Super Epistolam B. Pauli ad Galatas lectura
COMMENTARY ON SAINT PAUL’S
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANSby
St. Thomas AquinasTranslated by F.R. Larcher, O.P.
Magi Books, Inc., Albany, N.Y. 12208, 1966
Html format by Joseph Kenny, O.P.
CONTENTS
PROLOGUE CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 2
CHAPTER 3
- 3-2: Gal 3:2-5
- 3-3: Gal 3:6-9
- 3-4: Gal 3:10-12
- 3-5: Gal 3:13-14
- 3-6: Gal 3:15-18
- 3-7: Gal 3:19-20
- 3-8: Gal 3:21-25
- 3-9: Gal 3:26-29
CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 5
- 5-1: Gal 5:1-4
- 5-2: Gal 5:5-12
- 5-3: Gal 5:13-15
- 5-4: Gal 5:16-17
- 5-5: Gal 5:18-21
- 5-6: Gal 5:22-23a
- 5-7: Gal 5:23b-26
CHAPTER 6
Prooemium PROLOGUE
The new coming on, you shall cast away the old. (Lev. 26:10)Haec verba competunt praesenti epistolae, in qua apostolus redarguit Galatas, qui intantum seducti fuerant a pseudo, ut simul servarent legalia et Evangelium, quod apostolus improperat eis in verbis praemissis, dicens vetera, novis supervenientibus, proiicietis. In quibus verbis innuit dominus quadruplicem vetustatem. These words befit the present epistle in which the Apostle reproves the Galatians who had been so deceived by false teachers as to observe at once the rites of the Law and those of the Gospel. For this the Apostle rebukes them with the above words: “The new coming on, you shall cast away the old.” In these words the Lord suggests a fourfold oldness. Prima vetustas est erroris, de qua Is. XXVI, 3: vetus error abiit, et haec remota est per novitatem doctrinae Christi. Mc. I, 27: quae est haec nova doctrina? First, the oldness of error concerning which Isaiah states (26:3): “The old error is passed away.” This is removed by the newness of the doctrine of Christ. “What is this new doctrine?” (Mk 1:27). Secunda vetustas est figurae, de qua Hebr. c. VIII, 8: consummabo super domum David, et super Iuda testamentum novum, non secundum testamentum quod feci patribus eorum. Ubi primo ostendit primum testamentum esse vetustum, et hoc renovari per novitatem gratiae, seu veritatis praesentiae Christi. Ier. XXXI, 22: novum faciet dominus super terram, et cetera. The second oldness is that of figure, concerning which Hebrews (8:8) states: “Behold, the days shall come, saith the Lord; and I will perfect, unto the house of Israel and unto the house of Juda, a new testament not according to the testament which I made to their fathers.” Here he shows first of all that the first testament is old and that it is made new by the newness of grace or of the reality of Christ’s presence. “The Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth...” (Jer 31:22). Tertia est vetustas culpae, de qua Ps. XXXI, v. 3: quoniam tacui (confitendo scilicet peccata mea), inveteraverunt, et cetera. Et haec renovatur per novitatem iustitiae. Rom. VI, 4: in novitate vitae ambulemus, et cetera. The third is the oldness of guilt, concerning which Psalm (31:3) states: “Because I was silent” (not confessing my sins), “my bones grew old.” And this is made new by the newness of justice. “So we may walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:4). Quarta est vetustas poenae. Thren. III, 4: vetustam feci pellem meam. Et haec renovabitur per novitatem gloriae, de qua novitate Is. ult.: ecce ego creo caelum novum, etc.; Apoc. XXI, 21: dixit, qui sedebat in throno: ecce nova facio omnia. The fourth is the oldness of punishment. “My skin he hath made old” (Lam 3:4). And this will be made new by the newness of glory, concerning which Isaiah (66:22) states: “Behold I will create a new heaven and a new earth.” “And he that sat on the throne said: Behold, I make all things new” (Rev 21:5).
CHAPTER I
Lecture 1Scribit ergo apostolus Galatis hanc epistolam, in qua ostendit, quod, veniente gratia novi testamenti, debet proiici vetus testamentum, ut impleta veritate deseratur figura, quibus duabus, scilicet gratia et veritate, adeptis, perveniatur ad veritatem iustitiae et gloriae. Acquiruntur autem illa duo, si observantia legalium dimissa, observantiae Evangelii Christi ferventer insistamus. The Apostle therefore writes the Galatians this epistle in which he shows that with the coming of the grace of the New Testament, the Old Testament should be cast out, so that with the fulfillment of the truth, the figure may be abandoned, and with the attainment of these two, namely, grace and truth, one may arrive at the truth of justice and glory. And these two are acquired, if, abandoning the observance of the “ legalia ” [i.e., the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law], we concentrate fervently on observing the Gospel of Christ. Ordo autem huius epistolae congruus est, ut post duas epistolas ad Corinthios, in quarum prima agitur de sacramentis Ecclesiae, in secunda de ministris horum sacramentorum, necessarie sequatur epistola ad Galatas, in qua agitur de cessatione sacramentorum veteris testamenti. The order of this epistle is fitting in that, after the two epistles to the Corinthians, in the first of which it is a question of the sacraments of the Church, and in the second, of the ministers of these sacraments, there should necessarily follow the epistle to the Galatians, treating of the termination of the sacraments of the Old Testament. Dividitur autem haec epistola in duas partes, in salutationem, et epistolarem narrationem, ibi miror quod, et cetera. In salutatione autem primo ponitur persona salutantis; secundo ponuntur personae salutatae, ibi Ecclesiis Galatiae, etc.; tertio bonum optatum, ibi gratia vobis, et cetera. This epistle is divided into two parts: namely, into a greeting, and the setting forth of the epistle (v. 6): I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. In the greeting, however: First, the person who sends the greeting is mentioned; Secondly, the persons greeted are mentioned (v. 2): To the Churches of Galatia; Thirdly, the good he wishes them (v. 3). Circa primum, primo, ponitur persona salutans principaliter, quae describitur ex nomine et ex auctoritate. Ex nomine quidem cum dicit Paulus, quod congruit humilitati suae, quia interpretatur humilis. Unde dicitur I Cor. XVI, 9: ego sum minimus apostolorum, et cetera. Item congruit officio suo, quia secundum alium modum interpretatur os tubae, in quo specialiter est officium praedicationis significatum. Is. LVIII, 1: quasi tuba exalta vocem tuam, et cetera. Ex auctoritate autem describitur, cum dicitur apostolus. Ubi duo ponuntur, scilicet eius auctoritas, et auctoritatis origo. Auctoritas, quia apostolus, qui idem est quod missus. As to the first, mention is made first of the person principally sending the greeting; and he is described by his name and his authority. By his name, indeed, when he says Paul which, because it means “humble,” accords with his humility. Hence it is said in 1 Corinthians (15:9): “I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle.” Furthermore, it accords with his office, because in another sense it means “the mouth of the trumpet,” in which the office of preaching is specially signified. “Lift up thy voice like a trumpet and announce to my people their sins” (Is 58:1). He is described by his authority, when he says, an apostle. Here two things are mentioned, namely, his authority and its source. Authority, because he says apostle, which is the same as “sent.” Sciendum est autem, quod apostolus in quibusdam epistolis scribit se servum, ostendens nomen humilitatis, ut in epistola ad Romanos; in quibusdam vero scribit se apostolum, ostendens auctoritatem suam. Cuius ratio est, quia Romani superbi erant, et ideo apostolus, ut inducat eos ad humilitatem, scribit se servum, in exemplum humilitatis. Galatis vero, quia stulti erant et superbi, ut frangat eos, nominat se apostolum; et ideo hic ponit auctoritatem suam. Now it should be noted that the Apostle in some epistles calls himself “Servant,” thereby showing a spirit of humility, as in. the Epistle to the Romans; in others he calls himself “apostle,” thereby showing his authority. The reason for this is that the Romans being proud, the Apostle, in order to induce them to humility, calls himself a servant as an example of humility. But to the Galatians, who were stupid and proud, he calls himself an apostle in order to break them down; hence he here sets forth his authority. Originem autem auctoritatis suae describit, cum dicit non ab hominibus, et cetera. Et primo removet originem aestimatam; secundo assignat veram, ibi sed per Iesum Christum, et cetera. He describes the source of his authority when he says, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father. First, he removes what is, according to their opinion, the source; Secondly, he presents the true source (v. 1): but by Jesus Christ and God the Father. Origo autem aestimata erat, quia intantum Galatae seducti erant a pseudo, quod crederent apostolum non esse eiusdem auctoritatis qua alii apostoli erant, quia non fuit doctus a Christo vel conversatus cum eo, sed esset missus ab eis, quasi minister eorum. Opinionem ergo istam removet, cum dicit non ab hominibus, et cetera. Quidam enim mittebantur a toto collegio apostolorum et discipulorum. Et ideo ostendens se non esse ab eis missum, dicit non ab hominibus. Quidam enim mittebantur ab aliquo apostolorum speciali, sicut Paulus aliquando mittebat Lucam et Titum. Et ideo ostendens, quod nec sic missus sit, dicit neque per hominem, id est, per aliquem apostolorum in speciali, sed per spiritum sanctum, qui dicit, Act. XIII, 2: segregate mihi, et cetera. The source [of his authority] in their opinion was in keeping with the fact that the Galatians had been so deceived by false teachers as to believe that the Apostle did not enjoy the same authority as the other apostles, as having neither been taught by Christ nor lived with Him, but sent by them as their minister. He therefore removes this opinion when he says, not of men, neither by man. For some had been sent by the whole college of apostles and disciples; hence, to show that he had not been sent by them, he says, not of men. Others had been sent by some particular apostle, as Paul now and then sent Luke and Titus. Therefore, to show that he had not been sent in that manner, he says, neither by man, i.e., not by any apostle in particular, but by the Holy Spirit, Who says: “Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them “(Acts 13:2). Causa autem originis huius auctoritatis vera est Christus Iesus, et ideo dicit sed per Iesum Christum, et Deum patrem. Haec autem distinctio, cum dicit per Iesum Christum et Deum patrem, potest accipi, vel quantum ad personam patris, et personam filii, et tunc alius est in persona Deus pater, et alius Iesus Christus. Ab utroque autem missus est beatus apostolus Paulus ad praedicandum, et a tota Trinitate, quia inseparabilia sunt opera Trinitatis. Non fit autem mentio de persona spiritus sancti, quia cum sit unio et nexus duorum, positis personis duabus, scilicet patris et filii, intelligitur etiam spiritus sanctus. Vel potest sumi distinctio praedicta quantum ad naturam assumptam, scilicet humanam, quia secundum naturam divinam non est distinctio inter Deum patrem et Iesum Christum. Et tunc missus est Paulus per Deum patrem, sicut per auctorem, et per Iesum Christum, sicut per ministrum. Rom. c. XV, 8: dico Iesum Christum ministrum fuisse, et cetera. But because the true cause of the origin of this authority is Christ Jesus, he says, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father. Now the distinction expressed when he says, by Jesus Christ and God the Father, can be taken with respect to the person of the Father and the person of the Son; and then God the Father is one person and Jesus Christ another. For the Blessed Apostle Paul was sent to preach by both, and indeed, by the whole Trinity, because the works of the Trinity are inseparable. Yet no mention is made of the person of the Holy Spirit, because, since there is a union and joining of two, by mentioning two persons, namely, Father and Son, the Holy Spirit too is understood. Or, the aforesaid distinction can be taken with respect to the assumed nature, i.e., the human, because according to the divine nature there is not a distinction between God the Father and Jesus Christ. In this sense, then, Paul was sent by God the Father as by the chief sender, and by Jesus Christ as by a minister. “For I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision” (Rom 15:8). Quia vero Galatae derogabant apostolo, quod non fuisset conversatus cum Christo sicut alii, nec missus ab eo, ideo in hoc specialiter magnificat se, quia illi fuerunt missi per Christum adhuc viventem in carne mortali, ipse vero a Christo iam glorificato missus est, ideo dicit qui, scilicet Deus pater, suscitavit eum, scilicet Iesum Christum, inquantum hominem, a mortuis. Quasi dicat: apostolus sum, non ab hominibus, scilicet collegio apostolorum, nec per hominem, scilicet Christum in mortali carne viventem, sed sum apostolus per Christum iam suscitatum et glorificatum. Rom. VI, 9: Christus resurgens a mortuis, et cetera. Et quia praesens vita significatur per sinistram, futura vero per dexteram, inquantum ista est caelestis et spiritualis, illa vero temporalis, ideo Petrus, qui vocatus fuit a Christo adhuc in carne mortali posito, ponitur in bulla Papae in sinistra parte; Paulus vero, qui vocatus fuit a Christo iam glorificato, ponitur in parte dextera. But because the Galatians belittled the Apostle for having neither lived with Christ, as did the others, nor been sent by Him, he extols himself on this very point, because they had been sent by Christ yet living in mortal flesh, whereas he had been sent by Christ now glorified. This is why he says, who, namely, God the Father, raised him, namely, Jesus Christ as man, from the dead. As though to say: I am an apostle not of men, i.e., not by the college of apostles, neither by man, namely, Christ living in mortal flesh, but I am an apostle through Christ now risen and glorified. “Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more” (Rom 6:9). And because the present life is signified by the left side and the future life by the right, inasmuch as the latter is heavenly and spiritual, and the former temporal, Peter, who was called while Christ was yet in mortal flesh, appears in papal bulls on the left side, but Paul, who was called by Christ now glorified, is set on the right side. Consequenter cum dicit et qui mecum sunt, etc., ponuntur personae adiunctae salutantes, quas describit a dulci familiaritate, quia mecum sunt, scilicet ad solatium et adiutorium. Prov. XVIII, 19: frater qui iuvatur a fratre, et cetera. Ps. CXXXII, 1: ecce quam bonum, et cetera. Item ab inseparabili charitate, cum dicit fratres, Io. XIII, 35: in hoc cognoscent omnes, et cetera. Item ab universalitate, cum dicit omnes; quod ideo addit, quia isti forte erant intantum seducti, quod dictum Pauli non reputarent. Et ideo dicit omnes qui mecum sunt, ut ostendat eos testes esse veritatis suae, et facile intelligant se errare, dum ab omnibus reprehenduntur. II Cor. II, 6: sufficit illi qui eiusmodi est obiurgatio haec, quae fit a pluribus, et cetera. Then when he says, and all the brethren who are with me, he refers to the persons who join with him in sending the greeting. These he describes in terms of sweet familiarity, because they are with me, namely, for consolation and help. “A brother that is helped by his brother is like a strong city” (Prov 18:19). “Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity” (Ps 132:1). And in terms of inseparable charity, when he says, brethren. “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another” (Jn 13:35). And universality, when he says, all. He adds this because they might be so deceived as not to respect the words of Paul. Hence he says, all who are with me, to show them as witnesses to his truthfulness and make it easy for them to understand that they are wrong, when they are rebuked by everyone else. “To him who is such a one, this rebuke is sufficient which is given by many” (2 Cor 2:6). Personas autem salutatas ponit, cum dicit Ecclesiis Galatiae, et cetera. Ubi sciendum quod sicut in Glossa tangitur, Brennus dux Senonum olim congregato exercitu intravit Italiam, qua pertransita, venit in Graeciam ante tempus Alexandri magni, ubi cum essent aliqui de gente sua remanentes, in una parte Graeciae miscuerunt se Graecis; unde illa provincia Gallograecia dicta est; deinde illi Galatae sunt appellati, quasi albi. Et licet Graeci sint acuti ingenii, tamen illi Galatae stulti erant et instabiles et ad intelligendum tardiores, sicut et indociles Galli, unde originem traxerunt. Et ideo infra dicit eis: o insensati Galatae, et cetera. Istis ergo scribit epistolam hanc et isti sunt personae salutatae. He mentions the persons greeted when he says, to the churches of Galatia. Here it should be noted that, as is mentioned in a Gloss, Brennus, leader of the Senones, once gathered an army, and having entered Italy through which he passed, came into Greece before the time of Alexander the Great. There some of the invaders remained in a certain district of Greece and intermarried with the Greeks. For this reason that province came to be called “Gallic Greece” and the inhabitants “Galatians,” as it were, “white.” But whereas the Greeks are natively intelligent, those Galatians were stupid and inconstant and slow to understand, as the indocile Gauls from whom they descended. This is why he later says, O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth? (3:1). To these people, therefore, he writes this epistle, and they are the ones greeted. Consequenter cum dicit gratia vobis, etc., ponit bona quae eis optat. Et primo ponit ipsa bona optata; secundo ipsorum bonorum auctorem, ibi a Deo patre, et cetera. Then when he says, grace be to you and peace, he mentions the good things he wishes them. First, he mentions the goods he wishes; Secondly, the author of these goods (v. 3): from God the Father and our Lord. Bona autem quae eis optat sunt duo, in quibus omnia spiritualia includuntur. Primum est gratia, quae est principium vitae spiritualis, cui in Glossa adscribitur remissio peccatorum, quae est primum in vita spirituali. Nullus enim potest esse in vera vita spirituali, nisi prius moriatur peccato. Secundum est pax, quae est quietatio mentis in fine, quae in Glossa dicitur esse reconciliatio ad Deum. Et sic, dum optat principium et finem omnium bonorum spiritualium, includit apostolus tamquam inter duo extrema desiderium omnis boni eis proveniendum. Ps. LXXXIII, v. 12: gratiam et gloriam dabit dominus. II Cor. ult.: gratia domini nostri, et cetera. The goods he wishes them are twofold, but in them are included all spiritual goods. The first is grace, which is the beginning of the spiritual life, and to it is ascribed in a Gloss the remission of sins, which is first in the 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 settling down of the mind in its end, and which in a Gloss is said to be reconciliation with God. Thus in wishing them the beginning and the end of all spiritual goods, the Apostle includes, as it were, between the two extremes, the wish that every good come to them. “The Lord will give grace and glory” (Ps 83:12). “The grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the charity of God and the communication of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor 13:13). Bonorum autem ipsorum auctor est Deus pater, et ideo dicit a Deo patre, et cetera. Ubi primo ponitur bonorum causa; secundo causandi modus, ibi qui dedit; tertio gratiarum actio pro ipsis bonis, ibi cui est honor, et cetera. The author of these goods is God the Father, and so he says, from God the Father. Here are mentioned First, the cause of the goods; Secondly, the manner of causing (v. 4); Thirdly, thanksgiving for these goods (v. 5). Causa autem et auctoritas bonorum est Deus pater tamquam auctor, inquantum Deus, et tota Trinitas, quae dicitur Deus omnium per creationem. Sap. XIV, 3: tu autem, pater, gubernas, et cetera. Et ideo dicit a Deo patre, et cetera. Item auctor est dominus Iesus Christus, sicut minister, et hoc inquantum homo. Rom. c. XV, 8: dico Iesum Christum ministrum, et cetera. Et quod per Christum sit nobis gratia, patet Io. I, 17: gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est, et cetera. Rom. V: iustificati gratis, et cetera. Pax etiam est nobis per ipsum. Io. XIV, 27: pacem meam do vobis, et cetera. The cause and source of good is God the Father as originator, precisely as God, and the entire Trinity, the God of all through creation. “But Thou, O Father, governest it” (Wis 14:3). Hence he says, from God the Father. Again, the originator is the Lord Jesus Christ as minister; and this insofar as He is man. “For I say that Jesus Christ was a minister” (Rom 15:8). But that grace comes to us through Christ is plain from John (1:17): “Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” “Being justified freely by His grace” (Rom 3:24). Peace, too, comes to us through Him. “My peace I give unto you” (in. 14:27). Modus autem causandi huiusmodi bona ponitur, cum dicit qui tradidit, et cetera. Ubi primo ponitur causa efficiens, quae est mors Christi. Et quantum ad hoc dicit qui dedit semetipsum, etc., quasi dicat: ideo Christus est auctor gratiae et pacis, quia ipse morti dedit se et sustinuit crucem. Unde ipsa mors Christi est causa efficiens gratiae. Rom. c. V: iustificati gratis, etc., et Col. c. I, 20: pacificans quae in caelis, et cetera. Et dicit primo qui dedit, etc., id est, sponte se obtulit. Eph. V, 2: dilexit nos Christus, et tradidit, et cetera. Hebr. II, 9: ut pro omnibus nobis gustaret mortem. Tit. II, 14: qui dedit semetipsum, et cetera. Ex quo manifeste apostolus arguit contra eos, quod si mors Christi est sufficiens causa salutis nostrae, et in sacramentis novi testamenti, quae efficaciam habent ex passione Christi, confertur gratia, quod sit superfluum simul cum novo testamento servari legalia, in quibus gratia non confertur, nec salus acquiritur, quia neminem ad perfectum adduxit lex, ut habetur Hebr. VII, 19. The manner in which these goods are caused is also mentioned when he says, who gave himself for our sins. Here is mentioned, first of all, the efficient cause, which is the death of Christ. Referring to this, he says who gave himself for our sins. As if to say: Christ is the author of grace and peace, because He gave Himself to death and endured the cross. Hence the very death of Christ is the efficient cause of grace: “You have been justified freely by his grace” (Rom 3:24); “Making peace as to the things that are in heaven” (Col 1:20). And he says, first of all, who gave himself, i.e., offered Himself voluntarily. “Christ also hath loved us and hath delivered Himself for us” (Eph 5:2); “That He might taste death for all” (Heb 2:9); “Who gave Himself for us” (Tit. 2:14). From this, the Apostle plainly is arguing against them that if the death of Christ is the sufficient cause of our salvation, and if grace is conferred in the sacraments of the New Testament, which have their efficacy from the passion of Christ, then it is superfluous to observe, along with the New Testament, the rituals of the Old Law in which grace is not conferred nor salvation acquired, because the Law has led no one to perfection, as is had in Hebrews (7:19). Secundo ponitur finis et utilitas ipsorum bonorum quae est causa finalis. Et est duplex: unus est ut liberemur a peccatis praeteritis, et quantum ad hoc dicit pro peccatis nostris, scilicet praeteritis delendis et expiandis, quod est initium nostrae salvationis. Apoc. I, 5: dilexit nos, et cetera. Alius finis est, ut liberaret nos a potestate mortis, et quantum ad hoc dicit ut eriperet nos de praesenti, et cetera. Col. I, 13: eripuit nos a potestate, et cetera. Et ponit tria, scilicet ut eriperet, inquit, de praesenti, et saeculo, et nequam. Ut eriperet de praesenti, trahendo nos ad aeterna, per desiderium et spem. De saeculo, id est, de conformitate huius mundi qui nos allicit, ut non ei conformemur. Rom. XII, 2: nolite conformari huic saeculo, et cetera. Nequam, reducens nos ad veritatem iustitiae. Et dicitur saeculum nequam, non propter sui naturam, cum bonum sit creatum a Deo, sed propter mala quae in eo fiunt, sicut illud Ephes. V, 16: dies mali sunt, et cetera. Gen. c. XLVII, 9, dixit Iacob: dies peregrinationis vitae meae centum triginta annorum sunt, parvi et mali, et cetera. Secondly, the end and utility of those goods is mentioned—in other words, the final cause. And it is twofold; one is that we be set free of past sins; and as to this he says, for our sins, namely, that past sins be removed and atoned for, which is the beginning of our salvation. “He loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood” (Rev 1:5). 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 this present wicked world. “He delivered us from the power of darkness” (Col 1:13). Herein he mentions three things: namely, to deliver us from the present, and the world, and wicked. To deliver us from the present by drawing us to eternal things through desire and hope; from the world, i.e., from being conformed to this world which allures us: “And be not conformed to this world” (Rom 12:2); wicked, leading us back to the truth of justice. And it is called a wicked world, not because of its nature, for it was created good by God, but because of the evils perpetrated in it, as is said in Ephesians (5:16): “The days are evil.” And “Jacob said: the days of my pilgrimage are a hundred and thirty years, few and evil” (Gen 47:9). Et licet haec sint nobis per Christum, non tamen excluditur Deus pater. Et ideo ponitur, tertio, acceptatio divinae voluntatis. Unde dicit secundum voluntatem Dei, et patris. Patris, inquam, Christi per naturam, qua ab aeterno procedit, ut verbum. Ps. II, 7: ego hodie genui te. Io. I, 1: in principio erat verbum, et cetera. Item patris nostri per adoptionem. Io. I, 12: dedit eis potestatem, et cetera. Primo modo ly Deus pater, accipitur pro sola persona patris; secundo modo pro tota Trinitate. Et quia a Deo patre nostro, scilicet a tota Trinitate, haec omnia proveniunt nobis per Christum, ideo ipsi, scilicet toti Trinitati, gloria, in se honor aliis sit vel est, in saecula saeculorum, id est semper. Amen, est nota confirmationis. Now although these things come to us through Christ, God the Father is not excluded. Hence there is mentioned in the third place, acceptance of the divine will. Therefore he says, according to the will of God and our Father. Of the Father by nature, I say, of Christ Who proceeds from eternity as the Word: “This day have I begotten Thee” (Ps 2:7); “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Jn 1:1). Also of our Father by adoption: “He gave them power to be made the sons of God: (Jn 1:12). In the first rendering, God the Father is taken for the sole person of the Father; in the second, for the whole Trinity. And because it is from God our Father, namely, from the whole Trinity, that all things come to us through Christ, therefore to it, i.e., to the whole Trinity, glory in itself, honor from others, be or is, forever and ever, i.e., always. Amen. This is a mark of corroboration. Habes ergo, in summa, in salutatione praedicta auctoritatem apostoli, qua eorum superbiam frangit; virtutem gratiae, qua eos ad observantiam Evangelii provocat; et insufficientiam legalium, ut ab eis eos revocet. You have therefore, in summary, in the above greeting, the Apostle’s authority by which he breaks their pride; the power of the grace by which he exhorts them to observe the Gospel; and the insufficiency of the ceremonies of the Law, in order to call them away from them.
CHAPTER I
Lecture 2In superioribus praecessit salutatio, sequitur in sequentibus epistolaris narratio, in qua arguit apostolus eorum errorem; secundo eos monet ad correctionem, V cap., ibi state ergo, et cetera. The greeting given, it is followed by the epistle message, in which the Apostle refutes their error; secondly, he admonishes them with a view to their correction (5:1): Stand fast and be not held again under the yoke of bondage. He refutes their error two ways: namely, on the authority of the Gospel teaching; and by reason, using the Old Testament (3:1): O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you... ? Errorem autem eorum arguit dupliciter, et per auctoritatem evangelici documenti, et per rationem veteris testamenti, III cap., ibi o insensati, et cetera. Arguit autem errorem ipsorum, ostendendo auctoritatem evangelicae doctrinae. Primo ostendendo ipsorum levitatem quantum ad levem dimissionem evangelicae doctrinae; secundo commendando auctoritatem ipsius doctrinae evangelicae: ut sic quanto dignius est quod dimittunt, tanto eorum error appareat maior, ibi notum enim vobis facio, et cetera. He refutes their error by showing the authority of the Gospel teaching: First, by showing their fickleness in lightly dismissing the Gospel teaching; Secondly, by commending the authority of the Gospel teaching, as he intimates that in view of the precious value of that which they so lightly regard, their error is seen to be so much the greater (v. 11). Circa primum duo facit. Primo enim exaggerat culpam; secundo infligit poenam, ibi sed licet nos, et cetera. Regarding the first he does two things: First, he enlarges upon their guilt; Secondly, he inflicts a punishment (v. 8). Culpam autem exaggerat et seductorum et seducentium, ibi nisi sunt, et cetera. Concerning the first, he enlarges upon the guilt both of the seduced and of those who seduced them (v. 7): only there are some that trouble you. Circa primum tria facit. Primo enim aggravat culpam seductorum ex animi levitate. Unde dicit miror, quasi dicat: cum sciatis tot bona quae dicta sunt provenire vobis per Christum, et quod cum fueritis ita bene instructi per me, tamen sic, id est, intantum et tam vehementer, ut videamini iam obliti, tam cito, id est, in tam brevi tempore, transferimini, ut alludat nomini. Galatia enim translatio dicitur. Quasi dicat: vos estis Galatae, quia tam cito transferimini. Eccli. XIX, 4: qui cito credit, levis est corde. As to the first he does three things: First, he enlarges upon the guilt of those who were misled for their fickleness of mind. Hence he says, I wonder. As if to say: Although you are aware of the many good things already mentioned that come to you through Christ, and although I instructed you well, nevertheless you are thus, i.e., so far and so completely removed [transferred], that you seem already to have forgotten; so soon, i.e., in such a short time, are you removed [transferred]. With this word he alludes to their name, for Galatia means “transferred.” As if to say: You are Galatians, because you are so quickly transferred. “He that is hasty to give credit is light of heart” (Sir 19:4). Secundo aggravat eorum culpam ex eo quod dimiserunt. Si enim ratio recedit et transfertur a malo, commendabilis est et bene facit, sed quando recedit a bono, tunc est culpabilis. Et sic isti a bono translati erant. Et ideo dicit eis: et si mirandum sit quod tam cito et sic transferimini, addit tamen materiam admirationis, quod scilicet transferimini ab eo, scilicet a Deo, et fide eius, qui vos vocavit in gratiam Christi, id est, in participationem aeterni boni, quam habemus per Christum. I Petr. II, v. 9: gratias agentes Deo, qui vos vocavit in admirabile lumen suum. Item II Petr. II, 21: melius erat eis viam veritatis non agnoscere, quam, et cetera. Secondly, he amplifies their guilt on the part of that which they have abandoned. For if reason withdraws and is removed from evil, it is worthy of praise and does well; but when it departs from the good, it is culpable. And this is how they were removed from good. So he says to them: Although it is amazing that you are so quickly and so far removed, there is additional reason for wonder, namely, because you have removed yourselves from him, i.e., from God, and from faith in Him that called you into the grace of Christ, i.e., into the sharing of the eternal good which we have through Christ: “Giving thanks to God who hath called you into his marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9). Again: “For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice than, after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them” (2 Pet. 2:21). Tertio aggravat eorum culpam ex eo ad quod conversi sunt, quia non sunt conversi ad bonum, sed ad malum. Unde dicit in aliud Evangelium, id est, veteris legis, quae Annuntiatio bona est inquantum annuntiat quaedam bona, scilicet temporalia et carnalia. Is. I, 9: si volueritis et audieritis me, et cetera. Sed tamen non est perfecta et simpliciter, sicut Evangelium; quia non annuntiat perfecta et maxima bona, sed parva et minima. Sed lex nova est perfecte et simpliciter Evangelium, id est, bona Annuntiatio, quia annuntiat maxima bona, scilicet caelestia, spiritualia et aeterna. Et licet sit aliud Evangelium secundum traditionem pseudo, tamen secundum meam praedicationem non. Est enim aliud in promissis, sed non est aliud in figura, quia idem continetur in veteri testamento et in novo: in veteri quidem ut in figura, in novo vero ut in re et expresse. Et sic est aliud Evangelium quantum ad ea quae exterius apparent, sed quantum ad ea quae interius sunt et continentur, non est aliud. Thirdly, he amplifies their guilt on the part of that to which they have turned, because they have been turned not to good but to evil. Hence he says, unto another gospel, i.e., of the Old Law, which is a good message only insofar as it does announce some good things, namely, temporal and carnal: “If you be willing and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land” (Is 1:19). Yet it is not completely perfect as is the Gospel, because it does not announce the perfect and loftiest goods, but small and slight ones. But the New Law is perfectly and in the full sense a Gospel, i.e., a good message, because it announces the greatest goods, namely, heavenly, spiritual and eternal. And although it is another gospel according to the tradition of the deceivers, yet according to my preaching it is not. For it is different in the promises, but not in the figure, because the same thing is contained in the Old Testament and in the New: in the Old, indeed, as in a figure, but in the New as in the express reality. Therefore it is another gospel if you consider the outward appearances; but as to the things that are contained and exist within, it is not another gospel. Licet autem non sit aliud in se, tamen potest esse aliud ex culpa aliorum, scilicet seducentium. Et ideo eorum culpam exaggerans, dicit nisi sunt aliqui, scilicet seductores, qui vos conturbant, id est, puritatem sensus vestri, qua imbuti fuistis per fidei veritatem, obfuscant. Quia, licet idem contineatur quantum ad interiorem intellectum per vetus et novum testamentum, ut dictum est, tamen si post susceptionem novi testamenti reiteratur vetus, videtur ostendi quod novum non sit perfectum, et quod illud sit aliud ab isto. Et ideo dicit quod non est aliud, nisi sunt, etc., quia isti pseudo post fidei evangelicae susceptionem cogebant eos circumcidi, ostendendo per hoc, quod circumcisio est aliquid aliud quam Baptismus et efficit aliquid quod Baptismus non potest efficere, et ideo isti conturbant vos. Infra V, 12: utinam abscindantur qui vos conturbant, et cetera. Yet though it is not in itself another gospel, it can be another, if you consider the guilt of the others, i.e., of the deceivers. Hence in enlarging upon the guilt of the latter he says, only there are some, namely, the seducers, that trouble you, i.e., sully the purity of your understanding with which you were imbued with the truth of faith. Because although the same thing is contained, so far as the inward understanding is concerned, in the Old and New Testament, as has been said, yet if the Old is embraced after accepting the New, that is seen to show that the New is not perfect, and that the one is different from the other. Hence he says, which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, because those deceivers were compelling them to be circumcised after professing faith in the Gospel, showing thereby that circumcision is something different from Baptism and does something that Baptism cannot do, and for that reason they are troubling you. I would that they were even cut off who trouble you (5:12). Et vere conturbant, quia volunt convertere Evangelium Christi, id est, veritatem evangelicae doctrinae in figuram legis, quod est absurdum et turbatio maxima. In illud enim debet aliquid converti ad quod ordinatur; novum autem testamentum et Evangelium Christi non ordinatur ad vetus, sed potius e contrario lex vetus ordinatur ad legem novam, sicut figura ad veritatem; et ideo figura converti debet ad veritatem, et lex vetus in Evangelium Christi, non autem veritas in figuram, neque Evangelium Christi in legem veterem: quod patet ex ipso usu loquendi. Non enim dicimus quod homo sit similis imagini hominis, sed potius e converso, imago est similis homini. Ier. XV, 9: ipsi convertentur ad te, etc.; et Lev. XXVI, 10: novis supervenientibus, et cetera. And they do indeed bring you trouble, because they would pervert the gospel of Christ, i.e., the truth of the Gospel teaching, into the figure of the Law—which is absurd and the greatest of troubles. For a thing ought to be converted into that to which it is ordained. But the New Testament and the Gospel of Christ are not ordained to the Old, but contrariwise, the Old Law is ordained to the New Law, as a figure to the truth. Consequently the figure ought to be converted into the truth, and the Old Law to the Gospel of Christ, not the truth into the figure, or the Gospel of Christ into the Old Law. This is plain from the way we ordinarily speak; for we do not say that a man resembles the image of a man, but contrariwise, that the image resembles the man: “They shall be turned to thee and thou shalt not be turned to them” (Jer 15:19); “The new coming on, you shall cast away the old” (Lev. 26:10). Consequenter post exaggerationem culpae ponitur inflictio poenae, cum dicit sed licet, et cetera. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo promulgat sententiam; secundo rationem sententiae assignat, ibi modo enim hominibus, et cetera. Then after enlarging upon their guilt, the inflicting of the penalty is set forth when he ways, But though we, or an angel from heaven (v. 8). And with respect to this he does two things: First, he promulgates the sentence; Secondly, he gives a reason for the sentence (v. 10). Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit auctoritatem suae sententiae; secundo profert eam, ibi sicut praedixi, et cetera. As to the first he does two things: First, he presents authority for his sentence; Secondly, he passes sentence (v. 9). Ostendit autem auctoritatem suae sententiae multam esse, eo quod non solum in perversores et in seductores subditos, sed etiam in pares, sicut sunt alii apostoli, et etiam in superiores, sicut sunt Angeli, si huius criminis, scilicet conversionis Evangelii in veterem legem, rei essent, efficaciam haberet. Et ideo dicit: quia nostrae sententiae auctoritas quam ego promulgo (quae est excommunicatio), non solum in illos qui talia intendunt, efficaciam habet, sed licet nos, scilicet apostoli, aut Angelus, bonus vel malus, de caelo veniens evangelizet, praeter quam quod evangelizatum est a nobis, anathema sit, id est, reus erit huius sententiae, quam promulgamus. He shows that his authority for passing sentence is great on the ground that it would affect not only the perverters and seducers, who are subject to him, but also his own equals, as the other apostles, and even those above him, as the angels, were they guilty of this crime, namely, of turning the Gospel into the Old Law. Hence he says: Because the authority behind the sentence which we pass (which is excommunication) has efficacy, not only over those who are doing these things, then though we, namely, the apostles, or an angel, good or evil, coming from heaven, preach a gospel besides that which we have preached, let him be anathema, i.e., subject to this sentence that we pass. Ad evidentiam autem dictorum tria inquirere oportet. Primo quid significat hoc nomen, anathema. Circa quod sciendum est, quod anathema est nomen Graecum, et componitur ab ana, quod est sursum, et thesis, positio, quasi sursum positio. Et est ortum ex quadam antiqua consuetudine. Antiqui enim quando pugnabant, capiebant aliquando aliquam praedam ab hostibus, quam nolebant convertere in usum proprium, sed suspendebant illam in templis, vel in aliquo loco publico civitatis, quasi separatam a communi usu hominum, et omne tale sic suspensum nominabant Graeci anathema; et ex hoc inolevit consuetudo, quod omne illud quod excludebatur ab usu communi, diceretur anathematizatum. Unde dicitur Iosue VI, 17 de Iericho et omnibus quae in ea sunt, quod Iosue mox anathematizavit ea. Et ideo etiam hoc in Ecclesia inolevit, ut illi qui excluduntur a communi societate Ecclesiae, et a participatione sacramentorum Ecclesiae, dicantur anathematizati. To elucidate the foregoing, three things should be investigated. First, the meaning of this word, anathema. Apropos of this it should be noted that anathema is a Greek word composed of ana, which means above, and thesis, i.e., a placing; hence a placing above. The word arose from an old custom. For the ancients, when they waged war, sometimes took from their enemies certain booty which they were unwilling to turn to their own use, but hung it in the temple or other public place of the city, as though to separate it from the common use of men. Everything so hung up, the Greeks called anathema. And from this arose the custom of declaring anathematized anything excluded from common use. Hence in Joshua (6:17) it is said of Jericho and of everything in it, that Joshua once anathematized it. Consequently, even in the Church the practice arose of declaring anathema those who are excluded from the common society of the Church and from partaking of the sacraments of the Church. Secundo inquirenda est ratio eorum, quae dicit licet nos aut Angelus, et cetera. Ubi sciendum est, quod est triplex doctrina. Prima est philosophorum, qui ex ductu rationis propriae in cognitionem suae doctrinae devenerunt. Quaedam alia doctrina est, quae est tradita per Angelos, sicut lex vetus. Lex enim non est allata voluntate humana (sicut dicitur ad Gal. III, 19), sed per Angelos in manu mediatoris, ut dicitur infra III, v. 19. Quaedam vero doctrina tradita est a Deo immediate, sicut doctrina Evangelii. Io. c. I, 18: Deum nemo vidit unquam, et cetera. Ad Hebr. I, 2: novissime diebus istis locutus est nobis in filio. Et post: quae cum initium accepisset, et cetera. Doctrina ergo quae traditur per hominem potest mutari et revocari per alium hominem qui melius novit, sicut unus philosophus reprobat dicta alterius; item per Angelum qui perspicacius videt veritatem. Secondly, we must look for an explanation of his statement, though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. Here it should be noted that there are three kinds of teachings: the first is that of the philosophers who have arrived at a knowledge of their doctrine with their own reason guiding them. Another is that which has been delivered by angels, as the Old Law. For the Old Law was not issued by a human will but by angels in the hand of a mediator (Gal. 3:19). But the third teaching was given immediately by God Himself, as the teaching of the Gospel: “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (in. 1:18); “In these days [He] hath spoken to us by his Son” (Heb 1:2); “Which, having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard him” (Heb 2:3). Doctrina etiam quae traditur per Angelum posset forte removeri per alium Angelum superiorem, seu per Deum. Sed contra doctrina quae immediate a Deo traditur, non potest neque per hominem, neque per Angelum irritari. Et ideo si contingat quod homo vel Angelus diceret contrarium illi quae per Deum tradita est, dictum suum non est contra doctrinam, ut per hoc irritetur et repellatur, sed potius doctrina est contra eum, quia ipse qui dicit, debet excludi et repelli a communione illius doctrinae. Et ideo dicit apostolus quod dignitas doctrinae evangelicae, quae est immediate a Deo tradita, est tantae dignitatis, quod sive homo, sive Angelus evangelizet aliud praeter id, quod in ea evangelizatum est, est anathema, id est, abiiciendus et repellendus est. Now, a teaching passed on by a man can be changed and revoked by another man who knows better, as one philosopher refutes the sayings of another, or by an angel who has a more penetrating knowledge of the truth. Even a teaching handed down by one angel could be supplanted by that of a higher angel or by God. But a teaching that comes directly from God can be nullified neither by man nor angel. Hence if a man or an angel were to state anything contrary to what has been taught by God, such a statement would not contradict God’s teaching, so as to void or destroy it; rather, God’s teaching would be against him, because one who speaks thus should be expelled and prevented from sharing his teaching. Hence the Apostle says that the dignity of the Gospel teaching, which has come directly from God, is so great that if a man or even an angel preached another Gospel besides that which he has preached among them, be is anathema, i.e., must be rejected and expelled. Tertio solvere oportet obiectiones quae circa hoc occurrunt. Quarum una est, cum par in parem non habeat imperium, et multo magis non habeat in superiorem, videtur quod apostolus non potuit excommunicare apostolos qui erant sibi pares, et minus Angelos qui sunt superiores. Matth. XI, v. 11: qui minor est in regno caelorum, maior est illo. Non est ergo anathema per hoc. Ad hoc dicendum est, quod apostolus hanc protulit sententiam, non propria auctoritate, sed auctoritate evangelicae doctrinae, cuius minister erat, cuius doctrinae auctoritas habet, ut quicumque contra illam dicunt, excludendi et repellendi sint. Io. X: sermo quem locutus sum, ille iudicabit eum in novissimo die, et cetera. Thirdly, we must solve the objections which arise on this point. The first is that, since an equal has no authority over his peers and much less over his superiors, it seems that the Apostle has no power to excommunicate the apostles, who are his peers, and less so, angels who are superior. “He that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matt. 11:11). Therefore the anathema is invalid. The answer to this is that the Apostle passed this sentence not on his own authority, but on the authority of the Gospel teaching, of which he was the minister, and the authority of which teaches that whoever says aught contrary to it must be expelled and cast out. “The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (in. 14:48). Alia quaestio est, quia ipse dicit, praeterquam quod evangelizatum est. Ergo non debet aliquis docere, neque praedicare, nisi quod scribitur in epistolis et in Evangelio. Sed hoc est falsum, quia I Thess. III, 10 dicitur: ut compleamus ea quae desunt fidei nostrae, et cetera. Respondeo. Dicendum quod nihil aliud evangelizandum est, quam illud quod continetur in Evangeliis, et in epistolis, et in sacra Scriptura implicite vel explicite. Nam sacra Scriptura et Evangelium evangelizat esse credendum Christo explicite. Unde quidquid continetur in eis implicite, quod facit ad doctrinam eius, et ad fidem Christi, evangelizari et doceri potest. Et ideo cum dicit praeter id, etc., id est, omnino alienum addendo. Apoc. ult.: si quis apposuerit ad haec, aut addiderit, scilicet omnino alienum, apponat Deus super illum plagas scriptas in libro isto. Et Deut. IV: non addetis quidquam, etc., scilicet contrarium seu alienum, nec minuetis, et cetera. A second question arises from the words, a gospel besides that which we have preached to you. Therefore no one may teach or preach anything but what is written in the epistles and Gospels. But this is false, because it is said in 1 Thessalonians (3:10): “Praying that we may accomplish those things that are wanting to your faith.” I answer that nothing is to be taught except what is contained, either implicitly or explicitly, in the Gospels and epistles and Sacred Scripture. For Sacred Scripture and the Gospels announce that Christ must be believed explicitly. Hence whatever is contained therein implicitly and fosters its teaching and faith in Christ can be preached and taught. Therefore, when he says, besides that which you have received, he means by adding something completely alien: “If any, man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book” (Rev 22:18). And “Neither add anything,” i.e., contrary or alien, “nor diminish” (Deut 12:32). Consequenter cum dicit sicut praedixi, etc., sententiam suam profert in malo, dicens: sicut praedixi de Angelis et apostolis, idem dico de seductoribus. Si quis seductor evangelizaverit praeter id quod accepistis a me, anathema sit, id est, excommunicatus. Et haec est sententia quam profert. Then when he says, As we said before, so now I say it again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema, he pronounces his sentence on the evil person and says: As I have said of angels and apostles, so I say of the seducers. If any seducer shall preach a gospel besides that which you have received from me, let him be anathema, i.e., excommunicated. And this is the sentence he passes. Sed numquid ex hoc sunt excommunicati omnes haeretici? Videtur quod non, quia dicitur Tit. III, 10: haereticum hominem post primam et secundam correctionem devita, et cetera. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod haereticus potest dici aliquis, vel quia simpliciter errat ex ignorantia, et ex hoc non est excommunicatus; vel quia errat ex pertinacia et alios nititur pervertere, et tunc incurrit in canonem latae sententiae. Utrum autem ex tunc his verbis sententiam in haereticos protulerit, dubium est. Cum tamen sententia iam lata sit contra haereticos in Conciliis. Potest tamen dici quod forte hic ostenduntur excommunicatione digni. Now it may be asked whether all heretics are thereby excommunicated. And it seems not, because it is said: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid” (Tit. 3:10). I answer that a person might be called a heretic either because he errs solely from ignorance, and then he is not on that account excommunicated; or because he errs through obstinacy and tries to subvert others, and then he falls under the canon of the sentence passed. But whether he was then and there passing sentence on heretics by these words is open to question, since sentence was later passed against heretics in the Councils. Yet it can be said that perhaps he was showing that they deserved to be excommunicated. Consequenter cum dicit modo enim hominibus, etc., ostendit rationem sententiae. Ubi primo ponit rationem ipsius sententiae; secundo manifestat hic propositum, ibi an quaero, et cetera. Then when he says, For do I now persuade men, or God?, he gives the reason for his sentence. First, he gives the reason for his sentence; Secondly, he discloses here his purpose (v. 10): Or do I seek to please men? Posset enim aliquis dicere: quare sic excommunicas? Forte aliqui sunt amici, vel alicuius auctoritatis, non ergo sic faciendum est. Ideo respondens apostolus, dicit: immo sic faciendum est, quia ea quae modo dico, non sunt ad favorem hominum, sed ut placeam Deo, et hoc est quod dicit modo enim, id est, post conversionem, vel in ista epistola, suadeo hominibus, id est, tendit ad hoc appetitus meus, ut placeam hominibus, an Deo? Quasi dicat: haec quae facio, ideo facio, ut complaceam soli Deo. I Thess. II, 4: loquimur non quasi hominibus placentes, sed Deo, et cetera. Nec etiam loquimur auctoritate hominum, sed divina. Quod autem non intendam placere hominibus, patet ex intentione et ex proposito meo. Nam ego non quaero hominibus placere, id est, non est intentionis meae homines convertere, ut placeam hominibus tantum, sed propter honorem Dei. Et hoc patet, quia si adhuc intenderem placere hominibus, ut olim placui, non essem servus Christi. Cuius ratio est, quia haec sunt contraria. Ita dumtaxat, ut scilicet velim placere hominibus propter homines, non referendo illud in Deum. Si enim ideo intendam aliquando placere hominibus, ut eos traham ad Deum, non pecco. Sed si primo modo, non sum servus Christi. Is. XXVIII, 20: coangustatum est stratum, ita ut alter decidat, et cetera. Matth. VI, 24: nemo potest duobus dominis servire, et cetera. Ps. LII, 6: confusi sunt qui hominibus placent. For someone might say: Why do you excommunicate in this manner? Perhaps some are your friends or men of some authority. Therefore you ought not act in this way. But the Apostle says in answer: Indeed, one should act in this way, because the things I say now are not to gain the favor of men but to please God, and this is what he means by do I now, i.e., after my conversion, or in this epistle, persuade men, i.e., is it my intention to please men or God ? As if to say: The things I do, I do to please God alone: “We speak, not as pleasing men, but God” (1 Thes 2:4); nor do we speak on the authority of men, but of God. That I do not seek to please men is plain from my intention and purpose. For I do not seek to please men, i.e., it is not my intention in converting men to please men alone, but for the honor of God. And this is plain, because if I yet sought to please men, as I formerly pleased them, I should not be the servant of Christ. The reason is that the two are opposed. More precisely, if I were to please men for the sake of men without referring it to God; for if I intend now and then to please men so that I might draw them to God, I do not sin. But if in the first way, I am not the servant of Christ: “For the bed is straitened, so that one must fall out, and a short covering cannot cover both” (Is 28:20); “No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one and love the other; or he will sustain the one and despise the other” (Mt 6:24); “They have been confounded that please men (Ps 52:6).
CHAPTER I
Lecture 3Supra apostolus redarguit Galatas de levitate animi, eo quod sic cito dimiserant doctrinam Evangelii, hic vero ipsius evangelicae doctrinae dignitatem ostendit. Et circa hoc duo facit. Quia primo commendat auctoritatem doctrinae evangelicae secundum seipsam; secundo ex parte aliorum apostolorum, et sua simul, cap. II, ibi deinde post annos quatuordecim, et cetera. In the foregoing the Apostle rebuked the Galatians for their fickleness of mind in so quickly setting aside the Gospel teaching; now he shows the dignity of the Gospel teaching. And concerning this he does two things: First, he commends the authority of the Gospel teaching according to itself; Secondly on the part both of the other apostles and himself (2:1): Then, after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas. Iterum prima pars dividitur in duas, quia primo proponit intentum; secundo manifestat propositum, ibi audistis enim, et cetera. The first part is further divided into two others, because First, he presents his intention; Secondly, he manifests his purpose (v. 13). Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit quod intendit; secundo probat quod proponit, ibi neque enim, et cetera. Regarding the first he does two things: First, he proposes what he intends; Secondly, he proves what he proposes (v. 12). Intendens ergo commendare veritatem evangelicae doctrinae, dicit notum vobis, etc., quasi dicat: ita sum certus de auctoritate Evangelii, quod non solum hominibus, immo etiam Angelis contrarium non crederem; sed eos si contrarii essent, anathematizarem. Quam quidem certitudinem ex hoc habeo, quia magis credendum est Deo quam hominibus, seu Angelis. Et ideo cum ego habuerim illud Evangelium a Deo, maximam certitudinem habere debeo et habeo. Et ideo dicit notum enim vobis facio, fratres, Evangelium, quod evangelizatum est a me vobis et aliis Ecclesiis, quia non est secundum hominem, id est, secundum humanam naturam discordantem a regula seu revelatione divina. Et sic ly secundum hominem, sonat in vitium. I Cor. III, 3: cum enim sit inter vos zelus et contentio, et cetera. Et sic accipit hic apostolus. Et ideo dicit non secundum hominem docentem me vel mittentem: quasi dicat: nullo modo potest hoc Evangelium haberi ab homine, sed a Deo. Intending, therefore, to commend the truth of the Gospel teaching, he says, For I give you to understand, brethren... As if to say: So certain am I of the Gospel’s authority, that I would disbelieve not only men but even angels saying the contrary; so that if they were contrary, I would say anathema to them. And I have this certainty, because one must believe God rather than men or angels. Therefore, since I have this Gospel from God, I should and do have the greatest of certainty. Hence he says, For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me to you and to the other Churches is not according to man, i.e., not according to human nature out of tune with the divine rule or divine revelation. In this sense, according to man implies something evil: “For whereas there is among you envying and contention, are you not carnal, and walk according to man?” (1 Cor 3:3). And this is the sense the Apostle takes here; hence he says, not according to man teaching me or sending me. As if to say: Not at all can this Gospel be had from men but from God. Et ideo subdit neque enim ego ab homine, etc., ubi duplicem modum acceptionis excludit. Primo quod non habuit ab homine auctoritatem evangelizandi, et quantum ad hoc dicit neque ab homine, scilicet puro, accepi illud, id est, auctoritatem evangelizandi Evangelium, sed a Christo. Rom. c. X, 15: quomodo praedicabunt, nisi mittantur? Is. XLII, 6: dedi te in lucem gentium, et cetera. Act. IX, 15: vas electionis est mihi iste, et cetera. Secundo, quod non accepit scientiam evangelizandi ab homine. Et ideo dicit neque didici, scilicet Evangelium per hominem purum, sed per revelationem Iesu Christi, id est, per Iesum Christum omnia clare ostendentem. I Cor. II, 10: nobis autem revelavit Deus, etc., Is. l, 5: dominus Deus aperuit mihi aurem, et cetera. Et ibid., 4: dominus dedit mihi linguam eruditam, ut sciam, et cetera. Haec autem revelatio facta fuit apostolo, cum raptus fuit in Paradisum, ubi audivit arcana verba quae non licet homini loqui, II Cor. XII, 4. That is why he adds, For neither did I receive it of man; nor did I learn it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ, whereby he precludes two ways of receiving. First, that he did not receive from man the authority to preach. As to this he says, nor of man, i.e., purely man, did I receive it, i.e., the authority to preach the Gospel, but of Christ: “And how shall they preach unless they be sent?” (Rom 10:15); “1 have given thee for a light of the Gentiles, for a covenant of the people” (Is 42:6); “This man is to me a vessel of election, to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel” (Acts 9:15). Secondly, that he did not receive the science of the Gospel from man. Hence he says, nor did I learn it, namely, the Gospel, from mere man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ, i.e., by Jesus Christ showing everything clearly. “But to us, God hath revealed them” (1 Cor 2:10); “The Lord hath opened my ear, and I do not resist” (Is 50:5), and “The Lord has given me a learned tongue, that I should know how to uphold by word him that is weary” (Is 50:4). Now this revelation was made to the Apostle when he was rapt into paradise, where “he heard secret words which it is not granted to man to utter” (2 Cor 12:4). Consequenter cum dicit audistis enim, etc., probat propositum, scilicet quod non accepit ab homine Evangelium, neque ante conversionem, neque post conversionem ad Christum, ibi cum enim placuit, et cetera. Quod autem non acceperit ab homine ante conversionem suam, ostendit et per odium quod habebat ad fidem Christi et ad Christianos, et per fervorem quem habebat ad Iudaismum, ibi et proficiebam, et cetera. Then when he says, For you have heard of my conversation in time past, he shows that he did not receive the Gospel from men, either before his conversion or after his conversion to Christ (v. 15). That he did not receive it from man before his conversion he shows both by the hatred he bore toward the faith of Christ and toward Christians, and by the zeal he had for Judaism: And I made progress in the Jews’ religion above many of my equals in my own nation (v. 14). Dicit ergo: dico quod non accepi ab homine, et hoc ante conversionem meam, quod patet ex factis illius temporis, et ex odio quod habebam ad fidem. Nam vos ipsi audistis, infra eodem, tantum autem auditum habebant, etc., conversationem meam aliquando, dum infidelis eram, in Iudaismo, quo Iudaice vivebam. Et dicit, meam, quia hoc quod male facimus ex nobis est, ex Deo autem quidquid boni facimus. Os. XIII, 9: ex te perditio tua, Israel, tantummodo in me auxilium tuum. He says therefore: I say that I did not receive it of man, and this is true of the time before my conversion. This, indeed, is obvious from my actions at that time and from the hatred I bore toward the faith. For you yourselves have heard —“But they had heard only: He who persecuted us in times past doth now preach the faith which once he impugned” (v. 23)— of my conversation in time past, when I was an unbeliever, in the Jews’ religion, when I lived as a Jew. And he says, my, because the evil we do is from ourselves, but from God is whatever good we do: “Destruction is thy own, O Israel: thy help is only in me” (Hos 13:9). Istud scilicet audistis, quoniam supra modum, scilicet aliorum, quia non solum per se, sed provocabat principes ad hoc. Alii enim forte a principibus inducti persequebantur, sed iste eos inducebat. Act. IX, 1: Saulus adhuc spirans minarum, etc., accessit, et cetera. Et quia non solum in Ierusalem, sed etiam per totam regionem. Unde accepit litteras in Damascum, et cetera. Unde de eo potest intelligi illud quod dicitur Gen. XLIX, 27: Beniamin lupus rapax, et cetera. This you have heard, how that, beyond measure, i.e., more. than others, because he bestirred not only himself to this but rulers as well. For others, when they persecuted, were to it by the rulers, but he urged even them: “Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest” (Ac 9:1). Also because he did this not only in Jerusalem but in the entire region. Hence “he received letters to Damascus, that if he found any men and women of this way, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.” Therefore what is said in Genesis (49:27): “Benjamin a ravenous wolf, in the morning shall eat the prey, and in the evening shall divide the spoil,” can be understood as applying to him. Persecutus sum Ecclesiam Dei, scilicet inquirendo Christianos et fugando. I Cor. XV, 9: non sum dignus vocari apostolus, et cetera. Et expugnabam illam, non quidem spiritualiter, quia corda fidelium non poteram a fide avertere, sed corporaliter affligendo eos poenis corporalibus, et ponendo in carcere. Act. IX, 21: nonne hic est qui, etc., Ps. CXXVIII, 1: saepe expugnaverunt me, et cetera. I persecuted the church of God, i.e., by hunting down Christians and discomfiting them: “I am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor 15:9); and I wasted it, not indeed spiritually, because I was unable to turn the hearts of the faithful from their faith, but physically by inflicting bodily punishment on them and casting them into prison: “Is not this he who persecuted in Jerusalem those that called upon this name?” (Acts 9:21); “Often have they fought against me” (Ps 128:1). Sic ergo patet, per odium quod habebat ad fidem Christi ante conversionem, quod non accepit Evangelium ab homine. It is plain, therefore, from the hatred he bore toward the faith of Christ before his conversion, that he did not receive the Gospel from man. Patet hoc etiam per amorem et fervorem zeli, quem habuit ad Iudaismum, et hoc quantum ad profectum exteriorem. Unde dicit et proficiebam, etc., ubi tria ponit quae exprimunt profectus magnitudinem, quia supra multos, non supra paucos proficiebat, non supra senes ineptos ad profectum scientiae, sed coaetaneos, scilicet adolescentes acutos et aptos ad profectum. Thren. III, 27: bonum est viro, cum portaverit iugum ab adolescentia sua. Item non supra coaetaneos extraneos, quasi ignotae linguae, sed illos qui sunt in genere meo, scilicet Iudaeorum. Act. XXII, 3: ego sum vir Iudaeus, secus pedes Gamalielis eruditus, et cetera. It is plain also from the love and burning zeal he had for Judaism, as to outward progress. Hence he says, And I made progress in the Jews’ religion above many of my equals in my own nation: wherein he mentions three things that indicate how great was his progress. For he progressed not above a few but above many, not above old men incapable of progress in learning, but my equals, i.e., young men who were intelligent and capable of progress: “It is good for a man, when he has borne the yoke from his youth” (Lam 3:27). Furthermore, not above equals who were foreigners and ignorant of the language, but equals of my own nation, i.e., Jews: I am a Jew, brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the truth of the law of the fathers, zealous for the law, as also all you are this day” (Acts 22:3). Item quantum ad zelum interiorem quem habebat ad legem. Et ideo dicit abundantius prae aliis aemulator existens, non solum legis, sed paternarum mearum traditionum, scilicet quas habent Iudaei licitas, quas boni patres addiderunt, ut dicitur in Glossa, quas quidem traditiones vocat suas, quia ita reputabat eas, ac si suae fuissent. Phil. III, 5: secundum legem Pharisaeus, secundum aemulationem persequens, et cetera. Finally, as to the inward zeal he had for the Law. Hence he says, being more abundantly zealous, not only for the Law, but for the traditions of my fathers, namely, those traditions which the Jews lawfully kept and “which the good fathers added,” as is said in a Gloss. He calls these traditions his own because he treasured them as though they were his: “According to the Law, a Pharisee; according to zeal, persecuting the church of God” (Phil 3:5). Sed quaestio est super hoc quod dicit Glossa: boni patres addiderunt. Videtur quod non fuerint boni, quia Deut. IV, 2 dicitur: non addetis ad verbum quod ego loquor vobis, et cetera. Ergo fecerunt contra mandatum domini, addentes traditiones, et sic non fuerunt boni. Dicendum est quod verbum illud domini intelligendum est sic: non addetis aliquid contrarium, seu extraneum verbis quae ego loquor, et cetera. Addere autem aliqua quae non sunt contraria, licuit eis, scilicet aliquos dies solemnes et alia similia, sicut factum est tempore Mardochaei, et tempore Iudith, in memoriam beneficiorum quae a Deo recipiebant. But a question arises from the fact that the aforesaid Gloss says: “The good fathers added.” For it seems that they were not good, because, it is said in Deuteronomy (4:2): “You shall not add to the word I speak to You. “ Hence in adding traditions they acted against the command of God and so were not good. To this one may answer that this word of the Lord is taken to mean that you shall not add anything contrary or alien to the words which I shall speak. But to add certain things not contrary was lawful for them, namely, certain solemn days and the like, as was done in the time of Mordochai and of Judith, in memory of the blessings they received from God. Contra, Matth. XV, 6, dominus reprehendit eos, dicens: irritum fecistis mandatum domini propter traditiones hominum. Non ergo sunt licitae traditiones. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod non arguuntur, quod tenent traditiones hominum, sed quia propter traditiones hominum dimittunt mandata Dei. But against this is the rebuke addressed to them by our Lord, when He says: “You have made void the command of the Lord for the traditions of me” “ (Mt 15:16). Hence those traditions were not lawful.—I answer that they are not rebuked for holding the traditions of men, but because for the sake of the traditions of men, they neglect the commands of God.
CHAPTER 1
Lecture 4Postquam autem apostolus ostendit quod ipse non accepit ab homine Evangelium ante suam conversionem, nunc hic probat quod non accepit ipsum ab homine post conversionem suam. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit quod non recepit Evangelium ab homine tempore conversionis suae; secundo quod nec etiam post conversionem suam, ibi deinde post annos tres, et cetera. After showing that he did not receive the Gospel from man before his conversion, the Apostle now proves that he did not receive it from man after his conversion. About this he does two things: First, he shows that he did not receive the Gospel from man at the time of his conversion; Secondly, nor after his conversion (v. 18). Circa primum duo facit. Quia primo ostendit quod non accepit Evangelium ab apostolis, neque didicit; secundo quod non ab aliis fidelibus, ibi sed abii in Arabiam, et cetera. Regarding the first he does two things: First, he shows that he did not receive or learn the Gospel from the apostles; Secondly, nor from any other believer (v. 17): I went into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ostendit causam efficientem suae conversionis; secundo finem, ibi ut revelaret, etc.; tertio modum, ibi continuo non acquievi, et cetera. As to the first he does three things: First, he shows the efficient cause of his conversion; Secondly, the end (v. 16); Thirdly, the manner (v. 16): immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood. Circa primum notat causam suae conversionis, quae duplex est, scilicet beneplacitum Dei, quod est divina electio, et convertentis vocatio. Quantum ad primum dicit cum autem placuit, scilicet Deo, non quando volui ego, sed quando placitum fuit sibi, quia non est volentis neque currentis, etc., ut dicitur Rom. IX, 16. Ps. CXLVI, 11: beneplacitum est domino, et cetera. Phil. II, 13: Deus est qui operatur in nobis, et cetera. Qui, scilicet Deus, me, scilicet rebellem I Cor. XV, 9: ego sum minimus apostolorum, etc., quoniam persecutus sum, et cetera. Act. c. IX, 1: Saulus adhuc spirans minarum, et cetera. Persecutorem: Saule, Saule, quid me persequeris, etc. blasphemum I Tim. I, v. 13: qui fui blasphemus, et cetera. Me, talem, inquam, segregavit ex utero matris meae. Vel ad litteram: qui fecit me nasci ex ventre matris meae. In regard to the first point, he notes the twofold cause of his conversion, namely, the good pleasure of God, which is divine election, and the call of the one converting. Regarding the first he says, when it pleased him, namely, God: not when I willed, but when it pleased Him, because “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (Rom 9:16); “The Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear him” (Ps 146:11); “For it is God who worketh in us, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will” (Phil 2:13). Who, namely, God, separated me, i.e., rebellious: I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor 15:9); “Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings” (Acts 9:1); and a persecutor: “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” (Acts 9:4); “Who before was a blasphemer” (1 Tim 1:13). Me, and such a one, I say, he separated from my mother’s womb. Or, literally: who made me to be born from my mother’s womb. Et vere dicitur Deus segregare ex utero, licet sit opus naturae, quae est quasi instrumentum Dei, quia opera etiam nostra attribuuntur Deo, sicut principali auctori, Is. c. XXVI, 12: omnia enim opera nostra operatus es in nobis, etc., sicut et effectus principali agenti attribuuntur. Ideo dicitur Iob X, v. 11: pelle et carnibus vestisti me, et cetera. Et ab hoc utero segregatus est ad iustificationem, quia eiusdem est iustificare, cuius est condere. Ps. XXI, 11: de ventre matris meae, et cetera. Vel: ex utero matris meae, scilicet synagogae, cuius uterus est collegium Pharisaeorum, qui nutriebant alios in Iudaismo. Matth. XXIII, v. 15: circuitis mare et aridam, ut faciatis, et cetera. Sic ergo mater sua fuit synagoga. Cant. c. I, 5: filii matris meae pugnaverunt contra me, et cetera. Uterus eius sunt Pharisaei. Ex hoc ergo utero est segregatus per spiritum sanctum ad fidem Evangelii. Rom. I, 1: segregatus in Evangelium Dei. It is indeed true to say that God separates one from the womb, even though it is a work of nature, which is, as it were, an instrument of God, because even our own works are attributed to God as to their principal author: “For thou hast wrought all our works for us” (Is 26:12), as any effect is attributed to the principal agent; hence Job (10:11): “Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh.” And he was separated from this womb to be justified, for the same one justifies who makes: “From my mother’s womb thou art my God” (Ps 21:11). Or: from my mother’s womb, i.e., the synagogue, whose womb is the college of Pharisees who trained him in Judaism: “You go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte” (Mt 23:15). Thus, therefore, was the synagogue his mother: “The sons of my mother have fought against me” (Cant 1:5). Its womb are the Pharisees. And from this womb he was separated by the Holy Spirit unto faith in the Gospel: “Separated unto the Gospel of God” (Rom 1:1). Vel mater sua est Ecclesia Christi; uterus eius, collegium apostolorum. Segregavit ergo Deus ipsum ab utero Ecclesiae, id est, a collegio apostolorum in officium apostolatus et praedicationis ad gentes, quando dixit apostolis, Act. XIII, 2: segregate mihi Barnabam et Paulum, et cetera. Or his mother is the Church of Christ, and the womb, the college of apostles. Hence God separated him from the womb of the Church, i.e., from the college of apostles, for the office of apostleship and preacher to the Gentiles, when He said to the apostles: “Separate me Saul and Barnabas” (Acts 13:2). Vocat autem synagogam matrem suam, quia Pharisaeus erat, quasi magnus in ea, dum dicitur Pharisaeus, et ex Pharisaeis, quia zelator legis erat. Supra: abundantius autem aemulator, et cetera. Again, he calls the synagogue his mother, because he was a Pharisee and an outstanding one, for which reason he is called a Pharisee and of the Pharisees, because he was zealous for the Law: being more abundantly zealous for the traditions of my fathers (v. 14). Quantum autem ad aliam causam dicit et vocavit, et cetera. Est autem duplex vocatio. Una est exterior, et sic dicit: vocavit me caelesti voce. Act. IX, 4: Saule, Saule, quid me persequeris? et cetera. Vade in civitatem, et cetera. Sic etiam alios apostolos vocavit. Alia est interior, et sic vocavit per quemdam instinctum interiorem, quo Deus per gratiam tangit cor, ut convertatur ad ipsum, et sic vocavit a mala via in bonam, et hoc per gratiam suam, non nostris meritis. Rom. VIII, 30: quos praedestinavit, hos et vocavit, et cetera. Is. XLV, 13: suscitavit eum ad iustitiam, et cetera. Amos, V, 8: qui vocat aquas maris, et cetera. Now as regards the other cause, he says, and called me by his grace. But there are two kinds of call. One is exterior, and so he, says: He called me with a voice from heaven. “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me... Go into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do” (Acts 9:4). In a similar fashion He called the other apostles. The other call is interior, and in this way He calls through a certain interior instinct, whereby God touches the heart to be turned to Him, as when He calls one from the path of evil to good; and this by His grace and not our own merits: “And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified” (Rom 8:30); “1 have raised him up to justice” (Is 45:13); “That calleth the waters of the sea and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The Lord is his name” (Am 5:8). Finis autem conversionis ponitur, cum dicit ut revelaret filium, etc., qui quidem finis est Christus. Ordinatur autem conversio sua ad Christum dupliciter, scilicet facto, et sic dicit ut revelaret filium suum, id est, in eo quod circa me fecit, convertendo me et dimittendo peccata mihi, revelaret quanta sit mihi facta misericordia. I Tim. I, 15 s.: Christus Iesus venit in hunc mundum peccatores salvos facere, et cetera. Sed ideo misericordiam Dei consecutus sum, quia ignorans, et cetera. Sic ergo revelavit in eius conversione filium suum, et hoc inquantum filius dicitur gratia Dei. Item revelavit eum in eius operatione; unde dicebat ipse, Rom. XV, 18: non enim audeo aliquid loqui eorum, quae per me non effecit Christus in obedientiam gentium, in verbo, in factis, et virtute, et cetera. Et hoc inquantum filius virtus est Dei. Item revelavit eum in eius praedicatione; unde ipse dicebat, I Cor. I, 23: nos praedicamus, etc., usque et Dei sapientiam. Et hoc inquantum filius eius dicitur Dei sapientia. The end of his conversion is stated when he says, to reveal his Son in me. Hence Christ is the end. Now his conversion is ordained to Christ in two ways: First of all, by his works. Hence he says, to reveal his Son, i.e., by what He did in my regard, by converting me and forgiving my sins, He revealed what a great act of mercy was bestowed on me: “Jesus Christ came into this world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief” (1 Tim 1:15); “But I obtained the mercy of God, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief” (1 Tim 1:13). Thus, therefore, in his conversion he revealed His Son in the sense that the Son is called the grace of God. Likewise, he revealed Him in his action; hence he says: “For I dare not speak of any of those things which Christ worketh not by me, for the obedience of the Gentiles by word and deed, by virtue of signs and wonders” (Rom 15:18). And this inasmuch as the Son is the power [virtue] of God. Furthermore, he revealed Him in his preaching. Hence he said: “We preach Christ crucified; unto the Jews indeed a stumbling-block, and unto the Gentiles foolishness, but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:23). And this inasmuch as the Son is called the wisdom of God. Item ordinatur ad Christum sua conversio verbo, et sic dicit ut evangelizarem illum in gentibus, quia, aliis apostolis evangelizantibus Christum Iudaeis, Paulus de mandato domini ivit ad gentes convertendas. Is. c. XLIX, 6: parum enim est mihi, ut sis mihi servus, etc., dedi te in lucem, et cetera. Act. XIII, v. 47: sic enim praecepit, et cetera. Infra: ecce testem populis dedi eum, ducem ac praeceptorem gentibus. Secondly, his conversion is ordained to Christ by his words. Hence he says, that I might preach him among the Gentiles, because, whereas the other apostles preached the Gospel of Christ to the Jews, Paul, on the Lords command, went to convert the Gentiles: “It is a small thing that thou shouldst be my servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to convert the dregs of Israel. Behold, I have given thee to be the light of the Gentiles” (Is 49:6); “For so the Lord has commanded us: that thou mayest be for salvation unto the utmost part of the earth” (Acts 13:47); “Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, for a leader and a master to the Gentiles” (Is 55:4). Modus autem suae conversionis est perfectus, et quantum ad effectum; unde dicit continuo non acquievi carni et sanguini, id est, statim ita perfecte fui conversus, quod omnis carnalis affectus recessit a me. Eccli. c. XI, 23: facile est enim in oculis domini subito honestare pauperem. Et accipitur hic caro et sanguis pro vitiis carnalibus. I Cor. XV, 50: caro et sanguis regnum Dei non possidebunt, et cetera. Infra V, 17: caro concupiscit, et cetera. Vel pro affectu et amore ad carnaliter sibi coniunctos. Matth. c. XVI, 17: caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi, et cetera. Sic apostolus et vitia sua superavit, et suos Iudaeos contempsit. Item quantum ad intellectum; quia ita fuit instructus a Christo, quod non fuit ei necesse instrui ab apostolis. Et ideo dicit nec veni Ierosolymam, ut scilicet ab eis instruerer. The manner of his conversion is perfect, both as to its effect—hence he says, immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood, i.e., at once I was so completely converted that all carnal affection left me: “It is easy in the eyes of God on a sudden to make the poor man rich” (Sir 11:23). Flesh and blood are here taken for vices of the flesh: “Flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 15:50). For the flesh lusteth against the spirit (5:17)—or for the affection and love borne toward blood relatives. “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee” (Mt 16:17). Thus the Apostle overcame his own vices and scorned his fellow Jews. Furthermore, his conversion was perfect with respect to his understanding, because he was so instructed by Christ that there was no need to be instructed by the apostles; hence he says, Neither went I to Jerusalem, i.e., to be instructed by them. Item non fuit necesse instrui ab aliis fidelibus. Et ideo dicit sed abii in Arabiam, etc., quasi dicat: non ivi ad loca ubi erant alii fideles, ut me instruerent, sed ivi in Arabiam, ubi non erant edocti in fide, sed infideles. Et iterum reversus sum Damascum, scilicet ad parentes. Iob XXXVIII, 25: quis dedit vehementissimo imbri cursum, et cetera. Again, it was not necessary for him to be instructed by any other of the faithful; hence he says, but I went into Arabia. As if to say: I did not go to places where there were believers who might instruct me, but I went to Arabia where they were not instructed in the faith but were unbelievers. And again I returned to Damascus, i.e., to his parents: “Who gave a course to violent showers, or a way for noisy thunder?” (Job 38:25). Sed contra dicitur Act. IX, 25 quod demiserunt eum de muro per sportam, et cetera. Cum autem venisset Ierusalem, tentabat se iungere discipulis. Venit ergo Ierusalem. Dicendum est quod venit, sed non ut instrueretur. Vel, melius, dicendum est quod non statim venit, sed post aliquod tempus, et ideo sequitur deinde post annos, et cetera. But someone might object that it is said in Acts (9:25): “In Damascus they let him down in a basket... and when he was come into Jerusalem, he essayed to join himself to the disciples.” Therefore, according to this, he went to Jerusalem. To this I answer that he did go, but not to be instructed. Or, better still, he did not go at once but after some time. Hence he says in the next verse, Then, after three years I went to Jerusalem (v. 18).
CHAPTER 1
Lecture 5Postquam superius apostolus ostendit se non accepisse Evangelium ab homine ante conversionem suam, nec tempore suae conversionis, hic probat quod nec etiam post conversionem accepit ipsum ab homine; sed potius hic ostendit quomodo doctrina sua fuit ab hominibus approbata. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim manifestat quomodo doctrina sua fuit ab apostolis approbata; secundo ostendit qualiter fuit approbata ab aliis fidelibus, ibi deinde veni in partes, et cetera. Et primo narrat factum; secundo confirmat veritatem dicti, ibi ecce coram Deo, et cetera. After showing above that he did not receive the Gospel from man before his conversion nor at the time of his conversion, the Apostle now proves that neither after his conversion did he receive it from man; but he shows, rather, how his teaching was approved by men. About this he does two things: First, he shows how his teaching was approved by the apostles; Secondly, he shows how it was approved by the rest of the faithful (v. 21). First, he states the fact; Secondly, he confirms the truth of his statement (v. 20): before God, I lie not. Dicit ergo: licet non iverim ad apostolos, ut instruerer ab eis circa principium meae conversionis, quia iam eram instructus a Christo, tamen ex affectu charitatis compulsus, post annos tres, scilicet conversionis meae, veni Ierosolymam, quoniam iamdiu desideravi videre Petrum, non ut discerem ab eo, sed ut visitarem eum. Iob c. V, 24: visitans speciem tuam, et cetera. Et mansi apud eum diebus quindecim, repertus ab eo, ut verax apostolus. Et dicit diebus quindecim, quia numerus iste componitur ex octo et septem. Octonarius autem est numerus novi testamenti, in quo expectatur octava resurgentium; septenarius autem, numerus veteris testamenti, quia celebrat septimam diem. Mansit autem apud Petrum diebus quindecim, conferens cum eo de mysteriis veteris testamenti et novi. Et ne credatur quod licet non sit instructus a Petro, esset tamen etiam instructus ab aliis, subdit quod nec ab aliis fuit instructus. Unde dicit alium autem apostolorum, a quo instruerer, vidi neminem, id est nullum, nisi Iacobum fratrem domini. Illum enim vidit in Ierusalem. He says therefore: Although I did not go to the apostles to be instructed by them in the beginning of my conversion, because I had already been instructed by Christ, yet, being moved by a feeling of charity, after three years, i.e., after my conversion, I went to Jerusalem, because I had long desired to see Peter, not to be taught by him but to visit him; “And visiting thy beauty thou shalt not sin” (Job 5:24). And I tarried with him fifteen days, because that number is the sum of eight and seven. Eight is the number of the New Testament, in which the eighth day of those who will rise is awaited; but seven is the number of the Old Testament, because it celebrates the seventh day. And so he stayed with Peter fifteen days, conversing with him on the mysteries of the Old and New Testament. But lest anyone suppose that, although he was not instructed by Peter, he might have been instructed by others, he adds that he was not instructed by others. Hence he says, But other of the apostles, by whom I might be instructed, I saw none, i.e., no one, saving James, the brother of the Lord. For I saw him in Jerusalem. Circa istum Iacobum sciendum est, quod iste fuit episcopus Ierosolymorum, et fuit vocatus Iacobus minor, eo quod vocatus fuerat post Iacobum alium. Dicuntur autem multa de isto Act. XV, 13 ss. Ipse etiam fecit epistolam canonicam. Quare autem dicatur frater domini, a diversis diversimode dicitur. Elvidius enim dicit, quod ideo dicitur frater domini, quia fuit filius beatae virginis. Dicit enim quod beata virgo Christum concepit et peperit, et post partum Christi concepit de Ioseph, et peperit alios filios. Sed hic error est damnatus et reprobatus. Item patet esse falsum, quia Iacobus non fuit filius Ioseph, sed Alphaei. Regarding James, it should be known that he was the Bishop of Jerusalem and named James the Less, because he had been called after another James. Many things are recorded of him in Acts (15:13 ff). He also wrote a canonical epistle. Now there are various explanations why he is called the brother of the Lord. Elvidius says that it was because he was the son of the Blessed Virgin. For according to him, the Blessed Virgin conceived and gave birth to Christ, and after the birth of Christ she conceived of Joseph and brought forth other sons. But this error is condemned and refuted. Furthermore, it is false for the simple reason that James was not the son of Joseph but of Alpheus. Alii vero dicunt, quod Ioseph ante beatam virginem habuit aliam uxorem, de qua habuit filium Iacobum et alios, qua mortua, accepit in uxorem beatam virginem, de qua natus est Christus, non tamen cognita a Ioseph, sed per spiritum sanctum, ut in Evangelio dicitur. Quia ergo ex patre nominantur cognationes, et Ioseph putabatur pater Christi, ideo iste Iacobus, licet non fuit filius virginis, tamen vocabatur frater domini. Sed hoc est falsum, quia si dominus matrem virginem noluit nisi virgini commendare custodiendam, quomodo sustinuisset sponsum eius, virginem non fuisse, et sic perstitisse? Others say that before the Blessed Virgin, Joseph had another wife of whom he had James and other children, and that after she died, he took unto wife the Blessed Virgin, from whom Christ was born, although she was not known by Joseph, but, as it is said in the Gospel, He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. But because progeny are named after their father, and Joseph was considered the father of Christ, for that reason, James, too, although he was not the son of the Virgin, was nevertheless called the brother of the Lord. But this is false, because if the Lord did not want as mother anyone but a virgin entrusted to the care of a virgin, how would He have allowed her husband not to be a virgin and still endure it? Ideo alii dicunt, et in Glossa tangitur, quod Iacobus iste fuit filius Mariae Cleophae, quae fuit soror virginis. Dicunt enim quod Anna mater beatae virginis nupsit primo Ioachim, ex quo peperit Mariam, matrem domini, quo mortuo, nupsit Cleophae fratri Ioachim, ex quo peperit Mariam Cleophae, et ex hac natus est Iacobus minor, Iudas et Simon, quo mortuo, dicitur quod nupsit adhuc cuidam tertio, qui vocatus est Salome, ex quo concepit et peperit aliam Mariam, quae dicta est Salome, et de hac natus est Iacobus maior, et Ioannes, frater eius. Therefore others say (and this is mentioned in a Gloss) that James was the son of Mary of Cleophas, who was a sister of the Virgin. For they say that Anne, the mother of the Blessed Virgin, first married Joachim, of whom was born Mary, the mother of the Lord; but when Joachim died, she married Joachim’s brother, Cleophas, from whom she bore Mary of Cleophas, and from her were born James the Less, Jude and Simon. Then after Cleophas died, she married a third man who was called Salome, of whom she conceived and bore another Mary, called Salome, from whom were born James the Great and his brother John. Sed huic opinioni dupliciter contradicit Hieronymus. Primo quia Salome non est nomen viri, ut etiam in Graeco apparet, sed est nomen mulieris, quae fuit soror beatae virginis, et ex Zebedaeo genuit Iacobum maiorem et Ioannem, sicut Maria Cleophae ex Alphaeo genuit Iacobum minorem, Iudam et Simonem. Dicitur autem frater domini iste Iacobus, specialiter inter alios suos consobrinos, et hoc propter duo, primo propter similitudinem effigiei, quia similis erat Christo in facie; et propter similitudinem vitae, quia imitabatur Christum in moribus. Vel quia Alphaeus pater eius fuit de cognatione Ioseph. Et ideo quia Iudaei cognationis lineam texere solent a maribus, et Christus putabatur filius Ioseph, ut dicitur Lc. III, 23, ideo specialiter dictus est frater domini, et non alii, qui solum ex matre coniuncti erant ei. But this opinion is denied on two counts by Jerome: first of all, because Salome is not a man’s name, as is plain in Greek, but the name of the woman who was the sister of the Blessed Virgin and who begot James the Great and John, of Zebedee, just as Mary Cleophas begot James the Less, Jude and Simon, of Alpheus. Now this James is singled out from his other brothers and called the brother of the Lord for two reasons: first, because of a likeness in appearance, for he had a facial resemblance to Christ; and because of a likeness in their lives, for he imitated the manners of Christ. Or he is called the brother of Christ, because Alpheus, his father, was related to Joseph. Accordingly, because the Jews were accustomed to draw up the lines of ancestry on the father’s side, and Christ was considered the son of Joseph, as is said in Luke (3:23), he, rather than the others, was called the brother of the Lord, because they were related to him only on His mother’s side. Accipitur autem hic frater cognatione. Nam in Scriptura fratres aliquando dicuntur natura. Matth. I, 2: Iacob autem genuit Iudam et fratres eius. Cognatione, sicut omnes consanguinei sunt fratres. Gen. XIII, 8: ne, quaeso, sit iurgium inter te et me, fratres enim sumus. Gente, et sic omnes unius linguae dicuntur fratres. Deut. XVII, 15: non poteris alterius gentis hominem regem facere, qui non sit frater tuus. Affectione, et sic omnes amici, et qui habent eumdem affectum dicuntur fratres. II Cor. II, 13: eo quod non invenerim Titum fratrem meum, et cetera. Religione, et sic omnes Christiani qui habent unam regulam vitae, dicuntur fratres. Matth. XXIII, v. 8: fratres estis, et cetera. Ps. CXXXII, 1: ecce quam bonum et quam iucundum habitare fratres in unum, et cetera. Communiter autem omnes homines dicuntur fratres, quia ab uno Deo gubernati et educati. Mal. II, 10: numquid non unus est pater omnium nostrum, et cetera. Furthermore, “brother” is taken here in the sense of kinsman. For in the Scriptures some are called brothers, who are so by nature: “Jacob begot Judas and his brethren” (Mt 1:2). Others, who are kinsmen, such as blood relations, are brothers: “Let there be no quarrel, I beseech thee, between me and thee... for we are brethren” (Gen 13:8). Others who are so by race; hence all who speak the same tongue are called brothers: “Thou mayest not make a man of another nation king, that is not thy brother” (Deut 17:15). Others who are so by affection; hence all who are friends and who have the same love are called brothers: “Because I found not Titus my brother” (2 Cor 2:13). Others who are so by religion; hence all Christians who have one rule of life are called brothers: “For one is your master; and all you are brethren” (Mt 23:8); “Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity” (Ps 132:1). And in general, all men are called brothers, because they are ruled and protected by one God: “Have we not all one father?” (Mal 2:10). Consequenter cum dicit quae autem scribo vobis, etc., confirmat per iuramentum quod dixerat, quasi dicat: ea quae nunc scribo vobis de me, ecce in manifesto sunt, ita quod satis constat quia non mentior. Et hoc dico, coram Deo, id est, teste Deo. Iurat autem hic apostolus non ex levitate, sed ex necessitate istorum, quibus necessarium erat, ut crederent. Nisi enim hoc faceret, non crederent ei. II Cor. II, 17: coram Deo in Christo loquimur. Rom. I, 9: testis est mihi Deus, et cetera. Then when he says, Now the things which I write to you, behold, before God I lie not, he confirms his statements with an oath. As if to say: The things I now write to you about myself, behold, are so well known that it is obvious I lie not. And this I say before God, i.e., with God as my witness. The Apostle here takes an oath not for a slight reason, but for the sake of those for whom it was necessary, that they might believe. For had he not sworn, they would not have believed him. “Before God, in Christ we speak” (2 Cor 2:17); “God is my witness” (Rom 1:9). Quid ergo dicit dominus: sit sermo vester, est, est; non, non; quod amplius est, a malo est? Dicendum est, quod est a malo eius qui non credit, vel a malo poenae quo cogitur quis iurare. But what does the Lord say in Matthew (5:37)? “Let your speech be: Yea, Yea; No, No. And that which is over and above these is of evil.” The answer to this is that it is of the evil of him who does not believe, or of the evil of punishment which compels one to swear. Consequenter cum dicit deinde veni, etc., ostendit quomodo fuit approbatus ab aliis Ecclesiis Iudaeae. Ubi tria facit. Primo ostendit ubi fuit conversatus, quia in Cilicia. Unde dicit deinde veni in partes Syriae et Ciliciae, scilicet patriae; unde etiam fuit raptus: quia dicitur Act. XXII, 3: erat autem Paulus a Tharso Ciliciae, et cetera. Secundo quomodo fuit cognitus ab eis, quia non facie, sed auditu tantum et fama. Unde dicit eram enim ignotus facie Ecclesiis Iudaeae quae erant in Christo, id est, in fide Christi. II Cor. VI, 8: sicut qui ignoti et cogniti. Unde patet quod Ecclesiae Iudaeae non docuerunt me. Tantum enim auditum habebant, scilicet de me per famam, quoniam qui persequebatur, et cetera. Tertio quomodo approbatus est ab eis, quia in me glorificabant Deum, id est, in mea conversione magnificum probabant, qui gratia sua me convertit. Is. XLIII, 20: glorificabit me bestia, et cetera. Then when he says, Afterwards, I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, he shows how he was approved by the other churches of Judea. Here he does three things: first he shows where he lived, namely in Cilicia. Hence he says, then I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, i.e., his native land. (Here he was caught up into paradise). Because it is said in Acts (22:3): “Paul was born at Tarsus in Cilicia.” Secondly, how he was known by the others, namely, not by sight but by report and reputation. Hence he says, I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea, which were in Christ, i.e., in the faith of Christ: “As unknown and yet known (2 Cor 6:8). Hence it is evident that the churches of Judea did not teach me. But they had heard only, i.e., of me, from reports that he who persecuted us in times past, doth now preach the faith which once he impugned. Thirdly, how he was approved by them, because they glorified God in me, i.e., in my conversion they glorified Him Who converted me by His grace: “The beast of the field shall glorify me” (Is 43:20).
CHAPTER 2
Lecture 1Postquam apostolus in praecedenti cap., commendavit auctoritatem evangelicae doctrinae secundum seipsam, nunc in isto cap. commendat ipsam ex parte aliorum apostolorum et sua simul. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo commendat auctoritatem suae doctrinae ex approbatione aliorum apostolorum; secundo ex exemplo sui et aliorum apostolorum, ibi nos natura Iudaei, non ex gentibus, et cetera. After commending the authority of the Gospel teaching according to itself in the preceding chapter, the Apostle now in this chapter commends it on the part both of the other apostles and of himself. About this he does two things: First, he commends the authority of his teaching because of its approval by the other apostles; Secondly, from the example both of himself and of the other apostles (v. 15). Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit quod alii apostoli approbaverunt suam doctrinam; secundo ostendit quod libere reprehendit alios apostolos in his quae contraria suae doctrinae dicebant, ibi cum venisset Petrus, et cetera. Concerning the first he does two things: First, he shows that the other apostles approved his teaching; Secondly, that he fearlessly rebuked the other apostles in matters where they opposed his teaching (v. 11). Circa primum duo facit. Primo agit de collatione quam habuit cum apostolis; secundo insinuat quid inde secutum sit, ibi sed neque Titus, et cetera. As to the first he does two things: First, he treats of the discussion he had with the apostles; Secondly, he narrates the consequences of that discussion (v. 3). Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit circumstantias ipsius collationis; secundo ponit ipsam collationem, ibi et contuli cum illis, et cetera. Regarding the first he does two things: First, he gives the circumstances of that discussion; Secondly, what they discussed (v. 2): and communicated to them the Gospel. Quantum ad primum tangit quatuor circumstantias, scilicet tempus, locum, testes, et motivum ipsius. Describit autem tempus, cum dicit deinde post annos quatuordecim. Sed contra est, quia apostolus fuit conversus primo anno post passionem Christi, et post tres ivit in Ierusalem, et sic sunt quatuor, et hic dicit post annos quatuordecim, iterum ivit in Ierusalem, et sic fiunt decem et octo; et tunc invenit Petrum in Ierusalem. Et hoc non potest esse, quia Petrus sedit in Antiochia septem annis; in Roma vero viginti quinque annis. Et sic essent duo de viginti, et septem (qui sunt viginti quinque anni) antequam iret Romam, et Romae moratus est viginti quinque annis; ergo vixisset Petrus post passionem Christi quinquaginta annis, quod est falsum: quia quadragesimo anno a passione Christi passus est Petrus Romae, ut in historia habetur, quod fuit tempore Neronis. With respect to the first he touches upon four things: first the time, then the place, the witnesses, and the motive. He mentions the time when he says, Then, after fourteen years. Here some might object that if the Apostle was converted in the first year after the passion of Christ, and went to Jerusalem three years later, that makes four years. But he says, after fourteen years I went once more to Jerusalem—which makes a total of eighteen years—at which time he found Peter in Jerusalem. But this cannot be, because Peter had his See at Antioch seven years, and then at Rome for twenty-five years. So that makes eighteen plus seven, i.e., twenty-five years, before he went to Rome, and twenty-five years more he remained there. Hence Peter would have lived for fifty years after the passion of Christ—which is false, for in the fortieth year after the passion of Christ, Peter was martyred at Rome in the reign of Nero, as is recorded in history. Respondeo. Dicendum, quod cum dicitur deinde, etc., non est intelligendum quod post tres annos iterum elapsi sint quatuordecim anni, antequam iret in Ierusalem, sed quod anno quartodecimo suae conversionis iterum ascendit. Nec sunt addendi supra istos quatuordecim, septem anni, quibus Petrus rexit Ecclesiam Antiochenam, quia ante istos annos incepit regere. Et cum Antiochia sit prope Ierusalem, potuit esse ut aliquando Petrus ivisset in Ierusalem, et tunc Paulus invenerit eum ibi. Et sic colligitur ex historia, quod post annos quatuordecim Petrus venit Romam tempore Claudii imperatoris, et existens ibi viginti quinque annis, complevit numerum triginta novem annorum, et mortuus est quadragesimo anno post passionem domini. Dicit autem signanter, quatuordecim, ut ostendat, quod non indigebat apostolorum instructione, si quatuordecim annis fuit sine eis. I answer that when he says, Then, after fourteen years, it is not to be understood that after three years there was another lapse of fourteen years before he went to Jerusalem, but that he went again in the fourteenth year of his conversion. Nor should the seven years that Peter ruled the Church at Antioch be added to those fourteen years, because he began his rule before those years. Furthermore, since Antioch is near Jerusalem, Peter could at times have come to Jerusalem and Paul found him there then. Consequently, what is gathered from history is that after fourteen years Peter went to Rome in the reign of Claudius the Emperor and lived there for twenty-five years, making a total of thirty-nine years, and he died in the fortieth year after the passion of Our Lord. Yet he purposely said fourteen in order to show that he did not need instructions from the apostles, if he went for fourteen years without them. Locum vero describit, cum dicit Ierosolymam. Et dicit ascendi, quia in alto posita est. Ascendit autem Ierosolymam, ut ostenderet se concordare cum prophetia quae dicit Is. II, 3: de Sion exibit lex, et cetera. He gives the place when he says, Jerusalem. And he says, I went up, because it is built on a height. He went up to Jerusalem in order to show that he was in accord with the prophecy of Isaiah (2:3): “For the law shall come forth from Sion: and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” Testes describit, cum dicit cum Barnaba, assumpto et Tito. Barnabas Iudaeus erat, Titus vero gentilis. Cum eis ergo ascendit, ut haberet testes suae doctrinae, et ut in nullam partem, sive Iudaeorum, sive gentilium, ostendat se declinare. Deut. XVII: in ore duorum vel trium stat omne verbum. He gives the witnesses when he says, with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. Now Barnabas was a Jew, but Titus a Gentile. He went up with them, therefore, in order to have witnesses to his teaching and to show that he leaned neither to the side of the Jews nor the Gentiles: “In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand” (Dent. 19:15). Motivum autem describit, cum dicit secundum revelationem Dei, id est, Deo revelante et praecipiente sibi quod ascenderet in Ierusalem. Ex hoc colligi potest quod omnes actus apostolorum et motus fuerunt secundum instinctum spiritus sancti. Iob c. XXXVII, 11: nubes spargunt lumen suum, et cetera. He gives his motive when he says, according to a revelation from God, i.e., because God revealed and commanded him to go up to Jerusalem. From this can be gathered that all the acts and movements of the apostles were according to an instinct of the Holy Spirit: “The clouds spread their light which go round about” (Job 37:11). Consequenter cum dicit et contuli, etc., agit de ipsa collatione, ubi tria facit. Primo manifestat materiam super quam contulit; secundo personas cum quibus contulit; et tertio causam propter quam contulit. Then when he says, and communicated to them, he describes the conversation. About this he does three things: First, he mentions the subject of their conversation; Secondly, the persons with whom he conferred; Thirdly, the reason why he conferred with them. Materia de qua contulit, fuit Evangelium. Et ideo dicit contuli cum illis Evangelium Dei, et cetera. Personae cum quibus contulit sunt maiores et excellentiores inter apostolos seorsum autem cum his, et cetera. Sed causa utilis et necessaria ne scilicet in vacuum, et cetera. The subject about which be conferred was the Gospel; hence he says, I communicated to them the Gospel; the persons with whom he conferred were the senior and more outstanding apostles; hence he says, but apart to them who seemed to be some thing. But the reason, both useful and necessary, was lest I should run or had run in vain. Quantum ad primum dicit ascendi Ierosolymam, ubi contuli cum illis, tamquam cum amicis et paribus, Evangelium quod praedicavi in gentibus, non ut addiscerem, quia iam doctus eram a Christo, non ut certificarer, quia sic certus sum quod si Angelus diceret contrarium, non crederem, ut patet supra I cap. Sed contuli propter duo, scilicet ad insinuandam unitatem doctrinae meae cum doctrina aliorum apostolorum. I Cor. I, 10: idipsum dicatis omnes, et cetera. Contulit ergo cum eis quasi idem verbum cum eis, sed non pares habuit. Item ad vitandum calumniam aliorum. Apostolus enim quia non fuerat conversatus cum Christo, nec edoctus ab apostolis, sed statim post conversionem suam incepit praedicare quae erant odiosa Iudaeis, et specialiter de vocatione gentium, et quod non debebant servari legalia. Sic ergo contulit Evangelium. Regarding the first, he says, I went up to Jerusalem where I communicated to them, as to friends and equals, the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, not in order to learn, because I had already been taught by Christ, nor in order to be reassured, because I am so certain, that if an angel were to say the contrary, I would not believe him, as is plain above (1:8). But I conferred for two reasons: namely, to show the unity of my teaching with that of the other apostles: “That you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you” (1 Cor 1:10). Hence he conferred with them as one having the same word as they, and not as an adversary. Also, to avoid false accusation from others. For the Apostle had not lived with Christ or been taught by the apostles, but immediately after his conversion began to preach things odious to the Jews, especially the vocation of the Gentiles and that they should not observe the justifications of the Law. So, then, he conferred about the Gospel. Sed cum quibus hoc fecerit, ostendit subdens seorsum autem his, etc., quasi dicat: non cum omnibus, sed cum his qui erant inter alios alicuius auctoritatis et momenti, scilicet cum Petro, Iacobo et Ioanne et aliis magnis. Eccli. IX, 21: cum sapientibus et prudentibus tracta, et cetera. Sed seorsum, etc., non quod turpia vel falsa cum eis tractaret vel conferret, sicut haeretici faciunt, sed quia sciebat ibi esse Iudaeos calumniantes, propterea quia de legalibus docuerat. Et ideo ne veritas pateret calumniae, cum illis seorsum contulit, qui non calumniarentur. Prov. XXV, 9: causam tuam tracta cum amico tuo, et secretum extraneo ne reveles, et cetera. Eccli. VIII, 21: coram extraneo ne facias consilium, et cetera. Sic ergo patet et materia collationis et personae. But he indicates the ones with whom he did this, when he adds, but apart to them who seemed to be some thing. As though to say: Not with all, but with those who were of some authority and importance among them, namely, with Peter, James and John and the other great ones: “Treat with the wise and prudent” (Sir 9:21). But apart, not to talk or treat with them about ignoble or false things, as heretics do, but because he was aware of the presence there of Jews who brought false charges against him for his teachings about the Law. Hence, in order that the truth might prevail over false charges, he spoke apart with those who would not bring false charges against him: “Treat thy cause with thy friend, and discover not the secret to a stranger” (Prov 25:9); “Before a stranger do no matter of counsel: for thou knowest not what he will bring forth” (Sir 8:21). Thus the subject of the discussion as well as the persons are made known. Sequitur causa, quae fuit scilicet ne in vacuum currerem, aut cucurrissem, id est, ne reputarer praedicasse inutiliter. Vocat autem praedicationem suam, cursum, propter velocitatem suae doctrinae, quia in modico tempore a Ierusalem usque in Illyricum, et usque in Hispaniam praedicavit Evangelium. Unde posset dici de eo illud Ps. CXLVII, 15: velociter currit sermo eius, etc.; II Thess. III, 1: fratres, orate pro nobis, ut sermo domini currat, et cetera. Sed numquid dubitabat quod in vacuum curreret? Dicendum est quod sibi non dubitabat, sed illis quibus praedicaverat, quia nisi ab illis firmiter teneretur sua doctrina, quantum ad illos in vacuum cucurrisset; et ideo voluit conferre cum eis, ut dum scirent auditores, quod doctrina sua concordaret cum doctrina aliorum apostolorum, et approbaretur ab eis, firmius eius doctrinam tenerent, et sic quantum ad eos non in vanum curreret. I Cor. IX, 26: ego sic curro non quasi in incertum. Then follows the cause, which was lest perhaps I should run or had run in vain, i.e., lest I be thought to have preached to no purpose. He calls his preaching a “running” on account of the rapidity of his teaching, for in a short time be preached the Gospel from Jerusalem to Illyricum and even as far as Spain. Hence the word of Psalm (147:15) can be said of him: “His word runneth swiftly”; “Pray, brethren, that the word of God may run and may be glorified, even as among you (2 Thes 3: 1). But did he really wonder whether he was running in vain? I answer that he did not wonder for himself, but for those to whom he had preached, because if his teaching was not firmly held by them, he would have run in vain as far as they were concerned. So he wanted to confer with them, in order that when his hearers heard that his teaching was in agreement with that of the other apostles and approved by them, they would hold to it more firmly—then he would not be running in vain with respect to them: “I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty” (1 Cor 9:26). Consequenter cum dicit sed neque Titus, etc., ostendit quid secutum sit ex collatione cum apostolis habita. Et ponit tria quae inde secuta sunt, scilicet quod a sua sententia non recessit, et quod suae doctrinae nihil superadditum fuit, ibi ab his autem qui videbantur, et cetera. Tertio quod sua doctrina approbata est, ibi sed contra cum vidissent, et cetera. Then when he says, But neither Titus who was with me, he shows what resulted from the discussion held with the apostles. And he mentions three results: That he did not depart from his opinion; That nothing was added to his teaching (v. 6); Thirdly, that his teaching was approved (v. 7). Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit quod non recessit a sua sententia in quodam particulari; secundo ostendit quod etiam in nullo alio recessit ab ea, ibi sed propter subintroductos, et cetera. Concerning the first he does two things: First, he shows with respect to one definite point that he did not depart from his teaching; Secondly, that on no other point did he depart from it (v. 4). Dicit ergo: dico quod ita contuli cum eis de doctrina Evangelii, quod ex hoc secutum est, quod doctrina mea et sententia firma permansit, scilicet de legalibus non observandis, sic quod gentiles non cogerentur ad servandum legalia, intantum quod neque Titus, qui mecum erat, cum esset etiam gentilis, compulsus est, rationibus eorum, circumcidi, sed susceptus est ab apostolis in societatem incircumcisus. Unde tunc data est sententia ab apostolis de legalibus non observandis, sicut habetur Act. XV, 28. Ratio autem quare post passionem Christi non debent servari legalia, assignatur a Chrysostomo talis: manifestum est enim quod instrumentum quod fit de aliqua promissione seu foedere tenet tantum quousque compleatur foedus et promissio, quibus completis, instrumentum praedictum in hoc non tenet. Circumcisio autem est quoddam instrumentum promissionis et foederis inter Deum et fideles homines; unde et Abraham accepit circumcisionem in signum promissionis, ut dicitur Gen. XVII. Et quia Christi peracta passione, soluta fuit promissio et completum foedus, ideo post passionem non tenet, nec valet circumcisio. Sic ergo patet quod non recessit a sententia sua in hoc quod non permitteret circumcidi Titum. He says, therefore: I say that the result of my discussion with them about the teaching of the Gospel was that my teaching and opinion remained unaltered concerning the non-observance of legalism, i.e., the Gentiles would not be compelled to observe the rites of the Law so that neither Titus who was with me, being a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised, but was admitted uncircumcised into their fellowship by the apostles. This discussion occasioned the decree handed down by the apostles on not observing the rites of the law, as is had in Acts (15:28). The reason why these rites were not to be observed after the passion of Christ is assigned in the following way by Chrysostom: “For it is evident that the instrument drawn up for any promise or pact binds only until the pact and promise are fulfilled; but when fulfilled, the instrument no longer binds on that point.” Now circumcision is an instrument of the promise and pact between God and believing men. Hence it was that Abraham underwent circumcision as a sign of the promise, as is said in Genesis (11:26). And because the promise was fulfilled and the pact completed by the passion of Christ, neither the pact holds after the passion nor is circumcision of any value. Thus, therefore, his refusal to permit Titus to be circumcised makes it plain that he did not depart from his teaching. Consequenter ostendit quod in nullo alio etiam recessit ab ea, cum dicit sed propter subintroductos, et cetera. Littera autem ista est diversa in diversis et obscura, et legitur sic: tu dicis quod non permisisti circumcidi Titum, sed quare non permisisti? Nonne alibi permisisti Timotheum, sicut legitur Act. XVI, 3? Ad hoc potest sic respondere apostolus, quia tunc temporis, quando Timotheus fuit circumcisus, indifferens erat circumcisio, utrum scilicet servaretur vel non; sed modo cum ageretur de Tito, erat specialis quaestio de circumcisione, quam ego dicebam non debere servari. Unde si permisissem eum circumcidi, cum egomet diffinivissem quaestionem, fuisset factum in contrarium, nec licebat ultra de hoc movere quaestionem, vel facere difficultatem, utpote iam determinatam. Then when he says, but because of false brethren, unawares brought in, he shows that he did not change on any other point. This passage is obscure and variant readings are found. It should be read thus: You say that you did not permit Titus to be circumcised; but why? seeing that in another case you permitted Timothy, as is read in Acts (16:3). To this the Apostle can respond that when Timothy was circumcised, it was an indifferent matter whether circumcision was observed or not; but later on, when it came to Titus, circumcision became a matter of paramount importance and I said that it is not to be observed. Hence, if I had allowed him to be circumcised, whereas I had already settled the question definitively myself, I would have been acting to the contrary. Furthermore, it was not lawful to raise this question again or to make difficulties about a matter now settled. Et ideo dicit: dico quod non solum non permisi ipsum circumcidi ab illis, quibus neque ad horam cessimus subiectione, scilicet ut gentes subderentur legi. Et hoc propter subintroductos, a Diabolo vel a Pharisaeis, falsos fratres, qui se fingunt amicos. II Cor. c. XII: periculum in falsis fratribus. Qui, scilicet fratres falsi, subintroierunt in locum ubi erant apostoli, latenter explorare, id est ad explorandam, libertatem nostram a peccato et lege. II Cor. III, 17: ubi spiritus domini, ibi libertas. Rom. VIII, 15: non enim accepistis spiritum servitutis, et cetera. Infra IV, 5: ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret. Quam, scilicet libertatem, habemus in Christo Iesu, id est per fidem Christi. Infra IV, v. 31: non estis ancillae filii, sed liberae. Et ad hoc subintroierunt ut in servitutem, legis et carnalium observantiarum, redigerent, sicut ante passionem Christi, quod non est faciendum, quia fundamentum aliud nemo potest ponere, etc., I Cor. III, 11. Et hoc ut veritas Evangelii permaneat apud vos, quasi dicat: in nullo cessimus eis propter hoc, ne scilicet occasionem daremus eis qui sine circumcisione dicebant vos non posse salvari, quod est contra veritatem Evangelii quod praedicavi vobis. He says therefore: I say that I did not permit him to be circumcised by them, to whom we yielded not by subjection, no, not for an hour, i.e., that the Gentiles be subject to the Law; and this because of false brethren, unawares brought in by the devil or by the Pharisees: false brethren, because they pretended to be friends: “In perils from false brethren” (2 Cor 11:26). Who, namely the false brethren, were brought into the place where the apostles were gathered, in order to spy on our liberty from sin and the Law: “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Cor 3:17); “You have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of the adoption of sons” (Rom 8:15); that he might redeem them who were under the Law (4:5). Which liberty we have in Christ Jesus, i.e., through faith in Christ: You are not children of the bondwoman but of the free (4:31). And to this end were they brought in, that they might bring us into servitude of the Law and the observances of the flesh, as before the passion of Christ. But this is not permissible, “for other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus” (1 Cor 3:11). And this, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. As if to say: We did not yield to them an iota, lest we give an occasion to those who said that you cannot be saved without circumcision, which is contrary to the truth of the Gospel I have preached to you. Ambrosius autem aliter legit. Secundum praemissa enim habetur, quod ideo ad horam non cessit propter subintroductos. Ex quo sequitur quod nisi fuissent subintroducti falsi fratres, cessisset eis de legalium observatione. Et ideo propter hoc non fuit, quia propter hoc non cessisset eis, sed propter ipsam veritatem. Ideo dicit Ambrosius quod littera est falsa, et superfluit ibi neque. Unde vult quod non sit ibi neque. Et tunc est sensus: non permisi circumcidi Titum, sed Timotheum permisi circumcidi propter subintroductos falsos fratres, in loco ubi eram cum Timotheo et aliis, qui subintroierunt, et cetera. Quod cum facere nequivissent, populum in seditionem contra nos incitare moliebantur. Quibus, scilicet falsis fratribus, propter hoc cessimus ad horam subiectionis, in facto circumcisionis, circumcidendo Timotheum ibi ut veritas Evangelii permaneat, etc., quae habet quod nec circumcisio aliquid confert, neque praeputium, sed fides. Ambrose, however, reads it another way. For according to the foregoing the reason he did not yield for the moment was on account of those brought in. From this it follows that if they had not been brought in, he would have yielded in the matter of observing legalism. Therefore it was not on that account, because on that account he would not have yielded to them, but on account of the truth itself. Therefore, says Ambrose, the text is faulty and the words, no not even, are superfluous. Hence he would have it that those words should not be there. And then the sense is: I did not permit Titus to be circumcised, but Timothy I did, because of false brethren, unawares brought in, i.e., to the place where I was with Timothy and the others who were brought in to spy our liberty. But when they failed in this, they tried to incite the people to rise up against us. To whom, i.e., to the false brethren, we therefore yielded in the hour of subjection in the matter of circumcision by circumcising Timothy, in order that the truth of the gospel might continue with you, i.e., the Gospel which teaches that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision profits anything, but the faith. Fuit autem specialis causa quare Timotheus circumcisus fuit, et non Titus, quia Timotheus fuit ex patre gentili et matre Iudaea, Titus vero ex utroque parente gentili. Et sententia apostoli erat quod qui ex aliquo parente Iudaeo nati fuerant, circumciderentur; qui vero totaliter ex gentilibus parentibus nati essent, nullo modo debeant circumcidi. But the special reason why Timothy was circumcised and Titus not, was that Timothy was born of a Gentile father and Jewish mother, whereas Titus’ parents were both Gentiles. And the opinion of the Apostle was that those born of a Jewish parent on either side should be circumcised, but those born entirely of Gentile parents should on no account be circumcised.
CHAPTER 2
Lecture 2Ostenso quod apostolus in nullo recessit a sententia sua in collatione praedicta, hic consequenter ostendit quod nihil suae doctrinae per alios apostolos superadditum fuit. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim describit conditionem apostolorum, nihil ei addere valentium; secundo prosequitur propositum, ibi mihi enim qui, et cetera. Having shown that the Apostle did not depart from his opinion on any point in the conference mentioned above, he now shows that nothing was added to his teaching by the other apostles. About this he does two things: First, he describes the status of the apostles who were unable to add anything; Secondly, he proves his proposition (v. 6): for to me, they that seemed to be something, added nothing. Conditionem autem illorum describit ex tribus. Primo ex auctoritate quam habebant in Ecclesia, quae est magna. Et quantum ad hoc dicit ab his autem, et cetera. Littera defectiva est, unde debet suppleri sic ab his autem, scilicet Petro et Ioanne; quasi dicat: licet ad horam cesserim eis, nihil tamen accepi ab eis potestatis vel doctrinae. Et si ab his nihil accepi, multo minus ab aliis. Sed notandum est quod hoc quod dicit qui videbantur aliquid esse, si hoc intelligatur secundum gratiam Dei quae in ipsis erat, sic verum est quod secundum hanc magni erant, quia quos iustificavit, hos et magnificavit, ut dicitur Rom. VIII, 30. Si vero intelligantur aliquid esse secundum seipsos, sic falsum est, quia secundum hoc nihil erant. Nam si secundum se aliquid esse viderentur, semper fuissent magni; quia quod per se inest, semper inest. Unde cum non fuerint semper magni, non secundum se videbantur aliquid esse. Their status he describes from three standpoints: first from the authority they held in the Church, for it was great. Regarding it he says, But of them who seemed to be some thing. The text is deficient and should be amended to read, “But of them,” namely, Peter and John. As if to say: Although I would have yielded to them at the time, yet I received from them no new power or teaching. And if I received nothing from them, much less so from others. But it is to be noted that if his statement, who seemed to be something, is understood with reference to the grace of God that was in them, it is true that in this respect they were great, because “whom he justified, them he also glorified,” as is said in Romans (8:30). However, if it is understood that they were something according to themselves, then it is false, because in that respect they were nothing. For if they seemed to be some thing according to themselves, they would always have been great, because whatever belongs to a thing according to itself is always present. Hence, since they were not always great, it was not according to themselves that they were seen to be something. Secundo describit eorum conditionem ex statu eorum ante conversionem, quam habuerunt in synagoga. Et hunc statum caute ostendit fuisse abiectum et vilem. Unde dicit quales aliquando fuerint, quia rustici, pauperes, idiotae, et sine litteris erant. I Cor. I, 26: non multi sapientes secundum carnem, et cetera. Sed quales fuerint nihil, id est non, mea interest, scilicet referre. Et hoc forte introducit, ut considerantes statum quem illi habuerunt in synagoga (qui nullus fuit) et statum Pauli (qui magnus fuit), manifeste cognoscant quod Paulus in sententia quantum ad legalia sit eis praeferendus, et praesertim cum Paulus in statu Ecclesiae Christi eis aequaretur, ita quod Paulus eos in statu synagogae ante conversionem praecedebat, in statu post conversionem eis aequalis erat. Unde cum agebatur de synagoga, magis erat standum sententiae Pauli, quam aliorum; sed cum de Evangelio ageretur, standum erat sententiae suae sicut sententiae aliorum. Et sicut alii non erant magni per legalia, sed per Christum, sic et apostolus per Christum magnus erat in fide, et non per legalia. Secondly, he describes their status on the side of what they were before their conversion, i.e., the status they had in the synagogue. This status, he hints gently, was mean and lowly. Hence he says, what they were some time; for they had been coarse, poor, ignorant and unlettered: “There are not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble” (1 Cor 1:26). But what they were is nothing to me, i.e., it is not my concern to mention. Perhaps his reason for introducing this was that by considering the status they had in the synagogue—which was nothing—and the status of Paul—which was great—they might see that Paul’s opinion on legalism should be preferred to theirs, particularly since Paul has an equal status with them in the Church; so that Paul had a higher rank in the synagogue before their conversion, but after the conversion, he had a rank equal to theirs. Hence when matters concerning the synagogue were discussed, the opinion of Paul deserved to prevail over the others, but when it came to the Gospel, his opinion was as good as theirs. And just as the others were not made great through things pertaining to the Law but through Christ, so too in the faith the Apostle was great through Christ and not through things pertaining to the Law. Tertio describit eorum conditionem ex divina electione, et quantum ad hoc dicit Deus enim personam, etc., quasi dicat: ideo magni sunt, quia Deus eos magnificavit, non attendens ad merita vel demerita eorum, sed ad ipsum quod facere intendit. Et ideo dicit Deus personam hominis non accipit, id est, non considerat magnam vel parvam. Sap. VI, 8: pusillum et magnum ipse fecit, et cetera. Sed sine personarum acceptione ad salutem omnes vocat, non imputans illis delicta eorum, et hoc quia transierunt. II Cor. V, 17: vetera transierunt, et cetera. Ps. XV, 4: nec memor ero nominum eorum, et cetera. Et ideo dicit Petrus, Act. X, 34: in veritate comperi, quod non est personarum acceptio, et cetera. Thirdly, he describes their condition by reason of their election by God. Regarding this he says, God accepteth not the person. As if to say: They are great because God made them great, not by regarding their merits or demerits, but by regarding what He intended to accomplish. Hence he says: God accepteth not the person of man, i.e., he does not consider whether the person is great or little: “For he made the little and the great, and he hath equally care of all” (Wis 6:8). Furthermore, without regard to person, He calls everyone to salvation, no longer charging them with their sins for they have passed away: “The old things are passed away” (2 Cor 5:17); “Nor will I be mindful of their name” (Ps 15:5). Therefore Peter says: “In very deed I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34). Circa hoc sciendum est, quod accipere personam proprie est in aliquo negotio attendere, quasi regulam ipsius negotii, conditionem personae nihil facientem ad negotium, puta, cum ideo do beneficium alicui, quia est nobilis, sive pulcher. Nobilitas enim seu pulchritudo, nil facit ad hoc, quod habeat beneficium. Si vero conditio personae facit ad negotium, sic considerando illam conditionem in facto illo, non accipio personam; sicut si ideo do beneficium alicui, quia bonus est, et bene deserviet Ecclesiae, quia bene litteratus et honestus, non sum acceptor personae. Nihil ergo est proprie accipere personam, quam considerare conditionem personae, nil facientem ad negotium. Cum ergo Deus in operibus suis et beneficiis nihil praeexistens ex parte creaturae respiciat, quia ipsum, quod est creaturae, est effectus suae electionis, sed respiciat solum quasi pro regula beneplacitum voluntatis suae secundum quam omnia operatur, et non secundum aliquam conditionem personae, ut dicitur Ephes. IV, 7, manifestum est quod non accipit personam hominis. On this point it should be noted that accepting of persons in any transaction is, properly speaking, to take as a deciding factor in that transaction some aspect of the person that has nothing to do with the matter; for example, when I give a benefice to a person just because he is a noble or is handsome. For nobility or beauty have nothing to do with the question of getting a benefice. But if some aspect of the person does have something to do with the matter, then if I consider that aspect in settling the matter, I do not accept the person; for example, if I give a benefice to a person because he is good and will serve the Church well, or because he is well-educated and honorable, I am not an acceptor of persons. Therefore to accept the person is nothing other than to consider some aspect of the person that has no relation to the business. Hence, since God in His works and benefits regards nothing that pre-exists on the side of the creature-for that which pertains to the creature is an effect of His election—but takes as His measure merely what pleases His will, according to which He effects all things, and not the condition of their person, as is said in Ephesians (1:11), it is evident that He does not regard the person of man. Consequenter descripta conditione eorum, ostendit propositum, scilicet quod nil ei addere potuerunt. Et ideo dicit mihi enim qui videbantur aliquid esse, nihil contulerunt, quasi dicat: licet essent magnae auctoritatis, tamen nil addiderunt doctrinae meae nec potestati, quia, sicut supra dictum est neque ab homine accepi Evangelium, neque per hominem didici. Then, having described their condition, he proves his proposition, namely, that they were unable to add anything to him. Hence he says, for to me they that seemed to be something added nothing. As if to say: Although they had great authority, they added nothing to my teaching or to my power, because, as was said above, I neither received the Gospel from man nor learned it by man. Glossa autem aliter legit quales aliquando fuerunt, etc., quasi dicat: non pertinet ad me referre statum eorum ante conversionem, quales scilicet fuerunt, quia et hoc nihil refert, cum et ego fuerim ipsius Ecclesiae etiam persecutor, et tamen Deus suae beneplacito voluntatis elegit me et magnificavit, et hoc quia dominus personam hominis non acceptat. However, a certain Gloss has a different reading, namely, what they were at one time is not my concern. As if to say: It is not my concern to recount their status before their conversion, i.e., what they were, because this too makes no difference, since I myself had even been a persecutor of that Church; yet God by the pleasure of His will chose and glorified me—and this because the Lord does not regard the person of man. Consequenter cum dicit sed e contra cum vidissent, etc., ostendit quomodo eius sententia sit approbata ab apostolis. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ponit causam approbationis; secundo insinuat ipsam approbationem, ibi Iacobus et Cephas, et cetera. Tertio addit quamdam conditionem approbationi interpositam, ibi tantum ut pauperes, et cetera. Then when he says, But contrariwise, when they had seen..., he shows how his opinion was approved by the apostles. About this he does three things: First, he gives the reason for this approbation; Secondly, he mentions the approbation (v. 9); James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; Thirdly, he adds a condition that was placed on the approbation (v. 10). Causam autem approbationis (quae movit apostolos approbare sententiam apostoli) ponit duplicem, scilicet praedicationis officium apostolo iniunctum a Christo, et effectum iniuncti officii, ibi et cum cognovissent, et cetera. Circa primum, primo ponit officium iniunctum quod movit eos ad approbandum; secundo officii manifestationem, ibi qui enim operatus est, et cetera. He cites the two causes of the approbation (which moved the apostles to approve the opinion of the Apostle) namely, the office of teaching enjoined by Christ on the Apostle; and the effect of this appointment (v. 9). As to the first, he does two things: First, he mentions the office to which he was appointed which moved them to approve him; Secondly, the manifestation of this office (v. 8). Dicit ergo: dico quod illi qui videbantur aliquid esse, nihil mihi contulerunt, sed potius, contra opinionem adversariorum, qui ascenderant contra me in Ierusalem ad apostolos pro ipsa quaestione, me ipsi apostoli approbaverunt, et hoc cum vidissent quod creditum est mihi Evangelium, id est, officium praedicationis, praeputii, id est, iniunctum praedicare incircumcisis, scilicet gentibus. Ier. IX, 26: omnes gentes habent praeputium, omnis autem domus, et cetera. Sicut Petro commissa est auctoritas, ut praedicaret Iudaeis tantum, et Paulo gentibus; sed postmodum et Petrus praedicavit gentibus, et Paulus Iudaeis. He says therefore: I say that those who seemed to be something, added nothing; but rather, contrary to the opinion of the adversaries who came up to Jerusalem to oppose me in this matter, it was I that the Apostles approved, and this when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel, i.e., the office of the preaching, of the uncircumcision, i.e., the injunction to preach to the uncircumcised, namely, the Gentiles: “For all the nations are uncircumcised in the flesh, but all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart” (Jer 9:26). just as to Peter was entrusted the authority to preach to the Jews alone, so to Paul to the Gentiles; but later, Peter, too, preached to the Gentiles and Paul to the Jews. Sed quia aliquis posset dicere: unde constat nobis quod tibi sit commissum Evangelium in gentibus? Ideo interponens dicit, quod per operationes Christi. Sicut enim patet quod Petrus accepit Evangelium a Christo propter mirabilia quae Christus fecit per eum, ita patet quod ego ab ipso accepi propter miracula quae Christus operatus est, et operatur in me. Et ideo dicit qui operatus est Petro, etc., id est, qui Petrum fecit apostolum in Iudaea, scilicet Christus, ipse me fecit apostolum in gentibus. Et haec est causa quae movet eos. But because someone might say: What evidence have you that the commission to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles was given you, he interjects that it was through certain works of Christ. For just as it is evident that Peter received the Gospel from Christ because of the marvels Christ wrought through him, so it is evident that I received it because of the miracles Christ worked and does work in me. Therefore he says, He who wrought in Peter to the apostleship, i.e., made Peter an apostle in Judea, namely Christ, also made me an apostle among the Gentiles. And this is the reason which moves them. Sed quia non sufficit iniunctio et auctoritas praedicandi, nisi homo per bonam scientiam et discretam eloquentiam ipsam exequatur, et per bonam vitam commendet, ideo addit usum suae auctoritatis seu officii effectum, dicens et cum cognovissent gratiam Dei, et cetera. Et est littera suspensiva, id est, cum vidissent quod gratiosa et fructuosa esset praedicatio mea, tunc Iacobus, et Cephas, et Ioannes, et cetera. In quo notatur approbatio seu societas facta cum eis et Paulo. Et primo ponuntur personae inter quas facta est societas, quae sunt Iacobus, et Cephas, id est Petrus, et Ioannes. Et praemittitur Iacobus, quia erat episcopus Ierosolymorum, ubi haec facta sunt. Ioannes autem iste fuit Ioannes Evangelista, qui non deseruit Iudaeam usque ad tempus Vespasiani. Qui videbantur columnae esse. But because one’s appointment and authority to preach are not enough, unless he carries it out through good understanding and discreet eloquence and commends it by a good life, he adds how he used his authority or the effect of his office, saying, And, when they had known the grace of God that was given to me, James and Cephas and John... gave to me and Barnabas, the right hands of fellowship. This is a dependent clause, i.e., when they saw that my preaching enjoyed favor and was fruitful, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars... In this passage is mentioned the approval or fellowship entered into by them and Paul. First, the persons are mentioned with whom the fellowship was formed, namely, James and Cephas, i.e., Peter, and John. James is mentioned first, as being the Bishop of Jerusalem where these events took place. The John mentioned was John the Evangelist who did not quit Judea until the time of Vespasian. Metaphorice dicitur hoc, id est sustentatio totius Ecclesiae. Sicut enim totum aedificium sustentatur per columnas, ita per istos tota Ecclesia Iudaeorum sustentabatur et regebatur. Et de istis columnis dicitur in Ps. LXXIV, 4: ego confirmavi columnas eius, id est, apostolos Ecclesiae; Can. V, 15: crura illius columnae marmoreae, quae fundatae sunt super bases aureas. Isti, scilicet ex una parte, dederunt dextras societatis, id est, consenserunt in societatem, mihi et Barnabae, in quo designantur personae ex alia parte. Per hoc autem quod dederunt sibi dexteras, significatur quod per manus se acceperunt in signum coniunctionis et unitatem opinionis. Who seem to be pillars. This is a metaphor standing for “the support of the entire Church.” For just as a whole edifice is supported by the pillars, so the whole Church of the Jews was supported and governed by these men. Of those pillars it is said in Psalm (74:4): “I have established the pillars thereof,” i.e., the apostles of the Church; “His legs as pillars of marble, that are set upon bases of gold” (Cant 5:15). They, on the one side, gave the right hands of fellowship, i.e., consented to the fellowship, to me and Barnabas, the persons on the other side. By giving them their right hands they signified that they accepted them into their hands as a sign of union and unity of opinion. Secundo ostenditur societatis tenor seu conditio, cum dicitur ut nos in gentes, ipsi autem in circumcisionem, scilicet praedicarent; quasi dicat: facta fuit inter nos coniunctio et unio, ita tamen quod sicut omnes fideles obediunt Petro in circumcisione, id est, in Ecclesia Iudaeorum fidelium: ita omnes gentiles qui conversi fuerunt ad Christum, obedirent Barnabae et Paulo. Hoc tamen apposito, ut nos essemus memores pauperum Christi, qui scilicet vendiderant omnia bona sua, et pretium eorum ad pedes apostolorum posuerant, propter Christum pauperes effecti. Quod quidem sollicitus fui hoc idem facere, non minus affectus, quam ipsi qui ordinaverunt, sicut apparet Rom. XV, et I Cor. VI, et II Cor. c. VIII et IX. Secondly, the intent or condition of the fellowship is shown when it is said, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision, i.e., to preach. As if to say: A bond and union was made among us to the effect that just as the faithful obey Peter among the circumcision, i.e., in the Church of the Jewish believers, so all the Gentiles converted to Christ should obey Paul and Barnabas. But they added the condition that we should be mindful of the poor of Christ, i.e., of those who had sold all their goods and laid the price at the feet of the apostles and became poor for the sake of Christ. Which same thing, indeed, also I was careful to do, being no less moved than those commanding me, as is plain in Romans (Ch. 15), 1 Corinthians (Ch. 6) and 2 Corinthians (Ch. 8 and 9). Ratio autem quare consuetudo primitivae Ecclesiae de venditione possessionum servabatur in Ecclesia ex circumcisione, et non in Ecclesia ex gentibus, haec est, quia fideles Iudaei congregati erant in Ierusalem, et in Iudaea quae destruenda in brevi a Romanis erat, ut postmodum rei probavit eventus; et ideo voluit dominus ut ibi possessiones non reservarentur ubi permansuri non erant. Ecclesia vero gentilium firmanda erat et augenda, et ideo consilio spiritus sancti factum est, ut in ea possessiones non venderentur. Now the reason why the custom prevailed in the early Church for those in the Church of the circumcision to sell their goods and not those in the Church of the Gentiles was that the believing Jews were congregated in Jerusalem and in Judea, which was soon to be destroyed by the Romans, as later events proved. Hence the Lord willed that no possessions were to be kept in a place not destined to endure. But the Church of the Gentiles was destined to grow strong and increase, and therefore, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it came about that the possessions in it were not to be sold.
CHAPTER 2
Lecture 3Supra apostolus ostendit quod ipse nil utilitatis accepit ex collatione habita cum dictis apostolis, hic vero ostendit quod ipse aliis profuit. Et primo ostendit quomodo profuit Petro in corrigendo eum; secundo manifestat ea quae dixit, ibi prius enim quam venirent, et cetera. The Apostle showed above that he received nothing useful from the discussion held with the apostles; now he shows that he benefitted them: First, he shows how he helped Peter by correcting him; Secondly, he tells what he said (v. 12). Dicit ergo: vere ipsi mihi nihil contulerunt, sed ego potius contuli eis, et specialiter Petro; quia cum venisset Petrus Antiochiam, ubi erat Ecclesia gentium, ego restiti ei in faciem, id est, manifeste. Eccli. c. IV, 27: ne reverearis proximum in casu suo, nec retineas verbum, et cetera. Vel in faciem, id est non in occulto, tamquam detrahens et timens, sed publice, et ut par ei. Lev. XIX, 17: non oderis fratrem tuum in corde tuo, sed publice argue eum, et cetera. Et hoc ideo, quia reprehensibilis erat. He says, therefore: Indeed, they advantaged me nothing; rather I conferred something upon them, and especially upon Peter, because when Cephas was come to Antioch, where there was a church of the Gentiles, I withstood him to the face, i.e., openly: “Reverence not thy neighbor in his fall and refrain not to speak in the time of salvation” (Sir 4:27). Or: to his face, i.e., not in secret as though detracting and fearing him, but publicly and as his equal: “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart: but reprove him openly, lest thou incur sin through him” (Lev. 19:17). This he did, because he was to be blamed. Sed contra: quia hoc fuit post acceptam gratiam spiritus sancti; sed post gratiam spiritus sancti nullo modo peccaverunt apostoli. Respondeo. Dicendum quod post gratiam spiritus sancti nullo modo peccaverunt mortaliter apostoli, et hoc donum habuerunt per potentiam divinam, quae eos confirmaverat. Ps. LXXIV, 4: ego confirmavi columnas eius, et cetera. Peccaverunt tamen venialiter, et hoc fuit eis ex fragilitate humana. I Io. I, 8: si dixerimus, quia peccatum non habemus, scilicet veniale, ipsi nos seducimus, et cetera. But it might be objected: This took place after they received the grace of the Holy Spirit; but after the grace of the Holy Spirit the apostles did not sin in any way. I answer that after the grace of the Holy Spirit the apostles did not sin mortally, and this gift they had through the divine power that had strengthened them: “I have established the pillars thereof’ (Ps 74:4). Yet they sinned venially because of human frailty: “If we say that we have no sin,” i.e., venial, “we deceive ourselves” (1 John 1:8). Quod vero dicitur in Glossa: restiti ei tamquam par, dicendum est quod apostolus fuit pro Petro in executione auctoritatis, non in auctoritate regiminis. Ex praedictis ergo habemus exemplum: praelati quidem humilitatis, ut non dedignentur a minoribus et subditis corrigi; subditi vero exemplum zeli et libertatis, ut non vereantur praelatos corrigere, praesertim si crimen est publicum et in periculum multitudinis vergat. Apropos of what is said in a certain Gloss, namely, that I withstood him as an adversary, the answer is that the Apostle opposed Peter in the exercise of authority, not in his authority of ruling. Therefore from the foregoing we have an example: prelates, indeed, an example of humility, that they not disdain corrections from those who are lower and subject to them; subjects have an example of zeal and freedom, that they fear not to correct their prelates, particularly if their crime is public and verges upon danger to the multitude. Consequenter cum dicit priusquam venirent, etc., manifestat ea quae dixit. Et primo hoc quod dixit eum reprehensibilem esse; secundo vero hoc, quod dixit Petrum reprehendisse, ibi sed cum vidissem, et cetera. Then when he says, For, before that some came from James, he manifests what he has said. First, that he said he was to be blamed; Secondly, that he rebuked Peter (v. 14). Circa primum tria facit. Primo ostendit quid Petrus sentiebat; secundo quid faciebat, ibi cum autem venisset, etc.; tertio quid inde sequebatur, ibi et simulationi eius, et cetera. As to the first he does three things: First, he shows what Peter’s opinion was; Secondly, what he did (v. 11); Thirdly, what resulted from it (v. 13). Dicit ergo circa primum, quod Petrus sentiebat legalia non esse servanda. Et hoc facto ostendebat, quia priusquam venirent quidam, Iudaei scilicet zelantes pro legalibus, a Iacobo, Ierosolymitanae Ecclesiae episcopo, edebat, scilicet Petrus, cum gentibus, id est, indifferenter utebatur cibis gentilium; et hoc faciebat ex instinctu spiritus sancti, qui dixerat ei quod Deus sanctificavit, tu ne commune dixeris, ut habetur Act. X, 15, ut ipse ibidem sequenti cap. dixit Iudaeis, qui contra eum insurrexerunt, quia cum incircumcisis comedisset, quasi rationem reddens. He says therefore, as to the first point, that Peter felt that legalism ought not be observed. This he showed by the fact that before some came, namely, Jews zealous for the Law, from James, Bishop of the Church at Jerusalem, he did eat, namely, Peter did, with the Gentiles, i.e., without compunction he ate the food of Gentiles. He did this through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Who had said to him: “That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common,” as is had in Acts (10:15), and as he himself in the following chapter said in answer to the Jews who rose up against him, because he had eaten with the uncircumcised. Quid autem faciebat, ostendit hic Paulus dicens, quod cum erat cum Iudaeis, subtrahebat se a consortio fidelium qui fuerant ex gentibus, adhaerens Iudaeis tantum, et congregans se cum eis. Et ideo dicit cum autem venisset, scilicet a Iudaea, subtrahebat se Petrus a gentibus conversis, et segregabat se ab eis. Et hoc ideo, quia erat timens eos, qui ex circumcisione erant, id est, Iudaeos, non quidem timore humano sive mundano, sed timore charitatis, ne scilicet scandalizarentur, sicut dicitur in Glossa. Et ideo factus est Iudaeis tamquam Iudaeus, simulans se cum infirmis idem sentire; sed tamen inordinate timebat, quia veritas numquam dimittenda est propter timorem scandali. What Peter did Paul now shows, saying that when he was with the Jews, he withdrew from the company of the faithful who had been converted from the Gentiles and adhered to the Jews alone and mingled among them. Therefore he says, but when they were come, namely, from Judea, Peter withdrew from the converted Gentiles and separated himself from them. This he did because he was fearing them who were of the circumcision, i.e., the Jews, not with a human or worldly fear but a fear inspired by charity, namely, lest they be scandalized, as is said in a Gloss. Hence he became to the Jews as a Jew, pretending that he felt the same as they did in their weakness. Yet he feared unreasonably, because the truth must never be set aside through fear of scandal. Quid autem ex hac simulatione sequebatur, subdit dicens, quod simulationi eius, scilicet Petri, consenserunt caeteri Iudaei, qui erant Antiochiae discernentes cibos, et segregantes se a gentibus, cum tamen ante simulationem huiusmodi hoc non fecissent. Et non solum illi consenserunt Petro, sed ita fuit illa simulatio in cordibus fidelium, ut etiam Barnabas, qui mecum erat doctor gentium, et contrarium fecerat et docuerat, duceretur ab eis in illam simulationem, subtrahens se ab eis, scilicet gentibus. Et hoc ideo, quia, secundum quod dicitur Eccli. X, v. 2: qualis est rector civitatis, et cetera. Et ibidem: secundum iudicem populi, et cetera. What resulted from this dissimulation he mentions when he says that to his dissimulation, i.e., Peter’s, the rest of the Jews consented who were at Antioch, discriminating between food and separating themselves from the Gentiles, although prior to this act of dissimulation they would not have done this. And not only they consented to Peter, but such was the effect of that dissimulation upon the hearts of the faithful that Barnabas also, who along with me was a teacher of the Gentiles and had done and taught the contrary, was led by them into that dissimulation and withdrew from them, namely, the Gentiles. And this on account of what is said in Sirach (10:2): “What manner of man the ruler of a city is, such also are they that dwell therein” and “as the judge of the people is himself, so also are his ministers.” Consequenter cum dicit sed cum vidissem, etc., manifestat ea quae dixerat de reprehensione sua, qua Petrum reprehendit. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ponit causam reprehensionis; secundo reprehendendi modum; tertio reprehensionis verba. Then when he says, But, when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all.... he explains what he had said concerning the rebuke with which he rebuked Peter. As to this he does three things: First, he gives the reason for the rebuke; Secondly, the manner of rebuking; Thirdly, the words of the rebuke. Occasio autem reprehensionis est non levis, sed iusta et utilis, scilicet periculum evangelicae veritatis. Et ideo dicit: sic Petrus reprehensibilis erat, sed ego solus, cum vidissem quod non recte ambularent illi qui sic faciebant ad veritatem Evangelii, quia per hoc peribat veritas, si cogerentur gentes servare legalia, ut infra patebit. Quod autem recte non ambularent, ideo est quia veritas, maxime ubi periculum imminet, debet publice praedicari, nec fieri contrarium propter scandalum aliquorum. Matth. X, 27: quod dico vobis in tenebris, dicite in lumine. Is. XXVI, 7: semita iusti recta est, rectus callis iusti ad ambulandum. Modus autem reprehendendi fuit conveniens, quia publicus et manifestus. Unde dicit dixi Cephae, id est, Petro, coram omnibus, quia simulatio illa in periculum omnium erat. Tim. V, 20: peccantem coram omnibus argue. Quod intelligendum est de peccatis manifestis, et non de occultis, in quibus debet servari ordo fraternae correctionis. The occasion of the rebuke was not slight, but just and useful, namely, the danger to the Gospel teaching. Hence he says: Thus was Peter reprehensible, but I alone, when I saw that they, who were doing these things, walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, because its truth was being undone, if the Gentiles were compelled to observe the legal justifications, as will be plain below. That, they were not walking uprightly is so, because in cases where danger is imminent, the truth must be preached openly and the opposite never condoned through fear of scandalizing others: “That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light” (Mt 10:27); “The way of the just is right: the path of the just is right to walk in” (Is 26:7). The manner of the rebuke was fitting, i.e., public and plain. Hence he says, I said to Cephas, i.e., to Peter, before them all, because that dissimulation posed a danger to all: “Them that sin, reprove before all” (1 Tim 5:20). This is to be understood of public sins and not of private ones, in which the procedures of fraternal charity ought to be observed. Cuiusmodi autem verba apostolus dixerit Petro, cum eum reprehenderet, subdit dicens si tu Iudaeus cum sis, etc., quasi dicat: o Petre, si tu cum Iudaeus sis, natione et genere, gentiliter et non Iudaice vivis, id est, gentium et non Iudaeorum ritum servas, cum scias et sentias discretionem ciborum nihil conferre, quomodo cogis gentes, non quidem imperio, sed tuae conversationis exemplo, iudaizare? Et dicit cogis, quia secundum quod Leo Papa dicit validiora sunt exempla quam verba. In hoc ergo Paulus reprehendit Petrum, quod cum ipse esset instructus a Deo, cum Iudaice prius viveret, ne postea amplius cibos discerneret Act. X, 15: quod Deus sanctificavit, tu ne commune dixeris, ipse contrarium simulabat. The words the Apostle spoke to Peter when he rebuked him, he adds, saying, If thou, being a Jew, by nature and race, livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews do, i.e., if you observe the customs of Gentiles and not of Jews, since you know and feel that discriminating among foods is of no importance, how dost thou compel the Gentiles, not indeed by command, but by example of your behavior, to live as do the Jews? He says, compel, because as Pope Leo says, “Example has more force than words.” Hence Paul rebukes Peter precisely because he had been instructed by God that although he had previously lived as the Jews do, he should no longer discriminate among foods: “That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common” (Acts 10:15). But now Peter was dissembling the opposite. Sciendum est autem quod occasione istorum verborum, non parva controversia est orta inter Hieronymum et Augustinum. Et secundum quod ex eorum verbis aperte colligitur, in quatuor discordare videntur. Et primo in tempore legalium, quando scilicet servari debuerunt. Nam Hieronymus duo tempora distinguit, unum ante passionem Christi, aliud post passionem. Vult ergo Hieronymus quod legalia ante passionem Christi viva essent, id est, habentia virtutem suam, in quantum scilicet per circumcisionem tollebatur peccatum originale, et per sacrificia et hostias placabatur Deus. Sed post passionem non solum dicit ea non fuisse viva vel mortua, sed, quod plus est, ea fuisse mortifera, et quod quicumque post passionem Christi ea servavit, peccavit mortaliter. It should be noted that these words occasioned no small controversy between Jerome and Augustine and, as their writings clearly show, they are seen to disagree on four points. First, as to the time of the legal justifications, namely, when they should have been observed. For Jerome distinguishes two periods, one before the passion of Christ and one after. Jerome’s opinion is that the legal justifications were living before the passion of Christ, i.e., had validity, inasmuch as original sin was removed through circumcision, and God was pleased with sacrifices and victims. But after the passion they were, according to him, not only not living i.e., dead, but what is more, they were deadly, so that whoever observed them after the passion of Christ sinned mortally. Augustinus vero distinguit tria tempora. Unum tempus ante passionem Christi, et concordans cum Hieronymo, dicit, isto tempore legalia viva fuisse. Aliud tempus est post passionem Christi immediate, ante gratiam divulgatam (sicut tempus apostolorum in principio), in quo tempore dicit Augustinus legalia mortua fuisse, sed tamen non mortifera Iudaeis conversis, dummodo ipsa servantes, spem in eis non ponerent, ita quod etiam ipsi Iudaei ea servantes tunc non peccarent. Si vero in eis spem posuissent, quicumque conversi ea servantes, peccassent mortaliter, quia si posuissent in eis spem, quasi essent necessaria ad salutem, quantum in eis erat, evacuassent gratiam Christi. Aliud tempus dicit esse post veritatem et gratiam Christi divulgatam, et in isto tempore dicit ea mortua et mortifera omnibus ea servantibus. Augustine, on the other hand, distinguishes three periods. One period was before the passion of Christ and, in agreement with Jerome, he says that during that period the legal justifications were living. Another was the period immediately following the passion of Christ, before grace was promulgated (as the time of the apostles in the beginning); during this period, says Augustine, the legal justifications were dead but not yet deadly to the converted Jews, so long as the ones observing them placed no hope in them. Hence the Jews observed them during that period without sinning. But had they placed their trust in them when observing them after their conversion, they would have sinned mortally; because if they placed their trust in them so as to believe that they were necessary for salvation, then, as far as they were concerned, they would have been voiding the grace of Christ. Finally, he posits a third period, after the truth and grace of Christ had been proclaimed. It was during that period, he says, that they were both dead and deadly to all who observed them. Ratio autem dictorum est, quia si Iudaei statim post conversionem fuissent prohibiti ab observantiis legalium, visum fuisset eos pari passu ambulare cum idololatris, qui statim ab idolorum cultura prohibebantur, et legalia non fuisse bona, sicut nec idololatriam. Et ideo instinctu spiritus sancti permissum est, ut legalia modico tempore servarentur ea intentione quae dicta est, ut per hoc ostenderetur legalia tunc bona fuisse. Unde dicit Augustinus quod per hoc ostendebatur quod mater synagoga cum honore deducenda ad tumulum erat, dum non statim post passionem Christi legalia prohibita sunt. Quicumque vero non eo modo ipsa servaret, non honoraret matrem synagogam, sed eam extumularet. The reasoning that underlies these statements is that if the Jews had been forbidden the legal observances right after their conversion, it might have seemed that they had previously been on an equal footing with idolaters, who were immediately forbidden to worship idols, and that just as idolatry had never been good, so too the legal observances. Therefore, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the legal observances were condoned for a short time for the reason given, namely, to show that the legal observances had been good in the past. Hence, says Augustine, the fact that the legal justifications were not forbidden right after the passion of Christ showed that the mother, the synagogue, was destined to be brought in honor to the grave. But whosoever did not observe them in that manner would not be honoring the mother, the synagogue, but disturbing her grave. Secundo discordant praedicti Hieronymus et Augustinus de observatione legalium quantum ad ipsos apostolos. Hieronymus enim dicit quod apostoli numquam secundum veritatem servabant legalia, sed simulaverunt se servare, ut vitarent scandalum fidelium qui fuerant ex circumcisione. Et hoc quidem modo dicit simulasse Paulum, quando persolvit votum in templo Ierosolymitano, ut habetur Act. XXI, 26; et quando circumcidit Timotheum, ut habetur Act. XVI, v. 3; et quando a Iacobo monitus quaedam legalia suscepit, ut habetur Act. XV, 20. Et hoc quidem facientes non deludebant alios, quia faciebant hoc, non intendentes legalia servare, sed propter aliquas causas, sicut quod quiescebant in sabbato non propter observantiam legis, sed propter quietem. Item abstinebant ab immundis secundum legem, non propter observantiam legis, sed propter alias causas, utpote propter abominationem et aliquid huiusmodi. Augustinus vero dicit quod apostoli servabant ipsa legalia, et hoc intendentes, sed tamen non ponentes in eis spem, quasi essent necessaria ad salutem. Et hoc quidem licebat eis, quia fuerunt ex Iudaeis. Ita tamen quod haec servarent ante gratiam divulgatam; unde sicut eo tempore alii Iudaei conversi sine periculo servare poterant, absque eo quod in eis spem ponerent, ita et ipsi. Secondly, the aforesaid Jerome and Augustine disagree on the observance of the legal justifications with respect to the apostles; For Jerome says that the apostles never really observed them but pretended to do so, in order to avoid scandalizing the believers who had been of the circumcision. He says that even Paul made this pretense when he fulfilled a vow in the temple at Jerusalem, as is narrated in Acts (21:26), and when he circumcised Timothy, as in Acts (16:3), and when on advice from James he observed some of the justifications, as recorded in Acts (20:20). But in so doing the apostles were not misleading the faithful, because they did not act with the intention of observing the justifications but for other reasons; for example, they rested on the Sabbath, not because it was a legal observance, but for the sake of rest. Likewise, they abstained from food legally unclean, not for the sake of observing the legal justifications but for other reasons; for example, on account of an abhorrence or something of that nature. But Augustine says that the apostles observed the legal justifications and intended to do so, but without putting their trust in them as though they were necessary for salvation. Furthermore, this was lawful for them to do, because they had been Jews. Nevertheless, they observed them before grace was proclaimed. Hence just as certain other Jews could safely observe them at that time without putting any trust in them, so too could the apostles. Tertio discordant de peccato Petri. Nam Hieronymus dicit in simulatione praedicta Petrum non peccasse, quia hoc ex charitate fecit, et non ex aliquo timore mundano, ut dictum est. Augustinus vero dicit eum peccasse, venialiter tamen, et hoc propter indiscretionem quam habuit, nimis inhaerendo huic parti (scilicet Iudaeorum) ad vitandum eorum scandalum. Et validius argumentum Augustini contra Hieronymum est, quia Hieronymus adducit pro se septem doctores, quorum quatuor, scilicet Laudicensem, et Alexandrinum, Origenem et Didymum excludit Augustinus, utpote de haeresi infames. Aliis vero tribus opponit tres, quos pro se et pro sua opinione habet, scilicet Ambrosium, Cyprianum, et ipsum Paulum, qui manifeste dicit, quod reprehensibilis erat Petrus. Si ergo nefas est dicere in Scriptura sacra aliquod falsum contineri, non erit fas dicere Petrum reprehensibilem non fuisse. Et propter hoc verior est opinio et sententia Augustini, quia cum dictis apostoli magis concordat. Thirdly, they disagree on the sin of Peter. For Jerome says that in the dissimulation previously mentioned, Peter did not sin, because he did this from charity and, as has been said, not from mundane fear. Augustine, on the other hand, says, that he did sin—venially, however—on account of the lack of discretion he had by adhering overmuch to one side, namely, to the Jews, in order to avoid scandalizing them. But the stronger of Augustine’s arguments against Jerome is that Jerome adduces on his own behalf seven doctors, four of whom, namely, Laudicens, Alexander, Origen, and Didymus, Augustine rejects as known heretics. To the other three he opposes three of his own, who held with him and his opinion, namely, Ambrose, Cyprian, and Paul himself, who plainly teaches that Peter was deserving of rebuke. Therefore, if it is unlawful to say that anything false is contained in Sacred Scripture, it will not be lawful to say that Peter was not deserving of rebuke. For this reason the opinion and statement of Augustine is the truer, because it is more in accord with the words of the Apostle. Quarto discordant in reprehensione Pauli. Nam Hieronymus dicit, quod Paulus vere non reprehendit Petrum, sed simulatorie, sicut et Petrus simulatorie legalia servabat, ut scilicet sicut Petrus nolens scandalizare Iudaeos simulabat se legalia servare, ita Paulus ut non scandalizaret gentes, ostendit sibi displicere quod Petrus faciebat, et simulatorie reprehendit, faciebantque hoc quasi ex condicto, ut utrisque fidelibus sibi subditis providerent. Augustinus vero sicut dicit Petrum vere servasse legalia, ita dicit Paulum eum vere reprehendisse, et non simulatorie. Sed et Petrus quidem servando peccavit, quia inde erat scandalum apud gentiles, a quibus se subtrahebat. Paulus vero non peccavit reprehendendo, quia ex eius reprehensione nullum scandalum sequebatur. Fourthly, they disagree on Paul’s rebuke. For Jerome says that Paul did not really rebuke Peter but pretended to do so, just as Peter pretended to observe the legal justifications, i.e. just as Peter in his unwillingness to scandalize the Jews pretended to observe the justifications, so Paul, in order not to scandalize the Gentiles, feigned displeasure at Peter’s action and pretended to rebuke him. This was done, as it were, by mutual consent, so that each might exercise his care over the believers subject to them. Augustine, however, just as he says that Peter really did observe the justifications, says that Paul truly rebuked him without pretense. Furthermore, Peter really sinned by observing them, because his action was a source of scandal to the Gentiles from whom he separated himself. But Paul did not sin in rebuking him, because no scandal followed from his rebuke.
CHAPTER 2
Lecture 4Supra ostendit veritatem doctrinae apostolicae praedicatae per eum ex auctoritate aliorum apostolorum, hic ostendit idem ex eorum conversatione et exemplo. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit propositum per apostolorum conversationem; secundo adversantium obiectionem quod si quaerentes iustificari, et cetera. Having manifested the truth of the apostolic doctrine preached by him because of the authority of the other apostles, he now shows the same thing from their manner of life and example. About this he does two things: First, he proves his proposition from the manner of life of the apostles; Secondly, he raises an objection posed by his adversaries (v. 17). Circa primum tria facit. Primo praemittit apostolorum conditionem; secundo insinuat eorum conversationem, ibi scientes autem quod non iustificatur, etc.; tertio intentam conditionem, ibi propter quod ex operibus legis, et cetera. As to the first he does three things: First, he sets forth the status of the apostles; Secondly, their manner of life (v. 16); Thirdly, the intended conclusion: (v. 16): because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. Conditio autem apostolorum et etiam ipsius Pauli haec est, quod secundum naturalem originem ex Iudaeis processerunt. Et hoc est quod dicit nos, scilicet ego et apostoli alii, sumus natura, id est naturali origine, Iudaei, non proselyti. II Cor. XI, v. 22: Hebraei sunt, et ego, et cetera. Et haec est magna laus, quia, ut dicitur Io. IV, 22, salus ex Iudaeis est. Et non ex gentibus peccatores, id est, non sumus peccatores, ut gentes idololatrae et immundae. The status of the apostles and even of Paul is that according to natural origin they were born Jews. That is why he says, We, namely, I and the other apostles, are by nature, i.e. by natural origin, Jews, not proselytes: “They are Hebrews: so am I” (2 Cor 11:22). And this is a great compliment, because, as it is said: “Salvation is of the Jews” (Jn 4:22). And not of the Gentiles, sinners, i.e., we are not sinners as are the Gentiles, idolatrous and unclean. Sed contra est quod dicitur I Io. I, v. 8: si dixerimus quoniam peccatum non habemus, etc., ergo Iudaei sunt peccatores. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod aliud est peccantem esse, aliud peccatorem. Nam primum denominat actum, secundum vero promptitudinem, sive habitum ad peccandum. Unde Scriptura iniquos et gravibus peccatorum sarcinis oneratos peccatores appellare consuevit. Iudaei ergo propter legem superbientes, quasi per eam coerciti a peccatis, gentes quae sine fraeno legis erant, et ad peccandum pronae, peccatores vocabant. Eph. IV, 14: non circumferamur omni vento doctrinae, et cetera. Cum ergo dicat apostolus non ex gentibus peccatores, exponitur, id est, non sumus de numero peccatorum qui sunt inter gentiles, et cetera. But against this can be set the word of 1 John (1:8): “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.” Therefore, the Jews were sinners. I answer that it is one thing to sin and another to be a sinner. For the first names an act, but the second a readiness or habit of sinning. Hence Scripture is wont to call the impious and those loaded down with the heavy burden of sin, sinners. The Jews therefore, being haughty on account of the Law, and as it were, restrained from sin by it, called the Gentiles sinners, living as they were without the Laws’ restraint and being prone to sin: “Be no more carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Eph 4:14). When, therefore, the Apostle says, not of the Gentiles, sinners, he means we are not of that number of sinners that exist among the Gentiles. Consequenter cum dicit scientes autem quod non iustificatur homo, etc., ponit apostolorum conversationem, quae quidem non est in legalibus, sed in fide Christi. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo exprimit rationem apostolicae conversationis; secundo ponit ipsam apostolicam conversationem, ibi et nos in Christo, et cetera. Then when he says, But knowing that man is not justified by the works... he sets forth the apostles’ manner of life, which consists not in the works of the Law but in the faith of Christ. About this he does two things: First, he gives the reason for the apostles’ manner of life; Secondly, he sets forth their manner of life (v. 16): we also believe in Christ Jesus. Erat ergo apostolica conversatio in fide, et non in legalibus. Cuius ratio est, quia licet fuerimus Iudaei natura et in legalibus nutriti, tamen scientes pro certo, quod non iustificatur homo ex operibus legis, id est, per opera legalia, nisi per fidem Iesu Christi, ideo deserentes illa conversamur in praeceptis fidei. Rom. III, 28: arbitramur enim hominem iustificari per fidem sine operibus legis. Act. IV, 12: non est aliud nomen, et cetera. Therefore the apostolic life rested on the faith of Christ and not on the works of the Law. The reason for this is that although we were Jews by nature and were nourished in the works of the Law, yet knowing for certain that man is not justified by the works of the law, i.e., through the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, for that reason we have left the Law and are living according to the precepts of the faith: “For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the Law” (Rom 3:28); “For there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Sed contra, Rom. enim II, 13 dicitur: non enim auditores legis iusti sunt apud Deum, sed factores legis iustificabuntur, et cetera. Videtur ergo quod ex operibus legis iustificetur homo. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod iustificari potest dupliciter accipi, scilicet iustitiam exequi, et iustum fieri. Primo autem modo homo iustificatur, qui opera iustitiae facit. Non autem iustus fit aliquis nisi a Deo, per gratiam. Sciendum est ergo, quod opera legis quaedam erant moralia, quaedam vero caeremonialia. Moralia autem licet continerentur in lege, non tamen poterant proprie dici opera legis, cum ex naturali instinctu, et ex lege naturali homo inducatur ad illa. Sed caeremonialia dicuntur proprie opera legis. Quantumcumque ergo homo quoad executionem iustitiae ex moralibus iustificetur, et etiam ex caeremonialibus, inquantum servare ea est opus obedientiae, ut ad sacramenta pertineant, et sic accipitur secundum dictum apostoli ad Rom. II, 13. However, it is said in Romans (2:13): “For not the hearers of the law are just before God; but the doers of the law shall be justified.” Therefore, it seems that a man would be justified by the works of the Law. I answer that “to be justified” can be taken in two senses, namely, doing what is just, and being made just. But no one is made just save by God through grace. It should be known, therefore, that some works of the Law were moral and some ceremonial. The moral, although they were contained in the Law, could not, strictly speaking, be called “works of the Law,” for man is induced to them by natural instinct and by the natural law. But the ceremonial works are properly called the “works of the Law.” Therefore, to that extent is man justified by the moral laws—so far as the execution of justice is concerned—and also by the ceremonial laws that pertain to the sacraments, as their observance is a work of obedience. And this is the way it is taken in the word of the Apostle to the Romans (2:13). Quantum tamen ad iustum fieri, ex operibus legis non iustificari homo per haec videtur, quia sacramenta veteris legis non conferebant gratiam. Infra IV, 9: conversi estis ad egena elementa, id est, gratiam non conferentia, neque gratiam in se continentia. Sacramenta vero novae legis, licet sint elementa materialia, non tamen sunt elementa egena, quia in se gratiam continent, unde et iustificare possunt. Si qui autem in veteri lege iusti erant, non erant iusti ex operibus legis, sed solum ex fide Christi, quem Deus proposuit propitiatorem per fidem, ut dicitur Rom. III, 20. Unde et ipsa sacramenta veteris legis non fuerunt nisi quaedam protestationes fidei Christi, sicut et nostra sacramenta, sed differenter, quia illa sacramenta gratiam Christi configurabant quasi futuram; nostra autem sacramenta protestantur quasi continentia gratiam praesentem. Et ideo signanter dicit, quod ex operibus legis non iustificatur homo, nisi per fidem Iesu Christi, quia etsi olim aliqui servantes opera legis iustificarentur, non tamen hoc erat nisi per fidem Iesu Christi. But with respect to being made just by the works of the Law, a man does not seem to be justified by them, because the sacraments of the Old Law did not confer grace. How turn you again to the weak and needy elements? i.e., that neither confer grace nor contain grace in themselves. The sacraments of the New Law however, although they are material elements, are not needy elements; hence they can justify. Again, if there were any in the Old Law who were just, they were not made just by the works of the Law but only by the faith of Christ “Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith,” as is said in Romans (3:25). Hence the sacraments of the Old Law were certain protestations of the faith of Christ, just as our sacraments are, but not in the same way, because those sacraments were configured to the grace of Christ as to something that lay in the future; our sacraments, however, testify as things containing a grace that is present. Therefore, he says significantly, that it is not by the works of the law that we are justified, but by the faith of Christ, because, although some who observed the works of the Law in times past were made just, nevertheless, this was effected only by the faith of Jesus Christ. Ex hac autem scientia apostolorum quam habebant, quod iustificatio non est per operationem legis, sed per fidem Christi, concludit conversationem apostolorum eligentium fidem Christi et dimittentium opera legis. Unde sequitur et nos in Christo Iesu credimus, quia, ut dicitur Act. IV, 12, non est aliud nomen datum, et cetera. Unde sequitur ut iustificemur ex fide Christi. Rom. V, 1: iustificati ergo ex fide, et cetera. Et ne aliquis credat quod simul cum lege Christi opera legis iustificent, subiungit et non ex operibus legis. Rom. III, 28: arbitramur enim iustificari hominem per fidem, et cetera. From this knowledge which the apostles had, namely, that justification is not by the works of the Law but by the faith of Christ, he concludes to their manner of life, in which they chose the faith of Christ and gave up the works of the Law. Hence he adds, we also believe in Christ Jesus, because as is said in Acts (4:12): “There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.” Therefore he continued, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ. “Being justified, therefore, by faith, let us have peace with God” (Rom 5:1). But lest anyone suppose that the works of the Law along with the faith of Christ justify, he adds, and not by the works of the law: “For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the Law” (Rom 3:28). Ex hoc concludit principale intentum, dicens quod si apostoli, qui sunt naturaliter Iudaei, non quaerunt iustificari per opera legis, sed per fidem, quod non iustificatur omnis caro ex operibus legis, nec homo quicumque potest iustificari per opera legis. Sumitur enim hic caro pro homine, scilicet pars pro toto, sicut Is. XL: videbit omnis caro salutare Dei nostri. Dicens autem propter quod, etc., concludit quasi a maiori. Magis enim videtur naturale vel rationabile de Iudaeis, quod per opera legis, non per fidem, iustificarentur, quam alii; sed hoc non est: quare, et cetera. From this he derives his main proposition, saying that if the apostles, who are Jews by nature, do not seek to be justified by the works of the Law but by faith, then by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified, i.e., no man whatsoever can be justified by the works of the Law. For “flesh” is taken here to stand for “Man,” i.e., the part for the whole, as does “All flesh shall see the salvation of the Lord” (Is 40:5). Then by saying, because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified, he concludes, as it were, a fortiori. For it seems more natural or reasonable for the Jews, more than anyone else, to be justified by the works of the Law rather than by faith. But this is not the case Therefore...
CHAPTER 2
Lecture 5Postquam apostolus ostendit per conversationem apostolorum legalia non esse observanda, quod ipse dicebat, hic movet quaestionem in contrarium. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo movet quaestionem; secundo solvit eam, ibi absit, etc.; tertio solutionem eius manifestat, ibi ego enim per legem, et cetera. After proving by the apostles’ manner of life that the works of the Law ought not to be observed, the Apostle raises a question to the contrary. About this he does three things: First, he raises the question; Secondly, he solves it (v. 17): God forbid; Thirdly, he explains his solution (v. 19). Primum dupliciter potest exponi secundum Glossam. Primo sic: posset enim aliquis dicere quod apostoli deserentes legem, veniendo ad fidem Christi peccassent. Sed ex hoc apostolus introducit quasi quoddam inconveniens, scilicet Christum esse auctorem peccati, eo quod homines ad suam fidem vocat. Et hoc est quod dicit quod, id est sed, si nos apostoli quaerentes iustificari in ipso, id est, per ipsum, scilicet Christum, inventi sumus, id est, manifeste comprobemur, et ipsi apostoli peccatores propter legis dimissionem, numquid Christus est minister peccati? Id est, inducens nos ad peccandum qui nos a statu legis ad suam fidem vocavit? Infra IV, 4: factum sub lege, ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret, scilicet ab onere legis. The first point can be developed in two ways according to a Gloss. First, thus: Someone could say that the apostles sinned by abandoning the Law and turning to the faith of Christ. But the Apostle shows that this would lead to the following unwelcome conclusion, namely, that Christ is the author of sin in calling men to His faith. This is what he means when he says, But if, we apostles, while we seek to be justified in him, i.e., through Him, namely, Christ, are found, i.e., plainly proven to be sinners for leaving the Law, is Christ then the minister of sin? i.e., is He inducing us to sin, Who called us from the slavery of the Law to His faith? Made under the law that he might redeem them that were under the law (4:4), namely, from the burden of the Law. Respondet apostolus absit, quia magis est minister iustitiae. Rom. V, 19: per unius obedientiam iusti constituuntur multi. I Petr. II, 22: qui peccatum non fecit, et cetera. Et quod Christus non sit minister peccati abstrahens a lege veteri, patet, quia si ego ipse quae destruxi, scilicet superbiam gloriantem de lege, iterum reaedifico, volens redire ad gloriandum de lege, praevaricatorem meipsum constituo, resumens quae destruxi. II Petr. II, 22: canis reversus ad vomitum, et cetera. Ios. II: maledictus homo qui reaedificaverit Iericho. Dicit autem quae destruxi, non ipsam legem, ut Manichaei volunt, quia lex sancta est, Rom. VII, 12, sed superbiam de lege, de qua dicitur Rom. X, 3: quaerentes suam iustitiam statuere, et cetera. The Apostle answers, God forbid, because He is rather the minister of justice; “By the obedience of one, many shall be made just” (Rom 5:19); “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth” (1 Pet. 2:22). That Christ is not the minister of sin in leading one from the Old Law is plain, because if I myself, by wanting to glory once more in the Law, build up again the things I have destroyed, namely, my pride taking glory in the Law, I make myself a prevaricator in taking up what I destroyed: “The dog is returned to his vomit” (2 Pet. 2:22); “Cursed be the man that shall raise up and build the city of Jericho” (Jos. 6:26). He says, which I have destroyed, i.e., not the Law itself, as the Manicheans would have it, because the Law is holy (Rom 7:12), but pride in the Law, concerning which it is said in Romans (10:3): “For they, seeking to establish their own justice have not submitted themselves to the justice of God.” Si quis autem obiiciat quod cum ipse olim destruxerit fidem Christi, praevaricatorem se faciebat eam aedificans, patet responsio, quia fidem Christi conatus fuit quidem destruere, sed non praevaluit propter veritatem. Act. IX, v. 4: quid me persequeris? Durum est tibi, et cetera. Sed superbia legis vana erat, et ideo destrui poterat, et reaedificanda non erat. Now if someone were to object that since he formerly had wasted the faith of Christ, he makes himself a prevaricator by trying to build it up, the plain answer is that he did indeed try to destroy the faith of Christ, yet because of the truth he did not persist: “Why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goad” (Acts 9:4). But pride in the Law was vain and this pride could be destroyed, never again to be re-established. Secundo modo potest exponi, ut quod dicit inventi sumus et ipsi peccatores, referatur non ad dimissionem legis, sicut nunc expositum est, sed magis ad ipsam legis observantiam. Manifestum enim est quod quicumque quaerit iustificari, profitetur se non esse iustum, sed peccatorem. Est ergo sensus: si nos quaerentes iustificari in Christo, ex hoc ipso quod quaerimus nos iustificari, inventi sumus, id est, ratione comprobamur et ipsi peccatores fuisse, propter hoc quod legem observabamus, numquid Iesus Christus minister peccati est? Ut scilicet mandaverit homines post suam passionem legalia observare, quod sine peccato fieri non potest. Et attendendum est, quod haec expositio procedit secundum opinionem Hieronymi, qui ponebat statim post passionem Christi legalia fuisse mortifera. The second way in which it can be developed is to refer his statement, we ourselves are found sinners, not to their abandoning the Law, as in the first explanation, but to the observance of the Law. For it is plain that anyone who seeks to be made just does not profess himself to be just but a sinner. The sense, therefore, is this: if we, in seeking to be justified in Christ, are by the very fact of seeking to be justified found, i.e., reasonably proved, to have been sinners, because we observed the Law, is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin? i.e., commanding men to observe the works of the Law after His passion—something that cannot be done without sin? Note that this explanation harmonizes with Jerome’s opinion which posited that the legal justifications were deadly immediately after the passion of Christ. Tertio modo potest exponi, ut quod dicit inventi sumus et ipsi peccatores, pertineat quidem ad statum quo lex observabatur, non tamen quod ipsi offenderent propter legis observantiam, sed propter legis defectum, quae peccatum auferre non poterat, ut sit sensus: si quaerentes iustificari in ipso, inventi sumus et ipsi peccatores, id est, peccatum habentes, lege peccatum non auferente, secundum illud Rom. III, 9: causati sumus Iudaeos et Graecos omnes sub peccato esse, numquid Iesus Christus peccati minister est, ut reducat nos ad observantiam legis, in qua sub peccato eramus? Et haec expositio procedit secundum expositionem Augustini. It is possible to explain, we ourselves are found to be sinners, in a third way as referring, indeed, to the state in which the Law was observed; not that they offended by observing the Law, but that the Law is deficient and cannot remove sin. Hence the meaning is this: If in seeking to be justified in it, we ourselves are found to be sinners, i.e., still in our sins, because the Law does not remove sin—according to Romans (3:9): “For we have charged both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin”— Is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin, so as to bring us back to observing the Law in which we are under sin? This explanation accords with Augustine’s exposition. Et respondet, secundum utramque expositionem, absit, quia ego destruxi legem carnaliter intellectam, spiritualiter iudicando et docendo. Unde si iterum vellem aedificare carnalis legis observantias, essem praevaricator legis spiritualis. And he [Paul] answers to either explanation, God forbid, because I destroyed the Law understood carnally by judging and teaching it spiritually. Hence, if I should desire to re-establish the observances of the carnal law, I would be a prevaricator of the spiritual law. Potest et quarto modo sic exponi. Dixeram, hominem non iustificari ex operibus legis. Posset aliquis dicere, quod nec etiam per fidem Christi, quia multi post fidem Christi acceptam, peccant. Et hoc est quod dicit: si quaerentes iustificari in Christo, id est, per fidem Christi, inventi sumus post fidem Christi susceptam etiam ipsi nos fideles peccatores, id est, in peccatis viventes, numquid Iesus Christus minister peccati est et damnationis, sicut minister veteris legis est minister peccati et damnationis? Non quod lex induceret ad peccatum, sed occasionaliter, quia prohibebat peccatum, et non conferebat gratiam adiuvantem ad resistendum peccato. Unde dicitur Rom. VII, 8: occasione accepta, peccatum per mandatum, et cetera. Sed Christus dat gratiam adiuvantem. Io. I, v. 17: gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est. Unde nullo modo est minister peccati, nec directe, nec occasionaliter. Furthermore, it can be explained in a fourth way, thus: I had said that man is not justified by the works of the Law. But someone might say, “Nor by the faith of Christ either,” because many sin after embracing the faith of Christ. And this is what he says: If we, seeking to be justified in Christ, i.e., by the faith of Christ, are ourselves, who have become believers by embracing the faith of Christ, found to be sinners, i.e., living in sin, is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin and of damnation, as the minister of the Old Law is a minister of sin and damnation? Not that the Law led one into sin, but was its occasion, because it forbade sin and conferred no grace to help one resist sin. Hence it is said: “But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence” (Rom 7:8). But Christ gives a helping grace: “Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (in 1:17). Hence in no way is He the minister of sin, either directly or as its occasion.
CHAPTER 2
Lecture 6Hic apostolus solutionem superius assignatam manifestat. Et primo ponit solutionis manifestationem; secundo concludit principale intentum, ibi non abiicio gratiam Dei, et cetera. Sed attendendum est, quod apostolus inquirendo procedens, nullum dubium indiscussum relinquit. Et ideo verba eius licet videantur intricata, tamen si diligenter advertantur, nihil sine causa dicit, et hoc apparet in verbis propositis. Ubi tria facit: primo manifestat solutionem; secundo explicat solutionis manifestationem, ibi Christo confixus sum cruci, etc.; tertio removet dubitationem, ibi quod autem vivo, et cetera. Here the Apostle amplifies the solution given above. First, he explains the solution. Secondly, he concludes to his principal proposition (v. 21). It should be noted that the Apostle proceeds in a very thorough manner, leaving no doubt unexamined. Hence his words, although they seem involved, nevertheless, if they are carefully considered, say nothing without a purpose. This is plain from the words he uses. Therefore, he does three things: First, he manifests the solution; Secondly, he explains his manifestation of the solution; (v. 19): with Christ I am nailed to the cross; Thirdly, he settles the question (v. 20): That I live now in the flesh. Quia ergo apostolus dixerat si enim quae destruxi, etc., quod intelligitur de veteri lege, posset enim ab aliquo reputari legis destructor, et per consequens iniquus, secundum illud Ps. CXVIII, 126: dissipaverunt iniqui legem tuam, ideo apostolus vult ostendere quomodo legem destruat, et tamen non est iniquus, dicens ego enim per legem, et cetera. Ubi sciendum est, quod quando aliquis dissipat legem per ipsam legem, talis est praevaricator legis, non iniquus. Dissipatur autem lex per legem, quando in lege datur aliquod praeceptum locale seu temporale, ut scilicet lex illa tali tempore, seu tali loco servetur, et non alio, et hoc ipsum exprimatur in lege. Si quis tunc in illo tempore, seu in illo loco lege non utitur, destruit legem per ipsam legem, et hoc modo apostolus destruxit legem. Unde destruxi, inquit, quodammodo legem, tamen per legem, quia ego mortuus sum legi per legem, id est, per auctoritatem legis ipsam dimisi, quasi legi mortuus. Auctoritas enim legis, per quam mortuus est legi, in multis sacrae Scripturae locis habetur; Ier. XXXI, 31, tamen sub aliis verbis: confirmabo testamentum novum super domum Israel, etc.; Deut. XVIII, 15: prophetam suscitabit dominus de fratribus vestris, etc.; et multis aliis locis; non est ergo transgressor apostolus legem destruendo. Therefore, because the Apostle had said, For, if I build up again the things which I have destroyed, which is understood to refer to the Old Law, for one might regard him as a destroyer of the Law and consequently impious according to Psalm (118:126): “They have dissipated thy law,” for that reason the Apostle wishes to show how he destroys the Law without being impious, saying, For I, through the law, am dead to the law. Here it should be noted that when anyone destroys a law by means of the law itself, he is indeed a prevaricator of the law, but not impious. For a law is destroyed by means of the law when the law itself contains some local or temporary precept, such that the law should be observed for such a time or in such a place and no other, and this fact is expressed in the law. If someone, therefore, after that time or outside that place, does not use the law, he destroys the law by means of the law itself, and in this way the Apostle destroyed the Law. Hence he says: I somehow destroyed the Law, but by means of the Law; because through the Law I am dead to the Law, i.e., by the authority of the Law I have rejected the Law, as being dead to the Law. For the authority of the Law, through which he is dead to the Law, is cited in many places in Sacred Scripture. For example, although not in so many words, it is had in Jeremias (31:31): 1 will make a new covenant with the house of Israel”; “The Lord will raise up to thee a prophet of thy brethren like unto me” (Deut 18:15), and in many other places. Therefore the Apostle is not a destroyer of the Law in the sense of a transgressor of the Law. Vel aliter: ego per legem, scilicet spiritualem, mortuus sum legi carnali. Tunc enim moritur legi, quando abiicit legem solutus a lege. Iuxta illud Rom. VII, 2: mortuo viro, soluta est mulier a lege viri. Inquantum vero apostolus subiectus erat legi spirituali, dicit se mortuum legi, id est, solutum a legis observatione. Rom. VIII, 2: lex spiritus vitae, et cetera. Alius modus dimittendi legem sine praevaricatione esse potest, quia videlicet lex aliqua quando est scripta in charta, tunc dicitur lex mortua, et quando est in mente legislatoris, tunc dicitur lex viva. Constat autem, quod si aliquis secundum verbum legislatoris operaretur contra legem scriptam, et solveret legem, et solveretur a lege mortua, et servaret legem vivam secundum imperium legislatoris. Or else, I by the law spiritual am dead to the law carnal. For he dies to the Law when, being freed by the Law, he casts it aside, according to Romans (7:2): “If her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.” Now inasmuch as the Apostle was subject to the spiritual law, he says that he is dead to the Law, i.e., loosed from the observances of the Law: “For the law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin and of death” (Rom 8:2). Again there is another possible way of setting the law aside without prevarication, because, namely, a law, when it is written on a scroll is called a dead law, and when it is in the mind of the lawgiver it is called a living law. Now it is plain that if someone were to act according to the word of the lawgiver against the written law and break the law, he would both be set free of the dead law and be acting according to the command of the lawgiver. Dicit ergo, secundum hoc, mortuus sum legi scriptae et mortuae, id est solutus sum ab ea, ut Deo vivam, id est, motus meos secundum dicta ipsius dirigam, et ad honorem eius ordiner. Lex enim statuta in scriptis aliquid tradit propter extraneos, et eos qui ab eo verbotenus audire non possunt; sed his qui coram eo sunt, non dicit eam scriptis, sed verbo tantum. A principio enim homines infirmi erant, ad Deum accedere non valentes. Et ideo necesse fuit eis praecepta legis in scriptis dare, ut per legem quasi per paedagogum manu ducerentur ad hoc, quod ab eo praecepta eius audirent, secundum quod dicitur infra III, 24: lex paedagogus noster fuit in Christo, et cetera. Sed postquam habemus accessum ad patrem per Christum, ut dicitur Rom. V, 2, non instruimur per legem de mandatis Dei, sed ab ipso Deo. Et ideo dicit: per legem manuducentem mortuus sum legi scriptae, ut vivam Deo, scilicet ipsi factori legis, id est, ut ab ipso instruar et dirigar. He says, therefore, along these lines, I am dead to the law, which is written and dead, i.e., I am loosed from it that I may live to God, i.e., that I may guide my movements according to His precepts and be ordained to His honor. For a law that has been passed does, indeed, hand down something in writing on account of those outside and of those who cannot hear the words spoken by the lawgiver; but for those in his presence he does not lay it down in writing but in words alone. For in the beginning, men were weak and unable to approach unto God; hence it was necessary for the precepts of the Law to be given to them in writing, so that by the Law, as by a pedagogue, they might be led by the hand to the point where they might hear the things He commands, according to the words given below: the law was our pedagogue in Christ, that we might be justified by faith (3:24). But after we have access to the Father through Christ, as is said in Romans (5:2), we are not instructed about the commands of God through the Law, but by God Himself. Hence he says: Through the Law leading me by the hand I have died to the written law, in order that I may live unto God, i.e., to the maker of the Law, i.e., to be instructed and directed by Him. Consequenter cum dicit Christo confixus sum, etc., explicat quae dixit. Dixerat autem quod est mortuus legi, et quod vivit Deo. Et ista duo manifestat. Et primo quod sit mortuus legi, per hoc quod dicit Christo confixus sum cruci; secundo quod vivit Deo, cum dicit vivo ego, iam non ego, et cetera. Then when he says, with Christ I am nailed to the cross, he amplifies what he said. Now he had said that he died to the Law and lives unto God. Hence he explains these two things: First, that he died to the Law, he explains by saying that with Christ I am nailed to the cross; Secondly, that he lives unto God, when he says (v. 20): I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me. Et primum quidem potest exponi dupliciter. Uno modo sicut in Glossa, sic: quilibet homo secundum carnalem originem nascitur filius irae, Eph. II, 3: eramus enim natura filii irae, et cetera. Nascitur etiam in vetustate peccati, Bar. III, 11: inveterasti in terra aliena, et cetera. Quae quidem vetustas peccati tollitur per crucem Christi, et confertur novitas vitae spiritualis. Dicit ergo apostolus Christo confixus sum cruci, id est, concupiscentia seu fomes peccati, et omne huiusmodi, mortuum est in me per crucem Christi. Rom. VI, 6: vetus homo noster simul crucifixus est, et cetera. Item ex quo cum Christo confixus sum cruci, et mortuus sum peccato, et Christus resurrexit, cum resurgente etiam resurrexi. Rom. IV, 25: traditus est, et cetera. Sic ergo Christus in nobis renovat vitam novam, destructa vetustate peccati. Et ideo dicit vivo autem, id est, quia Christo confixus sum cruci, vigorem bene operandi habeo, iam non ego secundum carnem, quia iam non habeo vetustatem quam prius habui, sed vivit in me Christus, id est, novitas, quae per Christum nobis data est. The first point can be explained in two ways. In one way, as in a Gloss, thus: every man according to carnal origin is born a child of wrath: “By nature we were children of wrath, even as the rest, (Eph 2:3). He is also born in the oldness of sin: “Thou art grown old in a strange country” (Bar. 3:11). This oldness of sin is removed by the cross of Christ, and the newness of spiritual life is conferred. Therefore the Apostle says, with Christ I am nailed to the cross, i.e., concupiscence or the inclination to sin, and all such have been put to death in me through the cross of Christ: “Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin may be destroyed” (Rom 6:6). Also from the fact that I am crucified with Christ and have died to sin; and because Christ rose again, I, too, have risen with Him rising: “Who was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification” (Rom 4:25). Thus, therefore, does Christ beget a new life in us, after the oldness of sin has been destroyed. Hence he says, And I live, i.e., because I am nailed to the cross of Christ, I have the strength to act well, now not I according to the flesh, because I no longer have the oldness which I formerly had, but Christ liveth in me, i.e., the newness which has been given to us through Christ. Vel aliter: homo quantum ad illud dicitur vivere, in quo principaliter firmat suum affectum, et in quo maxime delectatur. Unde et homines qui in studio seu in venationibus maxime delectantur, dicunt hoc eorum vitam esse. Quilibet autem homo habet quemdam privatum affectum, quo quaerit quod suum est; dum ergo aliquis vivit quaerens tantum quod suum est, soli sibi vivit, cum vero quaerit bona aliorum, dicitur etiam illis vivere. Quia ergo apostolus proprium affectum deposuerat per crucem Christi, dicebat se mortuum proprio affectui, dicens Christo confixus sum cruci, id est, per crucem Christi remotus est a me proprius affectus sive privatus. Unde dicebat infra ult.: mihi absit gloriari nisi in cruce domini nostri, etc., II Cor. V, 14 s.: si unus pro omnibus mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt. Et pro omnibus mortuus est Christus, ut et qui vivunt iam non sibi vivant, sed ei, et cetera. Vivo autem, id est, iam non vivo ego, quasi in affectu habens proprium bonum, sed vivit in me Christus, id est tantum Christum habeo in affectu, et ipse Christus est vita mea. Phil. I, 21: mihi vivere Christus est, et mori lucrum. Or, in another way: a man is said to live according to that in which he chiefly puts his affection and in which he is mainly delighted. Hence men who take their greatest pleasure in study or in hunting say that this is their life. However, each man has his own private interest by which he seeks that which is his own. Therefore, when someone lives seeking only what is his own, he lives only unto himself; but when he seeks the good of others, he is said to live for them. Accordingly, because the Apostle had set aside his love of self through the cross of Christ, he said that be was dead so far as love of self was concerned, declaring that with Christ I am nailed to the cross, i.e., through the cross of Christ my own private love has been removed from me. Hence he says God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ (6:14): “If one died for all, then all were dead. And Christ died for all, that they also who live may not now live to themselves, but unto him who died for them” (2 Cor 5:14). And I live, now not 1, i.e., I no longer live as though having any interest in my own good, but Christ liveth in me, i.e., I have Christ alone in my affection and Christ Himself is my life: “To me, to live is Christ; and to die is gain” (Phil 1:21). Consequenter autem cum dicit quod autem nunc vivo, etc., respondet dubitationi quae poterat esse duplex ex praemisso verbo. Una est quomodo ipse vivit, et non est ille, scilicet qui vivit; secunda quomodo confixus est cruci. Et ideo haec duo aperit. Et primo primum, quomodo scilicet vivit, et non ipse vivit, dicens quod autem nunc vivo, et cetera. Ubi notandum est, quod illa proprie dicuntur vivere, quae moventur a principio intrinseco. Anima autem Pauli constituta erat inter Deum et corpus, et corpus quidem vivificabatur et movebatur ab anima Pauli, sed anima eius a Christo. Quantum ergo ad vitam carnis vivebat ipse Paulus, et hoc est quod dicit quod autem nunc vivo in carne, id est, vita carnis; sed quantum ad relationem ad Deum, Christus vivebat in Paulo, et ideo dicit in fide vivo filii Dei, per quam habitat in me et movet me. Hab. II, 4: iustus autem meus ex fide vivit. Et nota quod dicit, in carne, non ex carne, quia hoc malum est. Then when he says, And that I live now in the flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God, he answers a twofold difficulty that might arise from his words. One is how he lives and yet it is not he who lives; the second is how he is nailed to the cross. Therefore he clears up these two points. First of all, the first one, namely, how he lives and yet it is not he who lives. He answers this when he says And that I live now in the flesh I live in the faith of the Son of God. Here it should be noted that, strictly speaking, those things are said to live which are moved by an inner principle. Now the soul of Paul was set between his body and God; the body, indeed, was vivified and moved by the soul of Paul, but his soul by Christ. Hence as to the life of the flesh, Paul himself lived and this is what he says, namely, and that I live now in the flesh, i.e., by the life of the flesh; but as to his relation to God, Christ lived in Paul. Therefore he says, I live in the faith of the Son of God through which He dwells in me and moves me: “But the just shall live in his faith” (Hab. 2:4). And note that he says in the flesh, not “by the flesh,” because this is evil. Secundo ostendit quod confixus est cruci, dicens: quia amor Christi quem ostendit mihi in cruce moriens pro me, facit ut semper ei configar. Et hoc est quod dicit qui dilexit me. I Io. IV, 10: ipse prior dilexit nos. Et intantum dilexit me, quod tradidit semetipsum pro me, et non aliud sacrificium. Apoc. I, 5: dilexit nos, et lavit nos a peccatis nostris in sanguine suo. Eph. c. V, 25: sicut Christus dilexit Ecclesiam, et semetipsum tradidit pro ea, et cetera. Secondly, he shows that he is nailed to the cross, saying: Because the love of Christ, which He showed to me in dying on the cross for me, brings it about that I am always nailed with Him. And this is what he says, who loved me: “He first loved us” (I Jn 4:10). And He loved me to the extent of giving himself and not some other sacrifice for me: “He loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood” (Rev 1:5); “As Christ loved the church and delivered himself up for it, that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life” (Eph 5:25). Sed attendendum est, quod ipse filius tradidit se, et pater tradidit filium, Rom. VIII, v. 32: qui proprio filio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit illum; et Iudas tradidit eum, ut dicitur Matth. XXVI, 48: et totum una res est, sed non una intentio, quia pater ex charitate, filius ex obedientia simul et cum charitate, Iudas vero ex cupiditate et proditorie. But it should be noted that the Son delivered Himself, and the Father His Son: “He spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us” (Rom 8:32). Judas, too, delivered Him up, as is said in Matthew (26:48). It is all one event, but the intention is not the same, because the Father did so out of love, the Son out of obedience along with love, but Judas out of avarice and treachery. Consequenter cum dicit non abiicio gratiam Dei, infert conclusionem principalem. Et primo inducit conclusionem; secundo manifestat modum. Dicit ergo: ex quo tantam gratiam recepi a Deo quod tradidit se, et ego vivo in fide filii Dei, non abiicio gratiam filii Dei, id est, non repudio, nec ingratum me exhibeo. I Cor. XV, 10: gratia Dei in me vacua non fuit, et cetera. Unde et alia littera habet. Non sum ingratus gratiae Dei (Hebr. XII, 15: contemplantes ne quis desit gratiae Dei), scilicet per ingratitudinem se indignum fatendo. Then when he says, I cast not away the grace of God, he draws the principal conclusion. First, he draws the conclusion; secondly, he explains it. He says, therefore: Because I have received from God so great a grace that He delivered Himself, and I live in the faith of the Son of God, I cast not away the grace of God, i.e., I do not repudiate it or show myself ungrateful: “The grace of God in me hath not been void, but I have labored more abundantly than all they” (1 Cor 15:10). Hence another version has, I am not ungrateful for the grace of God.” “Looking diligently lest any man be wanting to the grace of God” (Heb 12:15), i.e., by showing myself unworthy because of ingratitude. Modus autem abiiciendi et ingratitudinis est, si dicerem quod lex esset necessaria ad iustificandum. Et ideo dicit si enim per legem iustitia, ergo Christus gratis est mortuus, id est, si sufficiens sit lex, id est, opera legis sufficiunt ad iustificandum hominem, Christus sine causa mortuus est, et frustra, quia ad hoc mortuus est, ut nos iustificaret. I Petr. III, 18: Christus semel pro peccatis nostris mortuus est, et cetera. Quod si hoc per legem fieri posset, superflua fuisset Christi mors. Sed non gratis mortuus, nec in vacuum laboravit, ut dicitur Is. c. XLIX, 4, quia per ipsum solum gratia iustificans et veritas facta est, ut dicitur Io. I, 17. Si qui ante passionem Christi iusti fuerunt, hoc etiam fuit per fidem Christi venturi, in quem credebant, et in cuius fide salvabantur. A form of repudiation and of ingratitude would exist, if I were to say that the Law is necessary in order to be justified. Hence he says, For if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain, i.e., if the Law is sufficient, i.e., if the works of the Law suffice to justify a man, Christ died to no purpose and in vain, because He died in order to make us just: “Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust, that he might offer us to God” (1 Pet. 3:18). Now if this could have been done through the Law, the death of Christ would have been superfluous. But He did not die in vain or labor to no purpose, as it is said in Isaiah (49:4); because through Him alone came justifying grace and truth, as it is said in John (1:17). Therefore, if any were just before the passion of Christ, this too was through the faith of Christ to come, in Whom they believed and in Whose faith they were saved.
CHAPTER 3
Lecture 1Supra confutavit apostolus vanitatem et mutabilitatem Galatarum per auctoritatem evangelicae doctrinae, ostendens suam doctrinam authenticam fuisse ab aliis apostolis, hic vero per rationem et auctoritatem ostendit hoc idem, scilicet quod legalia non sunt servanda. Et hoc dupliciter. Primo ex insufficientia legis; secundo ex dignitate eorum qui ad Christum conversi sunt; et hoc IV cap., ibi dico autem: quanto tempore, et cetera. Above, the Apostle reproved the Galatians for their vanity and fickleness on the authority of the Gospel teaching by showing that his doctrine was approved by the other apostles. Now through reason and authority he proves the same thing, namely, that the works of the Law must not be observed. This he does in two ways: First, from the insufficiency of the Law; Secondly, from the dignity of those who have been converted to Christ (4:1). Circa primum duo facit. Primo praemittit obiurgationem; secundo prosequitur suam probationem, ibi hoc solum a vobis volo, et cetera. Concerning the first he does two things: First, he utters the rebuke; Secondly, he begins his proof (v. 2). Circa primum duo facit: primo obiurgat eos, ostendens eorum fatuitatem; secundo rationem obiurgationis assignat, ibi ante quorum oculos, et cetera. As to the first, he does two things: First, he rebukes them by showing that they are foolish; Secondly, he gives the reason for his rebuke (v. 1): before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been set forth. Primo ergo eos de fatuitate obiurgat, vocans eos insensatos. Unde dicit o insensati, et cetera. Insensatus autem proprie dicitur qui sensu caret. Sensus autem spiritualis est cognitio veritatis; qui ergo veritate caret, proprie insensatus dicitur. Matth. V: et vos sine intellectu estis. Sap. V, 4: nos insensati vitam istorum, et cetera. First, therefore, he chides them for their folly, calling them senseless. Hence he says, O senseless Galatians. Now “senseless” is properly said of one who lacks sense. But the spiritual sense is knowledge of the truth. Hence anyone who lacks the truth is appropriately called senseless: “Are you also yet without understanding?” (Mt 15:16); “We fools esteemed their life madness” (Wis 5:4). Sed contra, Matth. V, 22 dicitur: qui dixerit fratri suo: fatue, etc.; sed fatuus idem est quod insensatus; ergo apostolus reus est Gehennae ignis. Sed dicendum est, ut Augustinus dicit, quod intelligendum est si dixerit sine causa, et animo vituperandi; sed apostolus ex causa dixit, et animo corrigendi. Unde dicitur in Glossa hoc dolendo dicit. But against this, it is said in Matthew (5:22): “Whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire.” Now a fool is the same as senseless. Therefore, the Apostle was in danger of hell-fire. But it must be said, as Augustine suggests, that this applies if it is said without reason and with the intention to disparage. But the Apostle said it with reason and with an intention to correct. Hence a Gloss says: “He says this in sorrow.” Secundo cum dicit quis vos fascinavit, etc., ostendit modum quo insensati erant effecti. Ubi primo notandum est, quod insensatus fit aliquis multis modis. Vel quia non proponitur sibi aliqua veritas quam cognoscere possit; vel quia etsi proponatur sibi, tamen numquam eam acceptat; vel quia veritatem propositam et acceptam deserit, a via veritatis recedens; et tales erant isti Galatae, qui veritatem fidei quam acceperant deserentes, veritatem propositam renuerunt. Supra I, 6: miror quod sic tam cito, et cetera. Et ideo istum gradum insensationis in eis reprehendit, dicens quis vos fascinavit, et cetera. Secondly, when he says, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, he shows how they had become senseless. Here it is to be noted, first of all, that someone becomes senseless in a number of ways: either because some truth he could know is not proposed to him; or because he departs from a truth that had been proposed and accepted, as when he abandons the way of truth. Such were these Galatians who rejected the truth proposed to them and abandoned the truth of the faith they had accepted: I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel (1:6). This, therefore, is the type of senselessness for which he chides them when he says: who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth ? Ad sciendum autem quid sit fascinatio, sciendum est, quod secundum Glossam fascinatio proprie dicitur ludificatio sensus, quae per artes magicas fieri consuevit; puta cum hominem facit aspectibus aliorum apparere leonem vel cornutum, et huiusmodi. Et hoc etiam per Daemones potest fieri, qui habent potestatem movendi phantasmata, et reducendi ad principia sensuum, ipsos sensus immutando. Et secundum hanc acceptionem satis proprie dicit apostolus quis vos fascinavit? Quasi dicat: vos estis sicut homo ludificatus, qui res manifestas aliter accipit, quam sint in rei veritate: quia scilicet vos estis ludificati per deceptiones et sophismata, veritati non obedire, id est, veritatem manifestam, et a vobis receptam non videtis, nec obediendo recipitis. Sap. IV, 12: fascinatio nugacitatis obscurat bona. Is. V, 20: vae qui dicunt bonum malum, et cetera. Alio modo accipitur fascinatio secundum quod aliquis ex aspectu malevolo laeditur, et hoc maxime in vetulis quae visu urenti et aspectu invido fascinant pueros, qui ex hoc infirmantur et vomunt cibum. To understand what bewitchment is, it should be noted that according to a Gloss, bewitchment is, properly speaking, a sense delusion usually produced by magical arts; for example, to make a man appear to onlookers as a lion or as having horns. This can also be brought about by demons who have the power to set phantasms in motion as well as to produce in the senses the very alterations that real objects are wont to produce. According to this acceptation the Apostle asks, appropriately enough, who hath bewitched you? As if to say: You are as deluded men who take obvious things to be other than they are in very fact, namely, because you are deluded by artifices and sophisms, not to obey the truth, i.e., you neither see the obvious truth received by you nor embrace it by obeying it: “For the bewitching of vanity obscureth good things” (Wis 4:12); “Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil” (Is 5:20). In another way bewitchment is taken to mean that someone is harmed by an evil look, particularly when cast by sorcerers whose inflamed eyes and hostile glance cast a spell on boys who grow faint from it and vomit their food. Huius causam volens assignare Avicenna in libro suo de anima dicit, quod materia corporalis obedit substantiae intellectuali, magis quam qualitatibus activis et passivis in natura. Et ideo ponit quod ad apprehensionem substantiarum intellectualium (quas vocat animas seu motores orbium) multa fiunt praeter ordinem motus caeli et omnium corporalium agentium. Eodem modo dicit, quod quando anima sancta depurata est ab affectibus terrenorum, et a carnalibus vitiis, accedit ad similitudinem substantiarum dictarum, et obedit ei natura. Et hinc est quod aliqui sancti viri operantur quaedam mira praeter naturae cursum; et similiter quia anima alicuius foedata passionibus carnalibus, habet fortem apprehensionem in malitia, obedit ei natura ad transmutationem materiae, in illis maxime in quibus materia habilis est: sicut in pueris teneris contingit. Et sic contingit, secundum eum, quod ex forti apprehensione vetularum, in malitiam immutatur puer et fascinatur. Haec autem positio satis videtur vera secundum opinionem Avicennae. Nam ipse posuit formas omnes corporales in istis inferioribus influi a substantiis incorporalibus separatis, et quod agentia naturalia non habent se ad hoc nisi ut disponentia tantum. Avicenna, attempting to explain this phenomenon in his book On the Soul, says that corporeal matter obeys an intellectual substance more than it obeys the active and passive qualities at work in nature. Accordingly, he supposes that through the mental activity of intellectual substance (which he calls the souls or movers of the heavenly spheres) many things occur outside the order of heavenly movements and of all corporeal forces. Along the same lines he says that when a holy soul is purged of all earthly affection and carnal vice, it acquires a likeness to the aforesaid substances, so that nature obeys it. This is why certain holy men achieve marvels that transcend the course of nature. In like manner, because the soul of someone defiled by carnal passions has a vigorous apprehension of malice, nature obeys it to the point of affecting matter, particularly in those in whom the matter is pliant, as in the case of tender children. Thus does it happen, according to him, that from the vigorous apprehension exercised by sorcerers a child can be evilly affected and bewitched. This position seems to be true enough according to Avicenna’s tenets. For he postulates that all material forms in sublunar bodies are influenced by the separated incorporeal substances and that natural agents can be no more than dispositive causes in such matter. Sed hoc quidem improbatur a philosopho. Agens enim oportet esse simile subiecto. Non fit autem forma tantum, nec materia, sed compositum ex materia et forma. Id ergo quod agit ad esse corporalium, oportet quod habeat materiam et formam. Unde dicit quod transmutare materiam et formam non potest, nisi id quod habet materiam et formam, et hoc quidem vel virtute, sicut Deus, qui actor est formae et materiae: vel actu, sicut agens corporeum. Et ideo materia corporalis quantum ad huiusmodi formas, nec Angelis, nec alicui purae creaturae obedit ad nutum, sed soli Deo, ut Augustinus dicit. Unde non est verum quod Avicenna dicit de huiusmodi fascinatione. However, this is disproved by the Philosopher. For an agent should be similar to what is subject to it. Now what comes into existence is not a form alone or matter alone but the composite of matter and form. Consequently, that which acts to produce the existence of corporeal things ought to have matter and form. Therefore he says that the only thing which can cause changes of matter and form is something that itself has matter and form either virtually, as God, who is the maker of form and matter, or actually, as a bodily agent. Therefore with respect to forms of this kind corporeal matter obeys the nod neither of angels nor of any mere creature but of God alone, as Augustine says. Hence what Avicenna says about this matter of bewitchment is not true. Et ideo dicendum, quod ad imaginationem seu apprehensionem hominis, quando fortis est, immutatur sensus, seu appetitus sensitivus: quae quidem immutatio non est sine alteratione corporis et spirituum corporis, sicut nos videmus quod ad apprehensionem delectabilis movetur appetitus sensitivus ad concupiscentiam, et exinde corpus calefit. Similiter ex apprehensione timendi, frigescit. Immutatio autem spirituum maxime inficit oculos, qui infecti rem per aspectum inficiunt, sicut patet in speculo mundo, quod ex aspectu menstruatae inficitur. Sic ergo quia vetulae obstinatae in malitia et durae sunt, ex forti apprehensione immutatur appetitus sensitivus, et ex hoc, sicut dictum est, infectio maxime fit a venis ad oculos, et ex oculis ad rem perspectam. Unde quia caro pueri mollis est, ad earum invidum aspectum inficitur et fascinatur. Et quandoque quidem ad hunc effectum Daemones operantur. Therefore it is better to say that when a man’s act of imagining or apprehending is strong, the sense is affected or at least the sense appetite Is Now such as affection does not occur without some alteration taking place in the body and the bodily spirits; as, for example, we see that when something pleasant is apprehended, the sense appetite is moved to desire and as a result the body becomes warm. Similarly, as a result of apprehending something horrible, the body grows cold. When the spirits are thus moved they mainly infect the eyes, which in turn infect certain things through their glance, as is plain in the case of a clean mirror that becomes defiled when looked into by a woman in her monthly purification. Therefore because sorcerers are obstinate and hardened in evil, their sense appetite is affected by the vigor of their apprehension; as a result, as has been said, the infection moves from the veins to the eyes and thence to the object upon which they look. Accordingly, because the flesh of children is soft, it is influenced and charmed by their hostile glance. And demons, too, can sometimes produce this effect. Dicit ergo quis vos fascinavit veritati non obedire? Quasi dicat: vos aliquando obedistis veritati fidei, sed modo non; ergo estis sicut pueri, qui ex aliquo invido aspectu infecti, cibum receptum vomitis. He says, therefore, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth? As if to say: You once obeyed the truth of the faith, but now you do not. Therefore, you are as children infected by some hostile glance who vomit the food they have eaten. Rationem autem obiurgationis assignat, dicens ante quorum oculos, et cetera. Quod potest tripliciter legi. Uno modo, secundum Hieronymum, ut respondeat primae acceptioni fascinationis; quasi dicat: dico vos fascinatos, quia ante quorum oculos, etc., id est proscriptio Christi, qui damnatus est in mortem, adeo vobis manifesta fuit, ac si ante oculos vestros fuisset, et in vobis crucifixus, id est, in intellectibus vestris erat crucifixio Iesu Christi, ita ut sciretis qualiter facta esset; unde si eam non videtis modo, nec obeditis, hoc contingit, quia estis ludificati et fascinati. Contra quod dicitur Cant. ult.: pone me ut signaculum super cor tuum, et cetera. Then he tells why he rebukes them, when he says, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been set forth, crucified among you. This can be interpreted in three ways. One way, Jerome’s, corresponds to the first meaning of “bewitchment”; as if he says: I say that you are bewitched, because before your eyes Christ hath been set forth, i.e., the outlawing of Christ, Who was condemned to death, is as vivid to your eyes as if it were being enacted before your eyes and He was being crucified among you, i.e., the crucifixion of Christ was as clear in your understanding as though it were taking place there. Hence, if you no longer see it, it is because you have been deluded and bewitched. Against such a change of heart, it is said in the Canticle (8:6): “Put me as a seal upon thy heart, as a seal upon thy arm.” Alio modo secundum Augustinum; quasi dicat: recte fascinati estis, quia veritatem quam recepistis, scilicet Christum, per fidem, in cordibus vestris evomitis sicut pueri. Et hoc quia ante oculos vestros, id est, in vestra praesentia, Iesus Christus proscriptus est, id est, expellitur et eiicitur de haereditate sua, quod molestum deberet esse vobis; quia quem non deberetis pati quod ab aliis proscriberetur, et expelleretur, in vobis proscriptus est, id est, haereditatem suam amisit in vobis, id est, vosipsos. Et tunc hoc quod sequitur, scilicet crucifixus, legi debet cum pondere et ostensione doloris, quia hoc addidit, ut considerarent quo pretio Christus emerit possessionem, quam in eis amittebat, et ex hoc moverentur magis. Quasi dicat: Christus proscriptus est in vobis, scilicet qui crucifixus, id est, qui cruce sua et sanguine proprio acquisivit hanc haereditatem. I Cor. VI, 20: empti enim estis pretio magno, et cetera. I Petr. I, 18: non corruptibilibus auro vel argento, et cetera. Another way, Augustine’s, is as if he said: You are justifiably bewitched, because as children, you vomit out the truth you have received, namely, Christ by faith in your hearts. And you do this because before your eyes, i.e., in your presence, Jesus Christ is outlawed, i.e., expelled and refused His inheritance. This should trouble you, because the very one whom you should not allow to be outlawed and expelled by others has been outlawed among you, i.e., has lost His inheritance, namely, yourselves, among you. Then that which follows, namely, crucified, should be read “with a heavy burden and obvious pain,” because he adds this to make them consider the great price Christ paid for the inheritance He lost among them, and thus move them more deeply. As if to say: Christ has been outlawed among you, He Who was crucified, i.e., Who with His cross and His own blood purchased this inheritance: “You are bought with a great price” (1 Cor 6:20); “Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, as gold or silver, from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled” (1 Pet. 1:18). Tertio modo secundum Ambrosium, quasi dicat: vere fascinati estis, ante quorum oculos, id est, in quorum reputatione, scilicet secundum iudicium vestrum, Iesus Christus proscriptus est, id est, damnatus, non alios salvans. Et in vobis, id est, secundum quod vos intelligitis, crucifixus est, id est, mortuus tantum, non autem alios iustificans, cum tamen de eo dicatur, II Cor. c. ult., quod si mortuus est ex infirmitate nostra, vivit tamen ex virtute Dei. The third way, Ambrose’s, is as though he says: Yes, you are bewitched, you, before whose eyes, i.e., in whose opinion, namely, according to your judgment, Jesus Christ is outlawed, i.e., condemned without saving others. And among you, i.e., so far as you understand, He was crucified, i.e., merely died, but justified no one in spite of the fact that it is said of Him, “Although he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God” (2 Cor 13:4). Potest, et quarto modo, exponi secundum Glossam, ut per hoc designet apostolus gravitatem culpae eorum, quia in hoc quod Christum deserunt legem observantes, aequaliter quodammodo peccabant Pilato, qui Christum proscripsit, id est, damnavit. Ut dum insufficientem Christum credunt ad salvandum, similes in peccando crucifixoribus Christi sint, qui ipsum in ligno suspenderunt, morte turpissima condemnantes et afficientes. Aequalitas tamen est accipienda ex parte eius, in quem peccatur, quia in Christum Galatae peccabant, sicut Pilatus et crucifixores Christi. It can be explained also in a fourth way according to a Gloss to the effect that by these words the Apostle proclaims the gravity of their guilt, because in deserting Christ by observing the Law, they sin somewhat on a par with Pilate who outlawed Christ, i.e., condemned him. For in believing that Christ does not suffice to save them, they are made to be sinners similar to Christ’s executioners who hung Him on the cross, condemning Him to a most shameful death and killing Him. The parity is taken on the side of the one against whom they sinned, because the Galatians sinned against Christ Jesus as did Pilate and those who crucified Christ.
CHAPTER 3
Lecture 2Posita obiurgatione, consequenter apostolus procedit ad insufficientiam legis et virtutem fidei ostendendam. Et primo ostendit insufficientiam legis; secundo movet quaestionem et solvit, ibi quid igitur lex, et cetera. Having given his rebuke, the Apostle goes on to show the insufficiency of the Law, and the power of the faith. First, he proves the insufficiency of the Law; Secondly, he raises a question and answers it (v. 19). Et circa primum duo facit. Primo probat defectum legis et insufficientiam per ea quae ipsi experti sunt; secundo per auctoritates et rationes, ibi sicut scriptum est. Concerning the first, he does two things: First, he proves the deficiency and insufficiency of the Law by appealing to what they experienced; Secondly, by authority and reasons (v. 6). Circa primum duo facit, quia primo probat propositum, experimento sumpto ex parte ipsorum; secundo probat idem, experimento sumpto ex parte ipsius apostoli, ibi qui ergo tribuit vobis, et cetera. As to the first, he does two things: First, he proves his proposition by appealing to something they experienced; Secondly, by using something he himself experienced (v. 5). Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit donum quod receperunt; secundo defectum in quem inciderunt, ibi sic stulti estis, et cetera. With respect to the first, he does two things: First, he discusses the gift they have received; Secondly, the defect into which they have fallen (v. 3). Donum autem quod receperunt ostendit, quaerendo ab eis unde illud receperunt. Unde susceptum donum supponens, interrogans, quaerit ab eis, dicens: quamvis fascinati et stulti sitis, tamen non tantum estis ludificati quin unum quod valde manifestum est, me docere possitis. Et ideo solum hoc volo a vobis discere, quia hoc solum sufficit ad probandum quod intendo: hoc, inquam, est, quia constat, quod spiritum sanctum accepistis; quaero ergo an accepistis illum ex operibus legis, an ex auditu fidei? He discusses the gift they received by asking them from whom they received it. Hence, presupposing that they accepted the gift, he interrogates them and asks: Although you have been bewitched and are foolish, nevertheless you are not so deluded that you cannot explain to me something very obvious. Hence he says, This only would I learn of you, because this by itself is enough to prove my point; namely, it is evident that you have received the Holy Spirit. I ask, therefore, Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith? Ad quod sciendum est, quod in primitiva Ecclesia, ex divina dispositione, ut fides Christi promoveretur et cresceret, statim post praedicationem fidei ab apostolis manifesta signa spiritus sancti fiebant super audientes. Unde de Petro dicitur Act. X, 44: adhuc loquente Petro verba haec, cecidit spiritus sanctus, et cetera. Ipsi etiam Galatae ad praedicationem Pauli manifeste spiritum sanctum acceperant. Quaerit ergo apostolus ab eis, unde habuerunt spiritum sanctum. Constat autem quod non per opera legis, quia cum essent gentiles, ante receptionem spiritus sancti legem non habebant; ergo habuerunt spiritum sanctum, id est, dona spiritus sancti ex auditu fidei. Rom. VIII, 15: non accepistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore, qui scilicet dabatur in lege (unde et cum tremore lex data est), sed accepistis spiritum filiorum, qui datur per fidem, quae est ex auditu, ut dicitur Rom. X, 17. Si ergo hoc potuit fidei virtus, frustra quaeritur aliud per quod salvemur, quia multo difficilius est de iniusto facere iustum, quam iustum in iustitia conservare. Si ergo fides de iniustis Galatis sine lege iustos fecerat, non est dubium, quod sine lege poterat eos in iustitia conservare. Magnum ergo erat donum, quod per fidem acceperant. To elucidate this, it should be noted that in the early Church, by God’s providence, in order that the faith of Christ might prosper and grow, manifest signs of the Holy Spirit took place in the hearers immediately after the apostles preached the faith. Accordingly, it is said of Peter in Acts (10:44): “While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word.” The Galatians, too, openly received the Holy Spirit at Paul’s preaching. The Apostle therefore asks them: Whence did they obtain the Holy Spirit? For it is obvious that it was not through the works of the Law, because, since they were Gentiles, they did not have the Law before they received the Holy Spirit. Therefore they had the Holy Spirit, i.e., the gifts of the Holy Spirit, by the hearing of faith: “For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear,” which was given in the Law (for the Law was given amid tremors), “but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons,” (Rom 8:17). Therefore, if the power of the faith could do this, it is vain to seek something else by which we are saved, because it is more difficult to make the unjust just than to preserve the just in their justice. Hence if the faith had made the unjust Gentiles just without the Law, no doubt it could without the Law keep them just. Great, therefore, was the gift they had received through faith. Consequenter cum dicit sic stulti estis, etc., ostendit defectum in quem prolapsi sunt. Et exaggerat duplicem defectum in eis apostolus, scilicet quantum ad dona quae a Christo acceperant, et quantum ad mala quae pro ipso pertulerunt, ibi tanta passi estis, et cetera. Then when he says, Are you so foolish that, whereas you began in the Spirit, you would now be made perfect by the flesh? he shows the defect into which they have fallen. And he amplifies a twofold defect, touching, namely, the gifts they had received from Christ and the evils they endured for Him (v. 4): Have you suffered so great things in vain? Circa primum sciendum est quod isti Galatae deserentes quod magnum erat, scilicet spiritum sanctum, adhaeserunt minori, scilicet carnali observantiae legis, et hoc stultum est. Et ideo dicit sic stulti estis, adeo ut cum coeperitis instinctu sancti spiritus, id est, initium perfectionis vestrae habueritis a spiritu sancto, nunc, dum perfectiores estis, consummamini carne, id est, quaeratis conservari per carnales observantias legis, a qua nec initium iustitiae potest haberi? Io. VI, v. 64: caro non prodest quicquam, et cetera. Et sic ordinem pervertitis, quia via perfectionis est ab imperfecto tendere ad perfectum. Vos autem, quia e converso facitis, stulti estis. Eccli. XXVII, 12: homo sanctus permanet in sapientia sicut sol, stultus ut luna mutatur. Similes isti sunt his, qui incipiunt servire Deo cum fervore spiritus, postmodum deficiunt in carne; qui etiam assimilantur statuae Nabuchodonosor, cuius caput aureum, et pedes lutei, Dan. II, 32. Et ideo dicitur Rom. c. VIII, 8: qui in carne sunt, Deo placere non possunt. Et infra VI, 8: qui seminat in carne, de carne metet corruptionem. Concerning the first, it should be noted that the Galatians, after they left what was great, namely, the Holy Spirit, adhered to something less, namely, the carnal observances of the Law—and this is foolish. Hence he says, Are you so foolish that, whereas you began under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, i.e., obtained the beginning of your perfection from the Holy Spirit, you would now, while you are more perfect, be made perfect by the flesh, i.e., do you seek to be preserved by the carnal observances of the Law from which you could acquire not even the beginning of justice? “The flesh profiteth nothing” (Jn 6:64). Thus do you pervert right order, because the path of perfection consists in going from the imperfect to the perfect. But you, because you are doing the opposite, are foolish: “A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun; but a fool is changed as the moon” (Sir 27:12). They are as those who begin to serve God with fervor of spirit but afterwards desert to the flesh. Again, they are as Nabuchodonosor’s statute with head of gold and feet of clay (Dan. 11:32). Hence it is said: “They who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom 8:8); he that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh also shall reap corruption (6:8). Consequenter cum dicit tanta passi estis, etc., exaggerat eorum defectum quantum ad mala quae pro Christo pertulerunt. Qui enim aliquid sine labore recipiunt, illud minus chare custodiunt; sed illud quod cum labore acquiritur vilipendere et non custodire stultum est. Isti autem cum labore et tribulatione magna, quam passi sunt a contribulibus suis propter fidem, receperunt spiritum sanctum. Et ideo dicit tanta passi estis sine causa, quasi dicat: non contemnatis tantum donum quod cum labore accepistis, alias illa, sine causa, id est sine utilitate, passi estis, quia haec sustinuistis ut perveniretis ad vitam aeternam. Rom. V, 3: tribulatio patientiam operatur, patientia autem probationem, probatio vero spem, et cetera. Unde si praecluditis vobis aditum vitae aeternae, deserentes fidem, quaerentes conservari carnalibus observantiis, sine causa, id est inutiliter, passi estis. Et hoc dico, si tamen sine causa. Quod ideo dicit, quia in eorum potestate erat poenitere si vellent, quamdiu viverent. Ex hoc autem habetur, quod opera mortificata reviviscunt. Sap. III, 11: labores eorum sine fructu, et cetera. Gal. IV, 11: timeo autem ne sine causa laboraverim, et cetera. Si vero accipiatur de malis qui non poenitent, potest dici quod patiuntur sine causa conferente, scilicet vitam aeternam. Then when he says, Have you suffered so great things in vain? he amplifies their desertion by considering the evils they endured for Christ. For anyone who receives something without labor does not guard it as something precious; but that which is obtained by great effort, it is foolish to esteem lightly and not guard it. Now it was with labor and tribulation suffered at the hands of their fellow citizens that they had received the Holy Spirit. That is why he says, Have you suffered so great things in vain? As if to say: You ought not to despise so great a gift received with labor; else you have received it in vain, i.e., to no purpose, because you endured these things in order to attain to eternal life: “Tribulation worketh patience, and patience trial, and trial hope; and hope confoundeth not” (Rom 5:3). Hence, if you shut yourselves out from the door to eternal life by deserting the faith and seeking to be preserved by carnal observances, it is in vain, i.e., uselessly, that you have suffered. And I say, If it be yet in vain. He says this because it was still in their power to repent, if they willed, as long as they were alive. This shows that certain deadened works are revived: “Their labors are without fruit, and their works unprofitable” (Wis 3:11); I am afraid lest perhaps I have labored in vain among you (4:11). If this is applied to evil men who do not repent, it can be said that they suffered without cause, i.e., a cause that can confer eternal life. Consequenter cum dicit qui ergo tribuit vobis, etc., probat propositum, experimento sumpto ex parte apostoli. Possent enim dicere quod verum est nos recepisse spiritum sanctum ex auditu fidei, tamen propter devotionem quam ad legem habuimus, accepimus fidem quam praedicabas. Et ideo dicit: non curo quicquid sit ex parte vestra, tamen illud quod ego feci, tribuens vobis ministerio meo spiritum sanctum, qui operatur in vobis virtutes, id est inter vos miracula, sed numquid facio hoc sic, ex operibus legis, an ex operibus fidei? Non utique ex operibus legis, sed ex fide. Then when he says, He, therefore, who giveth to you the Spirit and worketh miracles among you; doth he do it by the works of the law or by the hearing of the faith? he proves his proposition by appealing to his own experience. For they might say that although it is true that we received the Holy Spirit by the hearing of faith, nevertheless it was because of the devotion he had to the Law that we received the faith he preached. Hence he says: But even considering the matter not from your side but from what I have done in giving you through my ministration the Holy Spirit Who worketh miracles among you, do I do this by the works of the law or by the hearing of the faith? In truth, not by the works of the Law but by faith. Sed numquid aliquis potest dare spiritum sanctum? Augustinus enim, XV de Trinitate, dicit, quod nullus homo purus spiritum sanctum dare potest, nec ipsi apostoli dabant, sed imponebant manus super homines, et accipiebant spiritum sanctum. Quid ergo est quod hic dicit apostolus de se loquens qui tribuit vobis spiritum sanctum? Respondeo. Dicendum est quod in datione spiritus sancti tria per ordinem se habentia occurrunt, scilicet spiritus sanctus inhabitans, donum gratiae et charitatis cum caeteris habitibus, et sacramentum novae legis, cuius ministerio datur. Et sic potest ab aliquibus tripliciter dari. But can anyone give the Holy Spirit? For Augustine in On The Trinity (Bk. XV) says that no mere man can give the Holy Spirit, for the apostles did not give the Holy Spirit but imposed hands on men, who then received the Holy Spirit. What then does the Apostle mean when he speaks of himself as giving to you the Holy Spirit? I answer that in the giving of the Holy Spirit three things conspire in a certain order, namely, the indwelling Holy Spirit, the gift of grace and charity along with the other habits, and the sacrament of the New Law by whose administering He is given. Hence He can be given by someone in three ways. Ab aliquo enim datur sicut auctoritatem habente quantum ad tria praedicta, scilicet respectu spiritus sancti inhabitantis, respectu doni, et respectu sacramenti; et hoc modo spiritus sanctus datur a solo patre et filio secundum quod eius auctoritatem habent, non quidem dominii sed originis, quia ab utroque procedit. For He can be given by someone as having authority with respect to all three, namely, in respect to the Holy Spirit’s indwelling, in respect to the gift, and in respect to the sacrament. And in this way the Holy Spirit is given by the Father and Son alone, inasmuch as they have the authority not of dominion but of origin, because He proceeds from both. Sed quantum ad gratiam seu donum, et quantum ad sacramenta spiritus sanctus dat etiam se, secundum quod datio importat causalitatem spiritus sancti respectu donorum ipsius; quia, ut dicit apostolus I Cor. XII, v. 11, ipse dividit singulis prout vult. Secundum autem quod in datione importatur auctoritas, non potest proprie dici spiritum sanctum seipsum dare. But as to the grace or gift and as to the sacraments, the Holy Spirit even gives Himself in the sense that the giving implies the causality of the Holy Spirit with respect to His gifts, because, as the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians (12:11): “He divides to everyone according as He wills.” But as far as the author of the giving is concerned, it is not appropriate to say that the Holy Spirit gives Himself. Quantum vero ad sacramentum quod ministerio ministrorum Ecclesiae datur, potest dici quod sancti per ministerium sacramentorum dant spiritum sanctum. Et hoc modo hic loquitur apostolus secundum quod tangitur in Glossa, tamen huiusmodi modus non est consuetus neque extendendus. But concerning the sacrament which is given by the ministry of the Church’s ministers, it can be said that holy men by administering the sacraments give the Holy Spirit. And this is the way the Apostle had in mind—the way mentioned in a Gloss. Nevertheless, this is not the usual way of putting it, and it ought not be exaggerated. Dicit etiam Glossa quod facere miracula attribuitur fidei, quia ex hoc quod credit quae supra naturam sunt, supra naturam operatur, et quia apostoli praedicabant fidem, quae quaedam rationem excedentia continebat, ideo oportebat ad eorum credulitatem aliqua testimonia adducere quod missi essent a Deo: quod rationem excedit. Unde Christus dedit eis signum suum ad hoc ostendendum. Again, a Gloss says that the performing of miracles is attributed to faith, which, because it believes in things that are above nature, operates above nature. Hence because the apostles preached the faith which contained things above reason, they should have adduced in support of their credibility some testimony that they had been sent by God—a fact which surpasses reason. Hence Christ gave them His own sign to prove this Est autem duplex signum Christi. Unum est quod est dominus omnium; unde dicitur in Ps. CXLIV, 13: regnum tuum, regnum omnium saeculorum, et cetera. Aliud est quod est iustificator et salvator, secundum illud Act. IV, v. 12: non est aliud nomen sub caelo datum hominibus, et cetera. Dedit ergo eis duo signa: unum est quod facerent miracula, per quod ostenderent quod missi sunt a Deo domino creaturae omnis. Lc. X: dedit eis potestatem et virtutem super omnia Daemonia, et cetera. Aliud quod darent spiritum sanctum ministerio, per quod ostenderent, quod missi sunt ab omnium salvatore. Act. VIII, 17: tunc imponebant manus super eos, etc., et tunc cum imposuisset illis manus Paulus, spiritus sanctus venit super illos, et cetera. Et de his duobus modis dicitur Hebr. II, 4: contestante Deo signis, et portentis, et variis virtutibus, et spiritus sancti distributionibus, secundum suam voluntatem. Now there is a twofold sign of Christ. One is that He is the Lord of all; hence it is said: “Thy kingdom is a kingdom of all ages: and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations” (Ps 144:13). The other is that He is Sanctifier and Savior, according to Acts (4:12): “There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.” Accordingly, He gave them two signs: one was the power to perform miracles, so that they could show they were sent by God, the Lord of all creatures: “He gave them power and authority over all devils and to cure diseases” (Lk 9:1). The other was that by their ministry they might give the Holy Spirit, in order to show that they had been sent by the Savior of all: “They laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:17). Of these two ways it is said in Hebrews (2:4): “God also bearing them witness by signs and wonders and divers miracles and distributions of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will.”
CHAPTER 3
Lecture 3Supra probavit apostolus experimento virtutem fidei et insufficientiam legis, hic vero probat idem per auctoritates et rationes. Et primo probat virtutem fidei in iustificando; secundo in hoc ostendit legis defectum, ibi quicumque enim ex operibus legis, et cetera. Having proved by experience the power of the faith and the insufficiency of the Law, the Apostle now proves the same things by authority and by reasons. First, he proves the power of the faith to justify; Secondly, in this he proves the insufficiency of the Law (v. 10). Primum autem probat utens quodam syllogismo. Unde circa hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit minorem; secundo maiorem, ibi providens autem Scriptura, etc.; tertio infert conclusionem, ibi igitur qui ex fide, et cetera. The first he proves by using a syllogism. Hence with respect to this he does three things: First, he proves the minor premise; Secondly, the major premise (v. 8); Thirdly, he draws the conclusion (v. 9). Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit quamdam auctoritatem, ex qua elicit minorem; secundo concludit eam, ibi cognoscite ergo, et cetera. Concerning the first, he does two things: First, he proposes a certain authority from which he takes the minor; Secondly, he concludes the minor (v. 7). Dicit ergo: vere iustitia et spiritus sanctus est ex fide, sicut scriptum est, Gen. XV, 6, et introducitur Rom. IV, 3, quod credidit Abraham Deo, et cetera. Ubi notandum est quod iustitia consistit in redditione debiti, homo autem debet aliquid Deo, et aliquid sibi, et aliquid proximo. Sed quod aliquid debeat sibi et proximo, hoc est propter Deum. Ergo summa iustitia est reddere Deo quod suum est. Nam si reddas tibi vel proximo quod debes, et hoc non facis propter Deum, magis es perversus quam iustus, cum ponas finem in homine. Dei autem est quidquid est in homine, et intellectus et voluntas et ipsum corpus; sed tamen quodam ordine, quia inferiora ordinantur ad superiora, et exteriora ad interiora, scilicet ad bonum animae; supremum autem in homine est mens. Et ideo primum in iustitia hominis est, quod mens hominis Deo subdatur, et hoc fit per fidem. II Cor. X, 3: in captivitatem redigentes omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi. He says therefore: Truly, justice and the Holy Spirit come from faith, As it is written in Genesis (15:6) and mentioned again in Romans (4:3): Abraham believed God and it was reputed to him unto justice. Here it should be noted that justice consists in paying a debt. Now man is indebted to God and to himself and to his neighbor. But it is on account of God that he owes something to himself and his neighbor. Therefore the highest form of justice is to render to God what is God’s. For if you render to yourself or your neighbor what you owe and do not do this for the sake of God, you are more perverse than just, since you are putting your end in man. Now, whatever is in man is from God, namely, intellect and will and. the body itself, albeit according to a certain order; because the lower is ordained to the higher, and external things to internal, namely, to the good of the soul. Furthermore, the highest thing in man is his mind. Therefore the first element of justice in a man is that a man’s mind be subjected to God, and this is clone by faith: “Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor 10:5). Sic ergo dicendum est in omnibus, quod Deus est primum principium in iustitia, et qui Deo dat, scilicet summum quod in se est, mentem ei subdendo, perfecte est iustus. Rom. VIII, 14: qui spiritu Dei aguntur, hi filii sunt Dei. Et ideo dicit credidit Abraham Deo, id est, mentem suam Deo per fidem subdidit. Eccli. II, 6: crede Deo, et recuperabit te, etc., et infra qui timetis dominum, credite illi, et cetera. Et reputatum est ei ad iustitiam, id est, ipsum credere et ipsa fides fuit ei et est omnibus aliis sufficiens causa iustitiae, et quod ad iustitiam reputetur ei exterius ab hominibus, sed interius datur a Deo, qui eos qui habent fidem, per charitatem operantem iustificat, eis peccata remittendo. Therefore in all things it must be said that God is the first principle in justice and that whosoever gives to God, namely, the greatest thing that lies in him by submitting the mind to Him, such a one is fully just: ‘Whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Rom 8:14). And hence he says, Abraham believed God, i.e., submitted his mind to God by faith: “Believe God, and he will recover thee: and direct thy way, and trust in him” (Sir 2:6); and further on (2:8): “ Ye that fear the Lord believe him,” and it was reputed to him unto justice, i.e., the act of faith and faith itself were for him, as for everyone else, the sufficient cause of justice. It is reputed to him unto justice by men exteriorly, but interiorly it is wrought by God, Who justifies them that have the faith. This he does by remitting their sins through charity working in them. Ex hac autem auctoritate concludit minorem propositionem, dicens cognoscite ergo, etc., quasi dicat: ex hoc aliquis dicitur filius alicuius, quod imitatur opera eius; si ergo vos estis filii Abrahae, opera Abrahae facite, Io. VIII, 39. Abraham autem non quaesivit iustificari per circumcisionem, sed per fidem; ergo et illi qui quaerunt iustificari per fidem, sunt filii Abrahae. Et hoc est quod dicit: quia Abraham iustus est ex fide, per hoc quod Deo credidit, et reputatum est ei ad iustitiam, ergo cognoscite, quod illi qui ex fide sunt, id est, qui ex fide credunt se iustificari et salvari, hi sunt filii Abrahae, scilicet imitatione et instructione. Rom. IX, 8: qui filii sunt promissionis aestimantur in semine, et cetera. Lc. c. XIX, 9 dicitur Zachaeo: hodie huic domui salus a Deo facta est, eo quod et ipse sit filius Abrahae, et cetera. Et Matth. III, 9: potens est Deus de lapidibus istis, id est, de gentibus, suscitare filios Abrahae, inquantum scilicet facit eos credentes. From this authority he draws the minor proposition, saying Know ye therefore, that they who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. As if to say: Someone is called the son of another because he imitates his works; therefore, “if you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham” (Jn 8:39). But Abraham did not seek to be justified through circumcision but through faith. Therefore the sons of Abraham are they who seek to be justified by faith. And this is what he says: Because Abraham is just through faith, in that he believed God and it was reputed to him unto justice; therefore, know ye that they who are of faith, i.e., who believe that they are justified and saved by faith, the same are the children of Abraham, namely, by imitation and instruction: “They that are the children of the promise are accounted for the seed” (Rom 9:8); “This day is salvation come to this house, because he also is the son of Abraham” (Lk 19:9); “God is able of these stones,” i.e., of the Gentiles, “to raise up children to Abraham,” inasmuch as He makes them believers (Mt 3:9). Consequenter cum dicit providens autem Scriptura, etc., ponit maiorem, quae scilicet est, quod Abrahae praenuntiatum est quod in semine suo benedicerentur omnes gentes. Et hoc est quod dicit providens autem Scriptura, inducens Deum loquentem Abrahae dicit Gen. XII, 3, quod Deus praenuntiavit Abrahae quod in te, id est, in his qui ad similitudinem tuam filii tui erunt imitatione fidei, benedicentur omnes gentes. Matth. VIII, 11: multi venient ab oriente et occidente, et cetera. Then when he says, the scripture, foreseeing that God justifieth the Gentiles by faith, he sets down the major premise, namely, that Abraham was told beforehand that in his seed all nations would be blessed. Hence when he says, the scripture foreseeing, he introduces God speaking to Abraham (Gen 12:3). Therefore he says, God told unto Abraham before that in thee, i.e., in those who in your likeness will be your sons by imitating your faith, shall all nations be blessed: “Many will come from the east and from the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 8:11). Consequenter cum dicit ergo qui ex fide, etc., infert conclusionem ex praemissis. Unde sic potest formari argumentum: Deus pater nuntiavit Abrahae, quod in semine suo benedicerentur omnes gentes; sed illi qui quaerunt iustificari per fidem, sunt filii Abrahae; ergo qui ex fide sunt, id est, qui quaerunt iustificari per fidem, benedicentur cum fideli, id est credente, Abraham. Then when he says, Therefore, they that are of faith, he draws the conclusion from the premises. Accordingly, the argument can be formulated thus: God the Father announced to Abraham that in his seed all nations would be blessed. But those who seek to be justified by faith are the children of Abraham. Therefore, they that are of faith, i.e., who seek to be justified through faith, shall be blessed with faithful, i.e., with believing, Abraham.
CHAPTER 3
Lecture 4Supra ostendit apostolus virtutem fidei, hic consequenter ostendit defectum legis. Et primo per auctoritatem legis; secundo per humanam consuetudinem, ibi fratres, secundum hominem dico, et cetera. Above, the Apostle proved the power of faith; now he shows the shortcoming of the Law. First, through the authority of the Law; Secondly, through a human custom (v. 15). Circa primum tria facit. Primo ostendit damnum occasionaliter ex lege consecutum; secundo legis insufficientiam ad ipsum damnum removendum, ibi quoniam autem in lege, etc.; tertio Christi sufficientiam, qua ipsum damnum est remotum, ibi Christus autem nos redemit, et cetera. Concerning the first, he does three things: First, he shows the curse brought on by the Law; Secondly, the Law’s inability to remove that curse (v. 11); Thirdly, the sufficiency of Christ by whom that curse has been removed (v. 13). Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit intentum; secundo probat propositum, ibi scriptum est enim: maledictus, et cetera. In regard to the first he does two things: First, he sets forth his intended proposition; Secondly, he proves the proposition (v. 10); For it is written: Cursed is every one that abideth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law to do them. Dicit ergo: quicumque enim, et cetera. Nam quia dixerat quod qui ex fide sunt benedicentur, cum sint filii Abrahae, posset quis dicere quod propter opera legis et propter fidem benedicuntur, et ideo, hoc excludens, dicit quicumque ex operibus legis sunt, sub maledicto sunt. He says therefore: For as many as are of the works of the law, are under a curse. For since he had said that they who are of faith will be blessed through being sons of Abraham, someone might say that they are blessed both on account of the works of the Law and on account of faith. Hence to exclude this he says: As many as are of the works of the law are under a curse. Sed contra. Antiqui patres fuerunt in operibus legis, ergo sunt maledicti, et per consequens damnati, quod est error Manichaei. Ideoque hoc est sane intelligendum. Et attendendum est quod apostolus non dicit: quicumque servant opera legis sub maledicto sunt, quia hoc est falsum pro tempore legis, sed dicit quicumque ex operibus legis, etc., id est, quicumque in operibus legis confidunt, et putant se iustificari per ea, sub maledicto sunt. Aliud enim est esse in operibus legis, et aliud est servare legem; nam hoc est legem implere, et qui eam implet, non est sub maledicto. Esse vero in operibus legis est in eis confidere et spem ponere. Et qui in eis hoc modo sunt, sub maledicto sunt, scilicet transgressionis, quod quidem non facit lex, quia concupiscentia non venit ex lege, sed cognitio peccati, ad quod proni sumus per concupiscentiam per legem prohibitam. Inquantum ergo lex cognitionem peccati facit, et non praebet auxilium contra peccatum, dicuntur esse sub maledicto, cum nequeant illud per ipsa opera evadere. But against this it can be said that the ancient fathers were of the works of the Law. Therefore they are under a curse and, consequently, damned—which is a Manichean error. Hence it is necessary to understand this correctly. And it should be noted that the Apostle does not say, “As many as observe the works of the Law are under a curse,” because this is false when applied to the time of the Law. He says rather: As many as are of the works of the Law, i.e., whosoever trust in the works of the Law and believe that they are made just by them are under a curse. For it is one thing to be of the works of the Law and another to observe the Law. The latter consists in fulfilling the Law, so that one who fulfills it is not under a curse. But to be of the works of the Law is to trust in them and place one’s hope in them. And they that are of the Law in this way are under a curse, namely, of transgression; not that the Law produces the curse, for concupiscence does not come from the Law, but the knowledge of sin does, to which we are prone through concupiscence banned by the Law. Therefore, inasmuch as the Law begets a knowledge of sin and offers no help against sin, they are said to be under a curse, since they are powerless to escape it by those works. Sunt autem quaedam opera legis caeremonialia, quae in observationibus fiebant. Alia sunt opera quae pertinent ad mores, de quibus sunt mandata moralia. Unde secundum Glossam hoc quod hic dicitur quicumque ex operibus legis, etc., intelligendum est de operibus caeremonialibus, et non de moralibus. Vel dicendum quod loquitur hic apostolus de omnibus operibus tam caeremonialibus quam moralibus. Opera enim non sunt causa quod aliquis sit iustus apud Deum, sed potius sunt executiones et manifestationes iustitiae. Nam nullus per opera iustificatur apud Deum, sed per habitum fidei, non quidem acquisitum, sed infusum. Et ideo quicumque ex operibus iustificari quaerunt, sub maledicto sunt, quia per ea peccata non removentur, nec aliquis quoad Deum iustificatur, sed per habitum fidei charitate informatum. Hebr. XI, 39: hi omnes testimonio fidei, et cetera. Furthermore, some works of the Law are ceremonies carried out in the observances; others are works that pertain to morals, with which the moral precepts deal. Hence, according to a Gloss, that which is said here, namely, as many as are of the works of the law, are under a curse, is to be understood of ceremonial works and not of moral works. Or it should be said that the Apostle is speaking here of all works, both ceremonial and moral. For the works are not the cause making one to be just before God; rather they are the carrying out and manifestation of justice. For no one is made just before God by works but by the habit of faith, not acquired but infused. And therefore, as many as seek to be justified by works are under a curse, because sin is not removed nor anyone justified in the sight of God by them, but by the habit of faith vivified by charity: “And all these being approved by the testimony of faith, received not the promise” (Heb 11:39). Consequenter cum dicit scriptum est enim, etc., probat propositum, et hoc primo quidem secundum Glossam ostenditur per hoc quod nullus potest legem servare hoc modo, quo lex praecipit Deut. XXVIII, 15, quod omnis qui non permanserit in omnibus quae scripta sunt in libro legis, ut faciat ea, id est, qui non impleverit totam legem, sit maledictus. Sed implere totam legem est impossibile, ut dicitur Act. XV, 10: ut quid tentatis imponere iugum, quod neque nos, neque patres nostri portare potuimus? Ergo nullus est ex operibus legis, quin sit maledictus. Then when he says, For it is written: Cursed is every one, that abideth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law to do them, he proves the proposition which, according to a Gloss, is proved by the fact that no one can keep the Law in the way in which the Law prescribed: “As many as do not keep and do all that is written in the book of the law,” i.e., who do not fulfill the whole Law, “cursed shall they be” (Deut 28:15). But it is impossible to fulfill the whole Law, as it is said in the Acts (15:10): “Why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?” Therefore by the works of the Law no one is anything but cursed. Potest etiam accipi hoc quod dicitur scriptum est enim, etc., non ut probatio propositi, sed ut ostendatur eius expositio; quasi dicat: dico quod sunt sub maledicto, sub illo scilicet de quo dicit lex scriptum est enim: maledictus est omnis, etc.: ut intelligatur de peccato, id est, de maledicto. Nam lex imperat bona facienda seu mala vitanda, et imperando obligat, sed non dat virtutem obediendi. Et ideo dicit maledictus, quasi malo adiectus, omnis, nullum excipiendo, quia, ut dicitur Act. X, 34, non est personarum acceptio apud Deum. Qui non permanserit usque in finem. Matth. XXIV, 13: qui perseveraverit usque in finem. In omnibus, non in quibusdam tantum, quia, ut dicitur Iac. II, 10, quicumque totam legem servaverit, offendat autem in uno, factus est omnium reus. Quae scripta sunt in libro legis, ut faciat ea, non solum ut credat seu velit tantum, sed ut opere impleat. Ps. CX, v. 10: intellectus bonus omnibus facientibus eum. Sancti autem patres etsi in operibus legis erant, salvabantur tamen in fide venturi, confidentes in eius gratia, et saltem spiritualiter legem implentes. Moyses enim, ut in Glossa dicitur, multa quidem praecepit, quae nullus implere potuit ad domandam Iudaeorum superbiam dicentium: non deest qui impleat, sed deest qui iubeat. In another way the passage, For it is written.... can be taken not as a proof of the proposition but as an exposition of the proof. As if to say: I say that they are under a curse, i.e., under that one of which the Law says, For it is written: Cursed is every one, that abideth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law to do them, where the curse is understood to refer to sin. For the Law commands that good be done and evils avoided, and by commanding it puts one under the obligation without giving the virtue to obey. And hence he says, Cursed, as though placed in contact with evil, is every one, without exception; because, as it is said in the Acts (10:34): “God is not a respector of persons”; that abideth not to the end: “He that shall persevere to the end” (Mt 24:13); in all things, not in some only, because as it is said in James (2: 10): “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all”; which are written in the book of the law to do them, not only to believe or will but actually to fulfill them in their works: “A good understanding to all that do it” (Ps 110:10). Yet the holy patriarchs, although they were of the works of the Law, were nevertheless saved by faith in one to come, by trusting in His grace and by fulfilling the Law at least spiritually. “For Moses,” says a Gloss, “did indeed command many things which no one could fulfill, in order to tame the pride of the Jews who said: ‘There are many willing and able, but no one to command’.” Sed hic est quaestio de hoc quod dicitur maledictus omnis, et cetera. Dicitur enim Rom. XII, 14: benedicite, et nolite maledicere. Respondeo. Dicendum est quod maledicere nihil aliud est quam malum dicere; possum ergo dicere bonum esse malum, et malum esse bonum, et rursum bonum esse bonum, et malum esse malum. Et primum quidem prohibet apostolus, dicens: nolite maledicere, id est, nolite dicere bonum esse malum, et e contra; sed secundum licet, et ideo cum vituperamus peccatum, maledicimus quidem, sed non dicendo bonum malum, sed dicimus malum esse malum. Et ideo licet peccatorem maledicere, id est, dicere eum esse malo addictum vel esse malum. But a difficulty arises about saying Cursed is every one that abideth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law to do them. For it is said: “Bless, and curse not” (Rom 12:14). 1 answer that to curse is nothing else but to say evil. I can therefore say that good is evil and evil good, and again, that good is good and evil evil. The first is what the Apostle forbids when he says, “Curse not,” i.e., do not say that good is evil and evil good. But the second is lawful. Hence when we denounce sin, we do indeed curse, not by way of calling good evil but by saying that evil is evil. Therefore it is lawful to curse a sinner, i.e., to say that he is addicted to evil or is evil. Consequenter cum dicit quoniam autem in lege, etc., ostendit insufficientiam legis non valentis ab illo maledicto eripere ex hoc quod iustificare non poterat. Ad quod ostendendum utitur quodam syllogismo in secunda figura, et est talis: iustitia est ex fide, sed lex ex fide non est; ergo lex iustificare non potest. Circa hoc ergo primo ponit conclusionem, cum dicit quoniam autem in lege nemo iustificatur; secundo autem maiorem, cum dicit quia iustus ex fide vivit; tertio minorem, cum dicit lex autem non est ex fide. Then when he says, But that in the law no man is justified with God, it is manifest, he shows the inability of the Law to snatch us from that curse, for it could not make one just. To show this he makes use of a syllogism in the second figure. Justice is by faith, but the Law is not by faith. Therefore the Law cannot justify. With respect to this, therefore: First, he states the conclusion when he says, But that in the law no one is justified; Secondly, the major premise (v. 11): because the just man lives by faith; Thirdly, the minor (v. 12). Dicit ergo: dico quod per legem maledictio inducta est, nec tamen ab illa maledictione lex eripit, quia manifestum est quod nemo in lege iustificatur apud Deum, id est per opera legis. Circa quod intelligendum, quod illi qui negaverunt vetus testamentum, ex hoc verbo occasionem sumpserunt. Et ideo dicendum est quod nemo iustificatur in lege, id est per legem. Nam per eam cognitio quidem peccati habebatur, ut dicitur Rom. V, sed non habebatur per eam iustificatio. Rom. III, 20: ex operibus legis nullus iustificabitur. Therefore he says: I say that by the Law a curse was introduced, and yet the Law cannot extricate one from that curse, because it is obvious that no one is justified before God by the Law, i.e., through the works of the Law. On this point it should be noted that those who rejected the Old Testament took occasion to do so from this word. Hence it must be said that no one is justified in the Law, i.e., through the Law. For through it came the knowledge of sin, as is said in Romans (3:20); but justification came not through it: “By the works of the law no flesh shall be justified” (Rom 3:20). Sed contra Iac. II, 21 dicitur: nonne Abraham ex operibus iustificatus est? Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod iustificare potest accipi dupliciter: vel quantum ad executionem iustitiae et manifestationem, et hoc modo iustificatur homo, id est, iustus ostenditur, ex operibus operatis. Vel quantum ad habitum iustitiae infusum, et hoc modo non iustificatur quis ex operibus, cum habitus iustitiae qua homo iustificatur apud Deum, non sit acquisitus, sed per gratiam fidei infusus. Et ideo signanter apostolus dicit apud Deum, quia iustitia quae est apud Deum, in interiori corde est: iustitia autem quae est ex operibus, id est, quae manifestat iustum, est apud homines. Et hoc modo apostolus accepit apud Deum. Rom. II, 13: non enim auditores, sed factores, et cetera. Rom. IV, 2: si ex operibus Abraham iustificatus est, habet gloriam, sed non apud Deum, et cetera. Sic ergo patet conclusio rationis, scilicet quod lex iustificare non potest. But against this, it is said in James (2:21): “Was not Abraham our father justified by works?” I answer that “to be justified” can be taken in two senses: either as referring to the execution and manifestation of justice, and in this way a man is justified, i.e., proved just, by the works performed; or as referring to the infused habit of justice, and in this way one is not justified by works, since the habit of justice by which a man is justified before God is not acquired but infused by the grace of faith. Therefore the Apostle says significantly, with God, because the justice which is before God is interior in the heart, whereas the justice which is by works, i.e., which manifests that one is just, is before men. And it is in this sense that the Apostle says, with God: “For not the hearers of the law, but the doers are just before God” (Rom 2:13); “For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God” (Rom 4:2). Thus, therefore, the conclusion of his reasoning is obvious, namely, that the Law can not justify. Consequenter cum dicit quia iustus, etc., ponit maiorem, quae est ex auctoritate Scripturae, Hab. II, 4 et introducitur etiam Rom. I, 17 et ad Hebr. X, 38. Circa quod notandum est, quod in homine est duplex vita, scilicet vita naturae et vita iustitiae. Vita quidem naturae est per animam; unde anima a corpore recedente, corpus remanet mortuum. Vita vero iustitiae est per Deum habitantem in nobis per fidem. Et ideo primum quo Deus est in anima hominis, est fides. Hebr. XI, 6: accedentem ad Deum oportet credere. Eph. III, 17: habitare Christum per fidem, et cetera. Et sic dicimus, quod in anima prima indicia vitae apparent in operibus animae vegetabilis: quia anima vegetabilis est, quae primo advenit animali generato, ut philosophus dicit. Ita quia primum principium quo Deus est in nobis, est fides, ideo fides dicitur principium vivendi. Et hoc est quod hic dicitur iustus meus ex fide vivit. Et intelligendum est de fide per dilectionem operante. Then when he says, because the just man lives by faith, he presents the major premise, which is based on scriptural authority, i.e., Habakkuk (2:4) restated in Romans (1:17) and Hebrews (10:38). Apropos of this point it should be noted that in man there is a twofold life; namely, the life of nature and the life of justice. Now the life of nature is from the soul; hence when the soul is separated from the body, the body continues but is dead. But the life of justice is through God dwelling in us by faith. Therefore the first way in which God is in the soul of man is by faith: “He that cometh to God must believe” (Heb 11:6); “That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts” (Eph 3:17). Accordingly, we say that in the soul the first signs of life appear in the works of the vegetal soul, because the vegetal soul is the first to be present in a generated animal, as the Philosopher says. Similarly, because the first principle whereby God exists in us is faith, faith is called the principle of living. And this is what he means when he says, the just man lives by faith. Furthermore, this is to be understood of faith acting through love. Minor autem ponitur ibi lex autem non est, et cetera. Et primo ponitur ipsa minor; secundo probatur, ibi sed qui fecerit, et cetera. The minor premise is set down at, But the law is not of faith. First, the minor is set down; Secondly, it is proved (v. 12): but he that doth those things, shall live in them. Dicit ergo lex non est ex fide. Sed contra, lex mandat credere quod sit unus Deus, et hoc pertinet ad fidem; ergo lex habebat fidem. Quod autem sit unus Deus, mandatur Deut. VI, audi, Israel, dominus Deus tuus, et cetera. He says therefore that the law is not of faith. But this seems to conflict with the truth that the Law commands one to believe that there is one God, which pertains to faith. Therefore the Law had faith. And that there is one God is stated in Deuteronomy (6:4): “Hear, 0 Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord.” Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod hic loquitur de observationibus mandatorum legis, secundum quod lex consistit in mandatis et praeceptis caeremonialibus, et dicit quod talis lex non est ex fide. Fides enim, ut dicitur Hebr. XI, 1, est substantia sperandarum rerum, argumentum non apparentium. Et ideo proprie implet mandatum de fide qui non sperat ex hoc aliqua praesentia et visibilia consequi, sed bona invisibilia et aeterna. Lex ergo quia promittebat terrena et praesentia, ut dicitur Is. I, 19: si volueritis et audieritis me, bona terrae comedetis, ideo non est ex fide, sed ex cupiditate potius, vel ex timore, secundum illos praecipue, qui carnaliter legem servabant. Aliqui tamen spiritualiter vivebant in lege, sed hoc non erat ex ea, sed ex fide mediatoris. I answer that he is speaking here about keeping the commandments of the Law insofar as the Law consists of ceremonial precepts and moral precepts. This is the Law that 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 that appear not.” Therefore, strictly speaking, he fulfills the command of faith who does not hope to obtain from it anything present and visible, but things invisible and eternal. Therefore, because the Law promised earthly and present things, as it is said: “If you be willing and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land” (Is 1:19), it is not of faith but rather of cupidity or fear, especially in regard to those who kept the Law in a carnal manner. Nevertheless, some did live spiritually in the Law; but this was not because of the Law but because of faith in a mediator. Et quod lex non sit ex fide, probat cum dicit sed qui fecerit ea, id est, opera legis, vivet in illis, scilicet vita praesenti, id est, immunis erit a morte temporali, et conservabitur in vita praesenti. Vel aliter: dico quod lex non est ex fide, et hoc patet, quia qui fecerit, etc.; quasi dicat: praecepta legis non sunt de credendis, sed de faciendis, licet aliquid credendum annuntiet. Et ideo virtus eius non est ex fide, sed ex operibus; et hoc probat, quia dominus quando voluit eam confirmare, non dixit: qui crediderit sed: qui fecerit ea, vivet in illis. And that the Law is not of faith he proves when he says, but he that doth those things, i.e., the works of the Law, shall live in them, namely, in the present life, i.e., will be immune from temporal death and will be preserved in the present life. Or again: I say that the law is not of faith, and this is obvious, because he that doth those things, shall live in them. As if to say: The precepts of the Law are not concerned with what is to be done, even though it proclaims something that must be believed. Therefore its power is not from faith but from works. He proves this on the ground that when the Lord willed to confirm it He did not say, “He that believeth,” but “He that doth those things, shall live in them.” But the New Law is from faith: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk 16:16). Sed nova lex ex fide est. Mc. ult.: qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit, et cetera. Lex tamen est quoddam effigiatum et effectum ex fide, et ideo comparatur lex vetus ad legem novam, sicut opera naturae ad opera intellectus. Nam in ipsis operibus naturae apparent quaedam opera intellectus, non quod res naturales intelligant, sed quia aguntur et ordinantur ab intellectu ut finem consequantur. Sic et in veteri lege aliqua continentur, quae fidei sunt, non quod Iudaei ea prout erant fidei haberent, sed habebant ea in figura tantum fidei Christi, et protestatione, ex cuius fidei virtute salvabantur iusti. Nevertheless, the Law is something fashioned and produced by faith. That is why the Old Law is compared to the New as the works of nature to the works of the intellect. For certain works of the intellect appear in the works of nature, not as though natural things understand, but because they are moved and ordained to reach their end by an intellect. In like manner, in the Old Law are contained certain things that are of faith: not that the Jews held them precisely as being of faith, but that they held them only as protestations and figures of the faith of Christ, in virtue of Whose faith the just were saved.
CHAPTER 3
Lecture 5Posito damno a lege illato, et defectu legis ab illo eripere non valentis, hic consequenter ostendit virtutem Christi ab ipso damno liberantis. Et primo ostendit quomodo per Christum ab ipso damno liberamur; secundo quomodo etiam super hoc auxilium a Christo acquirimus, ibi ut in gentibus, et cetera. Having explained the curse brought on by the Law, as well as the Law’s incapacity to deliver from sin, he now shows forth Christ’s power to set one free from this curse. First, he shows how through Christ we are set free of that curse; Secondly, how in addition we receive help from Christ (v. 14). Circa primum tria facit. Primo enim ponit liberationis auctoritatem; secundo liberationis modum, ibi factus pro nobis, etc.; tertio testimonium propheticum, ibi quia scriptum est, et cetera. As to the first, he does three things: First, he presents the author of the liberation; Secondly, the manner of liberation (v. 13): being made a curse for us; Thirdly, the testimony of the prophets (v. 13): for it is written: Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree. Dicit ergo primo: quicumque servabant opera legis erant sub maledicto sicut dictum est, nec per legem liberari poterant. Ideo necesse fuit aliquem habere, qui nos liberaret, et iste fuit Christus. Et ideo dicit Christus redemit nos de maledicto legis, et cetera. Rom. VIII, 3: quod impossibile erat legi, etc., Deus mittens filium suum, scilicet Christum, et cetera. Redemit, inquam, nos, scilicet Iudaeos, pretioso sanguine suo, Apoc. V, 9: redemisti nos in sanguine, et cetera. Is. XLIII, 1: noli timere, quia redemi te, et cetera. De maledicto legis, id est, de culpa et poena. Infra IV, v. 5: ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret; Os. XIII, 14: de morte redimam eos. He says therefore first: All who observed the works of the Law were under a curse, as has been said, and they could not be delivered by the Law. Hence it was necessary to have someone who should set us free, and that one was Christ. Hence he says, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom 8:3). He redeemed, I say, us, namely, the Jews, with His own Precious Blood: “Thou hast redeemed us in thy blood” (Rev 5:9); “Fear not, for I have redeemed thee” (Is 43:1), from the curse of the law, i.e., from guilt and penalty: that he might redeem them who were under the law (4:5); 1 will redeem them from death” (Hos 13:14). Modum liberationis ponit cum dicit factus pro nobis maledictum. Ubi notandum quod maledictum est quod dicitur malum. Et secundum duplex malum potest dici duplex maledictum, scilicet maledictum culpae et maledictum poenae. Et utroque modo potest hoc legi dupliciter factus est pro nobis maledictum. Then when he says, being made a curse for us, he sets forth the manner of the deliverance. Here it should be noted that a curse is that which is said as an evil. Now it is according to two kinds of evil that there can be two kinds of curse, namely, the curse of guilt and the curse of punishment. And with respect to each this passage can be read, namely, He was made a curse for us. Et primo quidem de malo culpae. Nam Christus redemit nos de malo culpae. Unde sicut redemit nos de morte mortuus, ita redemit nos de maledicto culpae factus maledictum, scilicet culpae; non quidem quod in eo peccatum esset aliquod, qui peccatum non fecit, nec dolus, etc., ut dicitur I Petr. II, v. 22, sed secundum opinionem hominum, et praecipue Iudaeorum qui reputabant eum peccatorem. Io. XVIII, 30: si non esset hic malefactor, non tibi tradidissemus eum. Et ideo de hoc dicitur II Cor. V, 21: eum qui non noverat peccatum, fecit pro nobis peccatum. Dicit autem maledictum, non maledictus, ut ostendat quod Iudaei eum sceleratissimum reputabant. Unde dicitur Io. IX, 16: non est hic homo a Deo, etc.; et Io. X, 33: de bono opere non lapidamus te, sed de peccato et de blasphemia. Et ideo dicit factus est pro nobis maledictum, in abstracto; quasi dicat: factus est ipsa maledictio. First of all with respect to the evil of guilt, for Christ redeemed us from the evil of guilt. Hence, just as in dying He redeemed us from death, so He redeemed us from the evil of guilt by being made a curse, i.e., of guilt: not that there was really any sin in Him—for “He did not sin, neither was guile found in his mouth,” as is said in 1 Peter (2:22) —but only according to the opinion of men and particularly the Jews who regarded him as a sinner: “If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up to thee” (Jn 18:30). Hence it is said of Him, “Him who knew no sin He hath made sin for us” (2 Cor 5:21). But he says, a curse, and not “accursed,” to show that the Jews regarded Him as the worst type of criminal. Hence it is said, “This man is not of God who keepeth not the sabbath,” (Jn 9:16) and “For a good work we stone thee not, but for sin and for blasphemy” (Jn 10:33). Therefore he says, being made for us a curse in the abstract. As though to say: He was made “curse” itself. Secundo exponitur de malo poenae. Nam Christus liberavit nos a poena, sustinendo poenam et mortem nostram: quae quidem in nos provenit ex ipsa maledictione peccati. In quantum ergo hanc maledictionem peccati suscepit, pro nobis moriendo, dicitur esse factus pro nobis maledictum. Et est simile ei quod dicitur Rom. VIII, 3: misit Deus filium suum in similitudinem carnis peccati, id est, mortalis. Eum qui non noverat peccatum, scilicet Christum, qui peccatum non fecit, Deus scilicet pater, pro nobis fecit peccatum, II Cor. V, 21, id est fecit pati peccati poenam, quando scilicet oblatus est propter peccata nostra. Secondly, it is explained with respect to the evil of punishment. For Christ freed us from punishment by enduring our punishment and our death which came upon us from the very curse of sin. Therefore, inasmuch as He endured this curse of sin by dying for us, He is said to have been made a curse for us. This is similar to what is said in Romans (8:3): “God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin,” i.e., of mortal sin; “Him who knew no sin,” namely, Christ, Who committed no sin, God (namely, the Father) “had made sin for us,” i.e., made Him suffer the punishment of sin, when, namely, He was offered for our sins (2 Cor 5:21). Consequenter ponit Scripturae testimonium cum dicit quia scriptum est: maledictus omnis, et cetera. Et hoc Deut. XXVII. Ubi sciendum, secundum Glossam, quod in Deuteronomio, unde accipitur hoc verbum, tam in nostris, quam in Hebraeis codicibus habetur: maledictus a Deo omnis, etc., quod quidem, scilicet a Deo, in antiquis Hebraeorum voluminibus non habetur, unde creditur quod a Iudaeis post passionem domini appositum sit ad infamiam Christi. Then He gives the testimony of Scripture when he says, for it is written: “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” This is from Deuteronomy (21:23). Here it should be noted, according to a Gloss, that in Deuteronomy, from which this passage is taken, our version as well as the Hebrew version has: “Cursed by God is everyone that hangs on a tree.” However, the phrase “by God” is not found in the ancient Hebrew volumes. Hence it is believed to have been added by the Jews after the passion of Christ in order to defame Him. Potest autem exponi auctoritas de malo poenae et de malo culpae. De malo quidem culpae sic maledictus omnis qui pendet in ligno, non propter hoc quod pendet in ligno, sed pro culpa pro qua pendet. Et hoc modo Christus aestimatus maledictus in cruce pendens, propter hoc quod maxime tali poena punitus fuit. Et secundum hoc continuatur ad praecedentia. Dominus enim praecepit in Deuteronomio, ut qui suspensus fuerit, in vespera deponatur; et ratio huius est, quia haec poena erat caeteris abiectior et ignominiosior. Dicit ergo: vere factus est pro nobis maledictum, quia ipsa mors crucis, quam sustinuit, sufficit ad maledictionem, hoc modo exponendo de malo culpae, sed solum aestimatione Iudaeorum, quia scriptum est maledictus omnis, et cetera. De malo vero poenae sic exponitur maledictus omnis qui, etc., quia ipsa poena est maledictio, scilicet quod sic mortuus est. Et est hoc modo exponendo vere maledictus a Deo, quia Deus ordinavit quod hanc poenam sustineret, ut nos liberaret. But it is possible to expound this authority both with respect to the evil of punishment and the evil of guilt. Of the evil of punishment thus: Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree, not precisely because he hangs on a tree, but because of the guilt for which he hangs. And in this way Christ was thought to be cursed, when He hung on the cross, because He was being punished with an extraordinary punishment. And according to this explanation, there is a continuity with the preceding. For the Lord commanded in Deuteronomy that anyone who had been hanged should be taken down in the evening; the reason being that this punishment was more disgraceful and ignominious than any other. He is saying, therefore: Truly was He made a curse for us, because the death of the cross which He endured is tantamount to a curse—thus explaining the evil of guilt, although it was only in the minds of the Jews—because it is written: Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree. But with respect to the evil of punishment, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree is explained thus: The punishment itself is a curse, namely, that He should die in this way. Explained in this way, He was truly cursed by God, because God decreed that He endure this punishment in order to set us free. Consequenter cum dicit ut in gentibus benedictio, etc., ponit spem quam per Christum, super hoc quod per eum liberamur de maledicto, acquirimus, ut dicitur Rom. V, 16: non sicut delictum, ita et donum; immo multo maius, scilicet quia liberat a peccato, et confert gratiam. Then when he says, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, he touches on the hope which we acquire through Christ in addition to being freed from the curse: “Not as the offence, so also the gift” (Rom 5:16), but much greater, namely, because He both frees us from sin and confers grace. Primo ergo ponit fructum, et quibus datur, dicens ut in gentibus benedictio Abrahae, etc., quasi dicat: factus est pro nobis maledictum, non solum ut maledictionem removeret, sed ut in gentibus, quae non sub maledictione legis erant, fieret benedictio Abrahae promissa Gen. XXII, 18: in semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes, et cetera. Et haec quidem benedictio facta est nobis, id est, impleta est, per Christum, qui est de semine Abrahae, cui dictae sunt promissiones et semini suo, qui est Christus, ut dicitur infra. Quae quidem benedictio et fructus est ut pollicitationem spiritus accipiamus, id est, promissiones quas spiritus sanctus facit in nobis, scilicet de beatitudine aeterna, qui quasi arra et pignus nobis traditus ipsam nobis promittit, ut habetur Eph. I, 14 et II Cor. c. VI. Et quidem in pignore datur ad certitudinem. Nam pignus est quaedam certa promissio de re accipienda. Rom. V: non enim accepistis spiritum servitutis, etc., et infra: si filii, et haeredes. Vel pollicitationem spiritus accipiamus, id est, spiritum sanctum, quasi dicat: accipiamus pollicitationem de spiritu sancto factam semini Abrahae, Ioel II, 28: effundam de spiritu meo, etc.; quia per spiritum sanctum coniungimur Christo, et efficimur semen Abrahae, et digni benedictione. First, therefore, he mentions the fruit and those to whom it is given, saying, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Christ Jesus. As if to say: He was made a curse for us not only to remove a curse but also to enable the Gentiles, who were not under the curse of the Law, to receive the blessing promised to Abraham: “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Gen 22: 18). And this blessing was made to us, i.e., fulfilled, through Christ, Who is of the seed of Abraham to whom the promises were made and to thy seed, who is Christ, as is said below (v. 16). Now this blessing, this fruit, is that we may receive the promise of the Spirit, i.e., the promises which the Holy Spirit, given to us as a pledge and an earnest, works in us concerning eternal happiness which He promises to us, as is said in Ephesians (Ch. 1) and in 2 Corinthians (Ch. 6). Furthermore, in the pledge is contained a guarantee, for a pledge is an assured promise concerning something to be received: “For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear, but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons” (Rom 8:15), and, “and if sons, heirs also” (v. 17). Or: that we may receive the promise of the Spirit, i.e., the Holy Spirit. As if to say: That we may receive the promise made to the seed of Abraham concerning the Holy Spirit: “Upon my servants I will pour forth my spirit” (Jl. 2:29). For it is through the Spirit that we are joined to Christ and become children of Abraham worthy of the blessing. Secundo ostendit per quid proveniat nobis iste fructus, dicens per fidem, per quam quidem et haereditatem aeternam acquirimus. Ad Hebr. IX: accedentem ad Deum oportet credere quia est, et inquirentibus se remunerator sit. Per fidem etiam acquirimus spiritum sanctum, quia, ut dicitur Act. V, 32, dominus dat spiritum sanctum obedientibus sibi, scilicet per fidem. Secondly, he shows how this fruit comes to us, saying, by faith, through which also we obtain an eternal inheritance: He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him” (Heb 11:6). Through faith, too, we receive the Holy Spirit, because as is said in Acts (Ch. 5), the Lord gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him, namely, through faith.
CHAPTER 3
LESSON 6Postquam apostolus probavit per auctoritates, quod lex non iustificat, nec ad iustificationem, quae est per fidem, est necessaria, hic consequenter ostendit idem per rationes humanas. Et circa hoc quatuor facit. Primo humanam consuetudinem ponit; secundo assumit promissionem divinam, ibi Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones, etc.; tertio infert conclusionem, ibi hoc autem dico, etc.; quarto ostendit conclusionem sequi ex praemissis, ibi nam si ex lege, et cetera. Having proved by authority that the Law does not justify and is not necessary for justification, which is through faith, the Apostle then proves the same point with human reasons. Concerning this he does four things: First, he mentions a human custom; Secondly, he touches on a divine promise (v. 16); Thirdly, he draws his conclusion (v. 17); Fourthly, he shows that the conclusion follows from the premises (v. 18). Dicit ergo: aperte quidem prius locutus sum secundum auctoritatem Scripturae non allatae voluntate humana, sed spiritu sancto, ut dicitur II Petr. I, 21; sed nunc secundum hominem dico, et secundum ea quae humana ratio et consuetudo habet. Ex quo quidem habemus argumentum, quod ad conferendum de his quae sunt fidei, possumus uti quacumque veritate cuiuscumque scientiae. Deut. XXI, 11: si videris in numero captivorum mulierem pulchram, et adamaveris eam, voluerisque habere in uxorem, introduces eam in domum tuam, id est, si sapientia et scientia saecularis placuerit tibi, introduces eam intra terminos tuos, quae radet caesariem, etc., id est, resecabit omnes sensus erroneos. Et inde est quod apostolus in multis locis in epistolis suis utitur auctoritatibus gentilium, sicut illud I Cor. XV, 33: corrumpunt bonos mores, etc., et illud Tit. I, 11: Cretenses malae bestiae, et cetera. He says therefore: It is clear that up to now I have been speaking according to the authority of Sacred Scripture, which came not by the will of man, but by the Holy Spirit, as is said in 2 Peter (1:21). But now I speak after the manner of man and after the manners which human reason and human custom follow. Here, indeed, we have an argument to show that in discussions bearing on faith, we may use any truth of any science: “If thou seest in the number of the captives a beautiful woman and lovest her and wilt have her to wife, thou shalt bring her into thy house,” i.e., if you are pleased with worldly wisdom and science, bring it within your boundaries, “and she shall shave her hair, and pare her nails,” i.e., you shall cut away all erroneous opinions (Deut 21:11). This is why in many places in his epistles the Apostle uses the authority of the Gentiles; for example: “Evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor 15:33), and “The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slothful bellies” (Tit. 1: 12). Vel quamvis huiusmodi rationes vanae sint et infirmae, quia, ut dicitur in Ps. XCIII, 11: dominus scit cogitationes hominum, quoniam vanae sunt; tamen hominis confirmatum testamentum nemo spernit aut superordinat, quia nihil humanum tantam firmitatem habet sicut ultima voluntas hominis; sperneret autem illud aliquis, si diceret quod testamentum hominis confirmatum morte testatoris et testibus non valeret. Si ergo testamentum huiusmodi nemo spernit, dicens non esse servandum, aut spernit, aliquid mutando; multo magis testamentum Dei nullus spernere debet aut superordinare, infringendo illud, vel addendo vel diminuendo. Apoc. ult.: si quis apposuerit ad haec, apponet Deus super illum plagas scriptas in isto libro, et si quis diminuerit de verbis prophetiae huius, auferet Deus partem eius, et cetera. Deut. IV, 2: non addetis ad verbum, quod vobis loquor, neque auferetis ex eo, et cetera. Or: although such reasons be fruitless and weak, because, as is said in Psalm 93 (v. 11): “The Lord knoweth the thoughts of men, that they are vain ‘ “ yet a man’s testament, if it be confirmed, no one despiseth nor addeth to it, because nothing human has as much power to bind as a man’s last will. But someone would be scorning it if he were to say that a man’s will, confirmed by his death and by witnesses, had no validity. Therefore, if no one scorns a testament of this kind by saying that it should not be heeded or by modifying it, much less may anyone scorn the testament of God or modify it and weaken it by adding or removing anything: “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 the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life” (Rev 22:18); “You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it” (Deut 4:2). Consequenter cum dicit Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones, etc., assumit promissionem divinam Abrahae factam, quae est quasi quoddam testamentum Dei. Et primo exponit hanc promissionem seu testamentum; secundo vero aperit veritatem testamenti, ibi non dicit: et seminibus, et cetera. Then when he says, To Abraham were the promises made, he takes up the promise God made to Abraham, which is, as it were, the testament of God. First, he explains this promise or testament; Secondly, he discloses the truth contained therein (v. 16): He saith not: And to his seeds. Dicit ergo primo Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones, quasi dicat: sicut testamentum hominis est firmum, ita promissiones divinae firmae sunt. Sed numquid Deus aliquas promissiones fecit ante legem? Utique, quia Abrahae, qui fuit ante legem, scilicet quod non falleret Deus, dictae, id est, factae sunt promissiones, et semini eius a Deo. Sed Abrahae factae sunt, ut cui erant implendae, semini vero, ut per quod implerentur. Dicit autem promissiones pluraliter, quia promissio de benedicendo semine multa continebat. Vel quia frequenter idem, id est, aeterna beatitudo sibi promissa est, sicut Gen. c. XII, 3, in te benedicentur universae cognationes terrae; item XV, 5, suscipe caelum, et numera stellas, etc.; item eodem: semini tuo dabo terram hanc, etc.; item XXII, 18: benedicam tibi et multiplicabo semen tuum sicut stellas caeli. Istae ergo promissiones sunt quasi testamentum Dei, quia est quaedam ordinatio de haereditate danda Abrahae et semini suo. He says therefore: To Abraham were the promises made. As if to say: As the testament of a man is valid, so the divine promises are valid. But did God make any promises before the Law? He did; because To Abraham who lived before the time of the Law the promises were spoken, i.e., made, and to his seed, by God. However, they were made to Abraham as the one for whom they would be fulfilled, and to his seed as the one through whom they would be fulfilled. And he says, promises, using the plural, because the promise that his seed would be blessed contained a number of things: or because the same thing, namely, eternal happiness, was promised to him on a number of occasions. For example, “In thee shall all the kindred of the earth be blessed” (Gen 12:3); “Look up to heaven and number the stars if thou canst. So shall thy seed be” (Gen 15:5). Again: “To thy seed will I give this land” (Gen 15:18); “I will bless thee and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven” (Gen 22:17). These promises then, are God’s treatment, as it were, i.e., a decree concerning the inheritance to be given to Abraham and his seed. Veritatem autem testamenti aperit, cum dicit non dicit: et seminibus, et cetera. Quam quidem aperit eodem spiritu quo testamentum conditum est. Et hoc patet ex verbis testamenti. Non, inquit, dicit et seminibus, quasi in multis, id est, sicut faceret, si de multis illud valeret, sed quasi in uno, quod est Christus, quia ipse solus est per quem et in quo omnes poterunt benedici. Nam ipse solus et singularis est, qui non subiacet maledictioni culpae, etsi maledictio pro nobis dignatus sit fieri. Unde dicitur in Ps. CXL, 10: singulariter sum ego, et cetera. Item: non est qui faciat bonum, et cetera. Eccle. VII, 29: virum de mille unum reperi, scilicet Christum, qui esset sine omni peccato, mulierem autem ex omnibus non inveni, quae omnino a peccato immunis esset, ad minus originali, vel veniali. The meaning of this testament he explains when he says, He saith not: “And to his seeds, as of many; but as of one: “And to thy seed.” He explains this according to the very spirit in which the testament was made. And this is obvious from the words of the testament: He saith not: “and to his seeds, as of many, i.e., as He would do, if it were valid for many: but as of one: “And to thy seed,” which is Christ, because He is the only one through Whom and in Whom all could be blessed. For He alone and exclusively is the one who does not lie under the curse of guilt, in spite of the fact that He deigned to be made a curse for us. Hence it is said, “I am alone until I pass” (Ps 140: 10); and again “There is none that doth good, no not one” (Ps 13:3); “One man among a thousand I have found” (namely, Christ, Who had been without any sin), “a woman among them all I have not found,” who would be entirely immune from all sin, at least original or venial (Eccl. 7:29). Conclusionem autem infert consequenter cum dicit hoc autem dico: testamentum, etc., ubi videamus per ordinem quid sit quod dicit. Dicit ergo, quod hoc promisit Deus Abrahae, sed hoc est testamentum, scilicet ista promissio de haereditate adipiscenda. Ier. XXXI, 31: feriam domui Israel et domui Iuda foedus novum, et cetera. Confirmatum, quod ideo ponit, ut concordet cum praemissis. Nam supra dixerat testamentum hominis confirmatum, et cetera. A Deo, scilicet qui promisit. Et confirmatum dico iureiurando. Gen. XXII, 16: per memetipsum iuravi, etc., Hebr. VI, 18: ut per duas res immobiles quibus impossibile est mentiri Deum, et cetera. Hoc, inquam, testamentum lex non facit irritum, quae quidem lex facta est, et data a Deo per Moysen. Io. I, 17: lex per Moysen data est, etc., post quadringentos et triginta, et cetera. Et quasi exponens quod dixerat, subiungit non irritum facit ad evacuandam promissionem. Sic enim irritum fieret praedictum testamentum, si promissio facta Abrahae evacuaretur, id est, in vacuum facta esset, quasi non sufficeret semen Abrahae repromissum ad gentium benedictionem. Per Christum autem non sunt evacuatae promissiones patribus factae, sed confirmatae. Rom. XV, 8: dico Iesum Christum ministrum fuisse circumcisionis, ad confirmandas promissiones patrum. Et II Cor. c. I, 20: quotquot enim promissiones Dei sunt, in illo est, et cetera. Hoc autem quod dicitur post quadringentos et triginta annos, concordat ei quod habetur Ex. XII, 40: habitatio filiorum Israel, qua manserunt in Aegypto, fuit quadringentorum triginta annorum. Et Act. VII, 6: locutus est dominus, scilicet Abrahae, quia erit semen eius accola in terra aliena, et servituti eos subiicient annis quadringentis triginta. Then when he says, Now this I say: that the testament which was confirmed by God, he draws his conclusion. Here 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 a testament, i.e., a promise that he would obtain an inheritance: I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Juda” (Jer 31:31). He says, confirmed (in keeping with what he said above, namely, a man’s testament, if it be confirmed, no man despiseth nor addeth to it) by God, i.e., by the One who promised. The testament was confirmed, namely, with an oath: “By my own self have I sworn” (Gen 22:16); “That by two immutable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have the strongest comfort” (Heb 6:18). This testament, I say, the Law doth not disannul: the law, namely, which was made and given by God through Moses: “For the law was given by Moses” (Jn 1:17) after four hundred thirty years. Then, as if to explain what he had said, he adds, doth not disannul to make the promise of no effect. For the aforesaid testament would have been disannulled if the promise made to Abraham were set aside, i.e., made fruitless, as though the seed promised to Abraham were not enough to bless the Gentiles. But as a matter of fact, the promises made to the patriarchs were not set aside by Christ but confirmed: “For I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises made unto the fathers” (Rom 15:8); “For all the promises of God are in him ‘It is’” (2 Cor 1:20). After four hundred thirty years— this concords with Exodus (12:40): “The abode of the children of Israel that they made in Egypt was four hundred thirty years,” and with Acts (7:6): “And God said to him,” i.e., to Abraham, “that his seed should sojourn in a strange country and that they shall bring them under bondage four hundred thirty years.” Sed contra est quod dicitur Gen. c. XV, 13: scito praenoscens, quod peregrinum futurum sit semen tuum, et servituti eos subiicient, et affligent eos annis quadringentis. But against this, it is said in Genesis (15:13): “Know thou before that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land not their own, and they shall bring them under bondage and afflict them four hundred years.” Respondeo. Dicendum quod si fiat computatio annorum a prima promissione facta Abrahae, quae legitur Gen. XII, usque ad exitum filiorum Israel de Aegypto, quando data est lex, sic sunt anni quadringenti triginta, sicut hic scribitur, et Ex. XII, et Act. c. VII. Si autem incipiat computatio a nativitate Isaac de qua legitur Gen. XXI, sic sunt tantum quadringenti et quinque anni. Nam viginti quinque anni fuerunt a promissione facta Abrahae usque ad nativitatem Isaac. Abraham enim erat septuaginta quinque annorum quando exivit de terra sua, et facta est ei prima promissio, ut habetur Gen. XII. Centenarius autem fuit, quando natus est Isaac, ut habetur ibidem cap. XXI. Quod autem a nativitate Isaac usque ad exitum filiorum Israel de Aegypto fuerint quadringenti quinque anni, probatur per hoc, quod Isaac fuit sexaginta annorum quando genuit Iacob, ut habetur Gen. XXV; Iacob autem erat centum triginta annorum quando intravit Aegyptum, ut habetur Gen. XXVII. Et sic a nativitate Isaac usque ad introitum Iacob in Aegyptum fuerunt centum nonaginta anni. Ioseph autem fuit triginta annorum, quando stetit coram Pharaone, ut habetur Gen. XLI. Et postea transierunt septem anni fertilitatis et duo sterilitatis, usque ad ingressum Iacob in Aegyptum, ut habetur XLV. Vixit autem Ioseph centum et decem annis, ut habetur Gen. ult. A quibus si subtrahantur triginta novem anni, remanent septuaginta et unus annus. Fuerunt ergo a nativitate Isaac usque ad mortem Ioseph ducenti et sexaginta unus annus. Fuerunt autem in Aegypto filii Israel post mortem Ioseph centum quadraginta quatuor annis, ut Rabanus dicit in Glossa. Fuerunt ergo a nativitate Isaac usque ad exitum filiorum Israel de Aegypto et legem datam quadringenti et quinque anni; Scriptura autem non curavit de minutis. Vel potest dici, quod quinto anno Isaac expulsus fuit Ismael, et remansit solus Isaac haeres Abrahae, a quo tempore fuerunt quadringenti anni. I answer that if you count the years between the first promise made to Abraham (Genesis Ch. 12), and the exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt (when the Law was given) there will be four hundred thirty years, as is written here and in Exodus (Ch. 12) and Acts (Ch. 7). But if you begin to count from the birth of Isaac, concerning which Genesis (Ch. 21) speaks, there are only four hundred five years. For twenty-five years elapsed between the promise made to Abraham and the birth of Isaac: for Abraham was seventy-five years old when he left his own country and the first promise was made to him, as is recorded in Ch. 21 of Genesis; and he was one hundred years old when Isaac was born, as is recorded in the same chapter. That there were four hundred five years between the birth of Isaac and the exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt is proved by the fact that Isaac was sixty years old when he begot Jacob, as is had in Genesis (Ch. 25). Jacob, on the other hand, was one hundred thirty years old when he entered Egypt, as is recorded in Genesis (Ch. 47). Therefore from the birth of Isaac to Jacob’s entry into Egypt were one hundred ninety years. Now Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh, as is recorded in Genesis (Ch. 41). After that there were seven years of plenty and two of want; and it was after that that Jacob came to Egypt, as is recorded in Genesis (Ch. 45). But Joseph lived one hundred ten years, as is mentioned in the final chapter of Genesis. If thirty-nine years be subtracted from this there remain seventy-one years. Consequently from the birth of Isaac to Joseph’s death there were two hundred sixty-one years. Furthermore, the children of Israel remained in Egypt for one hundred forty-four more years after Joseph’s death, as Rabanus says in a Gloss on the Acts (Ch. 7). Therefore from the birth of Isaac to the exodus from Egypt and the giving of the Law four hundred five years elapsed. However, the scripture in Genesis (Ch. 17) was not concerned with minutiae. Or it can be said that during Isaac’s fifth year Ishmael was cast forth, leaving Isaac the sole heir of Abraham. Reckoning from this date, we have our four hundred years. Deinde, cum dicit nam si ex lege, etc., ostendit quomodo sequatur ex praemissis, quod lex evacuaret promissiones, si lex necessaria esset ad iustificationem sive benedictionem gentium. Dicit ergo: vere promissio evacuaretur si lex necessaria esset. Nam si haereditas, scilicet benedictionis Abrahae, esset ex lege, iam non esset ex repromissione, id est, ex semine repromisso Abrahae. Si enim semen promissum esset sufficiens ad haereditatem benedictionis consequendam, non fieret iustificatio per legem. Destruit autem consequens, cum dicit Abrahae autem donavit Deus, etc., id est, promisit se daturum, quod ita certum erat ac si statim daret, per repromissionem, id est per semen repromissum. Non ergo est ex lege haereditas, id est benedictio, de qua dicitur I Petr. III, 9: in hoc vocati estis, ut benedictionem haereditate possideatis. Then when he says, For, if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise, he shows how from the foregoing it follows that the Law would nullify the promises, if the Law were necessary for justification or for the blessing to come to the Gentiles. He says therefore: The promise would indeed be disannulled, if the Law were necessary; for if the inheritance, namely, of Abraham’s blessing, be of the law, it is no more of promise, i.e., of the seed promised to Abraham. For if the seed promised to Abraham was enough to obtain the inheritance of the blessing, there would not be justification through the Law. He rejects the consequent, when he says, But God gave it to Abraham, i.e., He promised that He would give it; but the promise was as sure as if it had been fulfilled then and there, by promise, i.e., through the seed promised. Therefore the inheritance, i.e., the blessing (about which it is said in 1 Peter (3:9): “For unto this are you called, that you may inherit a blessing”) is not of the Law.
CHAPTER 3
Lecture 7Postquam ostendit apostolus et auctoritate Scripturae et consuetudine humana, quod lex iustificare non potuit, hic movet duas dubitationes et solvit. Secunda dubitatio incipit ibi lex ergo adversus promissa Dei, et cetera. After showing by the authority of scripture and by a human custom that the Law was unable to make one just, the Apostle now raises two questions and solves them. The second of these begins at (v. 21). Circa primum tria facit. Primo movet dubitationem; secundo solvit, ibi propter transgressiones, etc.; tertio quoddam in solutione positum manifestat, ibi mediator autem, et cetera. With respect to the first, he does three things: First, he raises the question; Secondly, he solves it (v. 19): It was set because of transgressions; Thirdly, he elucidates something he presupposed in the course of his solution (v. 20). Potest autem esse dubium ex praemissis tale: si lex iustificare non poterat, an esset omnino inutilis. Et hanc dubitationem movet, dicens quid igitur lex, etc., sit, id est, ad quid lex utilis fuit? Et hanc punctuationem magis approbat Augustinus ut habetur in Glossa, quam aliam quae sibi primitus melior videbatur, ut distinguatur: quid igitur? Et postea dicatur: lex propter transgressiones, et cetera. Similis dubitatio proponitur Rom. III, 1 ubi sic dicitur: quid igitur amplius Iudaeo, et cetera. The question which might arise from the foregoing is this: If the Law was unable to justify, was the Law without purpose? This question he raises when he says, Why then was the law? i.e., what purpose did it serve? This is the punctuation which, as a Gloss says, Augustine favors, although earlier he approved the reading, What then? followed by, The law was set up because of transgressions. In Romans (3:1), a similar question is raised: “What advantage then hath the Jew; or what is the profit of circumcision?” Deinde cum dicit propter transgressiones, solvit dubitationem motam, ubi quatuor facit. Primo proponit legis utilitatem; secundo legis fructum, ibi donec veniret semen, etc.; tertio legis ministros, ibi ordinata per Angelos; quarto legis dominium, ibi in manu mediatoris. Then when he says, It was set because of transgressions, he solves the question. Here he does four things: First, he sets clown the purpose of the Law; Secondly, the fruit of the Law (v. 19); until the seed should come to whom he made the promise; Thirdly, the ministers of the Law (v. 19): being ordained by angels, Fourthly, the Lord of the Law (v. 19): in the hand of a mediator. Circa primum notandum est, quod lex vetus data est propter quatuor, secundum quatuor ex peccato consecuta, quae enumerat Beda, scilicet propter malitiam, infirmitatem, concupiscentiam et ignorantiam. Est ergo lex primo data ad reprimendam malitiam, dum scilicet prohibendo peccatum et puniendo, retrahebantur homines a peccato, et hoc tangit dicens propter transgressiones posita est lex, id est, ad transgressiones cohibendas: et de hoc habetur I Tim. I, 9: iusto lex non est posita, sed iniustis. Cuius ratio potest sumi a philosopho in IV Ethicorum. Homines enim bene dispositi ex seipsis moventur ad bene agendum, et sufficiunt eis paterna monita, unde non indigent lege: sed, sicut Rom. II, 14 dicitur, ipsi sibi sunt lex, habentes opus legis scriptum in cordibus suis. With respect to the first, it should be noted that the Old Law was given for a fourfold purpose, corresponding to the four consequences of sin enumerated by Bede, namely, because of wickedness, weakness, passion, and ignorance. Hence the Law was given first of all to suppress wickedness, since by forbidding sin and by punishing, it restrained men from sin. This he touches on when he says, The law was set because of transgressions, i.e., to prevent them. On this point it is said: “The law is not made for the just man but for the unjust” (1 Tim 1:9). The reason for this can be taken from Ethics IV of the Philosopher. For men who are well disposed, are inclined to act well of themselves, so that fatherly admonitions are enough for them: hence they do not need a law; indeed, as it is said, “They are a law to themselves who show the work of the law written in their hearts” (Rom 2:14). Sed homines male dispositi indigent retrahi a peccatis per poenas. Et ideo quantum ad istos fuit necessaria legis positio, quae habet coarctativam virtutem. But men who are ill disposed need to be kept from sin by penalties. Hence with respect to such men it was necessary to set down a law which has power to constrain. Secundo, lex data est ad infirmitatem manifestandam. Homines enim de duobus praesumebant. Primo quidem de scientia, secundo de potentia. Et ideo Deus reliquit homines absque doctrina legis, tempore legis naturae, in quo dum in errores inciderunt, convicta est eorum superbia de defectu scientiae, sed adhuc restabat praesumptio de potentia. Dicebant enim non deest qui impleat, sed deest qui iubeat, ut dicitur in Glossa super illud Ex. XXIV: quicquid praeceperit dominus, faciemus, et erimus obedientes. Et ideo data est lex, quae cognitionem peccati faceret, per legem enim cognitio peccati, Rom. III, 20. Quae tamen auxilium gratiae non dabat ad vitandum peccata, ut sic homo sub lege constitutus et vires suas experiretur, et infirmitatem suam recognosceret, inveniens se sine gratia peccatum vitare non posse, et sic avidius quaereret gratiam. Et haec etiam causa potest ex his verbis accipi, ut dicatur, quod lex posita est propter transgressiones adimplendas, quasi illo modo loquendo quo apostolus dicit Rom. c. V, 20: lex subintravit ut abundaret delictum; quod non est intelligendum causaliter, sed consecutive: quia lege subintrante, abundavit delictum, et transgressiones sunt multiplicatae, dum concupiscentia nondum per gratiam sanata, in id quod prohibebatur, magis exarsit, et factum est peccatum gravius, addita praevaricatione legis scriptae. Et hoc Deus permittebat, ut homines imperfectionem suam cognoscentes, quaererent mediatoris gratiam. Unde signanter dicit posita est, quasi debito ordine collocata inter legem naturae et legem gratiae. Secondly, the Law was set down in order to disclose human weakness. For men gloried in two things: First, in their knowledge; and secondly, in their power. Hence God left men without the instruction of the Law during the period of the Law of nature, during which time, as they fell into errors, their pride was convinced of its lack of knowledge, even though they still presumed on their powers. For they said, “Many are willing and able, but there is no one to lead,” as a Gloss says on Exodus (24:8): “All things that the Lord hath spoken we will do. We will be obedient.” And therefore the Law was given which would cause a knowledge of sin, “for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20). But it did not give the help of grace to avoid sin, so that man, bound by the Law, might test his strength and recognize his infirmity. Finding that without grace he was unable to avoid sin, he would more ardently yearn for grace. And this cause can also be derived from these words, if they are taken to mean that the Law was set for the sake of filling up transgressions, in the sense in which the Apostle speaks when he says: “Now the law entered in that sin might abound” (Rom 5:20). This is to be taken not in a causal but in a sequential sense; for after the Law entered in, sin abounded and transgressions multiplied, because concupiscence, not yet healed by grace, lusted after that which was forbidden, with the result that sin became more grievous, being now a violation of a written law. But God permitted this in order that men, recognizing their own imperfection, might seek the grace of a mediator. Hence he says significantly, It was set, i.e., interposed, as it were, between the Law of nature and the Law of grace. Tertio, data est lex ad domandam concupiscentiam populi lascivientis, ut diversis caeremoniis fatigati neque ad idololatriam, neque ad lascivias declinarent. Unde dicit Petrus Act. XV, 10: hoc est onus, quod neque nos, et cetera. Thirdly, the Law was given in order to tame the concupiscence of a wanton people, so that, worn out by various ceremonies, they would not fall into idolatry or lewdness. Hence Peter says: “This is a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear” (Acts 15: 10). Quarto, ad instruendum ignorantiam data est lex in figuram futurae gratiae, secundum illud Hebr. X, 1: umbram habens lex, et cetera. Fourthly, the Law was given as a figure of future grace in order to instruct the ignorant, according to Hebrews (10: 1): “For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come.” Deinde cum dicit donec veniret semen, etc., id est Christus, de quo promiserat Deus, per eum benedicendas omnes gentes. Matth. XI, 13: lex et prophetae usque ad Ioannem, et cetera. Gen. XII: in semine tuo, et cetera. Then [he sets forth the fruit of the Law] when he says, until the seed should come, i.e., Christ, of Whom God had promised that through Him all nations would be blessed: “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John” (Mt 11:13); “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Gen 22:18). Ministri autem legis ponuntur, cum dicit ordinata, id est, ordinanter data, per Angelos, id est, per nuntios Dei, scilicet Moysen et Aaron. Mal. II, 7: legem requirent ex ore eius, et cetera. Angelus enim domini, et cetera. Vel per Angelos, id est, ministerio Angelorum. Act. VII, 35: accepistis legem in dispositionem Angelorum, et cetera. Et est data per Angelos, quia lex non debebat dari per filium, qui maior est. Hebr. II, 2: si enim, qui per Angelos factus est sermo, et cetera. Dicit autem ordinata, quia ordinabiliter data est, scilicet inter tempus legis naturalis, qua homines convicti sunt, quod se iuvare non poterant, et tempus gratiae. Nam antequam gratiam acciperent, convincendi erant de lege. The ministers of the Law are mentioned when he says, ordained, i.e., given in good order, by angels, i.e., the messengers of God, namely, Moses and Aaron: “They shall seek the law at his mouth: because he is the angel of the Lord of hosts” (Mal 2:7). Or: by angels, i.e., by the ministry of angels: “You have received the law by the disposition of angels” (Acts 7:53). And it was given by angels, because it was not fitting that it be given by the Son, Who is greater: “For if the word spoken by angels became steadfast... how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation? Which, having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard him” (Heb 2:2). Furthermore, he says ordained, because it was given in proper sequence, namely, between the time of the Law of nature (during which men were convinced they could not help themselves) and the time of grace. For before they should receive grace, they had to be convinced by the Law. Dominus autem legis dicitur Christus. Et ideo dicit in manu mediatoris, id est, in potestate Christi. Deut. XXXIII, 2: in dextera eius ignea lex. I Tim. II, 5: mediator Dei et hominum, et cetera. Iste mediator significatus est per Moysen, in cuius manu est lex data. Deut. V, 5: ego sequester et medius fui inter Deum et vos, et cetera. The Lord of the Law is Christ; hence he says, in the hand of a mediator, i.e., in the power of Christ: “In his right hand a fiery law” (Deut 33:2); “There is one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5). This mediator was represented by Moses in whose hand the Law was given: “I was the mediator, and stood between the Lord and you at that time” (Deut 5:5). Deinde, cum dicit mediator autem, etc., exponit quod dixit in manu mediatoris, quod potest tripliciter exponi. Uno modo, quia mediator non est unius tantum, sed duorum. Unde cum iste sit mediator Dei et hominis, oportet quod sit Deus et homo. Si enim esset purus homo, vel Deus tantum, non esset verus mediator. Si ergo est verus Deus, cum nullus est mediator sui ipsius, posset videri alicui, quod praeter ipsum sunt alii dii quorum est mediator; et hoc removet, dicens quod mediator iste et si non est unius tantum, non propter hoc sunt alii dii, sed Deus unus est, quia licet ipse alius sit in persona a Deo patre, non est tamen aliud in natura. Deut. VI, 4: audi, Israel, dominus Deus tuus, et cetera. Eph. IV, 6: unus Deus, et cetera. Then when he says, Now a mediator is not of one, he explains what he meant when he said, in the hand of a mediator. This can be explained in three ways. In one way, that a mediator is not of one alone but of two. Hence, since He is the mediator of God and men, it was fitting that He be God and man. For were he purely man or solely God, He would not be a true mediator. Therefore, if He is true God, then since no one is his own mediator, someone might suppose that there are, besides Him, other gods of whom He was the mediator. But this he forestalls when he says that although this mediator is not of one only, there are not on that account other gods, but God is one, because, although He is distinct in person from God the Father, He is not distinct in nature: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut 6:4); “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:6). Secundo modo, quia posset credi, quod iste esset mediator Iudaeorum tantum, ideo dicit: dico quod Christus est mediator, sed non unius, scilicet Iudaeorum, sed unus est omnium, id est, sufficiens ad omnes reconciliandos Deo, quia ipse Deus est. Rom. III, 30: unus Deus qui iustificavit circumcisionem ex fide, et praeputium per fidem, et cetera. II Cor. V, v. 19: Deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilians sibi, et cetera. In a second way, because someone might believe that He was the mediator of the Jews alone, he says: I say that Christ is mediator; but not of one, i.e., of the Jews, but one of all, i.e., capable of reconciling everyone to God, because He is God: “For it is one God that justifieth circumcision by faith and uncircumcision through faith” (Rom 3:30); “For God indeed was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor 5:19). Tertio modo, quia non est mediator unius populi tantum, scilicet Iudaeorum, sed etiam gentilium. Eph. II, 14: ipse est pax nostra, qui fecit utraque unum. Et hoc ex parte gentium auferendo idololatriam, et ex parte Iudaeorum observantiam legis. Specialiter autem mediator est filius, non pater, non spiritus sanctus, nihilominus tamen unus est Deus. In a third way, namely, that He is not a mediator of only one people, namely, the Jews, but of the Gentiles as well: “For he is our peace, who hath made both one” (Eph 2:14); on the part of the Gentiles by talking away idolatry, and on the part of the Jews by delivering them from the observances of the Law. Specifically it is not the Father, not the Holy Spirit, but the Son who is mediator; nevertheless, God is one.
CHAPTER 3
Lecture 8Hic movet apostolus aliam dubitationem, utrum scilicet lex noceat gratiae. Et primo movet dubitationem, dicens lex ergo, etc., quasi dicat: si lex posita est propter transgressiones, numquid lex facit adversus promissa Dei, scilicet ut id quod Deus promisit se facturum per semen repromissum, per alium faciat? Absit. Quasi dicat: non. Nam, supra eodem: lex non irritum facit testamentum ad evacuandas promissiones, et cetera. Rom. VII, 12: lex sancta, et mandatum sanctum. Here, the Apostle raises the other question, namely, whether the Law is injurious to grace. First, he raises the question, saying, Was the law then against the promises of God? As if to say: If the Law was set because of transgressions, does the Law go counter to the promises of God, namely, so that what God promised He would do through the promised seed, He would do through another? God forbid! As if to say: No. For earlier he had said: The law doth not disannul to make the promise of no effect (3:17); “The law, indeed is holy and the commandment holy” (Rom 7:12). Secundo cum dicit si enim lex esset data, etc., solvit dubitationem. Et primo ostendit, quod lex non est contra promissa Dei; secundo quod est in obsequium promissorum, ibi sed conclusit, et cetera. Secondly, when he says, For, if there had been a law given which could give life, verily justice should have been by the law, he answers the question. First, he shows that the Law is not contrary to the promises of God; Secondly, that the Law is in keeping with the promises (v. 22). Dicit ergo, quod licet lex sit posita propter transgressiones, non tamen contrariatur promissioni Dei, quia transgressiones ipsas removere non potest. Si enim eas removeret, tunc manifeste esset contra promissa Dei, quia iustitia esset per alium modum, quam Deus promisit, quia esset per legem et non per fidem, cum tamen dicatur, Hab. II, v. 4: iustus meus ex fide vivit. Rom. III, 22: iustitia Dei est per fidem Iesu Christi. Et ideo dicit, quod si lex esset data talis, quae posset vivificare, id est, tantae virtutis esset, quod posset vitam gratiae, et aeternam beatitudinem conferre, tunc vere et non apparenter iustitia esset ex lege, si lex faceret quod fides facere dicitur, et sic frustra esset fides. Sed lex non iustificat, quia littera, scilicet legis, occidit, ut dicitur II Cor. III, 6 et Rom. c. VIII, 2: lex enim spiritus vitae in Christo Iesu, et cetera. He says, therefore, that although the Law was set because of transgressions, nevertheless, it is not contrary to the promise of God in being unable to remove those transgressions. For if it were to remove them, then it would obviously be against the promises of God, because justice would be obtained by means other than God promised, since it would be through the Law and not through faith; whereas it is said: “The just shall live in his faith” (Hab. 2:4); “The justice of God is by faith of Jesus Christ” (Rom 3:22). Hence he says that if there had been a law given such that it could give life, i.e., of such power as to confer grace and eternal happiness, then verily and not seemingly, justice should have been by the law, if the Law were to effect what faith is said to effect. Thus faith would serve no end. But the Law does not give life, because “the letter of the law killeth,” as is said in 2 Cor (3:6); “For the law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin and of death” (Rom 8:2). Deinde cum dicit sed Scriptura conclusit, etc., ostendit quod lex non solum non contrariatur gratiae, sed est ei etiam in obsequium. Et primo ostendit quod lex obsequitur promissis Dei; secundo quomodo hoc obsequium manifestatum est in Iudaeis, ibi prius autem quam veniret fides, etc.; tertio quomodo gentiles etiam sine lege consecuti sunt promissa Dei, ibi omnes enim filii Dei estis, et cetera. Then when he says, But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, he shows that the Law is not only not opposed to grace but serves it. First, he shows that the Law serves God’s promises; Secondly, how this service was made manifest in the case of the Jews (v. 23); Thirdly, how the Gentiles even without the Law obtained the promises of God (v. 26). Circa primum sciendum est, quod lex obsequitur promissis Dei in generali quantum ad duo. Primo quia manifestat peccata. Rom. III, 20: per legem cognitio peccati. Deinde quia manifestat infirmitatem humanam, in quantum homo non potest vitare peccatum, nisi per gratiam, quae per legem non dabatur. Et sicut ista duo, scilicet cognitio morbi et impotentia infirmi, multum inducunt ad quaerendum medicum, ita cognitio peccati et propriae impotentiae inducunt ad quaerendum Christum. Sic ergo lex obsecuta est gratiae, inquantum praebuit cognitionem peccati et experientiam propriae impotentiae. Et ideo dicit Scriptura, id est lex scripta, conclusit, id est tenuit inclusos Iudaeos, sub peccato, id est, ostendit eis peccata, quae faciebant. Rom. VII, 7: concupiscentiam nesciebam, et cetera. Item conclusit, quia veniente lege sumpserunt occasionem peccati. Rom. c. XI, 32: conclusit Deus omnia in incredulitate, et cetera. Et hoc ideo, ut homo quaereret gratiam. Et ideo dicit ut promissio, id est, gratia repromissa, daretur non solum Iudaeis, sed omnibus credentibus, quia illa gratia poterat liberare a peccatis, et haec gratia est ex fide Iesu Christi. With respect to the first it should be noted that in general the Law serves the promises of God in two ways. First, because it exposes sin: “For by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20). Secondly, because it reveals human infirmity, in the sense that man cannot avoid sin without grace which was not given by the Law. And just as these two things, namely, the knowledge of a disease and the infirmity of the patient is a great inducement to seek medical treatment, so the knowledge of sin and of one’s impotency lead us to seek Christ. Thus, therefore, is the Law the servant of grace, inasmuch as it affords a knowledge of sin and actual experience of one’s impotency. Hence he says, the scripture, i.e., the written Law, hath concluded, i.e., held the Jews enclosed, under sin, i.e., showed them the sins they committed: “For I had not known concupiscence, if the Law did not say: Thou shalt not covet” (Rom 7:7). Again, hath concluded, because with the coming of the Law they took occasion to sin: “For God hath concluded all in unbelief, that He may have mercy on all” (Rom 11:32). And all this in order that they would search for grace. Hence he says, so that the promise, i.e., the promised grace, might be given not only to the Jews, but to all them that believe, because that grace was able to free from sin; and this grace is by the faith of Jesus Christ. Deinde cum dicit prius autem quam veniret, etc., ponit experimentum huius obsequii manifestatum in Iudaeis. Et primo ponit obsequium Iudaeorum; secundo concludit quoddam corollarium, ibi itaque lex paedagogus, et cetera. Then when he says, But, before the faith came, we were kept under the law shut up, he gives experimental evidence of this service, as manifested in the case of the Jews. First, he states how the Jews were benefited; Secondly, he concludes a corollary (v. 24). Dicit ergo: si Scriptura, id est, lex scripta, detinuit omnia sub peccato, quas utilitates habebant Iudaei ex lege antequam veniret fides ex gratia? Respondet et dicit: nos Iudaei, ante adventum fidei, custodiebamur sub lege, inquantum faciebat nos vitare idololatriam et multa alia mala; custodiebamur, inquam, non sicut liberi, sed quasi servi sub timore, et hoc sub lege, id est, sub onere legis et dominio. Rom. VII, 1: lex in homine dominatur quanto tempore vivit, et cetera. Et custodiebamur conclusi, id est, servati ne deflueremus a vita, sed praepararemur in eam, id est, tam bonam fidem, quae revelanda erat. Is. LVI, 1: iuxta est salus mea, ut veniat, et iustitia mea ut reveletur. Et dicit revelanda, quia cum fides excedat omne humanum ingenium, non potest per proprium sensum haberi, sed ex revelatione et dono Dei. Is. XL, 5: revelabitur gloria domini, et cetera. Vel in eam fidem, quae revelanda erat tempore gratiae, in antiquis temporibus multis signis latens. Unde et tempore Christi velum templi scissum est, Matth. XXVII, 51. He says therefore: If the scripture, i.e., the written Law, kept all things shut up under sin, what benefits did the Jews derive from the Law before faith came by 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 shut up, I say, not as free men, but as servants under fear; and this under the law, i.e., under the burden and domination of the Law: “The law hath dominion over a man as long as it liveth” (Rom 7:1). And we were kept shut up, i.e., protected, in order that we not be cut off from life, but be made ready unto that faith which was to be revealed: “My salvation is near to come and my justice to be revealed” (Is 56:1). And he says, to be revealed, because, since faith surpasses all human ingenuity, it cannot be acquired by one’s own skill, but by revelation and by the gift of God: “The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh together shall see that the mouth of the Lord hath spoken” (Is 40:5). Or, unto that faith, which was to be revealed in the time of grace, but which in olden times was hidden under many signs. Hence in the time of Christ the veil of the temple was rent (Mt 27:51). Consequenter cum dicit lex paedagogus, etc., concludit quoddam corollarium. Et primo ostendit legis officium; secundo officii testationem, ibi at ubi venit plenitudo temporis, et cetera. Then when he says, the law was our pedagogue in Christ, he draws a corollary: First, he manifests the Law’s functions; Secondly, when its function ceased (v. 25). Officium autem legis fuit officium paedagogi, et ideo dicit lex paedagogus noster, et cetera. Quamdiu enim haeres non potest consequi beneficium haereditatis, vel propter defectum aetatis seu alicuius debitae perfectionis, conservatur, et custoditur ab aliquo instructore, qui quidem instructor paedagogus dicitur, a paedos, quod est puer, et goge, quod est ductio. Per legem enim Iudaei tamquam imbecilles pueri, per timorem poenae retrahebantur a malo, et promovebantur amore et promissione temporariorum ad bonum. Iudaeis autem promissa erat benedictio futuri seminis de haereditate obtinenda, sed nondum advenerat tempus ipsius haereditatis consequendae. Et ideo necessarium erat, quod conservarentur usque ad tempus futuri seminis et cohiberentur ab illicitis, quod factum est per legem. Et ideo dicit itaque, etc., quasi dicat: ex quo sub lege custodiebamur, lex fuit noster paedagogus, id est, dirigens et conservans in Christo, id est in via Christi. Et hoc ideo, ut ex fide Christi iustificaremur. Os. XI, 1: puer Israel, et dilexi eum. Ier. c. XXXI, 18: castigasti me, domine, et eruditus sum, et cetera. Rom. III, 28: arbitramur enim hominem iustificari per fidem, et cetera. Et quamvis lex paedagogus noster esset, non tamen ad perfectam haereditatem ducebat, quia, ut dicitur Hebr. VII, neminem ad perfectum adduxit lex, et cetera. Sed hoc officium cessavit postquam venit fides. Et hoc est quod dicit at ubi venit fides, scilicet Christi, iam non sumus sub paedagogo, id est sub coactione, quae non est necessaria liberis. I Cor. XV: cum essem parvulus, et cetera. Cum autem factus sum vir, et cetera. II Cor. V, 17: si qua ergo in Christo nova creatura, vetera transierunt, et cetera. The function of the Law was that of a pedagogue; hence he says, the law was our pedagogue in Christ. For as long as the heir cannot obtain the benefits of his inheritance, either because be is too young or because of some other shortcoming, he is sustained, and guarded by a tutor called a pedagogue, from paedos (boy) and goge (a guiding). For under the Law the just were restrained from evil, as helpless boys are, through fear of punishment; and they were led to progress in goodness by the love and promise of temporal goods. Further, the Jews were promised that through a seed that was to come the blessing of an inheritance would be obtained, but the time for obtaining that inheritance had not yet come. Consequently, it was necessary that until the seed should come, they be kept safe and not do unlawful things. And this was effected by the Law. And therefore he says, Whrefore the law was our pedagogue. As if to say: By being kept shut up under the Law, the law was our pedagogue, i.e., it guided and preserved us, in Christ, i.e., in the way of Christ. And this was done in order that we might be justified by the faith of Christ: “Israel was a child and I loved him” (Hos 11:1); “Thou hast chastised me and I was instructed” (Jer 31:18); “For we account a man to be justified by faith without the works of the law” (Rom 3:28). And although the Law was our pedagogue, it did not bring us the full inheritance, because as is said in Hebrews (7:19): “The law brought nothing to perfection.” But the Law’s function ended after faith came. Hence he says, But, after the faith is come, namely, of Christ, we are no longer under a pedagogue, i.e., under constraint, which is not necessary for those who are free: “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a man I put away the things of a child” (1 Cor 13:11); “If then any be in Christ a new creature, the old things are passed away” (2 Cor 5:17).
CHAPTER 3
Lecture 9Hic ostendit apostolus quod ad fructum gratiae gentiles sine obsequio legis pervenerunt, ad quem tamen Iudaei perducti sunt per legis custodiam et obsequium. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo proponit intentum; secundo manifestat propositum, ibi quicumque enim in Christo, etc.; tertio ex hoc argumentatur, ibi si autem vos Christi; ergo, et cetera. Here the Apostle shows that the Gentiles obtained the fruit of grace without serving the Law, whereas the Jews obtained it by keeping and serving the Law. Concerning this he does three things: First, he states his proposition; Secondly, he elucidates it (v. 27); Thirdly, from this he proceeds to his argument, (v. 29). Dicit ergo: vere non sumus sub lege, id est, sub paedagogo et coactione, quia sumus filii Dei. Similiter et vos neque sub lege, neque sub paedagogo estis, quia scilicet ad gratiam pervenistis. Ideo omnes estis filii Dei per fidem, non per legem. Rom. VIII, v. 15: non enim accepistis spiritum servitutis, scilicet timoris, qui dabatur in lege veteri, sed accepistis spiritum filiorum, scilicet charitatis et amoris, qui datur in nova lege per fidem. Io. I, 12: dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, et cetera. Si ergo filii Dei estis per fidem, quare vultis esse servi per legis observantias? Nam sola fides homines facit filios Dei adoptivos. Nullus siquidem est filius adoptivus, nisi uniatur et adhaereat filio naturali. Rom. VIII, v. 29: quos praescivit conformes fieri imaginis filii eius, et cetera. Fides enim facit nos in Christo Iesu filios. Eph. III, 17: habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus vestris. Et hoc in Christo Iesu, id est filii Dei estis per Iesum Christum. He says therefore: Verily, we are not under the Law, i.e., under a pedagogue, or under restraint, because we are the sons of God. In like manner, you, too, are neither under the Law nor under a pedagogue; for you have attained to grace. Hence you are all the children of God by faith and not through the Law: “For you have not received the spirit of bondage” (i.e., of fear which was given in the Old Law), “but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons,” namely, of charity and love which is given in the New Law through faith (Rom 8:15); “He gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name” (Jn 1: 12). If, then, you are the sons of God by faith, why do you wish to become slaves by the observances of the Law? For faith alone makes man the adopted son of God. Indeed, no one is an adopted son unless he is united to and cleaves to the natural son: “For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom 8:29). For faith makes us sons in Jesus Christ: “That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts” (Eph 3:17). And this in Christ Jesus, i.e., you are sons of God through Jesus Christ. Consequenter cum dicit quicumque enim in Christo, etc., manifestat propositum. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo proponit propositi manifestationem; secundo manifestationis expositionem, ibi non est Iudaeus, etc.; tertio assignat manifestationis rationem, ibi omnes enim vos unum estis, et cetera. Then when he says, For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ, he expounds his proposition. Concerning this he does three things: First, he proposes to explain the proposition; Secondly, the elucidation of the explanation (v. 28); Thirdly, he assigns the reason behind the explanation (v. 28): For you are all one in Christ Jesus. Manifestat autem circa primum quomodo sumus in Christo Iesu filii Dei. Et hoc est quod dicit quicumque enim in Christo Iesu, et cetera. Quod potest quadrupliciter exponi. Uno modo, ut dicatur: quicumque in Christo Iesu baptizati estis, id est, institutione Christi ad Baptismum instructi estis. Mc. c. ult.: euntes in mundum universum, praedicate Evangelium omni creaturae, et cetera. Qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit, et cetera. Alio modo: quicumque in Christo Iesu baptizati estis, scilicet per similitudinem, et per configurationem mortis Christi. Rom. VI, v. 3: quicumque baptizati sumus in Christo Iesu, in morte ipsius baptizati sumus. Vel in Christo Iesu, id est, in fide Iesu Christi. Nam Baptismus non fit nisi in fide, sine qua effectum Baptismi nullum consequimur. Mc. ult.: qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit, et cetera. Vel in Christo Iesu, id est, in virtute et operatione eius. Io. I, 33: super quem videris spiritum descendentem, hic est qui baptizat. Quicumque ergo istis quatuor modis baptizati estis, Christum induistis. With respect to the first, he shows how we are sons of God in Christ Jesus. And he says: For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ. Now this can be explained in four ways. In one way, so that as many of you as have been baptized in Christ means that it was by Christ’s appointment that you have been instructed for baptism: “Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk 16:16). In another way, as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ, i.e., through a likeness and a configuration of the death of Christ: “We who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death” (Rom 6:3). Or: in Christ Jesus, i.e., in the faith of Christ. For baptism comes about only through faith, without which we derive no effect from baptism: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mk 16:16). Or: in Christ Jesus, i.e., through His power and operation: “He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, he it is that baptizeth” (Jn 1:33). Therefore, as many of you as have been baptized in any of those four ways have put on Christ. Ubi sciendum est, quod qui induitur aliqua veste, protegitur ac contegitur ea, et apparet sub colore vestis, colore proprio occultato. Eodem modo et qui induit Christum, protegitur et contegitur a Christo Iesu contra impugnationes et aestus, et in eo nihil aliud apparet nisi quae Christi sunt. Rom. XIII, 14: induite dominum Iesum Christum. Et sicut lignum accensum induitur igne, et participat eius virtutem, ita et qui Christi virtutes accipit, induitur Christo. Lc. ult.: sedete in civitate donec induamini virtute, etc., quod in illis locum habet qui interius Christi virtute informantur. Eph. IV, 24: induite novum hominem, qui secundum, et cetera. Et nota, quod Christum aliqui induunt exterius per bonam conversationem, et interius per spiritus renovationem; et secundum utrumque per sanctitatis configurationem, ut tangitur in Glossa. Here it should be noted that when someone puts on clothing he is protected and covered by it and his appearance is that of the color of the clothing instead of his own. In the same way, everyone who puts on Christ is protected and covered by Christ Jesus against attack and against the heat; furthermore in such a one nothing appears except what pertains to Christ: “Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 13:14). Again, just as burning wood takes on fire and shares in fire’s activity, so he who receives the virtues of Christ has put on Christ: “Stay you in the city till you be endued with power from on high” (Lk 24:49). This applies to those who are inwardly clothed with the virtue of Christ: “Put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth” (Eph 4:24). And note that some put on Christ outwardly by good works and inwardly by a renewal of the spirit; and with respect to both they are configured to His holiness, as is mentioned in a Gloss. Expositionem autem manifestationis ponit, cum dicit non est Iudaeus, etc., quasi dicat: vere dixi, quod quicumque in Christo Iesu, et cetera. Quia nihil potest esse in hominibus, quod faciat exceptionem a sacramento fidei Christi et Baptismi. Et ponit tres differentias hominum, ostendens quod per eas nullus excipitur a fide Christi. Prima differentia est quantum ad ritum, cum dicit non est Iudaeus, neque Graecus, quasi dicat: ex quo in Christo Iesu baptizatus est, non est differentia, quod propter hoc sit indignior in fide, ex quocumque ritu ad eam venerit, sive ex ritu Iudaico sive Graeco. Rom. III, 29 s.: an Iudaeorum Deus tantum? Nonne et gentium? Immo et gentium, quoniam quidem unus est Deus, qui iustificavit circumcisionem ex fide, et praeputium per fidem. Et Rom. X, 12: non est distinctio Iudaei et Graeci, et cetera. He elucidates this teaching when he says, There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. As if to say: Truly have I said, that as many of you as have been baptized in Christ Jesus have put on Christ, because there is nothing in man that would exclude anyone from the sacrament of the faith of Christ and of baptism. And he mentions three differences among men to show that no one is excluded from faith in Christ by any of them: the first difference concerns one’s rite. Hence he says: There is neither Jew nor Greek. As if to say: Since you have been baptized in Christ, the rite from which you came to Christ, whether it was the Jewish or the Greek, is no ground for saying that anyone occupies a less honorable place in the faith: “Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. For there is one God that justifieth circumcision by faith and uncircumcision through faith” (Rom 3:29). Again: “There is no distinction of the Jew and Greek; for the same is Lord over all” (Rom 10:12). Sed contra est quod dicitur Rom. III, 1: quid ergo amplius est Iudaeo? Multum quidem per omnem modum. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod Iudaei et Graeci possunt considerari dupliciter: uno modo secundum statum in quo erant ante fidem; et sic amplius fuit Iudaeo propter beneficium legis. Alio modo quantum ad statum gratiae, et sic non est amplius Iudaeo; et de hoc intelligitur hic. But this seems to militate against what is said in Romans (3:1): ‘What advantage then hath the Jew? Much every way.” I answer that Jews and Greeks can be considered in two ways. First, according to the state in which they were before faith. In this way, the Jew was greater because of the benefits he derived from the Law. In another way, according to the state of grace; and in this way, the Jew is not greater. And this is the sense in which it is taken here. Secunda differentia est quantum ad statum et conditionem, cum dicit non est servus, neque liber, id est, neque servitus, neque libertas, neque nobilitas, neque ignobilitas differentiam facit ad recipiendum effectum Baptismi. Iob III, 19: parvus et magnus ibi sunt, et servus liber a domino suo. Rom. II, 11: non est personarum acceptio apud Deum. The second difference is with respect to estate, when he says: there is neither bond nor free, i.e., neither slavery nor freedom, neither high estate nor low makes a difference so far as receiving the effect of baptism is concerned: “The small and great are there, and the servant is free from his master” (Job 3:19); “There is no respect of persons with God” (Rom 2:11). Tertia differentia est quantum ad naturam, cum dicit non est masculus, neque foemina, quia sexus nullam differentiam facit quantum ad participandum Baptismi effectum. Gal. III, 28: non est masculus, aut foemina, et cetera. The third difference concerns the condition of the nature: there is neither male nor female, for sex makes no difference as far as sharing in the effect of baptism is concerned. Expositionis vero rationem ponit, cum dicit omnes enim vos unum estis in Christo Iesu, quasi dicat: vere nihil horum est per quod differentia fiat in Christo, quia vos omnes, scilicet fideles, unum estis in Christo Iesu, qui in Baptismo omnes estis effecti membra Christi, et unum corpus, etsi inter vos sitis diversi. Rom. XII, 5: omnes unum corpus sumus in Christo, et cetera. Eph. IV, v. 4: unum corpus, unus spiritus, et cetera. Ubi autem est unitas, differentia non habet locum. Pro hac unitate orat Christus, Io. XVII, 21: volo, pater, ut sint unum, et cetera. The underlying reason for this explanation is set forth when he says, For you are all one in Christ Jesus. As if to say: Truly, none of these things makes a difference in Christ, because all of you, i.e., believers, are one in Christ Jesus, because through baptism you have all been made members of Christ and you form one body, even though you are distinct individuals: “So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and everyone members one of another” (Rom 12:5); “One body, one Spirit, as you are called in one hope of your calling” (Eph 4:4). Now where there is unity, difference has no place. Indeed it was for this unity that Christ prayed: “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee” (Jn 17:21). Consequenter cum dicit si autem vos estis, etc., arguit ad principale propositum hoc modo: dixi quod Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones et semini eius, sed vos estis Abrahae, ergo ad vos pertinet promissio Abrahae de haereditate consequenda. Minorem sic probat: vos estis filii Dei adoptivi, quia estis uniti per fidem Christo, qui est filius Dei naturalis; sed Christus est filius Abrahae, ut supra eodem: quasi in uno, et semini tuo, qui est Christus; ergo si vos estis Christi, id est, in Christo, estis semen Abrahae, id est, filii, cum Christus filius eius sit. Et si filii, estis et haeredes, id est, ad vos pertinet haereditas secundum promissionem Abrahae factam. Rom. IX, 8: non qui filii sunt carnis, hi filii Dei, sed qui sunt filii promissionis, aestimantur in semine. Then when he says, if you be Christ’s, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise, he argues to his main proposition in the following manner: I have said that the promises were made to Abraham and to his seed; but you are of Abraham; therefore, to you pertains the promise made to Abraham about obtaining the inheritance. Then he proves the minor premise: You are the adopted sons of God, because by faith you are united to Christ, Who is the natural Son of God. But Christ is a son of Abraham, as was said above, as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ. Therefore, if you are of Christ, i.e., in Christ, you are the seed of Abraham, i.e., sons, because Christ is his son. And if you are the sons, you are heirs, i.e., the inheritance belongs to you according to the promise made to Abraham: “Not they that are the children of the flesh are the children of God; but they that are the children of the promise are accounted for the seed” (Rom 9:8).
CHAPTER 4
Lecture 1Postquam ostendit apostolus legis defectum, hic consequenter ostendit gratiae dignitatem. Et primo per exemplum humanum; secundo per exemplum Scripturae, ibi dicite mihi qui sub lege vultis esse, et cetera. After pointing out the shortcoming of the Law, the Apostle then shows here the dignity of grace. First, with a human example; secondly, with an example from Scripture (v. 21). Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit dignitatem gratiae supra primitivum statum veteris legis, per similitudinem a lege humana sumptam; secundo ostendit, quod ipsi facti sunt participes huius dignitatis per fidem, ibi quoniam autem estis filii Dei, etc.; tertio arguit ipsos, eo quod hanc dignitatem contemnebant, ibi sed tunc quidem ignorantes Deum, et cetera. Regarding the first he does three things: First, he shows the pre-eminence of grace over the primitive state of the Old Law by a simile taken from human law; Secondly, he shows that they have been made partakers of this pre-eminence through faith (v. 6); Thirdly, he censures them for disdaining this pre-eminence (v. 8). Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit similitudinem; secundo adaptat eam ad propositum, ibi ita et nos cum essemus, et cetera. As to the first, he does two things: First, he lays down the simile; Secondly, he adapts it to his proposition (v. 3). Notandum est quod in proposita similitudine quatuor tangit apostolus. Primo quidem dignitatem, quia non est servus, sed haeres. Unde dicit quanto tempore haeres, etc., quod aptatur et refertur ad populum Iudaeorum, qui fuit haeres promissionis Abrahae, Ps. CXXXIV, 4: elegit nos in haereditatem sibi et ad Christum, qui est haeres omnium, Hebr. I, 2: quem constituit haeredem universorum. It should be noted that the Apostle touches four things in the simile he proposes. First of all, eminence, because he speaks not of a servant but of an heir. Hence he says, As long as the heir is a child. This is applied and referred both to the Jewish people—who were the heirs of the promise to Abraham: “For the Lord hath chosen Jacob unto himself; Israel for his own possession” (Ps 134:4)—and to Christ, Who is the heir of all things: “whom he hath appointed heir of all things” (Heb 1:2). Secundo eius parvitatem. Unde dicit parvulus est, quia et Iudaei parvuli erant secundum statum legis. Amos VII, 5: quis suscitabit Iacob, quia parvulus est? Similiter et Christus parvulus factus est per incarnationem. Is. IX, 6: parvulus natus est nobis, et cetera. Sed nota quod apostolus aliquando assimilat parvulo statum legis, sicut hic, aliquando statum praesentis vitae. I Cor. XIII, v. 11: cum essem parvulus, et cetera. Cuius ratio est, quia status veteris legis est sicut parvulus, propter imperfectionem cognitionis, in ipsa comparatione ad statum gratiae et veritatis, quae per Christum facta est. Sic et status praesentis vitae, in qua videmus per speculum in aenigmate, est sicut parvulus, comparatus statui futurae vitae, in qua est perfecta Dei cognitio, quia videtur sicuti est. Secondly, smallness; hence he says, is a child, because the Jews were children according to the state of the Law: “Who shall raise up Jacob, for he is a little one?” (Am 7:5). Similarly, Christ, too, was become a child through the Incarnation: “For a child is born to us and a son is given to us” (Is 9:6). But note that the Apostle sometimes compares the state of the Law to a child, as he does here, and sometimes the state of the present life: “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child” (1 Cor 13:11). The reason for this is that the state of the Old Law, because of the imperfection of knowledge, is as a child, compared to the state of grace and truth which came through Christ. In like manner, the state of the present life, in which we see through a mirror in a dark manner, is as a child, compared to the state of the future life, in which there is perfect knowledge of God, because He is seen as He Is Tertio eius subiectionem, cum dicit nihil differt a servo, cum sit dominus omnium, sed sub tutoribus, et cetera. Proprium enim servi est, quod sit subiectus alicui domino. Puer autem, quamdiu parvulus est, quia non habet cognitionem perfectam et usum liberae voluntatis propter defectum aetatis, committitur custodiae aliorum, qui et bona sua defendant: et hi dicuntur tutores; et negotia agant: et hi actores nominantur. Et ideo licet sit dominus omnium rerum suarum, tamen in quantum subiicitur aliis, nihil differt a servo, quia nec voluntatem liberam habet, imo cogitur: et haec adaptantur ad populum Iudaicum Is. XLIV, 1: et nunc servus meus Iacob, et cetera. Thirdly, subjection, when he says, he differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all: but is under tutors and governors. For a servant is one who is subject to a lord. But a boy, as long as he is a child, because he does not have fulness of knowledge and use of free will through lack of years, is committed to the care of others who defend his possessions—and these are called tutors—and who handle his affairs-and these are called governors. Therefore, though he be lord of all his things, yet, in so far as he is subject to others, he differs nothing from a servant, because he does not have free will but is in fact constrained. And this is applied to the Jewish people: “And now hear, O Jacob, my servant” (Is 44:1). Sed notandum est, quod in populo Iudaico aliqui erant simpliciter servi, illi scilicet qui propter timorem poenae et cupiditatem temporalium, quae lex promittebat, legem servabant. Aliqui vero erant, qui non erant servi simpliciter, sed, quasi servi existentes, erant vere filii et haeredes: qui licet attenderent exterius ad temporalia et vitarent poenas, nihilominus tamen in eis finem non ponebant sed accipiebant ea, ut figuram spiritualium bonorum. Unde licet viderentur nihil exterius differre a servis, inquantum caeremonias et alia legis mandata servabant, tamen erant domini, quia non ea intentione eis utebantur, ut servi, quia illis utebantur amore spiritualium bonorum, quae praefigurabant: servi vero principaliter timore poenae et cupiditate terrenae commoditatis. Christus erat etiam quasi servus, quia, licet sit dominus omnium, secundum illud Ps. CIX, v. 1: dixit dominus domino meo, etc., tamen nihil videbatur differre a servo in exterioribus, inquantum homo. Phil. II, 7: exinanivit semetipsum, formam servi accipiens, et habitu inventus ut homo. Sub tutoribus autem et actoribus erat, quia sub lege factus erat, ut dicitur infra eodem, factum sub lege, et hominibus subditus, ut dicitur Lc. II, 51: erat subditus illis. Here it should be noted that among the Jewish people some were servants in the strict sense; those, namely, who observed the Law through fear of punishment and through a desire for the temporal things which the Law promised. But there were others who were not servants in the strict sense, but living as servants, were really sons and heirs. These, although outwardly attending to temporal things and avoiding punishments, did not place their end in them but took them as a figure of spiritual goods. Hence, even though on the surface they seemed to differ nothing from servants, inasmuch as they observed the ceremonies and other commandments of the Law, they were, nevertheless, lords, because they did not use them with the same frame of mind as servants; for they used them for love of the spiritual goods they prefigured, whereas servants used them chiefly through fear of punishment and with a desire for earthly convenience. Christ, too was like a servant, because although He is the Lord of all things according to Psalm (109:1): “The Lord said to my Lord,” nevertheless outwardly, as man, He seemed to differ nothing from a servant: “He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man” (Phil 2:7). Furthermore, he was under tutors and governors, because He was made under the Law, as is said below: made under the law (v. 4); He was also subject to men, as is said in Luke (2:51): “He was subject to them.” Quarto ponit temporis congruitatem, cum dicit usque ad praefinitum tempus a patre, quia sicut haeres secundum determinationem patris praefinito tempore sub tutoribus est, ita et lex determinatum tempus habuit a Deo, quamdiu deberet durare, et quamdiu haeres, scilicet populus Iudaeorum, esset sub ea. Similiter et praefinitum tempus fuit a patre, quo Christus non erat facturus miracula et ostensurus dominium potestatis divinae. Io. II, 4: nondum venit hora mea. Fourthly, he touches on the correspondence of time, when he says, until the time appointed by the father, because just as the heir is under tutors for a definite period of time fixed by the father, so the Law had a time fixed by God determining how long it was to endure and how long the heir, i.e., the Jewish people, where to be under it. Similarly, there was a time fixed by the Father during which Christ was not to perform miracles or show the Lordship of His divine power: “My hour is not yet come” (in. 2:4). Hanc similitudinem adaptat, cum dicit consequenter ita et nos, et cetera. Et primo adaptat eam quantum ad Iudaeos; secundo quantum ad Christum, ibi at ubi venit plenitudo temporis. He applies this simile when he says, So we also, when we were children, were serving under the elements of the world. First, he applies it as touching the Jews; Secondly, as touching Christ (v. 4). Dicit ergo: dico quod quanto tempore haeres parvulus, etc., et ita nos, Iudaei, cum essemus parvuli, in statu legis veteris, sub elementis mundi eramus servientes, id est sub lege, quae temporalia promittebat Is. I, 19: si volueritis et audieritis me, bona terrae comedetis et comminabatur poenas temporales. He says therefore: I say that as long as the heir is a child he differeth nothing from a servant; so, we Jews also, when we were children in the state of the Old Law, were serving under the elements of the world, i.e., under the Law which promised temporal things—“If you be willing, and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land” (Is 1:19)—and threatened temporal punishments. Vel lex vetus dicitur elementum, quia sicut pueris, qui sunt instituendi ad scientiam, primo proponuntur elementa illius scientiae, per quae manuducuntur ad illam scientiam: ita lex vetus proposita est Iudaeis, per quam manuducerentur ad fidem et iustitiam. Supra III, 24: lex paedagogus noster fuit in Christo. Vel, sub elementis, id est corporalibus rerum ritibus quos servabant, sicut lunares dies, Neomenias et sabbatum. Nec tamen instandum est quod propter hoc non differrent a Paganis, qui elementis serviebant huius mundi, cum eis non servirent Iudaei, seu cultum impenderent; sed sub eis Deo serviebant, et eum colebant, gentiles vero elementis servientes, eis divinum cultum impendebant. Rom. I, 25: servierunt creaturae potius quam creatori, et cetera. Fuit autem necessarium, quod Iudaei sub elementis huius mundi deservirent Deo, quia iste ordo est congruus naturae humanae, ut a sensibilibus ad intellectualia perducantur. Or the Old Law is called “element,” because just as boys who are to be trained in a science are first taught the elements of that science and through them are brought to the fulness of science, so to the Jews was proposed the Old Law through which they would be brought to faith and justice: the law was our pedagogue in Christ (3:24). Or, under the elements, i.e., the corporeo-religious usages which they observed, such as days of the moon, new moons and the Sabbath. But one should not object that on this account they differed nothing from the pagans who served the elements of this world, for the Jews did not serve them or pay them worship; but under them they served and worshipped God, whereas the pagans in serving the elements rendered them divine worship: “They worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever” (Rom 1:25). Furthermore, it was necessary that the Jews serve God under the elements of this world, because such an order is in harmony with human nature which is led from sensible to intelligible things.
CHAPTER 4
Lecture 2Hic adaptat apostolus similitudinem propositam ad Christum. Et primo ponitur adaptatio; secundo finis rei, in qua similitudo adaptatur, ibi ut eos qui sub lege erant, et cetera. Here the Apostle applies to Christ the simile he has pro posed. First, he makes the application; Secondly, he discloses the purpose of the reality that corresponds to the simile (v. 5). Sciendum est autem quod supra, in similitudine proposita, quatuor ostendit per ordinem, sicut dictum est. Hic autem illa quatuor adaptans ad Christum, incipit ab ultimo, scilicet a determinatione temporis, cuius ratio est, quia idem tempus fuit in quo Christus fuit humiliatus et in quo fideles fuerunt exaltati. Et ideo dicit at ubi venit plenitudo temporis, id est postquam tempus, quod fuerat praefinitum a Deo patre de mittendo filio suo, erat completum; et hoc modo accipitur Lc. II, 6: impleti sunt dies, et cetera. Dicitur autem plenum tempus illud propter plenitudinem gratiarum, quae in eo dantur, secundum Ps. LXIV, 10: flumen Dei repletum est aquis, et cetera. Item propter impletionem figurarum veteris legis. Matth. V, 17: non veni solvere legem, et cetera. Item, propter impletionem promissorum. Dan. IX, 27: confirmabit autem pactum multis hebdomada una. Hoc autem quod dicit at ubi venit plenitudo temporis, etc., similiter et in aliis Scripturae locis, ubi tempus circa Christum impleri dicitur, non est referendum ad fatalem necessitatem, sed ad divinam ordinationem, de qua dicitur in Ps. CXVIII, 91: ordinatione tua perseverat dies, et cetera. It should be noted that above, in the simile he proposed, there were four items pointed out in order, as has been said. But now, in applying them to Christ, he begins with the last, namely, the fixing of a time. The reason for this is that the time in which Christ was humiliated and in which the faithful were exalted turns out to be the same. Hence he says: But, when the fulness of the time was come, i.e., after the time fixed by God the Father for sending His Son had been accomplished. This is bow it is taken in Luke (2:6): “Her days were accomplished, that she should be delivered.” This time is called “full” because of the fulness of the graces that are given in it, according to Psalm (64:10): “The river of God is filled with water; thou hast prepared their food: for so is its preparation.” Also because of the fulfillment of the figures of the Old Law: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Mt 5:17). And because of the fulfillment of the promises: “And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week” (Dan. 9:27). However, the fact that he likewise says, But, when the fulness of time was come, in other places of Scripture where the time respecting Christ is said to be accomplished, should not be explained in terms of a necessity imposed by fate, but in terms of a divine ordinance, concerning which Psalm (118:91) states: “By thy ordinance the day goeth on; for all things serve thee.” Assignatur autem duplex ratio, quare illud tempus praeordinatum est ad adventum Christi. Una sumitur ex magnitudine. Quia enim magnus est qui venturus erat, oportebat et multis indiciis et multis praeparationibus homines ad adventum eius disponi. Hebr. I, 1: multifarie multisque modis, et cetera. Alia ex conditione venientis. Quia enim medicus erat venturus, oportebat quod ante adventum suum convincerentur homines de morbo, et quantum ad defectum scientiae in lege naturae et quantum ad defectum virtutis in lege scripta. Et ideo oportuit utrumque, scilicet et legem naturae et legem Scripturae, adventum Christi praecedere. Two reasons are given why that time was pre-ordained for the coming of Christ. One is taken from His greatness: for since He that was to come was great, it was fitting that men be made ready for His coming by many indications and many preparations. “God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all in these days hath spoken to us by his Son” (Heb 1: 1). The other is taken from the role of the one coming: for since a physician was to come, it was fitting that before his coming, men should be keenly aware of their infirmity, both as to their lack of knowledge during the Law of nature and as to their lack of virtue during the written Law. Therefore it was fitting that both, namely, the Law of nature and the written Law, precede the coming of Christ. Secundo adaptat quantum ad haereditariam dignitatem, cum dicit misit Deus filium suum, scilicet proprium et naturalem. Et si filius, ergo et haeres. Dicit autem filium suum, id est proprium, naturalem et unigenitum, non adoptivum. Io. III, v. 16: sic Deus dilexit mundum, ut, et cetera. Misit, inquam, eum non a se separatum, quia missus est per hoc, quod assumpsit humanam naturam, et tamen erat in sinu patris, Io. I, 18: unigenitus, qui est in sinu patris aeternaliter. Io. III, 13: nemo ascendit in caelum, nisi qui descendit de caelo, filius hominis qui est in caelo, qui, licet descenderit per assumptionem carnis, tamen est in caelo. Item misit eum, non ut esset ubi prius non erat; quia, licet in propria venerit per praesentiam carnis, in mundo tamen erat per praesentiam deitatis, ut dicitur in Evangelio Io. I, 14. Similiter non misit eum quasi ministrum, quia sua missio fuit assumptio carnis, non depositio maiestatis. Misit ergo Deus filium suum ad sanandum, inquam, deviationem concupiscibilis, et ad illuminandum ignorantiam rationalis creaturae. Ps. CVI, 20: misit verbum suum, et cetera. Misit etiam ad liberandum a potestate Daemonis contra infirmitatem irascibilis. Is. XIX, v. 20: mittet eis salvatorem, qui liberet eos. Item ad remedium ab obligatione aeternae mortis. Os. III, 14: de manu mortis liberabo eos, de morte redimam eos. Item ad salvandum ab eorum peccatis. Io. III, 17: non misit Deus filium suum in mundum, ut iudicet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum, et cetera. Secondly, he applies it as to His dignity as heir, when he says, God sent his Son, namely, His own natural Son; and if a son, then an heir also. He says, his Son, i.e., His own, natural, only begotten but not adopted, Son: “God so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son” (Jn 3:16). He sent Him, I say, without His being separated from Him, for He was sent by assuming human nature, and yet He was in the bosom of the Father: “The only begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father” eternally (Jn 1:18); “And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven,” Who, although He descended by assuming flesh is, nevertheless, in heaven (Jn 3:13). Again, He sent Him, not to be where before He Was not; because, although He came unto His own by His presence in the flesh, yet by the presence of His Godhead, He was in the world, as is said in John (1:14). Furthermore, He did not send Him as a minister, because His mission was the assuming of flesh, not the putting off of majesty. God, therefore, sent His Son, I say, to heal the errantry of the concupiscible part and to illumine the ignorance of the rational part: “He sent his word and healed them: and delivered them from their destructions” (Ps 106:20). He sent Him also to deliver them from the power of the devil against the infirmity of the irascible part: “He shall send them a Savior and defender to deliver them” (Is 19:20). Also as a deliverer from the chains of eternal death: I will deliver them out of the hand of death. I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy death”’ (Hos. 13:14). Also to save them from their sins: “For God sent not his Son into the world to judge the world but that the world may be saved by him” (Jn 3:17). Tertio adaptat similitudinem quantum ad parvitatem, cum dicit factum ex muliere. Is. IX, 6: parvulus natus est nobis, et cetera. Phil. II, 7: exinanivit semetipsum, et cetera. Parvum se fecit non dimittendo magnitudinem, sed assumendo parvitatem. Thirdly, he applies the simile as to smallness, when he says, made of a woman: “For a child is born to us” (Is 9:6); “He emptied himself taking the form of a servant” (Phil 2:7). He made Himself small not by putting off greatness, but by taking on smallness. In hoc autem quod dicit factum ex muliere, cavendi sunt duo errores, scilicet Photini, qui dixit Christum purum hominem esse et ex virgine principium essendi sumpsisse; et ideo ita dicit ipsum factum ex muliere, quasi totaliter initium ex ea sumpserit. Sed hoc est falsum, quia est contra illud quod dicitur Rom. I, 3: qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem; non dicit secundum personam, quae est ab aeterno, scilicet ipsa hypostasis filii Dei. Unde sicut cum scutum fit album de novo, non oportet dicere, quod ipsa substantia scuti de novo fiat sed quod ei de novo albedo accesserit, ita ex hoc quod filius Dei de novo carnem assumpsit, non oportet dicere, quod persona Christi de novo sit facta, sed quod natura humana ei de novo advenit, sicut corpori cum absque sui mutatione quaedam accidunt. Aliqua enim adveniunt alicui et immutant ipsum, sicut formae et qualitates absolutae; quaedam vero absque mutatione adveniunt, et huiusmodi est assumptio carnis, secundum quod dicit relationem. Unde per hoc persona verbi in nullo mutatur. Et inde est, quod in divinis utimur his quae relationem significant etiam ex tempore. Unde dicimus illud Ps. LXXXIX, 1: domine, refugium factus es nobis, et quod Deus factus est homo. Non autem utimur formis et qualitatibus absolutis, ut: Deus factus est bonus, sapiens, et huiusmodi. In interpreting the passage, made of woman, two errors must be avoided; namely, that of Photinus, who said that Christ was solely man and received the beginning of His existence from the Virgin; in other words, that Christ was made of a woman as though deriving his beginning entirely from her. But this is false, because it contradicts what is said in Romans (1:3): “Who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh”; he does not say “according to His person,” which exists from eternity, namely, the hypostasis of the Son of God. Hence, just as when a shield newly comes to be white, it is not proper to say that the very substance of the shield newly came to be, but that the whiteness newly accrued to it; so from the fact that the Son of God newly assumed flesh, it is not proper to say that the person of Christ newly came to be, but that a human nature newly accrued to that person, as when certain things affect a body without that body itself being changed. For certain items affect a thing and change it, such as forms and absolute qualities; but certain other items affect it without changing it. Of this sort is the assuming of flesh precisely as bespeaking a relationship. Hence the person of the Word is in no way changed by it. That is why in divine matters we employ in a temporal sense terms that signify a relationship; thus, we say in Psalm (89:1): “Lord, thou hast been our refuge”; or we say that God became man. But we do not thus use forms and absolute qualities, so as to say: God was made good or wise and so on. Item vitandus est error Hebionis, qui dicit Christum ex Ioseph semine esse natum, motus ad hoc ponendum per hoc quod dicitur ex muliere. Nam, secundum eum, mulier tantum importat corruptionem. Sed hoc est falsum, quia hoc nomen mulier, in sacra Scriptura, designat etiam sexum naturalem, secundum illud Gen. III, 12: mulier quam dedisti mihi, et cetera. Vocat enim eam mulierem, quae tamen adhuc erat virgo. Secondly, one must avoid the error of Ebion, who said that Christ was born of the seed of Joseph, and who was led to this by the saying, born of a woman. For according to him the word “woman” always implies defloration. But this is erroneous, for in Sacred Scripture “woman” also denotes the natural sex, according to Genesis (3:12): “Adam said: The woman who thou gavest me to be my companion gave me of the tree.” Here he calls her a woman while she was still a virgin. Per hoc etiam quod dicitur ex muliere factus, destruuntur duo errores, scilicet Valentini dicentis Christum non sumpsisse corpus de virgine, sed attulisse illud de caelo, et, per beatam virginem, sicut per fistulam seu canale, transivisse. Sed hoc est falsum, quia si verum esset quod dicit, non fuisset factus ex muliere, ut apostolus dicit. Haec enim praepositio, ex, causam materialem designat. Item, error Nestorii dicentis beatam virginem non esse matrem filii Dei, sed filii hominis: quod falsum esse ostenditur per hoc quod dicit apostolus hic, quod misit Deus filium suum factum ex muliere. Qui enim fit ex muliere, est filius eius. Si ergo filius Dei est factus ex muliere, scilicet ex beata virgine, manifestum est, quod beata virgo est mater filii Dei. Furthermore, by saying made of a woman two errors are destroyed, namely, that of Nestorious saying that Christ did not take His body of the Virgin but of the heavens and that He passed through the Blessed Virgin as through a corridor or channel. But this is false, for if it were true, He would not, as the Apostle says, have been made of a woman. By the preposition “of” [ ex ] the material cause is denoted. Likewise, the error of Nestorious saying that the Blessed Virgin is not the mother of the Son of God but of the son of a man. But this is shown to be false by the words of the Apostle here, that God sent his Son made of a woman. Now one who is made of a woman is her son. Therefore, if the Son of God was made of a woman, namely, of the Blessed Virgin, it is obvious that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of the Son of God. Licet autem posset dici natus ex muliere signanter tamen dicit factum, et non natum. Nasci enim aliquid, est ipsum produci solum ex principio coniuncto, sed fieri etiam ex principio separato. Arca enim fit ab artifice, sed fructus nascitur ex arbore. Principium autem humanae generationis est duplex, scilicet materiale: et quantum ad hoc Christus processit ex principio coniuncto, quia materiam sui corporis sumpsit ex virgine. Unde secundum hoc dicitur nasci de ea. Matth. I, 16: de qua natus est Iesus, et cetera. Aliud est principium activum, quod quidem in Christo, quantum ad id quod principium habuit, id est quantum ad formationem corporis, non fuit coniunctum, sed separatum, quia virtus spiritus sancti formavit illud. Et quantum ad hoc non dicitur natus ex muliere sed factus quasi ex principio exteriori. Ex quo patet, quod hoc quod dixit ex muliere, non dicit corruptionem, quia dixisset natum et non factum. Moreover, although he might have said “born of a woman,” he distinctly says made, and not “born.” Indeed, for something to be born it must not only be produced of a principle conjoined to it but be made from a principle separate from it. Thus a wooden chest is made by an artisan, but fruit is born from a tree. Now the principle of human generation is twofold, namely, material—and as to this, Christ proceeded from a conjoined principle, because He took the matter of His body from the Virgin; and it is according to this that He is said to be born of her: “Of whom [Mary] was born Jesus Who is called Christ” (Mt 1:16).—The other is the active principle, which in the case of Christ, so far as He had a principle, i.e., as to the forming of the body, was not conjoined but separate, because the power of the Holy Spirit formed it. And with respect to this He is not said to have been born of a woman, but made, as it were, from an extrinsic principle. From this it is obvious that the saying, of a woman, does not denote a defloration; otherwise he would have said “born’ and not “made.” Quarto adaptat similitudinem quantum ad subiectionem, cum dicit factum sub lege. Sed contra est, quod dicitur infra V, 18: si spiritu ducimini, non estis sub lege. Si ergo Christus non solum est spiritualis, sed etiam dator spiritus, inconvenienter videtur dici quod sit factus sub lege. Respondeo. Dicendum est quod esse sub lege dicitur dupliciter. Uno modo, ut ly sub, denotet solam observantiam legis, et sic Christus fuit factus sub lege, quia circumcisus fuit et in templo praesentatus. Matth. V, v. 17: non veni legem solvere, et cetera. Alio modo, ut ly sub, denotet oppressionem. Et hoc modo ille dicitur esse sub lege, qui timore legis opprimitur et hoc modo nec Christus, nec viri spiritales dicuntur esse sub lege. Fourthly, he applies the simile as to its aspect of subjection when he says, made under the law. But here a difficulty comes to mind from what is said below, namely: If you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law (5:18). Hence if Christ is not only spiritual but the giver of the Spirit, it seems unbecoming to say that He was made under the Law. I answer that “to be under the Law” can be taken in two ways: in one way so that “under” denotes the mere observance of the Law, and in this sense Christ was made under the Law, because He was circumcised and presented in the temple: “I am not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Mt 5:17). In another way so that “under” denotes oppression. And in this way one is said to be under the Law if he is oppressed by fear of the Law. But neither Christ nor spiritual men are said to be under the Law in this way. Consequenter cum dicit ut eos qui sub lege, etc., ponit fructum rei in qua similitudo adaptatur, scilicet quod ideo voluit isto tempore fieri subiectus, ut haeredes fierent magni et liberi. Et haec duo ponit, et, primo, fructum liberationis contra subiectionem. Et ideo dicit ut eos qui sub lege erant, id est sub maledicto et onere legis, liberaret. Supra III, v. 13: Christus nos redemit de maledicto legis, et cetera. Secundo fructum exaltationis, inquantum adoptamur in filios Dei per hoc quod accipimus spiritum Christi et conformamur ei. Rom. VIII, 9: si quis spiritum Christi non habet, et cetera. Et haec adoptio specialiter competit Christo, quia non possumus fieri filii adoptivi, nisi conformemur filio naturali. Rom. VIII, v. 29: quos praescivit conformes fieri imaginis filii eius, et cetera. Et quantum ad hoc dicit ut adoptionem filiorum reciperemus, id est ut per filium Dei naturalem efficeremur filii adoptivi secundum gratiam per Christum. Then when he says, that he might redeem them who were under the law, he sets down the fruit of the reality in which the simile is applied, namely, that the reason why He willed they be subject during that time was that they might become heirs great and free. And he mentions both of these things. First, the fruit of freedom as against subjection; hence he says, that he might redeem them who were under the law, i.e., under the curse and burden of the Law; Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us (3:13). Secondly, the fruit of being made great, inasmuch as we are adopted as sons of God by receiving the Spirit of God and being conformed to Him: “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His” (Rom 8:9). This adoption belongs in a special way to Christ, because we cannot become adopted sons unless we are conformed to the natural son: “For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son” (Rom 8:29). With this in mind, he says, that we might receive the adoption of sons, i.e., that through the natural Son of God we might be made adopted sons according to grace through Christ.
CHAPTER 4
Lecture 3Supra apostolus ostendit beneficium Iudaeis exhibitum, hic ostendit hoc beneficium etiam ad gentiles pertinere. Et primo proponit ipsum beneficium; secundo modum adipiscendi, ibi misit Deus spiritum, etc.; tertio manifestat eius fructum, ibi itaque iam non est, et cetera. Above, the Apostle revealed the gift bestowed on the Jews; here he shows that this gift pertains also to the Gentiles. First, he mentions the gift; Secondly, the means of obtaining it (v. 6); Thirdly, he discloses the fruit of this gift (v. 7). Dicit ergo, quod beneficium adoptionis filiorum Dei non solum pertinet ad eos qui sub lege erant sed etiam ad gentiles. Et ideo dicit: quoniam estis filii Dei, etc., id est quod sitis filii Dei, ista de causa factum est, quia non solum Iudaei, sed etiam omnes alii, qui in filium Dei credunt, adoptantur in filios, et cetera. Io. I, 12: dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, et cetera. Modus autem adipiscendi illud donum est per missionem spiritus filii Dei in corda vestra. He says therefore that the gift of adoption of sons pertains not only to those who were under the Law but to the Gentiles as well. Hence he says: because you are sons of God, i.e., you are the sons of God, because not only the Jews but all others who believe in the Son of God are adopted as sons: “He gave them power to be made sons of God, to them that believe in his name” (Jn 1:12). The manner in which that gift is obtained is by the sending of the Spirit of the Son of God into your hearts. Augustinus autem dicit, quod Christus in carne existens praedicavit Iudaeis principaliter, gentibus autem perfunctorie. Rom. XV, 8: dico Christum Iesum ministrum fuisse circumcisionis, et cetera. Et ideo quidquid pertinet ad statum Iudaeorum, convenienter attribuitur Christo. Augustine says, however, that Christ, existing in the flesh, preached in a principal manner to the Jews, but to the Gentiles as a matter of course: “For I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision for the truth of God to confirm the promises made unto the fathers” (Rom 15:8). Accordingly, whatever pertains to the condition of the Jews is fittingly adapted to Christ. Et quia possent dicere isti, Galatas non esse adoptatos in filios Dei, cum Christus ex eis carnem non sumpserit, nec eis praedicaverit, unde non videbantur in aliquo Christo coniungi, ideo apostolus modum huius adoptionis demonstrans, dicit quod et si non fuerunt coniuncti Christo secundum carnem, scilicet quantum ad gentem, neque secundum praedicationem, tamen fuerunt coniuncti per spiritum, et ex hoc adoptati sunt in filios Dei. Unde conversio gentilium specialiter attribuitur spiritui sancto. Et ideo Petrus, quando fuit reprehensus a Iudaeis, quod ivisset praedicare gentibus, excusavit se per spiritum sanctum, dicens, Act. XI, 12, non posse resistere spiritui sancto, cuius instinctu hoc fecerat. Et ideo, quia misit Deus, pater, spiritum filii sui in corda nostra, Iudaeorum scilicet et gentium, coniungimur Christo, et per hoc adoptamur in filios Dei. And because they might have said that the Galatians had not been adopted as sons of God, since Christ did not assume flesh from them or preach to them, for that reason the Apostle, elucidating the manner of this adoption, says that although they were not related to Christ according to the flesh, i.e., according to race, or by reason of preaching, yet they were united to him through the Spirit and thereby adopted and made sons of God. Hence the conversion of the Gentiles is in “a special way attributed to the Holy Spirit. Consequently, Peter, when he was blamed by the Jews for going to preach to the Gentiles, excused himself through the Holy Spirit, saying (Acts 11) that he could not resist the Holy Spirit by Whose inspiration he had done this. And so, because God the Father sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, i.e., the hearts of the Jews and Gentiles, we are united to Christ and by that fact are adopted as sons of God. Sed sciendum est, quod si alicubi in Scriptura invenitur spiritus sanctus mitti a patre, Io. XIV, 26, Paracletus autem spiritus sanctus, quem mittet pater, etc., aliquando vero a filio, Io. XV, 26, cum venerit Paracletus, quem ego mittam vobis, etc., nihilominus tamen spiritus sanctus communis est patri et filio, et ab utroque procedit et ab utroque datur. Et ideo est, quod ubicumque invenitur quod pater mittat spiritum sanctum, fit mentio de filio, sicut in praemissa auctoritate dicitur quem mittet pater in nomine meo. Et, similiter, ubi dicitur mitti a filio, fit mentio de patre; unde dicit quem mittam vobis a patre. Et etiam hic cum dicit misit Deus, pater, spiritum sanctum, statim fit mentio de filio, cum dicit filii sui. Nec refert si alicubi dicatur spiritus sanctus solum a patre procedere, quia, ex quo filius mittit eum, manifestum est quod ab ipso procedit. Unde spiritus sanctus dicitur spiritus filii, sicut mittentis, et sicut a quo procedit, et sicut a quo habet spiritus sanctus quidquid habet, sicut et a patre. Io. c. XVI, 14: ille me clarificabit, quia de meo accipiet, et cetera. But it should be noted that if in certain passages of Scripture the Holy Spirit is said to be sent by the Father—“But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name” (Jn 14:26)—and in others to be sent by the Son—“But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father” (Jn 15:26)—the Holy Spirit is none the less common to Father and Son and proceeds from Both and is sent by Both. Accordingly, wherever it is said that the Father sends the Holy Spirit, mention is made of the Son, as in the aforesaid passage: “Whom the Father will send in my name”; and where He is said to be sent by the Son, mention is made of the Father; hence He says, “Whom I will send to you from the Father.” Even here, when he says, God the Father hath sent the Holy Spirit, mention is made at once of the Son, for he adds, of his Son. Nor does it matter that at times the Holy Spirit is only said to proceed from the Father, for the fact that the Son sends Him shows that He proceeds from Him. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son as of the One sending and as of the One from Whom He proceeds, as well as of the One from Whom the Holy Spirit has whatever He has, just as of the Father: “He shall glorify me, because He shall receive of mine” (Jn 16:14). Dicit autem in corda, quia duplex est generatio. Una carnalis, quae fit per semen carnale missum in locum generationis: quod quidem semen, licet sit quantitate parvum, tamen virtute continet totum. Alia est spiritualis, quae fit per semen spirituale transmissum in locum spiritualis generationis; qui quidem locus est mens seu cor hominis, quia in filios Dei generamur per mentis renovationem. Semen autem spirituale est gratia spiritus sancti. I Io. ult.: qui natus est ex Deo, non peccat: quoniam generatio Dei conservat eum, et cetera. Et hoc semen est virtute continens totam perfectionem beatitudinis. Unde dicitur pignus et arra beatitudinis Ephes. I, 14; Ez. XXXVI, 26: dabo spiritum novum, et cetera. But he says, into your hearts, because there is a twofold generation: one is carnal and comes about through fleshly seed sent to the place of generation. This seed, small as it is, contains in effect the whole. The other is spiritual, which comes about by spiritual seed transmitted to the place of spiritual generation, i.e., man’s mind or heart, because they are born sons of God through a renewal of the mind. Furthermore, the spiritual seed is the grace of the Holy Spirit: “Whosoever is born of God sinneth not: but the generation of God preserveth him and the wicked one toucheth him not” (1 Jn 5:18). This seed contains, in effect, the whole perfection of beatitude; hence it is called the pledge and earnest of beatitude (Eph 1:14); “I will put a new spirit within you” (Ez 36:26). Clamantem, id est clamare facientem, abba, pater, non magnitudine vocis, sed magnitudine et fervore affectus. Tunc enim clamamus abba, pater, quando per affectum accendimur calore spiritus sancti ad desiderium Dei. Rom. VIII, 15: non accepistis spiritum servitutis, et cetera. Abba, pater, et cetera. Idem autem est in significatione, abba, quod est Hebraeum, et pater, quod est Latinum, et patir, quod est Graecum. Et utrumque ponit ut ostendat quod gratia spiritus sancti communiter se habet quantum ad utrumque populum, quantum est ex se. Crying, i.e., making us cry, Abba, Father, not with a loudness of voice but with a great fervor of love. For we cry, Abba, Father, when our affections are kindled by the warmth of the Holy Spirit to desire God: “You have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry, Abba (Father)” (Rom 8:15). Abba in Hebrew and Pater in Greek have the same meaning of “father.” And he makes mention of both to show that the grace of the Holy Spirit, as such, is related in a common way to both. Consequenter cum dicit itaque iam non est servus, etc., ponit fructum huius beneficii. Et primo quantum ad remotionem omnis mali, a quo liberamur per adoptionem spiritus sancti et haec est liberatio a servitute. Et quantum ad hoc dicit itaque, scilicet quia spiritus clamat in nobis, pater, iam, a tempore gratiae, non est aliquis nostrum, qui in Christum credimus, servus, in timore scilicet serviens. Io. XV, 15: iam non dicam vos servos, sed amicos, et cetera. Rom. VIII, 15: non accepistis spiritum servitutis, et cetera. Sed est filius. Rom. VIII, 16: ipse spiritus testimonium reddit spiritui nostro, quod sumus filii Dei. Licet enim conditione servi simus, quia dicitur Lc. XVII, 10: cum feceritis omnia quae praecepta sunt vobis, dicite: servi inutiles sumus, tamen non sumus servi malevoli, ex timore scilicet servientes, quia tali servo debentur tortura et compedes; sed sumus servi boni et fideles, et amore servientes, et ideo libertatem per filium consequimur. Io. VIII, v. 36: si filius vos liberaverit, vere liberi eritis. Then when he says, Therefore, now he is not a servant, but a son, he mentions the fruit of this gift. First, as to removing all evil, from which we are freed through adoption by the Holy Spirit. This is freedom from bondage. With respect to this he says: Therefore, i.e., because the Spirit cries “Father” in us, now, from the time of grace, he, i.e., each one of us who believes in Christ, is not a servant, i.e., serving in fear—“I will not now call you servants but friends” (Jn 15:15); “You have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear: but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons” (Rom 8:15)— but a son: “For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit that we are the sons of God” (Rom 8:16). For although we be in the condition of servants (because it is said in Luke (17:10): “When you shall have done all these things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants”), we are not ill-disposed servants, i.e., serving in fear—for such a servant is deserving of torture and chains—but we are good and faithful servants, serving out of love. For that reason we obtain freedom through the Son: “If, therefore, the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed” (Jn 8:36). Secundo, ponit fructum quantum ad consecutionem omnis boni, et quantum ad hoc dicit quod si filius, et haeres per Deum, Rom. VIII, 17: si filii et haeredes, haeredes quidem Dei, et cetera. Haec autem haereditas est plenitudo omnis boni, cum nihil aliud sit quam ipse Deus, secundum illud Ps. XV, 5: dominus pars haereditatis meae, et cetera. Gen. c. XV, 1: dixit ad Abraham: ego ero merces tua magna nimis, et cetera. Dicit autem per Deum, quia sicut Iudaei haereditatem adepti sunt per Dei repromissionem et iustitiam, ita et gentiles per Deum, id est per Dei misericordiam. Rom. XV, 9: gentes autem super misericordia honorare Deum, et cetera. Vel per Deum, id est per Dei operationem. Is. XXVI, 12: omnia opera nostra operatus es in nobis, domine. Secondly, he mentions the fruit as to its effect of attaining every good. With regard to this he says: And, if a son, an heir also through God: “And if sons, heirs also: heirs indeed of God and joint heirs with Christ” (Rom 8:17). Now this inheritance is the fulness of all good, for it is nothing other than God Himself, according to Psalm (15:5): “The Lord is the portion of my inheritance.” He said to Abraham: “I am thy reward exceeding great” (Gen 15:1). He says, through God, because as the Jews obtained the inheritance through the promise and justice of God, so the Gentiles too received it through God, i.e., through the mercy of God: “But the Gentiles are to glorify God for his mercy” (Rom 15:9). Or, through God, i.e., through the working of God: “Thou hast wrought all our works for us, O Lord” (Is 26:12).
CHAPTER 4
Lecture 4Posita dignitate beneficii gratiae, et ostensa per exemplum humanum, hic apostolus arguit Galatas, qui hanc gratiam contemnebant, utpote ingrati tanto beneficio. Et primo arguit eos de ingratitudine; secundo excusat se, quod hoc non facit ex odio et livore, ibi fratres, obsecro vos, non me laesistis, et cetera. Having disclosed the pre-eminence of the gift of grace and explained it with a human example, the Apostle here censures the Galatians, who scorned this grace, for being ungrateful for so great a gift. First, he censures them for ingratitude; Secondly, he excuses himself, explaining that he does not do this out of hatred or spite (v. 12b). Circa primum tria facit. Primo commemorat statum pristinum; secundo extollit et commendat beneficium susceptum, ibi nunc autem cum cognoveritis, etc.; tertio exaggerat peccatum commissum, ibi quomodo convertimini, et cetera. As to the first he does three things: First, he calls to mind their earlier state; Secondly, he extols and commends the gift they have received (v. 9); Thirdly, he amplifies the sin committed (v. 9): how turn you again to the weak and needy elements? Dicit ergo sed tunc, etc., quasi dicat: nunc estis filii et haeredes per Deum, sed tunc quidem, cum gentes essetis. Eph. V, v. 8: eratis aliquando tenebrae, etc., ignorantes Deum, per infidelitatem, serviebatis, cultu latriae, his qui non sunt natura dii, sed opinione hominum. I Cor. XII, 2: cum gentes essetis, ad simulacra muta prout ducebamini euntes, et cetera. Rom. I, 25: servierunt creaturae potius quam creatori, et cetera. Hoc autem quod dicit qui natura non sunt dii, est ad confutationem Arianorum dicentium Christum Dei filium non esse Deum per naturam. Quod si verum esset, non esset ei exhibendus cultus latriae, et quicumque exhiberet ei esset idololatra. He says therefore: But then indeed, not knowing God, you served them who, by nature, are not gods. As if to say: You are now sons and heirs through God; But then indeed, when you were heathens —“You were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord” (Eph 5:8)— not knowing God, through lack of faith, you served with the worship of latria, them who by nature are not gods, but by the opinion of men: “You know that when you were heathens, you went to dumb idols, according as you were led” (1 Cor 12:2); “They served the creature rather than the Creator.” (Rom 1:25). His statement, who by nature are not gods, serves to refute the Arians who said that Christ, the Son of God, is not God by nature. For if this were true, it would not be right to render Him latria, and whoever rendered it would be an idolater. Sed potest obiici, quia nos adoramus carnem et humanitatem Christi, ergo sumus idololatrae. Sed dicendum est, quod licet adoremus carnem, seu humanitatem Christi, adoramus tamen eam, ut unitam personae divini verbi, quod quidem verbum est suppositum divinum. Unde cum adoratio debeatur supposito divinae naturae, quidquid in Christo adoratur, absque errore fit. But someone might object that we adore the flesh and humanity of Christ; consequently, we are idolaters. I answer that even though we adore the flesh or humanity of Christ, we adore it as united to the person of the divine Word, Who is a divine hypostasis Hence, since adoration is due to a person of the divine nature, whatever is adored in Christ is done without error. Consequenter cum dicit nunc autem cum cognoveritis, etc., commemorat acceptum beneficium, quasi dicat: si ignorantes eratis et peccabatis, tolerari poterat, nam, caeteris paribus, gravius est peccatum in Christiano, quam in gentili. Sed nunc cum cognoveritis Deum, id est sitis conducti ad Dei cognitionem, gravius peccatis quam olim, serviendo et ponendo spem in his in quibus non debetis. Ier. XXXI, 34: omnes cognoscent me, et cetera. Then when he says, But now, after that you have known God, or rather are known by God, he reminds them of the gift received. As if to say: If you had been ignorant and sinned, it could have been tolerated; for other things being equal, sin in a Christian is more grievous than in a pagan. But now, since you have known God, i.e., were brought to a knowledge of God, you sin more gravely than of old by serving and setting your hope on things you ought not: “All shall know me, from the least of them even to the greatest” (Jer 31:34). Sed hoc quod dicit imo cogniti sitis a Deo, videtur contrarietatem habere, cum Deus ab aeterno omnia cognoverit. Eccli. XXIII, 29: domino enim Deo antequam crearentur omnia sunt agnita, et cetera. Sed dicendum hoc causaliter esse dictum, ut sit sensus imo cogniti sitis a Deo, id est Deus fecit quod vos cognosceretis eum. Sic enim Deus dicitur cognoscere, inquantum est causa cognitionis nostrae. Et ideo, quia supra dixit: cum cognoveritis Deum, quae fuit vera locutio, statim corrigit et explicat eam praefiguratam innuendo quod non possumus Deum cognoscere ex nobis, nisi per ipsum. Io. I, 18: Deum nemo vidit unquam, sed unigenitus, qui est in sinu patris, et cetera. But the statement, after you are known by God, seems to cause a difficulty, for God has known all things from eternity: “All things were known to the Lord God before they were create&’ (Sir 23:29). 1 answer that this is said causally, so that the sense is: you are known by God, i.e., God has caused you to know Him. In this way, God is said to know inasmuch as He is the cause of our knowledge. Hence, because he had previously said, after that you have known God, which was a true statement, he immediately amends and explains it with a figure of speech by intimating that we cannot know God of ourselves save by Him: “No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared him” (Jn 1: 18). Consequenter exprobrat peccatum commissum, dicens quomodo convertimini, et cetera. Et primo exaggerat eorum peccatum; secundo ostendit imminens periculum, ibi timeo vos ne forte, etc.; tertio reducit eos ad salutis statum, ibi estote sicut ego, et cetera. Then he upbraids them for the sin committed, saying: how turn you again to the weak and needy elements? First, he amplifies their sin; Secondly, he shows their imminent danger (v. 11); Thirdly, he draws them back to a state of safety (v. 12a). Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit peccatum commissum; secundo de peccato commisso eos convincit, ibi dies observatis, et cetera. As to the first, he does two things: First, he mentions the sin committed; Secondly, he convinces them of it (v. 10). Sciendum est autem, quod haec littera dupliciter legitur. Uno modo, quia isti Galatae a fide convertebantur ad idololatriam, et ideo dicit quomodo convertimini a fide iterum, id est denuo, II Petr. II, 21: melius erat eis non cognoscere viam iustitiae, quam post, et cetera. Is. XLII, 17: conversi sunt retrorsum, etc. ad elementa, scilicet mundi, quae sunt infirma, per se subsistere non valentia, quia in nihilum deciderent, nisi ea manus cuncta regentis teneret, secundum illud Hebr. I, 3: portans omnia verbo virtutis suae, etc. et egena, quia egent Deo et seipsis ad invicem, ad complementum universi, quibus, scilicet elementis, denuo, id est iterum, servire vultis, servitute scilicet latriae. Probatio huius manifeste apparet, quia observatis dies, scilicet faustos et infaustos, et menses, et tempora, et annos, id est constellationes et cursum corporum caelestium, quae omnia ortum habent ab idololatria. Contra quod dicit Ier. X, 2: a signis caeli nolite metuere, quae gentes, et cetera. It should be pointed out that this passage is interpreted in two ways: in one way, that those Galatians had turned from the faith to idolatry. For this reason he says, how turn you from the faith again, i.e., a second time. “For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice than, after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them” (2 Pet. 2:21); “They are turned back” (Is 42:17). To the elements, namely, of the world, which are weak, unable by themselves to subsist, because they would lapse into nothingness unless upheld by the hand which rules all things—“Upholding all things by the word of his power” (Heb 1:3)— and needy, because they need God and one another to fill out the universe, which, namely, the elements, you desire to serve with the service of latria again, i.e., for a second time. And the proof of this is obvious, because You observe days, auspicious and inauspicious, and months and times and years, i.e., the constellations and the course of the heavenly bodies, all of which observances spring from idolatry, against which Jeremias (10:2) says: “Be not afraid of the signs of heaven which the heathens fear.” Et quod observationes huiusmodi malae sint et contra cultum Christianae religionis, patet: quia distinctio dierum, mensium, annorum, et temporum attenditur secundum cursum solis et lunae. Et ideo tales temporum distinctiones observantes, venerantur corpora caelestia, et disponunt actus suos secundum iudicium astrorum, quae nullam directam impressionem habent in voluntate hominis, et in his quae dependent a libero arbitrio. Et ex hoc imminet grave periculum. Unde dicit timeo ne forte sine causa, id est inutiliter laboraverim in vobis. Et ideo cavendum est fidelibus talia observare; sed nulla debet esse eis suspicio harum rerum, quia prospere potest cedere quidquid sub Dei devotione simpliciter agitur. That observances of this sort are evil and contrary to the worship of the Christian religion is plain, because the distinction of days, months, years and times is based on the course of the sun and moon. Therefore, those who observe such distinctions of times are venerating heavenly bodies and arranging their activities according to the evidence of the stars, which have no direct influence on the human will or on things that depend on free will. By this practice they are put in grave danger. Hence he says: I am afraid lest perhaps it was in vain, i.e., fruitlessly, that I labored among you. Therefore the faithful must avoid observing such things. Indeed, no suggestion of these things should be found among them, for whatever is done simply out of devotion to God can turn out prosperously. Sed numquid licet in aliquo cursum stellarum servare? Dicendum est, quod corpora caelestia quorumdam quidem effectuum causa sunt, scilicet corporalium: et in istis licet ipsorum cursum attendere; quorumdam autem non sunt causa, scilicet eorum quae dependent a libero arbitrio, seu a fortuna, vel infortunio: et in istis servare cursum astrorum pertinet ad idololatriam. But is it never lawful to look for the influence of the stars on certain things? I answer that heavenly bodies are the cause of certain effects, namely, bodily. In such things it is lawful to consider their influence. But they are not the cause of certain other things, i.e., of things that depend on free will or on good and bad fortune. Hence in such cases to look for the influence of the stars pertains to idolatry. Sed licet haec lectura sustineri possit, non tamen est secundum intentionem apostoli. Cum enim ipse in tota praecedenti serie huius epistolae, et in sequenti, arguat Galatas de hoc quod a fide transtulerunt se ad observantiam legis, ideo magis ad propositum exponitur de hoc, quod ad legales observantias convertuntur. Unde dicit: cum cognoveritis Deum per fidem, quomodo convertimini a fide ad elementa, id est ad litteralem legis observantiam? Quae dicitur elementa, quia lex fuit prima institutio divini cultus; elementa, dico, infirma, quia non perficit iustificando Hebr. c. VII, 19: neminem ad perfectum adduxit lex; egena, quia non confert virtutes et gratiam, adiuvando per se. But although this interpretation might be upheld, it does not accord with the Apostle’s intention. For since in the entire section preceding this passage, as well as in all that follows it, he is censuring the Galatians for removing themselves from the faith and turning to the observances of the Law, it is more in keeping with his intention to expound it as referring to their turning to the legal observances. Hence he says: After that you have known God through faith, how turn you from the faith to the elements, i.e., to the literal observance of the Law? It is called an element, because the Law was the prime institution of divine worship. To elements, I say, that are weak, because they do not bring to perfection by justifying: “For the law brought nothing to perfection” (Heb 7:19), and needy, because they do not confer virtues and grace or offer any help of themselves. Sed quid est quod dicit convertimini? Et videtur hoc inconvenienter dictum. Similiter et hoc, quod dicit denuo. Nam isti nec Iudaei fuerant, nec alias legalia servaverant. Ad quod dicendum est, quod cultus Iudaeorum medius est inter cultum Christianorum et gentilium. Nam gentiles colebant elementa ipsa tamquam viva quaedam; Iudaei vero elementis quidem non serviebant, sed Deo sub ipsis elementis, inquantum observationibus corporalium elementorum Deo cultum exhibebant. Supra eodem: sub elementis huius mundi eramus servientes. Christiani vero serviunt Deo sub Christo, id est in fide Christi. Quando autem aliquis pervenit ad terminum, transacto medio, si iterum redire velit ad medium, idem videtur ac si velit redire ad principium. Et ideo apostolus, quia isti iam pervenerant ad terminum, scilicet ad fidem Christi, et tunc redierunt ad medium, scilicet ad cultum Iudaeorum, inde est, quod propter quamdam conformitatem medii ad principium, dicit eos converti ad elementa, et denuo eis servire. But what does he mean by are you turned? For to say this, as well as to say, again, seems inappropriate, for they neither were Jews nor had they formerly observed the Law. I answer that the Jewish worship is midway between the worship of the Christians and that of the Gentiles: for the Gentiles worshipped the elements as though they were living things; the Jews, on the other hand, did not serve the elements but served God under the elements, inasmuch as they rendered worship, to God by the observances of bodily elements: We were serving under the elements of the world (v. 3); but Christians serve God under Christ, i.e., in the faith of Christ. Now when a person reaches a terminus after passing through the middle, if he then decides to return to the middle, it seems to be the same as returning to the very beginning. Therefore, because they had already reached the terminus, namely, faith in Christ, and then returned to the middle, i.e., to the Jewish worship, then because of a resemblance of middle to beginning, the Apostle says that they are turned to the elements and are serving them again. Et quod ita sit probat, cum dicit dies observatis, Iudaico ritu, scilicet sabbata, et decimum primi mensis, et huiusmodi, quae dicuntur in Glossa; menses, id est Neomenias, ut primum et septimum mensem, ut habetur Lev. XXIII, 5 ss.; tempora, scilicet egressionis de Aegypto, et quod Ierosolymam tribus vicibus veniebant per singulos annos. Item annos iubilaei, et septimum annum remissionis. Et ex hoc sequitur periculum, quia ex hoc nihil prodest fides Christi. Unde dicit timeo vos ne forte sine causa, id est inutiliter, in vobis laboraverim. Infra V, 2: si circumcidimini, Christus vobis nihil proderit. That this is so, he proves when he says: You observe the days of the Jewish rite, namely, Sabbaths and the tenth day of the month and such things, which are mentioned in a Gloss, and months, i.e., new moons, as the first and seventh month, as is had in Leviticus (Ch. 25), and times, namely, of the exodus from Egypt, and the practice of going to Jerusalem three times a year, and years of jubilee and the seventh year of remission. From this arises a danger because faith in Christ profits nothing from it. Hence he says: I am afraid of you, lest perhaps I have labored in vain among you; and further on: If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing (5:2). Consequenter cum dicit estote sicut ego, reducit eos ad statum salutis; quasi dicat: ita timeo vos, ne forte sine causa laboraverim in vobis, sed ne ita sit, estote sicut ego. Hoc in Glossa tripliciter legitur. Primo modo sic estote sicut ego, scilicet legem deserentes, sicut ego dimisi. Secundo modo sic estote sicut ego, errorem scilicet pristinum corrigentes, sicut ego errorem meum correxi. Et hoc potestis, quia ego, supple sum, sicut vos, et tamen de errore meo correctus sum. Tertio modo sic: estote sicut ego, scilicet sine lege viventes, quia ego, supple: qui legem habui, et in lege natus sum, modo sum sicut vos, supple fuistis, scilicet sine lege. Then when he says, Be ye as I, because I also am as you, he guides them back to the state of salvation. As if to say: I am afraid for you, lest I have labored in vain among you. But lest this be so, Be ye as I. In a Gloss this is taken in three ways. In the first way thus: Be ye as I, namely, abandon the Law as I have abandoned it. In a second way thus: Be ye as I, namely, correcting the old error, as I have corrected mine. And this you can do, because I am as you, and yet I have been corrected of my error. In the third way thus: Be ye as I, i.e., live without the Law, because I, who had the Law and was born in the Law, am now as you formerly were, namely, without the Law.
CHAPTER 4
Lecture 5Postquam reprehendit apostolus Galatas, hic ostendit se hoc non ex odio fecisse. Et primo ostendit se non habere veram causam odii ad eos ullam; secundo quod nec habet causam aestimatam, ibi ergo inimicus factus sum vobis, etc.; tertio assignat causam praemissae reprehensionis, ibi filioli mei, et cetera. After censuring the Galatians, the Apostle here shows that he did not do so out of hatred. And First, he shows that he has no true cause of hatred toward them; Secondly, that he has no supposed cause (v. 16); Thirdly, he tells precisely why he rebuked them (v. 19). Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit, quod non habet causam odii ad eos; secundo quod magis habet causam amoris, ibi scitis autem quod per infirmitatem, et cetera. As to the first, he does two things: First, he shows that he has no reason for hating them; Secondly, that contrariwise he has reason for loving them (v. 13). Circa primum notandum est, quod consuetudo est boni pastoris in correctione subditorum asperis dulcia miscere, ne scilicet ex nimia severitate frangantur. Lc. X, 34 legitur de Samaritano, quod in curatione sauciati infudit vinum et oleum. E contra, de malis pastoribus dicitur Ez. XXXIV, 4: cum austeritate imperabatis eis. Et ideo apostolus sicut bonus praelatus ostendit, quod non ex odio increpat eos, blande loquendo eis quantum ad tria. Primo quantum ad charitatis nomen. Unde dicit fratres, Ps. CXXXII, 1: ecce quam bonum et quam iucundum habitare fratres in unum. Secundo quantum ad modestiae verbum. Unde dicit obsecro vos, Prov. XVIII, 23: cum obsecrationibus loquitur pauper. Tertio quantum ad excusationem. Unde dicit nihil me laesistis, et ego non sum talis, quod habeam odio illos, qui me non offendunt. With respect to the first it should be noted that it is customary for a good pastor in correcting his subjects to mingle gentleness with severity, lest they be discouraged by too great severity. For it is written in Luke (10) that the Samaritan in caring for the wounded man poured in oil and wine. On the other hand, it is written of evil pastors in Ezechiel (34:4): “You ruled over them with vigor.” Therefore, as a good prelate, the Apostle shows that he does not rebuke them in a spirit of hatred, for his words are gentle in three respects. First, as to the charitable name he uses, for he says, Brethren: “Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity” (Ps 132:1). Secondly, as to his suppliant language, when he says: I beseech you: “The poor will speak with supplications” (Prov 18:28). Thirdly, as to freeing them of blame; hence he says, You have not injured me at all, and I am not the type of person who hates those who do not offend me. Secundo ostendit se ad eos habere causam amoris, cum dicit scitis autem, quod per infirmitatem, et cetera. Ubi tria ponit ex quibus homines se diligere consueverunt. Primum est mutuum societatis auxilium, et ex hoc etiam amor in hominibus confirmatur, secundum illud Lc. XXII, v. 28: vos estis, qui permansistis mecum, et cetera. Et quantum ad hoc dicit scitis autem, etc., ubi primo commemorat tribulationem quam passus est apud eos; secundo ostendit quomodo ei astiterunt et tentationem vestram, et cetera. Secondly, he shows that he has reason to love them, when he says: you know how, through infirmity of the flesh, I preached the gospel to you heretofore. Here he touches on three things that usually cause men to love one another. The first is the mutual help of fellowship, and this is also the cause of love being consolidated among men, according to Luke (22:28): “And you are they who have continued with me in my temptations; and I dispose to you as my Father hath disposed to me, a kingdom.” Touching this he says: And you know how, through infirmity of the flesh, I preached the gospel to you heretofore. Herein he does two things: First, he recalls the tribulation he suffered among them; Secondly, he shows how they stood by him (v. 13). Dicit ergo quantum ad primum: dico quod nihil me laesistis, imo servivistis mihi. Scitis enim, id est recordari poteritis, quod evangelizavi vobis iampridem, id est transacto tempore, per infirmitatem carnis, id est cum infirmitate et afflictione carnis meae, vel cum multis tribulationibus quas patiebar a Iudaeis (qui sunt de carne mea) me persequentibus. I Cor. II, 3: cum timore et tremore multo fui apud vos. II Cor. XII, 9: virtus in infirmitate perficitur. Et licet haec infirmitas fuerit causa spernendi me, et tentationis vestrae, secundum illud Zach. XIII, 7: percute pastorem, et dispergentur oves, etc., vos tamen tentationem vestram, quae erat in carne mea, id est tribulationem meam, quae erat vobis causa tentationis, non sprevistis. Eccli. XI, 2: non spernas hominem in visu suo. Quia, ut dicit dominus Lc. X, 2: qui vos spernit, me spernit, et cetera. Neque respuistis doctrinam meam et me, quin velletis esse socii tribulationum. Is. XXXIII, 1: vae qui spernis, nonne et ipse sperneris, et cetera. He says, therefore, with respect to the first: I say that You have not injured me at all; rather you have come to my aid. For you know, i.e., are able to recall, that I preached the gospel to you heretofore, i.e., in times past, through infirmity of the flesh, i.e., with infirmity and affliction in my flesh, or with the many tribulations I suffered from the Jews who are of my flesh and persecuted me: “And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much tribulation” (1 Cor 2:3); “Power is made perfect in infirmity” (2 Cor 12:9). And although this infirmity might have been reason for scorning me and a cause of temptation for you, according to Zacharias (13:7): “Strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered”: nevertheless, your temptation, which was in my flesh, i.e., my tribulation, which was a source of temptation for you, you despised not: “Despise not a man for his look” (Sir 11:2) because as the Lord says in Luke (10:16): “He that despiseth you, despiseth me.” Neither did you reject me and my teaching, but you were willing to share my tribulations: “Woe to you that despisest, shall you not also be despised?” (Is 33:1). Secundum autem, quod confirmat inter homines dilectionem, est mutuus amor et mutua dilectio ad invicem, secundum illud Prov. VIII, 17: ego diligentes me diligo, et cetera. Et quantum ad hoc dicit sed sicut Angelum Dei excepistis me, id est ita honorifice sicut nuntium verba Dei nuntiantem. I Thess. II, v. 13: cum accepissetis a nobis verbum auditus Dei, et cetera. Et inde est, quod praedicatores dicuntur Angeli. Mal. II, 7: legem requirent ex ore eius, et cetera. Et non solum sicut Angelum recepistis, sed sicut Iesum Christum, id est ac si Christus ipse venisset, qui Christus profecto in ipso ad eos venerat, et in eo loquebatur, secundum illud II Cor. ult.: an experimentum quaeritis eius, qui in me loquitur Christi? Matth. X, 40: qui vos recipit, me recipit, et cetera. Deinde increpat eos, quod sic deteriorati erant. Unde dicit ubi est ergo beatitudo vestra? Quasi dicat: nonne ex hoc homines beatificabant vos, quod me honorastis, et praedicationem meam recepistis? Iob IV, v. 6: ubi est timor tuus, et fortitudo tua, patientia tua, et perfectio viarum tuarum? The second thing that strengthens love among men is mutual love and affection toward one another, according to Proverbs (8:17): 1 love them that love me.” As to this he says: but you received me as an angel of God, i.e., with the honor accorded to a messenger announcing God’s words: “When you received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men but (as it is indeed) the word of God” (1 Thes 2:13). For this reason preachers are called angels: “They shall seek the law at the priest’s mouth, because he is the angel of the Lord of hosts” (Mal 2:7). And not only as an angel did you receive me, but even as Christ Jesus, i.e., as though Christ Himself had come, Who, indeed, had come to them in him and spoke in him, according to 2 Corinthians (13:3): “Do you seek a proof of Christ that speaketh in me?” “He that receiveth you receiveth me” (Mt 10:40). But he then rebukes them for their change of heart; hence he says, Where is then your blessedness? As if to say: Did not men think you blessed for honoring me and accepting my preaching? “Where is thy fear, thy fortitude, thy patience and the perfection of thy ways?” (Job 4:6). Tertium, quod amorem confirmat est mutua beneficentia. Et quantum ad hoc dicit testimonium perhibeo, quod si fieri posset, id est iuste fieri potuisset illud enim fieri potest, quod iuste fit vel ad utilitatem Ecclesiae fuisset, oculos eruissetis et dedissetis mihi, quasi dicat: ita me diligebatis, quod non solum mihi vestra exteriora, sed etiam oculos vestros dedissetis mihi. The third thing that strengthens love is doing good to one another. As to this he says: For I bear you witness that, if it could be done, i.e., had been just to do so (for that can be done which it is just to do) or had been to the advantage of the Church, you would have plucked out your own eyes and would have given them to me. As if to say: You loved me so much that you would have given me not only your external goods but your very eyes. Consequenter cum dicit ergo inimicus factus sum vobis, etc., ponit causam aestimati odii, et primo unam ex parte apostoli; secundo aliam ex parte pseudo, ibi aemulantur vos, et cetera. Then when he says: Am I then become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?, he states the cause of a supposed hatred. First, the cause on the part of the Apostle; Secondly, on the part of the false brethren (v. 17). Dicit ergo: ex quo mihi tot bona fecistis, estne credendum, quod factus sim inimicus vobis, verum dicens vobis? Verbum autem hoc, quod dicit inimicus, dupliciter potest intelligi. Uno scilicet modo, quod ipse habeat eos odio, et isto modo legitur sic tunc: factus sum inimicus, id est habeo vos odio. Et sic hoc quod sequitur verum dicens vobis, potest aestimari ut signum odii, quod tamen est signum dilectionis, scilicet dicere verum, suo tamen loco et tempore. Alio modo potest intelligi inimicus passive, scilicet quod ipse habeatur odio ab eis. Et tunc sic legitur: ego factus sum inimicus vobis, id est habetis me odio; et hoc ideo, quia dico vobis verum, ut sic dicens verum vobis ponatur, ut sit causa odii. Nam homines veritatem dicentes, a malis odio habentur. Veritas enim odium parit. Amos c. V, 10: odio habuerunt in porta corripientem, et cetera. He says therefore: If you have done me so much good, are you to believe that I am become your enemy because I tell you the truth? The word enemy used here can be interpreted in two ways: in one way as meaning that he hates them; in this case the interpretation is have I become your enemy, i.e., hate you? Hence what follows, namely, because I tell you the truth, can be taken as an indication of hatred, even though telling the truth at the proper time and place is a sign of love. In another way, the word enemy can be taken in a passive sense, i.e., so that he is hated by them; then have I become your enemy is interpreted as Do you hate me? and this because I tell you the truth, so that telling the truth is set down as the cause of hatred. For men who tell the truth are hated by evil men, since the truth engenders hatred: “They have hated him that rebuketh in the gate: and I have abhorred him that speaketh perfectly” (Am 5: 10). Sed contra est quod dicitur Prov. c. XXVIII, 23: qui corripit hominem, gratiam postea inveniet apud eum magis quam qui per linguae blandimenta decipit. Sed dicendum est, quod solutio haec potest haberi ex hoc quod dicitur Prov. IX, 8: noli arguere derisorem, ne oderit te; argue sapientem, et diliget te. Bonitatis enim signum est, si iste qui corripitur corripientem diligit, et, e converso, si eum oderit, signum est malitiae. Cum enim homo naturaliter odiat illud quod contrariatur ei quod diligit, si tu odis eum qui corrigit te de malo, manifestum est quod malum diligis. Si vero diligis eum, ostendis te odire peccata. Quia enim homines a principio cum corripiuntur, per amorem ad peccata afficiuntur: inde est, quod in principio peccator corripientem odit, sed postquam iam correctus est et affectum peccati deposuit, corripientem diligit. Et ideo signanter in proposita auctoritate dicitur, quod postea inveniet gratiam apud eum. But on the other hand, it is said in Proverbs (28:23): “He that rebuketh a man shall afterward find favor with him more then he that by a flattering tongue deceiveth him.” I answer that the solution to this can be gathered from what is said in Proverbs (9:9): “Rebuke not a scorner, lest he hate thee. Rebuke a wise man and he will love thee.” For if the one corrected loves the corrector, it is a sign of virtue; conversely, it is a sign of malice, if he should hate him. For since a man naturally hates what is contrary to what he loves, then if you hate one who corrects you for evil, it is obvious that you love the evil; but if you love him, you indicate that you hate sin. For at first, when men are corrected, they are attached to their sins—that is why a sinner’s first reaction is to hate the one correcting him; but after the correction he puts aside his attachment to sin and loves the one correcting him. And therefore the passage from Proverbs expressly says that later he will find favor with him. Consequenter cum dicit aemulantur vos, etc., ponit aliam causam aestimatam, ex parte scilicet pseudo. Et primo ponit eam; secundo excludit eam, ibi bonum autem aemulamini, et cetera. Then when he says, They are zealous in your regard not well, he states another supposed cause, namely, on the part of the false brethren. First, he states it; Secondly, he refutes it (v. 18). Quantum autem ad primum, sciendum est quod, sicut dictum est supra, quidam pseudo ex Iudaeis conversi, circumeuntes Ecclesias gentium, praedicabant servari legalia. Et quia Paulus contrarium dicebat, ideo isti detrahebant ei. Et hoc magis faciebant ut excluderent Paulum, quam pro salute eorum. Et ideo dicit aemulantur vos, id est non patiuntur in vobis (quos diligunt potius amore concupiscentiae, quam amicitiae) consortium nostrum. Aemulatio enim est zelus ex amore quocumque proveniens, non patiens consortium in amato. Sed quia amor eorum ad istos non erat bonus, tum quia non amabant eos propter utilitatem ipsorum, sed propter commodum proprium: et hoc patet quia volebant excludere apostolum ab eis, utpote propriae utilitati contrarium, tum quia hoc cedebat in damnum Galatarum, quia quaerebant in eis lucrum, per quod ipsi damnificabantur, ideo dicit aemulantur vos, sed non bene, quia non amant bonum vestrum. Et hoc apparet, quia volunt vos excludere, ut aemulemini illos, id est, ut nullum recipiatis nisi eos. Prov. III, 31: ne aemuleris hominem iniustum, et cetera. Et Prov. XXXI: non aemuletur cor tuum peccatores. As to the first it should be noted that, as has been said above, certain false brethren, converted from Judaism, went about the churches of the Gentiles, preaching the observance of the Law. Because Paul opposed them, they slandered him. They did this not so much with an eye to their salvation as to get rid of Paul. Hence the Apostle says, They are zealous in your regard, i.e., they do not allow you (whom they love with a love not of friendship but of self-interest) to associate with us. For jealous rivalry is zeal that arises from any love whatsoever and does not brook what is loved to be shared. But because their love for them was not good: first of all, because they did not love them so as to advantage them but for their own gain—and this is obvious from the fact that they wanted to keep the Apostle away from them as one opposed to their own advantage—and secondly, because this was a source of harm to the Gentiles—for they sought from them an advantage by which the latter would suffer harm; for these reasons he says, They are zealous in your regard but not well, because they are not interested in your welfare. And this is obvious, because they would exclude you that you might be zealous for them, i.e., that you might admit none but them: “Envy not the unjust man and do not follow his ways” (Prov 3:31); “Let not thy heart envy sinners” (Prov 23:17). Hoc autem excludit consequenter cum dicit bonum autem aemulamini, etc., quasi dicat: non debetis eos aemulari in doctrina eorum, sed aemulamini bonum doctorem, me scilicet et huiusmodi. I Petr. III, v. 13: quis est, qui vobis noceat, si boni aemulatores fueritis? Sed quia aliquis potest esse bonus doctor, in quo potest esse aliquid mali, ideo addit: aemulamini bonum doctorem, sed dico tamen, in bono, id est in eo quod bonum est. I Cor. XIV, 1: sectamini charitatem, aemulamini spiritualia. But he rejects this when he says, But be zealous for that which is good in a good thing always. As if to say: You ought not to be zealous for them in their teaching; but be zealous for a good teacher, i.e., for me and those like me: “And who is he that can hurt you if you be zealous of the good?” (1 Pet. 3:13). But because there can be evil in a good teacher, he adds, be zealous of the good teacher, yet say in a good thing, i.e., in that which is good: “Follow after charity and be zealous for spiritual goods” (1 Cor 14:1). Licet autem apostolus de se loquatur, secundum Glossam, cum dicit aemulamini bonum, addit tamen in bono, quia, sicut ipse dicit I Cor. IV, 4: nihil mihi conscius sum, sed non in hoc iustificatus sum. Sed quia aliqui aemulantur doctorem bonum in sua praesentia solum, ideo addit semper, et non tantum cum praesens sum apud vos; quia aemulatio in bonum est signum quod ex amore et timore Dei, qui omnia videt, procedat, si etiam in absentia doctoris perseverat. Col. III, 22: servi, obedite per omnia dominis vestris, et cetera. Now, although the Apostle speaks of himself, according to a Gloss, when he says, be zealous of the good, yet he adds in a good thing, because as he says: “I am not conscious of any thing, yet I am not hereby justified” (1 Cor 4:4). But because some are zealous for a good teacher in his presence alone, he adds: always, and not only when I am present with you; because zeal for the good, if it continues even when the teacher is absent, is an indication that it proceeds from love and fear of God Who sees all: “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not serving to the eye, as pleasing men, but in simplicity of heart, fearing God” (Col 3:22).
CHAPTER 4
Lecture 6Supra apostolus removit falsam causam correctionis Galatarum, hic consequenter apostolus dictae correctionis assignat causam veram, quae est dolor de eorum imperfectione. Et ideo primo dolorem cordis ex quo loquebatur, exprimit; secundo ponit desiderium de manifestatione huius doloris, ibi vellem autem, etc.; tertio ponit causam doloris, ibi quoniam confundor, et cetera. Above, the Apostle dismissed the false cause of his correcting the Galatians; here he discloses the true cause, which is sorrow for their imperfection. First, he expresses the heartfelt sorrow of which he spoke; Secondly, a desire to manifest this sorrow (v. 20); Thirdly, he gives the cause of the sorrow (v. 20): be. cause I am ashamed for you. Dolor autem iste ex charitate procedebat, quia dolebat de peccatis eorum. Ps. CXVIII, 158: vidi praevaricantes, et tabescebam, et cetera. Et ideo verbum charitatis proponit dicens filioli mei. Signanter autem non eos filios vocat, sed filiolos, ut designet eorum imperfectionem, qua diminuti sunt. I Cor. III, 1: tamquam parvulis in Christo, et cetera. This sorrow proceeded from charity, because be grieved for their sins: I beheld the transgressors and I pined away; because they kept not thy word” (Ps 118:158). And so he addresses them in words of charity, saying, My little children. He purposely does not call them sons, but little children, to indicate the imperfection whereby they had become small: “As unto little ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat” (1 Cor 3:1). Sed notandum est, quod puer dum est in parturitione, dicitur filiolus. Et isti tales erant, quia indigebant iterata parturitione, cum tamen parentes carnales semel tantum parturiant filios. Et ideo dicit eis quos iterum parturio. Nam semel eos parturierat in prima conversione, sed quia iam aversi erant ab eo, qui eos vocavit in aliud Evangelium, indigebant quod iterato parturiret eos. Ideo dicit parturio, id est cum labore et dolore ad lucem fidei reduco. In quo apparet dolor apostoli. Unde conversio hominis, partus dicitur. Iob XXXIX, 3: incurvantur ad foetum et pariunt. Apoc. XII, 2: clamabat parturiens, et cruciabatur ut pariat. Et inde est quod apostolus ex dolore dure eos corrigit, sicut mulier ex dolore partus dure clamat. Is. XLII, v. 14: quasi parturiens loquar, et cetera. It should be noted that during parturition a child is called a little one. And this is what they were, because they needed to be born again, even though parents according to the flesh bring forth their child only once. Accordingly he says to them, of whom I am in labor again. For he was in labor of them during their first conversion; but since they had now turned from the one who called them, to another gospel, they needed to be brought forth anew. Hence he says, I am in labor, i.e., with labor and pain I bring them forth into the light of faith. In these words the Apostle bares his grief. Hence a man’s conversion is called a birth: “They bow themselves to bring forth young” (Job 39:3); “And being with child she cried, travailing in birth and was in pain to be delivered” (Rev 12:2). Therefore it is because of his pain that he rebukes them so sharply, as a woman cries aloud because of the pains of childbirth: I will speak now as a woman in labor” (Is 42:14). Et ratio iteratae parturitionis est, quia non estis perfecte formati. Unde dicit donec Christus formetur in vobis, id est recipiatis similitudinem eius, quam vestro vitio perdidistis. Et non dicit, formemini in Christo sed formetur Christus in vobis, ut hoc terribilius insonet auribus eorum. Nam Christus per fidem formatam formatur in corde. Eph. III, 17: habitare Christum per fidem, et cetera. Sed quando quis non habet fidem formatam, iam in eo moritur Christus. II Petr. I, 19: donec dies illucescat, et cetera. Et sic secundum hominis profectum in fide, Christus in homine proficit, et, e converso, secundum defectum deficit. Quando ergo fides in homine efficitur informis per peccatum, Christus non est in eo formatus. Et ideo, quia in istis non erat fides formata, indigebant iterum parturiri, donec Christus in eis formaretur per fidem formatam, scilicet quae per dilectionem operatur. Vel donec Christus formetur in vobis, id est, formosus aliis per vos appareat. The reason for the iterated travail is that you are not perfectly formed. Hence he says: until Christ be formed in you, i.e., until you receive His likeness, which you have lost through your sin. He does not say, “That you may be formed in Christ,” but until Christ be formed in you, to make it resound more terrifyingly on their ears. For Christ is formed in the heart by “formed faith”: “That Christ might dwell in your hearts by faith” (Eph 3:17). But when one does not have “formed faith,” Christ has already died in him: “Until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts” (2 Petr. 1:19). Thus Christ grows in a man according to his progress in the faith; conversely, as it diminishes, He recedes. Therefore, when the faith of a man is rendered “unformed” by sin, Christ is not formed in him; and so, because there’ was not a formed faith in them, they needed to be brought forth in the womb again until Christ be formed in them through faith, i.e., “formed faith,” which works through love. Or, until Christ be formed in you, i.e., through you Christ appear finely formed to others. Posset autem aliquis dicere: absens tu dicis talia, sed si esses apud nos, haec non diceres, secundum illud II Cor. X, v. 10: praesentia quidem corporis infirma, et sermo contemptibilis, et cetera. Et ideo ponit desiderium manifestandi dolorem suum asperius, dicens vellem autem esse apud vos modo et mutare vocem meam, quasi dicat: modo blandis verbis utor, vocans vos fratres et filios in absentia; sed si essem praesens, asperius corriperem. Nam si quae per litteras scribo, nunc praesens et ore proferrem, durior esset correctio, utpote quia magis possem vocem obiurgantis exprimere, et irascentis resonare clamorem et dolorem pectoris, magis quam per litteras explicare, et magis cor vestrum viva vox ad confusionem de errore vestro et mea turbatione moveret. Here someone might say: “Away from us you say these things, but if you were with us, you would not say them,” according to 2 Corinthians (10:10): “His bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible.” Therefore, he expresses a desire to manifest his grief more vividly, saying, I would willingly be present with you now and change my voice. As if to say: I use gentle language now, calling you friends and sons, in my absence; but if I were present among you, I would correct you more sharply. For if I were present and speaking the things I am now writing in a letter, the correction would be more severe; because I would then be able to express the scolding tones of my rebuke and the cries of my anger and the pain in my heart, much better than I can convey them by letter. And a living voice would more effectively stir your hearts to shame for your error and my anxiety. Et causa huius doloris est, quia confundor in vobis, id est, erubesco apud alios pro vobis. Nam, sicut Eccli. XXII, 3 dicitur confusio est patris de filio indisciplinato. Nam, cum filius sit res patris, et discipulus, inquantum huiusmodi, res magistri, magister gaudet de bono quod videt in eo relucere, quasi de bono proprio, et gloriatur, et, e converso, de malo dolet et confunditur. Unde quia isti mutati erant de bono in malum, apostolus confundebatur inde. And the cause of this sorrow is that I am ashamed for you, i.e., I blush for you in the presence of others; for as it is said in Sirach (22:3): “A son ill taught is the confusion of the father.” For since a son is a thing of the father, and a disciple as such is a thing of his master, a master rejoices in the good he sees reflected in him and glories in it as though it were his own. Conversely, he is pained at evil and is ashamed. Hence because they had been turned from good to evil, for that reason the Apostle is ashamed.
CHAPTER 4
Lecture 7Supra apostolus probavit dignitatem gratiae per consuetudinem humanam hic autem probat eam auctoritate Scripturae. Et primo proponit factum; secundo exponit mysterium, ibi quae sunt per allegoriam dicta, etc.; tertio concludit propositum, ibi itaque, fratres mei, non sumus, et cetera. Above, the Apostle showed the pre-eminence of grace by a human example; here he proves it on the authority of the Scripture. First, he proposes a fact; Secondly, he expounds its mystery (v. 24); Thirdly, he concludes his proposition (v. 31). Circa primum duo facit. Primo excitat ad attentionem; secundo proponit suam intentionem, ibi scriptum est enim, et cetera. As to the first, he does two things: First, he elicits their attention; Secondly, he sets forth his intention (v. 22). Dicit ergo dicite mihi, etc., quasi dicat: si vos estis sapientes, attendite ad ea quae obiicio, et si non potestis contradicere, cedatis. Iob VI, 29: respondete, obsecro, absque contentione, et cetera. Facio vobis autem hanc obiectionem: aut legistis legem, aut non legistis. Sed si legistis, scire debetis ea quae in ea scripta sunt: sed ipsa probat se dimittendam; si autem non legistis, non debetis recipere quod nescitis. Prov. IV, 25: palpebrae tuae praecedant gressus tuos. Dicit autem sub lege, id est sub onere legis. Nam subire aliquod leve non est vis, sed subire grave onus, sicut est onus legis, magnae stultitiae signum esse videtur. Act. XV, v. 10: hoc est onus, quod neque patres nostri, neque nos portare potuimus, etc., quod est intelligendum de illis, qui volunt carnaliter esse sub lege. He says therefore: Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, have you not read the law? As if to say: If you are wise, consider my objections; if you cannot answer them, yield: “Answer, I beseech you, without contention: and speaking that which is just, answer me” (Job 6:29). Now I raise this objection to you. You have either read the Law or not. If you have read it, you ought to know the things written in it. But those things prove that it should be abandoned. If you have not read it, you ought not accept what you do not know: “Let thy eyelids go before thy steps” (Prov 4:25). He says under the law, i.e., under the burden of the Law. For to shoulder something light is not a feat; but to assume a heavy burden, such as the burden of the Law, seems to be a mark of exceeding stupidity: “This is a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10); which is to be understood of those who wish to live according to the flesh under the Law. Consequenter cum dicit scriptum est enim, etc., proponit suam intentionem, dicens: ideo quaero an legistis legem, quia in ipsa continentur quaedam, quae manifeste dicunt legem non esse tenendam. Et specialiter apostolus facit mentionem de duobus filiis Abrahae. Et primo ponit unum in quo conveniunt; secundo duo in quibus differunt. Then when he says, It is written that Abraham had two sons, he sets forth his intention, saying: The reason I ask whether you have read the Law is that it contains certain things which clearly indicate that the Law must not be retained. And the Apostle mentions specifically the two sons of Abraham. First, he states one point in which they are alike. Secondly, two points in which they differ. Conveniunt quidem in uno patre. Unde dicit scriptum est, quoniam Abraham duos filios habuit. Habuit etiam alios quam istos duos filios, quia post mortem Sarae alios genuit de Caethura, ut dicitur Gen. XXV, 2; de quibus mentionem non fecit apostolus, quia non pertinent ad hanc significationem. Possunt tamen per istos duos, scilicet filium ancillae et filium liberae, duo populi scilicet, Iudaeorum et gentium, designari; per alios vero filios Caethurae, schismatici et haeretici. Qui quidem duo populi conveniunt in uno patre; quia Iudaei sunt filii Abraham secundum carnem, gentiles vero secundum imitationem fidei. Vel sunt filii Abrahae, id est Dei, qui est pater omnium. Mal. II, 10: nonne Deus pater omnium, etc., Rom. III, v. 29: an Iudaeorum tantum? They are alike in having the same father. Hence he says, It is written that Abraham had two sons. In fact he had more than two, because after Sara’s death, he fathered other sons of Cetura, as is stated in Genesis (Ch. 25). But the Apostle does not mention them because they have no role in this allegory. Now two peoples, the Jews and the Gentiles, can be signified by those two, i.e., the son of the bondwoman and the son of the free woman—and by the other sons of Cetura, schismatics and heretics. These two peoples are alike in having one father, for the Jews are the children of Abraham according to the flesh, but the Gentiles, by imitating him in faith. Or, they are the sons of Abraham, i.e., of God, Who is the Father of all: “Have we not all one father?” (Mal 2:10); “Is he the God of the Jews only?” (Rom 3:29). Differunt autem in duobus, scilicet in conditione matris, quia unus est de ancilla, ut dicitur Gen. XXI, 10. Nec tamen peccavit Abraham ad eam accedens, quia accessit ad eam coniugis affectu et ordinatione divina. Alius autem est de libera, scilicet Isaac, quem genuit ei Sara uxor sua. Gen. c. XVIII, 10: veniam ad te tempore isto, vita comite, et Sara uxor tua, et cetera. Item differunt in modo generationis, quia qui de ancilla, scilicet Ismael, secundum carnem natus est; qui autem de libera, scilicet Isaac, per repromissionem. But they differ in two respects: namely, in the condition of their mother, because one is of a bondwoman, as is said in Genesis (Ch. 21) (yet Abraham did not sin by lying with her, because he approached her in conjugal affection and under God’s ordinance); the other, namely, Isaac, whom Sara, his wife, begot unto him was born of a free woman: “I will return and come to thee at this time, life accompanying, and Sara thy wife shall have a son” (Gen 18:10). Also, they differ as to the manner of procreation, because the son of the bondwoman, i.e., Ishmael, was born according to the flesh, but the one of the free woman, i.e., Isaac, according to the promise. Sed vitandus est hic duplex falsus intellectus. Unus, ne intelligatur per hoc, quod dicit secundum carnem natus est, ut accipiatur hic caro pro actu peccati, secundum illud Rom. VIII, 13: si secundum carnem vixeritis, moriemini, etc.; II Cor. X, 3: in carne ambulantes non secundum carnem militamus; quasi Abraham peccante natus sit Ismael. Alius intellectus, ut per hoc, quod dicitur per repromissionem, credatur Isaac non secundum carnem natus, id est, secundum carnalem commixtionem, sed per spiritum sanctum. Here a twofold misinterpretation must be avoided. The first is lest we understand born according to the flesh as though “flesh” refers here to an act of sin, as it does in Romans (8:13): “If you live according to the flesh, you shall die,” and 2 Corinthians (10:3): “For although we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh”—as though Abraham sinned in begetting Ishmael. The other is lest we suppose, when it is said, by promise, that Isaac was not born according to the flesh, i.e., through a carnal union, but by the Holy Spirit. Est ergo dicendum, quod secundum carnem, id est secundum naturam carnis natus est Ismael. Nam naturale est in hominibus, quod ex muliere iuvencula foecunda, sicut erat Agar, et sene, nascatur filius. Et quod per repromissionem, id est supra naturam carnis, natus est Isaac. Non enim ad hoc se extendit natura carnis, ut ex viro seni et vetula sterili, sicut fuit Sara, filius nascatur. Per Ismael significatur populus Iudaeorum, qui secundum carnem natus est; per Isaac vero intelligitur populus gentium, qui natus secundum repromissionem, qua promissum est Abrahae, quod esset futurus pater multarum gentium. Gen. XXII, 18: in semine tuo benedicentur, et cetera. Therefore, it must be said that Ishmael was born according to the flesh, i.e., according to the nature of the flesh. For it is natural among men that from a fertile young woman, such as Hagar was, and a man advanced in years a son be born. But that Isaac be born according to promise is beyond the nature of the flesh: for the nature of the flesh cannot achieve that a son be born of an old man and a barren old woman, as Sara was. In Ishmael are signified the Jewish people, who were born according to the flesh; in Isaac are signified the Gentiles, who were born according to the promise, in which Abraham was promised that he would be the father of many nations: “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Gen 22:18). Mysterium autem exponit, cum dicit quae sunt per allegoriam dicta. Et primo ponit modum mysterii; secundo exemplificat, ibi haec enim duo sunt testamenta, et cetera. Then he discloses the mystery when he says, Which things are said by an allegory. First, he tells what sort of mystery it is; Secondly, he explains it (v. 24). Dicit ergo: haec quae sunt scripta de duobus filiis, etc., sunt per allegoriam dicta, id est per alium intellectum. Allegoria enim est tropus seu modus loquendi, quo aliquid dicitur et aliud intelligitur. Unde allegoria dicitur ab allos, quod est alienum, et goge, ductio, quasi in alienum intellectum ducens. He says therefore: These things which are written about the two sons are said by an allegory, i.e., the understanding of one thing under the image of another. For an allegory is a figure of speech or a manner of narrating, in which one thing is said and something else is understood. Hence “allegory” is derived from “ alos ” (alien) and “ goge ” (a leading), leading, as it were, to a different understanding. Sed attendendum est, quod allegoria sumitur aliquando pro quolibet mystico intellectu, aliquando pro uno tantum ex quatuor qui sunt historicus, allegoricus, mysticus et anagogicus, qui sunt quatuor sensus sacrae Scripturae, et tamen differunt quantum ad significationem. Est enim duplex significatio. Una est per voces; alia est per res quas voces significant. Et hoc specialiter est in sacra Scriptura et non in aliis; cum enim eius auctor sit Deus, in cuius potestate est, quod non solum voces ad designandum accommodet (quod etiam homo facere potest), sed etiam res ipsas. Et ideo in aliis scientiis ab hominibus traditis, quae non possunt accommodari ad significandum nisi tantum verba, voces solum significant. Sed hoc est proprium in ista scientia, ut voces et ipsae res significatae per eas aliquid significent, et ideo haec scientia potest habere plures sensus. Nam illa significatio qua voces significant aliquid, pertinet ad sensum litteralem seu historicum; illa vero significatio qua res significatae per voces iterum res alias significant, pertinet ad sensum mysticum. Here it should be noted that “allegory” is sometimes taken for any mystical meaning: sometimes for only one of the four, which are the historical, allegorical, mystical and the anagogical, which are the four senses of Sacred Scripture, all of which differ in signification. For signification is twofold: one is through words; the other through the things signified by the words. And this is peculiar to the sacred writings and no others, since their author is God in Whose power it lies not only to employ words to signify (which man can also do), but things as well. Consequently, in the other sciences handed down by men, in which only words can be employed to signify, the words alone signify. But it is peculiar to Scripture that words and the very things signified by them signify something. Consequently this science can have many senses. For that signification by which the words signify something pertains to the literal or historical sense. But the signification whereby the things signified by the words further signify other things pertains to the mystical sense. Per litteralem autem sensum potest aliquid significari dupliciter, scilicet secundum proprietatem locutionis, sicut cum dico homo ridet; vel secundum similitudinem seu metaphoram, sicut cum dico pratum ridet. Et utroque modo utimur in sacra Scriptura, sicut cum dicimus, quantum ad primum, quod Iesus ascendit, et cum dicimus quod sedet a dextris Dei, quantum ad secundum. Et ideo sub sensu litterali includitur parabolicus seu metaphoricus. There are two ways in which something can be signified by the literal sense: either according to the usual construction, as when I say, “the man smiles”; or according to a likeness or metaphor, as when I say, “the meadow smiles.” Both of these are used in Sacred Scripture; as when we say, according to the first, that Jesus ascended, and when we say according to the second, that He sits at the right hand of God. Therefore, under the literal sense is included the parabolic or metaphorical. Mysticus autem sensus seu spiritualis dividitur in tres. Primo namque, sicut dicit apostolus, lex vetus est figura novae legis. Et ideo secundum quod ea quae sunt veteris legis, significant ea quae sunt novae, est sensus allegoricus. Item, secundum Dionysium in libro de caelesti hierarchia, nova lex est figura futurae gloriae. Et ideo secundum quod ea quae sunt in nova lege et in Christo, significant ea quae sunt in patria, est sensus anagogicus. Item, in nova lege ea quae in capite sunt gesta, sunt exempla eorum quae nos facere debemus, quia quaecumque scripta sunt, ad nostram doctrinam scripta sunt; et ideo secundum quod ea quae in nova lege facta sunt in Christo et in his quae Christum significant, sunt signa eorum quae nos facere debemus: est sensus moralis. Et omnium horum patet exemplum. Per hoc enim quod dico fiat lux, ad litteram, de luce corporali, pertinet ad sensum litteralem. Si intelligatur fiat lux id est nascatur Christus in Ecclesia, pertinet ad sensum allegoricum. Si vero dicatur fiat lux id est ut per Christum introducamur ad gloriam, pertinet ad sensum anagogicum. Si autem dicatur fiat lux id est per Christum illuminemur in intellectu et inflammemur in affectu, pertinet ad sensum moralem. However, the mystical or spiritual sense is divided into three types. First, as when the Apostle says that the Old Law is the figure of the New Law. Hence, insofar as the things of the Old Law signify things of the New Law, it is the allegorical sense. Then, according to Dionysius in the book On The Heavenly Hierarchy, the New Law is a figure of future glory; accordingly, insofar as things in the New Law and in Christ signify things which are in heaven, it is the anagogical sense. Furthermore, in the New Law the things performed by the Head are examples of things we ought to do—because “What things soever were written were written for our learning” (Rom 15:3) —accordingly insofar as the things which in the New Law were done in Christ and done in things that signify Christ are signs of things we ought to do, it is the moral sense. Examples will clarify each of these. For when I say, “Let there be light,” referring literally to corporeal light, it is the literal sense. But if it be taken to mean “Let Christ be born in the Church,” it pertains to the allegorical sense. But if one says, “Let there be light,” i.e., “Let us be conducted to glory through Christ,” it pertains to the anagogical sense. Finally, if it is said “Let there be light,” i.e., “Let us be illumined in mind and inflamed in heart through Christ,” it pertains to the moral sense.
CHAPTER 4
Lecture 8Superius posuit apostolus intellectum mysticum, hic aperit mysterium. Et primo quantum ad matres; secundo quantum ad filios, ibi nos autem fratres, et cetera. Above, the Apostle spoke of the mystical sense; here he discloses the mystery: First, as to the mothers; Secondly, as to the sons (v. 28). Per duas autem matres intelligit duo testamenta. Et ideo primo ponit significatum; secundo exponit, ibi unum quidem in monte, et cetera. By the two mothers he understands the two testaments. Therefore, First, he states the thing signified; Secondly, he explains it (v. 24): The one from mount Sinai. Dicit ergo hae, scilicet duae uxores, ancilla et libera, sunt duo testamenta, vetus et novum. Ier. XXXI, 31: feriam domui Israel foedus novum, ecce novum testamentum, non secundum pactum, etc., ecce testamentum vetus. Libera enim significat testamentum novum, ancilla vero vetus. He says therefore, These, i.e., the two wives, the bondwoman and the free woman, are the two testaments, the Old and the New: “I will make with the house of Israel a new covenant” (behold, the New Testament), “not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers” (behold the Old Testament) (Jer 31:31). For the free woman signifies the New Testament and the bondwoman the Old. Ad sciendum autem quid sit testamentum, attendi debet, quod testamentum idem est quod pactum seu foedus eorum quae testibus confirmantur. Unde in Scriptura multoties loco testamenti ponitur foedus vel pactum. Ubicumque autem intervenit foedus, vel pactum, fit aliqua promissio. Et ideo secundum diversitatem promissionum, est diversitas testamentorum. Duo autem sunt nobis promissa, scilicet temporalia in veteri lege et aeterna in nova. Matth. V, 12: gaudete et exultate, et cetera. Hae ergo duae promissiones sunt duo testamenta. Unde apostolus consequenter cum dicit: unum quidem, etc., exponit ipsa. Et primo quantum ad vetus; secundo quantum ad novum, ibi illa autem quae sursum, et cetera. To understand what a testament is, we should consider that a testament is a pact or agreement dealing with matters which are confirmed by witnesses. Hence in Scripture in many places in lieu of testament is put pact or agreement. Now, whenever a pact or agreement is struck, a promise is made. Therefore, according to the diversity of promises there is a diversity of testaments. But two things have been promised to us: temporal things in the Old Law, and eternal things in the New: “Rejoice and be glad because your reward is great in heaven” (Mt 5:12). Hence these two promises are the two testaments. Hence the Apostle, when he says, The one from mount Sinai, engendering unto bondage, explains them. First, as to the Old; Secondly, as to the New (v. 26). Ad evidentiam autem litterae sciendum est, circa primum, quod quilibet civis alicuius civitatis dicitur esse filius illius, et ipsa civitas est sicut mater eius. Lc. c. XXIII, 28: filiae Ierusalem, nolite flere, et cetera. Thren. ult.: filii Sion inclyti, et cetera. Per hoc igitur quod aliqui fiunt alicuius civitatis cives, efficiuntur filii eius. Duplex autem est civitas Dei, una terrena, scilicet Ierusalem terrestris; alia spiritualis, scilicet Ierusalem caelestis. Per vetus autem testamentum homines efficiebantur cives civitatis terrestris, per novum autem, caelestis. Et ideo circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponit mysterium expositum; secundo expositionis mysticae rationem assignat, ibi Sina enim, et cetera. To understand this text, it must be noted with respect to the first that a citizen of a city is called its son, and the city itself his mother: “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me” (Lk 23:28); “The noble sons of Sion” (Lam 4:2). Therefore, by the fact that certain ones become citizens of a city, they are made its sons. Now there is a twofold city of God: the one of earth, called the earthly Jerusalem, and the other of Heaven, called the heavenly Jerusalem. Furthermore, men were made citizens of the earthly city through the Old Testament, but of the heavenly through the New. Therefore as to this he does two things: First, he expounds the mystery; Secondly, he accounts for the mystical explanation (v. 25). Dicit ergo primo: dico quod significat duo testamenta, scilicet vetus et novum. Et quantum ad hoc dicit: primum quidem in monte Sina, et cetera. Ubi, primo, ponitur locus in quo datum fuit, quia ad litteram in monte Sina, ut dicitur Ex. XX, cuius, secundum Glossam, mystica ratio est, quia Sina interpretatur mandatum. Unde et ab apostolo vetus lex vocatur lex mandatorum, Eph. II, 15; mons autem significat superbiam, Ier. XIII, 16: antequam offendant pedes vestri ad montes caliginosos, et cetera. Unde per montem istum in quo data est lex, significatur superbia Iudaeorum duplex: una qua superbiebant contra Deum, Deut. XXXI, 27: ego scio contentionem tuam, etc.; alia qua superbiebant contra alias nationes abutentes eo, quod dicitur in Ps. CXLVII, 20: non fecit taliter omni nationi, et cetera. He says therefore first: I say that it signifies the two Testaments, namely, the Old and the New. And with respect to this he says: The one from mount Sinai, engendering unto bondage. Wherein is mentioned first of all the place in which it was given, namely, on Mount Sinai, as is recorded in Exodus (Ch. 20). According to a Gloss the mystical rendition of this is that Sinai is interpreted “Commandment.” Hence in Ephesians (Ch. 2) the Old Law is called by the Apostle the law of the Commandments. Now a mountain signifies pride: “Before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains” (Jer. 13:16). Hence by this mountain on which the Law was given a twofold pride of the Jews is signified: one by which they were arrogant against God: I know thy obstinacy and thy most stiff neck” (Deut 31:27); the other by which they boasted at the expense of other nations, thus perverting what is said in Psalm (147:20): “He hath not done in like manner to every nation; and his judgments he hath not made manifest to them.” Secundo vero proponit ad quid sit datum, quia non ad faciendum liberos, sed filios matris ancillae, generans in servitutem, quae est Agar, id est significatur per Agar, quae quidem in servitutem generat, scilicet vetus testamentum. Et hoc tripliciter, scilicet quantum ad affectum, quantum ad intellectum et fructum. Quantum ad intellectum quidem secundum cognitionem, quia in homine est duplex cognitio: una libera, quando scilicet rerum veritatem secundum seipsam cognoscit; alia vero ancilla, id est subiecta velaminibus figurarum. Et talis fuit cognitio veteris testamenti. Quantum ad affectum vero, quia nova lex generat affectum amoris, qui pertinet ad libertatem, nam qui amat, ex se movetur. Vetus autem generat affectum timoris, in quo est servitus; qui enim timet, non ex se, sed ex alio movetur. Rom. VIII, 15: non accepistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore, et cetera. Sed quantum ad fructum, quia lex nova generat filios quibus debetur haereditas; sed illis, quos vetus generat, debentur munuscula, sicut servis. Io. VIII, 35: servus non manet in domo in aeternum, filius manet in domo in aeternum. Secondly, he explains the end for which it was given, namely, not to make them free, but to make them children of a bondwoman, engendering unto bondage, which is Hagar, i.e., which is signified by Hagar, who engenders unto bondage, namely, the Old Testament. And this it does with respect to three things; namely, feeling, understanding and fruit. As to understanding, indeed, according to knowledge: because in man is a twofold knowledge. One is free, when he knows the truth of things according to themselves; the other is servile, i.e., veiled under figures, as was the knowledge of the Old Testament. As to feeling, the New Law engenders the feeling of love, which pertains to freedom: for one who loves is moved by his own initiative. The Old, on the other hand, engenders the feeling of fear in which is servitude; for one who fears is moved not by his own initiative but by that of another: “You have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons” (Rom 8:15). But as to the fruit, the New Law begets sons to whom is owed the inheritance, whereas to those whom the Old Law engenders are owed small presents as to servants: “The servant abideth not in the house forever; but the son abideth forever” (Jn 8:35). Rationem mysterii assignat, cum dicit Sina enim mons est in Arabia, et cetera. Ubi primo oritur dubitatio, quia cum Sina distet a Ierusalem per viginti fere dietas, videtur falsum quod Sina iunctus sit Ierusalem, ut hic apostolus dicit. Sed ad hoc mystice respondetur in Glossa sic, ut Sina sit in Arabia. Arabia enim humilitas vel afflictio interpretatur, in qua datum est vetus testamentum, quia homines quasi servi et alieni sub ea affligebantur carnalibus observantiis. Act. XV, v. 10: hoc est onus, quod neque patres nostri, neque nos, et cetera. Qui, mons, coniunctus est, non per spatii continuitatem sed per similitudinem, ei quae nunc est Ierusalem, id est, Iudaico populo; quia sicut ipsi terrena diligunt, et pro temporalibus serviunt sub peccato, ita et mons ille in servitutem generabat. Then he gives the explanation of the mystery when he says: Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But here a difficulty arises: for since Sinai is almost twenty days journey from Jerusalem, it seems false that Sinai has affinity to [borders on] Jerusalem, as the Apostle says here. To this a Gloss responds in a mystical manner that Sinai is in Arabia, which stands for the abjection or affliction under which the Old Testament was given, because the men under it were oppressed by carnal observances after the manner of slaves and foreigners: “This is a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear” (Acts 15:10). This mountain neighbors on Jerusalem not by a spatial continuity but by a likeness to that Jerusalem which now is, i.e., to the Jewish people, because just as they love earthly things and for the sake of temporal things are under the bondage of sin, so that mountain engendered unto bondage. Sed haec non videtur intentio apostoli. Nam ipse vult, quod vetus testamentum, quod in monte Sina datum est, ex ipso loco servitutis in servitutem generet; quia illud dabatur in Sina, non tamen ibi remanentibus filiis Israel, sed proficiscentibus ad terram promissionis. Ierusalem enim etiam generat filios servitutis, et ideo quantum ad hoc coniungitur mons Sina cum illa. Et hoc est quod dicit qui coniunctus est ei, scilicet per continuationem itineris euntium in Ierusalem, quae nunc est Ierusalem, et servit cum filiis suis, servitute scilicet legalium observantiarum (a qua redemit nos Christus) et servitute diversorum peccatorum Io. VIII, 34: qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati et (ad litteram) a servitute Romanorum, qui eis dominabantur. But this does not seem to be the Apostle’s intention. For he wants to bring out that from the very place of bondage the Old Testament, which was given on Mount Sinai, engenders unto bondage, because it was given on Sinai not as a place where the children of Israel were to remain, but as a stage in their journey to the promised land. For Jerusalem, too, engenders sons unto bondage. Hence it is with respect to this that Mount Sinai is continuous with her. And this is what he says: which hath affinity to that (i.e., by being part of the continuous route followed by those going to Jerusalem) Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children, i.e., the bondage of legal observances (from which Christ redeemed us) and of various sins—“He that commits sins is the servant of sin” (Jn 8:34)—and, literally, from bondage under the Romans who were their masters. Deinde cum dicit illa autem quae sursum est Ierusalem, etc., hic consequenter aperit mysterium de libera. Et primo exponit mysterium; secundo inducit prophetiam, ibi scriptum est enim, et cetera. Then when he says, But that Jerusalem which is above is free, he discloses the mystery of the free woman. First, he discloses the mystery; Secondly, he refers to a prophecy (v. 27). Primum quidem potest dupliciter intelligi, secundum quod hanc matrem possumus intelligere, vel illam per quam generamur, quae est Ecclesia militans; vel illam matrem in cuius filios generamur, quae est Ecclesia triumphans. I Petr. I, 3: regeneravit nos in spem vivam, et cetera. Sic ergo generamur in praesenti Ecclesia militante, ut perveniamus ad triumphantem. Hoc ergo modo illud exponentes, a quatuor describitur mater nostra, scilicet a sublimitate, cum dicit sursum, secundo a nomine, cum dicit Ierusalem, tertio a libertate, cum dicit libera est, quarto a foecunditate, cum dicit mater nostra. The first can be understood in two ways, accordingly as we understand this mother to be the one by whom we are engendered, which is the Church Militant, or the mother whose sons we become, which is the Church Triumphant: “He hath regenerated us unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Pet. 1:3). Hence we are so generated in the present Church Militant as to arrive at the Triumphant. Therefore in explaining it thus, our mother is described by four things: by her sublimity, when he says, above; secondly, by name, when he says, Jerusalem; thirdly by her freedom, when he says, is free, fourthly, by her fecundity when he says, our mother. Est ergo sublimis per apertam Dei visionem, et per perfectam Dei fruitionem, et hoc quantum ad Ecclesiam triumphantem. Is. LX, v. 5: videbis, et afflues, et cetera. Col. III, 2: quae sursum sunt sapite, et cetera. Item sublimis per fidem et spem, quantum ad Ecclesiam militantem. Phil. III, 20: nostra conversatio in caelis, et cetera. Cant. III, 6 et VIII, 5: quae est ista quae ascendit, et cetera. Sed est etiam pacifica, quia Ierusalem, id est, visio pacis. Quod quidem competit Ecclesiae triumphanti, ut habenti pacem perfectam. Ps. CXLVII, 14: qui posuit fines tuos pacem, et cetera. Is. XXXII, 18: sedebit populus meus in pulchritudine pacis. Item competit Ecclesiae militanti, quae in Christo pacem habens quiescit. Io. XVI, 33: in me pacem habebitis. Est etiam libera, Rom. VIII, 21: ipsa creatura liberabitur, et cetera. Et hoc quantum ad triumphantem, et etiam quantum ad militantem, ut Apoc. XXI, 2: vidi civitatem sanctam Ierusalem, et cetera. Sed foecunda est, quia mater nostra. Militans quidem ut generans, triumphans ut in cuius filios generamur. Ps. LXXXVI, 5: numquid Sion dicet homo, et cetera. Is. LX, 4: filii tui de longe venient, et cetera. She is sublime on account of the face to face vision of God and the perfect enjoyment of God; and this, as to the Church Triumphant: “Then shalt thou see, and abound, and thy heart shall wonder and be enlarged” (Is 60:5); “Mind the things that are above” (Col 3:2). Again she is sublime through faith and hope as to the Church Militant: “Our conversation is in heaven” (Phil 3:20); “Who is this that cometh up from the desert, flowing with delights?” (Cant 8:5). Further, she is a peacemaker, because she is Jerusalem, i.e., vision of peace. This belongs to the Church Triumphant as having perfect peace: “Who hath placed peace in thy borders” (Ps 147:14); “My people shall sit in the beauty of peace” (Is 32:18). Likewise it pertains to the Church Militant which possesses the peace of resting in Christ: “In me you shall have peace” (Jn 16:33). Furthermore, she is free: “Because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption” (Rom 8:21). And this both as to the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant according to Apoc (21:2): 1 saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.” Finally, she is fruitful, because she is our mother: Militant as engendering; Triumphant as the one whose sons we become: “Shall Sion say: This man and that man is born of her” (Ps 86:5); “Thy sons shall come from afar, and thy daughters shall rise up at thy side” (Is 60:4). Scriptum est enim, scilicet Is. LIV, v. 1, secundum enim Septuaginta. Hic ponitur prophetia, per quam primo probatur libertas matris praedictae; secundo eius foecunditas, ibi quia multi filii, et cetera. Sciendum est autem, circa primum, quod in muliere foecunda, primo quidem est tristitia in pariendo, secundo subsequitur gaudium in suscepta prole, secundum illud Io. XVI, 21: mulier cum parit, et cetera. Sed mulier sterilis nec patitur in partu, nec gaudet in prole. Differunt autem parere et parturire, quia parturire dicit conatum ad partum; parere vero dicit eductionem foetus iam facti. In parturitione ergo dolorem experitur foecunda, et in partu gaudium. Sterilis autem dolore parturitionis et gaudio partus privatur. For it is written, namely in Isaiah (54:1) according to the Septuagint. Here is mentioned the prophecy through which is proved, first of all, that the mother referred to is free, and secondly, that she is fruitful. With respect to the first, it should be noted that in a fertile woman there is first sorrow in giving birth, but this is followed by joy in beholding the child: “A woman when she is in labor hath sorrow, because her hour is come; but when she hath brought forth the child, she remembereth no more her anguish for joy that a man is born into the world” (Jn 16:21). But a barren woman neither suffers the pangs of birth nor has joy in a child. Again there is a difference between bearing and travailing. For the latter refers to the effort to bear, whereas the former refers to the releasing of the foetus now formed. Therefore the fertile woman experiences pain in travail but joy in bearing; the sterile woman, on the other hand, experiences neither the pain of travail nor the joy of bearing. Sed haec duo propheta indicit sterili, dicens laetare, sterilis, etc., ubi loquitur de Ierusalem, quam dicit liberam, significatam per Saram sterilem. Nam Ecclesia sterilis erat, scilicet Ecclesia militans gentium ante conversionem, quae non offerebat filium Deo, sed Diabolo. Unde ad Babylonem dicitur Is. XLVII, v. 9: sterilitas et viduitas venerunt tibi, et cetera. Et Ecclesia triumphans ante passionem Christi sterilis erat, quia non generabantur aliqui in filios eius per introitum gloriae nisi in spe. Posita enim erat romphaea ante ianuam Paradisi, ut nullus intrare posset. Huic ergo sterili dicitur laetare, quae non paris, etc., quasi dicat: steriles, ut dictum est, non dolent de partu, sed de eo quod non pariunt. I Reg. I, 10: cum esset Anna amaro animo, et cetera. Sed tu laetaberis in multitudine filiorum. Is. LX, 5: tunc dilatabitur et mirabitur cor tuum, scilicet laetitiam mentis extra ostendens. Duo enim sunt in partu, scilicet dolor ex eruptione reticulorum, quibus continetur foetus in matrice, et clamor ex ipso dolore. Et ideo dicit tu quae non parturis, scilicet Ecclesia militans, quae non conaris ad partum per desiderium, et triumphans, quae non parturis dolendo, vel quia nondum venit tempus recipiendi filios: erumpe, id est laetitiam quam interius habes manifesta exterius, et clama voce laudis. Is. LVIII, 1: clama, ne cesses, et cetera. Et haec duo ad libertatem pertinent, scilicet clamare et erumpere: sic ergo apparet libertas matris. But these are the two things which the prophet announces to the barren woman: Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not: break forth and cry, thou that travailest not. Herein he speaks of Jerusalem, which he calls free and is signified by the barren Sara. For the Church was barren, namely, the Church Militant, of the Gentiles before their conversion when they offered their sons not to God but to the devil. Hence it is said to Babylon: “Barrenness and widowhood will come upon thee, because of the multitude of thy sorceries” (Is 47:9). The Church Triumphant, too, was barren before the passion of Christ, because to her were born no sons who entered into glory, save in hope. For a mighty engine of war blocked the entrance to Paradise, so that no one might enter. To this barren one he says: Rejoice thou that bearest not. As if to say: The barren, as has been said, are sorrowful, not because they bear, but because they bear not: “As Anna had her heart full of grief, she prayed to the Lord, shedding many tears” (I Kg. 1:10). But you shall rejoice in the great number of your children: “Then shall thy heart wonder and be enlarged,” i.e., you will show the joy in your soul outwardly (Is 60:5). For there are two things in childbirth: the pain from the rupturing of the membrane enclosing the child in the womb, and the crying from pain. Hence he says, thou that travailest not, i.e., the Church Militant, that makes no effort to bear through desire, and the Church Triumphant, that does not cry for travail; or because the time for having sons has not yet come, break forth, i.e., show outwardly the joy you have within and cry with sounds of praise: “Cry, cease not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet” (Is 58:1). These two things, namely, to cry and to break forth, pertain to freedom.—Thus the freedom of the mother is made manifest. Sequitur foecunditas quia multi filii, et cetera. Sed cum supra dictum sit Ecclesiam liberam significari per Saram, videtur esse dubium an Sara fuerit deserta. Ad quod sciendum est, quod deserta fuit ab Abraham, ut hic dicitur, non per divortium, sed quantum ad opus carnale. Nam Abraham vacabat quidem operi carnali, non propter concupiscentiam, sed propter prolem suscipiendam. Cum ergo innotuit ei Saram sterilem esse, deseruit eam, non frangens coniugalem thorum, sed quia non utebatur ea ab illo praecise tempore quo Sara introduxit ei ancillam. Per quod datur intelligi, quod Ecclesia gentium deserta erat a Christo, quia nondum venerat Christus, et quod Ecclesia triumphans deserta erat ab hominibus, quibus ad eam nondum patebat accessus. Huius ergo desertae, scilicet Ecclesiae gentium, sunt multi filii, id est plures, magis quam eius, scilicet synagogae, quae habet virum, scilicet Moysen. I Reg. II, 5: sterilis peperit plurimos, et quae multos filios habebat, et cetera. Et hoc veniente sponso, scilicet Christo, a quo deserta erat, non dilectione, sed partu postposito. He follows with the fruitfulness: for many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that hath a husband. But since it was said above that the free Church is signified by Sara, there seems to be some doubt whether Sara was desolate. I answer that she was made desolate by Abraham, as it is said here, not by a divorce but with respect to the work of the flesh. For Abraham resorted to the work of the flesh not for the pleasure but to obtain a child. Therefore when he learned that Sara was barren, he abandoned her; not by forsaking the marriage bed, but by not resorting to her from precisely the time that Sara introduced the bondwoman to him. By this we are given to understand that the Church of the Gentiles was left desolate by Christ, because Christ had not yet come; and that the Church Triumphant was desolate of men, for whom no means of entry was open. Of this desolate woman, i.e., the Church of the Gentiles, there are many children, i.e., more than of her, namely, the synagogue, that hath a husband, namely, Moses: “The barren hath borne many: and she that had many children is weakened” (I Kg. 2:5). And this is due to the coming of the spouse, namely, Christ, by Whom she had been left desolate not by want of love, but because the bearing of children had been delayed.
CHAPTER 4
Lecture 9Exposito mysterio quantum ad matres, hic exponit illud quantum ad filios. Et primo ponit filiorum distinctionem; secundo principalem conclusionem, ibi itaque, fratres mei, et cetera. Having disclosed the mystery as to the mothers, he now discloses it as to the sons. First, he differentiates between the sons; Secondly, he sets down the main conclusion (v. 31). Distinctionem autem filiorum ponit quantum ad tria. Primo quantum ad modum originis; secundo quantum ad affectum dilectionis, ibi sed quomodo tunc, etc.; tertio quantum ad ius haereditatis, ibi sed quid dicit Scriptura, et cetera. He distinguishes the sons on three counts: First, as to the manner of origin; Secondly, as to the feeling of love (v. 29). Thirdly, as to their right to the inheritance (v. 30). Modus autem originis quo aliqui nascuntur filii Abrahae est duplex: quidam origine carnali, sicut Ismael de ancilla; quidam autem non carnali origine, sicut Isaac de libera: non quod naturali opere natus non fuerit, sed quia sicut dictum est supra naturalem virtutem carnis fuit ut de vetula sterili filius nasceretur. Per hos autem filios intelligitur duplex populus. Nam per Ismaelem intelligitur populus Iudaeorum, qui carnali propagatione est ab Abraham derivatus. Per Isaac autem, populus gentium, qui per imitationem fidei ab Abraham descendit. Et ideo dicit nos autem, fratres, scilicet fideles, tam Iudaei, quam gentiles, secundum Isaac, id est, in similitudine Isaac, promissionis filii sumus facti Abrahae. Rom. IX, 8: qui sunt filii promissionis aestimantur in semine. Sed nota, quod filii carnis Abrahae ad litteram sunt Iudaei, mystice autem, qui propter carnalia et temporalia bona ad fidem veniunt. The manner of origin, according to which the sons of Abraham are born, is twofold: one is by origin according to the flesh, as Ishmael, of the bondwoman; the other not according to the flesh, as Isaac, of the free woman-not because he was not born in the way of nature, but because, as has been said, it was beyond the natural power of the flesh for a son to be born of a barren old woman. Two people are understood by these two sons: by Ishmael is understood the Jewish people, who derived from Abraham by carnal propagation; but by Isaac, the people of the Gentiles, who descended from Abraham by imitation of his faith. Hence he says: Now we, brethren, i.e., the faithful, both Jew and Gentile, as Isaac was, i.e., in the line of Isaac, are the children of the promise that was made to Abraham: “They that are the children of the promise are accounted for the seed” (Gen 21; Rom 9:8). But note that the children of Abraham according to the flesh are, literally, the Jewish people; but, mystically, the ones who come to the faith for the sake of carnal and temporal goods. Secundum affectum autem distinguuntur, quia qui natus erat secundum carnem, persequebatur illum qui natus erat secundum spiritum. Sed hic est quaestio. Primo quia non legitur, quod Ismael persecutionem aliquam fecerit contra Isaac, sed quod tantum luserit cum eo. Gen. XXI, 9: cum vidisset Sara filium ancillae Agar ludentem, et cetera. Responsio. Dicendum est, quod apostolus illum ludum dicit persecutionem, quia ludus magni ad parvum est quaedam illusio, cum maior cum parvo ludens intendit eum decipere. Vel etiam, ut dicunt quidam, Ismael cogebat Isaac adorare imagines luteas quas faciebat. Per hoc autem docebat eum averti a cultu unius Dei, quod est magna persecutio, cum maius malum sit inferre mortem spiritualem, quam corporalem. Quod tamen ideo in Genesi appellatur ludus, quia sub specie ludi hoc faciebat. Secondly, they are distinguished according to affection, because he that was born according to the flesh persecuted him that was after the spirit. But this raises a difficulty. First, because it is not recorded that Ishmael persecuted Isaac, but only that they played together: “When Sara had seen the son of Hagar, the Egyptian, playing with Isaac her son, she said to Abraham: Cast out this bondwoman and her son” (Gen 21:9). I answer that the Apostle calls this playing a persecution, because there is deception when an older person plays with a younger one; since the older person, in playing with the younger, intends to deceive him. Or, as some say, Ishmael compelled Isaac to adore the clay images he fashioned. By this he was teaching him to be turned from the worship of the one God; and this was a considerable persecution, since it is a greater evil to cause spiritual death than bodily. Furthermore, in Genesis this is called a game because he did this under the guise of a game. Est etiam quaestio quomodo filii secundum carnem persecuti fuerint et persequantur filios secundum spiritum. Sed ad hoc est responsio, quia a principio primitivae Ecclesiae Iudaei persecuti sunt Christianos, ut patet in actibus apostolorum, et facerent etiam nunc si possent. Nunc etiam carnales persequuntur in Ecclesia spirituales viros, etiam corporaliter, illi scilicet qui quaerunt gloriam et temporalia lucra in Ecclesia. Unde dicitur in Glossa: omnes qui in Ecclesia terrenam facultatem quaerunt a domino, ad hunc Ismaelem pertinent. Ipsi sunt qui contradicunt spiritualibus proficientibus, et detrahunt illis, et habent labia iniqua et linguas dolosas et subdolosas. Spiritualiter autem persequuntur spirituales filios, superbi et hypocritae. Nam aliquando aliqui manifeste carnales et mali culpam suam recognoscentes, bonis se humiliant, fatui vero bonitatem, quam ipsi non habent, persequuntur in aliis. There is another difficulty, namely, how the children according to the flesh persecuted and do persecute the children according to the spirit? The answer is that from the beginning of the early Church the Jews persecuted Christians, as is obvious in the Acts of the Apostles, and they would do the same even now, if they were able. Now, however, those who are carnal persecute spiritual men in the Church even as to the body; those, namely, who seek glory and temporal gain in the Church. Hence a Gloss says that “all who seek from the Lord earthly aggrandizement in the Church pertain to this Ishmael. They are the ones who oppose those who are making spiritual progress and slander them. They have iniquity in their mouth, and craft and deceit on their tongues.” But the ones who spiritually persecute the spiritual sons are the haughty and the hypocrites. For sometimes they who are plainly carnal and evil recognize their guilt and humble themselves before the good; but the foolish persecute in others the goodness they themselves lack. Est etiam quaestio, quia haeretici quos nos persequimur, dicunt se natos secundum spiritum, nos vero secundum carnem. Sed dicendum est, quod duplex est persecutio. Una bona, qua aliquis persequitur alium, ut reducat eum ad bonum, et hanc viri iusti faciunt malis et spirituales carnalibus, vel ut eos corrigant si converti volunt, vel si obstinati sunt in malo, destruant, ne gregem domini inficiant. Alia persecutio est mala, qua quis persequitur alium, ut pervertat ad malum, et hanc qui secundum carnem nati sunt, faciunt his, qui nati sunt secundum spiritum. A further question arises from the fact that heretics whom we persecute say that they are the ones born according to the spirit and we according to the flesh. I answer that there are two kinds of persecution: the good one is that in which a person persecutes another to lead him back to good. And this is what just men do to evil men, and spiritual men to carnal men; either to correct them, if they want to be converted, or, if they are obstinate, to destroy them, lest they contaminate the flock of the Lord. The other type of persecution is evil, namely, when a person persecutes another in order to pervert him; and this is what those who are born according to the flesh do to those who are born according to the spirit. Quantum vero ad ius haereditatis, distinguuntur per auctoritatem Scripturae, Gen. XXI, 10: eiice ancillam et filium eius. In quo datur intelligi, quod Iudaei et persecutores fidei Christianae, et etiam carnales et mali Christiani eiicientur a regno caelesti. Matth. VIII, 11: multi venient ab oriente, et cetera. Apoc. XXII, 15: foris canes et venefici, et cetera. Ancilla etiam, id est malitia, et ipsum peccatum eiicietur. Eccli. XIV, 20: omne opus corruptibile in fine deficiet. Et ratio horum subditur, quia non erit haeres filius ancillae cum filio liberae. In mundo enim isto boni sunt malis permixti, et mali bonis. Cant. II, 2: sicut lilium inter spinas, et cetera. Sed in aeterna patria non erunt nisi boni. Iudic. XI, 2 dicitur ad Iephte: haeres in domo patris nostri esse non poteris, quia de adultera natus es. Quam quidem libertatem habemus a Christo. Unde dicit qua libertate, et cetera. Io. VIII, 36: si filius vos liberaverit, vere liberi eritis. Finally, as to their right to the inheritance, they are distinguished by the authority of Scripture: Cast out the bondwoman and her son (Gen 21:10). By this we are given to understand that the Jews and persecutors of the Christian religion, as well as carnal and evil Christians, will be cast out from the kingdom of heaven: “Many shall come from the east and the west and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 8:11); “Without are dogs and sorcerers” (Rev 22:15). Furthermore, the bondwoman, i.e., vice and sin itself, will be cast out: “Every work that is corruptible shall fail in the end” (Sir 14:20). The reason for all this is added, because the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. For in this world the good are mingled with the wicked and the wicked with the good: “As the lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters” (Cant 2:2). But in the eternal fatherland there will be only the good. In Judges (11:2) it is said to Jephtah: “Thou canst not inherit in the house of our father, because thou art born of a harlot.” This freedom we obtain from Christ; hence he says, by the freedom wherewith Christ has made us free: “If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed” (Jn 8:36).
CHAPTER 5
Lecture 1Supra ostendit apostolus, quod per legem non est iustitia hic vero reducit eos ab errore ad statum rectitudinis. Et primo quantum ad divina; secundo quantum ad humana, VI cap., ibi et si praeoccupatus fuerit homo, et cetera. Above, the Apostle showed that justice is not through the Law; here he leads them back from error to a state of rectitude. First, with respect to divine matters. Secondly, with respect to human affairs (6:1). Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit admonitionem; secundo eius rationem assignat, ibi ecce ego Paulus, et cetera. As to the first, he does two things: First, he admonishes them; Secondly, he gives the reason underlying his admonition (v. 2). Et in admonitione etiam duo ponit. Quorum unum est inductivum ad bonum; secundum est prohibitivum a malo. Inducit quidem ad bonum, cum dicit state ergo, quasi dicat: ex quo per Christum liberati estis a servitute legis, state firma fide, et fixo pede permanentes in libertate. Sic ergo cum dicit state, inducit ad rectitudinem. Qui enim stat, rectus est. I Cor. X, 12: qui se existimat stare, et cetera. Inducit etiam ad firmitatem. I Cor. XV, 58: stabiles estote et immobiles, et cetera. Eph. ult.: state succincti lumbos vestros, et cetera. In the admonition itself he includes two things: one is an inducement to good: the other is a caution against evil. He induces to good when he says, Stand fast. As if to say: Since you have been set free from the bondage of the Law through Christ, stand fast and, with your faith firm and feet planted, persevere in freedom. And so when he says, Stand fast, he exhorts them to rectitude. For he that stands is erect: “He that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed, lest he fall” (1 Cor 10:12). Likewise he exhorts them to be firm: “Therefore, be ye steadfast and unmoveable” (1 Cor 15:58); “Stand, therefore, having your loins girt about with truth” (Eph 6:14). Prohibet vero et retrahit a malo, cum subdit et nolite iterum iugo servitutis contineri, id est non subiiciamini legi, quae in servitutem generat. De quo iugo dicitur Act. XV, 10: hoc est onus quod neque patres nostri, neque nos, etc., a quo tantum per Christum liberati estis. Is. IX, 4: virgam humeri eius, et cetera. Ideo autem addit iterum, non quia prius sub lege fuerint, sed quia, ut Hieronymus dicit, post Evangelium servare legalia adeo peccatum est, ut sit sicut servire idololatriae. Unde quia isti idololatrae fuerant, si subiiciant se iugo circumcisionis et aliarum legalium observationum, quasi ad eadem revertuntur, quibus antea in idololatria servierant. But he cautions and draws them from evil, when he adds: and be not held again under the yoke of bondage, i.e., do not subject yourself to the Law which engenders unto bondage. Of this yoke, it is written in Acts (15:10): “This is a yoke which neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear,” a yoke from which we have been loosed by Christ alone: “For the yoke of their burden, and the rod of their shoulder, and the sceptre of their oppressor, thou hast overcome” (Is 9:4). The reason for adding, again, is not that they had been under the Law before, but that, as Jerome says, to observe the legal ceremonies after the Gospel is so great a sin as to border on idolatry. Hence, because they had been idolaters, if they were to submit themselves to the yoke of circumcision and the other legal observances, they would be, as it were, returning to the very things wherein they had formerly practiced idolatry. Secundum Augustinum vero, ut supra dictum est, circa legalium observantias triplex tempus distinguitur, scilicet tempus ante passionem, ante gratiam divulgatam, et post gratiam divulgatam. Post ergo gratiam divulgatam servare legalia est peccatum mortale, etiam ipsis Iudaeis. Sed in tempore medio, scilicet ante gratiam divulgatam, poterant quidem absque peccato etiam illi, qui ex Iudaeis conversi fuerant, legalia servare, dum tamen in eis spem non ponerent; conversis vero ex gentibus non licebat ea servare. Quia ergo Galatae ex Iudaeis non erant, et tamen legalia servare volebant et ponebant in eis spem, ideo revertebantur in iugum servitutis. Nam huiusmodi observatio erat eis sicut idololatria, inquantum non recte sentiebant de Christo, credentes ab ipso sine legalibus salutem consequi non posse. However, according to Augustine in Epistle 19, three periods of time are distinguished with respect to the observance of the legal ceremonies: namely, the time before the passion, the time before the spreading of grace and the time after the spreading of grace. To observe the legal ceremonies after grace had been preached is a mortal sin for the Jews. But during the interim, i.e., before the preaching of grace, they could be observed without sin even by those who had been converted from Judaism, provided they set no hope on them. However, those converted from paganism could not observe them without sin. Therefore, because the Galatians had not come from Judaism but wanted, nevertheless, to observe the legal ceremonies and put their hope in them, they were in effect returning to the yoke of bondage. For in their case, observances of this sort were akin to idolatry, inasmuch as they entertained a false notion touching Christ, believing that salvation cannot be obtained by Him without the observances of the Law. Deinde cum dicit ecce ego, etc., exponit praedicta duo. Et primo secundum, secundo primum, ibi nos autem spiritus, et cetera. Then when he says, Behold, I Paul tell you, he explains these two parts of his admonition: First, the second part; Secondly, the first part (v. 5). Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit quid sit iugum servitutis, quod non debent subire; secundo probat, ibi evacuati estis, et cetera. As to the first, he does two things: First, he shows what the yoke of bondage is that they ought not submit to; Secondly, he proves it (v. 4). Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit iugum illud esse valde nocivum; secundo valde onerosum, ibi testificor autem, et cetera. Regarding the first, he does two things: First, he shows that this yoke is a source of great harm; Secondly, that it is terribly burdensome (v. 3). Nocivum est quidem iugum legis, quia aufert dominicae passionis effectum. Et ideo dicit: nolite contineri iugo servitutis, quia ecce ego Paulus, qui, supple: voce auctoritatis, dico, et bene, si circumcidimini, Christus vobis nihil proderit, id est, fides Christi. The yoke of the Law is harmful because it nullifies the effect of the Lord’s passion. Hence he says, be not held again under the yoke of bondage, because behold, I Paul, who am speaking with the voice of authority, tell you, and well, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing, i.e., faith in Christ. Sed contra, Act. XVI, 3 dicitur quod Paulus circumcidit Timotheum, ergo fecit quod Christus ei nihil prodesset, ergo decepit eum. Respondeo. Dicendum est, secundum Hieronymum, quod Paulus non circumcidit Timotheum quasi legem servare intenderit, sed simulavit se circumcidere, faciendo opus circumcisionis. Nam, secundum ipsum, apostoli simulatorie servabant legalia ad vitandum scandalum fidelium ex Iudaeis. Faciebant autem actus legalium, non tamen cum intentione servandi legalia, et sic non exibant a fide. Unde non decepit Timotheum. But against this is something recorded in Acts (16:3), namely, that Paul circumcised Timothy. Hence in effect he brought it about that Christ profited him nothing; furthermore, he was deceiving him. I answer that, according to Jerome, Paul did not circumcise Timothy as though intending to observe the Law, but he feigned circumcision in working circumcision on him. For, according to him, the apostles feigned observing the works of the Law to avoid scandalizing the believers from Judaism. In other words, they performed the actions of the Law without the intention of observing them, and so they departed not from the faith. Hence he did not deceive Timothy. Secundum vero Augustinum dicendum est quod apostoli secundum veritatem servabant legalia, et cum intentione ea servandi, quia, secundum apostolorum sententiam, licebat fidelibus ex Iudaeis illo tempore, scilicet ante gratiam divulgatam, ipsa servare. Et ideo quia Timotheus fuit ex matre Iudaea, circumcidit eum apostolus cum intentione servandi legalia. Quia vero Galatae ponebant spem in legalibus post gratiam divulgatam, quasi sine eis gratia non sufficeret ad salutem, et ideo ea servare volebant, ideo dicit eis apostolus si circumcidimini, et cetera. Sequebatur enim ex hoc, quod non reputarent Christum, in cuius signum data fuit circumcisio. Gen. XVII, 11: ut sit in signum foederis inter me et vos, et cetera. Qui ergo circumcidebantur, credebant adhuc signum durare, et tunc signatum nondum venisse, et sic excidebant a Christo. Sic ergo patet onus legis esse nocivum. However, according to Augustine, the answer is that the apostles did in very truth observe the works of the Law and had the intention of observing them; because, according to the teaching of the apostles, it was lawful at that time, i.e., before grace had become widespread, for converts from Judaism to observe them. Therefore, because Timothy was born of a Jewish mother, the Apostle circumcised him with the intention of observing the Law. But because the Galatians were putting their hope in the legal observances after the spreading of grace, as though without them grace was not sufficient to save them, and they observed them in that frame of mind, for that reason the Apostle declared to them that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For it followed from this that they did not correctly estimate Christ, to signify Whom circumcision was given: “That it may be a sign of the covenant between me and you” (Gen 17:11). Therefore, those who submitted to circumcision believed that the sign was still in vogue and that the one signified had not yet come. Thus they were fallen away from Christ. In this way, then, it is plain that the yoke of the Law is harmful. Est etiam valde onerosum, quia obligat ad impossibile, et hoc est quod dicit testificor autem, etc., quasi dicat: dico quod si circumcidimini, Christus vobis nihil proderit. Sed adhuc, testificor enim omni homini, scilicet Iudaeo et gentili, et cetera. Nam quicumque profitetur in aliqua religione, facit se debitorem omnium quae ad observantiam illius religionis pertinent. Et sicut dicit Augustinus: numquam fuit aliqua religio sine aliquo visibili signo, ad quod obligarentur qui in ipsa religione vivunt; sicut in religione Christiana signum visibile est Baptisma, ad quod omnes Christiani tenentur quoad cultum. Obligantur etiam ad omnia quae ad cultum Christianae religionis pertinent. Signum autem legis Mosaicae fuit circumcisio. Quicumque ergo circumcidebat se, obligabatur ad omnia legalia servanda ac implenda, et hoc est quod dicit quoniam debitor est universae legis faciendae, Iac. II, v. 10: qui offendit in uno, factus est omnium reus. Quam tamen nullus servare poterat, secundum illud Act. XV, 10: hoc est onus, quod neque patres nostri, neque nos portare potuimus, et cetera. Furthermore, it is a heavy burden, because it obliges to the impossible. And this is what he states: I testify again to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. As if to say: I say that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. But in addition to this, I testify to every man, both Jew and Gentile, circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. For one who professes a religion makes himself a debtor to all that pertains to the observances of that religion. And, as Augustine says: “There has never been a religion without some visible sign to which those who live in that religion are obligated; as in the Christian religion the visible sign is Baptism, which all Christians are held to undergo. Furthermore, they are obligated to everything that pertains to the Christian religion.” Now the sign of the Mosaic Law was circumcision. Therefore, whoever circumcised himself was put under obligation to observe and fulfill all the matters of the Law. And that is what he says: he is a debtor to do the whole law: “Whosoever offends in one point, is become guilty of all” (Jam 2:10). No one, however, was able to keep the Law, according to Acts (15:10): “This is a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear.” Sed dato quod aliquis circumcideretur, ergo secundum praedicta obligat se ad servandum legalia, sed hoc est peccatum mortale, ergo tenetur peccare mortaliter, et sic videtur esse perplexus. But suppose someone is circumcised; then according to the aforesaid he is obligated to observe all the matters of the Law. But this is to sin mortally. Therefore, he is obligated to sin mortally and thus he sins in either case. Respondeo. Dicendum est quod eadem conscientia durante, tenetur servare legalia, puta si aliquis haberet conscientiam, quod, nisi circumcideretur, peccaret mortaliter, et circumcisus, ipsa conscientia durante, peccaret mortaliter, si non observaret legalia: cuius ratio est, quia habere conscientiam de re aliqua facienda, nihil aliud est quam aestimare quod faciat contra Deum, nisi illud faciat. Facere autem contra Deum est peccatum. Sic ergo dico, quod nisi faceret hoc ad quod inducit conscientia, peccaret mortaliter, non quidem ex genere operis, sed ex intentione operantis. Et similiter si facit, peccat; quia huiusmodi ignorantia non excusat, cum sit ignorantia iuris. Nec tamen est perplexus simpliciter, sed secundum quid, quia potest deponere erroneam conscientiam. Et hoc modo hic apostolus testificatur omni circumcidenti se, quod tenetur ad servandum legem. I answer that on the assumption that the same conviction prevails, he is obliged to observe the matters of the Law: for example, if one is convinced that he would sin mortally unless he were circumcised, then, having become circumcised, if the same conviction remains, he would sin mortally were he not to observe the matters of the Law. The reason for this is that the conviction that something must be done is nothing else but a judgment that it would be against God’s will not to do it. If this is the case, I say that unless he did what his convictions dictate, he would sin mortally, not by reason of the work done but by reason of his conscience. Likewise, if he does it, he sins, because ignorance of this kind does not excuse him, since he is ignorant of a precept. Nevertheless, he is not absolutely perplexed, but only in a qualified sense, because it is within his power to correct his erroneous conscience. And this is the way the Apostle is here testifying to everyone who circumcises himself that he is obliged to observe the ceremonies of the Law. Consequenter cum dicit evacuati estis, etc., probat quae dicit, scilicet quod non debent accipere legis observantiam ratione damni iam praesentis, quod est duplex. Unum est amissio Christi; secundum est amissio gratiae Christi. Primum est causa secundi, ibi qui in lege, et cetera. Then when he says, You are made void of Christ, he proves what he said, namely, that they must not embrace the observances of the Law, because it involves a double injury: first, the loss of Christ; secondly, the loss of grace. Moreover, the first is the cause of the second, because you who are justified in the law are fallen from grace. Dicit ergo evacuati, etc.; quasi dicat: vere Christus vobis nihil proderit, quia evacuati estis a Christo, id est, habitatione Christi. Secundum damnum est amissio gratiae. Ideo dicit a gratia excidistis, qui scilicet prius eratis pleni gratia Christi, quia de plenitudine eius accepimus omnes. Io. I, 16: de plenitudine Christi nos omnes accepimus, et cetera. Et Eccli. XXI, 17: cor fatui quasi vas confractum, et omnem sapientiam non tenebit. Vos, dico, qui in lege iustificamini, id est creditis iustificari, a gratia, scilicet habenda futurae beatitudinis, vel etiam a iam habita, excidistis. Apoc. II, 5: memor esto unde excideris, et age poenitentiam. He says therefore, You are made void of Christ. As if to say: Verily Christ will profit you nothing, because you are made void of Christ, i.e., of living in Christ. The second injury is the loss of grace. Hence he says: you are fallen from grace,, i.e., you who were full of the grace of Christ, “because of his fulness we have all received” (Jn 1:16); “The heart of a fool is like a broken vessel and no wisdom at all shall it hold” (Sir 22:17). You, I say, who are justified in the law, i.e., who believe that you are justified, are fallen—“Be mindful, therefore, from whence thou art fallen and do penance” (Rev 2:5).— from grace, namely, from possessing future happiness or even from the grace you once had.
CHAPTER 5
Lecture 2Explicavit apostolus secundum documentum, scilicet quod non esset subeundum iugum servitutis legis, hic autem redit ad primum, ostendens quod stare debent. Et primo proponit standi exemplum; secundo removet stationis impedimentum, ibi currebatis, etc.; tertio assignat standi causam, ibi vos autem in libertatem, et cetera. Having explained the second point, namely, that they must not submit to the yoke of serving the Law, the Apostle here returns to the first and shows that they must stand fast. First, he gives an example of standing; Secondly, he removes an obstacle to standing (v. 7); Thirdly, he tells them its mode (v. 13). Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit standi exemplum; secundo causam eius assignat, ibi nam in Christo Iesu, et cetera. As to the first, he does two things: First, he proposes an example of standing; Secondly, he assigns its cause (v. 6). Dicit ergo: qui in lege volunt iustificari, Christus eis nihil prodest, quia excidunt a gratia. Sed nos, scilicet apostoli, stamus per spem, quia scilicet expectamus spem iustitiae, id est iustitiam et spem, scilicet aeternam beatitudinem. I Petr. I, 3: regeneravit nos in spem vivam, et cetera. Vel, spem iustitiae, id est Christum, per quem est nobis spes iustitiae, quia per eum iustificamur. Phil. III, 20: salvatorem expectamus, et cetera. I Cor. I, 30: qui factus est nobis sapientia, et iustitia, et sanctificatio, et redemptio, et cetera. Vel spem iustitiae, id est spem quae est de iustitia, ut iustificentur non per legem, sed per fidem. Rom. III, 28: arbitramur hominem iustificari per fidem sine operibus legis. Vel spem iustitiae, id est rem speratam, in quam tendit iustitia, scilicet vitam aeternam. II Tim. ult.: in reliquo reposita est mihi corona iustitiae, et cetera. He says therefore: Those who want to be justified in the Law, Christ profits them nothing, because they are fallen from grace. But we, namely, the apostles, stand through hope, because we wait for the hope of justice, i.e., for justice and hope, namely, eternal happiness: “He hath regenerated us unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Pet. 1:3). Or, the hope of justice, i.e., Christ, by Whom we have a hope for justice, because we are justified by Him: “We look for the savior, Our Lord Jesus Christ” (Phil 3:20); “Who of God is made unto us wisdom and justice and sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor 1:30). Or, the hope of justice, i.e., the hope which is concerned with justice; that we be justified not by the Law but by faith: “We account a man to be justified by faith without the works of the law” (Rom 3:28). Or, the hope of justice, i.e., the things we hope for, and unto which justice tends, namely, eternal life: “As to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice which the Lord, the just judge, will render to me in that day” (2 Tim 4:8). Et hoc ex fide, quia iustitia Dei est per fidem Iesu Christi, ut dicitur Rom. III, 22. Quae quidem fides non est ab homine, sed a spiritu sancto qui eam inspirat. Rom. VIII, v. 15: accepistis spiritum filiorum, in quo clamamus: abba, pater, et cetera. Sicut ergo fides est ex spiritu, ita ex fide est spes, ex spe iustitia, per quam pervenimus ad vitam aeternam. Haec autem spes non venit ex circumcisione, neque ex gentilitate, quia nihil faciunt ad hoc. Et ideo dicit nam in Christo Iesu, id est in his qui sunt in fide Christi, neque circumcisio, neque praeputium, etc., id est indifferentia sunt. Sed fides, non informis, sed ea quae per dilectionem operatur, Iac. II, 26: fides sine operibus mortua est, et cetera. Nam fides est cognitio verbi Dei, Eph. III, 17: habitare Christum per fidem, et cetera. Et hoc verbum nec perfecte habetur, nec perfecte cognoscitur, nisi etiam habeatur amor quem sperat. And this by faith, “because the justice of God is by faith of Jesus Christ,” as is said in Romans (3:22). Which faith is not of man but of the Holy Spirit Who inspires it. “You have received the spirit of adoption of Sons, whereby we cry: Abba, (Father)” (Rom 8:15). Therefore, as faith is from the Spirit, so from faith is hope, and from hope the justice through which we reach eternal life. However, this hope does not come from circumcision or from paganism, because these contribute nothing to it. Hence he says, For in Christ Jesus, i.e., in those who live in the faith of Christ, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth anything, i.e., they make no difference; but faith, not unformed, but the kind that worketh by charity: “Faith without works is dead” (Jam 2:26). For faith is a knowledge of the word of God—“That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts” (Eph 3:17)—which word is not perfectly possessed or perfectly known unless the love which it hopes for is possessed. Hic sunt duo dubia circa Glossam. Primum est, quod dicit praeputium et circumcisionem esse indifferentia, cum supra dixerit si circumcidimini, Christus vobis nihil proderit. Sed dicendum est, quod ex genere operis sunt indifferentia, scilicet illis, qui non ponunt spem in eis; sed ex intentione operantis non sunt indifferentia. Nam ponentibus in eis spem, mortifera sunt. Here a Gloss raises two problems. The first is that he says circumcision and uncircumcision to be indifferent, whereas above he had said, If you be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. I answer that it is from the general nature of the work that they are indifferent, namely, to those who do not put any trust in them; however, they are not indifferent, if you consider the intention of the one acting. For they are deadly to those who put their trust in them. Secundum dubium est de hoc, quod dicit quod illi qui non credunt, peiores sunt quam Daemones, cum Daemones credant et contremiscant. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod peiores quidem sunt ex specie operis, sed non quantum ad affectum. Nam Daemonibus displicet hoc, quod credunt; nec etiam est tanta nequitia voluntatis in homine qui non credit, quanta in Daemone qui odit quod credit. The second problem concerns his saying that those who do not believe are worse than demons, for the demons believe and tremble. I answer that if you consider the nature of the work, they are worse; but not if you consider the will. For the demons are displeased by the fact of their believing; furthermore, there is not as much malice in the will of a man who does not believe as there is in the demon who hates what he believes. Consequenter cum dicit currebatis bene, etc., agitur de impedimento stationis. Et primo ponit impedimentum; secundo docet eius remotionem, ibi nemini consenseritis, et cetera. Then when he says, You did run well. Who hath hindered you that you should not obey the truth? he deals with the obstacle to standing. First, he mentions the obstacle; Secondly, he teaches its removal (v. 8). Impedimentum stationis eorum magnum erat et nocivum; nam tanto aliquid est magis nocivum, quanto maius bonum privat. Quando ergo aliquis multis bonis spiritualibus privatur, signum est habuisse magnum impedimentum. Et ideo, ut ostendat eos apostolus magnum impedimentum habuisse, commemorat eis bona spiritualia, quae amiserunt, cum dicit currebatis bene, etc., scilicet per opera fidei formatae per charitatem, quae instigat ad currendum. Ps. CXVIII, v. 32: viam mandatorum tuorum cucurri, cum dilatasti cor meum. Et hoc quidem fuit olim in vobis, sed dum sic currebatis, estis impediti, et ideo subdit: quis vos fascinavit? De quo dictum est supra cap. III, 1; et ideo supersedeo ad praesens. The obstacle to their standing fast was great and harmful, for the harmfulness of anything is reckoned according to the greater good it hinders. Therefore, when someone is kept from many spiritual goods, it is an indication that he is faced with a great obstacle. Accordingly, in order to show them that they have a great obstacle, he reminds them of the spiritual goods they have lost, when he says: You did run well, namely, by means of the works of faith formed by charity, which incites one to run: “I have run the way of thy commandments, when thou didst enlarge my heart” (Ps 118:32). And this did indeed apply to you formerly; but while you were thus running, you came upon an obstacle. Therefore he says: Who hath bewitched you? (This has been discussed already in Chapter 3, hence we pass over it now). Quis ergo vos fascinavit, id est impedivit veritati, scilicet evangelicae, non obedire? Et hoc congrue dicit; nam obedire est voluntatis applicandae ad consensum praecipientis. Et ideo fides est voluntatis et intellectus scientia. Oportet ergo voluntati fidei obedire; hoc autem est volendo credere, quod gratia fidei Christi sufficiat ad salutem sine legalibus observantiis. Therefore, who has bewitched you, i.e., hindered the truth, namely, of the Gospel, that you should not obey it? This is appropriately said: for obedience is the application of the will to the edict of the one who commands. That is why faith is a science of the will and of the understanding. It is suitable, therefore, for the will to obey the faith. But this is done by willing to believe that the grace of Christ is sufficient for salvation without the legal observances. Excludit autem impedimentum, cum dicit nemini, etc., et hoc ex triplici parte. Primo ex parte eorum; secundo ex parte Dei, ibi ego confido, etc.; tertio ex parte apostoli, ibi ego autem, fratres, et cetera. Then when he says, Consent to no one [not in Vulgate], he removes the obstacle. First, on their part; Secondly, on God’s part (v. 10); Thirdly, on the Apostle’s part (v. 11). Ex parte eorum, cum dicit nemini, et cetera. Ubi primo ostendit quid requiratur ex parte eorum, ut vitent hoc nocumentum, scilicet quod nemini pseudo deinceps consentiant. I Thess. V, 5: non simus noctis neque tenebrarum, et cetera. Eph. V, 11: nolite communicare operibus infructuosis tenebrarum, etc., et II Tim. II, 17: et sermo eorum ut cancer serpit, et cetera. Ex quo datur intelligi, quod nondum erant corrupti, sed sollicitabantur de hoc. On their part when he says, Consent to no one. Herein he shows what is required on their part to overcome this obstacle, namely, that henceforth they not give their consent to any deceiver: “We are not of the night nor of the darkness; therefore, let us not sleep” (1 Thes 5:5); “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove them” (Eph 5:11); “And their speech spreadeth like a canker” (2 Tim 2:17). From this it can be gathered that they were not yet corrupted, but he was concerned. Secundo assignat rationem huius cum dicit persuasio enim, et cetera. Et haec est duplex. Prima, quia homo cum dat se alicui, nihil debet facere nisi quod utile duxerit sibi. Sed vos traditi estis Christo, ergo non debetis audire, vel consentire, nisi his quae sunt ab ipso; ergo haec persuasio, qua vos volunt mittere sub iugo legis, quia non est ex eo, scilicet ex Deo, qui vos vocavit ad vitam, sed ex Diabolo, inquantum scilicet deficiens est, et ideo non consenseritis eis. Vel non ex eo, id est contra ipsum. Secondly, he gives an explanation of this, when he says, This persuasion is not from him that calleth you, and it is twofold. First, because a man, when he gives himself to someone, ought to do nothing save what is of advantage to the latter. But you have been given to Christ. Therefore, you should not heed or consent to anyone but those who come from Him. Hence because this persuasion, by which they wish to set you under the yoke of the Law, is not from him, i.e., from God who calleth you to life, but from the devil, for it is degrading, you should not consent to them. Or, not from him, i.e., against Him. Secunda ratio est, quia posset dici quod non est magnum si paucis consentiatur, cum ex hoc non sit periculum, et ideo dicit quod non est eis consentiendum, nec eorum insidiae sunt contemnendae, sed debent principiis obstare, quia modicum fermentum, etc., id est illi pauci qui vobis persuadent. Vel haec persuasio, parva in principio, totam massam corrumpit, id est congregationem fidelium. Lev. II, 11: nec quidquam fermenti ac mellis adolebitur in sacrificio domini. The second explanation is that they might suppose that consenting to a few is not a great matter, since it constitutes no danger. But he says that they must not consent to them at all, nor underestimate their artifices; rather they must oppose them at the start, because a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump, i.e., those few who are persuading you. Or, This persuasion small in the beginning corrupts the whole lump, i.e., the congregation of the faithful: “Neither shall any leaven or honey be burnt in the sacrifice to the Lord” (Lev. 2:11). Consequenter cum dicit ego confido in vobis, etc., removet impedimentum ex parte Dei, qui auxilium ad hoc praebet. Et ponit duplex auxilium. Unum quantum ad seducentes; aliud quantum ad conturbantes, ibi qui autem conturbant, et cetera. Dicit ergo ego confido, etc.; quasi dicat: dixi quod non consentiretis pseudo, et confido in vobis. II Cor. VII, 16: gaudeo quod in omnibus confido in vobis. Hebr. VI, v. 9: confidimus autem de vobis, dilectissimi, meliora et viciniora saluti. Confido, inquam, in hoc scilicet quod nihil aliud sapietis, quam quod vos docui. Supra I, 8: licet nos, aut Angelus de caelo evangelizet vobis praeterquam quod evangelizavimus, anathema sit. Phil. II, 2: implete gaudium meum, ut idem sapiatis, et cetera. Et hoc ex auxilio divino. Et ideo dicit in domino Deo, scilicet operante. II Cor. III, 4: fiduciam talem habemus per Christum ad Deum, et cetera. Quia dominus dabit vobis sapere secundum sobrietatem Catholicae veritatis. Ps. XCI: bonum est confidere in domino, et cetera. Then when he says, I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will not be of another mind, he removes the obstacle on the part of God Who offers His help to this end. And he mentions a twofold help: one as to the deceivers; the other as to the trouble makers. He says therefore, I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will not be of another mind. As if to say: I have told you not to obey the deceivers and I have confidence in you: “I rejoice that in all things I have confidence in you” (2 Cor 7:16); “But, dearly beloved, we trust better things of you and nearer to salvation” (Heb 6:9). 1 have confidence, I say, in this, namely, that you will not be of another mind than what I have taught you— but though we or an angel from heaven preach a Gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema (1:8); “Fulfill ye my joy, that you be of one mind” (Phil 2:2)—and this with God’s help. Hence he says, in the Lord God working: “And such confidence we have through Christ towards God” (2 Cor 3:4), because the Lord will give you a mind according with the standard of the Catholic Faith: “It is good to have confidence in the Lord rather than to have confidence in a man” (Ps 117:8). Quantum autem ad conturbantes dicit qui autem conturbat, etc., id est qui removet vos a debito ordine, ut scilicet a spiritualibus convertamini ad corporalia, cum debeat esse contrarium. I Cor. XV, 46: non prius quod spirituale est, sed quod animale est, deinde quod, et cetera. As to the trouble makers, he says, he that troubleth you shall bear the judgment, whosoever he be, i.e., he that perverts you from right order so as to be turned from spiritual to corporeal things, whereas it should be the contrary: “Yet that was not first which was spiritual, but that which is natural; afterwards that which is spiritual” (1 Cor 15:46). Et cum talis ordo sit perversus, ut dicitur supra III, 3: sic stulti facti estis, ut cum spiritu coeperitis, etc., ideo portabit iudicium, id est condemnationem sustinebit. Sicut enim qui inducit aliquem ad bonum, remuneratur, Dan. XII, 3: qui ad iustitiam erudiunt plurimos, quasi stellae in perpetuas aeternitates, etc., ita qui inducit aliquem ad malum, condemnatur. Ios. VII, 25: quia turbasti nos, exturbet te dominus in hac die. Deut. XXVII, v. 18: maledictus qui errare facit caecum in itinere. Et hoc, quicumque est ille, id est quantaecumque sit auctoritatis, non parcetur ei. Therefore, he shall bear the judgment, i.e., he will undergo damnation. For as one who urges another to good is rewarded—“They that instruct many to justice shall shine as stars for all eternity” (Dan. 12:3)—so one who urges another to evil is condemned: “Because thou hast troubled us, the Lord trouble thee this day” (Jos. 7:25); “Curst be he that maketh the blind to wander out of his way” (Deut 27:18). And this, whosoever he be, i.e., whatever his dignity, he will not be spared. Sed Porphyrius et Iulianus in hoc reprehendunt Paulum de praesumptione, dicentes, quod hoc dicit lacerans Petrum (cum supra in faciem se restitisse scripserit), ut sit sensus: quicumque sit ille, id est etiam si Petrus esset, puniretur. Sed, ut Augustinus dicit, non est credendum quod Paulus cum maledicto de Ecclesiae principe loqueretur, cum scriptum sit Exod. c. XXII, 28: principem populi tui non maledices. Nec etiam, quod Petrus sic offenderit, quod esset dignus condemnatione. Dicit ergo apostolus de quodam alio, qui de Iudaea veniens, dicebat se fuisse discipulum magnorum apostolorum, et sub ista auctoritate corrumpebat Galatas ipse cum aliis falsis praedicatoribus. Supra II, 4: propter subintroductos falsos fratres, et cetera. But Porphyry and Julian censure Paul for presumption, and assert that in saying this he defames Peter (since he wrote above that he withstood him to his face) so that the meaning would be: whosoever he be, i.e., even if it be Peter, he would be punished. But as Augustine says, one should not believe that Paul was calling down a curse on the Prince of the Church—for it is written in Exodus (22:28): “Thou shalt not curse the prince of thy people”—or that Peter committed an offence worthy of damnation. Therefore the Apostle is speaking of someone else who, coming from Judea, claimed to be a disciple of the important apostles and with that authority he and other false teachers were subverting the Galatians, because of false brethren unawares brought in (2:4). Consequenter cum dicit ego autem, fratres, etc., removet impedimentum ex parte sua. Et primo ponit sui excusationem; secundo eorum, qui eum infamabant, obiurgationem, ibi utinam abscindantur, et cetera. Then when he says, And I brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution?, he removes the obstacle on his part. First, he presents his defense; Secondly, he rebukes his slanderers (v. 12). Excludit autem falsum quod ei imponebatur. Et primo aliquid pertinens ad ipsum tantum; secundo aliquid pertinens ad omnes, ibi ergo evacuatum est, et cetera. He refutes the false charge against him. First, a charge that pertains to himself alone; Secondly, one that pertains to all (v. 11). Sciendum est circa primum, quod pseudo Galatis excusantibus se de eo quod non servabant legalia, quia ita edocti erant ab apostolo, et dicebant quod apostolus deceperat eos, et quod in servitutem eorum haec persuaserat eis: et confirmabant, dicentes Paulum praedicasse in Iudaea, et docuisse legalia debere servari. Et ideo excusat se de hoc apostolus, dicens ego autem, fratres, si circumcisionem adhuc praedico, sicut imponunt mihi pseudo, quid adhuc persecutionem patior? Scilicet a Iudaeis. I Cor. IV, 12: persecutionem patimur, et cetera. Nam Iudaei specialiter propter hoc persequebantur Paulum, quod praedicabat legalia non debere servari. Act. XXI, 21, dicit Iacobus Paulo: audierunt de te quia discessionem doceas a Moyse eorum, qui per gentes sunt Iudaeorum, dicens eos non debere circumcidere filios, et cetera. Patet ergo quod non est verum quod mihi imponunt, alioquin persecutiones adhuc non paterer. With respect to the first, it should be noted that the false brethren, when the Galatians excused themselves from observing the legal ceremonies because they had been so taught by the Apostle, declared that the Apostle misled them and that he persuaded them to this in order to lord it over them. As confirmation of this they alleged that when he preached in Judea, Paul taught that the legal ceremonies should be observed. But the Apostle clears himself of this, when he says, And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution from the Jews? “We are persecuted and we suffer it” (1 Cor 4:12). For the Jews persecuted Paul precisely because he taught that the legal ceremonies should not be observed. Indeed in Acts (21:21) James says to Paul: “They have heard of thee that thou teachest those Jews who are among the Gentiles to depart from Moses; saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor walk according to custom.” It is plain, therefore, that their charge is not true; otherwise, he would not have suffered their persecutions. Falsum est etiam id quod mihi imponunt per id quod communiter est apud alios, quia si circumcisionem praedico, evacuatum est scandalum crucis. Nam non solum ego, sed etiam omnes apostoli praedicamus Christum crucifixum, Iudaeis quidem scandalum, etc., ut dicitur I Cor. I, 23. Et de hoc maxime scandalizantur, quia praedicamus, quod per crucem Christi legalia evacuantur. Si ergo praedico circumcisionem, evacuatum est scandalum, id est non erit scandalum apud Iudaeos ultra de cruce. Nam patienter sustinerent, immo libenter vellent, quod praedicaremus crucem et legalia simul debere servari. Vel, secundum Augustinum, evacuatum est scandalum crucis, id est evacuata est crux quae est scandalum, quasi dicat: crux perdidit effectum suum et virtutem. Supra II, v. 21: si enim ex lege esset iustitia, ergo Christus gratis mortuus est. Dicit autem apostolus specialiter evacuatum est, etc., ut det intelligere, quod propter hoc Iudaei occiderunt Christum, quia legalia non servabat et ea non esse servanda docebat. Io. IX, 16: non est hic homo a Deo, quia sabbatum non custodit. False, too, is that which they impute to me because of something generally held by others; because if I preach circumcision, Then is the scandal of the cross made void. For not only I but all the apostles “Preach Christ crucified, to the Jews indeed a stumbling-block and unto the Gentiles, foolishness,” as is said in 1 Corinthians (1:23). And the main reason why they are scandalized is because we preach that through the Cross of Christ the legal ceremonies are made void. Therefore, if I preach circumcision, the stumbling-block is removed, i.e., there will no longer be a stumbling-block for the Jews from the Cross. For they would endure it patiently; indeed, they would welcome it, if along with the Cross we preached the obligation to observe the legal ceremonies. Or, according to Augustine (on this passage) the scandal of the cross is made void, i.e., the Cross is made void; which is a scandal. As if to say: The Cross has lost its effect and its power: If justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain (2:21). Now the Apostle specifically says, the scandal of the cross is made void, to denote that the reason the Jews killed Christ was because He did not observe the legal ceremonies and taught that they were not to be observed: “This man is not of God who keepeth not the sabbath” (Jn 9:16). Consequenter obiurgat pseudo, qui eum infamaverant, dicens utinam abscindantur, etc., quasi dicat: ipsi conturbant vos in hoc quod volunt vos circumcidi: sed utinam non solum circumcidantur, sed totaliter castrentur. Then he rebukes the false brethren who had slandered him, saying, I would they were even cut off who trouble you. As if to say: They trouble you on one matter, namely, they want you to be circumcised; but I would that they be not only circumcised but wholly emasculated. Sed contra Rom. XII, 14: benedicite, et nolite maledicere, et cetera. Ad hoc est duplex responsio. Prima est, quod non maledixit apostolus eis, sed potius benedixit, quia optavit eis ut spiritualiter castrentur, ut servarent spiritualem castitatem, cassando caeremonialia, secundum illud Matth. XIX, 12: sunt quidam eunuchi, qui se castraverunt propter regnum caelorum. Secundo quod optat eis sterilitatem prolis quam habent eunuchi, ut scilicet non generent. Unde ait utinam et abscindantur, etc., id est vim generandi perdant in vobis, et aliis. Et hoc merito, quia generant filios in errorem, et redigunt eos in servitutem legis. Os. c. IX, 14: dabo eis vulvam sine liberis, ut ubera arentia. But this is contrary to Romans (12:14): “Bless, and curse not.” To this there are two responses: first, that the Apostle was not calling down an evil on them but rather a blessing; because he was wishing them to be emasculated spiritually, i.e., abolish the legal ceremonies, that they might preserve spiritual chastity: “There are eunuchs who have made themselves such for the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 19:12). The second is that he is wishing them the impotence that eunuchs have, so that they might not procreate. Hence he says: I would they were even cut off who trouble you, i.e., that they lose the power of engendering among you and others. And this deservedly, because they engender sons unto error and subject them to the bondage of the Law: “Give them a womb without children, and dry breasts” (Hos. 9:14).
CHAPTER 5
Lecture 3Proposito exemplo standi et remoto eius impedimento, hic innuit modum ipsius. Et primo ponit modum standi; secundo exponit, ibi omnis enim lex, et cetera. Having proposed an example of standing, and eliminated an obstacle thereto, be now establishes its mode. First, he establishes the mode of standing; Secondly, he gives an explanation (v. 14). Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit conditionem status; secundo removet abusum standi; tertio innuit standi modum. As to the first he does three things: First, he sets down the condition of a state; Secondly, he describes its abuse; Thirdly, he asserts its mode (v. 13). Conditio quidem standi est libertas. Omnis enim status conditio pertinet ad servitutem vel ad libertatem; sed status fidei Christi, ad quem inducit apostolus, ad libertatem pertinet et est ipsa libertas. Et ideo dicit vos enim, etc., quasi dicat: recte conturbant vos, quia abducunt a meliore in peius, quia vos vocati estis, scilicet a Deo, in libertatem gratiae. Rom. VIII, 15: non accepistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore, sed accepistis spiritum adoptionis filiorum, et cetera. Supra IV, 31: non sumus ancillae filii, sed liberae, et cetera. Vos, inquam, qui liberi estis per Christum, volunt ducere in servitutem. Abusus autem status est si in deterius prolabatur, et libertas spiritus pervertatur in servitutem carnis. Galatae autem iam liberi erant a lege, sed ne credant eis licere peccata committere, quae lex prohibebat, ideo apostolus subdit abusum libertatis, dicens tantum ne, etc., quasi dicat: liberi estis, ita tamen, quod non abutamini libertate vestra, impune vobis peccandum esse arbitrantes. I Cor. VIII, 9: videte ne forte haec licentia vestra offendiculum fiat infirmis. The condition of standing is liberty. For the condition of any given state pertains either to liberty or to bondage; but the state of faith in Christ, to which the Apostle urges them, pertains to liberty and is liberty itself. Hence he says: For you, brethren, have been called unto liberty. As if to say: They are indeed troubling you; for they are drawing you from what is better to what is worse, because you have been called by God unto the liberty of grace: “You have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear, but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons” (Rom 8:15); We are not the children of the bondwoman but of the free (4:31). You, I say, who are free in Christ, they want to lead into bondage. But a state is being misused if it declines and if liberty of the spirit is perverted into slavery of the flesh. Now the Galatians were free of the Law; but lest they suppose this to be a license to commit sins forbidden by the Law, the Apostle touches on abuse of liberty, saying, Only make not liberty an occasion to the flesh. As if to say: You are free, but not so as to misuse your liberty by supposing that you may sin with impunity: “But take heed, lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumbling-block to the weak (1 Cor 8:9). Modus autem standi est per charitatem, unde dicit sed per charitatem spiritus, et cetera. Status autem totus est in charitate, sine qua homo nihil est, I Cor. XIII, 1 s. Et secundum diversos gradus charitatis distinguuntur diversi status. Sic ergo status gratiae est non per affectum carnis, sed per charitatem spiritus, id est quae procedit a spiritu sancto, per quem debemus invicem esse subiecti et servire. Infra VI, 2: alter alterius onera portate, et cetera. Rom. XII, 10: honore invicem praevenientes, et cetera. Now the mode of standing is through charity; hence he says: but by charity of the spirit serve one another. In fact the whole state consists in charity, without which a man is nothing (1 Cor 13:1 ff.). Moreover, it is according to the various degrees of charity that various states are distinguished. Consequently, the state of grace does not exist in virtue of a desire of the flesh but by charity of the spirit, i.e., a charity which proceeds from the Holy Spirit, through Whom we should be subject to and serve one another: Bear ye one another’s burdens (6:2); “With honor preventing one another” (Rom 12:10). Sed cum superius dicat quod sint vocati in libertatem, quid est quod modo dicit servite invicem? Ad quod dicendum est, quod hoc exigit charitas, ut invicem serviamus, et tamen libera est. Sciendum est tamen, quod, sicut philosophus dicit, liber est qui est causa sui, servus autem est causa alterius, vel ut moventis, vel ut finis: quia servus nec a se movetur ad opus, sed a domino, et propter utilitatem domini sui. Charitas ergo quantum ad causam moventem libertatem habet, quia a se operatur. II Cor. V, 14: charitas Christi urget nos, spontanee, scilicet ad operandum. Servus autem est, cum postpositis propriis utilitatibus, accommodat se utilitatibus proximorum. But since he said earlier that they have been called unto liberty, why does he now say, serve one another ? I answer that charity requires that we serve one another; nevertheless, it is free. Here one might interject that, as the Philosopher says, he is free who is for his own sake; whereas he is a slave who is for the sake of another as of a mover or an end. For a slave is moved to his work not by himself but by a master and for the benefit of his master. Charity, therefore, has liberty as to its movent cause, because it works of itself: “The charity of Christ presseth us” spontaneously, to work (2 Cor 5:14). But it is a servant when, putting one’s own interests aside, it devotes itself to things beneficial to the neighbor. Consequenter cum dicit omnis lex, etc., exponit quae dicit, et primo de dilectione, secundo de libertate non danda in occasionem carnis, ibi spiritu ambulate, et cetera. Then when he says, For all the law is fulfilled in one word, he explains what he says: First, about charity; Secondly, about not making liberty an occasion to the flesh (v. 16). Circa primum monet ad charitatem sectandam: primo propter utilitatem quam consequimur in impletione; secundo propter damnum charitatis neglectae quod incurrimus, ibi quod si invicem, et cetera. As to the first he admonishes them to follow charity: First, because of the benefit we obtain in fulfilling charity; Secondly, because of the injury incurred by neglecting charity (v. 15). Utilitas autem, quam consequimur ex impletione charitatis, maxima est, quia in ea implemus totam legem. Et ideo dicit omnis enim, etc., quasi dicat: ideo charitas est habenda, quia omnis lex in uno sermone impletur, scilicet in uno praecepto charitatis. Rom. XIII, 8: qui diligit proximum, legem implevit. Et in eodem capite dicitur: plenitudo legis est dilectio. Et ideo dicit I Tim. I, 5: finis praecepti est charitas. Now the benefit we obtain in fulfilling charity is of the highest order, because in it we fulfill the whole law; hence he says, For all the law in fulfilled in one word. As if to say: Charity must be maintained, because the whole law is fulfilled in one word, namely, in the one precept of charity: “He that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law” (Rom 13:8) and “Love is the fulfillment of the law” (13:10). Wherefore he says in 1 Timothy (1:5): “The end of the commandment is charity.” Sed contra, quia dicitur Matth. XII: in his duobus mandatis, scilicet de dilectione Dei et proximi, tota lex pendet et prophetae; non ergo in uno praecepto tantum impletur. Respondeo. Dicendum est quod in dilectione Dei includitur dilectio proximi. I Io. IV, v. 21: hoc mandatum habemus a Deo, ut qui diligit Deum, diligat et fratrem suum. Et e converso proximum diligimus propter Deum: impletur ergo tota lex in uno praecepto charitatis. Praecepta enim legis reducuntur ad illud praeceptum. Nam omnia praecepta vel sunt moralia, vel sunt caeremonialia, vel iudicialia. Moralia quidem sunt praecepta Decalogi, quorum tria pertinent ad dilectionem Dei, alia septem ad dilectionem proximi. Iudicialia autem sunt ut quicumque furatur aliquid reddat quadruplum, et his similia, quae similiter ad dilectionem proximi pertinent. Caeremonialia vero sunt sacrificia et huiusmodi quae reducuntur ad dilectionem Dei. Et sic patet, quod omnia in uno praecepto charitatis implentur diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum: et est scriptum Lev. XIX, 18. However, it is said in Matthew (22:40): “On these two commandments,” namely, of the love of God and of neighbor, “dependeth the whole law and the prophets.” Therefore, it is not fulfilled in the one precept alone. I answer that in the love of God is included love of neighbor: “This commandment we have from God, that he, who loveth God, love also his brother” (1 Jn 4:21). Conversely, we love our neighbor for the love of God. Consequently, the whole law is fulfilled in the one precept of charity. For the precepts of the law are reduced to that one precept. Indeed, precepts are either moral or ceremonial or judicial. The moral are the precepts of the decalogue: three concern the love of God, and the other seven the love of neighbor. The judicial are, for example, that whosoever steals anything shall restore fourfold, and others like this; and they pertain absolutely to the love of neighbor. The ceremonial concern sacrifices and related matters which are reduced to love of God. And so it is plain that all are fulfilled in the one precept of charity, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, which is also written in Leviticus (19:18). Dicit autem sicut teipsum, non quantum teipsum, quia homo secundum ordinem charitatis magis debet se diligere, quam alium. Exponitur autem tripliciter: uno modo ut referatur ad veritatem dilectionis. Amare enim est velle bonum alicui. Et ideo dicimur amare aliquem cui volumus bonum, et etiam bonum illud amamus, quod ei volumus; sed diversimode, quia cum volo bonum mihi, me diligo simpliciter propter me, bonum autem illud quod mihi volo, diligo non propter se, sed propter me. Tunc ergo diligo proximum sicut meipsum, id est eodem modo quo meipsum, quando volo ei bonum propter se, non quia est mihi utilis, vel delectabilis. He says, as thyself, not “as much as thyself,” because according to the order of charity a man should love himself more than his neighbor. Now this is explained in three ways: First, as referring to the genuineness of the love. For to love is to will good to someone: hence we are said to love both the one to whom we will a good and the very good which we will to someone; but not in the same way. For when I will a good to myself, I love myself absolutely for myself, but the good which I will to myself, I do not love for itself but for myself. Accordingly, I love my neighbor as myself in the same way that I love myself, when I will him a good for his sake, and not because it is useful or pleasant for me. Secundo modo, ut referatur ad iustitiam dilectionis. Unaquaeque enim res est inclinata velle sibi illud, quod potissimum est in ea; potissimum autem in homine est intellectus, et ratio; ille ergo diligit se, qui vult sibi bonum intellectus et rationis. Tunc ergo diligis proximum sicut teipsum, quando vis ei bonum intellectus et rationis. In a second way, as referring to the justice of love. For each thing is inclined to want for itself that which is most eminent in it; but in man, understanding and reason are the most eminent. He, therefore, loves himself who wants for himself the good of understanding and reason. Accordingly, you then love your neighbor as yourself, when you will him the good of understanding and reason. Tertio modo, ut referatur ad ordinem, scilicet ut sicut te diligis propter Deum, ita et proximum propter ipsum diligas, scilicet ut ad Deum perveniat. In a third way, as referring to order, i.e., that just as you love yourself for the sake of God, so you love your neighbor for the sake of God, namely, that he may attain to God. Consequenter cum dicit quod si invicem, etc., inducit ad charitatem sectandam ex damno quod incurrimus si eam negligamus. Ubi loquitur Galatis adhuc quasi spiritualibus, abstinens a commemoratione maiorum vitiorum et, eorum quae minora videntur mentionem facit, scilicet de vitiis linguae. Et ideo dicit quod si invicem, etc., quasi dicat: in dilectione omnis lex impletur, quod si vos invicem mordetis, id est in parte famam, proximo detrahendo, aufertis: qui enim mordet, non totum accipit, sed partem. Et comeditis, id est totam famam aufertis et totaliter detrahendo confunditis. Nam qui comedit, totum absorbet. Iac. IV, 11: nolite detrahere alterutrum, fratres mei, et cetera. Si ita, inquam, charitatem negligitis, videte damnum quod imminet vobis, scilicet quod ab invicem consumamini. Phil. III, 2: videte canes, videte malos operarios, et cetera. Is. c. XLIX, 4: et vane fortitudinem meam consumpsi, et cetera. Nam sicut Augustinus dicit: vitio contentionis et invidiae, perniciosa iurgia inter homines nutriuntur, quibus consumitur societas et vita. Then when he says, But if you bite and devour one another, take heed you be not consumed one of another, he urges them to follow charity, because of the harm we incur if we neglect it. Here he continues to speak to the Galatians as to spiritual men, not bringing up their greater vices but mentioning ones that seem to be minor, such as sins of the tongue. Hence he says: If you bite and devour one another, take heed you be not consumed one of another. As if to say: All the law is fulfilled in love; but if you bite one another, i.e., partially destroy the good name of your neighbor by slander (for one who bites takes not the whole but a part) and devour, i.e., destroy his good name entirely, and completely shame him by slander (for he that devours, consumes all): “Detract not one another, my brethren; he that detracteth his brother detracteth the law” (Jam 4:11). If you neglect charity in that way, I say, take heed for the calamity that threatens you, namely, you might be devoured one of another: “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision” (Phil 3:2); “1 have spent my strength without cause and in vain” (Is 49:4). For as Augustine says, by the vice of contention and envy pernicious rivalries are bred among men, and both life and society are thereby brought to ruin.
CHAPTER 5
Lecture 4Postquam apostolus manifestavit in quo consistit status spiritualis, quia scilicet in charitate, consequenter hic agit de causa status, scilicet de spiritu sancto, quem dicit esse sequendum. Ubi ponit triplex beneficium spiritus sancti. Quorum primum est liberatio a servitute carnis; secundum est liberatio a servitute legis; et tertium est collatio vitae seu securitas a damnatione mortis. Secundum, ibi quod si ducimini, et cetera. Tertium, ibi si spiritu vivimus, et cetera. After indicating what the spiritual state consists in, namely, in charity, the Apostle then deals with the cause of the state, namely, of the Holy Spirit Whom he says they must follow. And he mentions three benefits obtained from the Holy Spirit. First, freedom from the bondage of the flesh; Secondly, freedom from the bondage of the Law (v. 18); Thirdly, the conferring of life, or security from the damnation of death (v. 25). Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit primum beneficium spiritus; secundo beneficii necessitatem ostendit, ibi caro enim, et cetera. As to the first, he does two things: First, he sets down the first benefit of the spirit; Secondly, he shows the need for this benefit (v. 17). Dicit ergo: dico quod debetis per charitatem spiritus invicem servire, quia nihil prodest sine charitate. Sed hoc dico in Christo, id est per fidem Christi, spiritu ambulate, id est mente et ratione. Quandoque enim mens nostra spiritus dicitur, secundum illud Ephes. IV, 23: renovamini spiritu mentis vestrae; et I Cor. IV: psallam spiritu, psallam et mente. Vel spiritu ambulate, id est spiritu sancto proficite bene operando. Nam spiritus sanctus movet et instigat corda ad bene operandum. Rom. c. VIII, 14: qui spiritu Dei aguntur, et cetera. Ambulandum est ergo spiritu, id est mente, ut ipsa ratio sive mens legi Dei concordet, ut dicitur Rom. VII, 16. Nam spiritus humanus per se vanus est, et nisi regatur aliunde, fluctuat hac atque illac, ut dicitur Eccli. c. XXXIV, 6, et sicut parturientis cor tuum phantasias patitur nisi ab altissimo fuerit emissa visitatio, et cetera. Unde de quibusdam dicitur Ephes. IV, 17: ambulant in vanitate sensus sui, et cetera. Non ergo perfecte stare potest ratio humana, nisi secundum quod est recta a spiritu divino. He says therefore: I say that you are obliged by charity of spirit to serve one another, because nothing profits without charity. But this I say in Christ [not in Vulgate], i.e., by the faith of Christ, walk in the spirit, i.e., in the mind and reason. For sometimes our mind is called a spirit, according to Ephesians (4:23): “Be renewed in the spirit of your mind,” and “I will sing with the spirit, I will sing also with the understanding” (1 Cor 14:15). Or, walk in the spirit, i.e., make progress in the Holy Spirit, by acting well. For the Holy Spirit moves and incites hearts to do well: “Whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Rom 8:14). One should walk, therefore, by the spirit, i.e., the mind, so that one’s reason or mind is in accord with the Law of God, as it is said in Romans (7:16). For the human spirit is fickle, and unless it is governed from elsewhere, it turns now in one direction and now in another, as is said in Sirach (34:6): “The heart fancieth as that of a woman in travail. Except it be a vision sent forth from the most High, set not thy heart upon them.” Hence Ephesians (4:17) says of certain ones: “They walk in the vanity of their mind.” Therefore the human reason cannot stand perfectly except to the extent that it is governed by a divine spirit. Et ideo dicit apostolus spiritu ambulate, id est per spiritum sanctum regentem et ducentem, quem sequi debemus sicut demonstrantem viam. Nam cognitio supernaturalis finis non est nobis nisi a spiritu sancto. I Cor. II, 9: oculus non vidit, nec auris audivit, nec in cor hominis ascendit, etc., et sequitur: nobis autem revelavit Deus per spiritum suum. Item sicut inclinantem. Nam spiritus sanctus instigat, et inclinat affectum ad bene volendum. Rom. VIII, 14: qui spiritu Dei aguntur, et cetera. Ps. CXLII, 10: spiritus tuus bonus deducet me in terram rectam. Accordingly the Apostle says, walk in the spirit, i.e., under the rule and guidance of the Holy Spirit, Whom we should follow as one pointing out the way. For knowledge of the supernatural end is in us only from the Holy Spirit: “Eye hath not seen nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man what things God hath prepared for them that love Him,” and immediately is added, “But to us God hath revealed them by his Spirit” (1 Cor 2:9). Also as one who inclines us. For the Holy Spirit stirs up and turns the affections to right willing: “Whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Rom 8:14); “Thy good spirit shall lead me into the right land” (Ps 142:10). Ideo autem spiritu ambulandum est quia liberat a corruptione carnis. Unde sequitur et desideria carnis non perficietis, id est delectationes carnis, quas caro suggerit. Hoc desiderabat apostolus, dicens Rom. c. VII, 24: infelix ego homo, quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius? Gratia Dei, et cetera. Et postea concludit in octavo capite: nihil ergo damnationis est his, qui sunt in Christo Iesu, qui non secundum carnem ambulant. Huius rationem, ibidem, subiungit dicens: quia lex spiritus vitae in Christo Iesu liberavit me a lege, et cetera. Et hoc est speciale desiderium sanctorum, ut non perficiant desideria ad quae caro instigat, ita tamen, quod in hoc non includantur desideria quae sunt ad necessitatem carnis, sed quae sunt ad superfluitatem. Now one ought to walk in the spirit, because it frees him from the defilement of the flesh. Hence he follows with: and you shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh, i.e., the pleasures which the flesh suggests. This the Apostle yearned for, saying: “Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (Rom 7:24). Later he concludes: “There is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh” (Rom 8: 1). And at once he gives the reason for this: “For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath delivered me from the law of sin and of death” (Rom 8:2). And this is the special desire of the saints, that they not fulfill the desires to which the flesh stirs them, but always understanding that in this are not included desires which pertain to the necessities of the flesh, but those that pertain to superfluities. Consequenter cum dicit caro enim concupiscit, etc., ponit necessitatem huius beneficii, quae est ex impugnatione carnis et spiritus. Et primo ponit ipsam impugnationem; secundo manifestat eam per evidens signum, ibi haec enim invicem adversantur, et cetera. Then when he says, For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, he tells why this benefit is needed, namely, because of the struggle between flesh and spirit. First, he asserts that there is a struggle; Secondly, he elucidates this by an obvious sign (v. 17). Dicit ergo: necessarium est quod per spiritum carnis desideria superetis. Nam caro concupiscit adversus spiritum. Sed hic videtur esse dubium, quia cum concupiscere sit actus animae tantum, non videtur quod competat carni. Ad hoc dicendum est, secundum Augustinum, quod caro dicitur concupiscere inquantum anima secundum ipsam carnem concupiscit, sicut oculus dicitur videre, cum potius anima per oculum videat. Sic ergo anima per carnem concupiscit, quando ea, quae delectabilia sunt secundum carnem, appetit. Per se vero anima concupiscit, quando delectatur in his quae sunt secundum spiritum, sicut sunt opera virtutum et contemplatio divinorum et meditatio sapientiae. Sap. VI, 21: concupiscentia itaque sapientiae deducet ad regnum perpetuum, et cetera. He says therefore: It is necessary that by the spirit you overcome the desires of the flesh, for the flesh lusteth against the spirit. But one might have a doubt here, because, since lusting is an act of the soul alone, it does not seem to come from the flesh. I answer that, according to Augustine, the flesh is said to lust inasmuch as the soul lusts by means of the flesh, just as the eye is said to see, when as a matter of fact, it is the soul that sees by means of the eye. Consequently, the soul lusts by means of the flesh, when it seeks, according to the flesh, things which are pleasurable. But the soul lusts by means of itself, when it takes pleasure in things that are according to the spirit, as virtuous works, contemplation of divine things, and mediation of wisdom: “The desire of wisdom bringeth to the everlasting kingdom” (Wis 6:21). Sed, si caro concupiscit per spiritum, quomodo concupiscit adversus eum? In hoc, scilicet quod concupiscentia carnis impedit concupiscentiam spiritus. Cum enim delectabilia carnis sint bona quae sunt infra nos, delectabilia vero spiritus bona quae sunt supra nos, contingit quod cum anima circa inferiora, quae sunt carnis, occupatur, retrahitur a superioribus, quae sunt spiritus. But if the flesh lusts by means of the spirit, how does it lust against it? It does so in the sense that the lusting of the flesh hinders the desires of the spirit. For since the pleasures of the flesh concern goods which are beneath us, whereas the pleasures of the spirit concern goods which are above us, it comes to pass that when the soul is occupied with the lower things of the flesh, it is withdrawn from the higher things of the spirit. Sed videtur etiam dubium de hoc quod dicit, scilicet quod spiritus concupiscit adversus carnem. Si enim accipiamus hic spiritum pro spiritu sancto, concupiscentia autem spiritus sancti sit contra mala, consequens videtur quod caro, adversus quam concupiscit spiritus, sit mala, et sic sequitur error Manichaei. Respondeo. Dicendum est quod spiritus non concupiscit adversus naturam carnis, sed adversus eius desideria, quae scilicet sunt ad superfluitatem. Unde et supra dictum est: desideria carnis, scilicet superflua, non perficietis. In necessariis enim spiritus non contradicit carni, quia, ut dicitur Ephes. c. V, 29, nemo carnem suam odio habuit. But his further statement that the spirit lusts against the flesh may cause a problem. For if we take “spirit” for the Holy Spirit, and the desire of the Holy Spirit is against evil things, it seems to follow that the flesh against which the spirit lusts is evil—which is the Manichean error. I answer that the spirit does not lust against the nature of the flesh, but against its desires, namely, those that concern superfluities; hence he said above, you shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh (v. 16), i.e., superfluous things. For in things necessary the spirit does not contradict the flesh, as we are told in Ephesians (5:29): “No man hateth his own flesh.” Consequenter cum dicit haec enim, etc., ponit signum compugnationis, quasi dicat: experimento patet, quod contra se invicem pugnant et adversantur, intantum ut non quaecumque vultis, bona scilicet vel mala, illa faciatis, id est, facere permittamini. Rom. VII, 19: non quod volo bonum, hoc ago, sed quod, et cetera. Non tamen tollitur libertas arbitrii. Cum enim liberum arbitrium sit ex hoc quod habet electionem, in illis est libertas arbitrii, quae electioni subsunt. Non autem omnia quae in nobis sunt simpliciter subsunt nostrae electioni, sed secundum quid. In speciali enim possum vitare hunc, vel illum motum concupiscentiae seu irae, sed in generali omnes motus irae vel concupiscentiae vitare non possumus, et hoc propter corruptionem fomitis ex primo peccato introductam. Then when he says, For these are contrary one to an other, he gives evidence of the struggle. As if to say: It is obvious from experience that they fight and struggle against one another, so far forth that you do not, i.e., are not suffered to do, the things, good or evil, that you would: “The good which I will I do not: but the evil which I will not, that I do” (Rom 7:19). However, free will is not taken away. For since free will consists in having choice, there is freedom of the will with respect to things subject to choice. But not all that lies in us is fully subject to our choice, but only in a qualified sense. In specific cases we are able to avoid this or that movement of lust or anger, but we cannot avoid all movements of anger or lust in general—and this by reason of the “fomes” introduced by the first sin. Sed notandum est quod quatuor sunt genera hominum circa concupiscentias, quorum nullus facit quaecumque vult. Nam intemperati, qui ex proposito sequuntur carnales passiones, secundum illud Prov. c. II, 14: laetantur cum malefecerint, faciunt quidem quod volunt, inquantum ipsas passiones sequuntur, sed inquantum ipsa eorum ratio remurmurat, et ei displicet, faciunt quae non volunt. Incontinentes autem qui habent propositum abstinendi, et tamen a passionibus vincuntur, faciunt quidem quod non volunt, inquantum ipsas passiones contra eorum propositum sequuntur, et sic intemperati faciunt plus de eo quod volunt. Continentes autem, qui vellent omnino non concupiscere, faciunt quod volunt dum non concupiscunt, sed quia omnino non concupiscere non possunt, faciunt quod nolunt. Temperati vero, quod volunt quidem faciunt, inquantum in carne domata non concupiscunt, sed quia non ex toto domari potest, quin in aliquo repugnet spiritui, sicut nec malitia intantum crescere potest quin ratio remurmuret, ideo, cum aliquando concupiscunt, faciunt quod nolunt, plus tamen de eo, quod volunt. Here it should be noted that with respect to lusts there are four categories of men who do not that which they would. For intemperate men, who of set intention follow the passions of the flesh—according to Proverbs (2:14): “They are glad when they have done evil”—do, indeed, what they will, inasmuch as they follow their passions; but inasmuch as their reason complains and is displeased, they are doing what they would not. But incontinent persons, who resolve to abstain but are, nevertheless, conquered by their passions, do what they would not, inasmuch as they follow such passions contrary to what they resolved. As between these two types the intemperate do more of the things that they would. Those, however, who are continent, i.e., who would prefer not to lust at all, do what they intend, as long as they are not subject to lust; but because they cannot completely repress lust, they do what they would not. Finally, those who are temperate do what they would, inasmuch as there is no lust in the tamed flesh; but because it cannot be totally tamed so as never to rise up against the spirit—just as neither can malice so abound that reason would never complain—therefore, in those instances in which they do lust, they are doing what they would not; but for the most part they do what they would.
CHAPTER 5
Lecture 5Postquam ostendit apostolus, quod per spiritum liberamur a desideriis carnis, hic consequenter ostendit, quod per ipsum liberamur a servitute legis. Et primo proponit beneficium spiritus; secundo manifestat per effectum, ibi manifesta sunt opera carnis, et cetera. After showing that through the spirit we are freed from the desires of the flesh, the Apostle here shows that through it we are released from the bondage of the Law. First, he mentions a benefit of the spirit; Secondly, he manifests it by certain effects (v. 19). Dicit ergo: dico quod si spiritu ambuletis, non solum desideria carnis non perficietis, sed quod plus est, si spiritu ducimini (quod fit quando facitis quod spiritus suggerit, ut director et gubernator, non autem id ad quod sensus et affectus proprius instigat), non estis sub lege. Ps. CXLII, 10: spiritus tuus bonus deducet me in terram rectam, non quidem ut coactor, sed ut gubernator. He says therefore: I say that if you walk in the spirit, not only will you not carry out the desires of the flesh, but, what is more, if you are led by the spirit (which happens when you do what the spirit suggests, as director and guide, and not what your sense desires urge, you are not under the law: “Thy good spirit shall lead me into the right land,” not by compelling, but by guiding (Ps 142:10). Ex his autem verbis vult Hieronymus, quod post adventum Christi nullus habens spiritum sanctum tenetur servare legem. Sed sciendum est, quod hoc quod dicit si spiritu ducimini, iam non estis sub lege, potest referri ad praecepta legis, vel caeremonialia, vel moralia. Si quidem referatur ad caeremonialia, sciendum est, quod aliud est servare legem, aliud esse sub lege. Servare legem est facere opera legis, non habendo spem in eis; sed esse sub lege est ponere spem in operibus legis. In primitiva autem Ecclesia erant aliqui iusti servantes legem, sed non sub lege, inquantum servabant opera legis sed non erant sub lege, quasi in eis spem ponentes. Sic etiam Christus sub lege fuit. Supra IV, 4: factum sub lege, et cetera. Et sic excluditur opinio Hieronymi. Jerome infers from these words that after the coming of Christ no one having the Holy Spirit is obliged to observe the Law. But it should be recognized that the saying, if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law, can be referred either to the ceremonial or to the moral precepts of the Law. If it is referred to the ceremonial precepts, then it is one thing to observe the Law and another to be under the Law. For to observe the Law is to carry out the works of the Law without putting any hope in them; but to be under the Law is to put one’s hope in the works of the Law. Now in the early Church there were some just men who observed the Law without being under the Law, inasmuch as they observed the works of the Law; but they were not under the Law in the sense of putting their hope in them. In this way even Christ was under the Law: Made under the law (4:4). Thus Jerome’s opinion is excluded. Si autem referatur ad moralia, sic esse sub lege potest intelligi dupliciter, vel quantum ad obligationem: et sic omnes fideles sunt sub lege, quia omnibus data est. Unde dicitur Matth. V, 17: non veni solvere legem, et cetera. Vel quantum ad coactionem: et sic iusti non sunt sub lege, quia motus et instinctus spiritus sancti, qui est in eis, est proprius eorum instinctus; nam charitas inclinat ad illud idem quod lex praecipit. Quia ergo iusti habent legem interiorem, sponte faciunt quod lex mandat, ab ipsa non coacti. Qui vero voluntatem male faciendi habent, comprimuntur tamen pudore vel timore legis, isti coguntur. Et sic iusti sunt sub lege obligante tantum, non cogente, sub qua sunt solum iniusti. II Cor. III, 17: ubi spiritus domini, ibi libertas. I Tim. I, 9: iusto non est lex posita, scilicet cogens. But if it is referred to the moral precepts, then to be under the Law can be taken in two ways: either as to its obliging force, and then all the faithful are under the Law, because it was given to all—hence it is said: I have not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it” (Mt 5:17)—or as to its compelling forces, and then the just are not under the Law, because the movements and breathings of the Holy Spirit in them are their inspiration; for charity inclines to the very things that the Law prescribes. Therefore, because the just have an inward law, they willingly do what the Law commands and are not constrained by it. But those who would do evil but are held back by a sense of shame or by fear of the Law are compelled. Accordingly, the just are under the Law as obliging but not as compelling, in which sense the unjust alone are under it: “Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Cor 3:17); “The law,” as compelling, 11 is not made for the just man” (1 Tim 1:9). Consequenter cum dicit manifesta sunt autem opera, etc., probat quae dixit per effectum. Et primo ponit opera carnis, quae contrariantur spiritui sancto; secundo ostendit quomodo opera spiritus non prohibentur a lege, ibi adversus huiusmodi, et cetera. Then when he says, the works of the flesh are manifest, he proves what he has said through certain effects. First, he mentions the works of the flesh which are opposed to the Holy Spirit; Secondly, he shows how the works of the Spirit are not forbidden by the Law (23b). Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit opera carnis, quae prohibentur a lege; secundo ponit opera spiritus, quae ab ea non prohibentur, ibi fructus autem, et cetera. As to the first, he does two things: First, he mentions the works of the flesh that are forbidden by the Law; Secondly, the works of the Spirit which are not forbidden by it (v. 22). Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit opera carnis; secundo subdit nocumentum, quod ex his sequitur, ibi quae praedico, et cetera. As to the first, he does two things: First, he enumerates the works of the flesh; Secondly, he mentions the harm that follows from them (v. 21). Dubitatur autem circa primum. Primo quidem de hoc quod apostolus hic quaedam ponit, quae non pertinent ad carnem, quae tamen dicit esse opera carnis, sicut idolorum servitus, sectae, aemulationes, et huiusmodi. Respondeo. Dicendum est, secundum Augustinum Lib. XIV de Civ. Dei, c. II, quod secundum carnem vivit quicumque vivit secundum seipsum. Unde caro hic accipitur pro toto homine. Quidquid ergo provenit ex inordinato amore sui, dicitur opus carnis. Vel dicendum est, quod aliquod peccatum potest dici carnale dupliciter, scilicet quantum ad consummationem: et sic dicuntur carnalia illa tantum quae consummantur in delectatione carnis, scilicet luxuria et gula; et quantum ad radicem: et sic omnia peccata dicuntur carnalia, inquantum ex corruptione carnis anima aggravatur, ut dicitur Sap. IX, 15; ex quo intellectus debilitatus facilius decipi potest, et impeditur a sua perfecta operatione. Unde et ex hoc sequuntur vitia, scilicet haereses, sectae, et alia huiusmodi. Et hoc modo dicitur quod fomes est principium omnium peccatorum. With respect to the first, two doubts arise. First, as to,the Apostle’s mentioning things that do not pertain to the flesh, but which he says are works of the flesh, such as idolatry, sects, emulations, and the like. I answer that, according to Augustine in The City of God, (Bk. 14), he lives according to the flesh who lives according to himself. Hence flesh is taken here as referring to the whole man. Accordingly, whatever springs from disordered self-love is called a work of the flesh. Or, one should say that a sin can be called “of the flesh” in two ways: namely, with respect to fulfillment, and in this sense only those are sins of the flesh that are fulfilled in the pleasure of the flesh, namely, lust and gluttony; or with respect to their root, and in this sense all sins are called sins of the flesh, inasmuch as the soul is so weighed down by the weakness of the flesh (as is written in Wisdom 9:15) that the enfeebled intellect can be easily misled and hindered from operating perfectly. As a consequence, certain vices follow therefrom, namely, heresies, sects and the like. In this way it is said that the “ fomes ” is the source of all sins. Secundo dubitatur, quia cum apostolus dicat qui talia agunt, regnum Dei non consequentur, et nullus excludatur a regno Dei, nisi pro peccato mortali, sequitur ergo quod omnia quae enumerat sint peccata mortalia. Cuius contrarium videtur, quia inter ista enumerat multa quae non sunt peccata mortalia, sicut est contentio, aemulatio, et huiusmodi. Respondeo. Dicendum est quod omnia haec enumerata sunt aliquo modo mortalia; sed quaedam quidem secundum genus suum, sicut homicidium, fornicatio, idolorum servitus et huiusmodi; quaedam vero secundum suam consummationem, sicut ira cuius consummatio est in nocumentum proximi. Unde si accedit consensus de ipso nocumento, est peccatum mortale. Et similiter comestio ordinatur ad delectationem cibi, sed si in huiusmodi delectationibus ponat quis finem suum, peccat mortaliter: et ideo non dicit comestiones, sed comessationes; et similiter intelligendum est de aliis similibus. The second doubt is that, since the Apostle says that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God, whereas no one is excluded from the kingdom of God except for mortal sin, it follows that all the sins enumerated are mortal sins. But the contrary seems to be the case, because in this list he enumerates many that are not mortal sins, such as contention, emulation, and the like. I answer that all the sins listed here are mortal one way or another: some are so according to their genus, as murder, fornication, idolatry, and the like; but others are mortal with respect to fulfillment, as anger, whose fulfillment consists in harm to neighbor. Hence if one consents to that harm, there is mortal sin. In like manner, eating is directed to the pleasure of food, but if one places his end in such pleasures, he sins mortally; accordingly, he does not say “eating” but revellings. And the same must be said of the others that are like this Tertio dubitatur de ordine et numeratione eorum. Circa quod dicendum est quod cum apostolus in diversis locis, diversa vitia et diversimode enumerat, non intendit enumerare omnia vitia ordinate et secundum artem, sed illa tantum in quibus abundant et in quibus excedunt illi ad quos scribit. Et ideo in eis non est quaerenda sufficientia, sed causa diversitatis. Thirdly, there is a doubt about the order followed in this list. However, it should be recognized that when the Apostle varies his enumeration of various vices in various texts, it is not his intention to enumerate all the vices in perfect order and according to the rules of the art, but only those in which the persons to whom he is writing abound and in which they are excessive. Therefore in these lists one should look not for completeness but for the cause of the variation. His ergo habitis sciendum est, quod apostolus enumerat quaedam vitia carnis, quae contingunt circa ea quae non sunt necessaria vitae; quaedam vero circa ea quae sunt necessaria vitae. Circa primum ponit quaedam vitia quae sunt hominis ad seipsum, quaedam contra Deum quaedam contra proximum. Having settled these doubts, we should next observe that the Apostle lists certain vices of the flesh that concern things not necessary to life and others that concern things necessary to life. As to the first, he mentions certain vices that a man commits against himself; then those that are against God; finally, those that are against the neighbor. Contra seipsum sunt quatuor, quae ideo primo ponit quia manifeste ex carne procedunt, quorum duo pertinent ad actum carnalem luxuriae, scilicet fornicatio, quae est quando scilicet accedit solutus ad solutam, vel quantum ad naturalem usum luxuriae. Aliud est immunditia quantum ad usum contra naturam. Eph. V, 5: omnis fornicator aut immundus, et cetera. II Cor. XII, 21: qui non egerunt poenitentiam super immunditia et fornicatione et impudicitia, et cetera. Alia duo ordinantur ad ipsos actus. Unum scilicet exterius, sicut tactus, aspectus, oscula, et huiusmodi; et quantum ad hoc dicit: impudicitia, Eph. IV, 19: qui desperantes, semetipsos tradiderunt impudicitiae, et cetera. Aliud interius, scilicet in cogitationibus immundis; et quantum ad hoc dicit luxuria, I Tim. V, v. 11: cum enim luxuriatae fuerint in Christo nubere volunt, et cetera. Against the self are four. These he mentions first, because they obviously spring from the flesh. Two of these pertain to the carnal act of lust, namely, fornication, when an unmarried man becomes one with an unmarried woman with respect to the natural use of lust. The other is uncleanness as to a use which is contrary to nature—“No fornicator or unclean... hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God” (Eph 5:5); “They have not done penance for the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness that they have committed” (2 Cor 12:21). The other two are ordained to the aforesaid acts: one is performed outwardly, as touches, looks, kisses and the like; as to these he says, immodesty: “Who despairing, have given themselves up to immodesty unto the working of all uncleanness” (Eph 4:19). The other inwardly, namely, unclean thoughts; as to this he says, luxury: “When they have grown wanton in Christ, they will marry” (1 Tim 5:11). Contra Deum ponit duo, quorum unum est per quod impeditur ab hostibus Dei cultus divinus; et quantum ad hoc dicit idolorum servitus, I Cor. X, 7: neque idololatrae efficiamini, et cetera. Sap. XIV, 27: infandorum enim idolorum cultura omnis mali causa est et initium et finis. Aliud est per quod initur pactum cum Daemonibus; et quantum ad hoc dicit veneficia, quae fiunt per magicas artes, et dicuntur veneficia a veneno, quia fiunt in nocumentum hominum. I Cor. X, 20: nolo vos fieri socios Daemoniorum. Apoc. ult.: foris canes, et venefici, et cetera. Against God he lists two: one of these is that whereby divine worship is hindered by the enemies of God; as to this he says, idolatry: “Neither become ye idolaters as some of them” (1 Cor 10:7); “For the worship of abominable idols is the cause and beginning and end of all evil” (Wis 14:27). The other is that in which a pact is struck with demons; as to this he says, witchcrafts, which are performed through magical arts, and are called in Latin veneficia, from venom, because they result in great harm to man: I would not that you should be made partakers with devils” (1 Cor 10:20); “Without are dogs and sorcerers” (Rev 22:15). Contra proximum autem ponit novem, quorum primum est inimicitia, ultimum vero homicidium, quia ab hoc devenitur ad illud. Primum ergo est inimicitia in corde, quae est odium erga proximum. Matth. X, 36: inimici hominis domestici eius. Et ideo dicit inimicitiae. Ex hac autem oritur dissensio in verbis. Et ideo dicit contentiones, quae est impugnatio veritatis cum confidentia clamoris. Prov. XX, 3: honor est homini qui se separat a contentionibus. Against one’s neighbor he enumerates nine, the first of which is enmity and the last murder, because from the former, one comes to the latter. The first, therefore, is animosity in the heart, which is hatred toward one’s neighbor: “And a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household” (Mt 10:36); hence he says enmities: from which arise verbal disputes. And so he says, contentions, which are attacks on the truth with the confidence of shouting: “It is an honor for a man to separate himself from quarrels” (Prov 20:3). Secundum est aemulatio, quae consistit in hoc, quod ad idem obtinendum cum alio contendit. Unde dicit aemulationes, quae ex contentione oriuntur. The second is emulation, which consists in contending with another to obtain a same thing; hence he says, emulations, which arise from contention. Tertium est cum unus impeditur per alium ad rem eamdem tendentem, et ex hoc irascitur contra eum, et ideo dicit irae, Iac. I, 20: ira enim viri, et cetera. Eph. IV, 26: sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram. The third arises when one is hindered by someone else who is tending to a same thing, so that on this account anger arises against him. Hence he says, wraths: “The anger of men worketh not the justice of God” (Jam 1:20); “Let not the sun go down on your anger” (Eph 4:26). Quartum cum ex ira animi pervenitur ad percussiones; et quantum ad hoc dicit rixae. Prov. IV: odium suscitat rixas. The fourth is when anger of spirit leads to blows; and with respect to this he says, quarrels: “Hatred stirs up strifes” (Prov 10:12). Quintum ex his, scilicet dissensiones, et si quidem in rebus humanis sint, dicuntur dissensiones, quando scilicet partialitates fiunt in Ecclesia. Rom. XVI, 17: observetis eos qui dissensiones et offendicula praeter doctrinam quam vos didicistis, faciunt, et declinate ab illis. Si in rebus divinis, sic dicuntur sectae, id est, haereses. II Petr. II, 1: introducent sectas perditionis, et cetera. Et, ibidem: sectas non metuunt introducere blasphemantes. The fifth, namely, dissensions, arise from quarrels: if they concern human matters they are called dissensions: for example, when factions arise in the Church—“Mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them” (Rom 16:17) —if they concern divine matters, they are called sects, i.e., heresies: “They shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them,” and “They fear not to bring in sects, blaspheming” (2 Pet. 2:1, 10). Ex his autem sequitur invidia, quando illi quos aemulantur, prosperantur. Iob V, 2: parvulum occidit invidia, et cetera. Ex his autem sequuntur homicidia cordis et operis. I Io. IV: qui odit fratrem suum, homicida est. From these envy follows, when those they vie with prosper: “Envy slayeth the little one” (Job 5:2). And from these follow murders in heart and deed: “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer” (I Jn 3:15). Quantum vero ad vitia quae pertinent ad ordinationem circa vitae necessaria, ponit duo, unum quantum ad potum; unde dicit ebrietates, scilicet assiduae, Lc. XXI, 34: attendite ne graventur corda vestra crapula et ebrietate, et cetera. Aliud vero quantum ad cibum, et quantum ad hoc dicit comessationes, Rom. XIII, 13: non in comessationibus et ebrietatibus. Finally, of vices that pertain to the ordering of the necessaries of life he mentions two: one concerns drink; hence he says, drunkenness, i.e., continual: “Take heed lest perhaps your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness and the -cares of this life” (Lk 21:34). The other concerns food, touching which he says, revellings: “Not in rioting and drunkenness” (Rom 13:13).
CHAPTER 5
Lecture 6Positis operibus carnis, hic consequenter apostolus manifestat opera spiritus. Et primo manifestat ea; secundo ostendit quomodo lex se habet ad opera spiritus et ad opera carnis, ibi adversus huiusmodi, et cetera. Having listed the works of the flesh, the Apostle then manifests the works of the spirit. First, he manifests them; Secondly, he shows how the Law is related to the works of the spirit and to the works of the flesh (v. 23b). Circa primum enumerat bona spiritualia quae nominat fructus. Ex quo incidit quaestio, quia illud dicitur fructus, quo fruimur, sed actibus nostris non debemus frui, sed Deo solo; ergo huiusmodi actus quos enumerat hic apostolus non debent dici fructus. Item, Glossa dicit quod huiusmodi opera spiritus sunt propter se appetenda; quod autem propter se appetitur non refertur ad aliud, ergo virtutes et earum opera non sunt referenda ad beatitudinem. As to the first, he enumerates the spiritual goods which he calls “fruits.” But here a question arises, because fruit is something we enjoy; but we should enjoy not our acts, but God alone. Therefore, acts of this kind, which the Apostle lists here, ought not be called “fruits.” Furthermore, a Gloss says that these works of the spirit are to be sought for themselves; but that which is sought for itself is not referred to something else. Therefore virtues and their works are not to be referred to happiness. Respondeo. Dicendum est quod fructus dicitur dupliciter, scilicet ut acquisitus, puta ex labore vel studio, Sap. III, 15: bonorum laborum gloriosus est fructus, et ut productus, sicut fructus producitur ex arbore. Matth. c. VII, 18: non potest arbor bona fructus malos facere. Opera autem spiritus dicuntur fructus non ut adepti sive acquisiti, sed ut producti; fructus autem qui est adeptus, habet rationem ultimi finis, non autem fructus productus. Nihilominus tamen fructus sic acceptus duo importat, scilicet quod sit ultimum producentis, sicut ultimum quod producitur ab arbore est fructus eius, et quod sit suave sive delectabile. Cant. II, 3: fructus eius dulcis gutturi meo. Sic ergo opera virtutum et spiritus sunt quid ultimum in nobis. Nam spiritus sanctus est in nobis per gratiam, per quam acquirimus habitum virtutum, et ex hoc potentes sumus operari secundum virtutem. Sunt etiam delectabilia, et sunt etiam fructuosa. Rom. VI, 22: habetis fructum vestrum in sanctificationem, id est in operibus sanctificatis, et ideo dicuntur fructus. Dicuntur etiam flores respectu futurae beatitudinis, quia sicut ex floribus accipitur spes fructus, ita ex operibus virtutum habetur spes vitae aeternae et beatitudinis. Et sicut in flore est quaedam inchoatio fructus, ita in operibus virtutum est quaedam inchoatio beatitudinis, quae tunc erit quando cognitio et charitas perficientur. I answer that “fruit” is said in two ways: namely, as something acquired, for example, from labor or study-“The fruit of good labors is glorious” (Wis 3:15)-and as something produced, as fruit is produced from a tree: “A good tree cannot bear evil fruit” (Mt 7:18). Now the works of the spirit are called fruits, not as something earned or acquired, but as produced. Furthermore, fruit which is acquired has the character of an ultimate end; not, however, fruit which is produced. Nevertheless’ fruit so understood implies two things: namely, that it is the last thing of the producer, as the last thing produced by a tree is its fruit, and that it is sweet or delightful: “His fruit was sweet to my palate” (Cant 2:3). So, then, the works of the virtues and of the spirit are something last in us. For the Holy Spirit is in us through grace, through which we acquire the habit of the virtues; these in turn make us capable of working according to virtue. Furthermore, they are delightful and even fruitful: “You have your fruit unto sanctification, i.e., in holy works (Rom 6:22). And that is why they are called fruits. But they are also called “flowers,” namely, in relation to future happiness; because just as from flowers hope of fruit is taken, so from works of the virtues is obtained hope of eternal life and happiness. And as in the flower there is a beginning of the fruit, so in the works of the virtues is a beginning of happiness, which will exist when knowledge and charity are made perfect. Et per hoc patet responsio ad illud quod secundo obiicitur. Nam aliquid potest dici propter se appetendum dupliciter, quia ly propter potest designare causam formalem vel finalem. Opera virtutum propter se sunt appetenda formaliter, sed non finaliter, quia habent in seipsis delectationem. Nam medicina dulcis appetitur propter se formaliter, quia habet in se unde sit appetibilis, scilicet dulcedinem, quae tamen appetitur propter finem, scilicet propter sanitatem. Sed medicina amara non est appetenda propter se formaliter, quia non delectat ratione suae formae, sed tamen propter aliud appetitur finaliter, scilicet propter sanitatem quae est finis eius. From this the answer to the second objection is plain. For something can be said to be worthy of being sought for itself in two ways, according as “for” (propter) designates formal cause or final cause. Works of the virtues are to be sought for themselves formally but not finally, because they are a delight in themselves. For a sweet medicine is formally sought for itself, because it has something within itself that makes it pleasant, namely, sweetness, which however is sought for an end, namely, for the sake of health. But a bitter medicine is not sought formally for itself, because it does not please by reason of its form; yet it is sought for something else finally, namely, for health, which is its end. Ex his apparet ratio quare apostolus effectus carnis vocat opera, fructus autem spiritus, vocat fructus. Dictum est enim, quod fructus dicitur aliquod finale et suave, ex re productum. Quod autem producitur ex aliquo praeter naturam eius, non habet rationem fructus, sed quasi alterius germinis. Opera autem carnis et peccata sunt praeter naturam eorum quae Deus naturae nostrae inseruit. Deus enim humanae naturae quaedam semina inseruit, scilicet naturalem appetitum boni et cognitionem, et addidit etiam dona gratiae. Et ideo quia opera virtutum ex his naturaliter producuntur, fructus dicuntur, non autem opera carnis. Et propter hoc apostolus dicit Rom. VI, 21: quem ergo fructum habuistis tunc in illis, in quibus nunc erubescitis? Patet ergo ex dictis quod fructus spiritus dicuntur opera virtutum, et quia habent in se suavitatem et dulcedinem, et quia sunt quoddam ultimum productum secundum convenientiam donorum. This explains why the Apostle calls the effects of the flesh “works,” but the fruits of the spirit he calls “fruits.” For it has been pointed out that a fruit is something last and sweet, produced from a thing. On the other band, that which is produced from something but not according to nature, does not have the character of fruit but is, as it were, an alien growth. Now the works of the flesh and sins are alien to the nature of those things which God has planted in our nature. For God planted in human nature certain seeds, namely, a natural desire of good and knowledge, and He added gifts of grace: And therefore, because the works of the virtues are produced naturally from these, they are called “fruits,” but the works of the flesh are not. And for this reason, the Apostle says: “What fruit, therefore, had you then in those things of which you are now ashamed?” (Rom 6:21). It is plain, therefore, from what has been said, that the works of the virtues are called fruits of the spirit, both because they have a sweetness and delight in themselves and because they are the last and congruous products of the gifts. Accipitur autem differentia donorum, beatitudinum, virtutum et fructuum ad invicem hoc modo. In virtute enim est considerare habitum et actum. Habitus autem virtutis perficit ad bene agendum. Et si quidem perficit ad bene operandum humano modo, dicitur virtus. Si vero perficiat ad bene operandum supra modum humanum, dicitur donum. Unde philosophus supra communes virtutes ponit virtutes quasdam heroicas, puta cognoscere invisibilia Dei sub aenigmate est per modum humanum: et haec cognitio pertinet ad virtutem fidei; sed cognoscere ea perspicue et supra humanum modum, pertinet ad donum intellectus. Actus autem virtutis, vel est perficiens: et sic est beatitudo; vel est delectans: et sic est fructus. Et de istis fructibus dicitur Apoc. c. XXII, 2: ex utraque parte lignum vitae afferens fructus duodecim, et cetera. The difference from one another of the gifts, beatitudes, virtues and fruits is taken in the following way. In a virtue can be considered the habit and the act. Now the habit of a virtue qualifies a person to act well. If it enables him to act well in a human mode, it is called a virtue. But if it qualifies one for acting well, above the human mode, it is called a gift. Hence the Philosopher, above the common virtues, puts certain heroic virtues: thus, to know the invisible things of God darkly is in keeping with the human mode, and such knowledge pertains to the virtue of faith; but to know the same things more penetratingly and above the human mode pertains to the gift of understanding. But as to the act of a virtue, it is either perfective, and in this way is a beatitude; or it is a source of delight, and in this way it is a fruit. Of these fruits it is said in the Apocalypse (22:2): “On both sides of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve fruits.” Dicit ergo fructus spiritus, qui scilicet consurgit in anima ex seminatione spiritualis gratiae, est charitas, etc.; qui quidem sic distinguuntur: quia fructus aut perficiunt interius, aut exterius. Primo ergo ponit illos qui perficiunt interius; secundo illos qui perficiunt exterius, ibi bonitas, et cetera. Interius autem homo perficitur et dirigitur et circa bona et circa mala. II Cor. VI, 7: per arma iustitiae a dextris et a sinistris. He says, therefore, the fruit of the Spirit, which arises in the soul from the sowing of spiritual grace, is charity, joy, peace, patience, Ionganimity... which indeed are thus distinguished because fruits perfect one either inwardly or outwardly. First, he mentions those that perfect inwardly; Secondly, those that perfect outwardly (v. 22). Circa bona autem perficiunt, primo quidem in corde per amorem. Nam sicut inter motus naturales primus est inclinatio appetitus naturae ad finem suum, ita primus motuum interiorum est inclinatio ad bonum, qui dicitur amor, et ideo primus fructus est charitas, Rom. V, 5: charitas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris, et cetera. Et ex charitate perficiuntur aliae, et ideo dicit apostolus, Col. III, v. 14: super omnia charitatem habentes, et cetera. Ultimus autem finis, quo homo perficitur interius, est gaudium, quod procedit ex praesentia rei amatae. Qui autem habet charitatem, iam habet quod amat. I Io. IV, 16: qui manet in charitate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo. Et ex hoc consurgit gaudium. Phil. IV, 4: gaudete in domino semper, et cetera. Now a man is perfected and directed inwardly both as to good things and as to evil: “By the armor of justice on the right hand and on the left” (2 Cor 6:7). With respect to good things a person is perfected, first of all, in his heart through love. For just as in natural movements there is first an inclination of a nature’s appetite to its end, so the first of the inward movements is the inclination to good, i.e., love; accordingly, the first fruit is charity: “The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost Who is given to us” (Rom 5:5). And through charity the others are perfected; wherefore, the Apostle says in Colossians (3:14): “But above all these things have ‘charity, which is the bond of perfection.” But the ultimate end that perfects man inwardly is joy, which proceeds from the presence of the thing loved. And he that has charity already has what he loves: “He that abideth in charity abideth in God and God in him (1 Jn 4:16). And from this springs joy: “Rejoice in the Lord always; again I say, rejoice” (Phil 4:4). Gaudium autem istud debet esse perfectum. Et ad hoc duo requiruntur. Primo ut res amata sufficiens sit amanti propter suam perfectionem. Et quantum ad hoc dicit pax. Tunc enim amans pacem habet, quando rem amatam sufficienter possidet. Cant. ult.: ex quo facta sum coram eo quasi pacem reperiens, et cetera. Secundo vero ut adsit perfecta fruitio rei amatae, quod similiter per pacem habetur, quia, quidquid superveniat, si perfecte aliquis fruatur re amata, puta Deo, non potest impediri ab eius fruitione. Ps. CXVIII, 165: pax multa diligentibus legem tuam, et non est illis scandalum. Sic ergo gaudium dicit charitatis fruitionem, sed pax charitatis perfectionem. Et per haec homo interius perficitur quantum ad bona. But this joy should be perfect, and for this two things are required: first, that the object loved be enough to perfect the lover. And as to this he says, peace. For it is then that the lover has peace, when he adequately possesses the object loved: I am become in his presence as one finding peace” (Cant 8:10). Secondly, that there be perfect enjoyment of the thing loved, which is likewise obtained by peace, because whatever else happens, if someone perfectly enjoys the object loved, say God, he cannot be hindered from enjoying it: “Much peace have they that love thy law and to them there is no stumbling-block” (Ps 118:165). In this way, therefore, joy connotes the fruition of charity, but peace the perfection of charity. And by these is man inwardly made perfect as to good things. Circa mala etiam perficit spiritus sanctus et ordinat, et primo contra malum quod perturbat pacem, quae perturbatur per adversa. Sed ad hoc perficit spiritus sanctus per patientiam, quae facit adversa patienter tolerare, et ideo dicit patientia. Lc. XXI, 19: in patientia vestra possidebitis animas vestras. Iac. I, 4: patientia opus perfectum habet. Secundo, contra malum impediens gaudium est dilatio rei amatae, ad quod spiritus opponit longanimitatem, quae expectatione non frangitur. Et quantum ad hoc dicit longanimitas. Habacuc II, 3: si moram fecerit, expecta eum, quia, et cetera. II Cor. VI, 6: in longanimitate, et cetera. Et ideo dicit dominus Matth. c. X, 22: qui perseveraverit usque in finem, et cetera. Also with respect to evils, the Holy Spirit perfects and adjusts a person: first, against the evil that disturbs peace, which is disturbed by adverse objects. Touching this the Holy Spirit perfects one by patience, which makes for patient endurance of adversities; hence he says, patience: “In your patience you shall possess your souls” (Lk 21:19). Secondly, against the evil which hinders joy, namely, the deferment of the object loved, the Spirit opposes long-suffering, which is not broken by delay. As to this he says, longanimity: “If it make any delay, wait for it; for it shall surely come, and it shall not be slack” (Hab. 2:3): “In long-suffering” (2 Cor 6:6). Hence the Lord says in Matthew (10:22): “He that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.” Consequenter cum dicit bonitas, etc., ponit fructus spiritus, qui perficiunt quantum ad exteriora. Hominis autem exteriora sunt vel id quod est iuxta ipsum, vel id quod est supra ipsum, vel id quod est infra ipsum. Iuxta ipsum est proximus, supra ipsum Deus, infra ipsum natura sensitiva et corpus. Then when he says, goodness, benignity, he mentions the fruits of the spirit that perfect a man with respect to external things. Now external to man are things next to him, above him and beneath him. Next to him is the neighbor; above him is God; beneath him is his sensitive nature and body. Sic ergo quantum ad proximum perficit primo quidem in corde per rectam et bonam voluntatem. Et quantum ad hoc dicit bonitas, id est rectitudo et dulcedo animi. Si enim homo omnes alias potentias bonas habeat, non potest dici bonus homo nisi habeat bonam voluntatem, secundum quam omnibus aliis bene utitur. Cuius ratio est, quia bonum dicit aliquod perfectum. Est autem duplex perfectio. Prima, scilicet quae est ipsum esse rei; secunda vero est eius operatio: et haec est maior quam prima. Illud ergo dicitur simpliciter perfectum quod pertingit ad perfectam sui operationem, quae est secunda eius perfectio. Cum ergo homo per voluntatem exeat in actum cuiuslibet potentiae, voluntas recta facit bonum usum omnium potentiarum, et, per consequens, ipsum hominem bonum. Et de hoc fructu dicitur Eph. V, 9: fructus enim lucis est in omni bonitate, et cetera. In regard to his neighbor He perfects men, first of all, from the heart with a right and good will. Concerning this he says, goodness, i.e., rectitude and gentleness of spirit. For if a man has all his other powers good, he cannot be said to be good unless he has a good will, according to which he uses all the others well. The reason for this is that the good denotes something perfect. But perfection is twofold: the first concerns the being of a thing; the second, its operation-and the latter is greater than the former. For that is called perfect in the absolute sense which has attained its perfect operation, which is its second perfection. Therefore, since it is by his will that man exercises the act of any power, right will makes for the good use of all the powers, and, consequently, makes the man himself good. Of this fruit it is said in Ephesians (5:9): “The fruit of the light is in all goodness and justice and truth.” Secundo vero in opere, ut scilicet sua communicet proximo, et quantum ad hoc dicit benignitas, id est, largitas rerum. II Cor. IX, v. 7: hilarem enim datorem, et cetera. Benignitas enim dicitur quasi bona igneitas, quae facit hominem fluere ad subveniendum necessitatibus aliorum. Sap. I, 6: benignus est enim spiritus sapientiae, et cetera. Col. III, 12: induite vos ergo sicut electi Dei, sancti et dilecti, viscera misericordiae, benignitatem, et cetera. Secondly, He perfects a man in his deeds, so that he will share with his neighbor. Concerning this he says, benignity, i.e., giving: “The Lord loveth a cheerful giver” (2 Cor 9:7). For benignity is said to be, as it were, a good fire, which makes a man melt to relieve the needs of others: “For the spirit of wisdom is benevolent” (Wis 1:6); “Put ye on, therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, the bowels of mercy, benignity...” (Col 3:12). Item perficiunt etiam quantum ad mala ab aliis illata, ut mansuete ferat ac sustineat proximi molestias; et quantum ad hoc dicit mansuetudo, Matth. XI, 29: discite a me, quia, et cetera. Prov. III, 34: mansuetis dabit gratiam. Again, they perfect one with respect to evils inflicted by others, so that one meekly bears and endures harassment from another. Touching this he says, mildness: “Learn of me, because I am meek and humble of heart” (Mt 2:29); “To the meek he will give grace” (Prov 3:34). Ad id vero quod est supra nos, scilicet Deus, ordinat spiritus per fidem, unde dicit fides, quae est cognitio quaedam invisibilium cum certitudine. Gen. XV, 6: credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est ei ad iustitiam. Hebr. XI, 6: accedentem ad Deum oportet credere, et cetera. Et ideo Eccli. I, v. 34: beneplacitum est Deo fides, et mansuetudo, et cetera. With respect to what is above us, namely, God, the Spirit establishes right order through faith; hence he says, faith, which is a knowledge of invisible things with certainty: “Abraham believed God and it was reputed to him unto justice” (Gen 15:6); “He that cometh to God must believe that he is” (Heb 11:6). On this account it is said in Sirach (1:34): “That which is agreeable to the Lord is faith and meekness. Ad id quod est infra nos, scilicet corpus, dirigit spiritus, et primo quantum ad actus exteriores corporis, quod fit per modestiam, quae ipsis actibus seu dictis modum imponit; et quantum ad hoc dicit modestia, Phil. IV, 5: modestia vestra, et cetera. Secundo vero quantum ad appetitum sensitivum interiorem, et quantum ad hoc dicit continentia, quae etiam a licitis abstinet, et castitas, quae licitis recte utitur, secundum Glossam. Vel aliter, continentia dicitur ex eo quod licet homo impugnetur a pravis concupiscentiis, tamen per rationis vigorem se tenet, ne abducatur; et ideo continentiae nomen sumptum est ab eo quod aliquis in impugnatione tenet se. Castitas vero dicitur ex eo quod quis nec impugnatur, nec abducitur, et dicitur a castigando. Nam illum dicimus bene castigatum, qui in omnibus ordinate se habet. Touching what is beneath us, namely, the body, the Spirit directs us first as to the outward acts of the body by modesty, which moderates its deeds or utterances—concerning this he says, modesty: “Let your modesty be known to all men” (Phil 4-5). Secondly, as to the interior appetite, and concerning this he says continency, which abstains even from things that are lawful; and chastity, which correctly uses what is lawful, as a Gloss says. Or, another way: continence refers to the fact that although a man be assailed by base desires, yet by the vigor of his reason he holds fast lest he be carried away. According to this the word “continence” is taken from a person’s holding fast under attack. But “chastity” is taken from the fact that one is neither attacked nor carried away, and is derived from “chastening.” For we call him well-chastened who is rightly tempered in all things. Circa hoc duo dubitantur. Primo quia cum fructus spiritus adversentur operibus carnis, videtur quod apostolus debuerit ponere tot fructus spiritus, quot posuit opera carnis, quod non fecit. Ad quod dicendum est quod ideo non fecit, quia plura sunt vitia quam virtutes. Concerning the aforesaid, two problems arise. The first is that since the fruits of the spirit are opposed to the works of the flesh, it seems that the Apostle should have mentioned as many fruits of the spirit as he mentioned works of the flesh—which he did not do. I answer that he did not do so, because there are more vices than virtues. Secundo dubitatur, quia fructus spiritus hic positi non respondent operibus carnis. Ad hoc dicendum est quod apostolus non intendit hic tradere artem virtutum et vitiorum, et ideo non ponit unum contra aliud, sed aliqua enumerat de istis et aliqua de illis, secundum quod expediens videtur praesenti intentioni. The second problem is that the fruits of the spirit mentioned do not correspond to the works of the flesh. I answer that since it is not the Apostle’s intention here to teach the art of the virtues and vices, he does not set one against the other; but he mentions as many of the one and as many of the other as are suited to his present objective. Nihilominus tamen si diligenter consideretur, aliqualiter sibi contra respondent. Nam fornicationi, quae est amor illicitus, contra respondet charitas; immunditiae vero, impudicitiae et luxuriae, quae sunt carnales illecebrae, et ex fornicatione proveniunt, contra ponitur gaudium, quod est spiritualis delectatio consequens ex charitate, ut dictum est. Ei vero quod est idolorum servitus, contra ponitur pax. Ei vero quod dicit veneficia, etc., usque ad dissensiones: patientia, longanimitas et bonitas. Ei vero quod dicitur sectae, contra ponitur fides. Ei vero quod dicitur invidiae, benignitas. Ei autem quod dicitur homicidia, mansuetudo. Ei quod dicitur ebrietas, comessationes, et his similia, contra ponitur modestia, continentia et castitas. Yet a more diligent consideration discloses that they are in some fashion set in opposition. For in opposition to fornication, which is illicit love, is set charity; in opposition to uncleanness, immodesty, and luxury, which are allurements of the flesh that arise from fornication, is set joy, which is the spiritual delight produced by charity, as has been said. In opposition to what are called witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, dissensions, are set patience, longanimity, and goodness. To what are called sects, faith is set in opposition. To what is called murder, benignity. To what are called drunkenness, revellings, and the like, are opposed modesty, continency and chastity.
CHAPTER 5
Lecture 7Enumeratis operibus carnis, et spiritus, hic consequenter ex utrisque concludit, quod qui spiritum sequuntur, non sunt sub lege. Et utitur tali probatione: ille est sub lege qui est obnoxius legi, id est qui facit contraria legi; sed illi qui aguntur spiritu, non faciunt opera contraria legi, ergo non sunt sub lege. Primo ergo ostendit propositum ex parte operum spiritus; secundo ex parte operum carnis, ibi qui autem sunt, et cetera. Having enumerated the works of the flesh and of the spirit, the Apostle then concludes from both, that those who follow the spirit are not under the Law. The proof he uses is this: he is under the Law who is liable to the Law, i.e., who does things contrary to the Law. But those who are led by the spirit do not the works contrary to the Law. Therefore, they are not under the Law. First, therefore, he proves the proposition on the part of the works of the spirit; Secondly, on the part of the works of the flesh (v. 24). Dicit ergo: dico quod qui aguntur spiritu, non faciunt opera contraria legi, quia aut faciunt opera spiritus, et adversus huiusmodi non est lex, id est contra opera spiritus, sed spiritus docet ea. Nam sicut lex exterius docet opera virtutum, ita et spiritus interius movet ad illa. Rom. VII, 22: condelector enim legi Dei secundum interiorem hominem, et cetera. Aut faciunt opera carnis, et haec in his qui spiritu Dei aguntur, non sunt contraria legi. Unde dicit qui autem sunt Christi, id est qui spiritum Dei habent. Rom. VIII, v. 9: qui spiritum Dei non habet, hic non est eius. Illi ergo spiritu Dei aguntur, qui sunt Christi. He says, therefore: I say that those who are led by the Spirit do not the works that are contrary to the Law, because they either do the works of the spirit, and Against such there is no law, i.e., against the works of the spirit, but the Spirit teaches such works. For as the Law outwardly teaches works of virtue, so the Spirit inwardly moves one to them: “For I am delighted with the law of God according to the inward man “ (Rom 7:22). Or they do the works of the flesh; and in those who are led by the spirit, such works are not contrary to the Law. Hence he says, they that are Christ’s, i.e., who have the spirit of God; for “if any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of His” (Rom 8:9). Accordingly, those are led by the spirit of God who are Christ’s. Isti, inquam, carnem suam crucifixerunt, et cetera. Non autem dicit: vitia et concupiscentias vitant, quia bonus medicus tunc bene curat, quando adhibet remedia contra causam morbi. Caro autem est radix vitiorum. Si ergo volumus vitare vitia, oportet domare carnem. I Cor. IX, 27: castigo corpus meum, et cetera. Quia vero caro domatur per vigilias, ieiunia et labores Eccli. XXXIII, 28: servo malevolo tortura et compedes, etc. ad haec autem opera moventur ex devotione quam habent ad Christum crucifixum, ideo signanter dicit crucifixerunt, id est Christo crucifixo se conformaverunt, affligendo carnem suam, et cetera. Rom. VI, 6: vetus homo noster simul crucifixus est, et cetera. Supra II: ut Deo vivam, Christo confixus sum cruci, et cetera. They, I say, have crucified their flesh with the vices and concupiscences. He does not say that they shun vices and concupiscences, because a good physician cures well, when he applies remedies against the cause of the disease. But the flesh is the root of vices. Therefore, if we would shun vices, the flesh must be tamed: “I chastise my body and bring it under subjection” (1 Cor 9:27). But because the flesh is tamed by vigils, fasts and labors—“Torture and fetters are for a malicious slave; send him to work that he be not idle” (Sir 33:28)—and one is led to such works out of devotion to Christ crucified. Therefore he specifically says, they have crucified, i.e., conformed themselves to Christ crucified by afflicting their flesh: “Our old man is crucified with him that the body of sin may be destroyed” (Rom 6:6); that I may live to God: with Christ I am nailed to the cross (2:19). Quia vero non crucifigunt carnem destruendo naturam, quia nemo carnem suam odio habuit, ut dicitur Eph. V, 29, sed quantum ad ea quae contrariantur legi, ideo dicit cum vitiis, id est cum peccatis, et concupiscentiis, id est passionibus, quibus anima inclinatur ad peccandum. Non enim bene crucifigit carnem qui etiam passionibus locum non aufert, aliter cum ratio non semper invigilet ad peccata vitandum, ut oportet, posset quandoque cadere. Eccli. XVIII, 30: post concupiscentias tuas non eas, et cetera. Rom. XIII, 14: carnis curam ne feceritis in desideriis, et cetera. But because they do not crucify the flesh by destroying nature, for “No one hates his own flesh” (Eph 5:29), but with respect to matters that are contrary to the Law, for that reason he says, with the vices, i.e., with the sins, and concupiscences, i.e., passions, whereby the soul is inclined to sin. For he does not crucify his flesh well who leaves room for passions; otherwise, since reason is not always alert to avoid sin, as it ought, he might fall at some time: “Go not after thy lusts, but turn away from thy own will” (Sir 18:30); “Make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscence” (Rom 13:14). Consequenter cum dicit si spiritu vivimus, etc., ponit tertium beneficium spiritus sancti, quod confert vitam. Et primo ponit beneficium spiritus Dei; secundo excludit vitia spiritus mundi, ibi non efficiamur, et cetera. Then when he says, If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit, he mentions the third benefit of the Holy Spirit, namely, the conferring of life. First, he mentions this benefit of the Spirit of God; Secondly, he rejects the vices of the spirit of the world (v. 26). Dicit ergo, connumerans se eis quibus scribit: dico quod debemus ambulare per spiritum, quia et per ipsum vivimus, et non per carnem. Rom. VIII, 12: debitores sumus non carni, et cetera. Si ergo spiritu vivimus, debemus in omnibus ab ipso agi. Sicut enim in vita corporali corpus non movetur nisi per animam per quam vivit, ita in vita spirituali omnis motus noster debet esse a spiritu sancto. Io. VI, 64: spiritus est qui vivificat. Act. XVII, 28: in ipso vivimus, movemur, et sumus. Et ne ea quae dicta sunt de spiritu intelligantur de spiritu mundi, de quo dicitur I Cor. II, 12: nos autem non spiritum huius mundi accepimus, ideo hoc consequenter removet apostolus, dicens non efficiamur, etc., ubi tria excludit propria spiritus mundi, scilicet inanem gloriam, iracundiam, et invidiam, quibus tribus convenienter aptari potest nomen spiritus. Therefore, including himself with those to whom he writes, he says: I say that we ought to walk by the Spirit, because we live by Him and not by the flesh: “We are debtors not to the flesh to live according to the flesh” (Rom 8:12). Therefore, If we live in the Spirit, we ought in all things to be led by Him. For as in bodily life the body is not moved save by the soul, by which it has life, so in the spiritual life, all of our movements should be through the Holy Spirit: “It is the spirit that giveth life” (Jn 6:64); “In him we live and move and are” (Acts 17:28). But lest the things said of the spirit be understood of the spirit of the world-concerning which it is said in 1 Corinthians (2:12): ‘We have received not the spirit of this world”—the Apostle forestalls this when he says, Let us not be made desirous of vainglory, provoking one another, envying one another. Here he excludes things proper to the spirit of the world, namely, vainglory, anger and envy, all three of which are aptly described by the word “spirit.” Significat enim spiritus quamdam inflationem. Unde secundum hoc illi dicuntur vani spiritus, qui sunt inflati per inanem gloriam. Is. XXV, 4: spiritus robustorum quasi turbo impellens parietem, et cetera. Et quantum ad hoc dicit non efficiamur inanis gloriae cupidi, id est, gloriae saecularis. Cum enim vanum sit quod nec solide firmatur, nec veritate fulcitur, nec utilitate amatur, ideo gloria huius mundi vana est, quia caduca, et non solida, Is. XL, v. 6: omnis caro foenum, etc., et quia falsa, I Mac. II, 62: gloria hominis peccatoris, stercus et vermis, et cetera. Sed vera gloria est in propriis bonis hominis, quae sunt bona spiritualia, et hanc habent sancti. II Cor. I, 12: gloria nostra haec est, testimonium conscientiae nostrae, et cetera. Et quia inutilis et infructuosa: nam quantamcumque gloriam habeat quis ex testimonio saecularium, non potest propter hoc consequi finem suum, quem consequitur testimonio Dei. I Cor. I, 31: qui gloriatur, in domino glorietur. For “spirit” denotes a swelling. According to this, then, those are called vain spirits who are swollen with vainglory: “The blast of the mighty is like a whirlwind beating against a wall” (Is 25:4). Concerning this he says, Let us not be made desirous of vainglory, i.e., of worldly glory. For since that is vain which is not solidly established nor supported by truth nor loved for any usefulness, then the glory of this world is vain, because it is frail and not solid: “All flesh is grass” (Is 40:6). Furthermore, it is false—“The glory of a sinful man is dung and worms” (1 Mac 2:62)—whereas true glory concerns goods appropriate to man, i.e., the goods of the spirit, such as holy men have: “Our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience” (2 Cor 1:12). Furthermore, this glory is useless and fruitless: for how great soever the glory one acquires from the testimony of men, he cannot on that account achieve his end, which is achieved by the testimony of God: “He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord” (1 Cor 1:31). Non autem dicit: non habeatis inanem gloriam sed non efficiamini cupidi, quia gloria sequitur aliquando fugientes eam, et si eam oportet recipi, non tamen ametur. Item significat quamdam impetuositatem. Prov. XXVII, 4: impetum concitati spiritus ferre quis poterit? Et significat iracundiam. Et quantum ad hoc dicit invicem provocantes, scilicet ad contentionem, vel litem, vel alia illicita. Rom. XIII, 13: non in contentione et aemulatione, et cetera. Item est spiritus tristitiae, de quo dicitur Prov. XVII, 22: spiritus exsiccat ossa. Et quantum ad hoc dicit invicem invidentes. Prov. XIV, 30: putredo ossium, invidia, et cetera. Cuius ratio est, quia ipsa sola crescit ex bono. He does not say, “Do not have vainglory,” but be not made desirous of vainglory, because glory sometimes follows those who seek to avoid it, and if they are obliged to receive it, they should not love it. Furthermore, [spirit] connotes vehemence: “Who can bear the violence of one provoked?” (Prov 27:4). It also connotes wrath. And as to this he says, provoking one another, namely, to quarrels and fights or other unlawful things: “Not in contention and envy” (Rom 13:13). Furthermore, it is a spirit of sadness, of which it is said in Proverbs (17:22): “A sorrowful spirit drieth up the bones.” And concerning this he says, envying one another: “Envy is the rottenness of the bones,” because it alone feeds on the good (Prov 14:30).
CHAPTER 6
Lecture 1Postquam apostolus reduxit Galatas ad statum veritatis quantum ad res divinas, hic consequenter reducit eos quantum ad res humanas, instruens eos qualiter se habeant ad homines. Et primo qualiter se habeant ad rectos; secundo, quomodo ad perversos, ibi videte qualibus litteris, et cetera. After leading the Galatians back to the state of truth as to divine things, the Apostle then leads them back as to things human, instructing them how to behave toward men. First, how to act toward the upright; Secondly, toward those who are wicked (v. 11). Circa primum tria facit. Primo docet qualiter superiores se habeant ad inferiores; secundo qualiter aequales ad coaequales, ibi alter alterius, etc.; tertio qualiter inferiores ad superiores, ibi communicet autem is, et cetera. With respect to the first, he does three things: First, he teaches how superiors should act toward inferiors; Secondly, how equals toward equals (v. 2); Thirdly, how inferiors toward superiors (v. 6). Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit admonitionem; secundo assignat admonitionis rationem, ibi considerans teipsum, et cetera. Regarding the first he does two things: First, he sets forth the admonition; Secondly, he assigns the reason for the admonition (V. 1): considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Quia ergo de peccatis multa dixerat, ne aliquis a peccato immunis in peccatores desaeviret, ideo admonitionem de mansuetudine et misericordia eis proponit, dicens fratres, etsi praeoccupatus fuerit homo, et cetera. Ubi tria ponit quae faciunt admonitionem. Primum est surreptio. Nam quando aliqui ex malitia peccant, minus digni sunt venia. Iob XXXIV, 27: qui quasi de industria recesserunt, et cetera. Sed quando aliquis praeoccupatur tentationibus et inducitur ad peccandum, facilius debet ei venia concedi, et ideo dicit etsi praeoccupatus fuerit, etc., id est imprudenter et ex surreptione lapsus, ut nequeat vitare. Therefore, because he had said so much about sin, then, lest anyone free of sin be severe toward sinners, he gives them an admonition about meekness and mercy, saying: Brethren, and if a man be overtaken in any fault, you, who are spiritual, instruct such a one in the spirit of meekness. Herein he lays down the three elements which form the admonition. The first consists in being come upon unawares. For when some sin out of malice, they are less worthy of forgiveness: “Who as it were on purpose have revolted from him and would not understand all his ways” (Job 34:27). But when one is overtaken by temptation and lured into sin, pardon should be granted him more readily. That is why he says, and if a man be overtaken in any fault, i.e., fall through want of circumspection and because of trickery, so that he could not escape, instruct such a one in the spirit of meekness. Secundum est peccatorum paucitas. Nam aliqui ex consuetudine peccant. Os. IV, 2: maledictum, et mendacium, et homicidium, et furtum, et adulterium inundaverunt, et sanguis sanguinem tetigit, et cetera. Et contra tales severius est agendum. Et hoc excluditur, cum dicit in aliquo, quasi non usu quotidiano peccans. The second is infrequency of sin. For some sin as a matter of custom: “Cursing and lying and killing and theft and adultery have overflowed and blood hath touched blood” (Hos 4:2). Against such sinners more severe measures should be taken. And this is excluded when he says, in any, implying that he is speaking of those who do not sin as a daily practice. Tertium est peccatorum qualitas. Nam quaedam peccata consistunt in transgressione, quaedam vero in omissione. Graviora autem sunt prima secundis: quia illa opponuntur praeceptis negativis, quae obligant semper et ad semper, haec vero opponuntur praeceptis affirmativis quae cum non obligent ad semper, non potest sciri determinate quando obligant. Unde dicitur in Ps. XVIII, 13: delicta quis intelligit? et cetera. Et quantum ad hoc dicit delicto. Vel, secundum Glossam, delictum est peccatum ex ignorantia. The third is the quality of the sin. For some sins consist in commission and some in omission. And the first is more grave than the second, because the former are opposed to negative precepts which bind always and at every moment; whereas the latter, being opposed to affirmative precepts, since they do not bind one at every moment, it cannot be known definitely when they do bind. Hence it is said in Psalm 18 (13): “Who can understand sins?” And touching this he says, in any fault. Or, according to a Gloss, a fault is a sin committed through ignorance. His ergo praemissis, ad misericordiam eos qui corrigunt monet, et hi sunt spirituales, ad quos pertinet correctio. Unde dicit vos qui spirituales estis, huiusmodi instruite. I Cor. II, 15: spiritualis iudicat omnia, et ipse a nemine iudicatur, et cetera. Et huius ratio est, quia rectum iudicium habet de omnibus, quia circa unumquodque recte dispositus est, sicut qui sanum gustum habet, recte iudicat de sapore; solus autem spiritualis bene dispositus est circa agenda; et ideo ipse solus de eis bene iudicat. Having stated these things, he recommends that mercy be shown by those who correct others. These are spiritual men whose office is to correct. Hence he says, those who are spiritual, instruct such a one in the spirit of meekness: “The spiritual man judgeth all things, and he himself is judged of no man” (1 Cor 2:15). The reason for this is that he has a correct judgment of all things, being rightly disposed to each thing, as a person with a healthy taste is the best judge of flavor. Now the spiritual man alone is rightly disposed concerning moral actions. Therefore he alone judges Well of them. Sed quia nomen spiritus rigorem quemdam et impulsum designat, secundum illud Is. XXV, v. 4: spiritus robustorum quasi turbo impellens parietem, etc., non tamen est credendum quod viri spirituales sint nimis rigidi in corrigendo. Nam hoc spiritus huius mundi facit, sed spiritus sanctus suavitatem quamdam et dulcorem efficit in homine. Sap. XII, v. 1: o quam bonus et suavis est spiritus tuus, domine, et cetera. Et ideo dicit in spiritu lenitatis. Ps. CXL, 5: corripiet me iustus in misericordia, et cetera. Contra quod dicitur de quibusdam Ez. XXXIV, 4: cum austeritate imperabatis eis, et cetera. Dicit autem instruite, et non corrigite, quia loquitur de praeoccupatis delinquentibus, qui indigent instructione; vel quia omnis peccans est ignorans. Prov. XIV, 22: errant qui operantur malum. But although the name “spirit” suggests unyielding energy, according to the saying of Isaiah (25:4): “For the spirit of the mighty is like a whirlwind beating against a wall,” it should not be supposed that spiritual men are over-strict in correcting. For the spirit of this world does that, but the Holy Spirit produces a certain gentleness and sweetness in a man: “0, how good and sweet is thy spirit, O Lord, in all things” (Wis 12:1). Hence he says, in the spirit of meekness: “The just man shall correct me in mercy and shall reprove me” (Ps 140:5). Contrariwise, it is said of some in Ezechiel (34:4): “You ruled over them with vigor and with a high hand.” Furthermore, he says, instruct, and not “correct,” because he is speaking of those who fall by being overtaken, and these need instruction; or because every sinner falls through some lack of knowledge: “They err that work evil” (Prov 14:22). Rationem autem admonitionis subdit, dicens considerans teipsum, etc., quasi dicat: ita fiat, ut dixi, quia tu fragilis es. Nam quamdiu in hac vita mortali sumus, proni sumus ad peccandum. Nihil autem ita frangit hominis severitatem in corrigendo, quam timor proprii casus. Eccli. XXXI, 18: intellige quae sunt proximi tui ex teipso. He adds a reason for the admonition, saying, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. As if to say: You should do as I say, because you, too, are weak. For as long as we are in this mortal life, we are prone to sin. But nothing so breaks a man from severity in correcting as fear of his own fall: “Judge of the disposition of thy neighbor by thyself” (Sir 31:18). Qualiter autem se habeant ad aequales ostendit, dicens alter alterius, et cetera. Et primo proponit admonitionem; secundo assignat eius rationem, ibi et sic adimplebitis, etc.; tertio excludit admonitionis implendae impedimentum, ibi nam si quis existimat, et cetera. But how they ought to act towards equals he shows when he says, Bear ye one another’s burdens. First, he sets down the admonition; Secondly, he assigns a reason for it (v. 2); Thirdly, he removes an obstacle to the admonition (v. 3). Admonet autem ad mutuam supportationem, dicens alter alterius onera portate. Et hoc tripliciter. Uno modo defectum alterius corporalem, seu spiritualem, patienter tolerando. Rom. XV, 1: debemus autem nos firmiores, et cetera. Alio modo necessitati mutuae subveniendo, et cetera. Rom. XII, 13: necessitatibus sanctorum communicantes, et cetera. Tertio modo pro poena sibi debita satisfaciendo, orationibus et bonis operibus. Prov. c. XVIII, 19: frater qui iuvatur a fratre, et cetera. Ratio autem admonitionis est adimpletio legis Christi, quae similiter est charitas. Rom. XIII, 10: plenitudo legis est dilectio. Unde dicit et sic adimplebitis legem Christi, id est, charitatem. Here he admonishes them to support one another, saying, Bear ye one another’s burdens. And this is to be done in three ways. In one way by patiently enduring the bodily or spiritual defects of another: “We that are stronger ought to bear the infirmities of the weak” (Rom 15:1). In a second way by coming to one another’s aid in their needs: “Communicating to the necessities of the saints” (Rom 12:13). In a third way by making satisfaction through prayers and works for the punishment one has incurred: “A brother that is helped by his brother is like a strong city” (Prov 18:19). Now the reason for this admonition is the fulfillment of the law of Christ. But this is charity: “The fulfillment of the law is love” (Rom 13: 10). Hence he says: and you shall fulfil the law of Christ, i.e., charity. Dicitur autem charitas specialiter lex Christi triplici ratione. Primo, quia per hoc distinguitur lex nova a lege veteri: nam illa est timoris, haec vero amoris. Unde Augustinus dicit: parva differentia est veteris legis et novae: timor et amor. Secundo, quia per charitatem specialiter Christus legem suam promulgavit. Io. XIII, 35: in hoc cognoscent omnes, quia mei estis discipuli, si dilectionem, etc.; et iterum: mandatum novum do vobis, ut diligatis invicem, et cetera. Tertio quia ipsam implevit Christus, et exemplum eam implendi nobis reliquit. Nam ipse ex charitate peccata nostra tulit. Is. LIII, 4: vere languores nostros ipse tulit. I Petr. II, 24: qui peccata nostra pertulit in corpore suo super lignum, et cetera. Is. XL, 11: foetas ipse portabit. Sic ergo debemus alter alterius onera portare ex charitate, ut sic impleamus legem Christi. There are three reasons why charity is specifically linked with the law of Christ. First, because by it the New Law is distinguished from the Old; for the former is a law of fear, but the latter of love. Hence Augustine says: “Fear and love is the slight difference between the Old Law and the New.” Secondly, because Christ expressly promulgated His law in terms of charity: “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another” (Jn 13:35); again: “A new commandment I give unto you: that you love one another, as I have loved you” (v. 34). Thirdly, because Christ fulfilled it and left us an example bow to fulfill it; for he bore our sins out of charity: “Surely he hath borne our infirmities”’ (Is 53:4); “Who his own self bore our sins in his body upon the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live to justice” (1 Pet. 2:24); “He himself shall carry them that are with young” (Is 40:11). Thus, then, ought we to carry one another’s burdens out of charity, that so we may fulfill the law of Christ. Impedimentum autem implendae admonitionis praedictae est superbia. Ideo hoc excludens, dicit nam si quis existimat, et cetera. Et primo vituperat ipsam superbiam; secundo ostendit modum vitandi eam, ibi opus autem suum, etc.; tertio vitandi rationem assignat, ibi unusquisque enim, et cetera. The obstacle to fulfilling the above admonition is pride. And to exclude this he says, For if any man think himself to be something, whereas he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. First, he censures such pride; Secondly, he points out how to avoid it (v. 4); Thirdly, he gives a reason for avoiding it (v. 5). Dicit ergo: facite ut dixi. Sed contingit aliquem onus alterius non portare, quia praefert se aliis. Unde dicebat ille Lc. c. XVIII, 11: non sum sicut caeteri hominum, et cetera. Et ideo dicit nam si quis existimat se aliquid esse, id est in mente sua superbe iudicat se magnum esse in comparatione peccantis, cum nihil sit, ex se, quia quidquid sumus hoc est ex gratia Dei, secundum illud apostoli I Cor. XV, 10: gratia Dei sum id quod sum. Qui, inquam, tale aliquid facit, ipse se seducit, id est a veritate se dividit. Is. XL, 17: omnes gentes quasi non sint, et cetera. Lc. XVII, 10: cum feceritis omnia quae praecepta sunt vobis, dicite: servi inutiles sumus, et cetera. He says therefore: Do as I say. But it sometimes happens that one does not carry another’s burdens, because he prefers himself to others. Hence such a one said in Luke (18:11): “I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers.” Therefore he says, For if any man think himself to be something, i.e., through pride judge in his own mind that he is greater in comparison to a sinner, whereas he is nothing of himself, because whatever we are is from the grace of God, according to the saying of the Apostle: “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor 15:10), anyone, I say, who acts thus deceiveth himself, i.e., cuts himself off from the truth: “All nations are before him as if they had no being at air (Is 40:17); “When you have done all these things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which we ought to do” (Lk 17:10). Remedium autem vitandi, est propriorum defectuum consideratio. Nam ex hoc quod aliquis alienos et non suos defectus considerat, videtur sibi aliquid esse in comparatione ad alios, in quibus defectus intuetur, et suos non considerans, superbit. Et ideo dicit opus autem, scilicet interius et exterius, suum, id est proprium, probet, id est diligenter examinet, unusquisque. I Cor. XI, v. 28: probet seipsum homo, et cetera. Et sic in seipso, id est in propria conscientia, gloriam habebit, id est gloriabitur et gaudebit. II Cor. I, 12: gloria nostra haec est, testimonium conscientiae nostrae. Et non in altero, id est non in laude alterius. Vel sic: in semetipso, id est per ea quae sui ipsius sunt, gloriam habebit, id est gloriabitur in consideratione sui, et non in altero, id est non consideratione alterius. II Cor. XII, 9: libenter gloriabor in infirmitatibus meis, et cetera. Vel in semetipso, id est in Deo qui in eo habitat, gloriabitur, id est eius erit gloria, et non in altero quam in Deo. II Cor. X, 17: qui gloriatur, in domino glorietur. Now the way to avoid such a failing is to consider one’s own defects, for it is because one considers the defects of others and not his own that he seems to himself to be some thing in comparison to others in whom he observes defects; and not considering his own, he has a feeling of pride. Hence he says, But let every one prove, i.e., diligently examine, his, i.e., his own, work, both inward and outward: “Let a man prove himself” (1 Cor 11:28), and so in himself, i.e., in his own conscience, he shall have glory, i.e., shall glory and rejoice—“For our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience” (2 Cor 1:12)— and not in another, i.e., not in being praised by someone else. Or thus: in himself, i.e., in things that are his own, he will have glory, i.e., he will glory by considering himself; and not in another, i.e., not by considering, others: “Gladly, therefore, will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me” (2 Cor 12:9). Or, in himself, i.e., in God Who dwells in him, he will glory, i.e., the glory will be His; and not in any other save in God: “He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord” (2 Cor 10:17). Ratio vitandi superbiam est praemium vel poena unicuique pro merito vel demerito reddenda. Unde dicit unusquisque enim onus suum portabit. Quod videtur contrarium ei quod dixerat alter alterius onera portate. The reason for avoiding pride is the reward or punishment that will be rendered to each one according to his merits or demerits. Hence he says, For every one shall bear his own burden. But this seems contrary to what he had said earlier, namely, Bear ye one another’s burdens. Sed sciendum est quod ibi loquitur de onere sustinendae infirmitatis, quod debemus mutuo portare; hic loquitur de onere reddendae rationis, quod quilibet pro se portabit, sive sit onus praemii, sive poenae. Nam onus aliquando quidem pondus poenae, aliquando praemii significat. II Cor. IV, 17: aeternum gloriae pondus operatur, et cetera. Is. III, 10-11: dicite iusto, quoniam bene, quoniam fructum adinventionum suarum comedet, vae impio in malum, et cetera. Si autem dicantur aliqui rationem reddere pro aliis, puta praelati pro subditis, secundum illud Ez. III, 18: sanguinem eius de manu tua requiram, etc., et Hebr. ult.: obedite praepositis vestris, ipsi enim pervigilant quasi rationem reddituri pro animabus vestris, non est contrarium dicto apostoli: quia non puniuntur pro peccatis subditorum, sed pro propriis, quae in custodia subditorum commiserunt. But it should be known that he was speaking there of the burden of supporting weakness, a burden which we ought to carry one for another; but now he is speaking of the burden of rendering an account. This, everyone will carry for himself, whether it be a burden of reward or of punishment. For “burden” signifies the weight sometimes of punishment, sometimes of reward: “Working for us an eternal weight of glory” (2 Cor 4:17); “Say to the just man that it is well, for he shall eat the fruit of his doings. Woe to the wicked unto evil: for the reward of his hands shall be given him” (Is 3:10). But if some are said to render an account for others, as prelates for subjects, according to Ezechiel (3:20): “I will require his blood at thy hand”; and Hebrews (13:17): “Obey your prelates.... for they watch as being to render an account of your souls”; this is not contrary to the words of the Apostle, because they are not punished for the sins of their subjects but for their own, which they committed in ruling them. Est ergo vitanda superbia et peccatum, quia unusquisque onus suum, id est mensuram gratiae suae offert Deo in die iudicii, tamquam manipulos bonorum operum. Ps. CXXV, 6: venientes autem venient cum exultatione. Et hoc quantum ad bonos. Vel onus suum portabit, id est poenam pro proprio peccato. Therefore pride and sin are to be avoided, because everyone will present to God on the day of judgment his own burden, i.e., the measure of his own grace as sheaves of good works: “But coming they shall come with joyfulness, carrying their sheaves,” and this refers to those who are good (Ps 125:7). Or: will carry his own burden, i.e., each the punishment for his own sin.
CHAPTER 6
Lecture 2Postquam apostolus ostendit qualiter superiores se habeant ad inferiores, et aequales aequalibus, hic consequenter ostendit qualiter inferiores se habeant ad superiores, dicens inferiores debere superioribus ministrare et obsequi. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo monet ut ministrent prompte; secundo ut ministrent perseveranter, ibi bonum autem facientes, non deficiamus, etc.; tertio, ut ministrent communiter, ibi ergo dum tempus habemus, et cetera. After showing how those who are greater should act toward those below them, and how equals should act toward equals, the Apostle then shows here how those who are lesser should serve and revere those who are over them. About this he does three things: First, he advises that they serve readily; Secondly, that they serve perseveringly (v. 9); Thirdly, that they serve all (v. 10). Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit monitionem ministerii; secundo excusationem excludit, ibi nolite errare, et cetera. Regarding the first he does two things: First, he lays clown the admonition to serve; Secondly, he forestalls an excuse (v. 7). Dicit ergo: dictum est supra, quomodo superiores se debeant habere ad inferiores, scilicet leniter corripiendo et instruendo, nunc autem restat videre qualiter inferior superiori obsequatur, et ideo dicit communicet autem is, qui catechizatur, id est docetur verbo Dei, ei qui se catechizat, id est qui eum docet; communicet, inquam, in omnibus bonis. He says therefore: We have indicated above how those who are greater should act toward those who are below them, namely, by correcting them in a gentle manner and by instructing. Now, however, there remains to see how the lesser should accommodate themselves to those who are higher. Therefore he says, Let him that is instructed in the word, i.e., taught the word of God, communicate to him that instructeth him, i.e., who teaches him; let him, I say, communicate to him in all good things. Sed notandum est quod discipulus potest dupliciter communicare se docenti. Primo ut accipiat bona doctoris, et sic dicitur communicet is qui catechizatur, id est commune sibi faciat quod est docentis, eum imitando. I Cor. XI, 1: imitatores mei estote, et cetera. Sed quia contingit doctores aliquando minus bona facere, ideo non sunt in hoc imitandi, et ideo subdit in omnibus bonis. Matth. c. XXIII, 3: quaecumque dixerint vobis, servate et facite: secundum opera eorum nolite facere. Secundo ut communicet bona sua docenti. Hoc enim a domino praecipitur I Cor. IX, v. 14, ubi dicitur: qui Evangelio serviunt, de Evangelio vivant. Unde Matth. X, 10: dignus est operarius cibo suo. Et Lc. X, 7: dignus est operarius mercede sua. Et apostolus dicit I Cor. IX, 11: si vobis spiritualia seminamus, et cetera. Et ideo hic dicit communicet autem is, etc., id est doctus doctori in omnibus bonis quae habet; nam etiam temporalia bona quaedam dicuntur. Is. I, 19: si volueritis et audieritis me, bona terrae comedetis. Matth. c. VII, 11: si vos cum sitis mali, nostis bona dare, et cetera. But it should be noted that a disciple can communicate in two ways with his teacher. First, so as to receive good things from the teacher; and so it is said, Let him that is instructed in the word communicate, i.e., make common to himself what belonged to the teacher, by imitating him: “Be imitators of me, as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1). But because teachers might at times not do what is good, they are not to be imitated in this Hence he adds, in all good things: “Whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works, do ye not” (Mt 23:3). Secondly, that he communicate his own goods to the teacher. For this is commanded by the Lord: “They who preach the gospel should live by the gospel” (1 Cor 9:14); “The workman is worthy of his meat” (Mt 10:10); “The laborer is worthy of his hire” (Lk 10:7); and the Apostle says, “If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we reap your carnal things?” (1 Cor 9:11). And therefore he says here, Let him that is instructed in the word communicate to him that instructeth, i.e., the one taught should communicate to the teacher, in all good things that he has; for even temporal things are called goods: “If you be willing and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land” (Is 1:19); “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?” (Mt 7:11). Dicit autem, in omnibus, quia non solum communicare debet indigenti, sed et sententiam et consilium, potentiam et quidquid habet, generaliter debet proximo communicare. I Petr. IV, 10: unusquisque sicut accepit gratiam, in alterutrum illam administrantes, et cetera. De ista communicatione dicitur Rom. XII, v. 13: necessitatibus sanctorum communicantes; Eccli. XIV, 15: in divisione sortis da et accipe. But he says, in all good things, because one should not communicate solely to those who are in dire need; but whatever one has he ought universally to communicate to, his neighbor, including knowledge and advice and influence: “As every man hath received grace, administering the same one to another” (1 Pet. 4: 10). Of this sharing it is said in Romans (12:13): “Communicating to the necessities of the saints”; “In dividing by lot give and take” (Sir 14:15). Consequenter cum dicit nolite errare, etc., excusationem excludit, et primo excludit eam; secundo rationem exclusionis assignat, ibi quae enim seminaverit homo, et cetera. Then when he says, Be not deceived; God is not mocked, he forestalls an excuse. First, he forestalls it; Secondly, he gives a reason for this (v. 8). Dicit ergo nolite errare, Deus non irridetur. Quod quidem dupliciter intelligi potest secundum duas praemissas expositiones. Secundum primam quidem sic: tu dicis quod debemus imitari doctores etiam in bonis, sed non possum eos imitari nisi in his quae faciunt: nihil autem video in ipsis nisi malum; ergo debeo eos imitari in malo. Sed hoc excludit, dicens nolite errare, Deus non irridetur. Error est hoc dicere. Nam mala praelatorum non excusant nos. Non enim sunt subditis in exemplum, nisi in his quibus imitantur Christum, qui est pastor absque peccato; unde et signanter dicit Io. c. X, 11: ego sum pastor bonus, et cetera. Et apostolus I Cor. IV, 16 et XI, 1 dicit: imitatores mei estote, sicut et ego Christi; quasi dicat: in his me imitamini, in quibus ego imitor Christum. Etsi per mala praelatorum excusatis vos apud homines, tamen Deus non irridetur, id est, non potest falli. Iob XIII, 9: aut decipietur ut homo fraudulentiis vestris? Unde dicitur Prov. III, 34: delusores ipse deludet. He says, therefore: Be not deceived; God is not mocked. This can be taken in two ways, according to the two explanations given above. According to the first, this way: You say that we ought to imitate our teachers even in good things, but I cannot imitate them save in the things they do; and the only thing I observe in them is evil. Therefore, I ought to imitate them in evil. But he dismisses this, when he says, Be not deceived, God is not mocked. As if to say: It is erroneous to say this, for the evils of the prelates do not excuse us, because they are an example to their subjects only in those matters in which they imitate Christ, Who is the shepherd without sin. Hence he expressly says in John (10:11): “I am the good shepherd”; and the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians (4:16); (11:1): “Be imitators of me, as I also am of Christ.” As if to say: Imitate me in those things in which I imitate Christ. And although you excuse yourself before men because of the evil acts of prelates, yet God is not mocked, i.e., cannot be deceived: “Shall he be deceived as a man, with your deceitful dealings?” (Job 13:9). Hence it is said in Proverbs (3:34): “He shall scorn the scorners.” Secundum autem secundam expositionem sic introducitur. Possent autem dicere: pauperes sumus, nihil habemus quod communicare possimus. Sed hoc excludit, dicens nolite errare, id est nemo excusatum vane se existimet paupertatem praetendendo, Deus non irridetur, id est non potest falli, scit enim corda nostra et non ignorat facultates. Excusatio verisimilis hominem potest fallere et placare, Deum non potest fallere. But according to the second explanation it is understood in the following manner. They could say: We are poor and have nothing to communicate. But he rejects this, saying, Be not deceived, i.e., think not to excuse yourself in vain, by pretending poverty; God is not mocked, i.e., cannot be deceived, for He knows our hearts and is not unaware of our possessions. A likely excuse may deceive a man and satisfy him; but it cannot deceive God, Rationem autem huius assignat, dicens quae enim seminaverit homo, et cetera. Et primo in generali, secundo in speciali, ibi quoniam qui seminat, et cetera. He assigns the reason for this, saying, For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap. First, in a general way; Secondly, in a specific way (v. 8) Dicit ergo, secundum primam expositionem: vere erratis, hoc credentes, quia Deus reddet singulis pro meritis propriis. Nam quae seminaverit homo, haec et metet, id est secundum opera sua bona vel mala, parva vel magna, praemiabitur vel punietur. Secundum autem secundam expositionem: quae seminaverit homo, id est secundum beneficia sua parva vel magna, et quantum ad qualitatem operum, et quantum ad quantitatem beneficiorum praemiabitur. II Cor. IX, 6: qui parce seminat, parce et metet, et cetera. He says therefore with respect to the first explanation: Surely you err in believing this, because God will render to each one according to his own merits: For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap, i.e., he will be rewarded or punished according to his works, be they good or evil, great or small. But according to the second explanation: what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap; i.e., he will be rewarded according to his good deeds, great or small, both as to the quality of the works and the quantity of the good deeds: “He that soweth sparingly, shall also reap sparingly; and he who soweth in blessings, shall also reap blessings” (2 Cor 9:6). Rationem autem specialiter assignat, dicens quoniam qui seminat in carne sua, et cetera. Quae quidem ratio habet duas partes secundum duas seminationes carnis et spiritus. Primo ergo agit de seminatione carnis. Ubi dicendum est, quid sit seminare in carne; secundo quid est de carne metere corruptionem. Then he assigns a specific reason, saying, For he that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh also shall reap corruption. Now this reason has two parts, according to the two sowings: namely, in the flesh and in the spirit. First therefore, he treats of the sowing in the flesh, where we must first of all see what it is to sow in the flesh; Secondly, what it is, “of the flesh to reap corruption.” Seminare quidem in carne, est operari pro corpore vel pro carne; sicut si dicam: ego multum expendi in isto homine, id est, multa feci pro eo. Ille ergo in carne seminat, qui ea quae facit, etiam si quae bona videantur, facit in fomentum et utilitatem carnis. De carne autem metere corruptionem, dicit et infert, quia semen fructificat ut plurimum secundum conditionem terrae. Unde videmus quod in aliquibus terris semen frumenti degenerat in siliginem, vel in aliquod aliud. Conditio autem carnis est, ut sit corruptibilis, et ideo qui in carne seminat, id est studium suum ponit et opera, oportet quod ipsa opera corrumpantur et pereant. Eccli. XIV, 20: omne opus corruptibile, in fine perdetur. Rom. VIII, 13: si secundum carnem vixeritis, moriemini. To sow in the flesh is to work for the body and for the flesh. As though I were to say: I have spent much on that man, i.e., I have done many things for him. Hence he sows in the flesh who in all that he does, even in things that seem good, does them to favor and benefit the flesh. But with respect to reaping corruption of the flesh, he says and infers, that because seed fructifies for the most part according to the condition of the land, we see that on some lands wheat seeds degenerate into siligo or something else. Now the condition of the flesh is that it is corruptible; hence he that soweth in his flesh, i.e., directs his works and interest to the flesh, must expect that those works corrupt and perish: “Every work that is corruptible shall fail in the end” (Sir 14:20); “For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die” (Rom 8:13). Secundo agit de seminatione spiritus, dicens: qui autem seminat in spiritu, id est ordinat studium suum ad servitutem spiritus, ex fide et charitate serviendo iustitiae, metet quidem de spiritu secundum conditionem eius. Conditio autem spiritus est quod sit actor vitae. Io. VI, 64: spiritus est qui vivificat. Non autem cuiuscumque vitae, sed vitae aeternae, cum spiritus sit immortalis, et ideo metet de spiritu vitam aeternam. Prov. XI, 18: seminanti iustitiam merces fidelis, quia numquam desiccatur. Secondly, he treats of the sowing in the spirit, saying, But he that soweth in the spirit, i.e., directs his interest to the service of the spirit by serving justice through faith and charity, shall reap from the spirit according to its condition. Now the condition of the spirit is that it is the principle of life: “It is the spirit that giveth life,” and not just any life, but eternal life; since the spirit is immortal (Jn 6:64). Hence, of the spirit he shall reap life everlasting: “To him that soweth justice there is a faithful reward,” because it never withers (Prov 11:18). Sed nota, quod cum agit de seminatione carnis, dicit in carne sua, quia caro est nobis de natura nostra, sed cum loquitur de semine spiritus, non dicit suo, quia spiritus non est nobis a nobis, sed a Deo. But note that when he treats of the sowing in the flesh, he says, in his flesh, because the flesh is ours, as part of our nature; but when he speaks of the seed of the spirit, he does not say “his own,” because the spirit in us is not from ourselves but from God. Deinde cum dicit bonum autem facientes, etc., monet ad ministerii perseverantiam, quia non ad horam tantum, sed semper debemus benefacere. Quod quidem potest referri ad ea quae dicta sunt, scilicet ad superiores et ad aequales et ad inferiores, quasi dicat: quicumque sumus, sive praelati erga subditos, sive aequales erga aequales, sive subditi erga praelatos, bonum facientes non deficiamus, scilicet in bene operando, quia non deficiemus in metendo. Eccle. c. IX, 10: quodcumque facere potest manus tua, instanter operare. I Cor. XV, 58: stabiles estote et immobiles. Et merito non est deficiendum, quia expectamus remunerationem aeternam et indeficientem. Unde subdit tempore enim suo metemus non deficientes. Unde dicit Augustinus: si homo non imposuerit finem operi, nec Deus imponet remunerationi. Matth. c. XXV, 46: ibunt hi in vitam aeternam. Sed nota quod dicit tempore suo, quia sicut agricola non statim de illo quod seminat, fructum colligit, sed tempore congruo. Iac. ult.: agricola expectat gloriosum fructum terrae patienter ferens, donec accipiat temporaneum et serotinum, et cetera. De ista messione dicitur II Cor. IX, 6: qui seminat in benedictionibus, de benedictionibus et metet vitam aeternam. Then when he says, And in doing good, let us not fail, he counsels perseverance in ministering, because we should do good not only for a time but always. This can be referred to those already mentioned, namely, to superiors, to equals, and to those who are lower. As if to say: Whatever our station, whether prelates towards subjects, or equals toward equals, or subjects toward prelates, in doing good, let us not fail, i.e., in doing good works; because in reaping we shall not fail: “Whatsoever thy band is able to do, do it earnestly” (Sir 9:10); “Be ye steadfast and unmovable” (1 Cor 15:58). And it is important that we do not fail; because we hope for an eternal and unfailing reward. Hence he adds: for in due time we shall reap, not failing. Therefore Augustine says: “If a man puts no limit on his works, God will put none on His reward.” But note that he says, in due time: because a farmer does not immediately reap the fruit of what he sows, but at the suitable time: “Behold the husbandman waits for the precious fruit of the earth; patiently bearing till he receive the early and latter rain” (Jam 5:7). Of this harvest it is said: “Who soweth in blessings shall also reap of the blessings, eternal life” (2 Cor 9:6). Deinde cum dicit ergo dum tempus habemus, etc., monet ad ministrandum communiter, dicens: quia metemus non deficientes, ergo dum tempus habemus, id est in hac vita, quae est tempus seminandi. Io. IX, 4: me oportet operari opera eius qui misit me, donec dies est; venit nox, et cetera. Eccle. IX, 10: quodcumque potest facere manus tua, instanter operare, quia nec opus, nec ratio, nec scientia, nec sapientia erunt apud Inferos, quo tu properas. Dum, inquam, illud habemus, operemur bonum, et hoc ad omnes, scilicet homines qui iuncti sunt nobis in divina similitudine, inquantum omnes ad imaginem Dei facti sumus. Then when he says, Whilst we have time, let us work good to all men, he advises everyone to minister, saying: Since we shall reap, not failing, then whilst we have time, i.e., in this life, which is the time for sowing: “I must work the works of him that sent me, whilst it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work” (Jn 9:4); “Whatsoever thy hand is able to do, do it earnestly; for neither work nor reason nor wisdom nor knowledge shall be in hell whither thou art hastening” (Sir 9:10). As long, I say, as we have time, let us work good, and this to all men who are bound to us through a divine likeness, inasmuch as all of us have been made to the image of God. Sed contra, Eccli. XII, 5 dicitur: da iusto, et ne recipias peccatorem. Non ergo debemus operari bonum ad omnes. Respondeo. Dicendum est quod in peccatore duo sunt: natura scilicet et culpa. Natura quidem est in eo amanda, et sustentanda, etiam inimici. Matth. V, 44: diligite inimicos vestros, et cetera. Culpa vero in eo est expellenda. Sic ergo dictum est: da iusto, et non recipias peccatorem, ut scilicet peccatori non ideo benefacias, quia peccator est, sed quia homo. Unde Augustinus: non sis ad iudicandum remissus, nec ad subveniendum inhumanus. Persequamur ergo in malis propriam iniquitatem, misereamur in eisdem communem conditionem. But this seems to be contrary to Sirach (12:5): “Give to the good and receive not the sinner.” Therefore we are not obliged to do good to everyone. I answer that in the sinner are two things: namely, his nature and his guilt. Now the nature in everyone, including an enemy, must be loved and upheld: “Love your enemies” (Mt 5:44). But the guilt in them is to be shunned. Therefore, when it is said, “Give to the just and receive not the sinner,” the meaning is that you ought not to do good to the sinner precisely as he is a sinner, but because he is a human being. Hence Augustine says: “Be not remiss” in judging, or inhuman in helping. Therefore, in evil men let us attack their sin, but show mercy to our common condition.” Sed quia non possumus omnibus benefacere, ordinem benefaciendi subdit maxime autem ad domesticos fidei, qui scilicet non solum natura nobis sunt similes, sed etiam sunt uniti fide et gratia. Eph. II, 19: non estis hospites et advenae, sed estis cives sanctorum, et domestici Dei, et cetera. Ergo omnibus impendenda est misericordia, sed praeponendi sunt iusti, qui sunt ex fide: quia I Tim. V, 8 dicitur: qui suorum et maxime domesticorum curam non habet, fidem negavit, et est infideli deterior. But because we cannot do good to everyone, he presents the order in which it is to be done, when he adds: but especially to those who are of the household of the faith, who, namely, are not only akin to us in nature but united by faith and grace: “You are no more strangers and foreigners: but you are fellow citizens of the saints and the domestics of God” (Eph 2:19). Therefore mercy must be extended to everyone but preferably to the just who share in the faith, because it is said: “But if any man have not care of his own and especially those of his house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel” (1 Tim 5:8). Sed dubitatur hic, utrum liceat plus unum diligere, quam alium. Ad quod sciendum, quod amor potest dici maior vel minor dupliciter. Uno modo ex obiecto; alio modo ex intensione actus. Amare enim aliquem, est velle ei bonum. Potest ergo aliquis alium magis alio diligere, aut quia vult ei maius bonum, quod est obiectum dilectionis, aut quia magis vult ei bonum, id est ex intensiori dilectione. Quantum ergo ad primum, omnes aequaliter debemus diligere, quia omnibus debemus velle bonum vitae aeternae. Sed quantum ad secundum, non oportet quod omnes aequaliter diligamus: quia cum intensio actus sequatur principium actionis, dilectionis autem principium sit unio et similitudo, illos intensius et magis debemus diligere, qui sunt nobis magis similes et uniti. But here it might be asked whether it is lawful to love one more than another. To answer this, it should be noted that love can be called greater or less in two ways. In one way, from the standpoint of the object; in another, from the intensity of the act. For to love someone is to will good to him. Accordingly, one can love one person more than another, either because he wills him a greater good, which is the object of love, or because he more intensely wills him a good, i.e., with a more intense love. Therefore, with respect to the first, we ought to love everyone equally, because we ought to wish the good of eternal life to everyone; but with respect to the second, it is not necessary that we love all equally, because since the intensity of an act results from the principle of the action, and the principle of the action is union and similarity, we ought to love in a higher degree and more intensely those who are more like us and more closely united to us.
CHAPTER 6
Lecture 3Postquam apostolus monuit Galatas qualiter se habeant ad homines rectos et iustos, hic docet quomodo se habeant ad haereticos et perversos. Et primo insinuat modum scribendi monitionem; secundo ipsam monitionem subiungit, ibi quicumque enim, et cetera. After admonishing the Galatians how to behave towards men who are upright and just, the Apostle here teaches them bow to act toward heretics and the perverse. First, he insinuates the way he is writing the admonition; Secondly, he sets forth the admonition (v. 12). Circa primum sciendum quod consuetudo erat apud haereticos depravandi et falsificandi Scripturas canonicas, nec non et permiscendi aliqua eorum quae haeresim sapiant; propter hoc consuetudo fuit ab apostolo servata, quod quando aliqua contra eos scribebat, in fine litterae aliqua scriberet, ut depravari non posset, et ita innotesceret eis de eius conscientia processisse, sicut I Cor. c. ult. dicit: salutatio mea manu Pauli. Totam enim epistolam per alium, eo dictante, scribi faciebat, et postea in fine aliquid propria manu addebat. Et secundum hunc modum ea quae sequuntur, ab isto loco scripsit Paulus manu propria. Unde dicit videte qualibus litteris scripsi vobis manu propria, ut scilicet praedicta firmius teneatis, ut scientes a me hanc epistolam missam magis obediatis. Sic ergo praelati debent propria manu scribere, ut quod docent verbo et scripto, ostendant exemplo. Ideo dicitur Is. XLIX, 16: in manibus, id est in operibus meis, descripsi te, et cetera. Ex. XXXII, 15 dicitur de Moyse, quod descendit portans duas tabulas lapideas scriptas digito Dei. As to the first, it should be noted that heretics were wont to distort and falsify the canonical scriptures and append things that savored of heresy. Because of this, whenever the Apostle wrote anything against them, he followed the practice of writing something at the end of the epistle, so that it could not be distorted. In this way it could be known that it came from him with full knowledge of its contents. Thus in 1 Corinthians (16:21) he says: “The salutation of me, Paul, with my own hand.” For he allowed the entire epistle to be written by someone else at his dictation; then, at the end, he added something in his own hand. According to this procedure, then, whatever followed from that place on, Paul wrote in his own hand. Hence he says; See what a letter I have written to you with my own hand; to the end, namely, that you might firmly hold to the foregoing, and that knowing this epistle is sent by me, you might obey better. In this way, then, prelates ought to write in their own hand, so that what they teach by word and script, they may show by example. Hence it is said in Isaiah (49:16): “1 have graven thee in my hands” (i.e., works); and in Exodus (Ch. 32) it is said of Moses that he descended carrying two stone tablets written by the finger of God. Monitionem autem subiungit, dicens quicumque enim placere volunt, et cetera. Et primo aperit seducentium intentionem; secundo ostendit suam intentionem eis esse contrariam, ibi mihi autem absit gloriari, etc.; tertio subdit suam admonitionem ad subditos, ibi quicumque hanc regulam, et cetera. He then follows with the admonition, saying, For as many as desire to please in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised. First, he exposes the intention of the seducers; Secondly, he shows that his intention is contrary to theirs (v. 14). Circa primum duo facit. Primo aperit seducentium malam intentionem; secundo probat quod dicit, ibi neque enim circumcisionem, et cetera. Regarding the first, he does two things: First, he discloses the evil intention of the seducers; Secondly, he proves what he says (v. 13). Circa primum ponit unum factum et duas intentiones ad invicem ordinatas. Factum autem erat istorum qui circumcisionem inducebant, et ex hoc duo intendebant. Unum propter aliud, scilicet ut placerent inde Iudaeis, ex hoc quod carnales observantias legis introducebant in Ecclesia gentium. Et hoc est quod dicit quicumque volunt placere, scilicet Iudaeis infidelibus, in carne, id est carnalibus observantiis, hi cogunt vos circumcidi, non coactione absoluta, sed quasi ex conditione dicentes: quia nisi circumcidamini, non poteritis salvi fieri, ut habetur Act. c. XV, 1. Concerning the first, he lays down one fact and two intentions that are mutually related. The fact concerns those who urged circumcision, from which they intended two things, one for the sake of the other; namely, that they might thereby please the Jews for having introduced the observances of the Law in the Church of the Gentiles. And this is what he says: As many as desire to please, namely, the unbelieving Jews, they constrain you to be circumcised not by absolute force, but, as it were, by placing a condition, saying: “Except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved,” as is recorded in Acts (15:1). Intendebant autem ex hoc ulterius quamdam securitatem habere. Iudaei enim persequebantur discipulos Christi propter praedicationem crucis. I Cor. I, 23: nos autem praedicamus Christum crucifixum, et cetera. Et hoc quia per praedicationem crucis evacuabantur legalia. Nam si apostoli simul cum cruce Christi praedicassent debere servari legalia, nullam persecutionem Iudaei apostolis intulissent. Unde dicebat supra V, 11: ego autem, fratres, si adhuc circumcisionem praedico, quid adhuc persecutionem patior, et cetera. Ut ergo non haberent persecutionem a Iudaeis, inducebant circumcisionem. Et ideo dicit: et etiam hoc propter hoc tantum faciunt, ut crucis Christi persecutionem non patiantur, quae scilicet pro cruce Christi infertur. They further intended to derive some security from this For the Jews persecuted the disciples of Christ, because of the preaching of the Cross: “But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews, indeed, a stumbling-block, and unto the Gentiles, foolishness” (1 Cor 1:23). And this because through the preaching of the Cross the works of the Law were made void. For if the apostles had preached, along with the Cross of Christ, that the legal ceremonies were to be observed, the Jews would not have persecuted the apostles. Hence he said: And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? (5:11). Therefore, in order to escape persecution from the Jews, some urged circumcision. So he says: And they do this for the only reason that they may not suffer the persecution of the cross of Christ, a persecution which is launched because of the Cross of Christ. Vel hoc etiam faciebant ad vitandam persecutionem, non solum Iudaeorum, sed etiam gentilium infidelium. Nam Romani imperatores, Caius Caesar et Octavius Augustus promulgaverunt leges, ut Iudaei ubicumque essent, proprio ritu, propriis caeremoniis servirent. Et ideo quicumque in Christum credebat et circumcisus non erat, persecutionibus, tam gentilium quam Iudaeorum, fiebat obnoxius. Ut ergo non inquietarentur de fide Christi, et in quiete viverent, cogebant eos circumcidi, secundum quod habetur in Glossa. Or they did this to escape the persecution not only of the Jews but of the Gentile unbelievers. For the Roman Emperors, Cajus Caesar and Octavius Augustus, promulgated laws that wherever there were Jews, they might observe their own rite and ceremonies. Consequently, anyone who believed in Christ and was not circumcised was subject to persecution from the Gentiles and Jews. Therefore, in order that they might not be troubled because of their faith in Christ and that they might live in peace, they constrained them to be circumcised, as is mentioned in a Gloss. Sed quia possent dicere pseudo, quod non propter hoc circumcisionem inducunt, sed zelo legis solum, ideo hoc excludens probat quod dixit, cum dicit sic neque enim qui circumciduntur, et cetera. Constat enim quod si propter legis zelum aliquos ad legis observantias inducerent, mandarent etiam legem in aliis impleri. Sed neque illi qui circumciduntur, neque pseudo in aliis, scilicet in moralibus, quae potiora sunt in lege et in aliis observantiis custodiunt, Io. VII, 19: nemo ex vobis facit legem. Non ergo ex zelo legis circumcisionem inducunt. Rom. II, 25: circumcisio quidem prodest, si legem observes. Sed ideo volunt vos circumcidi, ut in carne vestra, id est in carnali vestra circumcisione, glorientur, apud Iudaeos, eo quod tam multos proselytos faciant. Matth. c. XXIII, 15: vae vobis, Scribae et Pharisaei, qui circuitis mare et aridam, ut faciatis unum proselytum, et cetera. But because the false brethren might say that they urged circumcision not for that reason, but solely because of their zeal for the Law, then excluding this, he proves his proposition thus, when he says: For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law. For it is obvious that if through zeal for the Law they urged certain ones to observe the Law, they should also command the Law to be fulfilled in other matters. But neither those who are circumcised nor the false brethren keep the Law in other matters, namely, in moral matters, which are more important in the Law, and in other observances: “None of you keeps the law” (Jn 7:19). Therefore it was not from zeal for the Law that they urged circumcision: “Circumcision profiteth, indeed, if you keep law” (Rom 2:25). But the reason why they will have you to be circumcised is that in your flesh, i.e., in your fleshly circumcision, they may glory among the Jews for making so many proselytes; “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves” (Mt 23:15).
CHAPTER 6
Lecture 4Postquam apostolus exposuit pravam seducentium intentionem, hic insinuat suam. Et primo ponit suam intentionem; secundo ostendit intentionis huius signum, ibi per quem mihi mundus, etc.; tertio rationem intentionis assignat, ibi in Christo Iesu, et cetera. After unmasking the sinister intention of the seducers, the Apostle here insinuates his own intention. First, he states his intention; Secondly, he gives a sign of this intention (v. 14); Thirdly, the reason for this intention (v. 15). Dicit ergo: intentio seducentium apparet, quia illi gloriantur in carne, sed ego aliam gloriam quaero, scilicet in cruce. Et hoc est quod dicit mihi absit gloriari, et cetera. Vide quod ubi mundi philosophus erubuit, ibi apostolus thesaurum reperit. Quod illi visum est stultitia, apostolo factum est sapientia et gloria, ut dicit Augustinus. Unusquisque enim in ea re gloriatur, per quam reputatur magnus. Sic qui reputat se magnum in divitiis, gloriatur in eis, et sic de aliis. Qui enim in nullo alio se magnum reputat, nisi in Christo, gloriatur in solo Christo. Talis autem erat apostolus. Unde dicebat supra II, v. 20: vivo ego, iam non ego, vivit vero in me Christus. He says therefore: The intention of the seducers is obvious, for they glory in the flesh; but I seek my glory elsewhere, namely, in the Cross. And this is what he says: But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Notice that where the worldly philosopher felt shame, there the Apostle found his treasure: what the former regarded as foolish became for the Apostle wisdom and glory, as Augustine says. For each person glories in that through which he is considered great. Thus a person who regards himself as great in his riches, glories in them; and so on for other things. For one who regards himself to be great in nothing but Christ glories in Christ alone. But the Apostle was such a one; hence he says: I live now not I; but Christ liveth in me (2:20). Et ideo non gloriatur nisi in Christo, praecipue autem in cruce Christi, et hoc quia in ipsa inveniuntur omnia, de quibus homines gloriari solent. Nam gloriantur aliqui de magnorum (puta regum aut principum) amicitia: et hoc maxime apostolus invenit in cruce, quia ibi ostenditur evidens signum divinae amicitiae, Rom. V, 8: commendat autem suam charitatem Deus in nobis, et cetera. Nihil enim sic charitatem suam ad nos ostendit, sicut mors Christi. Unde Gregorius: o inaestimabilis dilectio charitatis. Ut servum redimeres, filium tradidisti. Accordingly he glories in nothing but Christ and particularly in the Cross of Christ; and this because in it are found all the things about which men usually glory. For some glory in the friendship of the great, such as of kings and princes; and this friendship the Apostle found most of all in the Cross, because there an obvious sign of divine friendship is shown: “But God commendeth his charity towards us; because when as yet we were sinners according to the time, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8). For nothing shows His mercy to us as much as the death of Christ. Hence Gregory: “O inestimable love of charity! To redeem the servant, He delivered His Son.” Item gloriantur aliqui de scientia. Et hanc apostolus excellentiorem invenit in cruce. I Cor. II, 2: non enim aestimavi me aliquid scire inter vos, nisi Iesum Christum, et cetera. Nam in cruce est perfectio totius legis, et tota ars bene vivendi. Item gloriantur aliqui de potentia. Et hanc apostolus maximam habuit per crucem. I Cor. c. I, 18: verbum crucis pereuntibus stultitia est, his autem qui salvi fiunt, id est nobis, virtus Dei est. Item gloriantur aliqui de libertate adepta. Et hanc apostolus consecutus est per crucem. Rom. VI, 6: vetus noster homo crucifixus est, ut ultra non serviamus peccato. Again, some glory in knowledge; and of this the Apostle found a more excellent one in the cross: “For I judged not myself to know anything among you but Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2). For in the Cross is the perfection of all law and the whole art of living well. Again, some glory in power; and of this the Apostle found the highest form through the Cross: “The word of the cross to them, indeed, that perish is foolishness; but to them that are saved, that is, to us, it is the power of God” (1 Cor 1:18). Again, some glory in newly-found freedom; and this the Apostle obtained through the Cross: “Our old man is crucified with him that the body of sin may be destroyed, to the end that we may serve sin no longer” (Rom 6:6). Item aliqui gloriantur in assumptione ad aliquod magnum collegium. Sed per crucem Christi assumuntur ad collegium caeleste. Col. I, 20: pacificans per sanguinem crucis eius, sive quae in caelis, sive quae in terris sunt. Item quidam gloriantur in triumphali signo victoriae. Sed crux triumphale signum est victoriae Christi contra Daemones. Col. II, v. 15: expolians principatus et potestates, traduxit confidenter, palam triumphans illos, et cetera. Sap. XIV, 7: benedictum lignum per quod fit iustitia. Again, some glory in being accepted into some famous fellowship; but by the Cross of Christ, we are accepted into the heavenly ranks: “Making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things that are on earth and the things that are in heaven” (Col 1:20). Again, some glory in the triumphal banners of conquest; but the Cross is the triumphal ensign of Christ’s conquest over the demons: “And despoiling the principalities and powers, he hath exposed them confidently in open show, triumphing over them in himself” (Col 2:15); “Blessed is the wood by which justice cometh” (Wis 14:7). Signum autem suae intentionis subdit, dicens per quem mihi mundus, et cetera. Quia autem hoc quod dicit: mihi absit gloriari, nisi in cruce, etc., est propositio exceptiva, includens unam affirmativam et aliam negativam, ideo duplex signum ponit, probans utramque propositionem. Et primo quidem probat negativam, scilicet quod non gloriatur nisi in cruce; et hoc, cum dicit per quem mihi mundus crucifixus, et cetera. Illud enim in quo quis gloriatur, non est mortuum in corde eius, sed magis illud quod contemnit. Ps. XXX, 13: oblivioni datus sum tamquam mortuus a corde. Manifestum est autem, quod mundus, et omnia quae in mundo sunt, mortua erant in corde Pauli, Phil. III, 8: omnia arbitratus sum ut stercora, ut Christum lucrifaciam. Ergo non gloriatur in mundo, neque in his quae in mundo sunt, et hoc est quod dicit: vere in nullo alio glorior, nisi in cruce Christi, per quem, scilicet Christum crucifixum, mihi mundus crucifixus est, id est mortuus est in corde meo, ut nihil in eo cupiam. The sign of his own intention he shows, saying by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world. But since this which he says, But God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, is an exceptive proposition which includes one affirmative and one negative statement, he is really giving two signs that prove both statements. First, he proves the negative one, namely, that he does not glory save in the cross. He does this when he says, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world. For that in which a person glories is not dead in his heart, but rather that which he scorns: I am forgotten as one dead, from the heart” (Ps 30:13). But it is plain that the world and all things in it were dead in the heart of Paul: “I count all things as dung, that I may gain Christ” (Phil 3:8). Therefore he does not glory in the world or in the things that are in the world. And this is what he says: Verily, I glory in nothing save in the cross of Christ, by whom, namely, Christ crucified, the world is crucified to me, i.e., is dead in my heart, so that I covet nothing in it. Secundo probat affirmativam, scilicet quod in cruce Christi gloriatur, dicens se crucifixum mundo. Qui enim gloriatur in aliquo, illud in se praetendit, et manifestare desiderat; sed apostolus nihil in se praetendit, nec manifestare desiderat, nisi quod pertinet ad crucem Christi, et ideo tantum in ea gloriatur. Et hoc est quod dicit et ego mundo, scilicet sum crucifixus; quasi dicat: porto insignia crucis, et sum reputatus ut mortuus. Et ideo sicut mundus horret crucem Christi, ita horret me. Col. III, 3: mortui enim estis, et vita vestra abscondita est cum Christo in Deo, et cetera. Secondly, he proves the affirmative, namely, that he glories in the Cross of Christ, saying that he is crucified to the World. For a person who glories in something treasures it and desires to make it known; but the Apostle treasures nothing or desires to make nothing known except what pertains to the Cross of Christ; therefore, he glories in it alone. And this is what he says: and I to the world, namely, I am crucified. As if to say: I carry the marks of the Cross and I am considered as dead. Therefore, as the world abhors the Cross of Christ, so it abhors me: “For you are dead and your life is hid with Christ in God” (Col 3:3). Rationem autem quare non in alio gloriatur, ostendit subdens in Christo enim Iesu, et cetera. In illo siquidem maxime gloriatur, quod valet et adiuvat ad coniungendum Christo, hoc enim apostolus desiderat, scilicet cum Christo esse. Et quia non valet ad hoc ritus Iudaicus, nec gentilium observantia, sed crux Christi solum, ideo solum in ea gloriatur. Et hoc est quod dicit in Christo neque circumcisio aliquid valet, id est ritus Iudaicus, neque praeputium, id est gentilitatis observantia, id est ad iustificandum et iungendum Christo, sed ad hoc valet nova creatura. Quod quidem patet ex his quae dicta sunt supra v. 6 (quasi eisdem verbis): in Christo enim Iesu neque circumcisio aliquid valet, neque praeputium, sed fides quae per dilectionem operatur. Fides ergo charitate formata est nova creatura. Creati namque et producti sumus in esse naturae per Adam; sed illa quidem creatura vetusta iam erat, et inveterata, et ideo dominus producens nos, et constituens in esse gratiae, fecit quamdam novam creaturam. Iac. I, 18: ut simus initium aliquod creaturae eius. Et dicitur nova, quia per eam renovamur in vitam novam; et per spiritum sanctum, Ps. CIII, 30: emitte spiritum tuum, et creabuntur, et renovabis faciem terrae. Et per crucem Christi, II Cor. V, 17: si qua est in Christo nova creatura, et cetera. Sic ergo per novam creaturam, scilicet per fidem Christi et charitatem Dei, quae diffusa est in cordibus nostris, renovamur, et Christo coniungimur. The reason why he glories in nothing else is given when he says, For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. Indeed, he glories mainly in that which avails and helps in joining him to Christ; for it is this the Apostle desires, namely, to be with Christ. And because the Jewish rite and the observances of the Gentiles are of no avail in this regard, but only the Cross of Christ, therefore he glories in it alone. And this is what he says: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision, i.e., the Jewish rite, nor uncircumcision, i.e., Gentile observances, availeth any thing, i.e., to justify us and join us to Christ, but a new creature availeth for us. This, indeed, is obvious from what was said above, in almost the same words: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision; but faith that worketh by charity (5:6). Therefore, faith informed by charity is the new creature. For we have been created and made to exist in our nature through Adam, but that creature is already old. Therefore, the Lord in producing us and establishing us in the existence of grace has made a new creature: “That we might be some beginning of his creature” (Jam 1:18). And it is called “new,” because by it we are reborn into a new life by the Holy Spirit”—Thou shalt send forth thy spirit and they shall be created: and thou shalt renew the face I the earth” (Ps 103:30)—and by the Cross of Christ: “If then any be in Christ a new creature, the old things are passed away, behold all things are made new” (2 Cor 5:17). In this way, then, by a new creature, i.e., by the faith of Christ and the charity of God which has been poured out in our hearts, we are made new and are joined to Christ.
CHAPTER 6
Lecture 5Aperta intentione seducentium, et insinuata sua, hic consequenter apostolus monet eos, et primo ad sui imitationem; secundo ut desistant ab eius molestatione, ibi de caetero nemo, etc.; tertio implorat eis gratiae auxilium ad praedictorum impletionem. Having disclosed the intention of the seducers and intimated his own, the Apostle counsels them: First, to imitate him; Secondly, to desist from being troublesome to him (v. 17); Thirdly, he begs grace for them to carry out the aforesaid (v. 18). Dicit ergo primo: intentio mea est, ut nonnisi in cruce Christi glorier, quod et vos debetis facere, quia quicumque hanc regulam, quam ego scilicet teneo, secuti fuerint, scilicet hanc rectitudinem gloriandi. II Cor. X, 13: non in immensum gloriamur, sed secundum mensuram regulae, et cetera. Pax super illos, scilicet gloriantes quia nonnisi in Christo gloriantur. Pax, inquam, qua quietentur et perficiantur in bono. Pax enim est tranquillitas mentis. Cant. VIII, 10: ex quo facta sum coram illo quasi pacem reperiens. Col. III, 15: pax Christi exultet in cordibus vestris, in qua, et cetera. Et misericordia, per quam liberentur a peccatis. Thren. III, 22: misericordiae domini, quia non sumus consumpti. Sap. IV, 15: gratia Dei et misericordia in sanctos eius, et respectus in electos illius, qui scilicet sunt Israel. Rom. II, 28: non enim qui in manifesto Iudaeus est. Ille ergo est Israel Dei, qui est spiritualiter Israel coram Deo. Io. I, 47: ecce vere Israelita, in quo dolus non est. Rom. c. IX, 6: non enim omnes qui sunt ex Israel, hi sunt Israelitae, et cetera. Sed qui filii sunt promissionis existimantur in semine. Unde et ipsi gentiles facti sunt Israel Dei per mentis rectitudinem. Israel rectissimus interpretatur. Gen. XXXII: Israel erit nomen tuum, et cetera. First, therefore, he says: My intention is to glory only in the Cross of Christ. And you, too, should do this, because whosoever shall follow this rule which I follow, namely, this proper way of glorying—“But we will not glory beyond our measure and according to the measure of the rule which God hath measured to us” (2 Cor 10: 13) — peace on them, namely, on those who glory, because they glory in Christ alone: peace, I say, by which they are set at rest and made perfect in good. (For peace is tranquillity of mind: “Since I am become in his presence as one finding peace” (Cant 8: 10); and in Colossians (3:15): “And let the peace of Christ rejoice in your hearts, wherein also you are called in one body”): and mercy, by which we are set free of our sins: “The mercies of the Lord that we are not consumed” (Lam 3:22); “The grace of God and his mercy is with his saints, and he hath respect to his chosen,” namely, who are His Israel (Wis 4:15): “For it is not he is a Jew who is so outwardly” (Rom 2:28). He, therefore, is the Israel of God who is spiritually an Israel before God: “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile” (Jn 1:47); “For all are not Israelites that are of Israel: neither are all they that are the seed of Abraham, children; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called; that is to say, not they that are the children of the flesh are the children of God but they that are the children of the promise, are ac counted for the seed” (Rom 9:6). Hence even the Gentiles have become the Israel of God by uprightness of mind; for Israel means “most upright”: “Israel will be your name” (Gen 32:28). Consequenter cum dicit de caetero nemo, etc., monet, ut desistant a sui molestatione. Et primo ponit admonitionem; secundo rationem eius assignat, ibi: ego enim stigmata. Then when he says, From henceforth let no man be troublesome to me, he admonishes them to bother him no more. First, he gives the admonition; Secondly, he gives a reason for it (v. 17). Dicit ergo de caetero, etc.; quod potest dupliciter exponi. Uno modo, ut de caetero accipiatur in vi unius dictionis, ut sit sensus de caetero, id est amodo. Alio modo ut accipiatur in vi duarum dictionum, ut sit sensus: de residuo nemo, etc.; quasi dicat: ego gloriabor tantum in cruce, de omnibus aliis nemo mihi molestus sit, quia ego de nullo curo. Sed prima melior est. He says therefore: From henceforth let no man be troublesome to me. This can be explained in two ways. In one way, from henceforth can be taken as one word [ amodo ] that the sense is: From henceforth, i.e., from now on. In another way it might be taken as two words [de cetero], so that the sense is: Let no man be troublesome to me about anything else. As if to say: I glory in the Cross alone; with respect to anything else, let no man bother me, because I care about nothing else. But the first is better. Quod autem dicit nemo mihi molestus sit, potest referri ad pseudo, qui molesti erant apostolo, movendo quaestiones, et murmurando de observantiis legalibus. Ps. XXXIV, 13: ego autem, dum mihi molesti essent, induebar Cilicio, et cetera. Vel potest referri ad auditores non recte sentientes, ut dicatur nemo mihi molestus sit, id est nullus auditor exhibeat se talem, ut rursum in eo necessitatem habeam laborandi, scilicet aliter sentiendo, quam doceam. His saying, let no man be troublesome to me, can be referred to the false brethren, who were troubling the Apostle by raising difficulties and murmuring about the legal observances: “But as for me, when they were troublesome, I was clothed with haircloth” (Ps 34:13). Or it can be referred to hearers who do not grasp his meaning. As if to say: let no one be troublesome to me, i.e., let no one who hears me show himself to be such as to make it necessary for me to labor with him again, namely, by understanding in a way other than I have taught. Rationem autem horum assignat, dicens ego enim stigmata, et cetera. Stigmata enim proprie sunt quaedam notae impressae alicui cum ferro candenti sicut cum servus ab aliquo domino signatur in facie, ut nullus eum sibi vindicet, sed quiete dimittat domino suo, cuius stigmata portat. Hoc etiam modo apostolus dicit se stigmata domini portare, quasi insignitus sit ut servus Christi. Et hoc quia portabat insignia passionis Christi, patiens pro eo multas tribulationes in corpore suo, secundum illud I Petr. II, 21: Christus passus est pro nobis, vobis relinquens exemplum, et cetera. II Cor. IV, v. 10: semper mortificationem domini Iesu in corpore nostro circumferentes, et cetera. The reason for this admonition he assigns when he says, for I bear the marks [stigmata] of the Lord Jesus in my body. For stigmata are, strictly speaking, certain marks branded on one with a hot iron; as when a slave is marked on the face by his master, so that no one else will claim him, but quietly let him remain with the master whose marks he bears. And this is the way the Apostle says he bears the marks of the Lord, branded, as it were, as a slave of Christ; and this, because he bore the marks of Christ’s passion, suffering many tribulations in his body for Him, according to the saying of 1 Peter (2:21): “Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example, that you should follow his steps”; “Always bearing about in our body the mortification of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in our mortal flesh” (2 Cor 4: 10). Et secundum hoc dupliciter potest continuari ad praemissa. Uno modo, ut dictum est nemo mihi molestus sit, nam ego porto insignia domini nostri Iesu Christi in corpore meo, et sic nullus super me ius habet nisi Christus. Alio modo nemo mihi molestus sit, quia ego habeo multos alios conflictus et stigmata, quae in persecutionibus quas patior me molestant, et grave est addere afflictionem afflicto. Unde conqueritur Iob XVI, 15: concidit me vulnere super vulnus. Sed prima melior est. According to this there are two ways of connecting this with the preceding. In one way, as has been said: let no man be troublesome to me, for I bear the marks of Our Lord Jesus Christ in my body; consequently, no one has any right over me except Christ. In another way: let no man be troublesome to me, because I have many other conflicts and marks that trouble me in the persecutions I suffer; and it is cruel to add affliction to one already afflicted. Hence the complaint of Job (16:15): “He hath torn me with wound upon wound.” Nevertheless, the first is better. Implorat autem auxilium gratiae Dei, dicens gratia domini nostri Iesu Christi, etc., per quam praedicta implere possitis, sit cum spiritu vestro, id est cum ratione vestra, ut veritatem intelligatis. Vel cum spiritu vestro, quo scilicet debetis legem observare, et non carnaliter. Rom. c. VIII, 15: non enim accepistis, et cetera. Then he implores the help of God’s grace, saying: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which you may carry out the foregoing, be with your spirit, i.e., with your understanding, so that you may understand the truth. Or, with your spirit, with which you should observe the Law, rather than in a carnal manner: “For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons” (Rom 8:15).