, he shows through what this fruit comes to us, saying "through faith," through which indeed we also acquire the eternal inheritance. Hebrews 9: "he who approaches God must believe that he exists, and that he is a rewarder of those who seek him." Through faith also we acquire the Holy Spirit, because, as is said in Acts 5:32, "the Lord gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey him," namely through faith.”

“After the Apostle proved by authorities that the law does not justify, nor is necessary for justification, which is through faith, here he consequently shows the same thing by human reasons. And concerning this he does four things. First, he sets down a human custom; second, he takes up the divine promise, at the words "The promises were made to Abraham," etc.; third, he draws the conclusion, at "Now this I say," etc.; fourth, he shows that the conclusion follows from the premises, at "For if of the law," etc. He says therefore: I indeed spoke openly before according to the authority of Scripture, which was brought forth not by human will, but by the Holy Spirit, as it is said in 2 Peter 1:21; but now I speak according to man, and according to what human reason and custom hold. From this, indeed, we have an argument that for discoursing about the things of faith, we may use any truth of any science whatsoever. Deuteronomy 21:11: "If thou seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and thou lovest her, and wilt have her to wife, thou shalt bring her into thy house" — that is, if secular wisdom and knowledge should please you, you shall bring it within your borders — "who shall shave her hair," etc., that is, it will cut away all erroneous senses. And hence it is that the Apostle in many places in his epistles uses the authorities of the gentiles, as that in 1 Corinthians 15:33: "Evil communications corrupt good manners," etc., and that in Titus 1:11: "The Cretans, evil beasts," etc. Or, although reasons of this kind are empty and weak — because, as it is said in Psalm 93:11, "The Lord knows the thoughts of men, that they are vain" — nevertheless no one despises or overrides a man's confirmed testament, because nothing human has such firmness as a man's last will; but someone would despise it, if he said that a man's testament, confirmed by the death of the testator and by witnesses, were not valid. If, then, no one despises a testament of this kind, saying that it need not be kept, or despises it by altering something in it, much more should no one despise or override the testament of God, by infringing it, or by adding to it or taking away from it. Apocalypse, last chapter: "If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book; and if any man shall take away from the words of this prophecy, God shall take away his part," etc. Deuteronomy 4:2: "You shall not add to the word which I speak to you, nor shall you take away from it," etc. Consequently, when he says "The promises were made to Abraham," etc., he takes up the divine promise made to Abraham, which is as it were a certain testament of God. And first he expounds this promise or testament; second, he discloses the truth of the testament, at "He does not say: And to seeds," etc. He says therefore first, "The promises were made to Abraham," as if to say: just as a man's testament is firm, so the divine promises are firm. But did God make any promises before the law? Certainly, because to Abraham, who was before the law — namely, that God would not deceive — the promises were spoken, that is, made, both to him and to his seed, by God. But they were made to Abraham, as to the one to whom they were to be fulfilled; and to his seed, as that through which they were to be fulfilled. Now he says "promises" in the plural, because the promise concerning the blessing of the seed contained many things. Or because the same thing — that is, eternal blessedness — was frequently promised to him, as in Genesis 12:3, "In thee shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed"; likewise 15:5, "Look up to heaven, and number the stars," etc.; likewise in the same place: "To thy seed I will give this land," etc.; likewise 22:18: "I will bless thee, and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven." These promises, therefore, are as it were the testament of God, because there is a certain ordinance concerning the inheritance to be given to Abraham and to his seed. But he discloses the truth of the testament when he says: "He does not say: And to seeds," etc. And indeed he discloses it by the same spirit by which the testament was drawn up. And this is clear from the words of the testament. "He does not say," he says, "and to seeds," as if referring to many — that is, as he would speak if it held true of many — "but as of one, who is Christ," because he alone is the one through whom and in whom all can be blessed. For he alone and singularly is the one who is not subject to the curse of guilt, even though he deigned to become a curse for us. Hence it is said in Psalm 140:10: "I am alone," etc. Likewise: "There is none that doth good," etc. Ecclesiastes 7:29: "One man among a thousand I have found" — namely, Christ, who would be without all sin — "but a woman among them all I have not found" — who would be wholly free of sin, at least original, or venial. He draws the conclusion, then, consequently, when he says "Now this I say: the testament," etc., where let us see in order what it is that he says. He says therefore that this is what God promised to Abraham, but this is the testament, namely, this promise concerning obtaining the inheritance. Jeremiah 31:31: "I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant," etc. "Confirmed" — this he puts down so that it might agree with what was said before. For above he had said, "a man's testament, confirmed," etc. "By God" — namely, who promised. And I say it was confirmed by an oath. Genesis 22:16: "By my own self have I sworn," etc.; Hebrews 6:18: "That by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie," etc. This testament, I say, the law does not make void — the law which indeed was made, and given by God through Moses. John 1:17: "The law was given by Moses," etc. "After four hundred and thirty," etc. And, as if expounding what he had said, he adds, "does not make void, so as to make the promise of no effect." For thus would the aforesaid testament become void, if the promise made to Abraham were made of no effect, that is, made in vain, as though the seed promised to Abraham were not sufficient for the blessing of the gentiles. But through Christ the promises made to the fathers were not made void, but confirmed. Romans 15:8: "I say that Jesus Christ was minister of the circumcision, to confirm the promises made to the fathers." And 2 Corinthians 1:20: "For all the promises of God are in him," etc. Now, what is said, "after four hundred and thirty years," agrees with what is found in Exodus 12:40: "The abode of the children of Israel, during which they remained in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years." And Acts 7:6: "The Lord spoke" — namely, to Abraham — "that his seed would be a sojourner in a foreign land, and they would subject them to servitude for four hundred and thirty years." But against this is what is said in Genesis 15:13: "Know for certain that thy seed shall be a stranger, and they will subject them to servitude, and afflict them, for four hundred years." I respond. It must be said that if the computation of years is made from the first promise made to Abraham, which is read in Genesis 12, up to the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt, when the law was given, then there are four hundred and thirty years, as is written here, and in Exodus 12, and Acts 7. But if the computation begins from the birth of Isaac, of which we read in Genesis 21, then there are only four hundred and five years. For twenty-five years passed from the promise made to Abraham until the birth of Isaac. For Abraham was seventy-five years old when he went out from his land, and the first promise was made to him, as is found in Genesis 12. But he was a hundred years old when Isaac was born, as is found in the same place, chapter 21. That there were, from the birth of Isaac until the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt, four hundred and five years, is proved by this: that Isaac was sixty years old when he begot Jacob, as is found in Genesis 25; and Jacob was a hundred and thirty years old when he entered Egypt, as is found in Genesis 27. And thus, from the birth of Isaac until Jacob's entry into Egypt, there were a hundred and ninety years. But Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh, as is found in Genesis 41. And afterward there passed seven years of fruitfulness and two of barrenness, until Jacob's entry into Egypt, as is found in chapter 45. Now Joseph lived a hundred and ten years, as is found in the last chapter of Genesis. From which, if thirty-nine years are subtracted, seventy-one years remain. There were, therefore, from the birth of Isaac until the death of Joseph, two hundred and sixty-one years. Now the children of Israel were in Egypt after the death of Joseph for a hundred and forty-four years, as Rabanus says in the Gloss. There were, therefore, from the birth of Isaac until the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt and the giving of the law, four hundred and five years; but Scripture did not concern itself with the minute details. Or it can be said that in the fifth year of Isaac, Ishmael was expelled, and Isaac alone remained as Abraham's heir, and from that time there were four hundred years. Then, when he says "For if of the law," etc., he shows how it follows from the premises that the law would make the promises void, if the law were necessary for justification, or for the blessing of the gentiles. He says therefore: truly the promise would be made void if the law were necessary. For if the inheritance — namely, of Abraham's blessing — were from the law, it would then no longer be from the promise, that is, from the seed promised to Abraham. For if the promised seed were sufficient for obtaining the inheritance of the blessing, justification would not come about through the law. But he destroys the consequent, when he says, "But God gave to Abraham," etc., that is, he promised that he would give — which was as certain as if he were giving it at once — through the promise, that is, through the promised seed. The inheritance, therefore — that is, the blessing — is not from the law; concerning which it is said in 1 Peter 3:9: "Unto this you are called, that you may inherit a blessing."”

“After the Apostle showed, both by the authority of Scripture and by human custom, that the law could not justify, here he raises two doubts and resolves them. The second doubt begins there: "Is the law then against the promises of God," etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First he raises the doubt; second he resolves it, there: "because of transgressions," etc.; third he explains something set down within the solution, there: "now a mediator," etc. Now there can be a doubt of this sort from what has gone before: if the law could not justify, whether it was altogether useless. And he raises this doubt, saying "What then is the law," etc. — that is, for what was the law useful? And Augustine approves this punctuation more, as is found in the Gloss, than another which had at first seemed better to him, namely that it be so distinguished: "What then?" And afterward it be said: "the law, because of transgressions," etc. A similar doubt is proposed in Romans 3:1, where it is said thus: "What then is more to the Jew," etc. Then, when he says "because of transgressions," he resolves the doubt raised, where he does four things. First he sets forth the usefulness of the law; second, the fruit of the law, there: "until the seed should come," etc.; third, the ministers of the law, there: "ordained through Angels"; fourth, the lordship of the law, there: "in the hand of a mediator." Concerning the first it must be noted that the old law was given on account of four things, corresponding to four things that follow from sin, which Bede enumerates: namely, on account of malice, weakness, concupiscence, and ignorance. The law, then, was given first to repress malice — that is, while, by prohibiting sin and punishing it, men were drawn back from sin — and he touches on this, saying "the law was set because of transgressions," that is, for restraining transgressions; and concerning this it is found in 1 Timothy 1:9: "the law is not set for the just man, but for the unjust." The reason for this can be taken from the Philosopher in Ethics IV. For men who are well disposed are moved of themselves to act well, and paternal admonitions suffice for them, so that they do not need the law; but, as is said in Romans 2:14, "they are a law to themselves, having the work of the law written in their hearts." But men who are badly disposed need to be drawn back from sins by punishments. And therefore, as regards these, the positing of the law was necessary, which has a coercive power. Second, the law was given to manifest weakness. For men presumed about two things: first indeed about knowledge, second about power. And therefore God left men without the teaching of the law, in the time of the law of nature, in which, while they fell into errors, their pride was convicted concerning the defect of knowledge, but there still remained a presumption concerning power. For they said, "one who would fulfill it is not lacking, but one who would command it is lacking," as is said in the Gloss on that word of Exodus 24: "Whatever the Lord shall command, we will do, and we will be obedient." And therefore the law was given, which would produce knowledge of sin — for "through the law comes the knowledge of sin," Romans 3:20. Which law, however, did not give the help of grace for avoiding sins, so that thus man, constituted under the law, might both test his own strength and recognize his own weakness, finding that without grace he could not avoid sin, and thus might more eagerly seek grace. And this cause too can be taken from these words, so that it be said that the law was set for the fulfilling of transgressions — speaking, as it were, in that manner in which the Apostle says in Romans 5:20: "the law entered in that sin might abound"; which is not to be understood causally, but consecutively: because, with the law entering in, sin abounded, and transgressions were multiplied, while concupiscence, not yet healed by grace, burned the more toward that which was forbidden, and the sin became graver, with the transgression of the written law added on. And this God permitted, so that men, recognizing their own imperfection, might seek the grace of a mediator. Whence he says pointedly "it was set," as though placed in due order between the law of nature and the law of grace. Third, the law was given to tame the concupiscence of a wanton people, so that, wearied by various ceremonies, they would turn aside neither to idolatry nor to wantonness. Whence Peter says in Acts 15:10: "this is a burden which neither we," etc. Fourth, to instruct ignorance, the law was given as a figure of the grace to come, according to that word of Hebrews 10:1: "the law having a shadow," etc. Then, when he says "until the seed should come," etc. — that is, Christ, concerning whom God had promised that through him all nations would be blessed. Matthew 11:13: "the law and the prophets were until John," etc. Genesis 12: "in thy seed," etc. Now the ministers of the law are set down when he says "ordained" — that is, given in an orderly way — "through Angels," that is, through the messengers of God, namely Moses and Aaron. Malachi 2:7: "they shall require the law from his mouth," etc. "For the angel of the Lord," etc. Or "through Angels," that is, by the ministry of Angels. Acts 7:35: "you received the law by the disposition of Angels," etc. And it was given through Angels, because the law ought not to be given through the Son, who is greater. Hebrews 2:2: "for if the word spoken through Angels," etc. He says "ordained," because it was given in an orderly manner, namely between the time of the law of nature, by which men were convicted that they could not help themselves, and the time of grace. For before they received grace, they had to be convicted by the law. Now Christ is called the Lord of the law. And therefore he says "in the hand of a mediator," that is, in the power of Christ. Deuteronomy 33:2: "in his right hand a fiery law." 1 Timothy 2:5: "the mediator of God and men," etc. This mediator was signified by Moses, in whose hand the law was given. Deuteronomy 5:5: "I was the intermediary and the one in the middle between God and you," etc. Then, when he says "now a mediator," etc., he explains what he had said, "in the hand of a mediator," which can be explained in three ways. In one way, because a mediator is not of one only, but of two. Whence, since this one is the mediator of God and man, it is necessary that he be God and man. For if he were a mere man, or God only, he would not be a true mediator. If then he is true God, since no one is a mediator of himself, it could seem to someone that besides him there are other gods of whom he is the mediator; and he removes this, saying that this mediator, even though he is not of one only, there are not, on this account, other gods, but "God is one" — because, although he himself is other in person from God the Father, he is nevertheless not other in nature. Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God," etc. Ephesians 4:6: "one God," etc. In a second way, because it could be believed that this one was the mediator of the Jews only; therefore he says: I say that Christ is the mediator, but not of one, namely of the Jews, but he is one of all — that is, sufficient for reconciling all to God, because he himself is God. Romans 3:30: "one God who justified circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith," etc. 2 Corinthians 5:19: "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself," etc. In a third way, because he is not the mediator of one people only, namely the Jews, but also of the Gentiles. Ephesians 2:14: "he himself is our peace, who made both one." And this, on the part of the Gentiles, by taking away idolatry, and on the part of the Jews, by taking away the observance of the law. But specially the mediator is the Son, not the Father, not the Holy Spirit; nonetheless, however, God is one.”

“Here the Apostle raises another doubt, namely whether the law is harmful to grace. And first he raises the doubt, saying "Is the law then," etc., as if to say: if the law was established on account of transgressions, does the law then act against the promises of God — namely, so that what God promised he would do through the promised seed, he does through something else? God forbid. As if to say: no. For above, in the same place: "the law does not make void the covenant so as to nullify the promises," etc. Romans 7:12: "the law is holy, and the commandment holy." Second, when he says "For if a law had been given," etc., he resolves the doubt. And first he shows that the law is not against the promises of God; second, that it is in service of the promises, at the point "but concluded," etc. He says, therefore, that although the law was established on account of transgressions, it is nevertheless not contrary to the promise of God, because it cannot remove the transgressions themselves. For if it did remove them, then it would clearly be against the promises of God, because justice would be through another way than the one God promised — since it would be through the law and not through faith — whereas nevertheless it is said, Habakkuk 2:4: "my just one lives from faith." Romans 3:22: "the justice of God is through the faith of Jesus Christ." And therefore he says that if a law had been given of such a kind that it could give life — that is, were of such power that it could confer the life of grace and eternal blessedness — then truly, and not merely apparently, justice would be from the law, if the law did what faith is said to do; and thus faith would be in vain. But the law does not justify, because the letter — namely, of the law — kills, as is said in 2 Corinthians 3:6, and Romans 8:2: "for the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus," etc. Then when he says "but Scripture concluded," etc., he shows that the law not only is not contrary to grace but is even in service to it. And first he shows that the law serves the promises of God; second, how this service was made manifest among the Jews, at the point "but before faith came," etc.; third, how the Gentiles too, without the law, obtained the promises of God, at the point "for you are all sons of God," etc. Concerning the first, it must be known that the law serves the promises of God in general with respect to two things. First, because it manifests sins. Romans 3:20: "through the law, knowledge of sin." Then, because it manifests human weakness, inasmuch as man cannot avoid sin except through grace, which was not given through the law. And just as these two things — namely, knowledge of the disease and the powerlessness of the sick person — greatly induce one to seek a physician, so knowledge of sin and of one's own powerlessness induce one to seek Christ. Thus, then, the law served grace, insofar as it supplied knowledge of sin and experience of one's own powerlessness. And therefore he says "Scripture" — that is, the written law — "concluded," that is, it held the Jews shut in, "under sin" — that is, it showed them the sins that they were committing. Romans 7:7: "I did not know concupiscence," etc. Likewise it "concluded," because with the law coming they took occasion for sin. Romans 11:32: "God has concluded all things under unbelief," etc. And this was so that man might seek grace. And therefore he says "that the promise" — that is, the grace that had been promised — "might be given not only to the Jews, but to all believers," because that grace was able to free from sins, and this grace is from the faith of Jesus Christ. Then when he says "but before it came," etc., he sets forth the experience of this service made manifest among the Jews. And first he sets forth the service rendered to the Jews; second, he draws a certain corollary, at the point "therefore the law was our pedagogue," etc. He says, therefore: if Scripture — that is, the written law — held all things shut in under sin, what benefits did the Jews have from the law before faith came from grace? He answers and says: we Jews, before the coming of faith, were kept under the law, inasmuch as it made us avoid idolatry and many other evils; we were kept, I say, not as free men, but as it were as servants under fear, and this "under the law" — that is, under the burden and dominion of the law. Romans 7:1: "the law has dominion over a man for as long as he lives," etc. And we were kept "shut in" — that is, preserved lest we should slip away from life, but were being prepared for it — that is, for that so-good faith which was to be revealed. Isaiah 56:1: "my salvation is near, that it may come, and my justice, that it may be revealed." And he says "to be revealed," because since faith exceeds every human intellect, it cannot be had through one's own understanding, but from revelation and the gift of God. Isaiah 40:5: "the glory of the Lord shall be revealed," etc. Or: for that faith which was to be revealed in the time of grace, lying hidden in ancient times under many signs. Whence also, at the time of Christ, the veil of the temple was torn, Matthew 27:51. Consequently, when he says "the law was our pedagogue," etc., he draws a certain corollary. And first he shows the office of the law; second, the attestation of that office, at the point "but when the fullness of time came," etc. Now the office of the law was the office of a pedagogue, and therefore he says "the law was our pedagogue," etc. For as long as an heir cannot obtain the benefit of the inheritance, whether on account of a deficiency of age or of some due perfection, he is kept and guarded by some instructor, and this instructor indeed is called a "pedagogue," from "paidos," which means "boy," and "agoge," which means "leading." For through the law the Jews, like weak children, were held back from evil through fear of punishment, and were advanced toward the good by the love and promise of temporal things. Now to the Jews was promised the blessing of the future seed with a view to obtaining the inheritance, but the time of obtaining that inheritance itself had not yet come. And therefore it was necessary that they be preserved until the time of the future seed, and be restrained from unlawful things — which was accomplished through the law. And therefore he says "therefore," etc., as if to say: since we were kept under the law, the law was our pedagogue — that is, directing and preserving us "in Christ," that is, in the way of Christ. And this was so that we might be justified from the faith of Christ. Hosea 11:1: "Israel a child, and I loved him." Jeremiah 31:18: "you have chastised me, Lord, and I was instructed," etc. Romans 3:28: "for we reckon that a man is justified through faith," etc. And although the law was our pedagogue, it nevertheless did not lead to the perfect inheritance, because, as is said in Hebrews 7: "the law brought no one to perfection," etc. But this office ceased after faith came. And this is what he says: "but when faith came" — namely, the faith of Christ — "we are now no longer under a pedagogue" — that is, under a coercion which is not necessary for free men. 1 Corinthians 15: "when I was a child," etc.; "but when I became a man," etc. 2 Corinthians 5:17: "if then any new creature in Christ, the old things have passed away," etc.”