The apostle’s preaching was approved of by the other apostles. The Gentiles were not to be constrained to the observance of the law.
He telleth furth the storie begonne in the last chapter, and hovv he reprehended Peter, 15 and then specially vrgeth the ensample of the Christian Ievves, vvho sought vnto Christ for iustification, and that by vvarrant also of their Lavv it self, as also because othervvise Christs death had been needles.
1Then, after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me.Quindi quattordici anni dopo, andai di nuovo a Gerusalemme con Barnaba, preso meco anche Tito.THEN after fourtene yeres I vvent vp againe to Hierusalem vvith Barnabas, taking Titus also vvith me.Deinde post annos quatuordecim, iterum ascendi Jerosolymam cum Barnaba, assumpto et Tito. 2And I went up according to revelation and communicated to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles: but apart to them who seemed to be some thing: lest perhaps I should run or had run in vain.E vi andai per rivelazione: e conferii con quegli il vangelo, che io predico tra le nazioni, e distintamente con quegli, che erano in grande autorità: affinchè io non corressi, od avessi corso senza frutto.And I vvent vp according to reuelation: and cōferred with them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but apart with thē that seemed to be something, lest perhaps in vaine I should runne or had runne.Ascendi autem secundum revelationem: et contuli cum illis Evangelium, quod prædico in gentibus, seorsum autem iis qui videbantur aliquid esse: ne forte in vacuum currerem, aut cucurrissem. 3But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised.Ma nemmen Tito, che era meco, essendo gentile, fu astretto a circoncidersi;But neither Titus which vvas with me, vvhereas he vvas a Gentil, vvas compelled to be circumcised:Sed neque Titus, qui mecum erat, cum esset gentilis, compulsus est circumcidi: 4But because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privately to spy our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into servitude.Cioè a dire per riguardo di que' falsi fratelli, i quali si erano furtivamente intrusi ad esplorare la nostra libertà, che abbiamo di Cristo Gesù, per ridurci in servitù.but because of the false brethren craftely brought in, vvhich craftely came in to espie our libertie that vve haue in Christ IESVS, that they might bring vs into seruitude.sed propter subintroductos falsos fratres, qui subintroierunt explorare libertatem nostram, quam habemus in Christo Jesu, ut nos in servitutem redigerent. 5To whom we yielded not by subjection: no, not for an hour: that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.A' quali non cedemmo neppure per un momento con assoggettarci, affinchè rimanesse presso di voi la verità del vangelo:To vvhom vve yelded not subiection no not for an houre, that the truth of the Gospel may remaine vvith you.Quibus neque ad horam cessimus subjectione, ut veritas Evangelii permaneat apud vos:
6But of them who seemed to be some thing, (what they were some time it is nothing to me, God accepteth not the person of man): for to me they that seemed to be some thing added nothing.Ma nissuna differenza vi è da me a quegli, che avevano grande autorità (checché siano eglino stati: Iddio non bada all'esteriore dell'uomo), imperocché nulla a me contribuiron del loro quegli, che avevano grande autorità.But of them that seemed to be something, (vvhat they vvere sometime, it is nothing to me. God accepteth not the person of man) for to me, they that seemed to be something, added nothing.ab iis autem, qui videbantur esse aliquid (quales aliquando fuerint, nihil mea interest: Deus personam hominis non accipit): mihi enim qui videbantur esse aliquid, nihil contulerunt. 7But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision.Ma per lo contrario avendo veduto, come a me era stato affidato il vangelo per i non circoncisi, come a Pietro per li circoncisi;But contrarievvise vvhen they had seen, that to me vvas committed the Gospel of the prepuce, as to Peter of the circumcision (Sed e contra cum vidissent quod creditum est mihi Evangelium præputii, sicut et Petro circumcisionis 8(For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision wrought in me also among the Gentiles.)(Imperocché chi diè potere a Pietro per l'apostolato de' circoncisi, lo ha dato anche a me trai gentili.)for he that vvrought in Peter to the Apostleship of the circumcision, vvrought in me also among the Gentils)(qui enim operatus est Petro in apostolatum circumcisionis, operatus est et mihi inter gentes): 9And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:E avendo riconosciuto la grazia conceduta a me, Giacomo, e Cefa, Giovanni, che erano riputati le colonne, porsero le destre di confederazione a me, a Barnaba: onde noi trai gentili, ed eglino trai circoncisi:and vvhen they had knovven the grace that vvas giuen me, Iames and Cephas and Iohn, vvhich seemed to be pillers, gaue to me and Barnabas the right handes of societie: that vve vnto the Gentiles, & they vnto the circumcision:et cum cognovissent gratiam, quæ data est mihi, Jacobus, et Cephas, et Joannes, qui videbantur columnæ esse, dextras dederunt mihi, et Barnabæ societatis: ut nos in gentes, ipsi autem in circumcisionem:
10Only that we should be mindful of the poor: which same thing also I was careful to do.Solamente che ci ricordassimo de' poveri: la qual cosa eziandio fui sollecito ad eseguire.only that vve should be mindeful of the poore: the vvhich same thing also I vvas careful to doe.tantum ut pauperum memores essemus, quod etiam sollicitus fui hoc ipsum facere. 11But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.Essendo poi venuto Pietro ad Antiochia, gli resistei in faccia, perché meritava riprensione.And vvhen Cephas vvas come to Antioche, I resisted him in face, because he vvas reprehensible.Cum autem venisset Cephas Antiochiam, in faciem ei restiti, quia reprehensibilis erat. 12For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision.Conciossiachè prima che arrivassero alcuni da Giacomo, egli mangiava, co' gentili: venuti poi quegli, si ritirava, e tenevasi a parte per timore di que' circoncisi.For before that certaine came from Iames, he did eate vvith the Gentiles: but vvhen they vvere come, he vvithdrevv and separated him self, fearing them that vvere of the circumcision.Prius enim quam venirent quidam a Jacobo, cum gentibus edebat: cum autem venissent, subtrahebat, et segregabat se, timens eos qui ex circumcisione erant. 13And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented: so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation.E alla simulazione di lui si accordarono gli altri Giudei, di modo che anche Barnaba fu indotto da loro alla stessa simulazione.And to his simulation cōsented the rest of the Ievves, so that Barnabas also vvas ledde of them into that simulation.Et simulationi ejus consenserunt ceteri Judæi, ita ut et Barnabas duceretur ab eis in illam simulationem. 14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?Ma avendo io veduto, come noti andavano con retto piede secondo la, verità del vangelo, dissi a Cefa in presenza di tutti: se tu, che se' Giudeo, vivi da Gentile, e non da Giudeo, come costringi i Gentili a giudaizzare?But vvhen I savv that they vvalked not rightly to the veritie of the Gospel, I said to Cephas before them al: If thou being a Ievve, liuest Gentile-like & not Iudaically: hovv doest thou compel the Gentils to Iudaize.Sed cum vidissem quod non recte ambularent ad veritatem Evangelii, dixi Cephæ coram omnibus: Si tu, cum Judæus sis, gentiliter vivis, et non judaice: quomodo gentes cogis judaizare ?
15We by nature are Jews: and not of the Gentiles, sinners.Noi per natura Giudei, e non Gentili peccatori,Vve are by nature Ievves, and not of the Gentils, sinners.Nos natura Judæi, et non ex gentibus peccatores. 16But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.Sapendo, come non è giustificato l'uomo per le opere della legge, ma per la fede di Gesù Cristo, crediamo anche noi in Gesù Cristo per essere giustificati per la fede di Cristo, e non per le opere della legge: dappoiché nissun uomo sarà, giustificato per lo opere della legge.But knovving that man is not iustified by the vvorkes of the Lavv, but by the faith of IESVS Christ: we also beleeue in Christ IESVS, that we may be iustified by the faith of Christ, and not by the vvorkes of the Lavv: for the vvhich cause, by the workes of the Law no flesh shal be iustified.Scientes autem quod non justificatur homo ex operibus legis, nisi per fidem Jesu Christi: et nos in Christo Jesu credimus, ut justificemur ex fide Christi, et non ex operibus legis: propter quod ex operibus legis non justificabitur omnis caro. 17But if, while we seek to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ then the minister of sin? God forbid!Che se cercando noi di esser giustificati in Cristo, siamo trovati anche noi peccatori, è egli forse Cristo ministro del peccato? Mai no.But if seeking to be iustified in Christ, our selues also be found sinners: is Christ then a minister of sinne? God forbid.Quod si quærentes justificari in Christo, inventi sumus et ipsi peccatores, numquid Christus peccati minister est ? Absit. 18For if I build up again the things which I have destroyed, I make myself a prevaricator.Imperocché se quello, che distrussi, di bel nuovo l'edifico, mi costituisco prevaricatore.For if I build the same things againe vvhich I haue destroied, I make my self a preuaricatour.Si enim quæ destruxi, iterum hæc ædifico: prævaricatorem me constituo. 19For I, through the law, am dead to the law, that I may live to God; with Christ I am nailed to the cross.Ma io per la legge sono morto alla legge per vivere a Dio: con Cristo sono sconfitto in croce.For I by the Lavv, am dead to the Law, that I may liue to God: vvith Christ I am nailed to the crosse.Ego enim per legem, legi mortuus sum, ut Deo vivam: Christo confixus sum cruci.
20And I live, now not I: but Christ liveth in me. And that I live now in the flesh: I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and delivered himself for me.E vivo non già io, ma vive in me Cristo, e la vita, ond'io vivo adesso nella carne la vivo nella fede del figliuolo di Dio, il quale mi amò, e diede se stesso per me.And I liue, novv not I: but Christ liueth in me. And that that I liue novv in the flesh, I liue in the faith of the sonne of God, who loued me, & deliuered him self for me.Vivo autem, jam non ego: vivit vero in me Christus. Quod autem nunc vivo in carne: in fide vivo Filii Dei, qui dilexit me, et tradidit semetipsum pro me. 21I cast not away the grace of God. For if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain.Non disprezzo la grazia di Dio. Imperocché se la giustizia è dalla legge, dunque invano Cristo morì.I cast not avvay the grace of God. For if iustice be by the Lavv, then Christ died in vaine.Non abjicio gratiam Dei. Si enim per legem justitia, ergo gratis Christus mortuus est.
2:1
about the year A.D. 51.
Conta ep. fund. ch. V
Then fourteen years after. That is, after my former going to Jerusalem, which was seventeen years after my conversion, an. 51[the year A.D. 51]. See Tillemont. (Witham) The cause of St. Paul's second journey to Jerusalem was as follows. Some brethren coming from Judea to Antioch, there maintained the necessity of circumcision and the other Mosaic rites, asserting that without them salvation could not be obtained. St. Paul, upon his return to Antioch, strongly defended, in conjunction with Barnabas, the liberty of the gospel. As the contest grew warm, it was resolved to depute Paul and Barnabas to consult the other apostles and ancients of Jerusalem. By the approbation of the living and speaking tribunal, which all are commanded to hear, the Scriptures are not made true, altered or amended; they merely are declared to be the infallible word of God, a point only to be learned by authority; hence that memorable saying of St. Augustine: "I would not believe the gospel unless the authority of the Church moved me." (Conta ep. fund. ch. V.)
2:2
According to revelation, or an inspiration from the Spirit of God, and conferred with them, as an equal, says St. Jerome.
Witham
But apart to them, who seemed to be something considerable. That is, with the other apostles, lest I should run in vain, not for fear of false doctrine, says St. Chrysostom, but that others might be convinced that I preached not any thing disapproved by the apostles, which would prejudice the progress of the gospel. (Witham)
The particle but, which begins this verse, is quite useless: the Latin Vulgate and the Greek copies have it indeed, but in many copies it is not found; it is omitted also by St. Jerome and Theodoret; and this verse is united in sense with the preceding. Titus was not compelled to be circumcised on account of the false brethren, etc.
2:3
Witham
Neither Titus....circumcised, who had been a Gentile. A convincing proof, says St. Chrysostom, that even according to the other apostles, the Gentiles converted, were not subject to the Jewish laws. (Witham)
2:5
Witham
To whom we yielded not. St. Jerome takes notice that in some Latin copies read, to whom we yielded; but that was not the true reading by the Greek and Syriac. (Witham)
2:7
Witham
As to Peter was that of the circumcision. Calvin pretends to prove by this, that St. Peter and his successors are not head of the whole Church, because St. Peter was only the apostle of the Jews. But St. Paul speaks not here of the power and jurisdiction, but of the manner that St. Peter and he were to be employed. It was judged proper that St. Peter should preach chiefly to the Jews, who had been the elect people of God, and that St. Paul should be sent to the Gentiles; yet both of them preached both to Jews and Gentiles: and St. Peter, by receiving Cornelius, first opened the gate of salvation to the Gentiles, as he says of himself, (Acts 15:7.) that God made choice of him, that the Gentiles by his mouth should hear the gospel, and believe. That St. Peter was head of the Church, see the notes on Matthew xvi. and John xxi. (Witham)
2:9
Witham
James, and Cephas, and John. No proof of any greater authority can be drawn from the placing or numbering of James first, which perhaps St. Paul might do, because of the great respect he knew the Jewish converts had for St. James, bishop of Jerusalem, where the ceremonies of the law of Moses were still observed. Several Greek copies have Peter, James, and John. So we also read in St. Jerome's Commentary, p. 240, and St. Chrysostom in his Exposition, p. 729, has Cephas, John, and James. (Witham)
2:11
But when Cephas, etc.[Ver. 11. That Peter and Cephas were the same, see Tertullian, lib. de praescrip. Galatians 23, p. 210. Ed. Rig.; Origen in Joan. Ed. Graecè et Latinè, p. 381.; St. Cyprian, Epist. 71. ad Quintum, p. 120.; St. Jerome on this Ep. to the Galatians, as also St. Chrysostom; St. Augustine. See his epistles on this passage to St. Jerome.; St. Gregory, lib. 2. in Ezech. tom. 1, p. 1368.; Gelasius apud Labb. T. 4. Conc. p. 1217.; Pelagius, the 2d apud Labb. t. 5. p. 622.; St. Cyril of Alexandria, hom. ix. cont. Julianum, t. 6, p. 325.; Theodoret in 2. ad Gal. IV. 3. p. 268.; St. Anselm in 2 ad Gal. p. 236.; St. Thomas Aquinas, lib. 2. q. 103. a. 4. ad 2dum.
Witham
St. Jerome's words: Sunt qui Cepham non putent Apostolum Petrum, sed alium de 70 Discipulis....quibus primum respondendum, alterius nescio cujus Cephae nescire nos nomen, nisi ejus, qui et in Evangelio, et in aliis Pauli Epistolis, et in hac quoque ipsa, modo Cephas, modo Petrus scribitur....deinde totum argumentum Epistolae....huic intelligentiae repugnare, etc.] In most Greek copies, we read Petrus, both here and ver. 13. Nor are there any sufficient, nor even probable grounds to judge, that Cephas here mentioned was different from Peter, the prince of the apostles, as one or two later authors would make us believe. Among those who fancied Cephas different from Peter, not one can be named in the first ages[centuries], except Clemens of Alexandria, whose works were rejected as apocryphal by Pope Gelasius. The next author is Dorotheus of Tyre, in his Catalogue of the seventy-two disciples, in the fourth or fifth age[century], and after him the like, or same catalogue, in the seventh age[century], in the Chronicle, called of Alexandria, neither of which are of any authority with the learned, so many evident faults and falsehoods being found in both. St. Jerome indeed on this place says, there were some (though he does not think fit to name them) who were of that opinion; but at the same time St. Jerome ridicules and rejects it as groundless. Now as to authors that make Cephas the same with St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, we have what may be called the unexceptionable and unanimous consent of the ancient fathers and doctors of the Catholic Church, as of Tertullian, who calls this management of St. Peter, a fault of conversation, not of preaching or doctrine. Of St. Cyprian, of Origen, of the great doctors, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Chrysostom, St. Gregory the Great, of St. Cyril of Alexandria, of Theodoret, Pope Gelasius, Pelagius the second, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas. In later ages, of Bellarmine, Baronius, Binius, Spondan, of Salmeron, Estius, Gagneius, Tirinus, Menochius, Alex Natalis, and a great many more: so that Cornelius a Lapide on this place says, that the Church neither knows, nor celebrates any other Cephas but St. Peter. Tertullian and most interpreters take notice, that St. Peter's fault was only a lesser or venial sin in his conduct and conversation. Did not St. Paul on several occasions do the like, as what is here laid to St. Peter's charge? that is, practise the Jewish ceremonies: did not he circumcise Timothy after this, an. 52[A.D. 52]? did he not shave his head in Cenchrea, an. 54? did he not by the advice of St. James (an. 58.) purify himself with the Jews in the temple, not to offend them? St. Jerome, and also St. Chrysostom,[Ver. 11. St. Chrysostom by a contrivance, eikonomon. p. 730, etc.] give another exposition of this passage. They looked upon all this to have been done by a contrivance and a collusion betwixt these two apostles, who had agreed beforehand that St. Peter should let himself be reprehended by St. Paul, (for this they take to be signified by the Greek text) and not that St. Peter was reprehensible;[Ver. 11. Kategnosmenos may signfiy reprehensus, as well as reprehensibilis; and he says it is to be referred to others, and not to St. Paul: all upo ton allon.] so that the Jews seeing St. Peter publicly blamed, and not justifying himself, might for the future eat with the Gentiles. But St. Augustine vigorously opposed this exposition of St. Jerome, as less consistent with a Christian and apostolical sincerity, and with the text in this chapter, where it is called a dissimulation, and that Cephas or Peter walked not uprightly to the truth of the gospel. After a long dispute betwixt these two doctors, St. Jerome seems to have retracted his opinion, and the opinion of St. Augustine is commonly followed, that St. Peter was guilty of a venial fault of imprudence. In the mean time, no Catholic denies but that the head of the Church may be guilty even of great sins. What we have to admire, is the humility of St. Peter on this occasion, as St. Cyprian observes,[Ver. 11. St. Cyprian, Ep. ad Quintum, p. 120. Petrus....non arroganter assumpsit, ut diceret se primatum tenere, etc.] who took the reprehension so mildly, without alleging the primacy, which our Lord had given him. Baronius held that St. Peter did not sin at all, which may be true, if we look upon his intention only, which was to give no offence to the Jewish converts; but if we examine the fact, he can scarce be excused from a venial indiscretion. (Witham)
Challoner
I withstood, etc. The fault that is here noted in the conduct of St. Peter, was only a certain imprudence, in withdrawing himself from the table of the Gentiles, for fear of giving offence to the Jewish converts: but this in such circumstances, when his so doing might be of ill consequence to the Gentiles, who might be induced thereby to think themselves obliged to conform to the Jewish way of living, to the prejudice of their Christian liberty. Neither was St. Paul's reprehending him any argument against his supremacy; for is such cases an inferior may, and sometimes ought, with respect, to admonish his superior. (Challoner)
2:16
etc. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law. St. Paul, to the end of the chapter, seems to continue his discourse to St. Peter, but chiefly to the Jewish Galatians, to shew that both the Gentiles, whom the Jews called and looked upon as sinners, and also the Jews, when converted, could only hope to be justified and saved by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law.
But if while we seek to be justified in Christ, by faith in him, and by his grace, we ourselves also are found sinners, as the false doctors teach you, and not to be justified but by the ceremonies and works of the law of Moses, this blasphemous consequence must follow, that Christ is the minister and author of sin, by making us believe that by faith in him, and complying with his doctrine, we may be justified and saved. For thus we must be considered transgressors, unless we renew and build again what Christ and we have destroyed.
For by the law I am dead to the law. That is, says St. Jerome, by the evangelical law of Christ I am dead to the ancient law and its ceremonies. Others expound it, that by the law and its types and figures, and by the predictions contained in the law, I know the Mosaical law hath now ceased, in which sense he might say, by the law I am dead to the law.
Witham
If justice. That is, if justification and salvation be to be had, or could have been had by the works of the law; therefore Christ died in vain, and it was not necessary that he should become our Redeemer. (Witham)
2:19
He here expresses the change which had been wrought in him. The law to which he had been attached, had passed away from him. Now he was so united to Christ and his cross, that he says: Not I, but Christ liveth in me. The strong expressions made use of by St. Paul with regard to the Jewish law in this chapter, may appear strange, and very capable of a wrong interpretation. But we must ever bear in mind that St. Paul speaks exclusively of the ceremonial part of the law, and not of the moral, contained in the decalogue: of this latter he says in his epistle to the Romans 2:13. the doers of the law shall be justified. But to effect this, was and is necessary the grace which Jesus Christ has merited and obtained for all, grace which God has shed on all, more or less, from the commencement of the world.
2:7
The gospel of the uncircumcision.... The preaching of the gospel to the uncircumcised, that is, to the Gentiles. St. Paul was called in an extraordinary manner to be the apostle of the Gentiles; St. Peter, besides his general commission over the whole flock, (John 21. 15, etc.,) had a peculiar charge of the people of the circumcision, that is, of the Jews.
2:11
I withstood, etc.... The fault that is here noted in the conduct of St. Peter, was only a certain imprudence, in withdrawing himself from the table of the Gentiles, for fear of giving offence to the Jewish converts; but this, in such circumstances, when his so doing might be of ill consequence to the Gentiles, who might be induced thereby to think themselves obliged to conform to the Jewish way of living, to the prejudice of their Christian liberty. Neither was St. Paul’s reprehending him any argument against his supremacy; for in such cases an inferior may, and sometimes ought, with respect, to admonish his superior.
2:1
•. Conferred vvith them.] S. Paul conferreth vvith S. Peter and the rest, for trial of his doctrine. Though S. Paul vvere taught his Gospel of God and not of man, and had an extraordinarie calling by Christ him self, yet by reuelation he vvas sent to Hierusalem to conferre the said Gospel which he preached, vvith his elders the ordinarie Apostles and Rulers of the Church, to put both his vocation and doctrine to their trial and approbation, and to ioyne in office, teaching, and societie or communion vvith them. For there is no extraordinarie or miraculous vocation, that can seuer or separate the person so called, in doctrine or fellovvship of Christian life and religion, from the ordinarie knowen societie of Gods people and Priestes. The heretikes submit their doctrine to no trial of Bishops or Coū cel. Therfore vvhosoeuer he be (vpon vvhat pretence so euer) that vvil not haue his calling and doctrine tried by the ordinarie Gouerners of Gods Church, or disdaineth to go vp to the principal place of our religion, to conferre vvith Peter and other pillers of the Church, it is euident that he is a false teacher, a Schismatike, and an Heretike. By vvhich rule you may trie al your nevv teachers of Luthers or Caluins schoole: vvho neuer did nor euer durst put their preaching to such conference or trial of holy Councel or Bishops, as they ought to do, and vvould do, if it vvere of God, as S. Paules vvas.
2:2
2. In vaine.] The approbation of S. Paules doctrine by Peter & the rest, vvas very requisite. Though S. Paul doubted not of the truth of the Gospel vvhich he preached, knovving it to be of the holy Ghost: yet because other men could not, nor vvould not acknovvledge so much, til it vvere allovved by such as vvere vvithout al exception knovven to be Apostles & to haue the spirit of truth, to discerne vvhether the vocation, spirit, & Gospel of Paul vvere of God, he knevv he should othervvise vvithout conferēce vvith them, haue lost his labour, both for the time past and to come. He had not had (saith S. Hierom) securitie of preaching the Gospel, if it had not been approued by Peters sentence and the rest that vvere vvith him. Hiero. ep. 29. c. 2. See Tertul. li. 4 Cont. Marc. nu. 3. Therfore by reuelation he vvent to conferre with the Apostles at Hierusalem, that by them hauing his Apostleship and Gospel liked and approued, he might preach vvith more fruite. Vvherein vve see, this holy Apostle did not as the seditious proud Heretikes do novv a daies, vvhich refusing al mans attestation or approbation, No absurditie that the Scriptures be approued by the Churches testimonie. vvil be tried by Scriptures onely. As also vve may learne that it is not such absurditie as the Aduersaries vvould make it, to haue the Scriptures approued by the Churches testimonie. Seing the Gospel vvhich S. Paul preached (being of as much certaintie and of the same Holy Ghost that the Scriptures be) vvas to be put in conference and examination of the Apostles, vvithout al derogation to the truth, dignitie, or certaintie of the same. And the cauilling of Heretikes, that we make subiect Gods Oracles to mans censure, and the Scriptures to haue no more force then the Church is content to graunt vnto them, The Church maketh not Canonical Scripture, but declareth that it is so. is vaine and false. I or, to beare vvitnes or to giue euidence or attestation that the preaching or vvriting of such, is true and of the Holy Ghost, is not to make it true: no more then the Goldsmith or touch-stone that trie and discerne vvhich is true gold, make it good gold, but they giue euidence to man that so it is. And therfore that disputation also, vvhether the Scripture or the Church be of greater authoritie, is superfluous: either giuing testimonie to the other, and both assured by the Holy Ghost from al error: The Scripture & Church cō pared together for antiquitie, authoritie, &c. the Church yet being before the Scriptures, the spouse of Christ, and proper dwelling, temple, or subiect of God and his graces: for the vvhich Church the Scriptures vvere, and not the Church for the Scriptures. In vvhich Church there is iudicial authoritie by office and iurisdiction to determine of doubtful questions touching the sense of the Scriptures and other controuersies in religion, & to punish disobedient persons. Of which iudicial power the Scriptures be not capable, as neither the truthes & determinations of the same can be so euident to men', nor so agreable and fit for euery particular resolution, as diuersitie of times and persons requireth. Certaine is the truth, and great is the authoritie of both: but in such diuers kindes, as they can not be vvell compared together. The controuersie is much like as if a man touching the ruling a case in lavv or giuing sentence in a matter of question, should aske, vvhether the iudge, or the euidēce of the parties, be of more authoritie or credit, vvhich vvere as friuolous a dispute, as it were a disordered part for any man to say, he vvould be tried by no other iudge but by his owne vvritings or euidences. Vvith such tristers and seditious persons haue vve to do now a daies in diuinitie, as vvere intolerable in any prophane science or facultie in the vvorld.
2:6
6. Added nothing.] The Gospel and preaching of S. Paul vvas wholy of God, The Scriptures alvvaies true in them selues, are so knovven to be by the Church. & therfore though it vvere put to the Churches probation, as gold is to the touch stone: yet being found in al pointes pure, nothing could be altered or amended therein by the Apostles. Euen so the Scriptures vvhich are in deede vvholy of the Holy Ghosts enditing, being put to the Churches trial, are found, proued, and testified vnto the vvorld to be such, and not made true, altered, or amended by the same. Vvithout vvhich attestation of the Church, the holy Scriptures in them selues vvere alvvaies true before: but not so knowen to be, to al Christians, nor they so bound to take them. And that is the meaning of the famous sentence of S. Augustine Cont. ep. fund. c. 5. vvhich troubleth the Heretikes so much. I vvould not beleeue the Gospel (saith he) vnles the authoritie of the Church moued me.
Concordance Deu. 10, 17.
2:7
7. To Peter of the circumcision.] Vve may not thinke, as the Heretikes deceitfuly teach, The Apostles commissiō general through the vvorld, & yet peculiar to certaine prouinces. that the charge of the Apostles vvas so distincted, that none could preach or exercise iurisdiction but in those seueral places or towardes those peoples or prouinces onely, vvherevnto by Gods appointment or their ovvne lot or election, they vvere specially designed. For, euery Apostle might by Christes commission (Mat. 28. Goe, and teach al nations) vse al spiritual functiō through the vvhole vvorld yet for the more particualr regard & care of prouinces, & for peace & order sake, some were appointed to one countrie, & some to an other: as, of the other Apostles, we see in the Ecclesiastical histories, and for S. Peter & S. Paul, Iewes and Gentiles specially committed to the two principal Apostles. it is plaine by this place & other, that to them as to the tvvo cheefe and most renovvmed Apostles, the Church of al Nations vvas giuen, as deuided into two partes, that is, Ievves and Gentiles: the first and principal being S. Peters lot, that herein also he might resemble our Sauiour, Mat. 15. vvho vvas sent namely to the lost sheepe of Israel. and vvas properly the Minister of the Circumcision: Ro. 15. the second being S. Paules, vvhom Christ chose specially to preach to the Gentiles: Not so for al that, that either he vvas limited to the Gentils onely, (vvhō the Actes of the Apostles report, Neither Peter only of the Ievves, nor Paul Apostle of the Gētiles only. in euery place, first to haue entered into the Synagogs & preached Christ to the Ievves, as he vvrote also to the Hebrues & euer had special regard & honour to thē:) or Peter so boūd to the Ievves only, Act. 10. & 15. v. 7. Calu. li. 4. v. 6. nu. 15. Iustit. that he could not meddle vvith the Gentiles: seing he vvas the man chosen of God, by whom the Gentils should first beleeue, vvho first baptized them, and first gaue order concerning them. Therfore the treacherie of Caluin is intolerable, that vpon this distinction of the Apostles charge, vvould haue the simple suppose, Caluins folish reason that Peter vvas not B. of Rome, & his derogaciō from Peters Apostleship. that S. Peter could not be Bishop of Rome (so might he barre •. Iohn from Ephesus. also) nor deale among the Gentiles, as a thing against Gods ordinance and the appointment betvvene him and S. Paul: as though thereby the one had bound him self to the other, not to preach or meddle vvithin his fellovves compasse. And vvhich is further most seditious, he exhorteth al men to keepe fast the foresaid compact, and rather to haue respect to S. Paules Apostleship, then to S. Peters: as though the preaching, authoritie, and Apostleship of both vvere not a like true, and al of one holy Spirit, vvhether they preached to Iewes or Gentiles, as both did preach vnto both peoples, The Church founded at Rome by S. Peter and S. •aul. as is already proued, and at length, partly by the daily decay of the Ievvish state and their incredulitie, and partly for that in Christianitie the distinction of Iew & Gentil ceased after a season: both vvent to the cheefe citie of the Gentiles, and there founded the Church common to the Hebrues and al nations, Peter first, and Paul aftervvard. And therfore Tertullian saith, de prescript nu. 14. O happie Church, to vvhich the Apostles povvred out al doctrine vvith their bloud. Where Peter suffereth like to our Lordes passion, vvhere Paul is •rovvned vvith Iohn (Baptists) death.
See the marginal Annotation Rom. 2. v. 25.
2:9
9. Gaue the right handes of societie.] There is and alwaies ought to be, a common fellowship and fraternitie of al Pastores and preachers of the Church. Al Catholike preachers and Pastors must communicate vvith Peter & his successors. Into vvhich societie who so euer entereth not, but sandeth in Schisme and separation from Peter and the cheefe Apostolike Pastors, what pretence so euer he hath, or vvhence so euer he chalengeth authoritie, he is a vvolfe, and no true Pastor. Vvhich vnion and communion together was so necessarie euen in S. Paules case, that, notvvithstanding his special calling of God, yet the Holy Ghost caused him to go vp to his elder Apostles, to be receiued into their fellovvship or brotherhod. for it is to be noted, that SS. Peter, Iames, and Iohn vvere not sent to S. Paul, to ioyne vvith him or to be tried for their doctrine and calling, by him: but contrariewise he vvas sent to them as to the cheefe and knovven ordinarie Apostles. They therfore gaue Paul their handes, that is to say, tooke him into their societie, and not he them. And S. Hieroms rule concerning this, shal be found true to the vvorldes end, speaking of S. Peters successor: He that gathereth not vvith thee, scattereth. Ep. 17. And in an other place for the same cause he calleth Rome, tutissimum Communionis portum, the most safe and sure hauen of communion or Societie. The heretikes ridiculous argumēt against Peters preeminence. Ep. 16. 6. •. And vvhereas the Heretikes by this also vvould proue that Peter had no preeminēce aboue Paul being his fellovv Apostle, it is ridiculous. As though al of one fellowship or brotherhod he alvvaies equal, or as though there vvere not order and gouernement, superioritie and inferioritie, in euery societie vvel appointed. And they might perceiue by this vvhole passage, that Peter vvas the special and in more singular sort, the Apostle of the Ievves, though Iames and Iohn vvere also: as S. Paul is also called in more singular sort the Apostle and doctor of the Gentiles then S. Barnabas, and yet they vvere both alike taken here into this societie, as they were both at once and alike segregated into this ministerie, and ordered together Act. 13. It is a poore reason then to say or thinke, S. Peter not to be aboue S. Barnabas neither, because of this societie and fellovvship vnto vvhich he vvas receiued together vvith S. Paul.
2:11
11. I resisted him.] The heretikes malitiously derogate from S. Peter. Vvicked Porphyrie (as S. Hierom vvriteth) chargeth S. Paul of enuie and mal•part boldnes, and S. Peter of errour. Proem. Comment. in Galat. Euen so the like impious sonnes of Cham, for this, and for other things, gladly charge S. Peter, as though he had committed the greatest crimes in the vvorld. for, it is the propertie of Heretikes and il men, to be glad to see the Saincts reprehended and their faultes discouered, as vve may learne in the vvritings of S. Augustine against Faustus the Manichee, Paules reprehension of Peter, teacheth vs the zeale of the one, and humilitie of the other. vvho gathered out al the actes of the holy Patriarches, that might seeme to the people to be vvorthy blame. Vvhom the said holy Doctor defendeth at large against him. as both he, and before him S. Cyprian, finde here vpon this Apostles reprehension, much matter of praising both their vertues: S. Paules great zeale, and S. Peters vvonderful humilitie: that the one in the cause of God vvould not spare his Superior, and that the other, in that excellent dignitie, vvould not take it in il part, nor by allegation of his Supremacie disdaine or refuse to be controvvled by his iunior, vvhich of the tvvo they count the greater grace and more to be imitated. For neither Peter (saith S. Cyprian) Whom our Lord chose the first and vpon vvhom he built the Church, vvhen Paul disputed vvith him of circumcision, chal•vged insolently or arrogantly tooke any thing to him self, saying that he had the Primacie, and therfore the later Disciples ought rather to obey him. ep. 71 ad Quintum. nu. 2. And S. Augustine ep. 19. c. 2 in fine. That (saith he) vvhich vvas done of Paul profitably by the libertie of charitie, the same Peter tooke in good part by holy and benigne godlines of humilitie, and so he gaue vnto posteritie a more rare and holy example, if at any time perhaps they did amis, to be content to be corrected of their iuniors, then Paul, for to be bold and confident: yea the inferiors to resist their betters for defending the truth of the Gospel, It proueth nothing agaist Peters superioritie, that he vvas reprehended. brotherly charitie alvvaies preserued. By vvhich notable speaches of the Doctors vve may also see, how friuolously the Heretikes argue herevpon, that S. Peter could not be Superior to S. Paul, being so reprehended of him: vvhereas the Fathers make it an example to the Superiors, to beare vvith humilitie the correption or controulement euen of their inferiors. Namely by this example S. Augustine (li. 2 de bapt. 6. 1. excellently declareth, that the B. Martyr S. Cyprian, vvho vvalked avvry touching the rebaptizing of them that vvere christened of Heretikes, could not, nor vvould not haue been offended to be admonished & reformed in that point by his fellovves or inferiors, much lesse by a vvhole Councel. We haue learned, saith he, that Peter the Apostle, in vvhom the Primacie of the Apostles by excellent grace is so preeminent, vvhen he did othervvise concerning circumcision then the truth required, vvas corrected of Paul the later Apostle. I thinke (vvithout any reproch vnto him) Cyprian the Bishop may be compared to Peter the Apostle. hovvbeit I ought rather to feare lest I be iniurious to Peter. for vvho knovveth not that the principalitie of Apostleship it to be preferred before any dignitie of Bishop vvhatsoeuer? but if the grace of the Chaires or Sees differ, The superior may be reprehende or admonished of the inferior. yet the glorie of the Martyrs is one. And vvho is so dull that can not see, that the inferior, though not by office and iurisdiction, yet by the law of brotherly loue and fraternal correption, may reprehend his superior? Did euer any man vvonders that a good Priest or any vertuous person should tell the Pope, or any other great Prelate, or greatest Prince in earth, their faultes? Popes may be reprehended, and are iustly admonished of their faultes, and ought to take it in good part, & so they do and euer haue done, Heretikes reprehension of Catholike Bishops in rather railing. vvhen it commeth of zeale & loue, as of S. Paul, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Hierom, Augustine, Bernard: but of Simon Magus, Nouatus, Iulian, Wicleffe, Luther, Caluin, Beza, that do it of malice, & ra•le no lesse at their vertues then their vices, of such (I say) Gods Prelates must not be taught nor corrected, though they must patiently take it, as our Sauiour did the like reproches of the malitious Ievves, and as Dauid did the malediction of Semel. 2 Reg. 16.
11. Reprehensible.] The Heretikes hereof againe inferre, that Peter then did erre in faith, and therfore the Popes may faile therein also. To vvhich vve ansvver, that hovvsoeuer other Popes may erre in their priuate teachings or vvritings, S. Peters errour vvas not in faith, but in conuersation or behauiour. vvhereof vve haue treated before in the Annotation vpon these vvordes, Luc. 22, 32. That thy faith faile not: it is certaine that S. Peter did not here faile in faith, nor erre in doctrine or knovvledge. for it vvas conuersation is non pr•dicationis vitium, as Tertullian saith. de praescript. nu. 7. It vvas a default in conuersation, life, or regiment, which may be committed of any man, be he neuer so holy, and not in doctrine. S. Augustine and vvhosoeuer make most of it, thinke no othervvise of it. But S. Hierom and See S. Chrysost. Theophyl. &c. many other holy fathers de•r•e it to haue been no fault at all, nor any other thing then S. Paul him self did vpon the like occasion: & that this vvhole combat vvas a set thing agreed vpon betvvene them. It is a schoole point much debated betvvixt S. Hierom and S. Augustine ep. 9. 11. 19. apud August.
That is, in presence, before them al, as Beza him self expoundeth it. Yet the English Bezites to the more disgracing of S. Peter, translate, to his face, No. Test. an. 1580.
〈Greek〉
2:15
Concordance Ro. 3, 19. 20..
2:16
By this and by the discourse of this whole epistle, you may perceiue, that when iustification is attributed to faith, the vvorkes of Charitie, be not excluded, but the vvorkes of Moyses law: that is, the ceremonies, sacrifices and sacramēts thereof principally, and consequently al workes done merely by nature and free wil, without the faith, grace, spirit, & aide of Christ.
2:1
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.13.3
… “Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking also Titus. But I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that Gospel which I preached among the Gentiles.”
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.3
But with regard to the countenance of Peter and the rest of the apostles, he tells us that “fourteen years after he went up to Jerusalem,” in order to confer with them
Eusebius of Caesarea † AD 339 The Church History of Eusebius 1.12.1
1. The names of the apostles of our Saviour are known to every one from the Gospels. But there exists no catalogue of the seventy disciples. Barnabas, indeed, is said to have been one of them, of whom the Acts of the apostles makes mention in various places, and especially Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 21
… Also, the visit “after fourteen years,” probably, was when he brought up the [alms to the] brethren together with Barnabas: (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 2
“Then after the space of fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. And I went up by revelation.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 53.2
… And again fourteen years after he took Barnabas and Titus and communicated his gospel to the apostles lest by any means he should have run or had run in vain.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 75.8
… insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw,” he says, “that they walked not up-rightly, according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 51.1
… this Paul I say, the little, and the least, sent unto the Gentiles, says that he was sent particularly to the Gentiles. He himself so writes, we read, believe, preach it. He then in his Epistle to the Galatians says, that having been now called by the Lord Jesus, he came to Jerusalem, and “communicated the Gospel”
2:2
St Polycarp † AD 155 Epistle to the Philippians 9
… [This do] in the assurance that all these have not run
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 4.2
… There would be still wanted that Gospel which St. Paul found in existence, to which he yielded his belief, and with which he so earnestly wished his own to agree, that he actually on that account went up to Jerusalem to know and consult the apostles, “lest he should run, or had been running in vain;”
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.3
… They therefore gave way (in a partial concession), because there were persons whose weak faith required consideration. For their rudimentary belief, which was still in suspense about the observance of the law, deserved this concessive treatment, when even the apostle himself had some suspicion that he might have run, and be still running, in vain.
Eusebius of Caesarea † AD 339 The Church History of Eusebius 7.25
23. Nay more, the Epistle—for I pass by the Gospel—does not mention nor does it contain any intimation of the Apocalypse, nor does the Apocalypse of the Epistle. But Paul, in his epistles, gives some indication of his revelations,
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 42.1
… Not indeed that we are ashamed of being judged, for we are ourselves judges in turn, and both with the same charity. But the law is an ancient one: for even Paul communicated to the Apostles his Gospel:
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 73
… Why dost thou turn away from Him, who loveth thee? Why dost thou labor for the world? Why dost thou draw water into a broken cistern? For it is this to labor for the present life. Why dost thou comb wool into the fire? Why dost thou “beat the air?” Why dost thou “run in vain?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 2
Ver. 2 . “And I laid before them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be running or had run in vain.”
St Jerome † AD 420 Jerome's Apology for Himself Against the Books of Rufinus 3.2
… those who were united by the bonds of Christ’s gospel were separated for a voyage; but they still remained friends. Did not the same Paul resist Peter to the face because he did not walk uprightly in the Gospel? Yet he speaks of him as his predecessor in the Gospel, and as a pillar of the church; and he lays before him his mode of preaching,
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 32
… After having exactly revised the prophets, Solomon, the psalter, and the books of Kings, I am now engaged on Exodus (called by the Jews, from its opening words, Eleh shemôth ), and when I have finished this I shall go on to Leviticus. Now you see why I can let no claim for a letter withdraw me from my work. However, as I do not wish my friend Currentius
St Jerome † AD 420 The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary 13
… And his sisters, are they not all with us?” Luke also in the Acts of the Apostles relates, “These all with one accord continued stedfastly in prayer, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.” Paul the Apostle also is at one with them, and witnesses to their historical accuracy,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 109.5
… Whence also it came about that he compared the Gospel with them, lest by any means he had run, or should run, in vain; and they gave him their right hand because in him also they found, although not given him by them, their own word which they were already preaching, and in which they were now established.
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 2.15
… as he says “And I communicated with them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles lest perhaps I had run or should run in vain.”
2:3
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.3
… So great had been his desire to be approved and supported by those whom you wish on all occasions to be understood as in alliance with Judaism! When indeed he says, that “neither was Titus circumcised,”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 11.8
… suffering for men “became a curse for us.” But just as fittingly Paul became a Jew to the Jews that he might gain Jews, what strange thing is it that the Apostles, whose way of life was passed among the Jews, even though they understood the spiritual things in the law, should have used a spirit of accommodation, as Paul also did when he circumcised Timothy,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 34
… And yet he was but half (a Jew by birth), his father being a Greek: but yet, because that was a great point carried in the cause of the Gentiles, he did not care for this: for the Word must needs be disseminated: therefore also he with his own hands circumcised him.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 2
Ver. 3 . “But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 82.12
… and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Lying 8
… For he would circumcise Titus also, when the Jews urged this,
2:4
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.3
… When indeed he says, that “neither was Titus circumcised,” he for the first time shows us that circumcision was the only question connected with the maintenance of the law, which had been as yet agitated by those whom he therefore calls “false brethren unawares brought in.”
Tertullian † AD 220 On Modesty 6
… It is the “yokes” of “works” that have been rejected, not those of disciplines. “Liberty in Christ”
St Hippolytus † AD 235 On Daniel 6
… For up to the present time both the Gentiles and the Jews of the circumcision watch and busy themselves with the dealings of the Church, desiring to suborn false witnesses against us, as the apostle says: “And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 14.9
… for, though He may seem to have made these things in six days, there is need of understanding to comprehend in what sense the words “in six days” are said, on account of this, “This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 2
Ver. 4 . “And that because of the false brethren, privily brought in.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.28
… That is the case, for instance, where it is written of Eve, “He made it into a woman;” and again, in the book of Numbers, where the women who have not known a man by lying with him, that is to say, the virgins, are ordered to be saved from being put to death. Adopting the same phraseology, Paul, too, says of Christ Himself, that He was “made of a woman.”
2:5
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Tarsians 2
… A swarm of such evils has burst in upon us. But ye have not “given place by subjection to them, no, not for one hour.”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.13.3
… “Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking also Titus. But I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that Gospel which I preached among the Gentiles.” And again he says, “For an hour we did give place to subjection,
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 7.21
… Thus, as it had been written, “Thou shalt have dominion over many nations, and they shall not have dominion over thee,” he ruled over the Gentiles whom he brought under the teaching of Jesus Christ; and he never “gave place by subjection to men, no, not for an hour,”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 The Epistles of Cyprian 70.3
3. Neither must we prescribe this from custom, but overcome opposite custom by reason. For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything; so as to say that he held the primacy,
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Defence of His Flight. (Apologia de Fuga.) 5
… And yet even on this man they made their assault, because knowing the calumnies which they invent in behalf of their iniquity, he would not subscribe to their designs against us. And if afterwards, upon the repeated stripes above measure that were inflicted upon him, and the conspiracies that were formed against his kinsfolk, he yielded to them for a time
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 2
Ver. 5 . “To whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour.”
2:6
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 56.1
… For a certain Arius and those with him attempted to corrupt it, and to introduce impiety in its place, affirming that the Son of God was from nought, and a creature, and a thing made and changeable. But with these words they deceived many, so that even ‘they that seemed to be somewhat were carried away
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 33
No more faction. On this occasion, I suppose, it was that they received the right hand, as he says himself, “They gave to me and Barnabas right hands of fellowship.” ( Gal. ii. 9 .) There he says, “They added nothing to me.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 39
… For the difference of persons took no effect, their authority being equal. And in the Epistle to the Galatians he doth this, taking them with him, not as also standing in need of them, but saying indeed that even himself was sufficient: “For they who were of repute imparted nothing to me:” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 2
Ver. 6 . “But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me, God accepteth no man’s person.)”
2:7
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 18.24
… For among men of ancient and modern days, each is supposed to have had some special success, as each chanced to have received from God some particular virtue: Job unconquered patience in misfortune, Moses and David meekness, Samuel prophecy, seeing into the future, Phineas zeal, for which he has a name, Peter and Paul eagerness in preaching,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 2
Ver. 7 . “When they saw that I had been entrusted with the Gospel of the Uncircumcision even as Peter with the Gospel of the Circumcision ,”—
2:8
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.13.1
1. With regard to those (the Marcionites) who allege that Paul alone knew the truth, and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation, let Paul himself convict them, when he says, that one and the same God wrought in Peter for the apostolate of the circumcision, and in himself for the Gentiles.
St Gregory Thaumaturgus † AD 270 A Sectional Confession of Faith 11
… I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God. For I dare not to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me,
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 2.51
… To heal and stay this disease needs a Peter or Paul, those great disciples of Christ, who in addition to guidance in word and deed, received their grace,
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 2.13
146. Lastly, Paul having been sent by the Spirit, was both a vessel of election on Christ’s part, and himself relates that God wrought in him, saying: “For He that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought for me also unto the Gentiles.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 66
But not by words only, but also by actions did He bid them, after His ascension by Peter, and those with him. “For He that wrought effectually in Peter,” it is said, “to the apostleship of the circumcision, was mighty also in me towards the Gentiles.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 37
… Christ sent him not to baptize, yet he did baptize. Mark how he was equal to all. Peter to the circumcision, he to the Gentiles, to the greater part. ( α ) Since if it was necessary for him to discourse to Jews, how said he again: “For He that wrought effectually in him toward the circumcision, the same was mighty also in me toward the Gentiles” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 32
… Or rather, if we hear him here, we shall certainly see him hereafter, if not as standing near him, yet see him we certainly shall, glistening near the Throne of the king. Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 29
… ministry .) and, “I magnify my ministration:” ( Rom. xi. 13 . office .) and writing to Timothy, he says, “Therefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee. ( 2 Tim. i. 6 .) And again, writing to the Galatians, he said, “for he that wrought in Peter to the Apostleship, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles. (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 2
Ver. 8 . “For He that wrought for Peter unto the Apostleship of the Circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 75.5
… maintaining that the Gentiles who had believed in Christ were free from the burden of the ceremonial law, but that the Jewish converts were under the law, and that Paul, as the teacher of the Gentiles, rightly rebuked those who kept the law; whereas Peter, who was the chief of the “circumcision,”
2:9
Tertullian † AD 220 The Prescription Against Heretics 23
… Now they certainly would not have been surprised at his having become a preacher instead of a persecutor, if his preaching were of something contrary; nor, moreover, would they have “glorified the Lord,” because Paul had presented himself as an adversary to Him. They accordingly even gave him “the right hand of fellowship,”
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.3
… liberty must be thwarted in their efforts to bring it under the yoke of their own Judaism before that Paul discovered whether his labour had been in vain, before that those who preceded him in the apostolate gave him their right hands of fellowship, before that he entered on the office of preaching to the Gentiles, according to their arrangement with him.
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 3.38
In the Epistle of Peter to them of Pontus: “Nor let any of you suffer as a thief, or a murderer, or as an evil-doer, or as a minder of other people’s business,
St Methodius † AD 311 Oration on the Palms 1
… Who instructed you? Who brought you together? What were your tablets? Who were your teachers? Do but you, they say, join us as our companions in this song and festivity, and you will learn the things which were by Moses and the prophet earnestly longed for. Since then the children have invited us, and have given unto us the right hand of fellowship,
Eusebius of Caesarea † AD 339 The Church History of Eusebius 2.23.4
4. “James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles.
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 33
… but that the night of ignorance might be dissolved for those who sat in darkness and the shadow of death? You have heard the words of Paul, “that we might go the Gentiles, and they to the Circumcision.”
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 34
VI. Wherefore I embrace and salute thee, O noblest of peoples and most Christian, and of warmest piety, and worthy of thy leaders; for I can find nothing greater to say of thee than this, nor anything by which better to welcome thee. And I greet thee, to a small extent with my tongue, but very heartily with the movements of my affections.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 55
Whence it is clear in this case, that even the disciples were weak; but not all; for the pillars
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 25
… And Barnabas is sent and Saul, to minister (the same.) Of this occasion (᾽ Ενταὕθα ) he says (to the Galatians), “And James, Cephas, and John gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, only” (they would) “that we should remember the poor.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 26
… This is what Christ said: “My cup indeed ye shall drink, and with the baptism wherewith I am baptized, shall ye be baptized.” ( Mark x. 39 .) ( b ) “And he killed James the brother of John.” ( v. 2 .) For there was also another James, the brother of the Lord: therefore to distinguish him, he says, “The brother of John.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 33
No more faction. On this occasion, I suppose, it was that they received the right hand, as he says himself, “They gave to me and Barnabas right hands of fellowship.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 37
… ( v. 4, 5 ) ( b ) and, from the fact that the being called was itself a matter of God’s fore-ordering, ( a ) they neither thought great things of themselves as if the triumph were their own, nor were terrified as being responsible (for all). But how comes it that he said, “That we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 39
… And in the Epistle to the Galatians he doth this, taking them with him, not as also standing in need of them, but saying indeed that even himself was sufficient: “For they who were of repute imparted nothing to me:” ( Gal. ii. 6 .) nevertheless, even so I follow after agreement with them. “For they gave unto me,” saith he, “their right hands.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 2
Ver. 9 . “And when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Ephesians 10
… There we may see many who are in the place of gold also, the gold which adorns the ceiling. Others again we may see, who give the beauty and gracefulness produced by statues. Many we may see, standing like pillars. For he is accustomed to call men also “pillars” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 79.7
… If this be not his meaning, all who become widows under threescore years will have to take husbands. He is training a church still untaught in Christ, and making provision for people of all stations but especially for the poor, the charge of whom had been committed to himself and Barnabas.
St Jerome † AD 420 The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary 15
… Notice, moreover, that the Lord’s brother is an apostle, since Paul says, “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” And in the same Epistle,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Of the Work of Monks 24
… not finding fault with his fellow-apostles, but distinguishing his own ministry; because they, without doubt by admonition of the Holy Ghost, had so distributed among them the provinces of evangelizing, that Paul and Barnabas should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the Circumcision.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 75.6
… What I mean by earth is all they that dwell therein. I have found, he saith, the earth sinful. And I have done what? “I have strengthened the pillars thereof.” What are the pillars which He hath strengthened? Pillars He hath called the Apostles. So the Apostle Paul concerning his fellow-Apostles saith, “who seemed to be pillars.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Cœnobia, and the Remedies for the Eight Principal Faults 7.17
… only they would that we should be mindful of the poor.” A matter which he testifies that he attended to most carefully, saying, “which also I was anxious of myself to do.”
St Vincent of Lérins † AD 445 The Commonitory of Vincent of Lérins, For the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies 24
… On the other hand, it is the sure characteristic of Catholics to keep that which has been committed to their trust by the holy Fathers, to condemn profane novelties, and, in the apostle’s words, once and again repeated, to anathematize every one who preaches any other doctrine than that which has been received.
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 10
… “While we have time therefore,” as the Apostle says, “let us do that which is good to all men, and especially to them that are of the household of faith .” “But let us not be weary in doing good; for in His own time we shall reap
Anonymous The Teaching of Simon Cephas in the City of Rome 1
The Teaching of Simon Cephas in the City of Rome.
2:10
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.3
… Rightly, then, did Peter and James and John give their right hand of fellowship to Paul, and agree on such a division of their work, as that Paul should go to the heathen, and themselves to the circumcision. Their agreement, also, “to remember the poor”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 14
… thus were these put in trust with the word. But the writer does not say this, nor extol them, but that it was “not reason” that they should leave the work given to them. Thus they had been taught by Moses’s example not to undertake the management of everything by themselves. ( Num. xi. 14 .) “Only,” it is said, “that we should remember the poor.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 25
… What worse than a publican? The very matter ( ὑπόθεσις ) (of his occupation) is altogether one of injustice: and yet Zaccheus washed away all these (sins). Mark how even Christ shows this, by the care taken to have a purse, and to bear the contributions put into it. And Paul also says, “Only that we remember the poor” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 2
Ver. 10 . “Only they would that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philippians 4
… “Then shall thy light break forth as the morning” ( Isa. lviii. 8 .), saith the Prophet, if thou showest pity upon thy neighbour. And as natural oil contains light, so then doth mercy [alms] grant us a great, a marvelous light. Much mention doth Paul, too, make of this mercy. In one place, hear him say, “Only that we should remember the poor.” (
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 10
… “While we have time therefore,” as the Apostle says, “let us do that which is good to all men, and especially to them that are of the household of faith
2:11
Eusebius of Caesarea † AD 339 The Church History of Eusebius 1.12.2
… This is the account of Clement in the fifth book of his Hypotyposes, in which he also says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says, “When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Instructions to Catechumens 1.2
… “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.” It is called also burial: “For we were buried” saith he, “with him, through baptism, into death.” It is called circumcision: “In whom ye were also circumcised, with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 22
… I said,” saith he, “Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten aught common or unclean.—And the voice came unto him, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” ( ch. xi. 8, with x. 14 .) It seems indeed to be spoken to him, but the whole is meant for the Jews. For if the teacher is rebuked, much more these.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 23
… “Ye know”—God commanded this —“that it is against law to keep company with, or come unto, one of another nation.” Then he goes on to say, “And to me God has shown”—this he says, that none may account the thanks due to him—“that I should call no man”—that it may not look like obsequiousness to him, “no human being,” says he—“common or unclean.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 32
… However, if he had spoken this without a plea for speaking, he would have been suspected: an occasion having offered, he lays hold of it, and speaks out fearlessly. See on all occasions how the designs of their foes are made to work with them. If those had not stirred the question, these things would not have been spoken, nor what follows.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 46
… Why, then, in his taking Peter to task he does not absolutely ( ἁπλὥς ) charge him with doing wrong: for precisely what he does on this occasion himself, the same does Peter on that occasion, (merely) holding his peace, and establishing his doctrine. (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 2
Ver. 11, 12 . “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 28.0
To Jerome, His Most Beloved Lord, and Brother and Fellow-Presbyter, Worthy of Being Honoured and Embraced with the Sincerest Affectionate Devotion, Augustin Sends Greeting .
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 28.4
… “If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”—if, indeed, Peter seemed to him to be doing what was right, and if, notwithstanding, he, in order to soothe troublesome opponents, both said and wrote that Peter did what was wrong;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 93.31
… But in refusing such pardon, you prove yourselves wholly ignorant of the word of God. For read what Paul has recorded concerning Peter,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 166.9
… For I remember what He said to those whom, above all men, He had chosen: “But be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your master, even Christ.” Nor was it any other teacher who taught Moses by Jethro, Cornelius by Peter the earlier apostle, and Peter himself by Paul the later apostle;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 3.7
… At the same time, also, he warns us that it was not impossible that Cyprian might have held an opinion about baptism at variance with that required by the truth, as held by the Church both before and after him, if even Peter could hold a view at variance with the truth as taught us by the Apostle Paul.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 7.1
… search out his writings for purposes of treachery, and are unwilling to imitate what he did for the maintainance of peace,—like those who, calling themselves Nazarene Christians, and circumcising the foreskin of their flesh after the fashion of the Jews, being heretics by birth in that error from which Peter, when straying from the truth, was called by Paul
Pope St Gregory I the Great † AD 604 The Book of Pastoral Rule 2.8
… There is indeed no one who so lives as not to some extent to fail in duty. He, then, desires the truth to be loved more fully than himself, who wishes to be spared by no one against the truth. For hence Peter willingly accepted Paul’s rebuke (
Pseudo-Clement The Clementine Homilies 17.19
… If you were not opposed to me, you would not accuse me, and revile the truth proclaimed by me, in order that I may not be believed when I state what I myself have heard with my own ears from the Lord, as if I were evidently a person that was condemned and in bad repute.
2:12
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.12.15
… so that even Peter, fearing also lest he might incur their reproof, although formerly eating with the Gentiles, because of the vision, and of the Spirit who had rested upon them, yet, when certain persons came from James, withdrew himself, and did not eat with them. And Paul said that Barnabas likewise did the same thing.
Tertullian † AD 220 The Prescription Against Heretics 23
… Forasmuch, then, as Peter was rebuked because, after he had lived with the Gentiles, he proceeded to separate himself from their company out of respect for persons, the fault surely was one of conversation, not of preaching.
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.3
… Paul, however, censures Peter for not walking straightforwardly according to the truth of the gospel. No doubt he blames him; but it was solely because of his inconsistency in the matter of “eating,”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 2.1
… Moreover, in the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul states that Peter, still from fear of the Jews, ceased upon the arrival of James to eat with the Gentiles, and “separated himself from them, fearing them that were of the circumcision;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 33
… For he had no acts of his own to declare, as Peter had and Paul. And indeed it is wisely ordered that this (the active) part is assigned to those, as not intended to be locally fixed in Jerusalem, whereas (James) here, who performs the part of teacher, is no way responsible for what has been done, while however he is not divided from them in opinion.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Lying 8
… For the simulation of Peter and Barnabas is not only recorded, but also reproved and corrected.
2:13
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 4.3
… Since, however, it was on its course previous to that point, it must have had its own authentic materials, by means of which it found its own way down to St. Luke; and by the assistance of the testimony which it bore, Luke himself becomes admissible. Well, but Marcion, finding the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (wherein he rebukes even apostles
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 15
… Thus, lest at the words, “When they shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you,” they should be too timid to go forth: He tells them, “unless ye are prepared to combat with all this, ye have been chosen in vain.” For it is not evil report that ye should fear, but lest ye should prove partners in dissimulation.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 26
… For the other has a sufficient claim to be helped in his weakness, and to thee this were no loss, not being a case of hypocrisy (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 2
Ver. 13 . “Insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 127.11
… “when the son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” The love of many waxed cold. Yet the few who still loved the true faith rallied to my side. Men openly sought to take their lives and every expedient was employed against them. So hotly indeed did the persecution rage that “Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Against Lying 26
… For when the Apostle Paul saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, he said to Peter in the presence of them all, “If thou, being a Jew, livest as the Gentiles; and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to Judaize?”
2:14
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 2
Ver. 14 . “But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 40.3
… And where will any one find this way of escape impossible, if it be possible for men to say and believe that, after introducing his narrative with these words, “The things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not,” the apostle lied when he said of Peter and Barnabas, “I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel ”?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 40.5
… thing, therefore, which he rebuked in Peter was not his observing the customs handed down from his fathers—which Peter, if he wished, might do without being chargeable with deceit or inconsistency, for, though now superfluous, these customs were not hurtful to one who had been accustomed to them—but his compelling the Gentiles to observe Jewish ceremonies,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 75.4
4. You ask, in the second place, my reason for saying, in my commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, that Paul could not have rebuked Peter for that which he himself had done,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 82.4
… “When I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, ‘If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as to the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?’”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 180.4
… perceives how different from these metaphorical expressions is the statement of the apostle, “When I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 18.28
… Let the reader but call to mind that cornerstone and those two walls of partition, the one of the Jews, the other of the Gentiles,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Lying 8
… Peter, however, by his making as though salvation consisted in Judaism, was compelling the Gentiles to judaize; as is shown by Paul’s words, where he says, “Why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Lying 43
… For in the Epistle to the Galatians, written as it was, like the rest, for doctrine of religion and piety, they say that he has told a lie, in the passage where he says concerning Peter and Barnabas, “When I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 19.17
… Some also of the converted Gentiles were bent on these ceremonies, from fear of the Jews among whom they lived. Against these Gentiles the Apostle Paul often wrote, and when Peter was carried away by their hypocrisy, he corrected him with a brotherly rebuke.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 22.68
… They may probably never have denied Christ even once; they may never have opposed His suffering for our salvation; they may never have forced the Gentiles to do as the Jews;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 2.1
… and awful calling of God to witness, he told the whole tale, saying in the course of it, "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4.6
… Just as no one is so insane as to set himself up as surpassing the merits of the Apostle Peter, because, taught by the epistles of the Apostle Paul, and confirmed by the custom of the Church herself, he does not compel the Gentiles to judaize, as Peter once had done.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4.11
Chapter 11.— 18. What shall we say of what is also wonderful, that he who carefully observes may find that it is possible that certain persons, without violating Christian charity, may yet teach what is useless, as Peter wished to compel the Gentiles to observe Jewish customs,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 6.2
… just as, while paying the reverence he deserves to Peter, the first of the apostles and most eminent of martyrs, I yet venture to say that he did not do right in compelling the Gentiles to judaize; for this also, I say, not of my own teaching, but according to the wholesome doctrine of the Apostle Paul, retained and preserved through out the whole Church.
2:15
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 47
… since indeed he, most of all men, did obey the law: ( a ) as in fact he elsewhere calls himself, “Under the law to Christ.” ( 1 Cor. ix. 21 .) What is this, I pray? ( c ) The man that believes in Christ. And when discoursing with Peter, he says: “We, Jews by nature.—But I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 2
Ver. 15 . “We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 50
… Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen by faith ;” and again, in another, when speaking of the circumcision, to which he himself belonged, he says, “We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed in Jesus Christ.”
2:16
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.3
… But what do the Marcionites wish to have believed (on the point)? For the rest, the apostle must (be permitted to) go on with his own statement, wherein he says that “a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith:”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose sermon-against-auxentius-on-th.24
… He who thinks that they whom he could not mislead by his words are to be slain with the sword, giving bloody laws with his mouth, writing them with his hand, and thinking that the law can order a faith for man to hold. He has not heard what was read to-day: “That a man is not justified by the works of the law,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 32
… “Why therefore tempt ye God?” who is become (the) God of the Gentiles: for this was tempting: * * * whether He is able to save even after the Law. See what he does. He shows that they are in danger. For if, what the Law could not do, faith had power to do, “we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus we shall be saved even as they” (comp.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 2
Ver. 16 . “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, save through faith, in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus.”
St Jerome † AD 420 Against Jovinianus 1.37
… For whilst he invites all to chastity and to the reward of virginity, he shows that virginity is more excellent than all these conditions. And again writing to the Galatians he says:
St Jerome † AD 420 Against the Pelagians 2
Gal. ii. 16 . “By the law no flesh shall be justified;” but
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Continence 11
… “Unto Thee shall all flesh come.” What is it, but all men? “Thou hast given unto Him power over all flesh.” What is it, but all men? “Of the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.” What is it, but no man shall be justified? And this the same Apostle in another place confessing more plainly saith, “Man shall not be justified of the works of the Law.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 56
… Now “ the love of God ” is said to be shed abroad in our hearts, not because He loves us, but because He makes us lovers of Himself; just as “ the righteousness of God ” is used in the sense of our being made righteous by His gift; and “ the salvation of the Lord ,” in that we are saved by Him; and “ the faith of Jesus Christ ,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 22
… “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, except through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”
2:17
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 2
Ver. 17 . “But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners is Christ a minister of sin?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Colossians 7
… Thou standest above the devil and sin; why dost thou again subject thyself to sin? Therefore he said that “he is a debtor to fulfill the whole law” ( Gal. v. 3 .); and again, “Is Christ” found to be “the minister of sin” (
2:18
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.3
… For of course he would have bestowed no labour on severing faith from the law, when the difference of the god would, if there had only been any, have of itself produced such a severance. Justly, therefore, did he refuse to “build up again (the structure of the law) which he had overthrown.”
Tertullian † AD 220 On Modesty 14
… Lastly, to what will it be becoming for a judge to grant indulgence? to that which by a formal pronouncement he has decisively settled, or to that which by an interlocutory sentence he has left in suspense? And, of course, (I am speaking of) that judge who is not wont “to rebuild those things which he has destroyed, lest he be held a transgressor.”
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 13
… And Paul, too, who is held to be the most approved apostle with us, expresses himself to the same effect in one of his epistles, when he says: “For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a prevaricator.”
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 40
… and in accordance with this, that flesh and blood could not possess the kingdom of God. He also maintained that Paul himself spoke in his own proper person when he said: “If I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.”
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 19.5
… All sin therefore, of every kind, is included in the works of the devil. Only know this; that all that thou sayest, especially at that most thrilling hour, is written in God’s books; when therefore thou doest any thing contrary to these promises, thou shalt be judged as a transgressor
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 2
Ver. 18 . “For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 93.52
… “If I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Cœnobia, and the Remedies for the Eight Principal Faults 4.36
… and thus (as the Apostle says) building again those things which you had destroyed, you make yourself a backslider.
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 17.20
… nor is it right to believe that he who had said: “For if I again rebuild what I have destroyed, I make myself a transgressor,”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Letters 162
… we are pleased to obey the Apostle’s precepts, where he says, “See that no one deceive you with philosophy and vain seductions of men .” For according to the same Apostle, “if I build up those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor
2:19
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose sermon-against-auxentius-on-th.24
… He has not heard what was read to-day: “That a man is not justified by the works of the law,” or “I, through the law, am dead to the law, that I may live unto God,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 17
… 38 .) Do you mark that thence comes the root, and that “salvation is from the Jews?” ( John iv. 22 .) “With the Angel,” it says, “which spake unto him.” ( Rom. xi. 16 .) Lo, again he affirms that it was He (Christ) that gave the Law, seeing Moses was with “Him” in the Church in the wilderness.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 2
Ver. 19 . “For I through the Law died unto the Law.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 17.20
… and all will know that the things which they have heard of thee are false, but that thou thyself also walkest keeping the law.” And so for the good of those who were under the law, he trode under foot for a while the strict view which he had expressed: “For I through the law am dead unto the law that I may live unto God;”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 147
… The divine writer recognises Christ as the foundation, and glories in this title, as when he says, “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I but Christ liveth in me.”
2:20
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Romans: Shorter and Longer Versions 8
I no longer wish to live after the manner of men, and my desire shall be fulfilled if ye consent. “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet no longer I, since Christ liveth in me.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis iv.section24
… “Life,” the Word and Wisdom itself appeared to be contained in a place, we should have to say to him in answer, that there is no doubt that Christ, in respect of being the “Word” or “Wisdom,” or all other things, was in Paul, and that he therefore said, “Do you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me?” and again, “I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.6
… For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, “Woman, behold thy son,” and not “Behold you have this son also,” then He virtually said to her, “Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.” Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer,
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.8
… But when they see to be at hand, as far as their effort is concerned, the consummation of the world which is crucified to them, then Jesus will be no longer with them, but in them, and they will say, “It is no longer I that live but Christ that lives in me,”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.25
Moreover in regard to the saying, “Let him deny himself,” the following saying of Paul who denied himself seems appropriate, “Yet I live, and yet no longer I but Christ liveth in me;”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 5
… when too we offer ourselves to the Lord, like the saints, when we subscribe ourselves entirely [as] living henceforth not to ourselves, but to the Lord Who died for us, as also the blessed Paul did, when he said, ‘I am crucified with Christ, yet I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 7
… for, ‘precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints .’ They are also able, preserving the Apostolic likeness, to say, ‘I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 1.12
… If you enquire into the merit of the deed, enquire into the description of the affection. The vessel of election shows plainly the unity of this divine love, because both the Father gave the Son and the Son gave Himself. The Father gave, Who “spared not His own Son, but gave Him up for us all.” And of the Son he also says: “Who gave Himself for me.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose 63.24
… the one was more agreeable, the other more safe; the one ruling, the other restraining itself, in order to be wholly Christ’s, for to the perfect it is said: “He who will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.” Now he follows Christ who is able to say: “It is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Treatise Concerning the Christian Priesthood 6.2
… for our discourse is not about an army, or a kingdom; but about an office which needs the virtues of an angel. For the soul of the Priest ought to be purer than the very sunbeams, in order that the Holy Spirit may not leave him desolate, in order that he may be able to say, “Now I live; and yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 52
… but since we are at a loss for such, we must needs betake ourselves to this same Paul. Observe him then, how he felt towards the whole world. “The world is crucified unto me,” he says, “and I unto the world” ( Gal. vi. 14 ): I am dead to the world, and the world is dead to me. And again: “It is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me.” (ib.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 24
… For He is our fulness; for He is “the fulness of Him that filleth all in all” ( ib. i. 23 ): and the Way, and the Husband, and the Bridegroom;—for “I have espoused you as a chaste virgin to one husband,” ( 2 Cor. xi. 2 ): and a root, and drink, and meat, and life;—for he says, “I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me;” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 32
… 38 ) wherein was a fountain springing up, and watering, not the face of the earth, but the souls of men, whence not rivers only, but even fountains of tears, issued day and night, which lived the new life, not this of ours, (for “I live,” he says, “yet not I, but Christ liveth in me,” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 2
Ver. 20 . “Yet I live; and yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philippians 3
… But as long as Christ is with me, even though death overtake me, still I live, and in this present life, not this, but Christ is my life. Since, then, not even in the present life is it so, “but that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith;” so I say in that state also, “I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philippians 9
What shall we say of his remaining “two whole years in his own hired dwelling”? ( Acts xxviii. 30 .) Did then this chosen vessel disobey Christ? this man who said, “Yet I live; and yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 39
… for this none would say is the language even of a “man” made perfect and crucified. For if Paul so blended himself with the will of God as to say, “I live, yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 22.17
… What is taken from the one increases the other. Therefore, as you lie on your couch, say again and again: “By night have I sought Him whom my soul loveth.” “Mortify, therefore,” says the apostle, “your members which are upon the earth.” Because he himself did so, he could afterwards say with confidence: “I live, yet not I, but Christ, liveth in me.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 93.7
… Does not the similarity of the events apparently join both; and, at the same time, does not the dissimilarity of the causes make a real difference? Again, God spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all. Of the Son also it is said, “who loved me, and gave Himself for me;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 2.5
… For the Apostle Paul says both: “Who,” he says, “spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all;” while elsewhere he says of the Saviour Himself, “Who loved me, and delivered Himself for me.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 13.11
… the apostle himself being witness, who says, “According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world.” Nor was the Son delivered up for us as it were unwillingly, the Father Himself not sparing Him; for it is said also concerning Him, “Who loved me, and delivered up Himself for me.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Continence 29
… but for itself, in order that those motions, whether in the flesh or in the soul, after man, not after God, which as yet exist through the sickness man hath gotten, may be restrained by continence, that so health may be gotten; and man, not living after man, may now be able to say, “But I live, now not I, but there liveth in me Christ.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Of Holy Virginity 41
… which God so hates, as that against this one thing The Highest humbled Himself? Unless haply, in truth, thou shalt therefore fear less, and be more puffed up, so as to love little Him, Who hath loved thee so much, as to give up Himself for thee,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 16.17
… If it was alive when Peter timidly denied Christ, it was dead when he fearlessly preached Him. It was alive in Saul, when, in his aversion to the offense of the cross, he made havoc of the Christian faith, and where but on this mountain had it died, when Paul was able to say, "I live no longer, but Christ liveth in me?"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin 1.24
… [XXIII.] For he goes on to say: “Whosoever makes a right use of this” (that is, rightly uses his freedom of will), “does so entirely surrender himself to God, and does so completely mortify his own will, that he is able to say with the apostle, ‘Nevertheless it is already not I that live, but Christ liveth in me;’
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 2.12
12. Let us prove that the Passion also of the Son was the work of the Father and the Son. We may see that the Passion of the Son is the work of the Father, since it is written, “Who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all;” and that the Passion of the Son was His own work also, “Who loved me, and gave Himself for me.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 14.6
… Let the grace of God come, and enlighten his darkness, as it saith, “Thou wilt lighten my candle, O Lord; my God, enlighten my darkness;” let it take the mind of man, and turn it to its own light; immediately he begins to say, as the apostle says, “Yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me;” and, “Now I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 22
… Where hath He? “In Himself.” Where gave He to have? “In Himself.” Where hath Paul life? Not in himself, but in Christ. Where hast thou, believer? Not in thyself, but in Christ. Let us see whether the apostle says this: “Now I live; but not I, but Christ liveth in me.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 62.4
… For He said, “What thou doest, do quickly,” not as wrathfully looking to the destruction of the trust-betrayer, but in His own haste to accomplish the salvation of the faithful; for He was delivered for our offences, and He loved the Church, and gave Himself for it. And as the apostle also says of himself: “Who loved me, and gave Himself for me.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 84
… “For He will provide Himself wings like an eagle’s, and will depart to the house of His overseer,” from which, at all events, He came to us, and found us not such as He Himself was who came. Let us therefore love one another, even as Christ hath loved us, and given Himself for us.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 7.7
… is God the Father that? God forbid! sayest thou. I do not say it, but the apostle saith, “He that spared not His own Son, but “ tradidit Eum ” delivered Him up for us all.” Both the Father delivered Him up, and He delivered up Himself. The same apostle saith: “Who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 9.5
… 3 ). Who will be weakened and perish, but the unrighteous and ungodly? “They will be weakened,” while they shall avail nothing; “and they shall perish,” because the ungodly will not be; “from the face” of God, that is, from the knowledge of God, as he perished who said, “But now I live not, but Christ liveth in me.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 40.25
… But I to whom they said, “Well done! Well done!” “I am poor and needy.” There is nothing in me that may be praised as mine own. Let Him rend my sackcloth in sunder, and cover me with His robe. For, “Now I live, not I myself; but Christ liveth in me.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 50.31
… Christ Jesus. And how in sacrifice of praise to us is shown Christ? Because Christ with grace came to us. These words saith the Apostle: “But I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me: but that in flesh I live, in faith I live of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 66.6
… It was, as it were, in order that they might defend themselves from the charge of destroying the Temple without cause. For Christ, because He willed it, died: and nevertheless ye killed Him. Behold we grant you, O ye liars, Himself destroyed the Temple. For it hath been said by the Apostle, “That loved me, and gave up Himself for me.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 69.9
… but hope maketh it not to be improvidence. He then spared not Himself: because even the Father spared Him not, but delivered Him up for us all. And of the Same, “Who loved me,” saith the Apostle, “and delivered up Himself for me:”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Cœnobia, and the Remedies for the Eight Principal Faults 4.34
… Consider therefore the demands of the cross under the sign of which you ought henceforward to live in this life; because you no longer live but He lives in you who was crucified for you.
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 24.23
… “I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.”
2:21
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 1
Ver. 4 . “Who gave himself for our sins.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 2
Ver. 21 . “I do not make void the grace of God.”
St Jerome † AD 420 Against the Pelagians 2
ii. 21 . If righteousness come by the law, Christ is dead for nought.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 82.19
… Whoever was then circumcised because of such persuasion and desire, and with this design, Christ assuredly profited him nothing, as the apostle elsewhere expressly affirms, “If righteousness come by the law, Christ is dead in vain.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 50
Let no man therefore boast of that which he seems to possess, as if he had not received it; nor let him think that he has received it merely because the external letter of the law has been either exhibited to him to read, or sounded in his ear for him to hear. For “if righteousness is by the law, then Christ has died in vain.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 1
… Now, the man who understands this understands why he is a Christian. For “If righteousness came by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 2
… Well, if this could have been done, or can still be done, then for my part I have to say what the apostle said in regard to the law: “Then Christ died in vain.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 10
… Well, could such a man have become righteous by nature and free will; or could he not? If they contend that he could, then see what it is to render the cross of Christ of none effect, to contend that any man without it, can be justified by the law of nature and the power of his will. We may here also say, then is Christ dead in vain
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 47
… For if natural capacity, by help of free will, is in itself sufficient both for discovering how one ought to live, and also for leading a holy life, then “Christ died in vain,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius 20
… This grace is not nature, but that which renders assistance to frail and corrupted nature. This grace is not the knowledge of the law, but is that of which the apostle says: “I will not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 4.10
… For to those words of theirs in which they say “that the law was able to confer eternal life on the prophets and patriarchs, and all saints who kept its commandments,” the apostle replies, “If righteousness be by the law, then has Christ died in vain.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 25
… whereas the grace which comes through the faith of Jesus Christ belongs only to them to whom the faith itself appertains. “For all men have not faith.” Now, as the apostle, with perfect truth, says to those who by wishing to be justified by the law have fallen from grace, “If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 81.9
… What shall we say of Christians? Wherefore are ye enemies to the grace of Christ? Why rely ye on yourselves? Why unthankful? For why did Christ come? Was not nature here before? Was not nature here, which ye only deceive by your excessive praise? Was not the Law here? But the Apostle says, “If righteousness come by the Law, then Christ is dead in vain.”
2:2
To Them. That is to the first Christians, those made at Jerusalem, for the adjective "Christian" is latent in the substantive "Jerusalem." Which were of reputation. Who seemed to be pillars (ver. 9.) of the Church and leading Apostles.
Lest I should run in vain. Lest, through the report spread abroad by the pseudo-Apostles, that my teaching was condemned by the Apostles, the faithful should believe neither me nor any teaching, and so all my labour should he rendered ineffectual Cf. S. Jerome (Ep. xi. ad August.), Tertullian (contra Marcion. lib. iv.), and S. Augustine (contra Faustum), who anticipates Luther's opinions, and against them shows that the word of God, even when most pure, and all its preachers, stand in need of the testimony and authority of men. This is what he says: " Who is so foolish as to believe nowadays that the epistle produced by Manichæus was really written by Christ, and not to believe that what Matthew wrote contained the doings and sayings of Christ? Even if he has doubts about Matthew being the author, at all events he prefers to believe about Matthew himself what he finds the Church believes, and what has been continuously believed and handed down from his times to the present, rather than what some fugitive or other from Persia, coming 200 or more years after Christ, tells us about Christ's words and works. For would the Church wholly believe the Apostle Paul himself, who was called from heaven after the Lord's ascension, if he had not found Apostles in the flesh, to whom he might make it clear by communicating his Gospel that he was of the same fellowship as they ?" (lib xxviii. c. 4). Our Protestant friends should note this, and apply it to themselves, who prefer to believe Calvin, coming 1500 years after Christ, and teaching new doctrines, rather than the Church and the unanimous tradition of so many centuries. Observe that this testimony is not for the laity to give, even if they be magistrates, but for Peter and the Apostles, i.e., for the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops, who have succeeded the Apostles, whether individually, or assembled in council. For Paul sought this testimony to his teaching and Apostleship from the Council of Jerusalem, in which the judges were the Apostles, and where Peter, as the president, spoke first and pronounced sentence. So from the time of the Apostles up to the present time, the whole Christian world, when doubts as to the faith, or new opinions, or heresies spring up, has sought from the Roman Pontiff, and from the Councils over which he presides, either in person or by his legates, a decision and testimony as to the truth. Whatever dogmas or doctors are condemned by them the whole Christian world regards as heretical. Heretics alone, because they are heretics, have refused to recognise this condemnation, this judgment, this testimony, and have in every age avoided it. So it is not surprising if our Protestants do the same; nay, their doing so is a sure proof of novelty, of wrong faith, and of heresy.
2:3
Ver. 3. Neither Titus, who was a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised. Observe the word compelled. Though the false brethren, the Jews, urged and tried to force it, yet I would not consent to Titus being circumcised, since he was a Gentile. Had I consented, I should have been thought to allow the necessity of circumcision and the law of Moses for Gentiles. But when I circumcised Timothy afterwards (Acts xvi. 3), I did so not under compulsion, but of my own initiative, that I might not irritate the Jews. For Timothy was not wholly a Gentile, being on his mother's side a Jew, and on his father's a Gentile, and so half-Jew, half-Gentile
Gentile. Literally "Greek" [as in A.V.] At the time of Alexander the Greeks were those of the Gentiles who were best known to the Jews. Ver. 4. And that. I.e., not even though the false brethren of the Jews urged it was Titus circumcised (Chrysostom, Œcumenius). S. Jerome takes away the adversative but, and makes the verse follow immediately on the construction of the preceding. But it is better to take the Greek διὰ δὲ, which our version renders sed propter, in the sense of δὴ or δη̃τα, i.e., "nempe," in spite of it all, he was not circumcised. The interpretation of Primasius and some others, who take the δὲ, sed, in its strictly adversative sense, as meaning that Titus was not indeed compelled by the Apostles to be circumcised, but yet was circumcised because of the importunity of the false brethren, is clearly inconsistent with the following words, To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, and also with a sound faith. For circumcision having been already done away, and having given place to baptism under the Gospel, it was forbidden to Gentiles to be circumcised. But Titus was a Gentile by both parents. Cf. S. Augustine (Ep. xix. ad. Hieron., and de Mendacio, c. 5).
2:4
Unawares brought in, who came in privily. Like spies preparing for traps to be laid for us, they crept in by stealth. Cf. Rom 5:20 and comments.
To spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus. Our liberty from the yoke and burden of the numerous legal ceremonies from which Christ has set us free by His faith and His Church. Ver. 6. But by those who seemed to be somewhat (supply nothing) was adding to my teaching. The Apostle, as is his wont, breaks off and interpolates a clause (whatsoever they were it maketh nothing to me), and then returns to his subject with a change of case. Peter, James, and John, the chief Apostles, added nothing to me (Anselm).
2:6
They who seemed to be somewhat. (1.) These leading Apostles who seemed to be somewhat were illiterate and uncultivated fishermen, whilst I, a Roman citizen, excelled them in zeal and knowledge of the law (Ambrose and Anselm). Since Paul was pressed by the authority of the other Apostles, who were claimed as Judaisers, he exalts his own authority and his own teaching, though with all modesty. This is why he adds, God accepteth no man's person, as appears from this choice of fishermen to be Apostles. (2.) Augustine turns the όποι̃οι (quales) as implying sinners. No one need trouble to cast in my teeth the sins of my persecuting days, or remind Peter that he denied Christ. (3.) Chrysostom and Jerome, however, read it: Whatever they were in doctrine and observance of circumcision and the law is nothing to me; to God they will give account, for God accepteth no man's person. The first of these three explanations is nearest the intention of the Apostle.
God accepteth no man's person. I.e., the conditions attaching to a person, which have nothing to do with the free calling of God. To pay attention to these in conferring benefices and offices is in men a vice contrary to distributive justice, which is called in Greek προσωποληψία. In God it would be no vice, but it would be inconsistent with His liberality and greatness. See Rom 2:11 and comments.
Added nothing to me. This is Valla's translation [and that of A.V.], but the Greek is προσανέθεντο, they communicated nothing being content with my statement as sufficient. See Gal 1:16 and comments. Ver. 7. The gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter. I.e., of the circumcised Jews. See my canon 21. You will urge: Then Peter was not head of the Church, but Apostle and Pope of the Jews only. Some reply that this is said of the care and division of protection that Peter was appointed to protect the Jews, Paul the Gentiles; and this especially, because he adds, He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles; which signifies: I was given the duty, the necessary graces, and apostolic gifts for my apostleship to the Gentiles. Jerome's answer is much better. He points out that at that time, at the very beginning of the Church, when there was still, as verse 12 shows, a wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles, Peter and Paul divided between them not power but works, so that Paul, hateful as he was to the Jews, might primarily and chiefly preach to the Gentiles, and Peter to the Jews. On occasion Paul preached to the Jews, as Acts ix. shows, and Peter to the Gentiles (Acts x.). Moreover, Peter transferred his see to Gentile Rome, as all historians, all the Fathers, the chronicles and monuments testify in common. See Bellarmine for these in detail. If any one after reading them still is in doubt, he must be too prejudiced or too impudent to form a sane judgment. Ver. 8. He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision to make him the Apostle of the circumcised Jews by filling Peter with strength and effectual energy, did exactly the same for me among the Gentiles. As Ephrem puts it, he was alike effectual in us, both by working signs and wonders, by efficacy of speech, by the conversion of some many to Christ. Ver. 9. Cephas. Clement of Alexandria (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 12) and Dorotheus (in Synopsi) thought that that Cephas was not the Apostle Peter, but one of the seventy disciples. But the Church neither knows nor commemorates any other Cephas save S. Peter. The words, who seemed to be pillars, show that an Apostle is meant, and, therefore, Peter. Accordingly, in verse 14, S. Paul opposes himself to Peter, as being a sort of primate over James and John. In Syriac, spoken at Antioch of Syria, the same person would be called Cephas who by the Greeks was called Peter. So the man styled Cephas here is in verse 7 Peter.
2:9
That we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. So Christ is called, in Rom. xv. 8, a minister of the circumcision, inasmuch as He was promised and given to the Jews as the first-fruits of the world. Accordingly, the Apostles at first confined their labours to these circumcised Jews. Ver. 10. The poor. The Jews, who, for Christ's sake, had been spoiled of their goods by their fellows (Heb. x. 34 and Chrysostom). Jerome, however, understands the poor who became so voluntarily to be meant, those who had sold their possessions and had given the price to the Apostles, to be distributed among the faithful especially the poor among them, of whom there was a great number (Acts ii. 45). Ver. 11. I withstood him to the face. Erasmus and others interpret this to mean in appearance, outwardly, feignedly, and by previous arrangement. The literal meaning is better: I openly resisted Peter, in order that the public scandal caused by him might he removed by a public rebuke (Augustine, Ambrose, ede, Anselm, and nearly all other authorities).
2:11
Because he was to be blamed. (1.) Because he had been blamed (κατεγνωσμένος) by other brethren, whom Peter had offended by this proceeding, in their ignorance of his true intention and motive, as Chrysostom and Jerome say, or, as Ephrem turns it, "because they were offended in him." (2.) Theophylact and Œcumenius understand it: Peter had been blamed by the other Apostles because he had eaten with the Gentile Cornelius at Cæsarea. Fearing lest he should be blamed again by them or by other Jews, he withdrew himself from all intercourse with the Gentiles. (3.) The opinion of Ambrose is better. He had fallen under the condemnation of the truth and of Gospel liberty, which sets the Gentiles free from the darkness and slavery of Judaism. (4.) The Vulgate reprehesiblis (in place of reprehensus, as with the authors cited above) is better, and agrees with the context. It gives the reason for resisting Peter, because he was to be blamed for simulating Judaism. It may be asked whether Peter was really blameworthy and was actually blamed by Paul. For many years there was a sharp dispute on this point between S. Jerome and S. Augustine, as may be seen in their epistles. Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Baronius answer in the negative, and hold that the rebuke was only theatrical. They argue that Peter, who had lawfully followed the Jewish customs at Jerusalem among Jews, lived as a Gentile among Gentiles at Antioch; when, however, the Jews arrived who had been sent to Antioch from Jerusalem by James, he withdrew from the Gentiles in favour of the Jews, lest he should offend those who had been the earliest to receive the faith (see ver. 9), and also that he might at the same time give Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, an opportunity of rebuking him, that by yielding he might teach the Jews that the time for Judaising was past. On the other side S. Augustine maintains that Peter was really blameworthy, and was blamed by Paul, as the record distinctly declares. Out of this arose a dispute between S. Augustine and S. Jerome about simulation and lying. Jerome argued from this action of Peter's that any similar simulation is lawful. Augustine denied that he did simulate, and laid down the unlawfulness of all lying or simulation, especially in matters of religion. In this second question, however, neither seems to have understood the other's position. Jerome did not maintain that Peter told a lie, or put on a profession of Judaism while secretly detesting it, as Augustine, by the strength of his language, seems to think that Jerome held. The latter did not say that Peter was right in professing Judaism; if he did, then it would be right for any one of the faithful to make a profession of any false faith or any heresy. But Jerome only held what S. Chrysostom did, viz., that the rebuke administered to Peter by Paul was not really intended, but was merely theatrical, it being arranged between them beforehand that Paul should rebuke Peter, not for simulation, but for thoughtless dissimulation, and that Peter should accept the rebuke thus arranged for, that so the Judaisers might be really rebuked in the specious rebuke given to Peter, and with him might clearly understand that Judaising was forbidden. The lawfulness of such an action is not denied by Augustine, all he denies is that the proceeding was of this nature. From this it appears how little ground Cassian (Collat. xvii. 17- 25), Origen, Clement, Erasmus, and others (see the passages in Sixtus of Sens, lib. v. annot. 105) had for founding the lawfulness of lying on this passage, or for endorsing the saying of Plato, that, although a lie is an evil thing, yet it is occasionally necessary, just as we use hellebore or some other drug, for this is now an established error condemned by Innocent III. (Tit. de Usuris, cap. super eo.), and by Ecclesiasticus vii. 14. Against it too S. Augustine writes two treatises, one entitled de Mendacio and the other contra Mendacium. Nor is there any exception to be taken here against Jerome and Chrysostom. They only understand and excuse a secret arrangement, whereby no lie was acted, but a rebuke was simulated, and this is a legitimate action, as is evident in military stratagems, when for instance, the enemy feigns to flee, and so draws its foes into an ambush. A third question was also disputed between Jerome and Augustine as to the date when the Old Law came to an end, but this is outside the present subject, and it is sufficient therefore to say very briefly that the Old Law, so far as obligation goes, came to an end at Pentecost, when the New Law was promulgated, but that its observance did not wholly cease, it being lawful to observe it for a while, till the Jews had been gradually weaned from it, that so in due time it might receive an honourable burial. In this dispute Augustine seems to have held the stronger position. It may be urged that in this act of Peter's there was at least something sinful, if not actually erroneous in faith, as some have rashly asserted. By his action it may be thought that he thoughtlessly made a profession of Judaism, and so put a stumbling-block in the way of the Gentiles, and tempted them to Judaise with him. He had previously lived with the Gentiles, but he afterwards withdrew from them suddenly, went over to the Jews, and lived with them. From this the Gentiles might properly infer that judaism was necessary to salvation, both for him and themselves, and was binding on Christians; for though the Old Law, with its ceremonies, was not yet the cause of death, and might be preserved so as to secure for itself an honourable burial, and also to draw the Jews to the faith of Christ, yet it was dead, and in one sense death-giving, viz., to any one who should keep it on the supposition that it was binding on Christians. Although Peter, however, did not so regard it, yet his action was so imprudent as to give the Gentiles good reason for thinking that he did. The justness of this remark is evident from the two remarks made by Paul: I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed; and: When I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, Why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews ? viz., by your simulation, or what the Greeks call hypocrisy. All this shows that either Peter sinned or that Paul told a lie, which God forbid. See S. Augustine (Ep. 8, 9, and 19 to Jerome), Cyprian (Ep. ad Quintum), Gregory (Hom. 18 in Ezech.), Ambrose, &c. To what has been said I add this: This sin of Peter's was venial, or material only, arising from want of thought, or from want of light and prudence. He seems to have thought that, being the Apostle of the Jews especially, that he ought rather to avoid scandalising them than the Gentiles, and that the Gentiles would readily recognise the rightfulness of this line of action. In so doing he erred, for " although," as S. Thomas says, " the Holy Spirit who descended an the Apostles at Pentecost established them thereafter in such prudence and grace as to keep them from mortal sins, yet he did not also save them from venial sins." Observe that a lie may consist in deeds as well as in words. For example, if a man lead another to suppose by his conduct that he is a good man or his friend, when he is neither of these, then he is guilty of a lie. This lie by deed is what is properly called hypocrisy. Similarly, if any Christian at Rome wears a yellow cap he acts a lie, by thus giving himself out as a Jew. Notice, however, with Cajetan that falsity in deeds is more easily excused than falsity in words. The reason is that words are express signs of mental concepts, but deeds are not, and so admit a wider interpretation. Hence if soldiers feign flight to draw the enemy into an ambush, they are not guilty of hypocrisy, as they would be if they were to say in words: "We flee, O enemy, because we are afraid of you." Again, observe the following rule: When there is a just cause of concealing the truth, no falsehood is involved. Peter, in the act under discussion, had partly a just cause, viz., the fear of offending the Jews. His withdrawal from the Gentiles was not a formal declaration that he was a Judaiser, but only tantamount to saying that he preferred to serve the Jews rather than the Gentiles, the just cause of this preference being that he was more an Apostle of the former than of the latter. I say partly, for he was not wholly justified in so acting, inasmuch as he was bound, as universal pastor, to care for the Jews without neglecting the Gentiles. Hence it follows also that in one respect he sinned through want of due consideration. The infirmity of man's mind, however, is such that he cannot always hit the exact mean, and under complex circumstances benefit one without harming another. Some one will object then: Since Paul corrected Peter, he was of equal, if not superior authority; in other words Paul, and not Peter, was the head of the Apostles. I deny the consequence. For superiors may, in the interests of truth, be corrected by their inferiors. Augustine (Ep. xix.), Cyprian, Gregory, and S. Thomas lay down this proposition in maintaining also that Peter, as the superior, was corrected by his inferior. The inference from what they say is that Paul was equal to the other Apostles, inferior to Peter, and hence they all were Peter's inferiors; they were the heads of the whole Church, and Peter was their chief. Gregory (Hom. 18 in Ezech.) says: " Peter kept silence, that the first in dignity might be first in humility;" and Augustine says the same (Ep. xix. ad Hieron.): " Peter gave to those who should follow him a rare and holy example of humility under correction by inferiors, as Paul did of bold resistance in defence of truth to subordinates against their superiors, charity being always preserved."
2:12
He did eat with the Gentiles. He ate, according to Anselm, of pork and other forbidden meats, without any scruple, to show that the Ceremonial Law was abrogated. Ver. 13. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him. What was the nature of this dissimulation? Jerome, Chrysostom, and Œcumenius say it was "economical," to prevent the Jews being scandalised; but Augustine, Anselm, and the Latins in general give a more satisfactory explanation in maintaining that it was an act of hypocrisy. The latter, too, have the Greek on their side, the literal meaning of which is, they acted hypocritically with him. They pretended to keep the law, which they knew to be abrogated. Barnabas followed them in pretending that there was a difference in meats, and that the Jews were to be preferred to the Gentiles, and so, though they did not consciously intend it, yet they made the Greeks to believe that the Old Law was necessary to salvation. Ver. 14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly. The Greek word used here denotes literally to walk straight, without turning to the right hand or to the left.
2:14
If thou being a Jew lives after the manner of the Gentiles. To live as a Gentile is to partake indifferently of the same food, and thereby to show that the ceremonies of the law are dead, if not deadly, now that the Gospel is being preached. Having done this, why do you now avoid the Gentiles, and so compel them to Judaise? Ver. 15. Sinners of the Gentiles. So, according to Augustine and Anselm, the Jews contemptuously called the Gentiles, as being idolaters. Ver. 16. A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ. The English but here exactly interprets the work that the Latin translates by nisi. There is an antithesis between the works of the law and the faith of Jesus Christ, and accordingly the Protestants are wrong in neglecting the force of the antithesis, and translating the phrase as if it meant a man is justified only by the faith of Christ. Moreover, even if the Apostle had said the latter, yet he would lend no support to the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith only, for S. Thomas admits faith as the sole justifying cause. The word only excludes the works of the law, not the works of hope, fear, charity, and penance, which spring from faith as daughters from a mother. Ver. 17. But if while we seek to be justified by Christ we ourselves also are found sinners, is, therefore, Christ the minister of sin ? 1. If we are still in sin, and are looking to faith in Christ for forgiveness, while as a matter of fact it is not to be found there, but in the law, then does Christ support sin, inasmuch as He has taken away the law, which, according to the Judaisers, alone destroys sin. If the law alone justifies, then the law of grace, which abolishes the law, is the minister of sin. This is the interpretation of Jerome, Chrysostom, Primasius, Anselm, and Theophylact. 2. Vatablus says that "to be found a sinner" means to teach that the Mosaic law is necessary to salvation along with the Evangelical law. If, says S. Paul, we have taught this, as our traducers say we have, is then Christ or the Gospel involved in this heresy? 3. Others again interpret the verse thus: If we also, who boast of our being justified in Christ, are found sinners; if we give way to our lusts equally with the Jews or the Gentiles, who are aliens to Christ, does it necessarily follow that our teaching about justification through Christ is erroneous? Does Christ make us sinners unless He be joined to the Law? If Christ's followers give way to sin it is their own fault, not His. The first of these three interpretations is the best, as being the least forced. The others have to supply a clause; the second supplies "are called sinners," the third, "because they give way to their lusts." The first two agree better with the context. The Apostle is trying to prove that faith and not the law justifies. If, then, they who trust to faith in Christ are none the less found sinners, then Christ is found a deceiver in promising righteousness by faith, and in not keeping His promise. Hence He becomes the servant of sin, not its conqueror, especially since He has abrogated the law, which, they say, was our justifier against sin. The Apostle uses a common Hebraism. His question implies a negative reply, and refutes the Judaising error by a reductio ad absurdum. Cf. Rom 3:5; S. Joh 8:53; Jer 18:20.
2:18
Ver. 18. For if I build again if I attribute justifying faith to the law the things which I destroyed i.e., the law, as justifying I make myself a Transgressor. Like a Proteus, I change my faith at every wind. This is a fresh argument. If I do what the Jews falsely allege against me, I shall be a hypocrite, a destroyer in public of what I build again in private. But a hypocrite no one has charged me with being. Ver. 19. For I through the law am dead to the law. The law was the forerunner of Christ, and died when He appeared. The Ceremonial died absolutely, the Moral only so far as it was a tutor, and a judge of sin. By the law itself I died to law, because itself bade me die to it and live unto Christ. This is a second reason, following on that given in ver. 17, why we are justified by Christ and not by the law. Since the law itself sent me to Chris, why do you, O Jews, go against its own declarations, and seek to galvanise it into fresh life? It does not, however, follow from this that the binding force of the Decalogue ceased when Christ came, for the law in this respect was not Mosaic, but natural and immutable. Cf. notes on Rom 7:1. Accordingly, Luther's remarks here and again on chapter iv. of this Epistle are impious. " To die to the law," he says, " is nothing but to be free from obeying it, whether it be ceremonial or moral, for it is obvious that the law was given to the Jews, and not to us." He says the same in his treatise de Libertate Christiantâ: " The Christian needs neither law nor works, for by faith he is free from all law." Again, in the Wittenberg Edition of his works (pp. 189, 190), he says: " The human heart must hate above all things the law of God, and so far God Himself. " Listen to these words, all ye who have been miserably deceived by him and his colleagues, and shudder at the words not of a man but of Satan. For what more blasphemous and abominable words could Satan, the sworn foe of God and man, utter against God, or what words more dangerous to man? The sentiments of Calvin (Instit. lib. 3, cap. 19, § 2, 4, 7): " When conscience says, 'Thou hast sinned,' reply, ' Yes, I have sinned.' 'God will, therefore, condemn and Punish you.' 'No, for it is the law that threatens that; but I have nothing to do with the law.' 'Why?' 'Because I am free.' " Is this the pure Gospel? Did Paul teach this? " Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid. Yea, we establish the law. " (Rom 3:31.) " Who," says S. Augustine (contra Ep. Pelag. lib. iii. c. 4), " is so impious as to say that he does not keep the commandments, because a Christian is not under the law but under grace ?" Who can believe that Luther and Calvin were sent by God to be reformers of the Church, when they abrogate all law, human and Divine? Ver. 20. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. By baptism I am crucified with Christ, and dead to sin and the law; I am cut off from the old tree, and grafted as a new branch into the new tree of the Cross of Christ, from which I draw a new life, so that it is not so much I that live but Christ who lives in me. It is not the law, not nature, not concupiscence, not my own will that now drives me into action; but Christ's grace is now, as it were, my soul, and the cause of all virtuous living, and the wellspring of humility, fortitude, wisdom, joy, peace, and all virtues. So Jerome, Chrysostom, Anselm. Gregory (Hom. 32 in Evan.) says. " We leave ourselves, we deny ourselves when we change what we were in the old man, and strive for what we are called in the new. Think how Paul denied himself when he said, 'It is not I that live.' The cruel persecutor was dead, the pious preacher had begun to live; for if he were himself, he would not be pious. But if he asserts that it is not he that lives, let him tell us whence it is that he preaches holiness in his teaching of the truth. He adds 'Yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.' It is as if he said plainly: 'As far as I am concerned, I am dead, for I do not live after the flesh; but yet I am not really dead, for I live spiritually in Christ.' " So too Chrysostom writes: " See and admire an exact explanation of life. Since he had given himself wholly to Christ and His Cross, and did everything at His command, he did not say, 'I live to Christ,' but, what is much more, 'Christ liveth in me.' " So too S. Jerome. " He who once lived as a persecutor and under the law, lives no longer. But Christ liveth in him as wisdom, fortitude, peace, joy, and all virtues. He who has not these cannot say, 'Christ liveth in me.' " S. Bernard (Serm. 7 in Quad.) says: These words of Paul are as if he should say: 'To all other things I am dead; I do not feel them, I pay them no attention, I care not for them. Whatever, however, is Christ's finds me alive and ready. For if I can do nothing else, at all events I can feel. Whatever makes for his honour pleases me, what against it displeases. Yea, it is not I that live, it is Christ that lives in me.' " It is Christ then, that teaches, preaches, prays, works, suffers in me, says S. Paul, so much so that I seem to be changed into Christ and Christ into me. " Each one," says S. Augustine (in Ep. Joan. tract. 2), " is what he loves. If thou lovest earth, thou will be earthly; if thou lovest God, thou wilt be God." Or, as S. Dionysius puts it, "Love changes the lover into what he loves." Cf. Hos 9:10: "Their abominations were according as they loved." The metaphor of the old tree and the new, the old life and the new, used here by S. Paul, is paralleled by that used in Rom. vi., where he speaks of our being planted, buried, crucified, dead, and risen, together with Christ. So S. Ignatius wrote to the Romans, "My love was crucified" my love, my life, my soul, my whole being was crucified when Christ suffered. Notice here four properties of love. (1.) According to Dionysius (de Divin. Nomin. c. 4), "love is a unifying force." This the Apostle touches in the words: "I am crucified with Christ;" I am united to, and am as it were one with Christ crucified. (2.) The second property of love is mutual inherence, which links God and man in the bonds of mutual love, and causes each to will what the other wills, and to say with the Bride in Song vi. 3: "I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine." This too S. Paul alludes to when he says that "he is in Christ, and Christ in him." (3.) The third property is to turn the thoughts always in the same direction. For love, as a bond between minds, necessarily governs the thoughts of the mind. This S. Paul touches in the words, "I live," and "Christ liveth," i.e., the same life of memory, understanding, and will. (4.) The fourth is ecstasy. " Divine love," says Dionysius (ubi supra), " causes ecstasy; it takes lovers out of themselves, so that they are no longer their own masters, but pass under the yoke of what they love. Hence the exclamation of Paul, when on fire with love and dominated by it: 'I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.' Like a true lover, he was beside himself. We may even venture to say that a lover passes all bounds of self, and can do everything for the greatness of his love, because it makes him reach out in every direction and lay hold of everything." Nay, ecstatic love laid hold on God Himself, and made Him communicate Himself to His creatures, and still more strongly, when it led Him to ally the Person of the Word to human nature in the Incarnation (Phil. ii. 7). It was ecstasy, therefore, which made the Word flesh, crucified It, and gave It the likeness of sin, because we were sinners and condemned to death; for it was out of His great, nay, His ecstatic love that Christ took all that we are, sin only excepted. This ecstasy of love may almost be said to have changed the heart of Paul into the heart of Christ, just as we read about S. Catherine of Sienna, that her ardent love for Christ made her ask Him to remove her own heart and give her His; whereupon He granted her petition, and in place of her own gave her a new Christ-like heart. So too S. Chrysostom (Hom. 23 in Ep. ad Rom.), after quoting, these words of Paul's, went on to say: " And so the heart of Paul was the heart of Christ, the tablets of the Holy Spirit, a roll written on by charity." A little before he had called the heart of Paul, " the heart of the world," and given this explanation of the term: " His heart was so enlarged that in it was room for whole cities and peoples and tribes. For 'my heart,' he says, 'is enlarged.' Nevertheless, however large it was, the love which enlarged it often brought it anguish. 'Out of much tribulation and sorrow,' he says, 'have I written unto you;' and I would fain see that heart melted, burning with love of them that they are perishing, bringing forth children. A heart that sees God is higher than the heavens, wider than the world, brighter than the rays of the sun, hotter than fire, harder than adamant, that sends forth streams of living water, a springing well, that waters not the face of the earth but the souls of men." This ecstasy has often been experienced by saints who have been overcome by the love of Christ. S. Dominic, when elevating the Body of Christ in the Mass, was carried aloft, and his body, catching the fire with which his soul was consumed, was kindled as it were into a flame, whilst he ascended to be united to Christ, his love. S. Francis too conceived in his mind such ardour, as S. Bonaventura says, from the seraph who appeared to him at night, that his body was wonderfully changed from that of an earthly man to a heavenly spirit, and into an image of the Crucified: bearing the five wounds of the Saviour, and the five marks burnt into him by the fire of the love of Christ, he became a marvel to the world. Well too says S. Gregory of Nyssa (Hom. 15 in Cant.): " 'To me to live is Christ.' By these words the Apostle not only exclaims that in him live no human affections, such as pride, fear, lust, grief, anger, timidity, audacity, recollection of injuries, envies, desire of revenge, of money, of honour, or of glory, but that all these being killed, He only remains who is none of these, who is sanctification, purity, immortality, and light and truth, who feeds among the lilies in the glories of His saints." So did Andrew the Apostle joyfully embrace the Cross. When he was condemned by Ægeas, Proconsul of Achaia, to be crucified for preaching the Cross, he exclaimed, as he approached the cross prepared for him: " O noble cross, long desired, ardently loved, ever sought, already foreseen, gaily and gladly do I come to thee; may my Master, who hung on thee, welcome me, His disciple, that through thee I may come to Him who through thee redeemed me." So saluting the cross, and making his prayer, he stripped off his garments and surrendered himself to his executioners, who thereupon tied him with ropes to the cross and raised him aloft. There he hung for two days and taught the people, till, finally, after having asked the Lord that he might not be taken down from the cross, he was surrounded with a glorious light from heaven, and when the light departed he gave up the ghost. All this is related in his Acts, which are thoroughly trustworthy. So too S. Peter, when condemned by Nero to the cross, asked and obtained that he might be crucified, not like his Master, but with his head downwards. S. Philip the Apostle preached the faith to the Scythians at Hierapolis, a city of Asia, during the reign of the Emperor Claudius; and having baptized many of them, he was at length crucified by the heathens and stoned, and so died a blessed martyr, as Eusebius relates, and, following him, Baronius. When S. Bartholomew the Apostle had spread the Gospel through Lycaonia, in Greater Armenia, when Astyax was king, and had converted a temple of Ashtaroth in Lower India into a temple of the true God, and had baptized King Polemius and all his subjects, he was seized shortly afterwards, and after being beaten with sticks was crucified, and then flayed alive. On the twenty-fourth day afterwards he was beheaded, and so died. At Rome, when Decius and Valerian were emperors, Pope Xystus was thrown into the Tullian prison and afterwards crucified. Prudentius (Hymn. 2 de S. Laurentio) thus alludes to this: " When Xystus was already fastened to the cross he said prophetically to Laurence, when he saw him standing weeping at the foot of his cross: 'Cease to weep for me; I go before thee, my brother. In three days thou shalt follow me.' " S. Dionysius the Areopagite was scourged at Paris in the time of the Emperor Hadrian, then tortured by fire and thrown to the wild beasts, without suffering any harm. He was then raised on a cross, from which he was taken down and again scourged, after which his head was cut off, and he carried it in his own hands for two miles. Baronius (in Martyrol. Oba 1:9). When S. Calliopus, a devout youth, was invited to a banquet spread in honour of the gods, he replied: " I am a Christian; I worship Christ with fastings, and it is not lawful for a Christian mouth to receive what has been offered to infamous and unclean idols." The governor, on hearing this, ordered him to be cruelly scourged, and then bade him give up his foolish craze, obey the decrees of the emperors, sacrifice to the gods, and so save his life, otherwise he should be crucified like his Master. Calliopus replied: " I wonder at your impudence; you have been repeatedly told that I am a Christian, and that when a Christian dies he will live with Christ, yet you impudently fight against the truth. Hasten for me the same death as any Master bore." When the governor saw that he was not to be shaken from his purpose, he gave sentence that he should be crucified on the Friday in Holy Week. When his mother heard of this, she bribed the soldiers to crucify her son with his head downwards, which was done. When he died a voice was heard from heaven: " Come, thou citizen of Christ's kingdom and fellow-heir of the holy angels." All this is related in his Life by Surius (April 7). Wonderful, too, was the love of the Cross shown by a mere boy, S. Wernher, and wonderful was his martyrdom by crucifixion. Having confessed and made his Communion, he was secretly taken by the Jews, and on Good Friday, in imitation of Christ, and out of hatred to Him, tied to a wooden pillar. There he was cruelly scourged, cut about with a knife in every part of his body, tortured with pincers, so that he seemed to be dead. The holy boy, however, lingered three days, hanging from the pillar, till the blood ceased to flow, when, after bearing his sufferings with the utmost patience, he gave up his spirit to Christ, crucified to the glory of God. See the account of him in Surius (April 2). For similar cruelties on the part of the Jews, see Socrates (Hist. lib. vii. c. 16). Ado (Martyrol. May 22), and, following him, Baronius (A.D. 440), relates a similar story of a holy maiden named Julia, who was brought before Felix, and urged by every blandishment to sacrifice to idols. On her refusal she was beaten by the hands of the servants, tortured by means of her hair, scourged, and crucified. When she gave up the ghost a dove left her mouth and flew to heaven. Who shall find a brave woman? Her price is far off, yea, from the ends of the earth. Lately in Japan six Franciscans, three of our Order, and seventeen Japanese laymen, among them a lad, Aloysius, of twelve years, and another, Antonius, of thirteen, were, by order of King Taicosama, crucified, and pierced with a sword in the right side. They thus joyfully suffered the agonies of martyrdom.
2:20
Who loved me and gave Himself for me. Note the use of the singular. It is not us nor for us, but me and for me. Paul speaks thus: (1.) because of the greatness and the sweetness of his love; (2.) because he felt himself the first of sinners; (3.) because each one owes thanks to Christ for His death, just as though Christ had died for him only. " Happy, thrice happy he," says S. Jerome, " who can say, because Christ lives in him, in every thought and work, 'I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.' " Ver. 21. I do not frustrate the grace of God. I do not reject or spurn, or, as S. Ambrose renders it, " I am not ungrateful to the grace of God." S. Augustine takes it as in the text. They frustrate the grace of God, says S. Jerome, who seek for justification through the law, and those who after baptism are polluted by sin. But this is a moral interpretation; that first given is the literal meaning.
2:21
For if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Since Christ gave His life as the price of our justification, He would have given it in vain if we could gain that justification through the law. This is a third argument, ex impossibili. No one is so mad as to say that Christ suffered in vain; but He did suffer for our justification; therefore we are justified by Christ, not by Moses by faith, not by the law.
2:1
Postquam 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. 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. Circa primum duo facit. Primo agit de collatione quam habuit cum apostolis; secundo insinuat quid inde secutum sit, ibi sed neque Titus, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit circumstantias ipsius collationis; secundo ponit ipsam collationem, ibi et contuli cum illis, et cetera. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Materia de qua contulit, fuit Evangelium.
2:2
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
2:3
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.
2:4
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. 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.
2:5
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. 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. 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.
2:6
Ostenso 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
2:7
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. 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. 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. 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.
2:8
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. 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. 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.
2:9
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.
2:10
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. 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.
2:12
Supra 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
2:13
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. 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. 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.
2:14
V, 20: peccantem coram omnibus argue. Quod intelligendum est de peccatis manifestis, et non de occultis, in quibus debet servari ordo fraternae correctionis. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
2:15
Supra 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
2:16
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. 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. 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.
2:17
Postquam 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
2:19
Hic 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
2:20
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. 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. 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. 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. Modus autem abiiciendi et ingratitudinis est, si dicerem quod lex esset necessaria ad iustificandum.
2:21
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.
2:1
1. Deinde post annos quatuordecim iterum ascendi Jerosolymam cum Barnaba. Describitur haec profectio ejusque causa Actor. 15. De illa namque Paulum hic loqui, quamvis Chrysost. et alii nonnulli negent, Hieronymus dubitet; plurium tamen interpretum est, et maxime probabilis sententia, quam bonis argumentis praeterea asserunt Cardinal. Baronius annalium suorum tomo 1. ad annum Domini 51. et Benedictus Pererius in Disput. prolog. priore super epistolam ad Roman. Fuit autem haec tertia Pauli post conversionem Jerosolymitana profectio. Nam de secunda sic meminit Lucas Actor. 12. Barnabas autem et Saulus reversi sunt ab Jerosolymis, expleto ministerio, cuji.s nimirum gratia fuerant profecti. Verum hanc profectionem Apostolus in praesenti narratione praetermittit, quod illam non ob aliudsuscepisset, quam ut eleemosynam ab ecclesiis collectam una cum Barnaba Jerosolymam perferret. Id enim est, quod Lucas vocat ministerium. Sed ejus rei commemoratio non pertinebat ad rem praesentem. Porro quatuordecim annos dicit, non a triennio post suam conversionem, quando, sicut dictum est superius, Petrum Jerosolymis vidit; ut jam sint a conversione septemdecim anni, quemadmodum intellexit Hieronymus, et alii quidam eum secuti: sed quatuordecim ab ipsa conversione. Sic enim Beda super Actor. 15. et autor ordinariae glossae hujus loci, nec non Aquinas et Cajetanus in Commentariis non modo sentiunt, sed etiam probant. Denique accurate demonstrant autores memorati Baronius et Pererius. Hic observandum est, Apostolum Paulum non prius, quam mota a quibusdam esset dubitatio de doctrinae suae veritate ac sinceritate, Jerosolymam ascendisse conferendi cum Apostolis evangelii sui gratia. Id enim palam ostendit locus Actorum, ubi sic legitur: Et quidam descendentes de Judaea docebant fratres, quia nisi circumcidamini secundum morem Moysi, non potestis salvari. Facta ergo seditione et disceptatione non minima Paulo et Barnabae adversus illos; statuerunt, ut ascenderent Paulus et Barnabas, et quidam alii ex aliis, ad Apostolos et presbyteros in Jerusalem super hac quaestione. Haec ibi. Ex quibus etiam liquet, quare una cum Paulo ascenderit Barnabas; erat enim is Paulo socius evangelii et doctrinae, quam gentibus praedicabant. Observandum est, Paulum post conversionem quinquies ascendisse Jerosolymam, quod quidem ex Scripturie doceri possit. Act. 9. Iterum cap. 12. Item 15., deinde cap. 18., licet ibi non expresse dicatur; satis tamen probatur partim ex Graeco codice, partim ex versib. 20. 21. 22. postremo Act. 21.
Assumpto et Tito. Hujus in Acti3 nulla mentio est, quia ad ejus loci narrationem nihil attinebat, eum nominari. Hic vero plurimum attinet. Sensus enim est: Ausus sum, etiam Titum assumere, quamvis gentilis esset et incircumcisus. Tanta mihi fuit ad Apostolos proficiscenti causae meae fiducia, ut non dubitavcrim, illuc adducere mecum hominem incircumcisum, non solum comitem itineris, verum etiam Evangelii praedicandi socium; licet frementibus adversum me fratribus, qui circumcisionem necessariam praedicabant.
2:2
2. Ascendi aucem secundum revelationem. Id est, monitus revelatione divina. Hinc colligunt quidam, profectionem hanc diversam fuisse ab ea, quae describitur Act. 15., quod illic non ex divina revelatione, sed humano consilio ac decreto profecti Jercsolymam dicantur Paulus et Barnabas cum caeteris. Verum nulla repugnantia est; potuit enim fieri, ut Paulus speciali revelatione moneretur idem illud facere, quod homines faciendum statuebant, quemadmodum legimus Act. 10. Petrum divinitus monitum, ut iret cum quibusdam, a quibus tamen ad hoc ipsum quaerebatur. Quod autem nonnulli hic non novam Apostolo factam putant revelationem, sed ascendisse eum interpretantur secundum revelationem dudum acceptam, scilicet eam, qua didicerat Evangelium a Christo, de quo superiori capite, non placet. Nam illa revelatio generalis erat de Evangelio ac gentium vocatione; hic autem Apostolus, ut factis suis autoritatem conciliet, specialem urget revelationem, qua jussus fuerit, ob controversiam tunc excitatam petere Jerosolymam.
Et contuli cum illis Evangelium, quod praedico in gentibus. Augustinus legit: Et exposui illis. Sed intellige, more conferentis. Id enim vult, etiam Hieronymo teste, quod in Graeco est, avs&eu/yjv auTO~ic. Nam sensus est: Communicavi cum illis, qui Jerosolymis erant, de Evangelio, quod praedico inter gentes, deque tota ratione doctrinae meae, quam tradidi e1 etiam nunc trado gentibus, quarum sum Apostolus. Non itaque discendi studio, quod supra negavit, Evangelium suum nunc demum cum Ecclesia Jerosolymitana confert; sed ut omnes intelligerent, eum nihil ab illa diversum docere; cujus rei calumniam patiebatur propter legem et circumcisionem, a cujus onere gentes vindicabat. Contulit ergo cum aliis, non ut inferior, sed ut in munere praedicandi Evangelii aequalis. Nam inter conferentes, ait Hieronymus, aequalitas est; inter docentem et discentem minor est ille, qui discit.
Seorsum autem iis, qui videbantur aliquid esse. Hae duae voculae, aliquid esse, in multis codicibus Mss. non leguntur; ut nec apud Hieronymum. Augustinus etiam absque iis locum hunc citat lib. 2. quaest. Evang. cap. 40. et alibi; sed nec in commentario eas legit, secundum exemplaria correctiora. Denique Graeci codices non addunt, dumtaxat hoc loco, nam infra nobiscum legunt, ab iis autem, qui videbantur esse aliquid. Qui locus, ut huc quoque adscriberentur, occasionem dedit, tametsi ad sensum vix quicquam videtar interesse, sunt enim Apostolo iidem hoc cap:, qui videbantur, et: qui videbantur esse aliquid, et: qui videbantur columnae esse: nisi quod hoc postremum plus aliquid sonat, ut infra videbitur. Etenim Graecis oV/COovtsc; dicuntur, qui in pretio habentur, et magnae sunt existimationis. Significat autem imprimis Petrum, Jacobum et Joannem, quos postea nominat. Hi namque apud fideles praecipuae erant autoritatis, nec immerito: siquidem eosdem Paulus 2 Cor. 11. et 12. magnos, et supra modum Apostolos vocat. Sensus igitur est: Contuli cum fratribus, qui erant Jerosolymis Evangelium meum, idque palam et publice; seorsum autem ac privatim illud contuli cum primariis Apostolis. Juxta hunc sensum, apparet Paulum cum Apostolis aliquid privata collatione egisse, quod cum caeteris non egerit in conventu publico. Nam publice quidem ita contulit, ut ostenderet gentes non debere circumcidi, et servare legem Mosis: unde nata erat quaestio; quemadmodum patet Act. 15. Privato autem et secreto colloquio cum Apostolis habito, placuit, ipsos quoque Judaeos ab observantia Mosaicae legis, utpote jam exstinctae et mortuae per Christum, esse liberandos; quod publice declarari nondum oportebat, ne Judaei fideles, qui legem Mosaicam mordicus sibi retinendam putabant, offenderentur atque a fide Christi resilirent. Sic enim Jacobus Act. 21. Paulum alloquitur: Vides frater, quot millia sunt in Judaeis, qui crediderunt: et omnes aemulatores sunt legis etc. Porro utramque paitem totius sententiae ad eosdem referunt, nimirum ad solos Apostolos, Cajetanus et alii quidam, ut posterior pars explicatio sit prioris. Contuli cum Apostolis Evangelium meum: cum iis, inquam, qui praecipui nominis erant apud fideles, idque privatim feci: ne forte etc. Nobis prior sensus et plenior, et commodior esse videtur.
Ne forte in vacuum currerem aut cucurrissem. Ne forte, Graece: ne quo modo. Sensus est, Evangelium meum cum illis contuli, non ut discerem, quod prius nesciebam, aut quasi causae meae parum fiderem: sed ne sine fructu praedicarem Evangelium, aut hactenus praedicassem: dum scilicet a falsis fratribus passim traducor apud eos, quibus hactenus praedicavi, et quibus adhuc praedico, tanquam diversam et dissonantem a caeteris Apostolis doctrinam evulgans. Opus evangelicae praedicationis cursum suum vocat, quod in eo obeundo et exequendo summa cum alacritate versaretur, ita 1 Cor. 9. Sic curro, non quasi in incertum, et 2 Tim. 4. cursum consummavi. Ostendit autem hic locus, quam sit necessarium, doctrinam etiam bonam et divinitus acceptam communicari cum iis, qui praesunt Ecclesiae, ut ab illis examinata et approbata cum fructu praedicari, cumque securitate et certitudine possit a fidelibus suscipi. Unde Hieronym. epist. 89. ad Augustinum cap. 2. affirmat, Paulum hoc loco significare, se non habuisse securitatem praedicandi Evangelii, nisi Petri et caeterorum Apostolorum, qui cum eo erant, fuisset sententia roboratus. Et Augustinus lib. 28. contra Faustum cap. 4. Ipse Paulus Apostolus, inquit, post ascensionem Domini de coelo vocatus, si non inveniret in carne Apostolos, quibus communicando et cum quibus conferendo Evangelium ejusdem societatis esse appareret; Ecclesia illi omnino non crederet. Sed cum cognovisset eum hoc annuntiantem, quod etiam illi annuntiabant, et in eorum communione atque unitate viventem: accedentibus etiam per eum talibus signis, qualia et illi operabantur: ita eum Domino commendante, meruit autoritatem, ut verba illius hodie sic audiantur in Ecclesia, tanquam in illo Christus, sicut ipse verissime dixit, locutus audiatur; haec Augustinus. Quae verba bene notanda contra novos magistros, qui pro verbo Dei non verentur orbi Christiano doctrinas suas obtrudere; nec prius cum Ecclesiae praefectis communicatas, nedum ab illis approbatas, nec ullo miraculo confirmatas. Similis locus est apud eundem August. lib. 2. qq. Evang. cap. 40.
2:3
3. Sed neque Titus, qui mecum erat, cum esset gentilis, compulsus est circumcidi. Graece, cum esset Graecus, sed Apostolus Graecum dixit pro gentili, sicut alibi, quoties Graecum opporit Judaeo; ut Rom. 1. 2. et 3. cap. Sensus et connexio hujusmodi est. Quod si Apostoli, cum quibus Evangelium contuli, quod in gentibus praedico, sensissent, observationem Mosaicae legis, cujus praecipua pars esfc circumcisio, necessariam esse Christianis: utique Titum gentilem, quem mecum assumseram, jussissent circumcidi, praesertim instantibus Judaeis, ut id fieret. Atqui factum id non est.
2:4
4. Sed propter subintroductos falsos fratres. Nonnulli codices particulam sed, pro qua in Graeco et apud Ambrosianum est autem, omittunt; quam Hieronymus quoque redundare putat; et Erasmus Hieronymi autoritatem secutus in sua versione suppressit, quod sensus Apostoli videatur clarior ea remota, quasi dicat: Titum comitem suum, qui gentilis erat, non fuisse coactum circumcidi propter falsos fratres, id est, quamvis falsi fratres odiose instarent, ut gentiles Christo adscripti circumciderentur; quemadmodum docet locus Act. 15. Verum lectio nostra, cum sit apud omnes Pauli interpretes tam Graecus quam Latinos, non temere est immutanda. Quod demum intelligens Erasmus in paraphrasi eam sibi retinendam et explicandam putavit. Sed de sensu mox videbimus; pendet enim a sequentibus. Porro subintroductos, sive subinductitios, aut ut est apud Tertullianum lib. 5. contra Marcionem cap. 3. superinductitios (nam in Graeco nomen est, non participium icapetoaxTOOc) eos intelligit Apostolus, qui, quum lateret quales essent, obiter ac furtim exploratorum more fuerant introducti aut ingressi inEcclesiam. Sumitur enim fere dictio Graeca in malam partem, ejusque vim diligenter explicat Chrysostomus. Estque idem judicium de verbo TCJCpsiarjAfrov,, subintroierunt, quod est in parte sequenti. Ejusdem significationis est KapeiO&oooaVj quo Judas Apostoltts utitur in sua Epistola de haereticis loquens; quodque noster interpres itidem vertit, subintroierunt. Vocat autem Paulus i^suSaSsA^ouCj id est, falsos fratres, quod solo nomine fratres, id est, Christiani essent, reipsa vero hostes intestini, rectam fidem Ecclesiae evertere molientes. Horum antesignanum id temporis fuisse Cerinthum haeresiarcham, autor est Epiphanius haeresi 28.
Qui subintroierunt explorare libertatem nostram, quam habemus in Christo Jesu. Libertas, quam habemus in Christo, ea est, qua liberi ab cbservatione legis Mosaicae, ex Christi gratia justitiam et peccatorum remissionem accipimus. Tametsi sciendum est, Apostolum nondum hic urgere negotium justificationis, sed eam dumtaxat partem libertatis nominare, qua fideles a jugo legis ceremonialis erant liberi.
Ut nos in servitutem redigerent. Qui, inquit, falsi fratres subintroierunt, id est, irrepserunt iu Ecclesiam, ad explorandam Ubertatem nostram, quam habemus in Christo, hoc est, in Christianismo, vel in Christo, id est, per Christum ejusque meritum; ut ea libertate explorata et cognita, nobis eam extorquerent, aut nos accusarent, nosque una secum servituti legis subiicerent. Id enim exploratomm est, ad hoc cognoscore velle, ut accuses, auferas aut expugnes. Potest etiam sententia, magis specialiter, ad hunc modum de falsis fratribus exponi. Qui subintroierunt atque ingesserunt se in conventum Jerosolymitanum exploraturi utrum nos, etiam apud Apostolos, legis ceremonias non observaremus, ac ne apud eos quidem Titum circumcidi pateremur (hanc enim suam et eorum, qui secum erant, libertatem appellat), ut si forte comperissent, nos metu Apostolorum circumcidisse Titum, eo exemplo et praescriptione traderent nos in servitutem legis; aut si id non fecissemus, accusarent nos apud Apostolos, et eorum autoritate tentarent cogere nos ad legem servandam. Sensus hic maxime congruit institutae narrationi de iis, quae Jerosolymis acta fuerunt.
2:5
5. (juibus neque ad horam cessimus subjectione, ut veritas Evangelii permaneat apud vos. Hujus partis lectio primum examinanda est, tum videndum, quomodo cum praecedentibus cohaereat, postremo sensus totius sententiae inquirendus. Itaque notandum, usque ad Hieronymi tempora codices Latinos sine negatione partem hanc legisse, quibus ad horam cessimus etc. Liquet hoc ipsius Hieronymi testimonio ccmmentantis in hunc locum; atque ita legerunt Tertull. lib. 5. contra Marcionem cap. 3. et Ambrosianus eundem hunc locum explanans; quibus adde Irenaeum Graecum lib. 3. contra haereses cap. 13. Verum nostrorum codicum lectio Graecis tam codicibus quam commentariis,.etiamantiquissimisplane consonat; etiamsi praedicti autores Latini contendant, Graeca vitiata esse. Probat eandem lectionem Hieronymus; nec secus legit Augustinus ac caeteri Latinorum Hieronymo posteriores. Denique ea sola reperitur hodie, non modo in Graecis et Latmis codicibus, verum etiam in versione Syriaca. Jam et illud monendum, particulam relativam, quibus, apud autores Tertullianum et Ambrosianum non haberi; quibus et Latina quaedam MSS. suffragantur. Sed quoniam apud caeteros omnes aut pene omnes interpretes, idque juxta fidem Graecorum omnium exemplarium legitur, accedentibus etiam praestantissimis Latinis; non dubitamus quin ab Apostolo scripta fuerit; licet forte quoad sensum redundet, de quo statim videbitur. Tertia varietas est in vocabulo, subjectione; pro quo non pauci legunt dativum, subjectioni, siquidem ex Graeco potest utrumque verti; sed commodius in auferendi casu, quem Romana habet editio, quemque Graecorum commentarii postulant. Hae porro tam variae praesentis loci lectiones multos ac diversos sensus pepererunt. Qui negationem tollunt, sensum Apostoli faciunt adversativum ei, quod dixerat, Titum non fuisse compulsum circumcidi, tanquam e contrario subjungat, sed propter subingressos falsos fratres, qui etc. ad horam cessimus subjectione. Id est, metu seditionis, quam parati erant adversum nos commovere falsi fratres, nostrae libertatis exploratores; ad horam, id est, pro tempore, subjecimus nos legi, sivepermittendo tandem, ut Titus circumcideretur (quem sensum a nonnullis tradi refert Hieronymus), sive alias, ad vitandam Judaeorum offensionem, circumcidendo Timotheum Act. 16., et tondendo mihi in Cenchreis caput, ex voto, Act. 18., et ex Jacobi consilio secundum legem me purificando Act. 21. Sic enim intelligunt et explicant hunc locum Tertull. et Ambrosiaster. Quin et S. Thom. hunc «ensum ita refert, ut videatur non abjicere. Verum sane recipi non possunt hae expositiones. Nam prior illa de Tito circumciso manifeste pugrnat cum verbis Apostoli, qui jam ab^olute negaverat Titum compelli potuisse, ut circumcideretur. Utraque vero totam intentionem Apostoli evertit, qui id enixissime agit hac episfola, ne qua ocoasione gentibus imponatur servitus legis. Si enim ipse contrarium aliquando fecit, ne Judaeos offenderet; jam praevaricatus est. Et qua fronte Petrum reprehendit, quem constat ideo solum, ne fratres a Jacobo venientes ofTenderet, a victu gentilium ad horam abstinuisse? Timotheum vero propterea sine scandalo gentilium, et proinde sine justareprehensione, circumcidit; quoniam is ex matre Judaea erat. Itaque ea res nihil pertinebat ad gentiles. Ipse vero Paulus, cum Judaeus esset, potuit illo adhuc tempore, quo lex nondum mortifera erat, ea quae legis sunt observare; dummodo gentes exemplo suo non cogeret judaizare; quod in Petro reprehendit. Adde, quod Apostolus hic dicere non vult, quid alias aliquando fecerit, sed quid tunc, quando Jerosolymis apud Apostolos eiat, compulsus sit aut non compulsus facere. Porro Hieronymus affirmativam lectionem, quamvis eam non probet, existimat ita commodeaccipiposse, Paulum ad tempus cessisse falsis fratribus. id est, acquievis.se eis provocantibus ad Apostolos. Ascendit enim cum eis Jerosolymam, et huic quidem sensui bene congruit ratio subjuncta, ut veritas etc. Haec enim causa fuit Paulo Jei osolymam ascendendi. Convenit etiam, quod ulterius sequitur, ab iis autem, ^ui videbantur ek'. Sed cum Aportvlus Jerosolymam ascenderit secundum revelationem, ut dictum est superius; cumque ex decreto fratrum ac libenter illud fecerit; utique non apparet, hoc esse, in quo ad horam falsis fratribus cesserit subjectione. Rectius fortasse referri posset ea cessio ad decretum Apostolorum, quo placuit gentibus injungi, ut abstinerent a suffocato et sanguine. Id enim factum propter Judaeos, ne a gentilium conversatione, cum quibus in unam congregabantur Ecclesiam, nimium abhorrerent. Verumtamen magis placet lectio negativa; cujus primum facillima est expositio, si cum Hieronymo conjunctionem sed vel autem fingamus esse supervacuam, et illud, propter subintroductos faJsos fratres9qui etc. continua oratione jungamus cum eo, quod praecedit, quem sensum superius indicavimus. Graeci vero particulam autem, adeo non negligunt hoc loco, ut putent, eam habere vim amplificandi, quasi dicat Paulus: At neque Titus, quum mecum inter Apostolos versaretur, compulsus est circumcidi, ne quidem propter subintroductos falsos fratres: id est, nec ad horum quidem importunam instantiam. His enim nec ad horam cessimus. Probari posset haec interpretatio, si negatio fuisset repetita secundo loco: sine qua textus sensum hujusmodi vix admittit. Quapropter illorum sententiae potius accedimus, qui putant eclipticam esse orationem ea parte: sed propter etc, ac supplemento quodam indigere. Sensit hoc Augustinus, qui ita supplet: Propter subintroductos autem falsos fratres non est compulsus Titus circumcidi; id est, non potuit extorqueri ut circumcideretur: ne ex circumcisione hominis gentilis, meo consensu ac velut autoritate facta, argumentum struerent adversarii pro sua doctrina quadicebant: Nisi circumcidamini, non potestis salvari. Potest et aliter absoluta reddi oratio, ut sensus totius loci sit: Sed neque Titus comes meus, cum gentilis et incircumcisus esset, ac mecum inter Apostolos versaretur, compulsus aut jussus est circumcHi; propter subintroductos autem falsos fratres, qui subintroierunt etc. vehementer urgebarnur. Id est, quanquam propter illos urgeremur, ut Titum pateremur circumcidi, quibus tamen tantopere instantibus nec ad tempus quidem cessimus: subjiciendo nos eorum voluntati; aut tradento nos in subjectionem et servitutem legis: idque ut veritas ac sinceritas Evangelii, quae docet, legem abrogatam esse per Christum, nosque per gratiam et non per legem salvari, apud vos Galatas ac caeteros gentiles permaneat, apud quos utique non permaneret, si meo exemplo fidelibus autor essem judaizandi. Si illud, quod Graece legitur hoc loco 01 <z, positum esset pro iis, seu ipsis: tum nullo supplemento foret opus, sed oratio inchoata v. 4. finiretur extremo v. 5. Caeterum facit hic locus contra eos, qui censent, Ecclesiam consulto facturam, si concordiae cum adversariis suis ineundae causa pusillum aliquid ad religionem spectans, quod offendere videtur, eis concedat, ut v. g. Qui putant usum calicis restituendum laicis: ut ad Ecclesiam hoc pacto reducantur schismatici. Non intelligentes, si id concedatur: illos continuo et plura postulaturos et Ecclesiam calumniaturos, quaetandem agnoscat, antehac se errasse atque a Christi instituto deviasse. Verum Ecclesia catholica didicit, exemplo Pauli Apostoli, nec ad horam cedere insidiosis ejusmodi postulatis: ut permaneat apud ipsam cunctosque fideles doctrinae catholicae veritas.
2:6
6. Ab iis autem, qui videbantur esse aliquid. Ambros., qui existimantur aliquid esse. Est enim in Graeco participium praesentis temporis, quod tamen recte vertitur etiam per veibum praeteriti imperfecti, sicut et ab Erasmo factum est. Porro suspensa est oratio per sequentem parenthesim: qua finita, complet sententiam potius quam orationem. Hanc enim incompletam relinquens, mox mutata sermonis forma revertitur ad id, quod instituerat. Facile autem absolvitur haec pars ex illa subjuncta, verbo activo in passivum mutato: ut sensus sit: Ab iis, qui magno erant in pretio, ac primi nominis apud Judaeos fideles: nihil mihi collatum est. Id est, facta Evangelii cum eis communicatione, nihil ab iis mihi accessit. Redit autem post interpositam de Tito narrationem ad ea, quae de collatione cum Apostolis facta dicere coeperat: tacitam removens objectionem, qua cavillari posset aliquis, ipsum ex collatione in Evangelii doctrina adjutum fuisse. Sequitur parenthesis:
Quales aliquando fuerint, nihil mea interest. Hoc dicere videtur, quia Paulo, inter alia objiciebatur, quod aliquando persecutus fuisset Ecclesiam: et hoc nomine minus ei credendum, quasi dicat: quales illi, qui nunc praecipuae sunt autoritatis, aliquando, id est, ante Apostolatum vel ante acceptum Spiritum sanctum fuerint, nolo discutere. Nam vitam eorum praeteritam scrutari non est meum, neque id ad rem facit: alioqui posset etiam in illis inveniri, quod reprehendatur: fuerunt enim et illi aliquando peccatores. Alii respicere Apostolum putant ad humilitatem conditionis pristinae, tanquam sensus sit: Qui nunc sunt in pretio, fuerunt aliquando abjecti, utpote homines illiterati, idiotae, piscatores: ego contra, doctus in lege, institutus ad pedes Gamalielis, clarus inter Judaeos, sed haec non commemoro: non refert qualis quis fuerit, sed qualis sit. Prior sensus est Augustini: posterior Ambrosiani, Thomae, Cajetani et fere Latinorum. Chrysostomus autem ejusque sequaces, et cum iis Hieronymus, sensum hunc faciunt: Quam doctiinam illi olim tenuerint, id est, an legem servaverint atque exemplo suo servandam docuerint, an non: nihil ad me. Sed non placet Augustino cum Hieronymo disputanti hic intellectus, idque merito. Non enim existimandum est ullo modo, Paulum in Petri et aliorum Apostolorum doctrina quicquam reprehendisse aut in dubium vocasse: licet in aliquo facto Petrum reprehenderit, de quo postea. Non enim aliter caeteri Apostoli inter Judaeosobservarunt legalia, quam ipse Paulus, qui 1 Cor. 9. scribit, se Judaeis factum tanquam Judaeum, et iis, qui sub lege erant, quasi et ipse sub lege esset, ut eos Christo lucrifaceret. Itaque dicere non debuisset de suis coapostolis similiter agentibus: nihil mea interest, sed purgare eos a crimine debuisset.
Deus personam hominis non accipit. Personam hominis accipere in Scripturis dicitur, qui attendit in homine conditionem aliquam, puta divitias, potentiam, formam, autoritatem aut simile quid, quod ad negotium, de quo agitur, nihil attinet; praesertim si id fiat in judicio, tunc enim proprie dicta est personarum acceptio, justitiae contraria; de qua Graeci intelligunt Apostolum hic loqui. Juxta quos sensus et connexio talis est, ipsi, quamvis apud homines magni, rationem facti sui Deo judici reddituri sunt, qui personam hominis non respicit, sed juste judicat unumquemque secundum opera. Porro juxta Augustinum et Thomam, atque alios, hoc sensu pars ista cum praecedenti connectitur: Deus in eligendis ad Apostolatum hominibus nullam prioris vitae eorum rationem habet, nec const derat, quales fuerint; sed eligit, quos vult Marc. 3., tam potens ex persecutore, quam ex piscatore, facere praedicatores et Apostolos. Hic sensus sine dubio verior est; tametsi in eo personarum acceptio large, minusque proprie sumatur. Nam alioqui in gratuitis acceptionem personarum locum non habere, testis est ipse Augustinus lib. 2. contra 2 epistolas Pelagian. cap. 6. et 7. Unde autem ea phrasis originem habeat, diximus in comment. Rom. 2. Huc usque parenthesis in textu.
Mihi enim, qui videbaniur esse aliquid, nihil contulerunt. Sententiam, quam imperfectam reliquerat, repetit et absolvit, sed, ut jam dixi, mutata forma orationis. Particula enim repetentis est: Latini dicere solent ergo vel inquam, ac si diceret: mihi, inquam, qui videbantur esee aliquid etc. Ubi sciendum illud aliquid in multis MSS. codicibus non haberi; tantum enim legunt, qui videbantur esse. Nec amplius in Graeco est quam 6oxoovts<;, de quo vocabulo superius diximus. Unde et Hieronymus solummodo legit, qui videbantur, ut dictio aliquid videatur ex superiori parte huc relata. Hinc porro discimus, eadem esse Apostolo, qui videntur et qui videntur esse aliquid; ac rrustra nonnullos in iis distinguendis laborare. Sensus igitur est: Mihi in illa communicatione, quam de Evangelio meo cum praecipuis Apostolis habui, nihil illi contulerunt, id est, nihil ab eis accepi, nihil didici, nihil per eam collationem mihi accessit. Nam accessionem aliquam ex collatione provenientem significare videtur praepositio TZpQQ a fronte addita Graeco verbo, quod superius dixit, contuli. Unde et Augustinus hunc locum ita legit, mihi enim, qui videntur aliquid, nihil apposuerunt. Et in hunc sensum Chrysostomus et Theophylactus exponunt ac Latini fere omnes. Alii sensum esse putant: illi suum Evangelium non vicissim mecum communicarunt, sed meum approbarunt tantummodo. Qua ex re liquet, nihil mihi, quoad Evangelii doctrinam, ab illis accessisse; non enim accedere quicquam potuit, si ne quidem communicandum mecum suum Evangelium putarunt. Nobis prior sensus praeferendus videtur, nam et Valla eum probat, et Erasmus 8equitur in paraphrasi, cum in annotationibus antea diversum docuisset, non absque Vallae reprehensione. Et alioqui sic debuisset dicere Apostolus: non contulerunt mecum suum Evangelium: nunc autem dicit: nihil mihi contulerunt.
2:7
7. Sed econtra, cum vidissent, quod creditum est mihi Evangelium praeputii, sicut Petro circumcisionis. Nonnulli, quos Faber in commentario et Erasmus tam in annotationibus, quam in paraphrasi sequuntur, illud sed econtra separatum a sequentibus ita jungunt cum eo, quod praecessit, ut sensus sit absolutus hujusmodi: Qui videbantur esse aliquid, nihil mihi contulerunt, sed e diverso a me aliquid acceperunt, scilicet ea, quae mihi, non illis, a Deo revelata sunt. Ita enim Faber exponit. Hujus expositionis etiam Hieronymus meminit, secundo loco. Sed econtra, inquit, a me eis collatum est, dum fiunt in Evangelii gratia firmiores. Imo non defuerunt referente Theophylacto, qui sic iuterpretarentur: non solum illi nihil correxerunt meorum, sed vice potius versa correcti sunt. At merito sensum hunc explodit Theophylactus. Etenim si Petrus in Evangelii doctrina nihil contulit Paulo; nec corrigendo, nec adjungendo quippiam, aut supplendo, propterea quod Paulus Evangelium suum non ab hominibus, sed a Christo magistro didicisset; pari ratione nec Paulus in eadem re quicquam Petro caeterisve Apostolis conferre potuit; ut qui aeque Christum ipsum magistrum habuissent, et ad munus Apostolicum perfecte instituti essent a Spiritu sancto. Quod si Paulo peculiares quaedam factae sunt revelationes; haud dubium, quin etiam Petrus divinis revelationibus fuerit honoratus, ut Act. 10. et alias, non utique ad corrigendum vel supplendum Evangelium, sed solum ad Evangelii ministerium cursumque dirigendum. Adde, quod secundum hanc istorum distinctionem id, quod sequitur, cum vidissent etc, nulla conjunctione cum praecedentibus cohaerebit, praesertim in Graeco, ubi pro verbis sunt participia. Multo igitur rectius est, ut cum Chrysostomo, Theophylacto et Oecumenio, nec non cum Hieronymo juxta priorem ejus expositionem, quam plerique etiam Latini sequuntur, hoc, quod ait Apostolus, sed econtra, per hyperbaton, mediis quibusdam transmissis, referatur ad illa longe sequentia, Jacobus et Cephas et Joannes dextras dederunt mihi societatis. Quasi dicat: Illi mihi nihil contulerunt; qum potius a falsis fratribus accusatos in societatem muneris Apostolici tanquam aequales me et Barnabam receperunt. Igitur adversativum illud, sed econtru, non plenam vim habet adversandi; neque enim ita 6emper accipitur apud autores; sed perinde est, ac si dicas, quin magis, sed potius. Porro rationem Pauli in societatem receptionis continent verba interposita, cum vidissent, quod creditum est mihi etc. Id est, cum experimento jam cognovissent, mihi commissum et concreditum esse a Deo munus Evangelii praedicandi inter gentes incircumcisas, quemadmodum Petro concreditum erat apud circumcisos, id est, Judaeos. Non sentit Apostolus, Petrum solius circumcisionis Apostolum fuisse, ac multo minus circumcisionis pastorem atque episcopum; cum ex Actis et aliunde planiesime constet, Petrum etiam gentibus Evangelium praedicasse; quomodo vicissim Paulus non solum gentibus, sed et Judaeis praedicavit; ut ex iisdem Actis et epistolis ejus perspicuum est. Sed significat, Dei mittentis voluntatem fuisse, ut praecipue gentibus ipse, Petrus autem Judaeis Evangelium praedicaret. Sic Hieronymus et alii verba Apostoli explicant. Verum hoc rursus intellige pro eo tempore, quod hanc epistolam, vel potius, quod hanc, de qua nunc agitur, communicationem, antecessit. Nam postquam Romam venit Petrus, longe lateque etiam in gentes Evar.gelium, per se et per alios, disseminavit; ut cumulate impleret illud, quod coelesti visione ter admonitus audierat: Occide et manduca. Act. 10. Creditum est autem Paulo Evangelium praeputii statim a conversione sua, quando Evangeliuma Domino accepit; nectamen exclusos ab ejus Evangelio fuisse Judaeos, testatur ipse Dominus, sic ad Ananiam de Paulo loquens: Vas electionis est mihi iste, ut portet nomen meum coram gentibus, et regibus, et filiis Israel. Act. 9. Obiter notanda latens significatio fidelis ministerii, in verbo: creditum estmihi; pro quo Graece 7tS7CtOT£i)jJiai creditus sum, videlicet a Deo. Ubi et tanta laus Petri continetur, cui tamquam fideli ministro creditum fuerit Evangelium circumcisionis. Porro sententiam confirmat subsequente parenthesi:
2:8
8. Qui enim operatus est Petro in apostoJatum circumcisionis, operatus est et mihi inter gentes. Graece, ad gentes, vel erga gentes. Verbum Graecum, quod interpres vertit operatus est, efficacem in aliquo operationem significat. Itaque non est sensus. quem nonnulli tradunt: qui Petrum fecit Apostolum Judaeorum, idem me fecit Apostolum gentium; sed explicanda est hoc modo sententia: Mihi praecipue creditum fuisse a Deo Evangelium praeputii, sicut Petro circumcisionis, ex eo manifeste cognoscebant, quia Deus, qui efficax fuit in Petro ad apostolatum circumcisionis, id est, qui gratiae suae praesidio ita adfuit Petro, ut praedicationem ejus apud Judaeos efficacem redderet, multos ex illis ad Christi fidem per ejus ministerium convertendo; idem ille in me efficax fuit erga gentes; id est, praedicationem meam in gentibus similiter efficacem reddidit, quam plurimos ex illis per meum ministerium ad fidem vocando; cum alioqui apud Judaeos fere inanis esset mea praedicatio. Efficaciam hanc pradicationis tria potissimum declai abant: miracula praedicantium, eharisrnata Spiritus S. diffusa in credentes, et credentium multitudo. Est igitur argumentum ab effectu seu fructu ministerii; quem praecipuum Petrus, operante Deo, fecit apud Judaeos, Paulus inter gentes.
2:9
9. Et cum cognovissent gratiam, quae data est mihi. Repetitio est ejus, quod parenthesim antecessit; tanquam dicat: Cum, inquam, ipsa jam rei experientia cognovissent gratiam, quae mihi data erat, nimirum Evangelii in gentibus praedicandi. Gratiam igitur ipsum apostolatum praeputii, sibi a Domino concreditum, vocat; quemadmodum et alibi. Sic enim ait Rom. 15. Propter gratiam, quae data est mihi a Deo, ut sim minister Jesu Christi in gentibus.
Jacobus et Cephas et Joannes, qui videbantur columnae esse, dextras dederunt mihi et Bamabae societatis. Coustruimus haec tria nomina cum verbo subsequenti, dextras dederunt. Nam illud praecedens, cognovissent, copulatur cum superiori verbo vidissent; utrumque vero refertur ad suppositum remotius, qui vidtbantur esse aliquid, ut ordo et sensus sit hujusmodi: Sed econtra, cum illi, qui videbantur, atque in pretio erant, vidissent et cognovissent, apostolicam functionem mihi delegalam ad gentes; tunc illorum praecipui Jacobus, Cephas et Joannes, utpote, qui non quomodocumque erant in existimatione, sed reputabautur ut columnae, quibus aedificium Ecclesiae sustentaretur; mihi etBarnabae collegae meo dextras societatis dederunt; id est, in apostolatu socios, atque in Evangelii doctrina bene secum consentientes agnoverunt, et ut tales receperunt. Nam jungere dextras, societatis et concordiae symbolum erat. Significat ergo Paulus, se et Barnabam susceptos ab illis summis Apostolis, non ut discipulos, quales agnoscebantur Titus et caeteri, qui cum ipsis ascenderant; sed ut coapostolos et in Evangelii ministerio pares. Porro Jacobum primo loco nominat ad honorem Domini, cujus erat frater; et quia Jerosolymorum episcopus erat, ubi haec gerebantur; idemque maximi nominis apud Judaeos ob sanctitatis opinionem, ut liquet ex Josepho et Hegesippo. Nam quod Augustinus scritit, tres istos a Paulo nominatos Dominicae transfigurationi interfuisse, videlicet Jacobum intelligens fratrem Joannis; quod et legitur in homilia quadam sabbati post Dom. 1. quadrag. inter eas, quae Eusebii Emiseni falso feruntur; lapsus memoriae est manifestus. Constat enim, Jacobum Joannis fratrem multo ante concilium Jerosolymitanum Herodis gladio occubuisse. Nec utique de alio Jacobo Paulus loquitur, quam cujus superiori capite meminit, et qui in Concilio Jerosolymis habito sententiam dixit. Quem vero Cepham hic nomi.net, nonnulli revocarunt in dubium, propter illud maxime, quod statim subjungit de Cepha a se reprehenso; quoj de Petro Apcstolorum principe intelligi, putaverunt indignum. Itaque Cepham hunc a Paulo reprehensum dicunt non Apostolum, sei ex LXX. Christi discipulis unum faisse, ejusdem nominis cum Petro Apostolo. Refert hoc Eusebius lib. 1. hist. eccles. cap. 12. ex Clementis Alex. lib. 5. hypotyp. ac rursum ex Eusebio refert Oecumenius in commenfcario; eamque sententiam Hector Pintus in Dan. 1. quibusdam argumentis veram esse contendit. Ac sane qui LXX. discipulorum catalogum texuerunt, Cepham quendam inter eos numerarunt. Sed opinionem hanc, tacito autorum nomine, velut commentitiam merito rejicit Hieronymus; negans cujusquam alterius Cephae nomen sibi cognitum esse, praeterquam ejus, qui et in Evangelio, et in epistolis Pauli, modo Cephas, modo Petrus scribitur, una prorsus eademque significatione. Quam enim, inquit, nos Latine et Graece petram vocamus, hanc Hebraei et Syri, propter linguae inter se viciniam, Cephamnuncupant. Adde, quod totum argumentum epistolae, ut idem ait Hieronymus, huic opinioni repugnat. Neque enim tam obscurus discipulus cum Jacobo et Joanne praecipuis Apostolis, tanquam ecclesiae columna, comparari potuit; neque Paulus hoc agit, ut in societatem apostolatus ab aliquo discipulorum, qui non erant Apostoli, receptus videatur: sed ab ipsis Apostolis, iisque primariis. Eandem opinionem ex contextu Scripturae refellit S. Gregorius hom. 18. in Ezech. Non igitur alius hic Cephas a Paulo scribitur, quam ille toties ab eodem nominatus 1 Cor. scilicet cap. 1.3. 9. et 15. Argumenta vero, quae in diversum adferuntur, exigui ponderis sunt: et ad ea satis ab Hieronymo responsum est. Sed nec catalogum LXX. discipulorum, qui, nominibus temere atque ridicule ex Scriptura novi testamenti collectis, fertur apud nonnullos autores, agnoscit Ecclesia. Et quid de eo sentiendum sit, evidentibus argumentis ostendi in com. cap. ult. epist. ad Rom. Magis certe credendum Eusebio antiquitatis ecclesiasticae scientissimo; qui loco superius allegato palam testatur, nullum LXX. discipulorum catalogum uspiam exstare.
Ut nos in gentes, ipsi autem in circumcissionem. Inabsolutus est sermo, et supplendus hoc aut simili modo: Datis dextris societatem apostolatus inierunt nobiscum: sic nimirum, ut nos illo munere fungeremur erga gentes, ipsi vero apud Judaeos, quod rursus intellige passim ac praecipue; idquead tempus, donec res aliud postularet, quemadmodum id explicatum est supra.
2:10
10. Tantum ut pauperum memores essemus. Tantum non est connectendum cum eo, quod praecessit, quasi dicat, ipsi autem in circumcisionem tantum. Certum est enim, nec Paulum ab Evangelio Judaeis praedicando, nec Petrum caeterosque Apostolos a gentibus ullo pacto prohiberi aut excludi potuisse; sed ad sequentia pertinet. Tantum, inquit, hoc admonentes, ut dum Evangelium apud gentes praedicamus, pauperum, qui in Judaea erant, memores essemus, commondando eos gentibus ad fidem conversis.
Quod etiam solicitus fui hoc ipsum facere. Verbum Graecum Io7to68aaa non tam solicitudinem, quam diligentiam significat, id est, eam rem mihi commendatam qua potui diligentia praestiti. Ubi Paulus obiter suam in patiperes, etiam Judaeos, charitatem insinuat, cum a Judaeis tam gravem pateretur contradictioncnx. Cur autem non dicit, soliciti fuimus, ut Barnabam etiam comprehendat? Non aliam arbitror causam, quam quia non multo post, ut Act. 15. legitur, Bamabas ab eo discessit, ut proinde Paulus de ejus facto testari non potuerit. Porro istorum pauperum et in epistola ad Rom. et utraque ad Cor. mentio est; in quibus Epistolis cum id adhuc agatur, quod hic Apostolus se diligenter egisse memorat; recte colligitur hanc epistolam tribus illis esse temporis ordine posteriorem, sicut in argumento epist. admonuimus. Quod ad causam attinet paupertatis eorum, de quibus hic agitur, non ea praecipue fuit, quae refertur Act. 11., scilicet fames ab Agabo praedicta. Propter hanc enim non a gentibus, sed a Judaeis extra Judaeam habitantibus, et quidem longe ante tempus Jerosolymitani concilii, collatio eleemosynaria per ministerium Barnabae ot Sauli facta est et perfecta; quemadmodum ex fine cap. 11. et 12. Act. perspicuum est. Sed una generalis erat causa, quam referunt Hieronymus et Augustinus, quod fidelium Judaeorum multitudo, quae Jerosolymis erat, venditis posstssionibus ac pretio ad pedes Apostolorum posito, sicut in Actis Lucas memorat, paulatim ac tempore procedente egere coepit; ut necesse habuerit, aliorum fidelium, qui in aliis mundi partibus habitantes sua non reliquerant, eleemosynis sustentari. Causam alteram adferunt Graeci interpretes, quod facultatibus suis spoliati essent propter fidem Christi. Hoc enim significat ipse Apostolus 1 Thess. 2. Vos, inquit, imitatores facti estis, fratres, Ecclesiarum Dei, quae sunt in Judaea; quia eadem passi estis et vos a contribulibus vestris, sicut et ipsi a Judaeis etc. Expressius vero id affirmat ad Heb. 10. dicens: Et rapinam bonorum vestrorum cum gaudio suscepistis.
2:11
11. Cum autem venisset Cephas Antiochiam, in faciem ei restiti, quia reprehensibilis erat. Pro Cepha, Petrus legitur in Graeco, nec non apud Hieronymum et Ambrosianum. Quod autem dixit i.nterpres in faciem, Graece est secundum faciem. De cujus intellectu mox agemus. Quando contigerint ea, quae nunc a Paulo referuntur, non omnino certum est; neque enim Lucas in Actis horum meminit. Augustinus epistola 19., quao est ad Hieron., putat, haec gesta esse ante conventum Jerosolymitanum. At probabilius alii postea contigisse existimant: id enim postulare videtur ordo narrationis Paulinae. Patet, etiam ex Act. 15., Paulum absoluto concilio statim Antiochiam esse reversum, nec admodum diu ibi moratum. Quare verisimile est, per id tempus illuc advenisse Petrum, et caetera, quae hic narrantur, acta fuisse. Nisiquis putet, ista eo tempore contigisse, quando iterum Paulus aliquandiu haesit Antiochiae, Act. 18. Subjicit autem Apo6tolus hanc narraticnem dc Petro a se reprehenso, non ut Petri autoritatem minuat, aut se illi praeferat, uti calumniatus est olim Porphyrius, fiuil. Bstii Comm. Tom. II. qui factum Pauli odiose exagitavit; sed eadem ratione ac necessitate, qua narravit superiora; nimirum ut ostendat, a se non aliud Evangelium praedicari, quam a Petro, caeterisque Apostolis; atque ipsius etiam Petri exemplo et consensu constare, gentes observatione iegis oneranda&non e.ase, quando et Petrus ipse apud ^ptiles gentiliter vixerit ct a se reprehensus, quod exemplo suo gentes ad judaizandum cogeret, patienter acquieverit. Quae res certo arguebat, Pauli doctrinam, qua gentes eximebat jugo legis, a Petro minime fuisse improbatam. Caeterum de intelligentia hujus loci magna fuit concertatio inter egregios Ecclesiae doctores Hieronymum et Augustinum. Docet enim Hieronymus, hanc reprehensionem, qua Paulus Petrum a se reprehensum scribit, simulatam, et, ut loquitur, dispensatoriam fuisse. Neque enim Petrum eo facto, quod hic narratur, quicquam commisisse, quod merito reprehendi potuerit, ut proinde reprehensio illa non serio neque ex animo, sed ex composito facta debeat intelligi; quo per eam Judaei, quos Petri maxime movebat autoritas, videntes suum Apostolum Paulo reprehendenti cedere, sanarentur ab errore, quo adhuc tenebantur putantes, legem esse necessariam ad salutem. Augustinus vero, qui ccmmentarium hunc Hieronymi legerat, hujusmodi interpretationem rejicit acrefellit, confirmans, veram hanc Petri fuisse reprehensionem, ut qui vere fuerit reprehensibilis, propterea quod ad veritatem Evangelii non recte ambularet, dum simulatione sua, qua se a gentili convictu subtrahens legalia servabat, etiam gentes judaizare cogeret, quemadmodum diserte scriptum est a Paulo. Cujus verba, si ad excusandum Petrum sic exponantur, ut nec vere fuerit reprehensibilis Petrus, nec veraciter de eo dictum sit, quod non recte ambulaverit ad veritatem Evangelii, sed ideo, quia tauqnam non recte ambularet, fuerit externa dumtaxat specie reprehensus a Paulo; metuendum esse, ne mendaciis iu Scriptura detur locus. Hanc istorum doctorum dissensionem ac disputationem videre est in eorum Epistolis mutuo transmissis, apud Hieron. quidem epist. 86. et sequentibus usque ad 97. Apud August. vero in epist. 8. et sequentibus usque ad 19. Hieronymus autores suae senlentiae profert Graecos Pauli interpretes, Origenem, Didymum, Apollinarem, Eusebium Emesenum et Theodorum Heracleotem, quibus accessere CLrysostomus, Theodoretus aliique Graeci posteriores, et inter Latinos Cassianus coll. 17. Sed hujus autoritas, ut et eorum, quos citat Hieronymus, facile repellitur. Fuerunt enim omnes aut fere omnes de haeresi pravaque doctrina partim ab ipso Hieronymo, partim ab aliis patribus notati. Id quod eti*un a S. Thoma in commentario, ad elevandam eoium autoritatem, observatum est. Certe Cassianum post Origenem mendacii patronum tuisse, eadem collatio plane convincit. Porro Augustinus praeter apertissima verba Apostoli, quibus potissimum nititur, ac inter caetera id quod est cap. 1. Quae scribo vobis, ecce coram Deo, quia non mentior: etiam Cyprianum pro se adducit, disserentem in epistola 71. ad Quintum. In eadem sententia fuit Tertull. lib. 5. contra Marc. cap. 3., Commentator Paulinus Ambrosii titulo in hunc locum, Gregorius Papa lib. 28. moral. cap. 12. et hom. i8. super Ezech., item Agapetus primus Papa in epistola ad Justin. Imperatorem (est apud Baronium anno Christi 535.), et ut semel dicam, Latini fere omnes, qui post Augustinum hoc argumentum attigerunt, ac nominatim S. Thomas Aquinas in commentatio, ubi totam controversiam, quae inter Auguslinum et Hieronymum fuit, diligenter excutit, et ex Augustini sententia docte resolvit. Quodque amplius est, ipse Hieronymus opinionem suam, qua Petrum in eo, de quo reprehensus est a Paulo, peccasse negaverat, oblique relractavit, et in Augustini sententiam concessit. Nam in Dialogo contra Pelagianos, quem statim postea scripsit lib. 1. cap. 8., inter alia testimonia de Scripturis sumpta, quibue docet, sanctos non caruisse peccatis, et nullum episcopum prorsus esse irreprehensibilem; etiam de Petro profert exemplum ex hoc loco. Si, inquit, ipse Apostolus dicat de Petro, quod non rectb pede incesserit in Evangelii veritate, et in tantum reprehensibilis fuerit, ut et Barnabas adductus fv.erit in eandem simulationem; quis indignabitur, id sibi denegari, quod princeps Apostolorum non habuit? Hanc Hieronymi retractionem observavit etiam Augustinus in epistola 260. ad Oceanum, dicens, illuo in opere recenter adversus Pelagium edito eandem de ista re gesta dictisque Apostolicis tenuisse sententiam, quam ipse post beatissimum Cyprianum secutus esset. Est et alius Hieronymi locus in lib. 3. Apologiae adversus Ruffinum eodem fere tempcre scriptae cap. 1., ubi cum dixisset, etiam Apostolos salvis inter se amicitiis dissensisse, pro exemplis adducit Paulum et Barnabam stomachatos propter Joannem cognomento Marcum, eundemque Paulum, qui in faciem Cephae restitit, quod non recto pede incederet in Evangelio, quem tamen praecessorum suum et columnam Ecclesiae vocaret. Quod de vera ac seria dissensione necesse est intelligi: qualis inter Paulum et Barnabam intercesserat. Quid enim novum, si salvis amicitiis simulate tantum dissensissent? Denique quicunque 6eriam ac non simulatam hoc loco reprehensionem agnoscunt, iidem Petrum aliquid egisse, quod reprehensione dignum esset, ac proinde peccasse fatentur. Sic inter alios Gregorius Magnus locis supra citatis. Item Thomas Aquinas non solum in commentario, sed et postmodum in summa 1. 2. q. 103. art. 4. ad 2. et 2. 2. q. 33. art. 4. ad 2. et q. 43. art. 6. ad 2. Quibus locis etiam affirmat, Petrum peccasse, et docet, in quo peccaverit. Nec vero quemquam offendere debet, quod Petrus post acceptum Spiritum sanctum peccasse dicatur, cum nemo sit justus in hac vita, qui non aliquando peccet Ecclesiastae 7., cumque praesens Scripturae locus aporte clamet, Petrum peccasse. Quomodo enim Paulus de Petro totius Ecclesiae principe scribere auderet, se ei in faciem restitisse, quia reprehensibilis erat, eumque non recte ambulasse ad veritatem Evangelii, qui facto et exemplo suo gentes cogeret judaizare, si sentiret eum ne quidem venialiter in hujusmodi facto peccasse? Nam mortaliter eum peccasse, nec Patrum quisquam dixit, nec locus iste convincit; facile enim Laec, quae Paulus de eo scribit, a crimine excusantur; nam et quae crimina non sunt, aliquando publicam merentur reprehensionem, si cedant in scandalum commune; quale erat factum Pecri. Quae cum ita sint: non possumus accedere quorumdam recentiorum opinioni, qui cum Augustino caeterisque Latinis seriam hic agnoscentes reprehensionem, fortitei tamen negant, a Petro quicquam peccatum fuisse. Sic Erasmus in annotationibus, et alii nonnulli posteriores; quorum ratio est, Petrum non posse culpari in eo, quod bona animi intentione fecit, quodque secundum se malum non erat, sed tale duntaxat, cujus occasione malum aliquod proveniret, id est, scandalum gentilium. Quod utique Petro non putant imputandum, nihilo magis quam si scandalizati fuissent gentiles et ad judaizandum inducti ex eo, quod Paulum vidissent, vel circumcidere Timotheum hominem gentilem, vel ex voto sibi caput tondere in Cencbreis, vel Jerosolymis sese cum caeteris Judaeis purificare. Haec enim omnia Paulum, etiam post istam Petri reprebeusionem fecisse, constat ex Actis. Hoc argumento Graeci quoque et Hieronymus usi sunt, ut docerent, non serio, sed 6imulate seu dispensatorie gestum esse totum hoc negotium reprehensionis Apostolicae. Qua fronte enim, inquiunt, serio Paulus Petrum reprehenderet in eo, quod ipsemet toties fecit, adeo ut scribat, se factum Judaeis tanquam Judaeus esset, et iis, qui sub lege erant, quasi sub lege esset, ut eos Christo lucrifaceret? Siquidem et Petrum propter Judaeos hoc fecisse, Paulus ipse testatur. Quibus aeque respondeo: qua fronte Paulus haec scriberet de Petro, et reprehensibilem fuisse et non recte ad veritatem Evangelii ambulasse, si ne venialiter quidem in eo peccasset? Nam ad ea, quae e diverso objiciunt, in promptu responsio est ex SS. Augustino, Thoma et aliis, qui bene docent, haec Pauli facta non fuisse talia, quae ex se praeberent aliquam scandali occasionem gentilibus. Timotheus enim ex matre Judaeus erat; ideoque lege mortua quidem, sed nondum sepulta, circumcidi poterat, et hanc rationem ipse Lucas, qui factum narrat, satis insinuavit Act. 16. Paulus autem more Nazaraeorum caput sibi tondens, Judaeus inter Judaeos versabatur. Quod vero purificaret se cum Judaeis, idque Jacobo suggerente, cum Jerosolymis esset, manifestam ac necessariam habuit rationem, quae luculente describitur Act. 21. Postremo, nil borum Paulum retraxit a conversatione gentilium; at Petrus in civitate, quae gentilium erat, non Judaeorum, prius cum gentilibus convescens, postea vero propter legis observationem ab eorum mensa sese subducens, quamvis bona intentione, ne Judaei, qui supervenerant, offenderentur, id faceret: occasionem tamen gentilibus praebuit suspicandi, quod oportereta cibis lege vetitis abstinere; quia Petrum Apostolorum principem in ea re factum suum prius corrigere viderent. Certe illa Petri inconstantia in eadem re non poterat non gentiles offendere, et hoc Paulus urget, quando dicit, eum non recto pede ambulasse, quia nimirum claudicabat in utramque partem. Ex dictis intelligi potest, quid sit respondendum ad hanc objectionem: Petrus non peccasset, si ex ejus facto, quo comedisset cum gentilibus, faissent scandalizati Judaei; ergo nec peccavit, quod ex ejus facto, quo se subtrahebat a mensa gentUium, scandalizati fuerint gentiles. Antecedens probatur, tum quia Paulus similiter faciendo non peccavit, tum quia 16 • alioqui Petrus fuisset perplexus, nec peccatum evitare potuisset. Respondetur, antecedens esse verum, et negandam consequentiam, quia Petrus quidem apud Judaeos Judaice vivere poterat et debebat, ne eos offenderet; sed non ideo debebat abstinere a conviviis gentilium, praesertim quibus ante interfuisset: hoc enim merito offendebat gentiles, quasi Petrus prius suum factum corrigeret, per hoc quasi docens, legem servandam esse. Judaei autem ex Petri facto, quo cum gentilibus ederet, rationabiliter offendi non poterant, quia palam docebant Apostoli, et ipse Petrus in concilio Apostolorum, jugum legis per Christum cessare. Deinde, quid Petri simulatio poterat prodesse, ne Judaei offenderentur, quando Judaeos latere non potuit; Petrum jam ante edisse cum gentilibus? Non enim id secreto factum fuerat; et erant eo tempore alii Judaei Antiochiae, qui id reforre poterant Judaeis a Jacobo venientibus. Igitur hac in re per imprudentiam quandam, sive ut Dominicus loquitur, per inconsiderationem a Petro peccatum est, quemadmodum ex consequentibus amplius patebit. Illud vero potius in Petro mirari lubet ac laudare, quod liberam Pauli reprehensionem tanta mansuetudine et humilitate susceperit, quanta pastorem Ecclesiae decuit; adeo nt dicat Augustinus in commenlario, quod erat objurgatore suo ipse, qui objurgabatur, mirabilior et ad imitandum difficilior. Nam ut idem Augustinus ait in epistola ad Hieron., quae est apud eum 19. Multo mirabilius est et laudabilius, libenter accipere corrigentem, quam audacter corrigere deviantem. Quo nomine et Cyprianus Petri exemplum omnibus episcopis proponit imitandum epistola 71. ad Quintum. De hac insigni B. Petri humilitate est locus insignis apud B. Gregorium homil. 18. in Ezech. dignus, qui totus huc transcriberetur. His necessario praemissis ad Apostoli verba redeamus. Quod diximus, in Graeco legi: secundum faciem ei restiti, Hieronymus sic accipit, ut secundum faciem idem sit, quod specie externa et per simulationem; idque factum dicit, ut hypocrisis observandae legis, quae nocebat eis, qui ex gentibus crediderant, correptionis hypocrisi emendaretur. Eadem est Chrysostomi exposHio, videturque ei favere locus 2 Cor. 5. ut habeatis ad eos, qui in facie gloriantur et non in corde. Similis adducitur locus ex cap. 10. ejusdem epistolae, quae secundum faciem sani, videte, m est, ea, quae foris apparent. Alii, secundum faciem, sive, ut noster habet textus, in faciem resistere, idcm esse volunt, quod coram et in praesentia resistere, idque sane probabilius. Ita namque apud eumdem Apostolum, loco memorato, dictum est, in facie, vel, ut in Graeco, secundum faciem quidem humilis sum inter vos; absens autem confido in vobis. In facie, id est, praesens et coram; opponitur enim absenti. Ex quo etiam loco, sicut ex illo 2 Cor. 5., mihi non hnprobabile est, inteipretem nostrum hic quoque vertisse, in facie, non in faciem. Sic enim et Hieronymum legisse commentarius ejus indicat; et profecto minus dure sonat, in facie, quam in faciem resistere, si vis Latini sermonis urgeatur, uti nec male annotatum est ab Erasmo. Porro similis est locus Act. 25. Non est Romanis consuetudo damnare aliquem hominem, priusquam is, qui accusatur, praesentes (Graece secundum faciem, id est, coram) habeat accusatores. Adde, quod Apostolus seipsum paulo post exponit quodammodo, cui.t ^eferens objurgationis suae verba ait: dixi Cephae coram omnibus. Quapropter et Graeci Chrysostomo posteriores hunc sensum potius amplexi sunt, ut ex eorum commentariis liquet; nec adeo pro diversa faciunt interpretatione Apcstoli loca in diversum allata; nam et illa si bene expendantur, hunc posteriorem sensum magis postulant. Porro sciendum, pro eo, quod nos legimus, quia reprehensibilis erat, in Graeco participialiter haberi, quia reprehensus erat • quod quidem alii aliter exponunt. Quidam refertint ad reprehensionem, quam a Judaeis fratribus passus erat Petrus, postquam ad Cornelium centurionem ejusque domesticos gentiles et incircumcisos introgressus fuerat, atque cum iis manducaverat, uti legitur Act. 11. Sed hic intellectus praesenti loco no:i convenit; neque explicatur per verba sequentia, quae probationem continent hujusce partis. Magis autem quadraret, si verbahaecposita essentpostillud: timens eos } qui ex circumcisione erant: idcirco enim eos timere potuit, quia ab illis aliquando reprehensus fuerat. Graeci, quamvisexpositionis jam dictae meminerint, aliam taoen proferunt, qua Petrus intelligatur reprehensus Antiochiae, hoc ipso tempore, quo gerebantur ea, quae Paulus hic narrat; reprehensus, inquam, a quibusdam fratribus, qui jam offendi coeperantinconstantiaPetri, modo cum gentilibus edentis, modo subtrahentis se: sive quod oeconomiam hujus facti, ut Graeci loquuntur, ignorarent, sive quod, secundum Latinos, justa fr.it reprehensio, tanquam dicat Apostolus, in facie ei restiti, quandoquidem et ab aliis tratribus, etsi non coram, reprehendi coeperat. Sic etiam Cajetanus exponit. Caeterum Ambrosianus etiam participium legit, quomodo Graeci: sed interpretatur hoc modo, reprehensus } utique ab evangelica verit^te, cui hoc factum adversabjtur. Respicit enim ad id, quod infra dicitur: cum vidissem, quod non recte ambularent ad veritatem Eiangelii. Verumtamen etsi constet, in Graeco partioipium esse, nec admittamus eorum conjecturam, qui suspicantur olim secus habuisse Graeca exemplaria (refelluntur enim ex veterum Graecorum commentariis, et ex Latina Ambrosiani lectione): non ideo tamen nobis a nostra versione recedendum est. Nam uti docte annotatum est ab Adamo Sasboldo, Paulus Hebraea phrasi participium pro nomine verbaliposuitjfrequenseniin est Hebraeis. imo perpetuum, ut quod nos per nomen verbale passivae formae enuntiamus, illi participio passivo significent. Exempli causa, dicunt amatum seu dilectum, pro amabili; laudatum, pro laudabili; miratum, pro mirabili: formidatum, pro formidabili. Ita fit 2 Reg. 1, 23. Psal. 83, 1. et 138, 14. 1 Cor. 6, 4. Heb. 12, 18. et 27. Quod in Latina quoque lingua fit ir.terdum; ut in his vocibus, contemptus abjectus. honoratus, inaccessus et similibus. Sic er^o Paulus reprehensum dixit pro reprehensibili. Certe Hieron ymus, Hebraice Graeceque peritissimus, ubique tam in commentario quam in epistolis ad Augustinum reprehensibilis legit; nec de participio Grasco scrupulum ullum movet, cum alioqui Graeca lectio potuisset eum pro Petri defensione nonnihil adjuvare. Nos igitur Augustinum secuti verba Apostoli sic exponimus: Quum Petrus Antiochiam venisset, ibi, propter hanc ipsam causam, de qua nunc agitur, coram ac multis praesentibus ei restiti cum objurgatione; quia rem commiserat publica reprehensione dignam, quae nec sine ea corrigi posset. Sensum hunc exigit planus Apostolitextas et subjuncta probatio.
2:12
12. Prius enim quam venirent quidam a Jacobo, cum gentibus edebat. Exponit causam, ob quam reprehensibilem dixerit Petrum, ita ut iu facie resistendum ei fuerit. Nam priusquam, inquit, Jerosolymis Antiochiam venissent quidam a Jacobo sive missi sive sponte proiecti, haud dubium quin Judaei legis aemulatores (etenim Jacobus Jerosolymorum episcopus erat, et propter Judaeos ipse etiam legem servabaO, cum gentilibus edebat Petrus. sine discrimine cibis utens communibus, lege neglecta. Quo sane facto suo pr.iam testabatur, legis observationem non esse gentibus necessariam; quando nec ipse, qui Judaeus erat, legem apud eos servaret. Facit autem hujus facti commemoralio plurimum pro Pauli doctrina, dum ostendit, Petrum Apostolorum principem legis observationem neglexisse; et non nisi timore Judaeornrn ad eam observandam adductum fuisse. Prout sequitur:
Cum autem venissent, subtrahebat et segregabat se, timens eos, qui ex circumcisione erant. Non ita subtrahebat et separabat se a gentilibus, ut omnino fugeret eorum consuetudinem et colloquium; neque enim lex hoc praeceperat, et ea res manifestissime repugnasset vocationi gentium ad fidem. Quo enim modo vocari per Apostolos potuissent, cum quibus nec colloqui fas esset? Sed subducebat se a conviviis et mensa gentilium, utpote qui proraiscuis et lege vetitis uterentur cibis. Prius enim dictum est, cum genlibus edebat. Fecit autem hoc Petrus timore Judaeorum, qui a Jacobo vonerant; non quia sibi periculum ab illis metueret, qui jam didicerat, nec mortem pro Christo timere; sed quod timeret, ne Judaei facto suo offensi, legis aemulatione novas turbas excitarent, quibus cursus Evangelii impediretur. Quanquam etiam dici potest, eos pro eis positum esse, in eo quod ait timens eos; quomodo ab eodem Apostolo dictum est infra cap. 4. Timeo vos ne forte sine causa etc. Sic autem sensus erit, Petrum subtraxisse se, quod, tanquam circumcisionis Apostolus, pro Judaeorum salute solicitus, malum aliquod ipsis metueret ex suo cum gentilibus convictu; scilicet ne resilirent a fide, aut certe scandalum aliquod paterentur, videntes, Apostolum suum aliud in Judaea agere, aliud inter gentiles. Et ita quidem Graeci exponunt; sed prior sensus magis videtur literalis. Nam et alias adversus Petrum ob similem causam disceptaverant Judaei, quando ad Cornelium accesserat Actor. 11. Et admodum nuper hoc ipso loco, id est, Antiochiae, seditionem Par.lo et Barnabae moverant propter circumcisionem, uti legitur Act. 15. in principio.
2:13
13. Et simulationi ejus consenserunt caeteri Judaei. Graece: Et una cum eo simulaverunt etiam caeteri Judaei. Judaeos intelligit, qui cum Petro erant, non qui a Jacobo venerant. Factum autem Petri simulationem vocat, non mendacium aliquod in facto, quae est proprii nominis simulatio et semper illicita; sed quia Petrus abstinens a cibis lege vetitis, et ea parte legem observans, similem se praebebat aliis, qui legem observabant ut necessariam ad salutem. Neque enim Graecis et Hieronymo consentimus afiirmantibus, Petrum aliosque Apostolos post passionem Domini non vere observasse legalia, sed simulasse tantam. Nam quod vere observaverunt, licet non cum opinione necessitatis, ex scripturis adeo manifestum est, ut negari non possit. Loca sunt Act. 10., ubi Petras dicens, se nunquam manducasse quicquam commune et immundum, significat, se non minus post Domini passionem, quam ante servasse legalia, et Actor. 15., ubi de legalibus quaestione mota, Apostoli solos ab eorum observatione gentiles excludunt, et cap. 21., ubi Jacobus ad Paulum: Audierunt, inquit, de te, quia discessionem doces a Mose eorum, qui per gentes sunt Judaeorum, quem falsum fuisse rumorem ostendi vult ex eo, quia Paulus ipse legalia observabat: Et scient, inquit, omnes, quia quae de te audierunt, falsa sunt; sed ambulas et ipse custodiens legem. Vere igitur et non simulate Paulus caeterique Judaei Christiani legem servabant; sive eam putarent observatu necessariam, ut illi, qui venerant a Jacobo; sive non, ut Petrus et fratres, qui cum eo erant. Simvlabant autem hi una cum Petro, quia subtrahendo se a mensa gentilium legem servabant perinde, ut alii Judaei, licet non eodem animo.
Ita ut et Barnabas duceretur ab eis in illam simulationem. Graece, simul abduceretur eorum simulatione, id est, in eorum simulationem. Sensus: eo res progressa est, ut etiam Barnabas collega meus in Apostolatu gentium, idemque mc senior, illorum exemplo, maxime Petri, duceretur in eandem cum illis simulationem, qua scilicet a gentilium convictu sese subtraheret. Unde fiebat, ut erroris malum a tantie viris, altero circumcisionis, altero gentium Apostolo, tractum, latius inter utriusque populi fideles serperet.
2:14
14. Sed cum vidissem, quod non recte ambularent ad veritatem Evangelii. Recte ambulare, Graecis unum compositum verbum est, opftoTzodoov; quod sonat recto pede incedere. Atque ita legit Hieronymus in commentariis et in dialogo contra Pelagianos, ejus autem loco textus Amtrosianus habet, recta via incedere. Porro non recte ambulare, seu non recto pede incedere ad veritatem Evangelii, non est aberrare a via veritatis Evangelicae, sed claudicare et vacillante gressu incedere in negotio veritatis Evangelicae procurando. Neque hoc ad errorem opinionis referendum est, quasi putaverint Petrus et qal cum eo, legem Mosis necessario servandam; sed ad qualitatem facti. Claudicatio namque in eo erat, quod inconstanter et varie sese gerebant apud gentiles, modo cum illis edentes, modo sese subtrahentes. Unde non est, quod haereticus ex his verbis calumniam faciat Petro, tanquam is in dogmate fidei vel erraverit opinione, vel aliquo modo vacillaverit; tantum enim imprudentia quadam facti peccavit, qucniam simulatione sua praebuit noxii erroris occasionem gentilibus, ut existimarent, eum necessariam adhuc credere legis observationem, proindeque sibi etiam tanti Apostoli exemplo legem servandam esse. Neque vero ipsa per se simulatio, qualis hoc loco intelligitur, peccatum erat; simulaverat enim et ipse Paulus eo genere simulationis, quando Timotheum circumcidit, et caput ex voto sibi totondit; et omnino quoties Judaeis factus fuit tanquam Judaeus, et iis, qui sub lege erant, quasi mb lege esset. 1 Cor. 9. Sed in eo Petri culpa fuit, quod id faceret, ubi faciendum nun erat, propterea quod ex ipsius facto prona esset gentilibus occasio declinandi ab evangelica veritate. Hoc igitur tam in ipso Petro, quam in Barnaba et comitibus eorum, erat non recte ambulare ad veritatem Evangelii. Nam quod Erasmus in annotationibus, pro Petri excusatione, scribit, id quod plurali numero dicitur, non recte ambularent, non ad Petrum, sed ad caeteros solum referri debere; nullum habet autorem, ne ex Graecis quidem. Sed neque cohaeret cum praecedentibus, neque cum subjuncta reprehensione, quae ad Petrum ipsum dirigitur.
Dixi Cephae coram omnibus; id est, palam, ac multis praesentibus Cepham, vel ut in Graeco, Petrum, reprehendi hujusmodi verbis. Hieronymus item et Ambrosianus Petro legunt. Quod autem coram omnibus, inquit Augustinus, necessitas coegit, ut omnes illius objurga- ■ tione sanarentur. Non enim utile erat, errorem, qui palam noceret, in secreto emendare. Huc accedit, quod firmitas et charitas Petri, cui ter a Domino dictum est: Amas me? Pasce ovesmeas; objurgationem talem posterioris pastoris pro salute gregis libentissime sustinebat. Haec Augustinus in commentario. Unde liquet, hic a Paulo nihil fuisse peccatum adversus ordinem rratemae correptionis, in eo, quod publice Petrum objurgavit absque praevia privata admonitione. Nam publica salus ita fieri postulabat. Solum autem Petrum alloquitur, quod is suo exemplo caeteris autor fuisset simulationis; quodque eo correcto, cujus apud omnes erat summa autoritas, aliorum correctio facile secutura esset.
Si tu, cum Judaeus sis, gentiliter vivis, et non judaice; quomodo gentes cogis judaizare? Quomodo, Graece ii, quid, id est, quare. Sensusest: Si tu, Petre, qui Judaeus es ex Judaeis natus, postquam didicisti, legem morte Christi abolitam esse, non amplius eam servas, sed negligis, quasi ea ad te non pertineret, quod est gentiliter, et non judaice, vivere: quid est, quod nunc hac tua simulatione tuoque exemplo etiam gentes, quae sunt extra legis professionem, cogis judaice vivere, id est, legem Judaicam observare? velut si dicat: Quae ratio est, ut tu gentiles ad Judaismum provoces, qui Judaeus ipse cum sis, Judaismo renunciasti? Hoc indissolubili argumento, ait Hieronymus, Petrum constringit; imo per Petrum eos, qui pugnantia illum inter se facere cogebant. Porro gentiliter vivere coepit Petrus, ex quo ei dictum est, macta et manduca Act. 10., nam antea solum judaice vixerat. Unde dicebat, commune et immundum nunquam intravit in os meum. Patet autem ex sensu jam dato, quam impudenter calumniam haereseos primo Ecclesiae pastori impingant haeretici, propter hoc quod gontes judaizare coegerit. Non enim id fecit errore doctrinae, quasi senserit ac docuerit, legem gentibus imponendam esse: sed, uti dictum est, exemplo et imprudentia facti. Nam quod doctrinae vel opinionis error nullus hic significetur, clarum est; tum quia simulatio fuit; tum quod paulo ante cum gentibus edisset, nec subito potuerit opinionem mutare; tum denique, quia non reprehendit eum Paulus, quod non teneret aut non doceret Evangelii veritatem, sed quod ad eam non recte ambularet, id est, facto et conversatione sua eam non promoveret, sed laederet. In quo tamen ipso veniam haud dubie merebatur, quia cum esset Apostolus circumcisionis, peccavit amore Judaeorum, quos a Jacobo ad se venientes verebatur offendere, et ab Evangelio suscepto sua libertate, qua apud gentes utebatur, avertere. Notandum quoque est, verbum judaizare non hic ad haeresim pertinere, quomodo judaizare dicuntur, qui docent aut sentiunt, religionem judaicam a Mose traditam esse Ohristianis ad salutem necessariam; quae fuit olim haeresis Nazaraeorum et Ebionitarum, Cerintho cum primis aufore: sed idem valet quod Judaeos imitari, ritus Mosaicos exemplo Judaeorum observare; sive id fiat opinione necessitatis, sive ob reverentiam legis a Deo institutae, sive propter autoritatem eorum, qui legem hujusmodi servant: quemadmodum platonizare dicuntur, qui Platonis seu doctrinam jseu dictionem imitantur, quacunque ratione id faciant. Sic autem judaizabant non Judaei, sed gentiles Judaeorum imitatores: at priori modo, Judaei quam maxime. Posteriore modo hic intelligit S. Aug. epist. 19.
2:15
15. Nos natura Judaei et non tx gentibus peccatores. Petrum adhuc alloquitur; nec satis constat, ubi verba Pauli ad Petrum finiantur, an, ut quidam putant, eo loco: Quod si quaerentes justificari etc., an vero dum ait: Si enim quae destruxi etc, quemadmodum existimat Oajetanus, ea ratione motus, quod ibi Paulus, antea plurali numero usus, incipiat loqui singulariter; an denique duret alloquium illud usque ad finem hujus capitis. Nam initio sequentis planum est ad Galatas dirigi sermonem. Haec tertia sententia Hieronymi est et Chrysostomi, facitque eam probabilem cohaerentia sermonis ad eum usque locum; simul et nominis Galatarum illic expressio, tanquam ibi demum, Petro dimisso, compellare eos incipiat. Nisi quis in superioribus verbis dicat latentem esse recessum a Petro, et ingressum ad materiam principalem; quod non est improbabile. Hoc, quod ait nos, in sua et Petri persona dicit; tametsi possunt et utriusque comites Judaei, in quibus et Barnabas, comprehendi. Natura Judaeos vocat, qui a nativitate habent, quod Judaei sunt, non solum genere, verum etiam obligatione legis observandae, tanquam sub lege nati, lex enim populo Judaico data fuit. Proselyti vero, qui ex gentibus in Judaismum coaptabantur, juxta nomen suum adventitii erant, et voluntate, non natura Judaei. Quod autem addit, et non ex gentibus peccatores, tale est: Et non ex populo gentium, quibus lcx data non fuit, nati peccatores; id est, carentes regula divinae legis, et per hoc abeuntes in omne genus peccatorum praecipites. Putat Augustinus, Paulum, Judaeos alloquentem, ex Judaeorum consuetudine gentiles aprellare peccatores; quod nomen, inquit, gentibus imposuerant Judaei jam vetusta quadam superbia, tanquam ipsi justi essent. Porro^quod Primasius vocabulum peccatores ad Judaeos reflectit, quasi sensus sit: Nos ex Judaeis et non ex gentibus nati, peccatores tamen, coacta videtur interpretatio.
2:16
16. Scientes autem, quod non justificatur homo ex operibus legis. Vocula autem non est in Graeco, nec apud Ambrosianum: conjungenda est enim haec pars cum praecederti, quae inabsoluta remanserat.
Nisi per fidem Jesu Christi. Sententiam reddit obscuram particula nisi. Quae si proprie, ut Latinis auribus sonat, accipiatur, exceptionem faciet ab eo, quod praecedit; ut sensus sit, hominem non justificari ex operibus legis, nisi fides in Christum ad ea opera accedat; quae si accesserit, justificari eum per legis opera. Sed cum hic sensus justificationem dividat, partim eara tribuens operibus legis, partim fidei Christi, quod est contra definitam et absolutam Apostoli sententiam, docentis in epistola Rom. 3. ex operibus legis neminem justificari coram Deo, sed justificari hominem per fidem sine operibus lepis; necnon hoc ipso loco, statim post affirmantis, justificari nos ex fide Christi, et non ex operibus legis etc, manifestum est, interpretationem illam tanquam Apostolico sensui et scopo contrariam, omnino repudiandam esse. Etenim ea Judaizantium, adversus quos agit Apostolus, erat doctrina, legem cum fide Christi miscere, et ex utraque pariter salutem exspectare. Verum constat, voculam nisi frequenter in Scripturis adversative sumi, ut idem valeat quod, sed tantum; quemadmodum etiam superiori capite admonuimus ad ilia verba, nisi sunt aliqui, qui vos conturbant. Sic autem intelligi debere hoc loco, non modo doctissimi quique interpretes Graeci et Latini consentiunt, verum etiam satis colligitur ex his, quae paulo post sequuntur hoc loco, et ex memoratis Apostoli verbis Rom. 3. Ex quo etiam loco petendum, quaenam Apostolus intelligat o)<era legis, ex quibus negat hominem justificari; videlicet non sola cereraonialia legis Mosaicae, velut circumcisionem, sabbatum, neomeniam etc., de quibus plerique locum hunc exponunt: sed in universum opera qualiacunque ex lege, id est, ex sola legis cognitione facta, etiamsi moralia tantum sint. Nam in doctrina Apostoli, qua justitiam ab operibus legis removet, legem intelligi toto genere, prout moralia simul et ceiemonialia comprehendit, perspicuis argumentis ostendimus iu exposit. epist. ad Rom. Quomodo autem idem intellectus praesent: loco quadret, ubi proprie de ceremonialibus quaestio versatur, restat, ut explicemus. Sciendum est igitur, Apostolum ab eo loco, Nos natura Judaei etc., propius ad rem institutam accedere, et causam, propter quam ceremonias legis ad gentes transferri nullo modo patiatur, aperire. Nam ceremoniae in figuram Christi venturi impositae erant, ad significandum, per eum aliquando veram nobis justitiam et remissionem peccatorum conferendam esse, ideoque post ejus adventum, impleta jam earum significatioae, cessare debuerunt. Quare qui eas Evangelio Christi promulgato adhuc retinendas, aut etiam gentilibus imponendas censebant: ii neque illarum institutionem, neque crucis Christi mysterium, quamvis in eum utcumque crederent, satis intelligebant. Christum quidem Dei filium, velut insignem verae pietatis doctorem, a Deo missum, et omnium virtutum exemplar absolutissimum complectebantur: at ceremonias, quasi per se quicquam valerent ad remittenda peccata, retinere volebant; justitiam autem illam, quae in operibus bonis consistit, ex sola legis cognitione, Christi doctrina et exemplo adjutos, assequi se posse putabant. Unde Apostolu^, sumpto argumento ex justificatione non aliunde quam ex fide Christi petenda, consequenter legis ac ceremoniarum conc!udit abrogationem. Porro justificari quid sit, aeque ex iis, quae in epistolam ad Rom. commentati sumus, intelligi potest. Extenditur enim ad omnem verae, salutaris ac beatificae justitiae acquisitionem; seu primam, qua quis ex impio justus fit, sive secundam, qua justus justificatur adhuc. Justificatur autem homo per fidem Jesu Christi, qua tenus per eam Christum redemptorem agnoscens, ex ejus merito remissionem peccatorum atque justitiam a Deo exspectat et percipit. Quod quidem fit per ea media, quae Christus ipse ad justificationem praestandam hominibus instituit; uti sunt invocatio, poenitentiae opera, sacramenta, legisque divinae observatio; juxta illud: Factores legis justificabuntur, Rom. 2.
Et nos in Christo Jesu credimus. Graece, et nos in Christum Jesum credidimus. Apud Hieronymum quoque, et in quibusdam MSS. Latinis, praeteriti temporis verbum legitur.
Ut justificemur ex fide Christi, et non ex operibus legis. Huc usque periodus, ab illo initio, Nos natura Judaei etc. Tota vero sensum hunc habet: Nos, quamvis nativitate Judaei simus et non gentiles, quia tamen scimus et certissime persuasum habemus, non justificari quemquam per opera, quae faciat sola lege in- 8tructns, sed tantum per fidem Jesu Christi, qui justitiam nobis sua passione promeruit: ideo et nos, inquam, tametsi nati sub lege, credidimus in Christum Jesum; scilicet ut per ejus fidem justificemur, et non per legis ceremonias, aut quaecumque opera solo legis adminiculo facta. Non enim credimus in Christum, ut ex lege justificemur; sed ut ex ipsa fide Christi.
Propter quod ex operibus legis non justificibitur omnis caro. Graecis est 6*tOTi, hoc est, eo quod vel propterea quod. Non enim illatio est ex superioribus, sed repetitio est et inculcatio rationis supra positae, tanquam confessae; quia dixerat scientes. Repetit autem propter illud, quod proxime dixit: non ex operibus legis. Dico, inquit, non ex operibus legis; eo quod ex operibus legis, ut jam dixi, non possit ullus homo justificari, ne Judaeus quidem, cui Deus legem dedit. Hebraicae phrases sunt, caro pro homine, per synecdochen; et non omnis, pro nullo; et justificabitur, pro justificari potest.
2:17
17. Quod si quaerentes justificari in Christo, inventi sumus et ipsi peccatores. Locus obscurus est, et ab aliis aliter expositus. Nobis maxime probatur hic sensus: Quod si nos, id est, ego Faulus et tu Petre, dum quaerimus justitiam ex fide Chri&ti, quod nobis fundamentum est, et ratio negligendae legis, propter hoc invenimur et deprehendimur etiam ipsi peccatores; tales enim a Judaizantibus judicamur, quasi similes gentilibus, qui quod sine lege vivant, peccatores vocantur, ut supra dictum est: numquid etc.
Numquid Christus peccati minister est? Plano sermone dixisset, ergo Christus peccati minister est; sed pro reverentia Christi per interrogationem intalit. Num ei go, inquit, fatebimur, Christum peccati ministrum et procuratorem esse, qui fideles suos avocet a lege prohibente et puniente peccatum? Id enim consequens est, si nos quaerentes in Christo justificari, peccatores invenimur ob legem desertam. Prosopopoeia videtur esse in nomine peccati tanquam domini cujusdam, ministros habentis, qui voluntati ejus inserviant ac regnum ejus promoveant, qualem personae fictionem etiam alibi annotavimus in vocabulis peccati et justitiae, ut Rom. 6. et 7. Posset sensus etiam hic adferri: 8i vere quaerimus justitiam ex Christo, ergo non eam habuimus ex lege, ac proinde mansimus peccatores, donec ad Christum veniremus; qui non peccati, sed justitiae mini&ter est. Quoniam autem impium est suspicari, Christum esse peccati ministrum, ideo declarans absurditatem illius consequentis, quo destructo destruatur antecedens, subjungit:
Absit, ut scilicet tale quid de Christo sentiat, quisquis Christianus dici velit. Neque enim hoc ullo pacto concessuri erant illi ipsi, contra quos agit Apostolus, ut qui et ipsi in Christum credidissent. Igitur ex destructione tam absurdi consequentis, destruendum relinquit antecedens.
2:18
18. Si enim, quae destruxi, iterum haec reaedifico, Graece haec iterum aedifico: praevaricatorem me constituo. Id est, ostendo, astruo, confirmo. Eadem vis Graeci verbi, quae in illo loco Rom. 3. Si iniquitas nostra justitiam Dei commendat, id est, astruit et constabilit. Quibusdam videntur haec in Petrum oblique dici, qui fidem Christi, quam verbo praedicabat, facto visus fuerit destruere et Judaismum reaedificare. Cajetanus existimat, ab hoc loco verba esse Pauli ad Galatas, declarativa eorum, quae dixerat Petro. Est autem hic aliud argumentum a superiori, quo ostendit, legem non esse revocandam. Tametsi potest et ad praecedens illud referri, quo dixerat, inventi sumus et ipsi peccatores; ut hic declaret se alia etiam ratione peccatorem fore, si lex servanda sit. Sensus est: Leg^m semel, factus Christianus, deserui, et quantum in me fuit, praedicatione mea destruxi. Quod si nunc illam restituo, docens, eam observandam esse, plane astruo et confirmo, me praevaricatorem legis tamdiu fuisse, quamdiu eam posthabui.
2:19
19. Ego enim per legem legi mortuus sum, ut Deo vivam: Christo confixus sum cruci. Ut intelligatur apta connexio partis hujus cum praecedenti supplendum aliquid, quod subauditur; hoc modo: Atqui non fui praevaricator deserendo legem; nam per ipsam legem legi mortuus fui. Id est, ipsa lex Mosis spiritualiter intellecta docet, se non esse perpetuam, sed Christo, quem praefiguravit, venienti cedere debere. Per ipsam ergo legem hoc mihi loquentem mortuus sum legi; id est, subtractus sum legi atque ei desii esse obnoxius. Hoc enim significari ista phrasi, legi mortuus sum, intelligitur ex Rom. 6. et 7. Quidam sic exponunt: Ego per legem Christi mortuus sum legi Mosis; sod minus ad mentem Apostoli, qui legem absolute nominans, non aliam, quam legem Mosis significare solet, eidemque fidem Christi opponit. Dico absolute: ne quis opponat, quae sunt Rom. 3, 27. finem ait, quod lex Judaeis fuit paedagogus in Christum. Quaeritur autem, utrum Apostolus hic loquatur de lege ceremoniali, an vero de universa lege Mosaica, decalogum etiam comprehendente. Sane, quamvis expeditior sensus videatur de lege, quatenus ceremonialis est, nihil tamen vetat, universam legem a Mose latam intelligi, quatenus ab eo lata est, tota enim Mosis legislatura cessat per Christum; nec lege decalogi Christianus teaetur, nisi quatenus cum lege naturae convenit, et a Christo renovata est; alioqui sabbati sanctificatio, quam decalogus praecipit, adhuc observanda erit Christianis, quod utique esset judaizare. Jain illud: ut Deo vivam, a Graecis et Cajetano cum sequenti parte constiuitur, hoc modo: Ad hoc, ut Deo vivam, Christo confixus sum cruci; id est, Christo commortuus sum per baptismum. At rectius Latini conjungunt verbis praecedentibus, id enim exigit antithesis inter illa, mortuus sum et vivam; ut sensus sit, legi mortuus sum, sed felici admodum morte; quia ad hoc mortuus sum, ut vivam Deo per veram justitiam. Et haec nova vita est, quam alibi veteri vitae opponit; sicut novum hominem veteri. Congruit hic locus cum illo Rom. 7. Mortificati estis legi per corpus Christi; ut sitis alterius, qui ex mortuis resurrexit, ut fructificemus Deo. Hoc ergo, quod sequitur, Christo confixus sum cruci; vel ut est in Graeco ad verbum, Christo confixus sum, id est, una cum Christo crucifixus sum: separata sententia est, qua declarat, quomodo et per quid legi mortuus jam Deo vivat Sunt autem haec verba cum sequentibus Apostolici affectus plena; quibus hominis per Christum justificati personam in se transferens Christi benoficium magnifice exaggerat; quo magis appareat, quam stulte egerint Galatae, qui a Christo ad legem se passi fuerint adduci. Sonsus est: Quemadmodum Christus cruci affixus hac mortali vita defunctus est; ita et ego per baptismum, qui mortis Christi similitudinem gerit, mortuus sum legi; sic ut illa mei respectu jam extincta sit, nihilque juris in me habeat. Quod hic de lege dicit, id Rom. 6. similiter dicit de peccato; est enim eadem ratio, quatenus lex virtus est peccati, ut ipse ait 1 Cor. 15. Verba ad Romanos sunt: Vetus homo noster simul crucifixus est, ut destruatur corpus peccati; ut ultra non serviamus peccato, et quae sequuntur.
2:20
20. Vivo autem jam non ego s vivit vero in me Christus. Hoc ad Rom. 6. dicitur hujusmodi verbis: Ita et vos existimate, vos mortuos quidem esse peccato, viventes autem Deo, in Christo Jesu Domino nostro. Sensus hujus loci est: Per baptismum Christo commortuus, vivo nunc per veram justitiam; vivo, inquam, non ego, id est, non vetus ille homo qualis eram; vel, vivo non ego, hoc est, quod jam vivo vita justitiae, ex meipso non habeo, sed vivit in me Christus, id est, Christus, qui a morte resurrexit ad vitam, mihi totius vitae meae spiritualis, hoc est, omnis justitiae autor est; totum quod vivo illi debeo, qui in me vivit et efficax est per gratiam suam. Simili locutionis modo dictum est a Domino Matth. 10. Ison vos estis, qui loquimini, sed Spiritus Patris vestri, qui loquitur in vobis. Igitur ex hoc loco discimus, uti bene Sasboldus annotat, opera justorum non tam ipsorum esse, quam Spiritus Christi, mentes eorum inhabitantis. Unde noe mirum, quod digna sint vita aeterna.
Quod autem nunc vivo in carne, in fide vivo Filii Dei. In Graeco emphasis est propter articulum postpositum; quasi dicat, in fide vivo, illa, inquam, fide, quae est in Filium Dei, ubi et Filii et Dei suos habent articulos, quo vehementior sit sermo. Vivere in carne, hoc loco non est secundum carnem vivere, quomodo sciiptum est Rom. 8. Qui in carne sunt, Deo placere non possunt, sed idem est, quod vivere mortali hac vita, sicut a'*cipitnr Phil. 1. Quod si vivere in carne, hic mihi fructus operis est. Unde 2 Cor. 10. utrumque distinguens, ait: In carne ambulantes non secundum carnem militamus. Itaque sensus est: Quod in carne hac mortali, variis obnoxia tentationibus, juste vivo, non legi acceptmn fero, sed fi.let, quam habeo in Ohristum Filium Dei. Justus enim ex fide vivit.
Qui dilexit me, et tradidit semetipsum pro me. Id est, qui me. servum peccati, et pressum onere legis, per quam a peccato liberari non poteram, nihil tale merentera dilexit, non divina tantum ab aeterno dilectione quatenus Deus est, sed etiam humano affectu, quatenus homo; et, quod argumentum est excelleotissimae dilectionis, semetipsum in mortem tradidit, ut me a morte redimeret ac vitae restitueret. Christianae gratitudiniu est, Christum fateri non solum pro omnibus electis in mortem se dedisse; sed ita Christi beneficium, quod multis commune est, interpretari, ut quisque sibi persuadeat, eum pro se proprie passum et mortuum. Quemadmodum hoc loco facit Apostolus, per hoc ostendens, inquit Theophyl., quod tantam oporteat unumquemque gratiam reddere Christo, quantam, si pro ipso solo mortuus esset, exhi beret. Neque enim, quod Chrysost. in commentario significare videtur, haec, quae a Paulo dicuntur, ad solam ipsius personam pertinent: sic enim non usque adeo facere viderentur ad praesentem disputationem, cum in Paulo quaedam peculiaria considerari possint, ut quod antea persecutor fuerit etblasphemus etc, sed de se loquens vult idem intelligi de quolibet justo.
2:21
21. Non abjicio gratiam Dei. Haec pars epiphonematis speciem habet, quo jam concludit ea, quae de gratiaDei praedicanda disseruit. Graece: non rejicio, repello, aspernor gratiam Dei. Augustinus legit, non irritam facio gratiam Dei. Ambrosius, non sum ingratus gratiae Dei. Ad quam lectionem alicubi alludit etiam Augustinus, ejusdemque meminit Thomas in commentario. Gratiam Dei rejicit, qui vel ad remissionem peccatorum obtinenJam, vel ad justitiam consequendam, gratiam Dei negat esse necessariam. Utrumque negabant Judaei, contra quos agit Apostolus; solum autem posterius a Pelagio haeretico negabatur, qui peccatorum quidem veniam non nisi Christi beneficio nobis contingere fatebatur, sed vitam bonam et justitiam in libero cujusque arbitrio positam adjuncta legis cognitione, juxta suam haeresim asserebat. Dicit ergo Apostolus, tanto affectus beneficio a Christo Filio Dei: non sum tam ingratus, ut gratiam Dei per Christum mihi oblatam atque impensam repudiem. Id est, absit a me tam detestabilis ingratitudo, in quam utique incurrerem, si a lege justitiam exspeetarem. Quod probat verbis sequentibus, deductione ad incommodum:
Si enim per legem justitia: ergo gratis Christus mortuus est. Gratis, id est, frustra et absque necessitate. Nam si, inquit, aliunde quam per Christi mortem, ut per opera legis, obtineri potest justitia; quid necesse erat, Christum mori? Neque enim satis idonea et magna causa esse potuit moriendi Filio Dei, quando sine ejus moite justitia et salus contingeret, aditusque pateret ad vitam aeternam. Atqui frustra mortuum Christum qui fatetur; gratiam Dei repellit, eidemque ingratus existit. Sub morte totam Christi passionem intellige; frustra enim passr.s est, si sine ejus passione redimi et justificari potuit homo. CAPOT T E R T Quaeret aliquis, cur non similiter dici possit, si per sacramenta, justitia; ergo gratis Christus mortuus est. Respondeo, de sacramentis veteris legis idem omnino dicendum: nam et ea hic comprehendit Apostolus, ac speciatim circumcisionem; idemque Hebr. 10. sic ait: Impossibile est, sanguine taurorum et hircorum auferri peccata. Verum de sacramentis novae legis alia ratio est; haec enim, ut talia, gratiam continent et instrumenta sunt, per quae meritum mortis Christi nobis applicatur. Lex autem vetus, ut talis, per se sine Christo consideratur, et contra gratiam dividitur, id quod etiam ex epistola ad Hebraeos manifestum est. Unde Judaizantes, adversus quos disserit Paulus, solam legem sibi ad justitiam sufficere arbitrabantur; tantum opus esse, ut eam propositam et cognitam viribus liberi arbitrii quisque exequatur. Christum autem, uti supra dictum est, recipiebant ut doctorem et exemplar justitiae; non ut redemptorem et datorem gratiae ac salutis. Illud hic addendum, quod sicut de lege verissime ait Apostolus: si per legem justitia; ergo gratis Christus mortuus est, ita verissime dicitur, si per naturam justitia: ergo gratis Christus mortuus est. August. contra Jul. lib. 4. cap. 3. De nat. et gr. cap. 9. et 40. De gr. et lib. arb. cap. 13. U ffl.
2:1
2,1. Deinde post annos quatuordecim 2,1. "Extra àik Gtxattosápow — Pt «um erat, quum esset gentibus, compulsus | *&o0x — zegitgnÜzvar — 4. 8x — 98 — rou; est. circumcidi : À. sed propler subintro- | zapstsáxtoug dsuóaó€Àpoue, olztweQ maptioductos falsos fratres, qui subintroierunt | jA0ov — xaraoxomisxt — viv $QXeuü:plav — $- explorare libertatem. nostram, quam ha-| gw, v Eyousv iv Xputü "Insod, iva bemus in Christo Iesu, ut nos in. servitu- | pg xataQouAcGouatw, 5. ol; oj8l Tphs tem redigerent.
2:5
5. Quibus neque ad horam | Opa — sltaucv— Ti. Unotaqf, | (va — f$ cessimus subiectione, ut. veritas evangelii | dArüeta— v8. ebayyeAloo — Ouxps(vn — rpic permaneat apud vos. opas !, Novi sui itineris ierosolymitani tempore, sociis, causa ac fine indicatis (1. 2) Paulus, quid ea in occasione de Titi circumcisione actum sit, ita exponit, ut suam de legalibus doctrinam a reliquis Ecclesiae auctoritatibus approbatam esse doceat (3-5). Quid ipse enim de legalium observantia sentiat, luculentissime ex eo apparet, quod Titum, neophytum non circumeisum, secum lerosolyma duxerit, quamvis ibi de Legis obligatione agendum esse sciret; quid vero reliqui Apostoli de hac quaestione sentiant, non minus clare ex eo apparet, quod Tito cireumcisionem , quamvis a iudaizantibus postulata sit, non imposuerint. Haud sine ratione Paulum ab hoc argumento , quod per se minoris esse momenti videtur, demonstrationem suam inchoasse facile intelligemus, si ad adversariorum calumniasattenderimus. Etenim haud multum ante hanc epistolam scriptam , quando secunda vice ecclesias romanae provinciae Galatiae visitavit, Lystrae Timotheum, quem itineris sui apostolici socium assumere voluit, « propter Iudaeos » incredulos? illius regionis circumciderat (Act. 16,3); atque vix non certum est, pseudapostolos Galatarum hoc facto esse abusos, ut Paulum ipsum Christianos incircumcisos dictitarent indignos habere, qui in suo comitatu degerent, atque sua ipsius agendi ratione docuisse, cireumcisionem requiri, ut aliquis perfectus Christianus esset. Cui obiectioni, quae specie quadam veriatis sese com-mendare et ad simplices Galatas seducendos aptissima esse videbatur, statim a principio occurrit, Timotheo « propter Iudaeos » circeumciso Titum « propter subintroductos fratres » non cireumcisum ac medios inter Apostolos Ierosolymis conversantem opponens. Inchoatum igitur vitae conspectum continuans, sicuti primi, ita huius quoque itineris tempus cum emphasi quadam in principio . Sententiae indicat, « ut ostendat, quod non indiguerit Apostolorum instructione, quum tamdiu esset sine eis » (Thom.) : 1. deinde post annos quatuordecim. (Dx Oexxxecodznv iràv) iterum (v) ascendi Ierosolymam cum Barnaba , assumto et Tito (cup.mapaDa Giov xa Tirov). Praeposititionem 9i hic à Vulg. recte verti post, communis est antiquorum et fere omnium quoque modernorum sententia!; a quonam autem termino Paulus quatuordecim annos computet et quodnam ex - quinque suis itineribus ierosolymitanis a Luca commemoratis (Act. .9,20:sqq.; 11,27 sqq.; 15,1 sqq.; 18,92; 21,15 sqq.) indicare velit, in controversia est. Verumtamen asserere non dubito, annos illos numerari a finito, de quo antea locutus est, itinere ierosolymitano (1,18) aut, quod idem fere est, ab initio laborum eius in Syria et Cilicia (1,21), tertium deinde iter designari, quo legalium quaestio lerosolymis tracta est (Act. 15,1 sqq.). : logico non posse explicari '. Quare solam tertiam sententiam probari posse arbitramur, quam inter Patres CArys. (hom. in illud : in faciem ei restiti. n. 7 M. 51,377) et ier. (i. h. 1.) proposuerunt plurimique cum illis tenuerunt tenentque (Haym. /ferv. Salm. Petav. Cathar. Nat. Hug, Allioli, Bisp. Reithm. Dr. Palm. Ramb. eic. — Usser. Beng. Credn. Mey Sieff. Lightf. Goeb. PA. Z. etc.). Ac profecto Paulus, quamvis non amplius eandem thesin, quam antea (1,11-24), demonstret, sed suam iam doctrinam ab aliis Apostolis comprobatam esse ostendat, inchoatum tamen vitae suae conspectum continuat. Ea enim est totius loci structura, ut eadem particula £x (deinde) ter repetita (1,18. 21; 2,1) totum tempus, quod a conversione effluxit, in 'varias epochas, quae se invicem excipiunt, distribuatur : iter arabicum et commoratio damascena, — iter ierosolymitanum et apostolatus in Syria et Cilicia, — novum iter ierosolymitanum. Sicut igitur tres anni (4,18) tempus . itineris arabici et commorationis damascenae definiunt, ita quatuordecim anni definiunt tempus apostolatus in Syria et Cilicia; aut si mavis, prior temporis indicatio priorem absentiam ab Apostolis, et altera temporis indicatio similiter alteram absentiam ab Apostolis definit. Revera Paulus, quum Se iterum (xaAv) lerosolyma ascendisse dicit, ad prius iter (1,18) commemoratum respicit, neque tamen eandem praepositionem perá, sed praepositionem &« adhibet, qua tempus intra duos terminos percursum indicatur : « interiectis quatuordecim annis » inter terminum adverbio iferüm indicatum et inter novum iter. Septemdecim anni igitur ab eius conversione effluxerant, quando iterum Ierosolyma ad Apostolos profectus est. Quomodo haec temporis indicatio definiendae chronologiae vitae Pauli inserviat, alibi ostendimus ?; conversionem enim eius a. 34., primum iter ierosolymitanum a. 37., iter ad concilium apostolicum a. 51. esse attribuenda vidimus. : 9. De altera controversia maior hodie est interpretum consensus. Quoniam nec primum iter (Acf. 9,90 sqq.) utpote iam commemoratum (1,18), nec ultimum (Act. 21,13 sqq.), in quo Paulus in vincula est coniectus, in quaestionem veniunt, lis agitatur de tribus intermediis; sed quartum quoque (Act. 18,22) tuto praetermitti potest, quamvis ab uno alterove moderno acath. (Wiesel etc.) ob chronologicas rationes teneatur; illius enim itineris tempore Barnabas non amplius cum Paulo fuit (cfr Act. 15,39. 40). Itaque quaeritur, utrum secundum (Act. 11,27 sqq.) praeferendum sit, in quo « Barnabas et Saulus » « ad presbyteros » ecclesiarum palaestinensium eleemosynas fidelium antiochenorum detulerunt, an tertium, in quo « Paulus et reliquos Apostolos ad tempus civitatem reliquisse ex eo patet, quod Petrus per angelum a vinculis solutus nec Iacobum Alphaei nec alium ex « fratribus » cum Christianis congregatis invenit (Act. 12,1.12.17). Ad quid igitur Paulus iter commemorasset, quod ad Apostolos conveniendos non suscepit el in quo Apostolum nullum vidit? Ceterum propter saevientem persecutionem illud tempus tractandae legalium quaestioni non fuisse aptum nec proin istud iter hoc in loco intelligi posse evidens est. Addi licet, paucis mensibus ante mortem suam, quae accidit a. 44., Herodem Ecclesiam esse persecutum, uti ex Actuum narratione elucet; si igitur secundum istud iter intelligendum esset, Paulus aut iam a. 27. (septemdecim annis antea) aut saltem a. 30. (quatuordecim annis antea) ad fidem esset conversus; sed ridiculum esset asserere, Paulum ante Domini passionem, quae fuit a. 29., fidem recepisse, nec Lucae narratio de initiis Ecclesiae (Act. 1.-8.) permittit, ut eum iam paucis mensibus post illam conversum esse dicamus. Itaque septemdecim annis post conversionem suam Paulus zferum (1Xuv i. e. rursus vel denuo, neque enim vA idem est quod Seóvtgov secunda vice) ascendit Ierosolyma cum Darnaba, assumto et Tito. Consentit Lucas, qui « Paulum et Barnabam et quosdam ex aliis » (cum Fuld. etc. lege : ez :llis 32 «0óv) ad concilium profectos esse refert (Act. 15,9). Paulus solum quidem Titum praeter Barnabam nominat; sed ex particula xí (ouymaoaAzGov x«i Tíxov simul assumens et Titum) iure concludimus, eum alios quoque itineris comites assumsisse; Barnabam enim non ipse assumsit, sed Antiocheni miserunt. Animadvertas quoque velim, ex participio isto elucere, Paulum in illa legatione primum locum occupasse, quum socios itineris eligere ei liceret; in secundo autem itinere secundum locum occupavit, siquidem Lucas eum secundo in loco nominat (Act. 11,30; 12,95), primum vero locum ei attribuit in itinere ad concilium. 9. Ascendi autem secundum revelationem et contuli cum illis evangelium , quod praedico in gentibus , seorsum autem eis qui videbantur (aliquid esse) !, ne forte in vacuum currerem. aut cucurrissem, Iuxta Lucam quidem missus est ab antiochena ecclesia; sed sicut Petrus a Cornelio invitatus et a Spiritu S. iussus Caesaream profectus est (Act. 10,19 sq. ; 11,11 sq.), ita Paülus quoque ab Antiochenis missus et a Domino revelatione edoctus (secundum revelationem) iter ad concilium suscepit!. Utrum vero haec revelatio ei ipsi immediate sit data, an per alios cum eo communicata, superfluum est inquirere, quoniam definiri nequit, siquidem utroque revelationum genere Deus Apostolum suum ita dirigebat, ut interdum priore interdum altero uteretur. Haud sine ratione porro Paulus externam itineris causam, utpote Galatis, quibus decretum concilii iam promulgaverat, cognitam praetermittit solamque revelationem divinam commemorat, ut explicet, cur post quatuordecim tandem annos Evangelium suum, quod ab apostolatus sui principio Apostolis ierosolymitanis non proposuerat, cum eis conferre voluerit; neque enim humana quadam levitate, sed voluntate divina ductum sese pristinam viam reliquisse significat (cfr Chrys.). Ex revelatione tamen ei facta iure colligimus, specialem eo tempore adfuisse causam, cur Deus illam Evangelii communicationem fieri voluerit; atque hanc causam Lucas, qui originem decreti apostolici pro munere suo historico explicare debuit, dicit dissidium fuisse in ecclesia antiochena a nonnullis fratribus excitatum, qui ex Iudaea advenientes Ethnicochristianos circumcidi debere dictitabant. In itinere quoque, de quo Paulus loquitur, proxime de circumcisionis necessitate esse actum, ea quae sequuntur evidentissime demonstrant; neque immerito cum Ca. haud pauci attendere nos iubent , Paulum non dixisse : contuli cum illis Evangelium quod praedico, sed addidisse in gentibus, ut de evangelica libertate ab onere legalium, quam ab initio apostolatus sui praedicaverat et tunc temporis quoque praedicabat in gentibus , quaestionem agitatam esse intelligeremus. Non sua igitur sponte , ac si de doctrinae suae eousque praedicatae divina origine minus certus, quam antea, fuisset, sed divinitus iussus , Paulus contulit! cum illis Evangelium suum, seorsum autem cum ets - qui videbantur. luxta Chrys., quem haud pauci sequuntur (efr Cai. etc. , Palm. etc.), iidem in utroque membro designantur, quibuscum illud contulerit, primarii scilicet Apostoli, ita ut semel tantum doctrinam suam lerosolymis exposuerit atque secundum mem brum dumtaxat explicationis gratia addat, significans illam expositio nem non coram tota ecclesia sed coram solis iis, qui videbantur, esse factam; sed Apostolorum mentio nondum est facta , ut pronomine 1//is designari non potuerint. Ex praecedente nomine Jerosolyma omnes Ierosolymorum habitatores, ludaeos ét Christianos, pronomine i//is intelligendos esse Vict. colligit ; sed quid in hac quaestione Iudaei sibi velint non apparet. Quare cum Aug. et A''? longe plerique recte censent, pronomen :/lis ad nomen Ierosolyma quidem referri, sed hoc nomen ob contextum de sola ecclesia ierosolymitana eaque integra esse explicandum; coram universa ecclesia in publica, ut ita dicamus, sessione Paulus Evangelium suum exposuit, et seorsum, in privato quodam conventu, illud contulit cum iis qui videbantur, i. e. « cum eis qui eminebant in ecclesia » (Auwg.), Apostolis sc. et presbyteris. a Theod. explicantur ct éxíezuo: (insignes), ab Oec. ei xopugator (principes), à Theoph. oi ueydAot et oi Évàotox (magni, celebres). Verbum Soxdiv ergo in hac expressione latino videri parum accurate redditur(ab A're infra v. 6. accuratius : existimari); nam ol SoxoUveec eivai «t sunt ii, qui (in ecclesia) aliquid magni esse existimantur, quia auctoritate praecellunt, et nomine cl Soxoóvrec auctoritates Ecclesiae (Apostoli et presbyteri i. e. episcopi) designantur. Simili porro modo, quo a Marc. 10,42 imperatores gentium (cfr in loco parallelo Luc. 22,93 oi Basic cov d0v6w) dicuntur o Soxouvrec dpqtv 76v dÓvov (i. e. qui existimantur et agnoscuntur.imperatores gentium), a Paulo (infra e. 9) Iacobus, Petrus, loannes appellantur oi Soxouvrec exüAo civeac (qui existimantur et agnoscuntur columnae sc. Ecclesiae). Cave vero, ne cum plerisque interpretibus idem nomen esse censeas ol Soxoüvteo (vel ei 8Soxoüveec elva( 1) atque cl. BoxoUvrsc e1UÀot eivai. Priore enim nomine generaliore (vv. 2.6.) omnes ecclesiae ierosol ymitanae auctoritates, a quibus decretum concilii datum est, Apostoli sc., qui tunc lerosolymis aderant, et presbyteri (episcopi), designantur, siquidem hi omnes convenerunt videre de verbo hoc (Act. 15,23.6); alterum vero nomen solis Petro, Ioanni, Iacobo competit, qui probabiliter soli ex Apostolis concilio interfuerunt ac soli cum Paulo et Barnaba de apostolatus sui provinciis distribuendis statuerunt. Ceterum attende, haud satis recte quoque hic a Latinis plerisque participium praesens (oi $oxoüvvvec) imperfecto reddi (qui videbantur). Quid demum spectaverit, quum secundum revelationem universae ierosolymitanae ecclesiae eiusque auctoritatibus Evangelium suum proponeret , Paulus ultimis sententiae verbis docet : ne forte (v£0;) in vanum currerem aut cucurrissem |. Quibus in verbis explicandis cavendum est, ne cum, admodum paucis modernis (Disp. — Holst. Holtzm.) errorem Hier. sequamur, qui communi omnium explicatione, quam in commentario secutus erat, relicta putavit Paulum hic ostendisse, « se non habuisse securitatem praedicandi Evangelii , nisi Petri et ceterorum Apostolorum, qui cum eo erant, fuisset sententia roboratus » (ad Aug. ep. 111,8). Quomodo enim de securitate ac veritate praedicationis suae dubitare potuit, quum Evangelium suum non tantum divinitus sibi esse revelatum, sed etiam praeclarissimos fructus iam tulisse persuasissimum haberet? Ut autem omnem dubitationem a Pauli ipsius mente, quando haec verba scripsit, abfuisse ostenderent, duas eorum explicationes inde iam a Patrum tempore interpretes proposuerunt. Alii enim particulae wfmo; finalem quidem significationem, quam Vulg. exprimit, attribuunt, sed cum TAeod. monent, « Paulum haec non posuisse de se ipso, sed de aliis (i. e. ex aliorum iudicio), ut omnes intelligerent, Apostolorum omnium praedicationem consonare eaque, quae ab ipso praedicabantur, aliis quoque probari ». Sensus igitur esset aut : « ut non videar vane et putative circumire existimer proprium quoddam iter exsequi ceteris Apostolis inconveniens » (Mopsu.), aut : « ne fidelibus de meo Evangelio dubitantibus in vanum currerem neminem convertens et in vanum cucurrissem dubitationem in neophytorum animis relinquens » (Sa/m. Est. etc.); similiter plerique, licet in verbis dissentiant, sententiam exponunt. Alii tamen particulam UZxce; non finalem sed interrogativam esse censent, quae latino numquid respondens negativum responsum postulet. Inter Latinos Aug. « quasi per interrogationem dictum intelligendum esse » monuit, atque inter Graecos PAot. (apud Oec.) « wi- 7€; , inquit, potest per interrogationem dictum esse, tamquam magis confirmativum, quod non in vanum curreret aut cucurrisset ». Sensus igitur est : « Evangelium meum iis exposui, ut illo cognito examinarent, numquid (pex) apostolici mei labores, sive praesentes sive praeteriti, irriti ac vani essent, id quod adversarii mei calumnitur », vel etiam, quiam negativum responsum velut certuui supponitur : « ut illo cognito me in vanum nec laborare nec laborasse testarentur »!. Prior expositio, quae latinae versioni magis congruit, & plerisque antiquioribus tenetur; altera vero plerisque modernis (cfr. Wind. Reithm. Palm. Schaef. etc. — Mey Sieff. Goeb. Z. ete.) haud immerito probatur, quoniam et graeco textui conformior est (cuius indicativi 7péy , £pvov difficilius explicantur, si particulae píres sensus finalis tribuitur) et contextui facilius adaptatur. Etenim negativo responso, quod datum esse ipsa interrogationis forma insinuat, confirmationis gratia cum emphasi ea addit, quae de Titi circumicisione in concilio acta sunt, quum adversariorum sententiam lerosolymis prorsus reprobatam esse ostendant; Titi enim circumcisio a iudaizantibus postulata quidem est, sed ab auctoritatibus non concessa, Hic ergo est nexus : non tantum in vanum me currere negatum est, 3. sed! neque Titus, qui mecum erat, quum esset genlis (EXXuv àv quamvis esset Graecus cfr ad 1 Cor. 1,92 p. &4 n.) compulsus est circumcidi. Sunt qui Titi cireumcisionem lerosolymis ne postulatam quidem esse censeant, dum paucissimi alii (Bisp.) eam ab ipsis Apostolis postulatam, et a solis Paulo Barnaba Titoque negatam esse dicant. Quam alteram sententiam esse erroneam patet; nam si primarios Apostolos in concilio circumcisionem Titi exegisse diceret, Paulus ipse eos & suo Evangelio dissensisse insinuaret ac proinde suam thesin, quam adstruere vult, ipse destrueret. Sed neque prior nobis probatur, quia expressio o)9i avxyxicUn (neque compulsus est, i. e. imperio corum, quibus iubendi erat potestas, non est coactus cfr Matth. 14,22) omnino suadet, ut coactionis initium quoddam adfuisse dicamus, quatenus nimirum aliqui cireumcisionem illam necessariam ercdentes ab auctoritatibus petierunt, ut eam fieri iuberent; bene CArys. : « neque quum urgerent adversarii, Apostoli adacti sunt, ut eam imperarent » (sim. Theod. Phot. et plerique). Haec sola explicatio et Lucae narrationi et nostro contextui congruit; iuxta Act. 15,5 enim aliqui e secta Pharisaeorum neophyti omnium Ethnicochristianorum circumcisionem definiri voluerunt, et quis dubitat, quin ab eius circumcisione postulanda inchoaverint, quem incircumcisum in suo coetu adesse viderunt? In sequente porro sententia causa affertur, ob quam Titus non sit compulsus, atque ex ea quoque circumcisionem postulatam esse rite colligitur. Pergit enim : &. sed propter subintroductos falsos fratres , qui subintroterunt explorare libertatem nostram, quam habemus in Christo Iesu, ut nos in servitutem redigerent. « Incredibile dictu est, inquit Iust., quam multas quamque inextricabiles lites una particula sed apud Latinos et 3i apud Graecos pepererit »; neque tamen sola particula 9£, sed omissio quoque verbi, quo deficiente sententia haud completa esse videtur. Quamobrem antiquitus iam inter Graecos Theod. et Mopsu., et inter Latinos /Iier. particulam 9€ (sed) omittendam esse censuerunt, ut haec sententia cum praecedente coniungeretur (neque Titus... compulsus est circumcidi propter subintroductos fratres, qui etc.). Alii autem latini Patres (Tert. c. Marc. V. 3, Vict. A't* etc.) duo priora verba sequentis sententiae (oi; o20é quibus neque) omiserunt, ut eam cum nostra coniungerent (neque Titus... compulsus est circumcidi; sed propter subintroductos fratres.... ad horam cessimus subiectione etc.). Neque famen istis coniecturis indigemus, neque ad coactas illas constructiones aut anacolutha illa supposita confugere cogimur, quibus iuniores ac moderni interpretes multi locum obscurarunt potius quam illustrarunt. Namque simplicem claramque habemus constructionem, quam Crys. inter Graecos et inter Latinos Aug. secuti sunt, cuique vicinissima est Theod. aliorumque Graecorum et Hier. interpretatio !. Scilicet particula 9£ (quae hic ab antiqua versione latino autem rectius quam a Vulg. hodierna sed redditur) haud raro ita usurpatur, ut explicationem quandam aut parenthejice inserat (cfr Ioan. 6,10) aut continuata oratione addat (cfr Rom. 3, 21.92); simili ratione hie quoque particula 9é (autem) explicationem praecedentis sententiae (neque Titus compulsus est circumcidi) affert additione causae, quae Paulum Apostolosque a compellendo Tito retinuit; mente igitur praedicatum praecedentis sententiae (non compulsus est) suppleatur oportet : « neque Titus... compulsus est circumcidi; propter subintroductos autem fratres (non est compulsus), qui subintroierunt..., quibus neque ad horam cessimus ». Planam hanc constructionem, quam multi iuniores et moderni approbant in levioribus tantum dissentientes (cfr Erasm. Salm. Just. Est. Lap. Nat. etc., M Ev. Bisp. Reithm. — Deng. de W. Mey Sieff. Schm. etc.), ita explicat Aug. : « Quamvis Titus Graecus esset et nulla eum consuetudo aut cognatio parentum circumcidi cogeret, sicut Timotheum, facile tamen etiam istum circumcidi permisisset Paulus. Non enim tali circumcisione docebat salutem auferri; sed si in ea constitueretur spes salutis, hoc esse contra salutem ostendebat. Poterat ergo ut superfluam aequo animo tolerare secundum sententiam, quam alibi dixit : circumcisio nihil est et praeputium nihil est, sed observatio mandatorum Dei (1 Cor. 7,22). Propler subintroductos autem. fratres non est. compulsus Titus circumcidi, i. e. non potuit ei [Paulo sc. nec aliis Apostolis] extorqueri, ut cireumcideretur, quia illi qui subintroierunt, dicit, explorare libertatem eorum, vehementer observabant et cupiebant circumcidi Titum , ut iam circumcisionem eius etiam ipsius Pauli [aliorumque Apostolorum] attestatione et concessione iamquam saluti necessariam praedicarent, et sic eos, ut ait, in servitutem redigerent, i. e. sub onera Legis servilia revocarent. Quibus se nec ad horam, i. e. nec ad tempus cessisse dicit subiectione, ut veritas Evangelii permaneret ad gentes ». Accurate Apostolus viros illos describit, propter quos Titus cireumcidi non est compulsus. Faísos fratres (eu8x95).ov;) eos. appellat, qui fratres (i. e. Christianos) quidem sese fingunt, sed genuini fratres non sunt (cfr 2 Cor. 11,13 $:u9anóccoXoQ. Quod ut clariussignificet, cos dicit subintroductos, quippe qui subintroierint sc. in Ecclesiam (zag:6- AxToug ofvivég WaortosiAov) ; neque enim his verbis eos aut ex antiochena ecclesia in ierosolymitanam (Est ?. etc.) aut ex ierosolymitana in antiochenam (ReitÀm. etc.) vel galaticam (Ho/st.) irrepsisse indicat, id quod multi interpretes censent; sed nomen (ev9z9eXyos. explicans modum manifestat, quo in Ecclesiam sint ingressi. Sine ullo iure nimirum subdole et clanculum in eam irrepserunt (Est !.), sicut impii illi haeretici, qui subintroierunt (19s56:9516av) Dei nostri gratiam in luxuriam transferentes (lud. 4), sectasque perditionis subintroduxerunt tamquam falsi doctores (12990919 26222: , oivtvt; vapttoaouctw aioteus xxu; 2 Petr. 2,1). Proximum deinde et ultimum eorum finem patefacit; subintroierunt enim ezplorare libertatem nostram , quam habemus in Christo Iesu. Primum, cur irrepserint, est, ut sint explora- "tores; sed « exploratores, inquit CArys., ob nihil aliud ingrediuntur civitatem, nisi ut cognitis rebus adversariorum sibi facilem aditum parent ad eos expugnandos et capiendos »; hinc ultimus falsorum fratrum finis est, ut nos in servitutem redigant. Tota haec descriptio ita est comparata, ut ea quae in concilio acta sunt Galatis plane cognita esse supponat. Falsos enim fratres Paulus articulo praefixo (31x 765; $:)3236oov;) eis iam cognitos esse indicat ; de quanam vero libertate et servitute loquatur, non manifestat, nec etiam ex praecedentibus aut proxime sequentibus cum certitudine desumi potest, quamvis ex tota epistola satis clare pateat; de liberlate enim a servitute Legis eum loqui manifestum est, ad quam libertatem ii soli perveniunt, qui Christo velut membra capiti inserli unum cum illo constituunt corpus eademque, qua ipse, libertate fruuntur utpote Legi mortui :infra c. 19). At haec Galatae epistolam legentes intelligere non potuissent, nisi Paulus eis, quando in secundo suo itinere decretum concilii promulgabat, simul illa, quae lerosol]ymis acciderant, retulisset: atque iure merito quoque coniicimus, haud multum temporis ab ista promulgatione effluxisse. Ultimam demum Paulus indicat rationem, qua permoti nec ipse nec reliqui postulatam Titi circumcisionem falsis fratribus concesserint : 3. quibus neque ad horam (77; G?xv ad breve tempus cfr 2 Cor. 71,8; Philem. 15 etc.) cessimnus subiectione (33, vroze[íi ila subiectione, quae postulabatur), w4 veritas Evangelii permaneat apud. vos. (13; 9&e cfr &,18. 20 etc.). Relativa liaec sententia nexu quodam causali, uti saepius fit, priori adiungitur (9:5 fere id quod 27* 227055) ; postulatam enim Titi cireumcisionem Apostoli reiecerupnt propter subintroductos fratres, quia eis ne levissimam quidem ansam pervertendi Evangelii dare voluerunt. Circumcisione Titi enim, si in concilio propter legalium quaestionem congregato postulata et concessa esset, sine ullo dubio iudaizantes abusi essent ad Legis necessitatem neophytis ethnicis persuadendam; ut integra autem veritas, quam Evangelium de Legis abrogatione docet, in dubitationem vocaretur, Apostoli ne ad brevissimum quidem tempus permittere potuerunt. Quando quaestio haec lerosolymis tractabatur, nec reliquos Apostolos nec ipsum Paulum de Galatis diserte cogitasse veri simillimum est, siquidem de dissidio in ecclesia antiochena exorto proxime agebatur; sed quaestio omnes neoph ytos ethnicos attingebat iisque omnibus, ac proin etiam Galatis, integram veritatem Evangelii conservare voluerunt; hinc illud apud vos sufficienter explicatur. Quod vero Apostolus dicat : ut Evangelii veritas permaneat (Swysiva) apud vos, id omnino suadet, ut eo tempore, quo quaestio lerosolymis tractabatur, Evangelii veritatem apud. Galatas iam fuisse ad mittamus; nisi enim iam apud eos fuisset , Paulum pro verbo 3iauévev (permanere) aliud verbum (xavavtáv 4. Cor. 18,36 pervenire) electurum fuisse arbitramur. Quapropter Galatas iam in primo itinere apostolico a Paulo ad fidem adductos esse et Galatiae ecclesiarum nomine ecclesias in Pisidia et Lycaonia, i. e. in meridionalibus romanae provinciae Galatiae partibus, fundatas intelligendas esse , hoc loco non parum confirmari diximns (cfr Proleg. 1,1 p. 360). quidem abstinuerunt & cogendo Titum ad circumcisionem, nos autem (Paulus sc.) propter falsos fratres numquam admisimus subiectionem Legis », id erroneum esse videtur. Nullo enim verbo oppositio illa inter Apostolos et inter Paulum indicatur ! ; parum apte quoque oppositio, si in concilio inter eos adfuisset, hic commemoraretur, ubi Paulus reliquos Apostolos secum consensisse deraonstrat; atque minus apte, si fieri potest, Apostolos reliquos in concilio ad horam subiectionem Legis admisisse supponitur. Haud feliciores alii sunt in nexu illo interpretando ; sed omnes eorum conatus recensere et examinare superfluum est, quoniam ipsa constructio est falsa. 2.) De Pauli apostolica doctrina et dignitate a columnis Ecclesiae agnita. (2,6-10). Quae de Tito Paulus retulit, ea partim in totius ecclesiae congregatione, in qua iudaizantes circumcisionem eius postularunt et urserunt (Act. 15,5. 7), partim in privato auctoritatum conventu acta sunt, quando Apostoli et presbyteri convenientes videre de verbo hoc (Act. 15,6) postulationem reiecerunt. De eadem iam privata sessione nunc alia quaedam Paulus ad suam ipsius personam spectantia refert, quae suo cum aliis Apostolis consensui demonstrando inserviunt; de privata enim sessione agi primis novae sectionis verbis (dmà vàv Soxoóvrov ab iis qui existimantur) insinuat, quibus ad v. 2. (xev? idíav 3t «oi; 8oxoUcw seorsum autem iis qui existimantur) alludit. Mirum nonnullis visum est, quod decretum concilii non afferat, quamvis galaticis pseudapostolis repellendis quam maxime idoneum esse videatur atque optima occasio de eo loquendi sese obtulerit, quum de privata sessione agat, in qua de eo sanciendo inter Apostolos convenit; quin etiam non defuerunt, qui ob Pauli silentium decretum integrum a Luca con-: fictum dicerent. Supra quidem iam monuimus, decreti disertam mentionem superfluam fuisse, quia ecclesiis illis, quibus epistola est scripta, paucis hebdomadis vel mensibus antea erat promulgatum (Act. 16,4); at illud maxime consideretur oportet, non eandem erroris formam, quae in concilio reprobata est, post concilium in ecclesiis Antiochiae et Galatiae a iudaizantibus esse propagatam (cfr Proleg. 2,9 p. 364). Ideo Paulus decreto ipso, quod ab eius adversariis directe non impugnabatur, praetermisso illa refert, quae in concilio acta novam quoque erroris formam ab Apostolis reprobari ostendunt. Ad quem finem primo in loco apta erat quaestio de Tito agitata; quamvis enim essel incireumcisus, non tantum Paulus eum socium iineris assumere non. dubitaverat, sed reliqui quoque Apostoli et ecclesiae ierosolymitanae presbyteri, frustra obnitentibus nonnullis de secta Pharisaeorum , eum velut genuinum Christianum, Iudaeochristianis parem ct aequalem, tractarant nec quidquam ei deesse, quo consummaretur (3,3), indicarant. Aptissime eidem fini etiam duo argumen!a inserviunt, quae ex privato illo conventu desumuntur l'aulique ipsius doctrinam ac missionem spectant : neque enim auctoritates ierosolymitanae Evangelium eius pro incompleto habuerunt, cui quidquam addi deberet (v. 6), sedipsae potius columnae Ecclesiae apostolatum eius divinis gratiis approbatum esse agnoverunt (7. 8) eumque genuinum Apostolum comprobarunt cum eo societatem constringentes et de distribuendis apostolatus provinciis paciscentes (9.10). De his omnibus Lucas diserte quidem nihil tradit, indirecte tamen ea confirmat, siquidem inde a concilii ierosolymitani tempore Paulum nobis exhibet non tantum iuxta conventionem factam inter ethnicos laborantem, sed etiam ex itineribus apostolicis lerosolyma revertentem, ut arctae suae cum ecclesia ierosolymitana unionis testimonium exhibeat; atque similiter Paulus in aliis suis epistolis hanc conventionem confirmat collectis ad pauperes fratres ierosolymitanos sublevandos indictis (1 Cor. 16,1 sqq.; 2 Cor. 8,1 sqq. etc.). A falsis igitur fratribus, quibus auctoritates ierosolymitanas secum in concilio restitisse retulit, ad ea iam transit, quae ab iisdem auctoritalibus cum ipsoin sessione illa privata (v. 2) acta sint. Atque praeprimis suae doctrinae ab iis nihil additum esse refert :
2:6
6. aó iis autem qui videbantur (lege : aestimantur) aliquid esse — quales aliquando (àxotol vot rectius : quales tandem s. qualescumque) fuerint, nihil mea interest; Deus personam hominis (ngácumov Gto; &vÜpómou personam . Deus hominis) non accipit; mihi enim qui videbantur esse aliquid (lege : qui aestimantur oi 9oxovrec) nihil contulerunt. Constructionem esse anacoluthicam, plerique interpretes recte consentiunt; prima enim verba (Xrzà 92 «&v Soxoóvcov dlvat vx ab dis qui aestimantur aliquid esse) scribens Paulus sententiam passive, ut videtur, continuare voluit * (&mà vv oxoóvrov... o08Év uot pocaverín ab. aestimatis... nihil mihi insuper collatum est); parenthesi autem praecavere volens, ne quis aestimatos etiam ipsi praepositos esse putet, quasi abreptus inchoatam consiructionem non terminat, sed prius illud membrum suspensum relinquens parenthesin potius continuat aestimatosque sibi praepositos non esse ex eo confirmat, quod ipse ab eis nihil acceperit. Sensum igitur sententiae, in qua interpretanda et antiqui et moderni quam maxime dissentiunt, hunc esse arbitramur : « Qualescumque, i. e. quamvis alta in auctoritate, fuerint in concilio aestimati terosolymitani, quos adversarii mei semper iactant mihique praeferre et opponere volunt, in hac quaestione nulliusest momenti et nihil mea interest, siquidem ad externam hominis conditionem Deus non attendit, qui interna eius dona considerat; iamvero quod interna dona attinet, aestimati ierosolymitani me superiores non sunt ; mii enm niil contulerunt, nec doctrinam meam mutantes nec quidquam ei addentes, quamvis id facere debuissent, si eam genuinae Christi doctrinae non consonare credidissent ! ». sonalem (Spip differo) tribuentes (« ab aestimatis, qualescumque fuerunt, non differo) ; at ipsi quoque usu linguae graecae reprobantur. Alii aposiopesin admittere maluerunt supplendaque varia coniecerunt (aut : ab aestimatis quid metuerem ? aut : quid contra me actum est? etc.), sed haec arbitraria sunt nec contextui congruunt. Alii verba dxb t&v 9oxoóvtuv ita fere explicarunt, ac si pro nudo genetivo essent posita, qui a sequentibus óxoto( xott 7joav dependeat : « aestimatorum qualitas, quaecumque fuerit, nihi] mea interest » (cfr Reithm. Schaef; verum praepositio dn6, licet interdum simili modo usurpetur (cfr Act. 23,21 tiv àrb coü izavysX(av tuam promissionem), ubi nimirum originem indicat, hoc in loco tamen eo sensu explicari nequit, quia de origine non agitur. Alli verba ázb t&v boxoóvtov ab immediate sequente infinitivo slvai tt, infinitivum vero a verbo $ufpt dependere volunt, ut hic sjt sensus : « ab aestimatis, qualescumque fuerunt, aliquid magni esse, nihil mea interest » i, c. « dignitatem ab aestimatis, quamvis magna eorum auctoritas credatur, mihi collatam non curo » (Sieff. eto.) ; sed coacta est constructio et sensus parum aptus. Quapropter constructionem iam expositam praeferendam ducimus. Itaque in sessione privata Paulus auctoritatibus ecclesiae ierosolymitanae, Apostolis et presbyteris, Evangelium suum proposuit, illi vero nihil quod mutarent aut adderent invenerunt, sed consensu suo illud comprobaverunt. Quo argumento , quod negativum videri potuit (nzhil nihil contulerunt), licet positivum esset, non contentus alterum fortius addidit referens, ab ipsis columnis ecclesiae apostolatum suum, quem inter gentes exercebat, pro divino esse agnitum , seque ipsum, utpote genuinum Apostolum , velut ipsis aequalem in ipsorum societatem esse receptum. In longae periodi (7-10) protasi ante omnia agnitionem divinae originis apostolatus sui divinaeque suae missionis refert (7-9 ^), in apodosi vero societatem & primis Apostolis cum ipso pactam quasi agnitionis huius probationem quandam ponit (9 ^. 10); quoniam idem est protaseos et apodoseos subiectum, maioris claritatis gratia illud protasi praemittimus. Nexus cum praecedente sententia in aperto est! : auctoritates ecclesiae ierosolymitanae mihi nihil contulerunt,
2:7
7. sed e contra Iacobus et Cephas et loannes , qui vide- - bantur (o Soxoivrt, lege : qui aestimantur!) columnae esse, quum vidissent , quod creditum est mihi Evangelium praeputi , sicut et Petro circumcisionis , —
2:8
8. qui enim operatus est Petro in apostolatum circumcisionis , operatus est et mihi inter gentes — 9. et quum cognovissent gratiam, quae data est mihi, dextras dederunt miht et Barnabae soctetatts. À tota aestimatorum classe, i. e. ab omnibus ecclesiae ierosolymitanae auctoritatibus, Paulus se nunc ad tres illos convertit, qui inter ipsos aestimatos eminebant. Eius enim Evangelium cum doctrina ab aliis Apostolis tradita consonare, omnes auctoritates ierosol ymitanae testari quodam modo poterant ; at apostolatum eius velut genuinum ac divinum approbare iis solis competebat, quibus non unius particularis ecclesiae cura sed propagatio Evangelii in univero orbe a Christo erat commissa , quique ideo ab eo hic vocantur columnae. Sicut enim columnae ab architecto disponuntur, ut aedificium sustentent ac fulciant, ita Christus quoque in Ecclesia sua supra Petrum fundata omnes Apostolos in unione cum hoc fundamento voluit totidem esse columnas, quibus hoc spirituale aedificium niteretur. Omnes igitur Apostoli columnae recte appellantur ; tres tamen solos nominat Paulus, quia eo tempore probabiliter plures lerosolymis non adfuerunt. Primo autem in loco lacobum (Alphaei?, fratrem Domini cfr 1,19) ponit, idque non tam ideo quia lerosolymorum episcopus erat , uti multi acath. volunt (nam de episcopatu hic non agitur), quam quia eius nomine iudaizantes abutebantur, ut Paulum impugnarent; ab eo igitur se genuinum Aposto- .]um esse agnitum, inculcare voluit. Quod non satis intelligentes aliqui interpretes nomine CepAae Petrum designari negarunt (cfr ad v. 11. 8qq.), antiquiores Latini vero multi (cfr VV. LL.) ordinem mutarunt et Cephae , quem etiam nomine suo inter Graecos et Latinos usitatiore Petrum appellare maluerunt, primum attribuerunt locum. Verumtamen Paulum quoque, quamvis eum'secundo in loco enumeret, primum inter Duodecim eum agnovisse, sequentia satis docebunt!. Sibi enim Evangelium praeputit , i. e. missionem Evangelii annuritiandi praeputiatis s. gentibus, creditum esse ait, sicut Petro Evangelium czrcumcisionis, i. e. missio circumcisis s. ludaeis Evangelii annuntiandi, concreditum sit. Contra rationalistas quosdam (cfr Baur Voelt.), qui duo Evangelia indicata vident, quorum unum circum- Cisionem necessariam esse dicat, alterum eam reiiciat, disputare superfluum est, quoniam quo sensu Evangelium sumatur oporteat, Paulus ipse in parenthesi addita (v. 8) explicat Evangelium circumcisionis appellans apostolatum circumcisionts; atque contra suae aetatis haereticos Tert. (de praescr. 23) verba eo sensu interpretanda recte iam monet, « non uta/iud alter, sed ut alter a/?s praedicet ». Sed illud memoratu est dignum, quod Paulus solius Petri apostolatui suum comparet vel potius exaequet (nam particula xafcs sicut non meram similitudinem sed aequalitatem denotat), licet cunctis Duodecim apostolatus sit concreditus, quodque Petro, ac proin etiam eius sociis, solum apostolatum circumcisionis concedere videatur, etsi cuncti Apostoli omnes gentes docere iussi sunt. Ad prius quod attinet, nemo illud explicabit, nisi Petri primatum hic respici concesserit, id quod iure iam A" adnotat?; adde autem, primatum illum eo tempore in universa Ecclesia iam esse agnitum; ad quid enim Paulus coram Galatis, quos paucis tantum annis antea ad fidem converterat et solus instituerat, sese cum Petro comparasset , nisi illi eum in Ecclesia prorsus singularem locum tenere scivisseit? Alterum vero per se patet non ita esse intelligendum, ut Petrus ad solos circumcisos, Paulus ad solos praeputiatos sint missi; Petrum enim in ipso concilio dicentem Paulus. audierat, iam ab antiquis diebus (sc. ante duodecim circiter annos) a Deo se esse electum , ut per os suum gentes verbum audirent et, crederent (Act. 15,7. 1&. cfr 10,1 sqq.), atque ipse in primo suo itinere in illis terris, quarum ecclesiis haec epistola est scripta, ludaeis semper primis Evangelium obtalerat (Act. 13,14 sqq. etc.). Ad solam ergo, quae tunc temporis erat, laborum apostolicorum distributionem attendit ; ea enim ratione Deus eo usque res omnes disposuerat et ordinaverat, ut Duodecim , quamquam in universum mundum exire et omni creaturae Evangelium annuntiare iussi erant, intra Palaestinae fines sese continuerint atque extra Palaestinam quoque ludaeis praecipue praedicaverint, Paulus vero, etsi Iudaeis primis Evangelium annuntiari debere sciebat atque ipse pro fratribus suis secundum carnem anathema esse voluisset (Act...13,46; . Rom. 9,3), ex Palaestina expulsus (Ac£. 9,99 cfr 92,17 sqq.) et a Iudaeis extra Palaestinam degentibus Mmper reiectus Evangelium ethnicis anpuntiare coactus sit, . , Ad hunc solum enim rerum statum, qui eo tempore fuit, eum respexisse historicum argumentum docet, quo suum gentium apostolatum a columnis Ecclesiae velut genuinum cognitum esse insinuat; ex divino enim auxilio sibi ad gentes convertendas non minus quam Petro ad convertendos ludaeos praestito argumentatur. Nam idem Deus Pater, cui operationes (ivprfgava) appropriantur (cfr ad 1 Cor. 19,0), qui operatus erat (6 ivepgyíozc) Petro in apostolatum circumcisionis , i. e ita eum inter Iudaeos laborantem adiuverat, ut hic velut divini auxilii documenta multas ecclesias ex ludaeis conversis congregatas exhibere posset, etiam operatus erat Paulo inter gentes, ut hic quoque multas ecclesias extra Palaestinae fines fundatas, quae longe maximam partem ethnicis neophytis constabant, testes auxilii sibi divinitus praestiti citare posset. Qua Pauli argumentatione concludere cogimur, eum una cum Evangelio suo etiam eiusdem fcuctus in concilio proposuisse, ita ut Lucae narratio de Pauli Barnabaeque orationibus in concilio habitis (Act. 15,&. 12) iterum confirmetur. Neque tantum de fructibus, quos laboribus suis Deo adiuvante fecerat in gentibus, sed etiam de extraordinariis gratiis, quibus Deus praedicationem inter gentes confirmaverat , teste Luca Paulus locutus erat ; quibus consonans Paulus dicit a columnis cognitam esse gratiam sibt datam. Qua expressione satis frequente proxime quidem divinam suam ad gentium apostolatum vocationem significare solet (cfr Hom. 15,15; EpA. 3,2. 1 sq.; Col. 1,95), sed simul aptitudinem ad aposto-- latum exercendum (Hom. 12,3; 1 Cor. 3,10), proin gratias quoque ad praedicationem confirmandam atiles vel necessarias atque laborum fructus indicat. Ex fructibus ergo, quos eum fecisse viderunt, et ex gratiis, quibus à Deo erat ditatus, colligere debebant columnae, apostolatum eius esse divinum eumque genuinum esse Dei Apostolum sibi aequalem, ideoque dezíras, inquit Paulus, dederunt mihi et Barnabae societatis , ut nos in gentes, ipsi autem in circumcisionem apostolatu fungeremur. Dextrae dantur ad significandum et confirmandum foedus pactum (cfr 1 Mach. 6,58). Eousque ecclesia ethnicochristiana quodam modo fuerat separata; eliamsi enim ab initio Apostoli ierosólymitani misso Barnaba ecclesiam ex ethnicis Antiochiae exortam agnovissent et paucis annis postea Paulus et Barnabas eleemosynis Antiochenorum ad presbyteros ecclesiarum Palaestinae allatis unionem duorum coetuum testati essent (Act. 11,22. 29 sq.), Deus tamen pro sua sapientia ecclesiam ethnicochristianam adolescere voluerat, antequam parietis intermedii, qui ethnicos a Iudaeis separaverat sed Christi morte destructus erat (cfr EpA. 2,14), ultimae ruinae removerentur. Concilium ierosolymitanum eas removit, et quamquam [udaeochrislianis ut antiquos suos ritus retinerent permissum est, ab eo tamen tempore Ethnicochristiani eis pares et aequales a columnis Ecclesiae agniti sunt. « Propterea, inquit Hzer., dextrae datae Paulo et Barnabae societatis a Petro lacobo et loanne, ne observatione varia diversum etiam Evangelium putaretur, sed et circumcisorum et habentium praeputium esset una communio ». Clarum iterum est, pactum Pauli cum Petro non ita esse intelligendum, ut Paulus ac Barnabas solis ethnicis, Petrus eiusque socii solis ludaeis praedicarent, siquidem Paulus ipse nobis Petrum statim postea ostendit inter gentiles antiochenos conversantem et laborantem (v. 11 sqq.), atque Paulum post concilium etiam ludaeis praedicasse, ubi occasio id ferebat, et eius epistolae et Actus demonstrant; sed quoniam et Iudaei et gentes in ovile Christi erant introducendi, Iudaei autem in Palaestina degentes ab omni ethnicorum consortio magis abhorrebant, ita distributae sunt provinciae, ut alii laborem suum Iudaeis in Palaestina maxime impenderent, alii vero non solum quidem sed praecipue inter ethnicos Evangelium annuntiarent. Neque hoc pactum perpetuum voluerunt esse et immutabile; quando enim sperari non amplius potuit fore, ut Iudaeorum palaestinensium magna pars Evangelium reciperet, Petrus quoque aliique Apostoli ad gentes convertendas laborem suum impendere coeperunt; solus Jacobus Mai. ac fortassis eius fratres Iudas et Simon in Palaestina remanserunt. Pacto demum suo columnas Ecclesiae eam conditionem apposuisse Paulus refert, ut « praedicatione divisi pauperes indivisos haberent » (Qec.) :
2:10
10. tantum ut pauperum memores essemus; quod etiam sollicitus fui hoc zpsum facere. lure merito Chrys. hanc conditionem & Paulo referri censet, quia novum argumentum ei praebebat, quo concordiam suam cum primariis Apostolis demonstraret : « In praedicandi munere inter nos partiti sumus orbem terrarum ; ad curam vero pauperum, qui apud Iudaeos erant, ego quae potui cum illis contuli. Quod si bellum fuisset et.contentio inter nos, nequaquam hoc illi recepissent » (CArys.). Quod pauci moderni acath. (Keim, Hilg. Pfleid.) in hac conditione apposita deminutionem capitis quandam Ethnicochristianorum detexerint , quippe qui quasi tributo soluto sese fudaeochristianis inferiores et quodam modo subiectos exhibere debuerint, id ex eo solo provenit, quod quae sit caritatis christianae dignitas prorsus ignorant. 0. 2. Paul Evangelium coniroversia eius cum. Petro comprobalum (2,11-21). Evangelium suum Paulus immediate a Christo vocatus approbatione Apostolorum non rogata praedicare coeperat (1,15-94); in illius praedicatione deinde divinis gratiis tam manifeste erat adiutus, ut Apostoli, quibus illud secundum revelationem proposuit, illud comprobarent eumque genuinum Apostolum sibi aequalem agnoscerent (2,1-10) ; agnitus autem illud contra ipsum Apostolorum principem, cuius ratio agendi illi contraria esse credebatur, tuitus est eumque secum consentientem habuit. Gradatione igitur quadam Paulus ad controversiam referendam pervenit, quam haud diu post concilium Antiochiae cum Petro sustinuit. Eam concilio recentiorem esse, non tantum ordo chronologicus docet, quem in tota parte apologetica hucusque tenuit, sed ipsa quoque quaestio, de qua agebatur. lerosolymis enim, teste Luca, proxime ac directe quaerebatur, utrum Ethnicochristianis observatio Legis ad salutem consequendam esset necessaria necne (cfr Act. 15,1). Controversia vero Paulum inter et Petrum exorta est, quando hic & neophytorum ethnicorum convictu sese separans cos indignos esse, quibuscum ludaei conversi conviverent, insinuare credebatur; quaestio igitur erat, num Kthnicochristiani, quamvis salutem consequi possent, ludaeochristianis, qui mosaica praecepta observabant, inferiores essent, ac proin Lex ipsa, etiamsi ad salutem observatio eius non esset necessaria, dignitatem tamen quandam specialem asseclis suis praestaret. Haud diu porro post concilium controversiam locum habuisse, quum ex eo elucet, quod epistola nostra jam secundi itineris Pauli tempore scripta recte asseritur, tum ex eo, quod Paulum inter et Barnabam tempore istius controversiae dissensio, quae separationis eorum causa erat (Act. 15,39), nondum erat exorta. Eo igitur tempore, quo fudas et Silas a concilio Antiochiam missi ibi commorabantur, aut brevi post eorum discessum Petrus Antiochiam pervenisse dicendus est (Ac. 15,33 sqq.). Quot argumentis Paulus ex hac controversia Petrum suam doctrinam approbasse demonstret, ex explicatione apparebit; duo autem huius sectionis membra apte distinguimus, in quorum priore (11- 14) Paulus controversiae causam exponit, dum in altero (15-21) orationem refert, qua suam Petri reprehensionem communivit. Quoniam in hac oratione ipsum dogma de Lege per Christi mortem abolita demonstrat, non defuerunt, qui aut a v. 15. aut medio in
2:16
v. 16. fet nos etc.) aut à v. 17. vel 18. dogmaticam epistolae partem inchoari putarent; sed rectius cum plerisque integram hanc orationem ad apologeticam partem pertinere dicimus (cfr ad v. 15); pro more suo autem Apostolus in fine prioris partis alteram iam praeparat. Ne explicationem huius pericopae interrumpere cogamur, de duobus systematis, quae ad eam interpretandam iam Patrum aetate proposita sunt, pauca videntur praemittenda. Antiqua enim est quaestio, utrum Cephas, cui Paulus se in faciem reslitisse refert, sit Apostolorum princeps (cfr Joan. 1,42 : « tu es Simon, filius lona; tu vocaberis Cephas — quod interpretatur Petrus », nam ND2 i. q. mírgu, petra), an alius quidam ex sepluaginta discipulis. Ad Petri enim auctoritatem, quam Pauli reprehensione laedi arbitrabantur, tuendam praeeunte Clemente Alex. (cfr Euseb. H. E. I. 12) aliqui inter Petrum et Cepham distinguentes omnibus in epistolarum locis, in quibus Cephaoe . nomen reperitur (4 Cor. 1,129; 3,22; 9,5; 15,5; Gal. 2,9. 41. 14), discipu- ]um quendam, quem unus alterve pro sua auctoritate ne levissimo quidem antiquitatis testimonio nixus diaconum vel presbyterum ierosolymitanum fuisse asseruit, intelligere maluerunt. Integram hanc quaestionem tractare superfluum est, quoniam controversa ac dubia vix dici potest. Historicae enim quaestiones historicis testimoniis definiantur oportet; iam vero praeter Clem. Alex. inter antiquitatis christianae testes nullus invenitur, quin cum ier. consentiat, « alterius nescio cuius Cephae nescire nos nomen nisi eius, qui est in Evangelio et in aliis Pauli epistolis et in hac quoque ipsa modo Petrus modo Cepbas scribitur ». Nam Eusebius in hanc partem temere trahitur, quum Clementis opinionem historice referat quidem, sed sibi eam probari nullo verbo indicet; qui vero praeterea ex antiquitate allegatur (Ps.) Dorotheus Mart. (cfr Chronic. pasch. M. 92,521) « in rerum natura, inquit Ducange Chronici editor (M. 92,519 n.), numquam exstitit », et catalogus discipulorum Domini ei attributus « ex nominibus, quae habentur in epistolis canonicis », a iunioribus Byzantinis tam stulte est confictus, « ut eis Caesar quoque accenseatur, quia Caesaris s. imperatoris domum Paulus (PAil. 4,22) meminerit ». Hinc mirum non est, quod tota media aetate nemo distinctionem illam approbaverit ; inde a saec. 46: tamen pauci Clementis opinionem oblivione fere obrutam recoxerunt paucosque sequaces usque ad nostram aetatem invenerunt universitate fere interpretum et theologorum cath. repugnante atque cum antiquis Patribus, genuinae traditionis testibus, tenente duobus istis nominibus principem Apostolorum missa B cum Vuig. Copt. Goth; sed xai oi Xotzol "Touóatot (et reliqui Iudael) est communís lectio, quam etiam tuentur It. (Vict. Ater, Hier. ctc.) Syr. Arm. Aeth. — 14. 1 R2» (Cephae) B N A C, pauci minusc., It. (Ater, Pel.) Vulg (Clem. cum Amiat. et plerisque) Copt. Arm. Aeth.; iterum teztus rec, : zip Iléxpo (Petro cum DEF GKLP, plerisque mínusc. et PP., It. (Vict. Hier. etc.) Vulg. (Demid. Tol. Harl. etc.; Fuld. : Petro Cephae) Syr. (codd.) Goth. — zix (quomodo) BRACDEFGP, psuci minusc., It. (Vict. Ater etc.) Vulg. Syr. (codd.) Copt. Arm. Aeth. Goth; sed textus rec. : tí (quid) cum K L, plerisque minusc. et PP., Syr. 1. Integram egregie tractavit, omnibus eorum qui, Petrum et Cepham distinguunt, ra-- tiunculis perpensis Chr. Pesch 8. I. Ueber die Person des Cepbas Gal. 2,11 (Innsbr. Zeitschr.'für kath. Theologie 1883. p. 465-490). 2. Uni Clementi Alex. ex praecipuis primorum sex saeculorum Patribus opponi possunt designari, quem Dominus petram (x22) esse voluerat, supra quam fundaret suam Ecclesiam. In tota relatione Pauli nihil reperiri, quo Petri, capitis Ecclesiae, auctoritas et dignitas laedatur, explicatio sententiarum l1uculentissime docebit. Quam parum Clementis Alex. opinio iunioribus placuerit, Origenes egregius nobis est testis; etsi enim ipse quoque relatione Pauli, si proprio suo sensu sumeretur, Petri auctoritatem laedi putaret, magistri tamen sui Clementis opinionem non adoptavit, sed aliam viam ad difficultatem, quam invenit, removendam excogitavit, in qua eum ex Graecis secuti sunt Chrys. (in comm. et hom. in illud : Restiti in faciem) eiusque epitomatores (Dam. Oec. Theoph.), ex Latinis Zlier. (in comm. et ad Aug. ep. 112). Ex mutuo enim condicto Petrum seseab Ethnicochristianorum societate retraxisse supponunt, ut occasionem haberet Paulus, qua Legis abolitionem Iudaeochristianis demonstraret ac persuaderet; neutrum vero ex animo ea gessisse, quae hic referuntur, sed Petrum secessum ab Ethnicochristianis et Paulum reprehensionem Petri dumtaxat simulasse. Quod simulationissystema, quamprimum illud ex Hier. commentario cognovit, Aug. (ad Hier. ep. 40,3 sqq. ; 82,4 sqq.; in S. Hier. operibus epp. 67 et 446) reprobavit ac tam validis argumentis impugnavit, ut Hier. priorem sententiam suam deposuisse videatur (cfr S. Hier. c. Pelag. I. 22, ubi consuetam sententiam sequitur, et S. Aug. ad Hilar. ep. 180,5, ubi de hoc Hieronymi opere loquitur). Ab eo autem tempore systema Origenis a vix ullo cath. interprete est resumtum nec resumi potuit nisi ab illis, qui non attenderunt, hac explicatione modum agendi veritati non consonum duobus Apostolis adscribi et, quod maius est, Paulo vel potius ipsi Spiritui S. per eum referenti, Petrum ad veritatem Evangelii non recte ambulasse et ab ipso esse reprehensum, mendacium impingi. Hoc enim Avg. quam maxime ad hanc quaestionem pertinere meritissimo urget, « ut veritas divinarum Scripturarum ad nostram fidem aedificandam memoriae mandata ex omni parte verax atque indubitanda persistat » (ep. 85,6). Quibus erroneis svstematis praetermissis explicationem relationis Pauli aggrediemur. Intezrum factum, ex quo Petrum secum consentire demonstraturus est, una sententia comprehendit : 11. quum autem. Cephas venisset. Antiochiam, in faciem (xazx mpácumov) ei restiti, quia reprehensibilis (xaveywocpévo; Vict. e& A'*" accuratius reprehensus) erat. Nexus cum praecedentibus sectionibus, quem supra adumbravimus, arctus quidem est; nihilominus satis abrupte res ipsa affertur nec tempore nec occasione nec causa itineris Petri commemoratis , ut concludere cogamur, Galatas, uti de concilio apostolico, ita de Petri hoc itinere iam antea quaedam audivisse. Forte Paulus ipse eis hac de re locutus erat; sed coniicere quoque licet, eius adversarios, qui alibi, ut eius auctoritatem apud neophytos diminuerent, arrogantiam superbiamque ei affinxerunt (cfr 2 Cor. 3,1 sqq.), similem calumniam in Galatiae ecclesiis sparsisse ad eamque confirmandam illis, quae nuperrime Antiochiae acciderant, fallaciter ac mendaciter esse abusos. Quidquid de hac coniectura est, res ipsa Paulo egregiam praebuit occasionem demonstrandi, se non tantum ab Apostolis parem et aequalem in concilio esse agnitum, sed se quoque tamquam parem cum ipso Apostolorum principe egisse : parem utique in apostolatu, de quo solo hic agitur, non in universae Ecclesiae gubernatione, quae nec Petri agendi ratione nec Pauli contradictione attingitur; vel iuxta Thom. : « parem in exercitio auctoritatis, non in auctoritate regiminis »; etenim velut par pari Petro in faciem restitit. Expressio &vrvavfvat xavà mpdamov Twoc apud Alex. hebraico *222 a'na (Deut. 1,25; 9,2; Iud. 2,14 etc.) respondens nihil nisi apertam seu publicam resistentiam denotat! (« quid est hoc, inquit A'tr, nisi in praesentia ei contradixi? »), nec quidquam nos cogit, ut singularem vehementiam , nedum protervitatem quandam, connofari dicamus; quin etiam verba, quibus Paulus se Petro restiüsse statim refert (1& sqq.) eiusmodi vehementiam non spirant. Aperte igitur « coram omnibus » (v. 15) ei restitit, quia reprehensus erat. Hodierna Vulg. versio adiectivum verb. (zareywocoTéog repre- Ahenstbilis) pro participio perf. (xeveyvocu£vog reprehensus) supponit, sensu tamen vix mutato; ipsum enim participium perf. , sive Petrum cum Vict. dicimus reprehensum « ab omnibus accusatumque populi judicio » , sive cum FHeithm. etc. « ab Ethnicochristianis antiochenis », sive cum Á''? « ab evangelica veritate, cui hoc factum adversabatur », sive demum rectius cum Wind. « sua ipsius priore agendi ratione » (cfr v.14), semper connotat, eum reprehensione dignum fuisse, Neque tamen ex hac expressione recte colligunt nonnulli, eum iuxta Pauli iudicium peccati proprie dicti reum fuisse. Quamobrem enim reprehensus sit, Paulus ita exponit, ut eum secum plane consensisse doceat, quum eadem omnino ratione, qua ipse, cum gentibus convixerit atque ob iudaizantium dumtaxat scandalum vitandum priorem agendi rationem mutaverit : 12. prius enim quam venirent quidam a lacobo cum gentibus edebat; quum autem venissent , subtrahebat et segregabat se, timens eos qui ez circumcisione erant. Quae sua de legalibus sententia esset, Petrus dudum antequam Antiochiam venisset plus semel manifestaverat; lerosolymis enim post Cornelii baptisma accusationi iudaizantium, quod ad praeputiatos intrasset et cum eis manducasset, revelationem sibi factam opposuerat (Act. 11,1 sqq.);.in concilio iterum eadem revelatione nixus Deum inter ludaeos 'ethnicosque discrimen non ponere sed utrorumque corda fide purificare asseruerat concluseratque, ethnicis conversis iugum non esse imponendum, quod ludaei ipsi portare nec potuissent nec possent (Act. 15,8 sqq.). Quemadmodum pridem ergo Caesareae cum Cornelio, ita Antiochiam advectus cum gentibus , utique ad fidem conversis (cfr v. 13. Judaei i. q. ludaeochristiani), edebat non semel tantum aut iterum, sed ordinarie (id enim imperf. swcÜiv indicat), ita ut praeceptis mosaicis de ciborum distinctione non observatis iuxta decretum apostolicum cum Ethnichristianis ab idolothyto tantum et sanguine ct suffocsto sese abstineret. [taque cum Paulo non solos ethnicos sedetiam ludaeos conversos Lege non amplius ligari consensit, et quamquam hac de re concilium nihil diserte statuerat sed decreto suo solos « fratres ex "gentibus » (Ac£. 15,23) spectaverat, Pauli hac de re doctrinam sua agendi ratione approbavit. Qui consensus ex eo confirmatur, quod non sua sponte, sed quasi coactus illam gentiliter vivendi (cfr v. 14) rationem deponcret, quum nimirum aqui a lacobo venissent !. Expressionem &5ó 'Ia«o€ou multi cum CArys. et Aug. haud satis recte (id quod ex verborum collocatione apparet : voó yàp «00 £J0ctv wc. axo 'Inuxd6ov) cum verbo £Xeiv connectunt (« venerunt a Iacobo, i. e. à Iudaea nam ecclesiae ierosolymitanae lacobus praefuit » Aug.). Multo minus recte moderni haud pauci illos a Iacobo missos esse tenent, quin etiam aliqui acath. eos - ad decretum apostolicum urgendum et (!)Iudaeochristianos ab Ethnicochristianis separandos (Ritsch/), aut ad novum decretum, quo prius mutaretur et &brogaretur, promulgandum (Ew.) a lacobo ablegatos esse .detexerunt. Verum ea profecto non fuit lacobo, quamquam Apostolus et primae ecclesiae episcopus erat, auctoritas, ut ecclesiam & Paulo fundatam, in qua Petrus et Paulus aderant, per legatos suos visitaret. Tii; &wó 'Iaxó6o» sunt aliqui, qui cum lacobo esse solebant ad eiusque quasi domum familiamque pertinebant : discipuli familiaresque eius, qui sicut ipse aemulatores Legis erant (Act. 21,90), sed ab eo in totius huius quaestionis intelligentiam nondum erant introducti. Neque tamen cum pseudofratribus, qui ecclesias extra Palaestinae fines fundatas perturbaverunt (Act. 15,294), aut cum galaticis pseudapostolis, qui gentibus conversis etiam post concilium iugum legalium imponere conabantur, eos confundere licet; viri enim erant, qui Ethnicochristianis libertatem a Lege concedebant (cfr Act. 91,25), Iudaeos conversos vero Legem patriam sequi volebant, quum hos quoque Christi morte a iugo pristino liberatos esse nondum intelligerent. Illis igitur advenientibus Petrus a convictu genlium sese subtrahebat (Uxícve)Dsv laucóv i. e. timide et clam recedere incipiebat cfr Hebr. 10,38 ; Act. 20,27) et separabat, timens eos qui ex circumcisione erant sc. ludaeochristianos Legis aemulatores. Iuxta CÀrys. « non timuit periculum suum, sed tímuit, ne illi a fide deficerent »; iusta S. Jren. (c. haer. Ilf. 19 n. 15) vero, « timuit, ne culparetur ab illis »; utramque sententiam recte A'*" quasi coniungit : « cessit animositati et audaciae ludaeorum, timens ne per hoc (quod, facile erat) subreperet scandalum, quod difficile sedaretur ». Revera Petrus, qui proxime Iudaeorum erat Apostolus (v. 9), timuit, ne Iudaeochristianorum, qui, quum concilium de eorum ad Legem relatione nihil diserte edixisset, etiam tunc se illa ligari licite, quamvis erronee, putarunt, animos a se averteret sibique laborum campum obstrueret. Procul dubio eos docere potuisset, universam Legem morte Christi esse abrogatam, atque ludaeis non minus quam ethnicis libertatem in Christo Iesu (v. &) competere; sed tempus locumque huic docirinae tradendae aptum non esse ratus ab Ethnicochristianorum convictu sese retrahere satius duxit non omnes suae agendi rationis sequelas praevidens. Omnem plane societatem cum gentibus eum non abrupisse clarum est ; nisi enim in frequentandis totius ecclesiae antiochenae coetibus persevcrasset, Paulus eum « coram omnibus » (t. 14) reprehendere non potuisset ; cum eis edere tantum cessavit. Neque tamen in sola vita civili ac profana haec separatio sese manifestavit, quatenus ab Ethnicochristiano forte invitatus mensae eius privatae accumbere recusavit (eius modi enim invitationibus Apostolos tempus suum trivisse vix mihi persuadeo); sed inipsis sacris coetibus apparuit ideoque schisma in ecclesiam antiochenam facile introducere potuit. Cum SS. Eucharistiae celebratione enim coniunctae erant agapae, quibus primi Christiani mutuam caritatem manifestabant ac fovebant, quum singuli pro suis quisque facultatibus cibos afferrent, qui in communi mensa appositi omnibus inservirent (cfr ad 1 Cor. 11,90 sqq.). ' Qui mos in ecclesiis mixtis, quae Iudaeis et ethnicis conversis constabant, haud levem creavit difficultatem neque observari potuit, nisi aut priores ciborum mundorum immundorumque distinctionem a Moyse praescriptam negligebant, aut alteri saltem in agapis Legi se subiiciebant; quasi mediam vero viam concilium monstrasse videbatur, quum decreto suo fratribus ex gentibus ea interdiceret, a quibus Iudaei maxime abhorrebant, idolothyta et sanguinem et suffocatum. Hoc sensu ludaeóchristiani in ecclesiis mixtis decretum intellexisse videntur, ita ut agapas celebrarent eidem mensae communi cum Ethnicochristianis accumbentes atque ab iis tantum abstinentes, quae decreto erant vetita; quam interpretationetn Petrus non minus quam Paulus exemplo suo approbaverunt. At ierosolymitani aemulatores Legis, qui domi in suis agapis solos cibos mundos apponere consueverant, Antiochiae eundem ritum sibi observandum esse putarunt , atque Petrus, ne eis, quorum curam speciali modo in se susceperat, scandalo esset, communi mensa relicta sese cum eis segregabat ; unde factum est, ut in ipsos coetus religiosos divisio quaedam invecta sit, quae maioris schismatis ac dissensionis potuit fieri initium. Quamdiu solus Petrus sese a gentium conviclu separabat , periculum non admodum magnum erat , quandoquidem Ethnicochristiani antiocheni graviter ferre non potuerunt, quod aliqui ludaeochristiani ad eorum eclesiam non pertinentes patrium suum morem observarent et eorum Apostolus cum eis eundem ritum sequi mallet. Idco l'aulus tacuit; verum tanta erat Petri auctoritas, utsolo exemplo suo Iudaeochristianos antiochenos secum traheret : 13. e/ simulationi eius consenserunt (cuv vrtxpilz.cav abri A'tr accuralius : simulaverunt cum illo) ceteri Iudaei, ita ut et Barnabas duceretur ab eis in eandem simulationem (ew tfr a)7àv Tj Uroxpicet accuratius aut : abriperetur ad eorum simulationem, aut : abriperetur eorum simulatione; Vict. A'* ; consentiret eorum simulationi). Petrus aliique cum eo simulasse dicuntur, quia externa eorum actio interno eorum iudicio non consonabat; Paulus indicat. eis persuasum quidem fuisse, se ritibus mosaicis non ligari, nihilominus eos a gentium convictu recedentes egisse, ac si illis etiamtunc ligarentur!. Simili modo Paulus aliquot annis postea, quum ex tertio itinere lerosolyma reversus lacobo suadente in templo votum solveret quatuorque egenis nazireeis sumtum sacrificiorum praestaret (Act. 21,20sqq.), simulasse recte dicitur; quin etiam sicut Petrus timens eos, qui ex circumcisione erant, sese a gentibus segregavit , Paulus timens Iudaeochristianos, qui eum Legem abiecisse putarunt, Legem cusío- "disse seseque aemulatoribus Legis accommodasse dici potest. Petri et Pauli igitur non tantum actiones sed etiam causae motivae erant similes; actionum autem sequelae prorsus discrepabant.. Satis patet, Cephae nomine hic non designari discipulum qualemcumque Domini; quomodo enim discipuli obscuri, cuius nulla memoria in antiquis Ec- - clesiae monumentis conservata est, exemplum reliquos lIudaeochristianos antiochenos et ipsum Barnabam, qui cum Paulo tot iam annis in convertendis ethnicis occupatus idem semper, quod ille, Évangelium: docuerat et cum eo in concilio ierosolymitano defenderat, ad Legis iugum resumendum abripuisset? Solius principis Apostolorum et capitis Ecclesiae auctoritas tanta fuit, ut id efficeret; hinc etiam Paulo, quum omnes iam ludaeochristianos cum Barnaba ab Ethnicochristianis recedere videret, diutius tacere non licuit. . 14. Sed quum vidissem , quod non recte ambularent ad veritatem Evangelii, dizi Cephae coram omnibus : Si tu, quum Iudaeus sis , gentiliter vivis et non iudaice , quomodo gentes cogis tudaizare? Verbum épfBozo:iv, quod nec in S. Scriptura nec a profanis scriptoribus adhibitum reperitur, ab aliis explicatur recto pede incedere (opp. y«eótcv claudicare), ab aliis recta via incedere (4^ : quum vidissem , quod non recla via incederent). Prior tamen explicatio est praeferenda (cfr óploros; opp. 74939x) ; óploroO:t qui gressus rectosfacit pedibus suis (Heór. 12,13), ita ut Petro aliisque non obiiciatur, quoda recta via aberraverint, sed quod in recta via non recte ambulaverint secundum (xp$: ad, h.1. id quod x27x) veritatem. Bene Tert. (de praescr. 23) : « conversationis fuit vitium, non praedicationis »; neque enim Paulus doctrinam sed agendi rationem Petri reprehendere vult. Si doctrinam eius vituperasset, eum secum consentire demonstrare nequivisset. Ceterum evidens est, subiectum verbi ó08ozo3o0ct (recte ambulant) non solos esse Iudaeochristianos excluso Petro, id quod aliqui censuerunt (Er. Iust. etc.) ; ut Petrus enim includi dicatur, tota loci structura postulat. Quoniam vero « utile non erat errorem, qui omnibus nocebat, in secreto emendare » (Aug.), Paulus coram omnióus in publico coetu (forte in agapis, quando Iudaeochristianis cum Petro et Barnaba separatae mensae accumbentibus gentibusque e loco suo deturbatis eccle- , Siam in duas quasi partes scissam videbat) « in solum Petrum invectus est, utin eo qui primus erat discerent omnes » (Af*") « omnesque illius obiurgatione sanarentur » (Aug.). Argumento autem contra eum a fortiore utitur : si Petrus, quamquam ludaeus natus et educatus erat, Lege non amplius sese ligari scivit, multo minus gentes conversae ad eam observandam adducendi sunt. Quid in sententia sit gentiliter et iudaice vivere vel tudaizare, ex contextu non est ambiguum : « ethnicam vitam, inquit CArys., vitam illam appellat, quae ritus iudaicos, puta circumcisionem, sabbatha similiaque, ignorat »; proxime quidem de sola ciborum distinctione agitur, sed reliqua legalia comprehendi recte dicuntur. Quodsi nonnulli acath. (RücK. etc.) expressioni alium sensum (ethnice vivere i. q. ad ethnicorum morem peccatis indulgere) attribuendum censent , quoniam Petrus eo ipso tempore, quo ab ethnicorum convictu recesserat, ethnice vivere dicatur (ivizó; 52; Aic et nunc ethnice vivis), a Pauli menfe procul dubio longissime aberrant; praesente (57x) enim adhibito Paulus Petrum non semel tantum istam ethnicam vivendi rationem tenuisse, sed eandem semper, ubi occasio sese offerebat et offert, tenuisse ac tenere insinuat, ut argumento suo maiorem tribuat vim. Vix opus quoque est aliorum acath. (de W. Wuies. Ritschl Hausr.) sententiam commemorare, qui verbum cogis (&vxy«X se, ita explicant, ut Petrum ipsum legalium observationem ab Ethuicochristianis diserte postulasse aut saltem eiusmodi postulationi per lacobi faiiliares allaiae consensisse dicant; ad locum scilicet, quem huic relationi Paulus in argumentatione attribuit, et ad finem, quem in hac disceptatione referenda habuit, non attendunt, sed argumenta tantum quaerunt, quibus novum suum dogma, Apostolos scilicet diversas et oppositas doctrinas propagasse, stabiliant. Verbo cogis Paulus moralem illam necessitatem designat, quam Petri mutata agendi ratio ncopliytis ethnicis imponere videbatur ; quoniam enim quasi immundos ab eius aliorumque suorum fratrum circumcisorum convictu sese excludi videbant, facile sibi persuadere poterant, legalium observationem, quamvis ad salutem non necessaria esset declarata, Christianis maio- rem tamen dignitatem perfectionemque conferre, ac proin sibi quoque ea esse observanda, ut ludaeis aequales fierent !. Quanta in primitiva Ecclesia Petri fuerit auctoritas, ex uno hoc verbo iterum clarissime apparet. A Paulo Apostolo suo, qui inter eos tot iam annis non tantum exemplo suo sed verbis quoque universalem Legis abolitionem aperte docuerat et docebat, ipsi Ethnicochristiani secedere non dubitabant, quamprimum Petrus pristina vivendi ratione mutata cum eo non amplius consentire credebatur; atque Paulus ipse quoque suam ipsius auctoritatem ad Antiochenos retinendos et a putata Petri sententia avertendos non suffecisse innuit, quum omni studio id agat, ut Petrus sese cum ipso consentire declaret. Ab eo doctrinam suam Antiochiae approbatam confirmatamque esse, diserte quidem Paulus non refert; sed nulla huius controversiae referendae ei fuisset ratio, nisi Petrus reprehensione accepta suum consensum aliquo saltem modo manifestasset. Bene TAeod. : « magnus Petrus, inquit, silentio dicta confirmat ludaeochristianis praesentibus quasi dicens : nos iuste reprehendit nec verbis eius contradicere licet. Quod enim audientium utilitati consulens verba Pauli approbaverit, id nemini non est maniféstum ». Revera cum Patribus (cfr CArys. Aug. Hier. Greg. M. etc.) iuniores quoque omnes Petri humilitatem iunioris Apostoli reprehensionem accipientis taciteque approbantis admirantur ?. Totam hanc demonstrationem ad orationem pertinere, quam Paulus Antiochiae habuit, Patres supponunt; inter iuniores autem haud pauci, uli supra iam innuimus, aut iam a v. 15. aut a medio v. 16 (et nos in Christum Jesum credidimus) aut a. v. 17. vel 18. Paulum relatione controversiae suae terminata ad Galatas se convertere doctrinaeque suae expositionem ac defensionem inchoare censent. Cogitari enim posse negant, Paulum coram Petro, quem in doctrina secum consentire sciebat, abolitionem Legis demonstrare voluisse ; obiectionem quoque v. 17. continuationi orationis parum consentire, praesertim quia inde a v. 18. Apostolus de se ipso (prima pers. sing.) loquatur. At perpendant oportet, Paulum orationem suam « coram omnibus » habuisse, dogmatisque demonstrationem, quam Petro superftuam fuisse ultro et amplius concedimus, non solis familiaribus Iacobi sed etiam antiochenis neophytis fuisse utilissimam, ne dicamus necessariam. Porro Paulus v. 43 (nos natura ludaei) Galatas certe nondum alloquitur, sed omnino Iudaeochristianos alloqui dicendus est; quae autem sequuntur, ea tam arcte inter se cohaerent, ut nullo in loco ante finem capitis series argumentationis apte abrumpatur. Adde, in v. 18. mutatam Petri agendi rationem diserte respici, et in vv. 19. sqq. assertionem v. 18. demonstrari. Quapropter antiquam sententiam cum plerisque iunioribus ac modernis (cfr Caí. Salm. Est. Pic. etc., Wind. Bisp. LR. Palm. etc. — Mey Sieff. Dh. Z. etc.) retineamus oportet. Integram autem orationem Anliochiae habitam, vel potius suam argumentationem (neque enim ipsissima verba, sed sententias repeti clarum est) Paulus referre voluit, quia Evangelii sui brevem conspectum contineat, ideoque Galatas ad longiorem demonstrationem, quam 3,1 directe eos alloquens exorditur, aptissime praeparet ac disponat, quum Petrum etiam ista argumenta silentio suo approbasse videant. De reliquo ad totius pericopes interpretationem parum refert, utrum eam ad Pauli orationem antiochenam pertinere, an separatam epistolae partem constituere dicamus; quare huic quaestioni diutius inhaerere superfluum est. Si solum Petrum ad gentium convictum reducere voluisset, Paulus interrogationi suae, qua infelicem mutatae vivendi rationis sequelam ei proposuit, procul dubio nihil addidisset. Attamen in concione Iudaeochristiani quoque aderant, qui cum Petro simulaverant neque tamen ob eandem, quam ille habuit, causam a convictu gentium abstinuerant, sed Legis observationem esse necessariam sibi videbantur persuasisse. Eorum igitur gratia interrogatione sua non contentus Legis observationem cum fide in Christum pugnare ostendit. Quae mosaicae Legis et christianae fidei sit relatio, in ep. ad om. uberrime et in altera. quoque huius epistolae tractatione ex parte saltem fusius exponit; hic vero doctrinam suam paucis verbis constringit, unde huius pericopes obscuritas quaedam est exorta , quoniam nec sententiarum omnium sensus satis perspicuus, nec earum nexus et ordo satis apertus esse videatur. Verum apte hac ratione totam argumentationem proponi posse arbitror : fudaeochristiani omnes, quamvis ante conversionem suam Lege ethnicis praestarent, abiecta tamen Lege in Christum crediderunt, quia eis persuasum erat, sese non ex Legis operibus sed dumtaxat per fidem in Christum veram iustitiam esse adepturos (15. 16); atqui tantum abest, ut haec Legis abiectio eis fuerit peccatum , ut illius resumtio potius eos praevaricatores constituat (17. 18); siquidem Legi obedientes ad Christum accesserunt , ut cum eo concrucifixi Legi morerentur novamque in eo vitam agentes Deo viverent (19. 20). Quapropter ii qui Legem resumunt, Legi non amplius obediunt , sed gratiam Dei abiicientes, quum per Legem iustitiam quaerant, ipsum redemtionis opus negant (v. 21). À praecellentia Iudaeorum concedenda exorditur : 15. nos natura Iudaei et non ez gentibus peccatores (sc. sumus !). Pronomine nos proxime quidem se et Petrum, quem in praecedente sententia allocutus erat, complectitur, sed reliquos simu] Iudaeochristianos, qui praesentes aderant quorumque gratia hanc argumentationem addidit, comprehendi non est dubium. « Natura Iudaeus, inquit Hier., est ille, qui est de genere Abraham et a parentibus octavo die circumcisus ; non natura Iudaeus, qui postea factus est ex gentibus ». De Iudaeis igitur strictiore sensu loquitur, quorum privilegia semper agnovit (cfr Rom. 3,1 sq.; 9,5 sq.), eisque gentiles opponit, quos peccatores nominat. Haud recte adnotat Aug., quem antiquiores aliqui sequuntur (/lerv. Lomb. Thom. etc.) : « Peccatorum nomen gentibus Iudaei imposuerunt jam vetusta quadam superbia, tamquam ipsi iusti essent, videntes stipulam in oculo alieno et non trabem in suo. Secundum eorum morem locutus Apostolus ait : non ez gentibus peccatores , i. e. quos appellant peccatores, quum et ipsi sint peccatores ». Neque enim pharisaicum hunc loquendi morem approbare aut adoptare Apostolus potait, sed ad veram praecellentiam attendit, qua Iudaei, quamvis et ipsi sub peccato essent (Rom. 3,9 eic.), gentes superabant. Quia enim gentes non tantum regula divinae legis positivae carebant, sed ipsum verum Deum ignorabant, tamquam &vopot et x0sot (cfr Rom. 9,19; 1 Cor. 9,21; EpA. 2,12; 4,17 sqq.) specialiore modo peccatores vocari merebantur, quam Iudaei, qui, quum Legem et adoptionem quandam et promissiones accepissent (Hom. 9,4; 2,17 sqq.), ad gentem sanctam populumque, quem sibi peculiarem Deus elegerat, pertinebant (Exod. 19,6; Deut. 1,6 ; 15,9 etc.) atque ius quoddam speciale ad iustitiam, utpote Dei propinquiores, possidere videbantur, sicut propter divinas promissiones ius quoddam speciale ad benedictiones imessianicas habebant (Rom. 15,8 sqq.). Quam longe vero absit, ut ludaeos Lege eorum non obstante peccatores esse neget aut eos in Lege sua modum, quo iustitiam acquirant, habere censeat, Paulus sequente sententia declarat ludaeochristianis in memoriam revocans, qua via ad iustitiam pervenerint : 106. scientes autem, quod non tustificatur homo ez operibus legis, nisi per fidem Iesu Christi, et nos in Christo Iesu (aptius Vict. A'er, Heer. : in Christum Iesum ei; Xpwóv 'Incoóv) credimus (ixvoteóonuev cfr VV. LL.; cum Fuld. e It. lege : credidimus), ut tustificemur-ez fide Christi et non ex operibus legis, propter quod (&xvvel 8óvv cfr VV. LL.; lege : quoniam vel propterea quod) ex operibus legis non iustificabitur omnis caro. Quamvis magni Legem mosaicam ante suam conversionem aestimassent, Iudaeochristianis persuasum tamen fuerat, sese eius operibus iustitiam, quae coram Deo valet, assecuturos non esse nec assequi posse : ideo eius operibus sepositis ad fidem Christi confugerant, qua sola possent iustificari. Undenam vero hanc scientiam, quam in principio sententiae asserit (scientes quod non tustificatur homo ex operibus Legis), hauserint, it fine sententiae Paulus innuit Scripturae verbis allegatis (quoniam ez operibus Legis non tustificabitur omnis caro). Neque enim ultima verba sunt priorum repetitio tautologica (uti aliqui arbitrantur), neque universaliorem sententiam constituunt, ex qua ad Iudaeos concludatur (Est. Palm. etc.), — nam prior sententia (non tustificatur homo) non minus universalis est quam ultima (non tusttficabitur omnis caro), — sed eadem ratione, qua Hom. 3,90, ex Ps. 142,2 (« non intres in iudicio cum servo tuo, quia non tustificabitur fn conspectu tuo omnis vivens), desumta sunt, ut persuasio ludaeochristianorum non vana et inanis fuisse sed divinae revelationi inniti insinuaretur (cfr Wind. Bisp. Reithm. Dr. etc.). omittit, ubi de citatione nemo dubitat; eadem ex. gr. verba (qui gloriatur, in. Domino glorietur) 4 Cor. 1,31 diserte afferuntur sicut seriptum est, et . 9 Cor. 10,17 recurrunt sine ulla formula (cfr Rom. 1,47 et Gal. 3,11; Rom. 4,3 et Gal. 3,6 etc.). — Palm. tamen cum aliis verba Psalmi allegari negat, quia in eis de Lege mosaica non agatur : « porro, inquit, quum Apostolus totus in eo sit, ut Legem mosaicam vel observationem Legis mosaicae causam esse neget aut necessariam conditionem iustificationis, mirum profecto foret citari ab eo testimonium Scripturae ad id demonstrandum, in quo nihil dicitur de Lege nec apparet cur subintelligendum sit ». Attamen si Psalmista sub Lege constitutus et Legem observans ullum hominem coram Deo iustiflcari negat, clare opinor apparet, eum de illis quoque loqui, qui opera Legis habent; quare Paulus insertis verbis ex operíbus Legis sensum Psalmistae non mutavit, sed legitime explicavit. Is autem Paulo in allegandis Scripturis est mos, ut verbis citatis, si satis clara non sunt, rectam interpretationem inserat, ne eorum explicationem addere cogatur. Clarum exemplum habes 4 Cor. 3,19. 20, ubi ex Scriptura demonstrare vult, sapientiam mundi esse stultitiam apud Deum; quem in flnem allegat Ps. 93,11 hac ratione : « Dominus novit cogitatiqnes sapientium, quoniam vanae sunt », licet ín Psalmo ipso legatur : « Dominus novit cogitationes hominum, quia vanae sunt »; scilicet Psalmistam revera de falsis sapientibus loqui, contextus docet, atque Paulus vocabulo sapientium legitime substitulo verba suo argumento adaptavit. — Quia verba ex Vet. Test. sunt desumta, nemo quoque hebraismo illo (alibi quoque in Novo Test. usitato) offendi post : « non iustificabitur omnis caro » i. e. nulla caro iustificabitur. Mirum, quod Hier. eum non deprehenderit sed plane contra Pauli mentem sententiam explicet : « iustificabatur quondam ex Lege non omnis caro, sed tantum hi homines, qui in Palaestina erant »; at iuxta Paulum ex Lege aut per eam aut ex operibus eius nullus umquam iustificatus est aut iustificabitur. 9. — De praecipuis huius sententiae expressionibus alibi quidem, quum in hac ep. tum in ep. ad Rom., sermo recurret; pauca tamen quaedam hic praelibabimus, quae pleniori intelligentiae sententiae huius inserviunt. sibi ipsis inutile esse cognoverant; at argumentum suum Apostolus corroborat ostendens, abiectione illa Legis Christianum non constitui peccatorem, sed eius resumtione Legem ipsam violari.
2:17
17. Quodsi (& 9€ Vict. A'*" accuratius : s£ autem) quaerentes dustificari in Christo inventi sumus et ipsi peccatores (&uzgreXot) , numquid (ao i. q. num igitur; aut &px ergo) Christus peccati minister est? Absit. ln sententia hac (quae prior est pars Minoris argumenti integri) explicanda multum insudant moderni acath.; sed steriles eorum conatus praetermittimus, quoniam aptissima est interpretatio, quam cum antiquis (Chrys. Theod. etc., Hier. A'*" etc.) plerique iuniores ac moderni cath., licet in levioribus inter se dissentiant, unanimes tenent (cfr Sali. Est. Iust. etc., Wind. Bisp. MEv. etc.). Obiiciebant iu daizantes, Iudaeochristianos Legem non observantes ethnicis similes fieri, qui quia Legem non habent nec observant , peccatores (&p.apreo( v. 15) dicuntur; Christianis igitur Legem esse observandam. Quam absurda sit haec obiectio, Paulus ostendit, eam ad absurdam conclusionem ducere monens, quam iudaizantes ipsi veluti blasphemam non reiicere non possint. Etenim « nos Iudaei, inquit, ipsi intelleximus, per fidem Christi tantum nos iustificari posse, ideoque relicta Lege in Christo (i. q. ex fide in Christum iustitiae nostrae causam meritoriam) tustificari quaesivimus : siautem hac via Lege abiecta institiam quaerentes, uti vos asseritis, facti et znventi sumus peccatores ethnicis similes (et tpsi , sicut ethnici, peccatores), concludamus oportet, CAristum, propter quem hanc viam ingressi Legem reliquimus, esse peccati ministrum, quatenus nostri (suppositi) peccati causa est et promotor » 1. Quam conclusionem propler reverentiam Christi non assertive sed interrogative et quasi dubitative exprimi, recte monent multi (Salm. Est. etc., Disp. ctc.), maiore cum vi velut abominanda absurditas reiiciatur formula Paulo usitatissima : Absit (y, yévovzo ?). At hac demonstratione, Legis abiectione Iudaeochristianos nec gentilibus peccatoribus assimilari nec peccare, non contentus Paulus in altera Minoris suae parte resumtionem potius Legis peccatum, quin etiam Legis ipsius transgressionem , esse asserit et addito argumento probat :
2:18
18. si enim quae destruzi iterum haec aedifico , praevaricatorem (wxpa6ivay transgressorem) me constituo. Versuum 17. et 18. nexum Chrys. bene explicat : « illi studebant ostendere, eum qui Legem non servaret esse transgressorem (vel potius peccatorem &po- 103óv), ipse vero accusationem in adversarios reiicit, ostendens eum qui Legem servat esse transgressorem : transgressorem , inquam, non tantum fidei, sed etiam Legis ipsius ». In priore sententia (v. 17) indirecte asseruerat, Iudaeochristianos Legis abiectione non peccasse, atque hanc indirectam assertionem confirmat monens eos peccare, qui post acceptam iustitiam Christo inserti Legem resumunt; hinc particula causalis y&p (enim). Consueta autem sua metaphora Legem velut aedificium considerat ; quod illi destruunt, qui eam reiiciunt, illi vero iterum aedificare et restituere conantur, qui reiectam resumunt velut sibi necessariam. Probe enim animadvertatur oportet, Paulum de simplici Legis observatione non loqui; nam ipse quoque iis qui sub Lege erant quasi sub Lege esset interdum factus erat, neque tamen ideo transgressor Legis fuerat ; loquitur vero de ea observatione, quae & iudaizantibus necessaria praedicabatur, atque is destructum Legis aedificium iterum aedificat, qui eam eo in loco habet, quem ante Christi mortem occupavit, quando ludaeis divinitus imposita ac proin necessaria erat. Minime igitur hac sententia, uti multi acathol. censent (cfr Sze/f. eic.), Petrum aggreditur; nam is eadem ratione, qua Paulus ipse, dumtaxat ad palaestinensium Iudaeochristianorum scandalum vitandum iudaicam ciborum distinctionem ad tempus iterum observaverat. Neque antiochenos ludaeochristianos aggredi recte dicituc; nam illi dumtaxat Petri exemplum imitati se Legem pro necessaria habere diserte non manifestaverant. Hanc ob causam, quia nimirum in antiochena concione adversarios directe non alloquitur, Paulus, ne auditores suos aggredi videatur, mutato sermone primam personam singularem adhibet atque hac ratione se doctrinam genuinam de Legis abolitione, facto antiocheno relicto, proponere manifestat; timendum enim erat, ne aliqui ex Antiochenis ex mutata Petri agendi ratione erroneam doctrinam derivarent. Sed quomodo praevaricatorem (vel potius transgressorem) se constituit, qui Legem abiectam iterum velut necessariam resumit? Cum Atr? et Oec. multi respondent : « quia ita agens ostendit, se male egisse, quum eam abiiceret » (cfr Salm. Est. etc., Wind. M Ev. etc.). Quod responsum, quamvis per se verum sit, nec verbis nec contextui Pauli satis congruit; neque enim se peccatorem in genere, sed transgressorem, sc. Legis mosaicae, ipsa Legis resumtione constitui dicit. Cum CArys. et Theod. igitur alii rectius respondent : « quia ipsam Legem transgreditur, quae eum manu sua ad fidem adduxit eique suam ipsius abrogationem persuasit » (cfr Just. Pic. etc., Disp. Palm. etc.). Hanc enim explicationem postulat sequens expositio, qua paucis sententiis comprehendens, quae Romanos uberius docuit (cfr Rom. 6,1-11; 7,1 sqq.; 8,1 sqq.), per Legem ipsam sese a Lege liberatum esse ostendit. Namque ut se, si ad eam revertatur, transgressorem esse demonstret, pergit :
2:19
19. ego enim per legem legi mortuus sum, ut Deo vivam; Christo confixus sum cruci. Multiplex apud Patres reperitur priorum verborum interpretatio : « per legem fidei (Evangelium) mortuus sum legi mosaicae » (A'*", Hier. etc.); « per legem mosaicam spiritualiter intellectam mortuus sum legi carnaliter intellectae » (Vect. Aug?. etc.); « per legem mosaicam, quae me Christum venturum docuit, mortuus sum legi » (Chrys. TAeod. etc.); « per legem tamquam paedagogum ad Christum mortuus sum legi », quatenus nimirum « per paedagogum id agitur, ut non iam sit necessarius paedagogus, sicut per ubera nutritur infans, ut iam uberibus non indigeat, et per navem pervenitur ad patriam, ut iam navi opus non sit » (Aug!. etc.). Quae ultima explicatio procul dubio est praeferenda, quia nomini Legis in brevissima hac sententia eandem significationem relinquit ac toti Pauli doctrinae apprime consonat. Iuxta Paulum enim per Legem omnes maledicto subiecti sunt, ita ut Christus, quum pro nobis maledictum factus nostrum maledictum in se assumeret, per Legem morti sit traditus et cruci affixus (3,10 sqq.). Atqui quotquot baptizati sunt in Christum, in mortem eius baptizati sunt, et crucifixo inserti cum eo moriuntur (Jtom. 6,3 sqq.); per Legem ergo moriuntur; et quia Lex in hominem non dominatur, nisi quanto tempore homo vivit, hac morte, quae est per Legem, a Legis iugo liberantur (Hom. 7,1. *). 4t baptizati etiam cum Christo ad novam vitam resuscitantur, in qua non amplius sibi vivunt, sed Deo (Atom. 6,8 sqq.) atque a. Lege soluti in. novitate spiritus Deo serviunt (cfr 5,24. 25; Hom. '5,6). Hunc esse genuinum priorum verborum sensum clare docent sequentia, quibus ostenditur, et quomodo per Legem Legi mortui simus, et quomodo Legi mortui Deo vivamus. Nam C/rristo confizus sum cruci; vetus scilicet noster homo, qui Legi subiacebat et peccato serviebat, simul cum Christo cruci affixus est, ut corpus peccati destrueretur (Jom. 6,6); veteri autem homini nostro novus successit.
2:20
20. Vivo autem iam non ego!, sc. vetus ille homo, vicit vero tn me Chri- 1. Haud satis accurate Vulg. Cleia. interpunclione sua duo priora verba (viro autem) a stus. Nam qui cum Christo in cruce mortui in baptismo cum eo sepeliuntur, cum eo etiam ad novam vitam resurgunt (Rom. 6,5; 2 Cor. 5,15; Col. 2,12;3,1. 3); neque vero vetus homo, qui Legi subiacebat, resurgit, sed novus homó, cuius principium vitale est ipse Christus; Saulus mortuus est, resurrexit Paulus. « Quemadmodum enim , inquit Chrys., peccatum, si dominatur, ipsum est quod vivit (i. e. est principium vitale), quum animum ad quod vult pertrahat , ita si, peccato mortuo, ea quae Christo placent fiunt, non amplius humana est vita, quia ipse Christus vivit in nobis, i. e. agit et dominatur ». Bene quoque Sa/m. (cfr Cathar.) : « In quolibet homine duplex est Adam considerandus, vetus prior et carnalis, posterior novus et spiritualis. Quamdiu homo est in vetere Adamo, operatur ea quae sunt concupiscenliae, peccati et mortis, vivitque vita veteris hominis; at ubi semel Christum crucifixum induit, mortuus invenitur vetus homo, atque ipse invenitur novus homo et nova creatura, vivitque in Christo per. gratiae seu carifatis principium, quam misit in eum Christus, se- - cundus Adam, sicut vitis in palmitem. Et ita explicatur, quomodo sit ipse et non ipse; i. e. non talis, in quo operatur bomo vetus prior (vivo iam non ego) , sed homo novus in Christo et in quo Christus ipse vivit (vzvit vero £n me Christus). Qui enim ia Christo est aliquo modo, nimirum per fidem et dilectionem, in eo et Christus est per donum Spiritus vivificantis » (cfr Rom. 8,9 sqq.). In eo igitur Christus vivit, quia omnes eius actiones vitales (intelligere, cogitare, velle, amare etc.) iam non amplius eius, sed Christi in eo omnia regentis ac disponentis sunt (cfr Cai.). Quod autem se ipsum non amplius vivere dixerat, id explicatione indigcre videbatur; quare addit : quod autem nunc vivo in carne , in fide vivo. Filii Dei, qui dilexit me et tradidit semet ipsum pro me. Relativum quod (5) antiquiores plerique explicarunt quod atttnet ad (sc. praesentem vitam in carne); quae explicatio, quamvis inepta non sit (cfr similem constructionem Rom. 6,10), haud immerito a modernis relicta est, quoniam facilius fluit sermo, si relativum velut obiectum a verbo 7Zv (vivere) dependere admittitur (iov ^» vitam vivere) : quam autem nunc vitam vivo in carne, eam in fide vivo Filii Dei. Sensus autem hic est : « Physice utique Christo cruci confixus non sum, nec physice sum mortuus; eadem potius ratione, qua ante conversionem ct baptismum, eliam nunc post baptismum zn carne mortali vivo neque externa specie praesens mea vita a priore differt; sed interna mea vita, quae quia nunc « abscondita est cum Christo in Deo » (Co. 3,3) a naturali homine nec percipitur nec intelligitur, a priore prorsus differt, quia alio principio regitur; nam zn /ide vivo Filz Dei, et per hanc meam fidem in Filium Dei etiam Filius Dei ipsc habitat in corde meo (cfr EpA. 3,17); quare etiam nunc, quamvis vita physica eadem perduret, non amplius sub Lege esse possum ». Per se intelligitur, expressionem 2n carne tivere non eo sensu sumi, quo /1o». 8,8, ut caro cogitetur peccato infecta et velut peccati sedes (cfr ad 1 Cor. 2,13), sed eo sensu, quo 2 Cor. 10,3 et PAil. 1,92 sqq., ut sit idem quod mortalem vitam agere. Neque tamen praesens vita mortalis futurae immortali opponitur (uti cum Aug. et 7Aeod. aliqui censent), sed adverbio viv (nunc) praesens tempus, uti iam diximus, tempori ante baptismum peracto opponitur, et externa vita naturalis internae vitae supranaturali , quae habetur per fidem in Christum. Gratissimo porro animo recordatur, quod tantum beneficium immensae ct infinitae caritati debeat, qua Christus, quum adhuc peccatores eiusque inimici essemus, pro nobis se morti tradidit, ut Deo reconciliati salvi essemus in vita ipsius (cfr Rom. 5,8 sqq.). De se solo quidem Paulus loquitur, at sententia eius universalis est omnesque Christianos cadem ratione complectitur; nam « quod commune est, proprium facit, ostendens tantam gratiarum actionem unumquemque Christo debere, ac si propter illum solum homo factus esset; neque enim revera vel ob unum solum exhibere recusasset tantum caritatis suae argumentum ; adeo unumquemque hominem pari caritatis mensura, «qua universum mundum, diligit » (CArys.). Legi igitur per Legem mortuus Paulus sese transgressorem cius constitueret, si eam velut necessariam resumeret ; ipsam enim redemtionis gratiam sperneret totamque Christi redemtionem inutilem praedicaret. Haec est terribilis sententia, quam velut legitimam conclusionem ex praemissis deducit :
2:21
91. non abécio (25:6 !) gratiam Dec (7 qx2w 703 Oto5 gratiam illam sc., quam innui); s£ enin per legem gustitia, ergo gratis (potius : frustra 8o2eív?) Christus mortuus est. Nomine gra- 2. Adverbium &uorzv apud profanos seinper ef in Scriptura plerumque significal gratuito (i.q. sine mercede Matth. 10,8; Rom. 3,2i elc. alque respondet lhicbr. 2275; sed quia hetiae Dei ipsum sacrificium Christi sese ex caritate pro nobis tradentis intelligit; quod utique illi irritum faciebant et cum despectu respuebant, qui illud solum ad iustitiam nostram non sufficere rati Legem sibi resumendam duxerunt, ut perfecti essent Christiani; « qui enim vitam ex Lege instituit, gratiam Dei vituperat, quasi non sufficiat ad salutem » (TAeod.). ludaizantes fidei Christi quidem necessitatem non negabant, sed Legem simul ad perfectam iustitiam requiri contendebant; verum hanc iustitiae dimidiationem, ut una quasi pars sit ex meritis Christi, altera ex Legis operibus, tamquam meritorum Christi negationem Paulus reprobat; qui enim infinitis Christi meritis aliquid addere vult, eo ipso ea infinita esse negat. Hac igitur ratione tota haec argumentatio directe est contra pseudapostolos illos, qui Galatis Legem, ut consummarentur et ad perfectionem adducerentur, imponere volebant, atque aptissime sermonem traducit ad secundam: epistolae partem, qua eos diserte aggreditur. DE LEGIS INUTILITATE AD BENEDICTIONES ABRAHAE ODTINENDAS (3,1-4,31). Auctoritate sua vere apostolica stabilita Evangeliique sui ac doctrinae reliquorum Apostolorum concentu demonstrato reliquum Paulo fuit, ut dogma de iustificatione per fidem in Christum obtinenda a pseudapostolorum obiectionibus vindicaret, vel potius Legem ad bencdictiones Abrahae promissas odtinendas nihil conferre ostenderet; neque enim eius adversarii utilitatem aut etiam necessitatem fidei negabant, sed Legis simul observationem, ut aliquis perfectus esset Christianus, necessariam praedicabant. Quem errorem ut neophytis persuaderent, nomine filiorum Abrahae videntur esse abusi, quo eos ad circumcisionem allicerent; neque eis satis speciosum argumentum defuit. Etenim quum soli Abrahae ct semini eius promissae essent benedictiones messianicae, facile concludere poterant : Ut aliquis benedictionum Abrahae promissarum particeps fiat, ad semen Abrahae pertineat oportet ; atqui circumcisione, quae cst signum foederis a Deo cum Abraham et semine eius pacti (Ges. 17.9 sqq.), et Lege, qua Deus semen Abrahae a reliquis populis discrevit , aliquis semini Abrahae inseritur; ergo Christianus, si omnium bencdictionum mossianicarum particeps fieri vult, circeumcidatur Legemque observet oportet. Tota haec altera pars in eo est, ut sophisma lioc tribus argumentis convellat. Primum ad Galatarum, qui accepta fide etiam donis Spiritus ditati erant, experientiam provocans Paulus ostendit fide eos Abrahae assifnilatos eiusque lilios factos esse (3.1-7); deinde ex Scriptura constare docet, promissiones Abrahae seminique eius datas nulla ratione a Lege pendere (3,8-5.20); atque demum historiam duorum filiorum Abrahae (Isaac et Ismael)typice explicans non omnes filios eius, sed eos solos, qui ex libera matre modo supranaturali progeniti ac ipsi liberi sint, haeredes bencedictionum essc monet (5,91-31). Tres igitur in sectiones pars haec apte distribuitur. & 1. Legis inutilitas iuxta. Galatarum ipsorum ezperientiam (3,1-1). 3,1. O0 insensati Galatae, quis cos fasci- 3,1. "OQ dvóntor l'aAárat, vl; opaq c6dnavit ton obedire veritati, ante quorum | axavev, olg xaz' óoüaAuob; "Incoüg Xptorbg oculos Iesus Christus praescriptus est, in| zgosypáor lowwopopívoc; 2. voóto uÓvov vobis crucifizus? 2. Hoc solum a vobis tolo | 0£« uaüstv. do! Op "Et fopyov wópov discere : Ex operibus legis Spiritum acce- | o. zveópa dAdócre 3) d dxong xlet:ws; pístis, an ex auditu fidei? 3. Sic stulti | 3. odxuc dvónzol love; dvagkápsvor rvedpatt estis, ut quum spiritu coeperitis, nunc| vjv aapxi ixsAetoUt; 4. cvogaUta ixáütrt carne consummemini ? 4. Tanta passi| el; eU ve xai elxj. 5. 6 oby. ity opnqüov estis. sine causa? si. tamen. sine causa. | üut) 10. zveüpa xol dwep[üw — Suvdqie 5$. Qui ergo tribuit vobis Spiritum, et ope- | iv ópiv — 2. fpyov vópou 3j d£ xo? ratur virtutes in vobis : ez operibus legis, | zioztoc; 6. — xaÜüg "A6palg — inlatsvosv 9n ez auditu fidei? 6. Sicul scriptum est: | «io Ocip, xol üAoyíoÓn adwp slg Duxatoci- Abraham credidit Deo, et reputatum est | vzv. 7. qtwóaxeve. dpa. Bv ot dx. nlaxtox, 1l ad iustitiam. 7. Cognoscite ergo, quia | oSzot viol ea "A6padg. 1. qui ez fide sunt, ii sunt filii Abrahae. Magna cum animi concitatione Paulus continuis interrogationibus ad Galatarum ipsorum experientiam provocat, qua edocebantur, se Spiritus S. donis, quae evidens sunt promissionum messianicarum documentum (cfr Act. 2,15 sqq.), statim post acceptam fidem ditatos esse, antequam de Legis iugo subeundo cogitassent, ita ut Legis operibus &d perfectionem adduci non indiguissent (1-5); unde concludit, eos Abrahae ex fideiustificato iam esse assimilatos ac fide accepta eos esse factos filios Abrahae (6. 7). Moderni interpretes plerique duos ultimos tv. (6. 7) ad sequens argumentum scripturisticum trahunt; Hier. vero, quum a v. 10. novum . commentariorum librum incipiat, etiam vv. 8. 9. ad nostrum trahere videtur. Sed primo argumento, si v. 5. terminatur, conclusio deest, et secundo fundamentum, si vv. 8. 9. a&b eo separantur, quare usque ad v. 7. primum sese extendere rectius dicimus. Pro more autem Paulus secundum argumentum in fine primi iam.innuit et praeparat. Ipsam Christi mortem inutilem declarant, qui ex operibus Legis iustficari volunt. Hac gravissima sententia primum suum tractatum terminaverat; hinc mirum non est, quod tanta cum vehementia Galatarum caecitatem aggreditur, qui huius criminis sese reos facere videbantur :
2:1
ἔπειτα comme les deux précédents « ensuite » (1, 18 et τ, 21) se rapporte évidemment à ce qui précède immédiatement; ici le séjour en Syrie et en Cilicie. Sur ce point aucun doute, Mais à quel intervalle se rapporte διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν} le point de départ est-il celui du début du récit, c’est-à-dire la conversion, ou la première visite à Jérusalem ? Loisy allègue pour le premier système que « les « ensuite » s’enchaînent dans la narration de Paul, mais non les indications de date ». Au lieu d'additionner trois ans (1, 18) et quatorze ans, il ne compte que quatorze ans en tout depuis la conversion qui domine l’horizon. L'addition de trois à quatorze, même si l'on n’aboutissait qu’à seize années complètes, serait embarrassante pour la chronologie paulinienne. On s'accorde à fixer au début de l’an 44 le martyre de Jacques (Act. χα, 1-2), et Loisy fixe à la même année le martyre de Jean son frère. C'est après ce martyre que Pierre se rendit à Antioche. Or, dans son second voyage, Paul trouva encore Pierre et Jean à Jérusalem, et il rencontra peu après Pierre à Antioche. Il est donc venu au plus tard avant le commencement de l'an 44, et sa conversion, si l'on remonte de seize ans en arrière, tomberait au plus tard en l’an 29 qui paraît être la date indiquée par Luc (τα, 1) pour la mort du Christ. Cette argumentation repose sur un fait erroné, et le texte est contraire. On suppose avec raison dans les deux systèmes que διά indique un espace de temps complètement écoulé (Me. π, 1; Ditt. OG. 56, 38; Act. χχιν, 17), «après », et non «pendant » (comme dans Act. 1, 3). Le nouveau point de départ est un nouveau voyage (πάλιν ἀνέθην) à Jérusalein ; l'ancien était done le premier voyage à Jérusalem (Jér. Chrys. Sieffert, Zahn, les modernes en général mais non Ramsay ni Schaefer). Cet intervalle de quatorze ans manifeste combien de temps Paul ἃ missionné sans revoir les Apôtres, comme les trois ans de 1, 10 marquaient la première période dans laquelle il ne les avait pas même vus. La conversion domine tout, mais ce n’est pas une raison pour que chaque date y remonte directement. La chronologie paulinienne doit simplement se plier aux textes; la mort prétendue de Jean en l'an 44 est une fiction téméraire, non un fait. On trouvera les textes dans notre commentaire de 5. Marc, p. 262. Alors nous n'avions à nous occuper que de Ia thèse du martyre de Jean. Mais c'est vraiment une distraction un peu forte de le faire mourir en 44 avec son frère, car Papias, à supposer qu'il ait tenu pour le martyre, ne pouvait évidemment le faire remonter à cette date, lui qui était censé avoir vécu avec Jean : αὐτόπτης τούτου γενόμενος, de sorte que μετὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ (s'il ne faut pas lire μετὰ τὸν ἀδελφόν) doit signifier « aussi bien que son frère ». Papias n'a pas dit, ne pouvait pas dire que Jean (qu'il avait connu) était mort avec son frère, mais tout au plus qu’il avait accompli avec son frère, lui et son frère, la prédiction du Seigneur, Qu'on relise le texte de Georges Hamartolos : Παπίας γὰρ ὁ Ἱεραπόλεως ἐπίσκοπος αὐτόπτης τούτον γενόμενος ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ λόγῳ τῷν χυριαχῶν λογίων φάσχει ὅτι πὸ ἾἸουδαίων ἀνηρέθη, πληρώσας δηλαδὴ μετὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τὴν Χριστοῦ περὶ αὐτῶν πρόρρησιν cf. Mer Ladeuze, dans 48. 1907, p.565 s.)[cf. Comm. du IVe évang. p. ΧΧΧΙΧ 58.} — πάλεν ἀνέθην εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα, Les Actes énumèrent cinq voyages de Panl à Jérusalem. Nous avons identifié le premier avec celui de Gal. 1, 18. Le second dont parle Paul ici ne peut être le second des Actes (xr, 30), qui a dû avoir lieu au temps du martyre de Jacques, fils de Zébédée, en l'an 44 ap. J.-C. Or entre cette date et la conversion de Paul, on ne peut guère placer seize à dix-sept ans, comme M. Loisy l’a noté. Au surplus la raison principale pour éliminer ici la concordance avec le second voyage des Actes, c'est que le second voyage des Galates coïncide avec le troisième des Actes (χν, 4), comme nous le verrons. Pourquoi donc Paul n'a--il pas parlé de son second voyage? N'était-ce pas fournir des armes à ses adversaires? Ils pouvaient objecter vous ne parlez pas de ce voyage dans lequel vous avez précisément reçu l’instruction des Apôtres. Maïs Paul ne se soucie que des difficultés réelles. Ce second voyage avait été une simple course conduite par Barnabé (Act. x1, 30; χα, 25) pour porter les collectes aux anciens. Après le martyre de Jacques, Pierre fut en prison, puis en fuite, et les Apôtres probablement dispersés. D'ailleurs, après la prédication en Syrie et en Cilicie, la preuve était faite que Paul n'avait reçu son évangile d'aucun homme. S'il parle maintenant encore d'un voyage à Jérusalem, c'est pour en venir à l'approbation positive des Apôtres qui lui fut donnée. Entre le troisième voyage des Actes et celui que Paul va raconter, il y a accord fondamental qui ne va pas sans des divergences de détail. Nous notons les points de l'accord; la solution des divergences suivra pas à pas le texte. 1. Les personnes en scène sont les mêmes a) Paul vient avec Barnabé, et à ce qu’il semble d’Antioche où il se retrouvera plus tard (π, 11), d'après l'épître aux Galates (π, 1) comme d'après les Actes (xv, 2); &) les judaïsants poussent à la circoncision de la même façon (Gal. κι, 4 et Act. xv, 5); c) à Jérusalem Pierre et Jacques sont les représentants principaux de l'apostolat chez les Juifs (Gal. 11, 9 et Act. XV, 7 s8., 13 s8.). 2. La question principale est la même : nécessité de la circoncision pour les gentils ou liberté (Gal. 11, 4; Act. xv, 5). Elle est résolue de la même façon, avec plus d'ampleur dans les Actes (Gal. 11, 5; Act. xv, 6 5s.). Ce ne fut pas cependant sans des difficultés indiquées dans les Galates (1, 5) et sur lesquelles les Actes insistent davantage (xv, 2. 5. 7). De la solution du principe dépendait le jugement sur la mission de Paul chez les Gentils : même Βαρνάδα, συνπαραλαθὼν καὶ Τίτον’ Ξἀγέδξην δὲ χατὰ ἀποχάλυψιν' χαὶ récit de cette mission, même approbation dans les deux sources (Gal. π, 2. 9; Act. xv, 12. 23). Après ces points décisifs, on peut noter que l'époque concorde, autant que les dates peuvent être précisées. La dix-septième année après la conversion de Paul peut étre tout près de l'an 49, date qui convient pour le concile de Jérusalem. C’est ce qu'a noté saint Irénée (111, 13, 3) : Si quis igitur diligenter ex Actibus Apostolorum scrutetur tempus de quo scriptum est, Ascendi Hierosolymam, propter praedictam quaestionem, inveniet eos, qui praedicti sunt a Paulo, annos concurrentes. L'accord presque unanime des commentateurs catholiques et protestants sur ce synchronisme a été quelque peu troublé parmi les catholiques allemands par l'intervention du Dr Valentin Weber (Die Abfassung des Galaterbriefs vor dem Apostelkonzil, Ravensburg, 1900). M. Steinmann (Die Abfassungsseit des Galaterbriefes, Münster, 1906) a remis les choses au point. — μετὰ Βαρνάδα, Paul dit qu'il est venu avec Barnahé, il ne dit pas qu'il la amené. Loisy lui reproche d'avoir « grossi son propre rôle aux dépens de Barnabé », et « il semble ne nommer ici Barnabé que par l'impossibilité de faire autrement ». En réalité Barnabé n'était point ici en cause, il n'était point un des anciens Apôtres, et Paul n'avait ni à le mettre en relief ni à prouver son indépendance par rapport à lui. Il le nomme comme le témoin principal de la scène de Jérusalem du côté de l’apostolat des gentils. Il semble que c'est à ce moment même que l’ascendant de Paul commença à l’emporter. Dans les Actes Barnabé est nommé le premier lorsque l'auteur se place plus strictement dans la situation historique, récit de la mission (xv, 12), lettre des Apôtres (xv, 25), mais Paul est au premier rang quand l’auteur parle pour son compte (xv, 2. 22). Ils se séparèrent aussitôt après (Act. xv, 37 ss.). On pourrait s'étonner que Paul ait laissé Barnabé dans l'ombre si les Galates étaient ces populations de la Lycaonie et de la Pisidie qu'ils avaient évangélisées ensemble, maïs non s’il s'agit des vrais Galates que Paul seul avait amenés à la foi. — συνπαραλαθών se dit de deux personnes qui en prennent une troisième comme compagnon; il vise directement Tite, mais indirectement Barnabé. Si Paul avait regardé Barnabé comme étant parfaitement son égal dans l'initiative du voyage, il aurait écrit συνπαραλαδόντες (cf. Act. xn, 25). Cependant le consentement de Barnabé dut être requis pour prendre Tite (cf. Act. xv, 37 s.). L'avantage que Paul semble se donner est d'ailleurs conforme aux Actes. Si Barnabé demeurait le premier à Jérusalem, c'est Paul qui était à Antioche le principal controversiste (Act. xv, 2). On objecte une divergence avec les Actes : Paul parle seulement de Tite, les Actes disent τινὰς ἄλλους. Mais rien n'empêche de comprendre Tite (que les Actes ne nomment jamais) dans ce groupe indéterminé. Paul le nomme seul à cause de la difficulté que fera naître sa qualité de gentil.
2:2
ἀνέδην δέ reprend le thème principal pour y ajouter une explication importante; sur cet emploi de δέ, cf. Rom. mi, 22, — κατὰ ἀποχάλυψιν se rapporte directement à &vé£nv. La démarche de Paul a été déterminée par une révélation, une manifestation surnaturelle de la volonté de Dieu, quel qu’en ait été le mode. Cornely note la fréquence dans la carrière de l’Apôtre de ces interventions de l'Esprit-Saint (Act. xxnr, 17; ΧΙ, 27; x, 2. 4; XVI, 6. 9; ΧΥΠΙ, 9 s6.; ΧΙΣ, 21; xx, 20 5.; xx1, &. 11: xx, 11; xxvii, 23). Paul n'oppose pas ici tacitement cet ordre de Dieu à un ordre des Apôtres, pour bien établir que ce ne sont pas eux qui l'auraient amené à Jérusalem. Il explique simplement aux Galates pourquoi il s'est départi de sa pratique déjà longue, et inaugurée par une vision. Ses réflexions ont pu lui suggérer l'opportunité de s'entendre avec les Apôtres, et il va en dire la raison. Mais au moment de prendre une décision, il eut l'avantage d'étre assuré, comme à sa conversion, de la volonté divine. Ceux qui, d’après les Actes, réglèrent de l'envoyer à Jérusalem avec Barnabé {Act. xv, 2) n'étaient pas précisément ses supérieurs; ils avaient l'autorité de leur nombre, Leur intervention n'était point en contradiction avec le motif intérieur qui détermina Paul. Le sentiment de l'union qui s’imposait à tous suggéra cette démarche. Ce qui importe au caractère de la mission de Paul c'est qu'elle fut, spécialement par rapport à lui, ou suggérée ou ratifiée par Dieu. — ἀνεθέλην, οἵ, sur τ, 16, Ici la Vg. traduit contuli, approuvé par Jérôme dans son commentaire comme une bonne correction au latinus interpres au lieu du traditionnel exposui. Paul ne se contente pas d’exposer, il expose avec le désir d'avoir un avis conforme; Jér. : quum scilicet ea quae novimus conferimus cum amico et quasi in sinum elus et conscientiam reponimus, ut pari consilio vel probanda sint vel improbanda quae novimus... Aliud autem est conferre, aliud discere; inter conferentes aequalitas est, inter docentem et discentem minor est qui discit. — αὐτοῖς ne peut s'appliquer qu'aux habitants de Jérusalem, en tant que la chose les intéressait, c'est-à-dire aux fidèles du Christ. On s'imagine aisément Paul, ardent pour sa cause, s'adressant à tous, en particulier et en public. Les Actes parlent d'une première réunion dont l'objet cest conçu en termes très généraux (Act. xv, 4), puis d'une réunion solennelle (χν, 22). Il ne faut point chercher si Paul fait ici allusion à l’une d’elles, car il ne se propose pas comme les Actes de faire un récit suivi, mais seulement de prouver qu'il a été approuvé par tous, avec ou sans réunions, quand il ἃ exposé son évangile. On voit d'ailleurs qu'il attachait surtout de l'importance à l'avis des notables (π, 6 ss.), et il s’abstient de dire qu'il a traité la question en assemblée délibérante (δημοσία) avant de la traiter avec les notables en particulier (κατ᾽ ἰδίαν). Rien n'indique une constitution démocratique de la communauté; tout au contraire, la décision vient d'en haut, et cependant l'accord de tous était souhaitable avant la décision définitive. — τὸ εὐαγγέλιον x.r.X. est l'objet sur lequel Paul souhaite cet accord. Ce n’est pas seulement l'évangile en tant que prêché parmi les gentils ; il est entendu que cet évangile prêché spécialement aux gentils comporte l’affranchissement de la Loi; c’est celui que Paul prêche encore (κηρύσσω, au présent) et qui est bien connu de ses amis et de ses ennemis. — κατ᾽ ἰδίαν (ou chez les classiques plus souvent ἰδίᾳ) ne signifie pas « spécialement », mais « en particulier ». Chez un peuple où la pure démocratie était inconnue, κατ᾽ ἰδίαν indiquait (cf. Mc. τν, 34) un groupe plus capable de lumières que la foule amorphe de l'Orient, qui était ὄχλος et non δῆμος. Les fidèles ne sont jamais nommés δῆμος dans le N. T. οἱ δημοσίᾳ y signifie simplement « en public » (Act. xvr, 87; xvin, 28; xx, 20), et non « par l'autorité du peuple »; sur ce sens de coram populo, cf. Dirr. Syli. 807 (MM.). Donc l'opposition entre les deux sortes d'entretiens suppose bien des discussions animées de Paul avec des groupements nombreux en plein air, mais ne conduit pas à la précision de réunions solennelles de toute l'Église, Il ne les nie pas, évidemment, mais ce n'est point son objet de les raconter. — οἱ δοχοῦντες d'après 11, 9 semble désigner seulement Pierre, Jacques et Jean. Cornely dit « les Apôtres et Les presbytres » (évêques) d’après Act. xv, 6. 11 faut se garder de mettre Paul en contradiction avec les Actes, mais on doil l'expliquer par lui-même, avant de recourir aux Actes dont le point de vue est différent. — L'expression de δοχοῦντες signifie les notables, et s'entend fort bien de personnages dont l'avis a une autorité particulière; cf. Eur. Mec. 294 λόγος γὰρ Ex τ᾽ ἀδοξούντων ἰὼν xax τῶν δοχούντων; Hérodien, VI, 1 τῆς συγκλήτου βουλῆς τοὺς δοκοῦντας καὶ ἡλικίᾳ σεμνοτάτους, Le terme avait donc perdu dans l'usage l’apect ambigu qu'il tenait de son étymologie, car « ceux qui semblent être quelque chose », ns sont peut-être pas de même en réalité. Nousg reviendrons sur ce point au v. 6. — μή πὼς ». τ᾿ À. Deux questions : a) sur le sens du fond, δ) sur l’exégèse grammaticale. a) Les modernes sont d'accord pour rejeter l'opinion de Tertullien (Ado. Mare. 1, 20; IV, 2; V, 3) exprimée ainsi pars. Jérôme : (se) non habuisse securitatem praedicandi Evangelii, nisi Petri et ceterorum Apostolorum, qui cum eo erant, fuisset sententia roboratus. Τὶ se trouve encore des prédicateurs pour noter cette angoisse de Paul qui ne se sent pas assuré de sa doctrine s’il n'a pas l’assentiment des autres Apôtres, tant il est vrai que les inspirations personnelles dans l'Église doivent être réglées par l'autorité extérieure. Et la thèse est juste en elle-même, seulement Paul avait la certitude de la révélation, et de l'autorité qu’elle lui avait conférée. Aussi les exégètes notent-ils qu'un pareil scrupule de La part de l’apôtre serait contraire à tout le contexte. Il n'avait aucun doute sur la véracité de son évangile qu'il tenait de Dieu. Mais comment concilier ce sens avec les termes employés? ë) Les uns entendent μή πως au sens final, comme s'il y avait ἵνα μή, Vg. ne forte, ainsi Lightfoot qui compare I Thess. im, 5 μήπως ἐπείρασεν ὑμᾶς ὁ πειράζων χαὶ εἰς χενὸν γένηται ὁ κόπος ἡμῶν, Dans cette façon, τρέχω est au subjonctif, et ἔδραμον à l'indicatif s'explique parce que le passé est dans les choses acquises et donc nécessaires. En français : « afin de ne pas courir ou de n'avoir pas couru en vain » (Loisy). La craïînte de Paul ne serait pas de s'être trompé, mais de se heurter, s'il n’obtenait l’assentiment des notables, à une hostilité fatale à ses eflorts présents et même destructrice des résultats obtenus. Seulement on peut objecter que, dans cette hypothèse, Paul, ayant fondé des communautés, n'aurait pas tout de même couru en vain, à moins qu'il ne doute d’avoir assuré leur salut, ce qu’on suppose loin de sa pensée; si bien que cette explication grammaticale en revient à lui supposer une préoccupation personnelle. On peut ajouter que la finalité s'accorde mal avec un imparfait qui suppose un fait acquis, à moins précisément que ce fait ne soit incertain, ce qui derechef suppose l'incertitude dans la pensée. — Il vaut donc mieux regarder μήπως comme une interrogation indirecte, en sous-enterdant : leur demandant ainsi de me dire si ere. Paul a loyalement posé la question, toute la question, dans ce qu’elle avait en elle-même d’angoissant. Mais il était d'avance sûr de la réponse. fille ne pouvait être que négative. De toute façon, deux points sont acquis. Paul était certain, ayant toujours suivi un guide divin, de n'avoir point failli; et cependant il comprenait la nécessité de marcher d'accord avec les Apôtres. Sentiment très juste dans Ambrosiaster : nec enim aliquid ab εἰς discere poterat; quia a Deo fuerat ἢ instructus; sed propter concordiam et pacem Dei nutu factum est; ut tolleretur scrupulus aut suspicio fratribus et coapostolis eius, et ut gentibus proficeret, cognoscentibus quia concordabat Evangelium eius cum apostolis. Déjà l'Église formait un corps qui conservait l’unité de doctrine en suivant à la fois les instructions des chefs et les inspirations de l'Esprit-Saint. — εἰς κενόν, « pour du vide, pour rien ». L'expression est très forte. Si l'évangile de Paul avait dû étre dénaturé à ce point qu'on imposät la circoncision aux gentils, son labeur eût été perdu.
2:3
Ce verset est la réponse à l'interrogation indirecte du v. 2. Paul a demandé pour la forme s’il a couru en vain? — Ce serait assurément le cas, nn) "Ἢ ἴω or πεοιταγθένχι ὁδιχ δὲ τοὶ 2 ἐμοί. Ἕλλην ὧν, τναγχασῦη, περιταηθϑῆναι ιὰ ὃὲ τοὺς παρεισάχτους si la circoncision avait été nécessaire au salut. Or l'assemblée et les notables de Jérusalem étaient si peu de cet avis qu'ils n'ont pas même obligé Tite à la eirconcision. « Pas même », ἀλλ᾽ οὐδέ. Dans cette locution, ἀλλά n'est pas adversatif, mais exprime plutôt une gradation (οὗ, Jo. xvi, 2; IT Cor. 1. Jù supposant une première négation qui est ici sous-entendue; cf. Le. sur, 15: Act. xx, 2; I Cor. in, 8. y ὦν, à quoiqu'il fût grec », c'est-à-dire gentil ou païen d'origine. C'était La condition nécessaire pour que la question de la circoncision obligatoire se posàt, mais le seul fait d'être gentil ne rendait pas l'exemple de Tite specialement probant. Aussi Paul a-t-il mis d’abord ὁ σὺν ἐμοί, Tite qui était non seulement un gentil et peut-être un missionnaire, mais encore un compagnon de voyage de l'apètre dans la cité sainte. On eût pu fermer les veux sur ce qui se passait chez les gentils, mais un incirconcis à Jérusalem, dans l'assemblée des fidèles ! Et cependant il ne fut point obligé à la circoncision! Quelques anciens et mème des modernes ont pensé qu'il n'y fut pas contraint, mais qu'on crut devoir l'y amener par prudence, avec l'approbation de Paul. Cette opinion a treuvé son appui dans la construction embarrassée qui suit. Notons seulement en ce moment qu'elle est contraire au contexte antécédent. Si Tite avait été circoncis pour des raisons d'opportunité, comme Timothée : Act. xvi. 8», les principes seraient demeurés sanfs, mais ce n'était pas là réponse à la question posée au v. 2. Le ἀλλά du début de la phrase est nettement contraire à cette interprétation. — vas peut s'entendre d'une contrainte absolue ou d'une invitation instante Le. xiv. 281. Il y eut évidemment (ἡ. 4) des voix ardentes qui réclamèrent la virconvision de Tite: mais ici il s'agit du verdict qui prévalut Tite fut-il invité à la cirvoncision sans y être contraint, ou ne fut-il pas même invité par ceux qui décidèrent? Si ἀναγκάζειν peut avoir les deux sens, il semble que dans les autres cas de l'épitre il ἃ uniquement celui d'exercer une pression morale qui ne va pas jusqu'à la contrainte proprement dite (π|, 14; στ, 42. Ce sens convient très bien ici. et donne plus de poids à l'argumentation de Paul. Ce ne fut pas ad duritiam cordis qu'on laissa Tite tranquille; on ne lui imposa nullement la circoncision. Et c'est aussi en parfaite conformité avec la décision rapportée par les Actes.
2:5
À supposer qu’on entende le v. 4 d'Antioche, il faudrait convenir que le v. 5 ne peut s'entendre que de Jérusalem (Sieffert), théâtre de toute cette action. — πρὸς ὥραν indique un temps très court; cf. II Cor. vn, 8; Philém. 15; Jo. v, 35. Naturellement la circoncision aurait eu des conséquences durables, aussi veut-il dire sans doute que pas un instant il ne fléchit au cours de la discussion, dans cette circonstance, ni lui ni ses compagnons, dont le plus important était Barnabé. Le pluriel εἴξαμεν est entendu par Cornely des Apôtres qui, en effet, n'ont pas cédé, mais ceux qui n'ont pas cédé sont avant tout ceux dont on attaquait la liberté ; les Apôtres leur ont enfin donné raison, maïs c'est le groupe paulinien qui a soutenu l'effort de la lutte. 1] s'agissait de la vérité de cet évangile que Paul était venu exposer à Jérusalem. C'était la compromettre que d'admettre la nécessité de la circoncision, même dans le cas du seul Tite qui devenait un cas-principe, si bien qu'ici il s’efface comme fait individuel dans la portée de la lutte entre deux principes contraires, celui de la liberté qui était la vérité, et celui de l'esclavage. — On ἃ vu plus haut que Victorinus, suivant probablement l'opinion latine, expliquait πρὸς ὥραν « pour une fois », accusant le texte grec de faire mentir Paul puisque, du moins dans le cas de Timothée, il avait cédé. — πρὸς ὑμᾶς fournit le principal argument en faveur de la Galatie du sud. Si Paul, pensant aux Galates à Jérusalem, a voulu sauvegarder « pour eux » la vérité de l'évangile, ces Galates étaient ceux de Lycaonie et de Pisidie où il avait déjà fondé des églises, non ceux du pays des Gaulois où il n'avait pas encore pénétré. Mais est-il vraisemblable qu’en soutenant son évangile Paul l’ait fait spécialement dans l'intérêt des Galaies? L'argument prouverait trop. D'autre part il n’est pas exact de dire que πρὸς ὑμᾶς signifie tous les gentils convertis. Paul les avait tous en vue à Jérusalem, mais, écrivant aux Galates, il leur fait l'application spéciale de ce qui s’est passé alors comme pour dire : en ce moment même je travaillais pour vous.
2:6
Comme souvent dans Paul, le sens général est clair, quoiqu'il soit très difficile de s'entendre sur la construction grammaticale. Ce sens, en termes un peu vulgaires, paraît être : « revenons aux notables, ou qui passent pour tels, et ce qu'ils étaient m'est indifférent (d'autant que Dieu ne tient pas compte de la situation extérieure), car ils ne m'ont rien imposé ». La construction est interrompue (anacoluthe), puisque la phrase commencée par : « de la part des notables » devrait se continuer par un passif : « rien ne m'a été imposé », tandis qu'elle est reprise par ἐμοί et un verbe actif. C'est que dans l'intervalle une réflexion sur ce que pouvaient être alors les notables les a fait figurer au nominatif, d'où le verbe actif. De plus, sans parler de la réflexion pieuse qui forme une parenthèse, Paul ayant dit que la situation des notables lui était indifférente à lui, cette indifférence est justifiée (γάρ) puisque rien ne lui a été imposé à lui-méme (luol en vedette); il n'avait donc pas à la discuter ou à l'apprécier. L'embarras de la construction découle de l'embarras de la situation. Paul tenait à dire que les notables n'avaient rien trouvé à redire à son évangile, n'avaient rien voulu changer à la condition de ses églises de gentils convertis. D'autre part, ayant maintenu dans tout le premier chapitre l'indépendance et l'origine divine de son apostolat, il ne voulait pas paraître attacher trop de prix à l'approbation des anciens Apôtres. On lui opposait leur autorité et l'on prétendait qu'il s'en écartait. Non, ils ont été d'accord, et par conséquent il est inutile de déterminer exactement la situation extérieure de chacun dans l'Église. Paul ne désire nullement ébranler cette situation des notables, sur lesquels il s'appuie, mais il ne veut pas paraître grandir leur autorité pour s'en faire une arme, comme si toute son autorité dépendait d'eux, alors que les notables eux-mêmes ont reconnu son évangile et sa mission d'apôtre. Cornely comprend le début de la même façon’: Qualescumque, i. 6. quamvis alta in auctoritate, fuerint in concilio aestimati ierasolymilani, quos adversarii mei semper iactant mihique praeferre et opponere volunt, in hac quaestione nullius est momenti et nihil mea interest. Seulement, au lieu de regarder πρόσωπον — λαμθάνει comme une parenthèse, il y voit la raison de l'indifférence de Paul : siquidem ad externam hominis conditionem Deus non attendit, puis, ayant déjà ajouté ce siquidem, il suppose encore une idée intermédiaire pour amener ἐμοὶ γάρ : qui interna eius dona considerat; iamvero quod interna dona attinet, aestimati ierosolymitani me superiores non sunt (comment trouver ces dons intérieurs dans le texte?); mihi enim nihil contulerunt, οἷο. Ceux qui ne veulent pas reconnaître l’anacoluthe ont eu recours à diverses combinaisons, par exemple Sieffert : « être quelque chose (de grand) de par les autorités, quelle qu’ait été leur situation (élevée), est pour moi sans valeur », etc.; ou M. Weber (Æatholik, 1900, T, 481 ss.) : « Quelle importance avaient {les faux frères) auprès des notables, cela m'importe peu ». ἃ ces deux solutions on doit répondre que εἰμί τι ἀπό τινος ne peut signifier « avoir de l'importance auprès de quelqu'un » {Zietz.). D'après M. Loisy, Paul « entend bien signifier que le crédit dont ils (165 notables) jouissent est de nulle valeur, parce qu'il est d'ordre humain Son dédain de « spirituel » est un peu affecté, « il témoigne plutôt de mauvaise humeur que de paisible ironie ». Paul tient « pour néant » les raisons qui fondent l'autorité des notables. — Après cela il est aisé de le mettre en contradiction avec lui-même : « Qu'est-il donc venu faire à Jérusalem? Et pourquoi se couvre-t-il devant les Galates du témoignage que lui ont rendu ces « notables », οἷο, ὃ — Il suffit, pour répondre à ces questions, de prendre les termes de Paul pour ce qu’ils sont, et non pour l’ « écart d'un esprit agacé ». Car, s’il est agacé, c'est que ses adversaires ont toujours affecté de lui opposer les Apôtres. Il n'était pas juste de les porter toujours aux nues, comme si lui n'avait rien fait de bon. Qu'on laisse donc au Seigneur de juger seul! Et, quoi qu'il en soit, puisque ces grands notables ne lui avaient rien demandé! S'il y a de l'ironie, elle porte moins sur les notables que contre les judaïsants et leurs dupes, les pauvres Galates (Light. Corn. Thomas) — τῶν δοχούντων εἶναί τι rappelle l'entretien particulier de Paul avec les δοχοῦντες, v. 2. La discussion sur la circoncision n’a pu se terminer sans leur autorité. Mais en plus de cette solution reconnue de tous, il y avait le résultat des entretiens κατ᾽ ἰδίαν (τι, 2). C’est ce résultat négatif et positif qui va être mentionné. Les δοκοῦντες, au présent, ont toujours leur autorité aux yeux des Galates; la Vg. traduit encore au passé : qui videbantur, traduction agréée on ne sait pourquoi par M. Loisy : « Quant à ceux qu'on tenait pour notables ». — εἶναί τι ne peut être séparé de δοχούντων, C'était une expression toute faite : PLar. Apol. 41 E ἐὰν δοχῶσί τι εἶναι μηδὲν ὄντες, cf. Euthyd. 303 ᾳ; Gorg. 472 Δ, et Paul la connaissait si bien qu'elle revient dans cette même épître sous une forme équivalente : εἰ γὰρ δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι μηδὲν ὧν (νι, 3). Ce rapprochement est décisif contre Sieffert qui rapporte εἶναί τι à Paul : « être quelque chose de par les notables ». — ποτέ pris isolément pourrait évidemment s'entendre du temps, mais, uni au relatif indéterminé, il étend en quelque sorte l'indétermination, de sorte que ὅποϊοί ποτε équivaut à qualescumque tandem. Il n’y ἃ aucune raison de penser que Paul s'écarte de l'usage de la langue. D'ailleurs à quel temps forait-il allusion? Ce ne pourrait être qu'au temps de la réunion de Jérusalem, déjà indiqué par le contexte. D'après Lightfoot, etc., c'est une allusion au temps où les Apôtres ont vécu avec Jésus, De la sorte, Paul ne mettrait pas en question lautorité des Apôtres, mais l'avantage qu'ils pouvaient prétendre d’avoir connu le Sauveur, avantage qu'il ne considérait pas comme appréciable par rapport à celui qui connaît le Christ dans l'esprit (cf. II Cor. v, 16). Mais outre qu'il faudrait donner à ποτέ un sens inusité, cette allusion au temps de la vie de Jésus n'est vraiment pas indiquée dans le texte; il faudrait la deviner, — διαφέρει, impersonnel : cela ne fait pas de différence pour moi, cela m'importe peu. — πρόσωπον θεὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμθάνει (οἵ, Lc. xx, 21), Le sens des termes est clair. πρόσωπον lauédve est l'équivalent de l’hébreu D'33 NW3, « lever (pour le voir) le visage de quelqu'un ». L’hébreu peut se prendre en bonne ou en mauvaise part, mais la doctrine constante de l'A. T. est que Dieu ne tient pas compte dans ses appréciations de la situation privilégiée des hommes, qui n’est qu'une apparence. Or comme πρόσωπον en grec indique le masque aussi bien que le visage, λαμδάνειν ou βλέπειν εἰς (Mt. xxir, 16; Me. χα, 14) πρόσωπον ἃ dans le N. T. le sens défavorable de se régler d’après 18 situation extérieure, ce qui est contraire à la pratique de Dieu. Mais pourquoi le dire ici? Cela s'entend très bien dans le système de Sieffert : Paul dirait : il m'est indifférent d'avoir été relevé en dignité par les Apôtres, car Dieu ne tient pas compte des avantages extérieurs. Dans l'opinion commune, on ne peut voir dans ces mots qu'une réflexion, une parenthèse sans portée spéciale. Quelle qu’ait été La situation prééminente des autorités, cela n'importe pas à Paul, puisqu'elles ne lui ont rien imposé; et, d’une façon générale, cela importe peu de posséder ces avantages extérieurs, puisque Dieu ne juge pas d'après cela. . — ἐμοὶ γάρ, L'importance donnée à ἐμοί, mis en vedette, ne s'explique que s'il reprend le μοί placé devant διαφέρει. Comme γάρ ne peut guère être synonyme de οὖν, il ne marque pas simplement la reprise de la phrase : « donc » ils ne m'ont rien imposé. Il ne peut avoir son sens naturel que comme explication de διαφέρει, car il ne peut avoir aucune attache avec la réflexion générale sur l'attitude de Dieu. Quant à supposer une idée sous-entendue : les autorités ne me sont pas supérieures pour les dons intérieurs (Corn.), c'est tomber dans l’arbitraire. — προσανέθεντο, Ce verbe dans 1, 16 signifie « consulter ». Ce ne peut être le sens ici (contre Aug. KLoSTERMANN, Probleme im Apesteliexte, Gotha, 1883, p. 117), à cause du complément οὐδέν et à cause du centexie. Quel avantage aurait Paul à dire qu'on ne lui ἃ demandé son avis sur rien? On traduit « communiquer », auquel on donne arbitrairement le sens de communiquer pour imposer quelque chose. Le plus simple est de prendre le verbe dans le sens d'imposer (cf. XÉN. Mém. II, 1, 8 προσανάθεσθαί τι « s'imposer une nouvelle charge On n'a pas d'exemple du moyen au sens purement actif, mais le mot qui signifie « s'imposer à soi-même » a ἀὰ signifier aussi « imposer aux autres » (Sieffert). D'après le contexte, il s’agit des observances légales, car la question de doctrine, l'orthodoxie théologique, comme on dirait aujourd'hui, n'était point en cause. Le christianisme était, d'après Paul, avant tout une délivrance, mais il avait ses obligations qu'on pouvait avec Jésus (Mt. x1, 29 5.) regarder comme un fardeau. Les Apôtres n'y voulurent pas ajouter le fardeau beaucoup plus lourd de la loi juive.
2:7
τοὐναντίον « tout au contraire », au lieu de m'imposer quoi que ce soit, ils ont pleinement reconnu ma mission. — ἰδόντες les Apôtres ont pu se rendre compte par un ensemble de circonstances. Une sorte d'évidence se dégageait des conversions nombreuses opérées par Paul, des grâces spirituelles accordées à ses communautés, confirmant les communications divines qu'il avait reçues lui-même. — πεπίστευμαι au parfait, d'une façon permanente; cf. Rem. ut, 2; 1 Cor. 1x, 17; la leçon πεπίστευταί μοι de F G est une traduction du latin, creditum est mihi. — τῆς ἀχροδυστίας désigne les incirconcis comme objet de l'apostolat (cf. τι, 8-9), non un évangile qui leur fût propre : Terr. De praescr. xxut : énter se distributionem officii vrdinaverunt, non separationem evangelii, nec ut aliud alter, sed ut aliis alter praedicarent (ou praedicet}. — χαθώς indique l'égalité. Si Paul cite Pierre seul comme chargé d'évangéliser les Juifs, c'est à cause de sa prééminence reconnue parmi les Apôtres; il ne songe pas plus à contester la vocation des autres Apôtres parmi les Juifs qu'à contester la vocation de Barnabé parmi les gentils. Sa pensée n’est pas de constituer deux églises, non plus que deux évangiles, ni de faire deux parts dans le gouvernement de l'Église. 11 entend simplement que l'office qui lui est confié d'évangéliser les gentils est du même ordre que celui qui est confié à Pierre, ce qui n'est pas limiter strictement l'activité de l’un et de l'autre. Ce n'est pas non plus s’attribuer le titre de chef de l'apostolat chez les gentils; jamais Paul n'a émis, même de loin, une prétention semblable. Loisy : « On remarquera que Paul ne présente pas son idée des deux chefs, mais celle des deux apostolats comme ayant été la base de l'entente conclue à Jérusalem ». Mais alors où est la théorie des deux chefs? Si Paul met sa personne en avant, c'est dans l'intérêt de sa cause. Dieu ayant pourvu en sa personne à l'évangélisation des gentils, cet apostolat avait ses principes, sa méthode, ses résultats, que les judaïsants n'avaient pas le droit de tenir pour non avenus. Dans ce sens on eût pu parler d'un évangile des circoncis.
2:8
C'est ce qu'explique encore le v. 8. Le sujet sous-entendu est Dieu, déjà omis 1, 6.15. L'omission du Christ serait moins naturelle, d'autant que l'appel de Paul à l’apostolat vient de Dieu, τ, 15. --- Πέτρῳ est un dat. commodi (Zahn, Lietz.), et en effet le sens n’est pas que Dieu a travaillé dans Pierre, auquel cas ἐν serait exprimé comme dans Mt. xiv, 2, etc. Mais l'opération divine peut être utile à Pierre soit en fournissant un cadre à son activité celui qui a procuré à Pierre F'apostolat » [Loisy]), soit en l'aidant, comme c'est le sens ici, puisque le secours est donné « en vue » de l’apostolat, de même que dans le texte qu’on cite des Proverbes (χχχι, 42), où la femme collabore avec son mari ἐνεργεῖ γὰρ τῷ ἀνδρὶ εἰς ἀγαθὰ πάντα τὸν βίον, — εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, construction abrégée pour ne pas répéter « dans l’apostolat des gentils
2:9
γνόντες complète ἰδόντες. Après avoir constaté la mission de Paul par les faits, les autorités reconnaissent et apprécient en elle-même la grâce à lui conférée, comme apôtre, convertisseur, fondateur d’églises chez les Gentils. — Ἰάκωθος est sans doute le Jacques de 1, 49, qu'il n'était pas besoin de désigner une seconde fois comme frère du Seigneur, d'autant que Jacques, fils de Zébédée, étant mort dans l'intervalle, il n'y avait plus de confusion possible. Il est nommé le premier, car les mss., surtout latins, qui ont mis Pierre avant lui, ont corrigé pour ménager la primauté de Pierre. Soin superflu, car elle résulte assez de τ, 18 et 11, 7. 8. Chacun savait que les rapports de Jacques avec le Seigneur durant sa vie, et comme son disciple, avaient été moins intimes que ceux de Pierre. Même à Jérusalem, ce dernier avait toujours tenu le premier rang, comme le prouvent les Actes et même Gal. 1, 18. Si donc Jacques est nommé [6 premier au moment où les autorités se décident en faveur de Paul, c'est que son adhésion, sans être plus importante, était plus caractéristique. Jacques même! les judaïsants devaient se le dire. — οἵ δοχοῦντες n'est plus dans le sens du v. 2, mais s'entend vraisemblablement des mêmes personnes. Le verbe est toujours au présent; au moment où Paul écrit, Jacques, Pierre et Jean sont encore tenus pour des colonnes sur lesquelles repose l'édifice de l'Église (1 Cor. mr, 9); la métaphore, très naturelle, se trouve chez les anciens et chez les Juifs; dans le N.T., cf. Apoc. ni, 42. Loisy, qui fait mourir Jean en l’an 44, ἃ dû changer encore ici le présent en passé : « ceux qu'on regardait comme colonnes ». — δεξιὰς ἔδωχαν. S'il fallait prendre ce geste à [ἃ lettre, on croirait voir les « colonnes », après une longue conférence, se décider enfin, sur un mouvement de Pierre, le plus spontané, et tendre les mains droites à Paul et à Barnabé. Mais l'expression était devenue depuis longtemps métaphorique, puisqu'on disait d'une seule personne : « tendre les mains droites » (1 Macch. χι, ὅθ; χπι, 50; Light.). Il s'agit donc d'un accord qui eut quelque solennité, mais qui n’a pas nécessairement pour antécédent la défiance ou le désaccord. Donner sa main droite pour engager sa foi est un usage qui vient probablement des Perses (Zight.)}, mais qui avait pris racine dans Israël (Esdr. x, 19:1 Macch. vi, 58 etc.). L'accord est celui du lien très étroit (κοινωνία) qui unit les chrétiens (II Cor. ix, 13; Act. πὶ, 42), unis entre eux comme ils le sont avec Jésus-Christ (I Cor. 1, 9) et avec l'Esprit-Saint (II Cor. xu1, 18). Or le but de l'accord était naturellement Ge continuer à prêcher l'évangile; Paul l'insinue clairement sans mettre avant « chez les gentils » un verbe que le lecteur aura à suppléer, « aller » ou « s'adresser à » ou plulôt « porter l'évangile ». Il maintient ici La séparation des domaines : d'un côté Paul et Barnabé pour les gentils, de l'autre les « colonnes » pour les Juifs. Quand il écrivait aux Galates, Paul savait par sa propre expérience que la distinction n'avait rien d'absolu. S'il s'exprime si nettement, et par trois fois, c'est qu'à Jérusalem on régla vraiment ainsi les choses, prenant le passé pour type et mesure de l'avenir, mais sans prétendre enchaîner la liberté apostolique ni la grâce de Dieu. H n'ya aucune raison de croire que Paul ait imaginé plus tard, contre sa propre pratique, « l'idée de deux apostolats radicalement distincts, indépendants lun de l'autre, et sans autre rapport que celui d'une lointains (?!) charité » (Loisy}. Aussi bien la περιτομή n'avait pas alors le même sens qu'aujourd'hui. Pour nous qui voyons les Juifs dispersés dans le monde entier, « la circoncision » indique uniquement la race unie par un lien religieux. Mais alors il existait une nation juive, sinon un État indépendant, comme centre de la diaspora répandue dans le monde romain, et c'est à la nation que s'appliquait surtout le terme ἣ περιτομτί comme terme de l'évangélisation distinctedes gentils. Paul renonce résolument à prêcher aux Juifs chez eux, et il n'a jamais entrepris sur le domaine de Jacques; les apôtres de Jérusalem, surtout en tant que Jacques est à leur tête, concentreront leur activité sur la Palestine. Mais la vocation de Pierre est universelle, et Paul ne s'étonnera pas de Le trouver à Antioche, tandis que lui-même prêchera aux Juifs répandus chez les gentils. Qu'il y ait eu dans l'accord un séntiment de cette distinction géographique, c'est ce que prouve le v. 10. 19. Lea est parallele à Τί du x. précédent. οἱ par conséqnent se rattache à l'ascord qui y σοὶ annoncé, ssns quon soit obligé de sous-entendre un verbe. Les mots aise τὸν, re /®, sont placés en avout pour leur donner plus de fonce cf. 1 Cor. vit, 29: ÎI Cor. 11, % ταδὰβ non Rosa. x1, 311 On ne demande à lan) que ces, on n'impose pas ἡ στε condition à son zèle, mais on le lui ἀσινεῖς comme gage d'union. Ce « souvenir des pauvres » est une rianière déliveie d'expriner la collecte des auménes, :2is il s'agit bien de pouvres, c'esi-s-dine de cermmunsutés spécialement dans le besoin, où les pauvres sont plus nombreux et ne peuvent étr — écrase, 4 singulier, parce que Paul aysnt quitté Lernabé peu après ne répond que pour lui: 4 l'aoriste pour indiquer une ou plusieurs cecasions. — «iso τοῦτο insiste sur la prestation ponctuelle. Qui sent ces pauvres, ét pourquoi £e souvenir d'eux spécialement? — Il est ΟἹ: quils asserticanent an judsïsme, εἴ que 1:5 dons séront demandés aux gentils. Es fuit nous savons por 19 pritque de Paul Rom. xv, 25 5.; 1 Cor. χει, 8: M Cor. 1x, 1 5.; Act. xuw, 17 que ces peuvres sont ceux de Jérusalens. Cornme rien n'indique ure resishei;n por rapport au v. 9, il faut done que ce verset lui-méme ait en vue surtout les Juifs de Talestine quand Ü ποότατοε [5 circoncision. L'Eglise de férusslern fut dés lé début tres préoccupés du soin de ses pauvres. Comme les Juifs de la cité sainte 5. étaient fait une Webitude de rece-cir les dons de la Disspora, 165. juifs convertis, habitont un pare Géaué dé ressources, trouvaient sons doute naiurel que les riches chrémens des villes opulentes leur £esent parvenir des secours, C'est encore Ja sitaston sujsurd'hui, ou les chrétiens latins recoiveui 1es aumônes da débors par l'entremise des Franciscaine, les orthodoxes par les soins du convent grec. Le plus, Paul Iui-méme voyait dans ces collectes un hommage rendu 3 ἴα cité eviute qui aval sé pour les gentits le point de départ des bienfaits spirituels (Rom. xv, 27; II Cor. 1x, 12 ss.). Rien nindique que les Apitres sient voulu lui concilier les chrétiens de désussiere, et Toul Jui-méme ne savait pas trop comment ils recévraient ses dons lion. απ. 41. Mais Best impossible d'aller plus loin ét de voir dans les auménes une preuve de dépesden:e vis-ë-vis de l'Eglise de Jérusslem. Cette opinion de Keira, Higenfeld, fisiderer, a été reprise par M. Loisy avet vue cerises aiténastion : « Nul ne songeait à un rapport de dépendance hiérarchique », mois « l'apostolat chrétien restait coordonné en fait οἱ, jusqu ὁ un certain point, subordonné à son point de départ comme à 508 centre actuel ». La communenté de Jérasslem n'aurait point été dans une telle indigence : « Paul lui-même. dans la seconde aux Ceriethiens mx. 12-18", dira que la voliecte me se fait pas que pour ke bosoin des « saiuts », mais aussi « en ohédience de confession evangelique » δὲ en acte de « communion » ecvlesiastique ». Si le raisonsement tiré de ΠῚ Cor. mm. 12-18 etait conciuant. il faudrait conclure à une veritable dependence des gentils, car. vite « en ebedience de confession evangolique », si Fohédience va des que sis Corinthions aux saints de Jerusalem, cwmme Loisr linsinve asser clairement”? Ii est vrai que ce n'est point le sens de be texte, où ἐπὶ TE Smorari depend de δοξέτοντες. Ceux de Jerusalem sont heureux de l'oheissance des Cerinthiens à Ja duetrine de l'ovangile, et. quant à la communion, elle est εἰς αὐτοὺς χαὶ εἰς πάντας, car ce bonfait particulier s'étend aussi à taut le christianisme. Et il s'agit bien vraiment non pas de là communaute des saints comme teile. qui lèverait une contribation pour exercer son droit. mais des pauvres de cette communaute, De méme qu'il nest ici question que des pauvres. dans Rom. αν. 26 Paul dit expresse : « pour les pauvres des saints qui sout à Jerusalem ». il est donc très imjuste de dire de noire verset : « Cette façon de présenter Les choses dissimule une bonne partie de la vérité
2:11
Ἦλθε") Κηφᾶς, on ne sait ni pourquoi Pierre vint à Antioche, ni à que} moment précis. Cornme Barnsbé s'y trouvait aussi en même temps que Paul, et qu'ils ne tardérent pas à 86 séparer fAct. xv, 36 58.1, il est probsble que la visite de Pierre eut lieu peu après la réunion de Jérusalem (Act, x+, 35). Paul le nomme Céphas, comme 1, 18 et 11, 9. Les anciens ont trouvé tout le rôle qu'il joue dans cet épisode peu digne dn prince dés Apôtres. Les uns, comme Origène, Jérôme, Chrysostorne, Théodoret, n'ont vu dons les repraches qu'il essuya de Poul qu'une scéne concertée. Cette opinion à lsquelle Jérôme, vivement pressé par saint Augustin, finit per renoncer, n'a pas reparu chez les modernes. Une autre échappatoire qui date de Clément d'Alexamirie (dons Eus. 47, 25. 1, x) ἃ eu la vie plus dure; elle congiste à dire que Céphas était un disciple, et non Pierre (encore Vallarsi, Hardouin, puis Vincenzi en 1875). Aujourd'hui personne né conteste l'identité de Céphas et de celui que Jésus a choisi pour étre le fondement de son Église. Son importance dans l'église primitive ressort nettement du récit qui est si peu obligeant pour lui. L'ancienne tradition ecclésisstique lui sttribuait la fondation du siège d'Antioche, qu'Euséhe iChron.) placsit en l'an 44, — χατὰ πρόσωπον « en face », ét non pas « en apparence », cornrne si Pierre voit joué le rôle de celui qui fuit des oh'ertions au conférencier, et ne se lasse jarnais de 86 faire battre dans l'intérél des auditeurs. Cette scène de comédie ne parut point à des Orientaux indigne de si graves personnages. Augustin en jugea autrement et rmontrs qu'en tout cas la reprehensio dispensatoria s'accordait mal avec le verdict 51 nét de Paul, inspiré par l'Esprit-Saint qui ne peut mentir (Ep. LXXXV, 6). — κατεγνωσαένος n'est pas « répréhensible », qui serait χαταγνωστέυς, Car le participe ne peut étre pris pour l'adj. verbal. On traduit « condarnné » (Light., Ζαλη, Loisy;, la conduite de Pierre portant en elleméme sa propre conderanation, ce qui est plus que subtil. S'il était condamné, pourquoi le convaincre de ses torts? L'’sutres (Luther, etc., Corn.) entendent « repris », “ accusé ». Mais ce ne serait donc pas Paul qui aurait pris l'initiative? or il semble bien se donner tout l'honneur de l'épisode. Le seul sens acceptable est celui de coupable : « parce qu'il s'était mis dans son tort » (Loisy, dans 84 traduction). zateprwsuises peut avoir ce sens par l'intermédiaire de « trouvé en faute ». — Paul ne dit pas encore qu'il a repris Pierre devant tout le monde. Il donne en quelques mots la clef de tout ce: qui va suivre. Il résiste à Pierre, ce qui suppose que celui-ci était investi de l'autorité et passait dans l'opinion des fidéles pour lui étre supérieur, et il résiste en face, sans s'arrêter à l’ascendant qui devait lui imposer plus de déférence ou même l'obéissance. S'il est, pour ainsi dire, sorti de 805 gonds, στον. ἔτι χατεννώσιενος ἦν. fred τοῦ γὰο ἐλθεῖν τινὰς ἀπὸ ᾿Ιαχώτου μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν suviuev ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον, ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ζφώριζεν ἑαυτόν, Li de à ait SE emma at et Sd gebesusves τοὺς ἐχ περιτουῦς, MMxai συνυπεχρίθησαν αὐτῷ - prowant vis-à-vis de Pierre une attitude anormale, c'est parce que celui-ci était compable. D'après Cornely. cette circanstante ἃ fourni à Paul une excellente occasion de démontrer qu'il n'avait pas seulement été reconnu dans Le core ile ὁ Legal des Apdtres, mais qu'il s'était comporte en éæal avec le prive Ges Apôtros Ini-même, égal dans l'apostotat, sinan dans le œouvernement de toute L'üglise qui n'etait pus en question. Le texte indiquerait plat: que Pal. contiant dans la sûreté de son évangile. n'a pas hésité ἃ stlsonter À asvendant de Pierre qui entrainait tous Les autres, se réservant de lui prouver ἃ lui-même, et par lui aux Galates, que c'était avec raison. Plus à personne de Pierre etait haute et superieure à son interlocuteur dans FOR LU plus l'avantage était sigualé. 121 Mais Es ὁ Ἴστωτου, il faut joindre ἐλϑεῦ, et non τινὰς avec ἀπὸ ae | Ulis, et Aug, Ce sont probablement des personnages envoyés par Jregmes let. Me. v\, ὅδ. Mt. xavt, 67: 1 Thess. im, ὅν. Si c'étaient seulement des gens de l'entourage de dacques (Corn. Ζα πος leur arrivée n'eût point Fi tent d'efci Cornelr s'efforce de mettre tape hors de cette atfire: ἃ n'avait pas, comme évêque de Jérusalem. à envorer des visiteurs dans L'Eglise d'Antioche. Et en effet nous ne savons pas quel était son but. e que la juridiction n'etait pas alors si strictement délimitée. re acte de jurbiiction, tenait sans doute à s'informer de ce qui bas. sinon chez Les gent'ls convertis, du imoins chez les chrétiens juive 1 Baiser! Il va sans dire que ses mandataires ont pu. comme τς depasser ses instructions ef. Act. xv. 24, Avant l'arrivée Pre Pierre mangeait (sw: habituellement avec les î Ὁ sigaide simplement prendre son repas Le. xv, 2; 1 Ce. νυ. . D'après Loisr : « comme les tideles d'Antioche n'avaient pas y &e prondre ensemble leur repas de chaque jour. les repas dont Î s'agit LA sont les repas de la communauté, ὁ le repas du Seigneur ». Sans être aussi exclusif, Cernelr ineline dans le même sens, car il lui paraît peu prob able que Les Apôtros atent perdu leur temps en aeceptant des invitations a er Mais precisoment dans ves occasions plus apprètées, on aurait pu prendre des precautions pour ne pas choquer les judéochrétiens. si la these vit ὁ bla, On ne sv arrôtait pas, parce que dans les rencontres, daws les Ὁ Ξ Ὁ sar les rot ee les judéo-chrétiens οἵ Pierre à leur tête dent pas à manger avec les gentils. au risque de se contaminer, après La Loi et Les coutumes pharisaïques. Sans mème aller jusqu'à manger du porc nu des viandes otoutees, ils auraient contracté comme duifs une grave imrvreté en prenant part à un repas d'où ces mets et beaucoup d'autres τὸ αὐ t pas ête exclus. sans parler du invage des plats. ete. Cette difheure avait point ete réglée par le concile de Jérusalem. dont les dispositions alimentaires, imposees aux gentils 1 Act. xv. 20 et 29}. étaient loin de rendre legitime pour des Juifs la mauducation en commun avec des gentils, s'agît-il de consommer des provisions de route au bord d'un fossé. La séparation était encore plus sensible dans l'ordre religieux, puisque des chrétiens n'auraient pu commémorer ensemble la mort du Seigneur par le repas eucharistique. — ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον (el non ἦλθεν) s'entend des envoyés de Jacques. Dans le doute sur la qualité des aliments, la pureté des plats, etc., un juif n'avait qu'une attitude à prendre, s'abstenir absolument de manger avec les gentils. C'est sans doute ce que firent les Juifs venus de Jérusalem, où les judéo-chrétiens se croyaient tenus d'observer la Loi. Leurs exemples, et peut-être leurs paroles, déterminèrent une réaction. D'après le texte, elle commença par Pierre, ce qui rend bien vraisemblable une démarche des envoyés de Jacques auprès de lui. — ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτόν, les imparfaits {comme συνήσθιεν) prouvent que la situation dura quelque temps. Pierre se retirait, dans les occasions où il eût été exposé à manger avec les gentils, et même se mettait à l'écart ouvertement si l'occasion ne pouvait étre évitée d'avance. Il le faisait par crainte (φοδούμενος) de ceux qui étaient originaires de la eirconcision (τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς), c'est-à-dire des Juifs convertis, non point spécialement de ceux d'Antioche, qui suivaient une pratique large, mais des judéo-chrétiens en général, que les envoyés de Jacques auraient pu ameuter contre lui. φοδούμςεvos ne signifie pas nécessairement une crainte servile, la peur de la mort ou des mauvais traitements, mais ne suggère pas que Pierre voulut seulement éviter de scandaliser les nouveaux venus. Plutôt redouta-t-il leurs réclamations, dénonciations, indignations, clameurs, C'est que, s’il a été éclairé sur le fond des choses par la vision relative au centurion Corneille (Act. x, 14 55.), il ne paraît pas avoir cessé, étant à Jérusalem, de pratiquer la Loi. Sa nouvelle attitude devait susciter des commentaires. Estime-t-il donc, depuis qu'il est à Antioche, qu’elle ne lie plus les Juifs, ou agit-il contre ga conscience ? Pierre évita de s'expliquer et crut devoir éviter la lutte en se retirant. Mais un Pierre ne pouvait se retirer sans bruit.
2:13
Le moment vint où, sa conduite étant connue, il y eut comme un moment de déclanchement dans l'attitude des autres Juifs convertis (συνυπεχρίθησαν [à l’aoriste]) et Barnabé lui-même fut entraîné à s'associer à leur dissimulation, à celle des Juifs et à celle de Pierre. Il ne nous semble pas possible que τῇ ὑποχρίσει soit un datif instrumental, comme si Barnabé avait été entraîné par la dissimulation des autres (Sieff. Lietz.}, car il fut plutôt entraîné par l'autorité de Pierre et des autres. On ne peut pas dire non plus qu'il fut entraîné vers leur dissimulation, ce qui serait εἰς τὴν ὑπόχρισιν.. Il faut plutôt (avec Zahn) tenir compte du σύν du verbe composé et qui exerce son influence sur τῇ ὑποχρίσει (οἵ, Rom. χη, 16 et Gen. ΧΙΧ, 15 συναπόλῃ ταῖς ἀνομίαις τῆς πόλεως). Le mot de ὑπόχρισις ne doit pas être traduit par « hypocrisie », où il entre une idée basse : feindre un sentiment qu'on n'éprouve pas pour en retirer avantage, Ce n'est pas le mobile de Pierre. Il demeure cependant que Pierre n'a point conformé sa pratique à ses convictions. Il se croyait affranchi de la Loi, puisqu'il mangeait avec les gentils, et Paul ne suppose pas un instant qu'il l’a fait contre sa conscience. Il avait donc pris parti, et il n'a pas le courage de se défendre. Si maintenant il se retire, il donne à croire qu'il n’a pas agi délibérément, il se rétracte en fait, et la conclusion était naturellement soulignée par les judéo-chrétiens stricts qui n’ont pas laissé sans aucun doute de contribuer au revirement, en alléguant auprès des retardataires l'autorité de Pierre. Quand Barnabé, qui avait défendu si énergiquement à Jérusalem les droits des gentils, qui sans doute longtemps avant Pierre avait mangé avec eux, se fut laissé entraîner, la scission devint complète. Aux gentils convertis il ne restait que Paul. Et peut-être l’amertume d'être abandonné par son ancien compagnon explique-t-elle le peu de soin qu'a pris l'Apôtre de relever le rôle de Barnabé auprès des Galates. Paul seul était demeuré inébranlable. Aussi se décida-t-il à intervenir.
2:14
ὀρθοποδεῖν n'a pas été retrouvé ailleurs : il ne peut signifier que marcher droit (le classique εὐθυπορεῖν), par opposition à ceux qui dérobent leur marche à la façon des bateaux qui louvoyent. Au moral, c'est agir avec droiture et loyauté. Le présent historique donne de la vivacité à la narration. — Dans πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ ed, la prép. πρός doit être pour κατά. La vérité de l’'évangile était la norme qui devait régler les démarches. Ce doit être la même vérité de l’évangile que τι, 5, le point essentiel de la liberté des consciences par rapport à la Loi. Paul ne reproche aucune erreur à Pierre, comme on le verra plus clairement, il lui reproche de ne pas se tenir ferme dans la pratique du principe qu'il reconnait. Tertullien a déjà dit le mot décisif (De praescr. xx) : conversationis fuit vitium, non praedicationis. Les chrétiens, Juifs ou gentils d'origine, n'avaient pas cessé de tenir des réunions fraternelles. Paul choisit une de ces occasions pour frapper le coup décisif, et il s'adresse à Pierre, qui est la principale autorité reconnue de tous, dont la conduite avait servi de règle. — ἔμπροσθεν πάντων est entendu d’une réunion des Juifs et des gentils convertis. Cependant ce qui suit a plutôt l'air d'une explication entre Israélites. Peut-être « tous » doit-il s'entendre de Pierre, des autres Juifs, de Barnabé, de « tous » ceux qui viennent d'être nommés. — ἰθνικῶς et Ἰουδαϊχῶς, d'après le contexte, signifient évidemment en gentil qui n'est pas tenu à suivre la Loi mosaïque, et en Juif obligé à ses observances. Le présent ζῇς est très difficile, car en ce moment Pierre observait la Loi, et sa conduite antérieure à Antioche n'avait pas été celle de toute sa vie. Mais elle prouvait qu'à l'occasion Pierre vivait sans observer la Loi et par conséquent ne s’y croyait pas obligé; sa conviction, sinon sa pratique, était permanente. -- ἀναγκάζεις doit être pris dans Le sens adouci qu’il a quelquefois; cf. Le. χιν, 28, et, dans Moulton et Milligan, un papyrus du Fayoëm (110, 4) de 94 ap. J.-C. Si Pierre avait vraiment obligé par ses paroles les gentils à observer la Loi, il aurait manqué formellement aux conventions de Jérusalem, et Paul aurait su le lui dire. Il lui reproche seulement d'exercer une contrainte morale par son exemple. Encore faut-il tenir compte des circonstances et du lieu. Paul ne songeait nullement à empêcher les chrétiens de Jérusalem de vivre à la juive; les gentils n'avaient rien à en conclure, puisqu'on les laissait libres et qu'on leur promettait le même salut. Mais à Antioche les gentils étaient chez eux; les Juifs convertis avaient montré par leur conduite qu'ils ne se croyaient pas obligés à la Loï. Leur volte-face avait l'air d’une rétractation et c'était en tout cas une rupture. Si cette rupture n’était pas exigée par les _principes, elle était condamnée par la charité. Et tout porte à croire qu'elle avait fortement troublé les gentils convertis. Paul ne le dit pas, mais on comprend assez leur étonnement, leur inquiétude quand Barnabé lui-même affecta de ne plus manger avec eux par scrupule religieux. 11 semble donc que ἀναγκάζεις n'est point seulement dit en droit, mais en fait. C'était un fait que Pierre obligeait les gentils à judaïser puisque ceux-ci étaient en train de se soumettre aux observances pour ne pas se séparer de Pierre, le prince des Apôtres, l'ami de Jésus, qui depuis la résurrection avait tout dirigé dans l'Église. Le terme de ἀναγχάζεις pourrait paraître exagéré, si l'exemple, venu de si haut, n'avait une vertu singulière pour entraîner. — ἰουδαΐζειν, vivre à la juive, terme employé par Plutarque, Vüt. Cic. vus ἔνοχος τῷ ἰουδαΐζειν.
2:15
Cette phrase est-elle bien de cé Paul qui écrira aux Romains que « Juifs et gentils, tous sont sous le péché » (Rom. ur, 9)? Rien ne prouve mieux avec quelle netteté il sait, non seulement exprimer l'idée qui lui tient à cœur, mais se mettre dans l'état d'esprit des autres. Ici tous les mots portent, et jamais rabbin n'exprima plus fortement les privilèges d'Israël. Augustin : Peccatorum nomen gentibus Tudaei imposuerunt iam vetusta quadam superbia... Secundum eorum morem locutus Apostolus... (blâmé à tort par Corn.). Pierre, Paul, et les autres judéo-chrétiens sont juifs par nature, c'est-à-dire placés par leur naissance, en vertu des privilèges de leur race, dans une atmosphère de pureté morale qui les distingue de ces gentils qui sont pécheurs au contraire par le fait même de leur origine, ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί, tant il leur est difficile d'échapper à la contagion du péché. De fait ἁμαρτωλοί, « les pécheurs », c'étaient les gentils; cf. 1 Macch. τ, 84; τι, 48. 62: Tob. xm, 7, et Le. vi, 32. 83 comparé à Mt. v, 47. — Et sans doute dans cette déclaration superbe y a-t-il un peu d’ironie, car il faudra déchanter. Ces Juifs, purs par leur race, ont aussi besoin d'être justifiés par la foi.
2:16
Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (Nestle), ‘1. X. (Soden). Le privilège des Juifs concédé aux judéo-chrétiens, et largement, néanmoins la vérité chrétienne reconnue par tous les chrétiens demeure, à savoir que l’homme ne trouve pas sa justice dans les œuvres de la Loi, mais bien par la foi, et cette conviction est présentée comme la raison pour laquelle on croit, afin d'être justifié. — δέ ne suppose pas l'omission d'un μέν dans la phrase précédente. I] y a entre les deux une pause qui ne va peut-être pas jusqu’au point, comme dans la Vg., mais qui dépasse une simple virgule (Nestle), et δέ marque l'opposition entre le point de vue purement juif et la foi chrétienne. D'ailleurs εἰδότες se rapporte à Pierre et à Paul, qui reviennent sous la forme καὶ ἡμεῖς, sorte d’apodose pour la protase εἰδότες. — οὐ Gtxatoëta. Le présent indique clairement qu'il ne s'agit pas d'une déclaration de justice au jour du jugement, mais d'une justice acquise actuellement, non par les œuvres de la Loi, maïs par la foi en Jésus. C’est pour acquérir cette justice que Pierre et Paul ont cru, comme cela résulte, premièrement du rapport entre εἰδότες et ἐπιστεύσαμεν, deuxièmement de la phrase qui commence par ἵνα, en indiquant le but. Mais ce raisonnement, dont l'expression du moins est paulinienne, a-t-il vraiment déterminé la foi de Pierre? Sans doute quand il a cru en Jésus n’a-t-il point raisonné en cette rigueur, mais Pierre avait sûrement un vif sentiment du péché (Le. v, 8), et les sentiments que Paul lui prête ici conformément aux siens propres sont précisément ceux qu’il exprime dans les Actes : impossibilité de porter le joug de la Loi et recours à la grâce : ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Κυρίου ᾿Ἰησοῦ πιστεύομεν σωθῆναι (Act. xv, 11). — ἐξ ἔργων νόμον, « en vertu des œuvres de la loi », par une vertu qui sortirait de l'exercice des œuvres de la Loi; cf. Rom. a, 20 et le Commentaire. L'épitaphe de Regina, récemment découverte dans la Catacombe de Monteverde (cf. RB.1917, p. 319), exprime ἔργα par facta. Voici l’énumération des vertus qui font espérer à son mari qu’elle 8 mérité le paradis : Æoc tibi praestiterit pietas, hoc vita pudica, | hoc et amor generis, hoc observantia legis, | coniugii meritum, cuius tibi gloria curae. | Horum factorum tibi sunt speranda futura. On aura remarqué parmi ces vertus l'attachement à la race juive et l’observance de la Loi. — ἐὰν μή dépend de οὐ δικαιοῦται (on n'est pas justifié si ce n’est par la foi); il a donc bien le sens exclusif. Il ne faudrait pas entendre que les œuvres ne justifient.que si elles sont accompagnées de la foi, et ce ne fut jamais le système catholique (contre Sieffert). — Entre διὰ πίστεως et ἐκ πίστεως (même verset) il est impossible de faire une distinction réelle quant à la substance de l'acte; διά désigne la foi comme le moyen de la justification, ἐξ comme 4Ἴ εἰ δὲ ζητοῦντες δικαιωθῆναι ἐν Χριστῷ εὑρέθημεν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἁμαρτωλοί, l'acte d'où elle procède. Cf. pour le rapprochement des deux prépositions dans la même phrase Rom. mn, 30 et le Commentaire, p. 138. — καὶ ἡμεῖς « nous aussi », renonçant à nos privilèges de Juifs. — ὅτι introduit la citation du Ps. ὄχι (exit), 2, comme διότι dans Rom. 11, 20. Il est impossible que Paul n'ait pas eu conscience qu'il alléguait l'Écriture. D'ailleurs il le fait librement. Dans les deux endroits il ajoute ἐξ ἔργων νόμου qui met le verset du psaume dans la situation voulue; πᾶς ζῶν est remplacé par πᾶσα σάρξ, tandis que ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ (σου dans le ps.) est omis dans Galates, où le nom de Dieu ne précède pas la citation. Ce qui a paru décisif à Paul dans cette autorité c’est le πᾶς ζῶν « tout vivant » ou, comme il transcrit, « toute chair » : si personne absolument n'est justifié devant Dieu, les Juifs non plus même avec les œuvres de la Loi. — δικαιωθήσεται n'est point eschatologique. Le futur demeure tel qu'il était dans le verset cité; dans le texte de Paul il signifie qu'une pareille justification ne se produira jamais (futur logique, cf, sur Rom. τι, 20).
2:17
Sens général. Ce verset est extrêmement difficile. Les versets 15 et 16 sont clairs : ils expriment les raisons pour lesquelles un Juif est devenu chrétien. La suite exigerait une affirmation comme celle-ci : « orilne faut pas revenir en arrière », et on aurait la conclusion au v. 18 : « car revenir à ce qu'on a abandonné, c'est confesser qu’on a eu tort ». Au lieu de cela nous avons le v. 17 qu'il est très difficile de faire rentrer dans l'argumentation. M. Loisy l'a tenté de la sorte : « Maïs si, après avoir ainsi cherché à être faits justes devant Dieu en entrant dans le Christ par la foi... les Juifs chrétiens « se trouvent aussi pécheurs », s’avouant tels en ayant l'air de chercher dans la pratique de la Loi un autre mode de justification, comme si la foi avait laissé encore subsister le péché, ce sera donc que le Christ aura été « ministre de péché », produisant dans l’homme ce péché dont on espérerait se dégager par la Loi! Hypothèse injurieuse au Christ et à son œuvre »! — Cette interprétation est très séduisante comme rentrant parfaitement dans la situation et dans le contexte. Mais il ne paraît pas possible de l’adopter. Les mots ζητοῦντες (au présent) et εὑρέθημεν ne peuvent signifier : « après avoir cherché. nous avons reconnu »; καὶ αὐτοὶ ἁμαρτωλοί n’est pas : « que nous sommes encore pécheurs », mais « que nous sommes aussi pécheurs ». On ne peut dire en même temps que le péché subsiste seulement, et que le Christ le produit. De plus après : « nous reconnaissant pécheurs », il faudrait sous-entendre : « nous retournons à la Loi», — Il faut donc en revenir à la solution qui a prévalu jusqu’à ce jour, et regarder le v. 17 comme se rattachant à ce qui précède, exprimant en manière d'objection une conséquence qui est rejetée. Mais cela peut être entendu de bien des manières différentes, qu'on peut réduire à deux principales (Light. Sieff.) : a) On peut supposer d’abord (Chrys. et son école, etc. Corn.) que la phrase conditionnelle et δέ est une supposition absurde, d'où apa tire une conséquence juste comme déduction mais qu’il faut rejeter puisqu'elle émane d'un principe faux. A savoir : « si nous avons commis un péché en cherchant la justice dans le Christ, le Cbrist est donc ministre de péché : or il ne peut pas l'être, nous n'avons donc pas commis de péché par notre démarche vers le Christ ». Dans cette manière, il faudrait lire ἄρα, sans interrogation, puisque la conclusion est rigoureuse, ce qui est contraire à la pratique de Paul, qui fait toujours précéder μὴ γένοιτο d'une interrogation. De plus la pensée, juste en elle-même, est trop évidente pour des chrétiens, et n’est point en situation. Enfin elle donne à ἁμαρτωλοί le sens vague de pécheurs, tandis que l'expression χαὶ αὐτοὶ ἁμαρτωλοί se rapporte au sens donné plus haut à ἁμαρτωλοί (v. 15). Cornely a essayé de parer lobjection ea paraphrasant : « des pécheurs semblables aux gentils », ce qui est bien le sens du texte, mais les gentils n'ont rien à faire dans son interprétation où il s'agit seulement de savoir si l’on commet un péché en renonçant à la Loi. δ) 11 faut donc (avec Zight. Sieffert, Lipsius) expliquer la tournure selon le mode paulinien ordinaire, d’une proposition en apparence plausible, et qui a même un sens vrai, mais qu'un esprit mal fait entend mal, et dont il tire une conséquence fausse. De ce qui précède on pouvait conclure dans le sens de Paul qu’en cherchant la justitication dans le Christ un Juif renonçait à sa situation privilégiée et se mettait au rang des pécheurs. Paul admettrait parfaitement ce sens, assuré de trouver dans le baptème la rémission des péchés. Mais la proposition pouvait être mal prise : « Si nous, judéo-chrétiens, nous trouvons tout à coup, ayant renoncé à notre justice légale, être aussi des pécheurs, c'est donc que le Christ est ministre du péché ». À cet abus de ses prémisses, Paul répond : à Dieu ne plaise! Et il réplique au y. 18: C’est bien plutôt en revenant à la Loi que je me montrerais transgresseur! Ce sens du v. 47 ressortira des explications du détail. ζητοῦντες, c’est l'effort supposé par l'acte de foi (ἐπιστεύσαμεν v. 16); le participe est au présent parce que Paul se reporte par la pensée au moment du baptême; plutôt « au moment où » que « par le fait de chercher ». — διχαιωθῆναι ἐν Χριστῷ la justification dans le Christ doit être entendue d'après le verset précédent, par le moyen de l'acte de foi. Au moment où l’on devrait posséder la justification, il se trouve qu'on s’est rangé parmi les pécheurs! xal αὐτοί à la première personne du pluriel répond à ἡμεῖς du v. 15, nousmêmes qui étions et qui sommes encore Juifs de naissance; εὑρέθημεν « nous avons été trouvés », et non pas « nous nous estimons », il se trouve que nous sommes. ἁμαρτωλοί, l'antithèse de ce que nous étions, c'est-à-dire rangés parmi ceux qui n'ayant pas la Loi sont dépourvus de l'espérance propre du salut, les pécheurs sortis de la gentilité, comme au v. 15. Si l'on entendait ἁμαρτωλοί dans le sens vague de pécheurs, tout le rythme de la phrase serait détruit, L'expression a quelque chose de paradoxal, elle rend bien ce que le Juif regarde comme une déchéance, elle peut être mal comprise. Si vraiment nous en étions là, ne faudrait-il pas conclure que le Christ est cause du péché? La tournure équivoque de la protase donne quelque vraisemblance à cette conclusion, en elle-même blasphématoire. — Faut-il lire ἄρα « est-il » ou ἄρα « donc »? La seconde manière est exclue, parce que μὴ γένοιτο est toujours précédé d’une interrogation à laquelle il s'oppose avec force. Cependant ἀρὰ indique bien ici une déduction. SiefYert écrit ἄρα et donne cependant à la phrase le mode interrogatif. 1] semble plus naturel de donner à l'interrogatif ἄρα le sens déductif : « est-il donc? » — μὴ γένοιτο, Pour cette locution cf. sur Rom. πὶ, 4. Sauf le cas de I Cor. vi, 15 qui est un peu différent, Paul emploie cette formule pour réprouver une doctrine qu'on pourrait être tenté de lui prêter d’après ce qu'il vient d’enseigner. Il s’est servi d'expressions très fortes, et son interlocuteur factice cherche à en faire sortir une conséquence monstrueuse contre laquelle il proteste aussitôt; cf. Rom. πι, 4, 6. 31; vi, 2.15; vu, 7.18; 1x, 14; xt, 1. 11; Gal. ir, 21. Dans le cas présent c’est que la justification par la foi sans la Loi réduit les fidèles au rang des pécheurs : le Christ est-il donc ministre du péché? — Non certes! Dans le système de Chrysostome, etc., ceux qui prétendraient taxer de péché l'abandon de la Loi (d'où il résulterait que le Christ est cause d'un péché) ne pourraient pas, même en apparence, feindre de s'appuyer sur l’enseignement de Paul. Il est dans la nature des choses que μὴ γένοιτο, protestant contre l'interrogation captieuse qui précède, proteste contre la fausse conséquence, non contre une supposition fausse d’où l’on tirerait une conclusion juste.
2:18
Si l’on revient aux observances après y avoir renoncé, on reconnaît qu'on s'était trompé en les abandonnant, ce qui est se reconnaître transgresseur de la Loi (Stef. Loisy, etc.). La liaison s'entend ainsi : Vous m'’objectez que, avec la seule foi au Christ, nous nous mettons parmi les pécheurs. Oui, mais c’est pour être justifiés! Le Christ n’est donc pas cause de péché, car c'est bien plutôt dans le cas où je revicndrais à la Loi que je me montrerais transgresseur, παραδάτης, C'est-à-dire violateur d'une loi positive. On ne viole la Loi que si elle oblige : après avoir reconnu qu'elle n’obligeait pas, et m'être comporté en conséquence, je lui rends le pouvoir de m'obliger. Alors oui, si je viole ses ordonnances, je suis non seulement un pécheur comme les gentils, mais même un transgresseur: seulement ce n'est pas le fait de la foi au Christ, c'est le fait de mon inconséquence. Ces paroles, dans l’un ou l'autre sens, sont en situation à Antioche, mais dépasseraient le but si elles visaient Pierre, qui n'a évidemment pas eu l'intention de rétablir comme un principe l'autorité de la Loi. Pourquoi Paul n’auraitil pas eu en vue les judaïsants purs qui sûrement se trouvaient dans l’assemblée ? τ συνιστάνω (ou συνίστημι) n'a pas le sens de « se constituer » (Loisy avec Vulgate), mais plutôt de se montrer, se convaincre soi-même. Cf. II Cor. vi. &; vu, 11 (où la Vg. ἃ exhibere), et Rom. πὶ, 5; v, 8 (Vg. commendare) A partir de ce verset et jusqu’à la fin du discours, Paul ne parle plus au nom des judéo-chrétiens, mais en son nom propre, au singulier. C'est peutêtre parce qu’à Antioche il avait surtout voulu préciser la situation de principe des judéo-chrétiens, qui lui était commune avec Pierre, mais, reproduisant son argumentation pour les Galates, il est revenu plus directement à son but qui était d'établir la position personnelle qu'il avait prise.
2:19
D'après Cornely, revenir à la Loi ce serait transgresser la Loi ellemême ; tel serait le sens du v. 19. Car c’est par la Loi (διὰ νόμου) qu'on est mort à la Loi, donc on la viole en y revenant. C’est pousser à l'extrême cette pensée déjà difficile à expliquer que l'on est mort à la Loi en vertu de la Loi ellemême. Il suffit pour expliquer le lien de ce verset avec le précédent (γάρ) de les entendre ainsi : Je ne suis transgresseur de la Loi que si je la rétablis dans ses droits : en effet je n'ai pas à le faire, car je suis mort à la Loi. Maïs comment est-on mort à la Loï en vertu même de la Loi? D'après l'opinion commune, διὰ νόμον même sans l’article ne peut être que la Loi mosaïque, mais moins comme le corps des Écritures sacrées que comme une loi, ayant le caractère de toute loi. Le sens n'est donc pas que, comme corps d'Écritures prophétiques, la Loi, annonçant le Christ, aurait sonné elle-même son propre glas (Chrys. Théod., etc.). Le contexte prouve d’ailleurs que mourir à la Loi par la Loi est une conséquence de l'union du baptisé à la mort du Christ. On l'explique ainsi : [6 Christ est mort sur la croix pour expier les péchés afin de satisfaire à la Loi qui les punissait de mort, mais en mème temps il épuisait ses exigences, la Loi n'avait plus de droits sur celui qui avait accepté la peine. Dans ce sens on peut dire qu'il est mort à la Loi par la vertu même de la Loi qui s'est exercée sur lui. Le chrétien, uni au Christ, est dans la même situation, Paul en a pour son compte un sentiment profond. Cette formule serait assurément très concise, et demeure obscure même après les développements de l'Épitre aux Romains (vi, ἅ 58.; vi, 1 58.) Je suis donc tenté de préférer l'explication trés simple d'Ambrosiaster hoc dicit, quia per legem fidei mortuus est legi Moysis, qui est aussi proposée par les Caienae, avec un renvoi très ingénieux à Rom. vu, 2, où nous retrouvons les deux lois, celle de l'esprit qui délivre de l'autre. Et l'on ne doit pas oublier que dans Gal. νι, 2, Paul parlera de la loi du Christ. Il est de la plus haute importance de constater que sur ce point capital d'une nouvelle loi il est d'accord avec le principe du sermon sur la montagne. — ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω. Sur l'idée, cf. Rom. vi, 11. Ici c’est la meilleure r/ponse à l’argumeni captieux du v. 17. Le chrétien n’a renoncé à la Loi, ne s'est mis au rang des pécheurs que pour s'unir au Christ vainqueur du péché et vivre à Dieu. Les développements de l'épître aux Romains seront plus clairs, mais rien n’égale la densité et la chaleur de ces premières formules, si pleines de sens et d'amour. — Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι. Paul est mort à la Loi par l'acte de foi qui l'a tourné tout entier vers le Christ et par l'acte du baptéme (ἀπέθανον aoriste), mais il lui plaît de demeurer crucifié (au parfait) avec le Christ; il continue à recevoir le salutaire effet de cette mort qui le fait vivre en Dieu; cf. Ignat. Rom. vi ὁ ἐμὸς ἔρως ἐσταύρωται.
2:20
Le trait caractéristique de ce rythme est l'emploi du « moi » de Paul. Quand il s’agit de mourir à la Loi, il le met résolument en avant (v. 19), puis quand il s'agit de sa vie nouvelle, il efface ce moi devant le Christ; pourtant c'est bien lui qui vit dans celte vie en tant que mortelle, mais il vit dans la foi du Christ qui l'a aimé et s’est livré pour lui, comme 5.1} était seul l'objet de cet amour. Assurément ce rythme n'est pas calculé, maïs comme tout dans ce « moi » se règle sur le Christ! — ζῶ δὲ οὐχέτι ἐγώ. La vie nouvelle en Dieu est une vie divine; de cette vie Paul confesse qu'il n’est pas le principe premier. Le δέ rectifie donc le ζήσω du v. précédent. La ponctuation de Vg.-Clém. vivo autem,iam non ego, rend mal la nuance; Paul ne dit pas qu'il vit, et que cependant ce n’est pas lui qui vit; ayant dit « pour que je vive en Dieu », il continue : « maïs ce n'est plus moi qui vis ». — ζῇ dé, ce second δέ explique ce qui précède par une opposition « c'est bien plutôt ». Sur la vie spirituelle dont le principe est le Christ, cf. Rom. vin, 9 ss. — ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί. Les modernes sont d'accord (contre plusieurs anciens, 4ug. Théodoret, etc.) que νῦν ne signifie pas la vie présente par opposition à la vie future, maïs la vie de Paul depuis sa conversion. L’idée de vie présente est suffisamment contenue dans ἐν σαρχί qui ne signifie pas, comme dans Rom. vx, 9 ss., la vie de la concupiscence opposée à la vie de l'esprit, mais la vie physique dont il faut tenir compte, car Paul n'est pas un faux mystique imaginant que la vie spirituelle a tout absorbé, tout transformé. D'autre part cette vie physique n'est plus tout pour lui; quoi qu'elle soit en elle-même, elle est vie par la foi. C'est ce qu’exprime d'abord ὅ relatif accusatif, plus vague que ἣν νῦν ζῶ ζωήν, cf. Rom. vi, 10 ὃ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν.., ὃ δὲ ζῇ et PLur. Mor. p. 100 F ὃ χαθεύδουσι, τοῦ σώματος ὕπνος ἐστὶ καὶ ἀνάπαυσις (cité par Light). Cette vie quelconque que Paul mène dans la chair est vivifiée par la foi, mais comment ne serait-ce pas une foi animée par la charité, quand cette foi a pour objet le Fils de Dieu, qui m'a aimé et qui s'est livré pour moi? — Au lieu de τοῦ νἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, la leçon τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ peut se prévaloir de l’autorité de B, mais parfois B latinise (cf. Rom. 1, 32), et les autres autorités D F G, det £& de l’anc. lat., le comm. de Victorin ne sortent pas de l'influence latine.
2:21
ἀθετῶ « rejeter, déclarer impropre à l'usage ». Noter ἕν ἀθέτῳ dans un papyrus d'environ 346 ap. J.-C., à propos de grains que l'inspecteur avait refusés comme aliments (MM.). Revenir à la Loi, c'est refuser ce don «incomparable de vie divine qu'est le christianisme. Paul ne peut s'y résoudre, Et telle serait bien ia conséquence d'un retour à la Loi pour y chercher la justice. La dernière proposition, conditionnelle, expliquant la précédente (γάρ) est conçue comme un argument bref et décisif. Si l’on cherche la justice dans la Loi avec la conviction qu’elle s’y trouve, on juge donc que le Christ est mort sans raison. — δωρεάν ne signifie pas « sans effet », « en vain mais sans une cause suffisante. En réalité cette cause était d'obtenir de Dieu la justice que les œuvres de la Loi ne pouvaient procurer (Rom. nt, 21 ss.). Il est évident que ce dernier trait ne saurait s'appliquer à Pierre, dont Paul vient de dire qu'il savait très bien que la justification est dans le Christ. Mais il ne s'applique pas non plus, si les termes doivent être pris pour ce qu'ils sont, à des Juifs convertis qui auraient cherché dans la Loi une justice plus parfaite que celle de la foi. Paul vise donc ici des judaïsants purs, ceux qui ont voulu prêcher à ses Galates un autre évangile, qui n'est pas j'évangile. C’est pour ceux-là que le Christ serait mort sans raison, il ne leur donnerait même pas la moitié de la justice. Paul ne dit pas comment se termina l'incident d'Antioche, et son récit n’a pas de conclusion. D’après M. Loïisy : « Sans doute avait-il plutôt intérêt à passer sous silence cette conclusion, un insuccès qui n’autorisait point sa parole auprès des Galates » (p. 136). Cette conjecture est assurément peu flatteuse pour Paul. On ne nous dit pas qu'elle soit fondée autrement que sur son silence. Si l'on tenait l’Apôtre pour un galant homme, ce silence pourrait être au contraire la réserve délicate d'un vainqueur qui ne veut pas accabler son adversaire. Et peut-être Paul n’at-il pas terminé son récit simplement parce qu'il n’écrivait pas pour raconter, et que sa démonstration à Antioche était déjà dans sa pensée tournée vers les Galates. L'image de Jésus-Christ évoquée avec une telle chaleur d'âme lui rappelait son apostolat, et lui permettait de revenir à eux au point qui était le centre même de son évangile. Quant à l'Église d'Antioche, tout indique qu'elle ne souffrit pas longtemps de l'influence judaïsante. Pierre avait les mêmes principes que Paul; nous les retrouvons dans la prima Petri. Comment aurait-il soutenu mordicus une pratique dont l’inconséquence lui était clairement montrée? D'après Bousset, tout ce que nous savons de la suite de sa vie nous le montre de plus en plus sous l'influence de l'apôtre des gentils. Cela est sans doute exagéré, mais se rapproche plus de la vérité que le prétendu insuccès de Paul à Antioche, AUX FROMESSES DE L'ANCIEN TESTAMENT mn, 1-v, 12). Le premiè re partie de l'épitre a la forme d'une discussion historique et perse ke Ἐς »- + position de Paul et de son évangile dans le christiapisme. par ramport à Jésus-Christ et par rapport à ses apôtres. Et incon- sept à en re vent une conclusion dogmatique. — Mais on avait fait acbesine aux Gaates que l'évangile de Paul était incomplet. Le christiamisme ete bien une nouvelle alliance, mais qui n’abrogeait pas l'ancienne. aire Jésus-Christ était le descendant d'Abraham. les bénédictions “te promises à Abraham. et toute la Révélation faisait ainsi une sien. Ne faliaitil pas en conclure que la Loi donnée à Moïse n'était pes mois sacrée que los prophetiss. et qu'il était nécessaire de la pratiquer pour troaver son salut, même si l'on croyait au Christ? mericre de voir contenait une part de vérité, l'origine divine des res εἰ de le Loi elle-même, vérité que Paul n‘abandonna jamais. Dans i épitre aux Galates. il ne se prononce pas sur ce point aussi nettement qu'il re aux ltomains. Mais il est clair qu'il le suppose acquis. jeudra tenir compte des Ecritures. ΠῚ fait plus, il leur empruntera ἂν arguments." Les throtiens gent - convertis ont un argument de fait, confirmation &e ser cravarce. et c'est le don du Saint-Esprit. On peut même admettre ke Christ é qu'ils ent reçu les Écritures. Peut-être cependant se sac: vertis parce qu'ils ont vu les promesses réalisées en Jésus. Paul nes dù τὶ rem et ἣν «pre que les gentils ne sont pas mains dociles que les de Dieu que as représentent. Cependant il est dans la Bettare [9 choses que pour ces gentils chrétiens, les Écritures sont avant tout la gr ὩΣ du Christ. “πὰ e de cette ilée qui lui fournit la distinetion suprême sur etrine. Qui, les gentils doivent rentrer dans l'écono- t centenue ét l'Écriture, mais comme héritiers de la promesse εἰ de τὰ benediecion. Or [à promesse remonte à Abraham, avant la Loi, av: contision. La Loi ne fut qu'un intermède, propre au peuple juif, ame mesare aéaptee à l'etat inférieur où se trouvait alors l'humanité par mr: À Lien. et en somme un ètat de servitude. Les Galates, devenus des le don de } i Esprit- Saint, veulent-ils retourner en arrière ? Cere ergementition comprise. la division de cette partie se retrouve &isement. ἃν ἃ d'ahord la base, en peu de mots. mais très importante, dont en p'appre de pas toujours la valeur : le fait chrétien ἴπι|. 1-5). Ensuite les srgamems seripturaires : 1! La comparaison entre la foi d'Abraham. cause de an. et la Loi qui procède par malédiction {in, 6-42, le Christ nous dekiviewx de la maledietion pour nous donner la bénédiction (11, 43-14). 5. La comparaison entre la promesse, testament scellé par Dieu et d'autre part la Lei. énenomie temporaire qui ne pouvait ni annuler ni compléter la promesse jou, 15-29. δὲ La comparaison entre la Loi, régime de sujétion, qui devait s'effacer au temps voulu, et l'adoption des fils (ιν, 1-11). À ce point l'Apôtre épanche son cœur auprès de ses chers Galates (1v, 12-20). L'harmonie entre l'Écriture et le fait chrétien est esquissée dans une allégorie : l'ancienne Jérusalem qui est esclave est représentée par Agar, la nouvelle et libre Jérusalem par Sara (1v, 21-80). Enfin la conclusion pratique mêle aux considérations dogmatiques des allusions à la situation telle qu'elle est (ιν, 31-v, 12). LQ ἀνόγτοι Γαλάται, τίς ὑμᾶς ἐδάσχανεν, οἷς κατ᾽ ὀφθαλυοὺς ᾿Τηδοῦς 4-5, Les GALATES ΟΝΤ REÇU L'ESPRIT-SAINT ENSUITE DE LEUR FOI, SANS LES ŒU- VRES DE LA Lol. C'est un point fondamental que les Galates n'auraient pas dù oublier. Paul en est si convaineu qu'il les interpelle durement. Encore leur irréflexion n'expliquerait pas leur aberration. On les a fascinés! Leur foi en Jésus crucilié avait été confirmée par le don de l'Esprit-Saint. Ils ont commencé par l'Esprit, et ils croient trouver mieux dans la chair!
2:1
… in 33 or 34): in fact according to Gal. 1:18 and 2:1 it preceded by 17 years the Council of the Apostles held around the year 50. Some reply that the three-year period of which Gal. 1:18 speaks must be included within those "14 years" indicated by Gal. 2:1, but such is not the obvious sense of this reckoning. …
… Meanwhile some (Buzy, p. 430) deny the foundation of the argumentation, alleging, as relating to the apostolic meeting of Jerusalem, Gal. 2:1-10, which others (Amiot, pp. 29-32), however, understand as referring to the journey mentioned in Acts 11:30 (cf. 12:25). Paul, moreover, had no interest in speaking of it, since the …
In Gal. 2, 1-10, a passage parallel to Acts 15, Paul adds some clarifications: he says that he went up to J. following a revelation (which does not exclude the mission of the Church), that he brought …
… Jerusalem for the Council of the Apostles (around 49-59): the presence of an exemplary Christian, converted from paganism (perhaps by Paul himself, who calls him "son": Tit. 1:4) and uncircumcised, was the living expression of the Gospel free from the Law (Gal. 2:1, 3). He was again with Paul at Ephesus (54-58), together with Timothy and others, though it seems with greater independence from the Apostle. …
2:3
ETHNIC-CHRISTIANS. - Name by which one customarily designates the non-Jews converted to Christianity in the apostolic age ("Ἕλληνες: Acts 14:1; 17:4, etc.; Rom. 1:16; 2:9 ff.; Gal. 2:3, etc.; τὰ ἔθνη: Acts 10:45; 11:1, 18; 13:46; Gal. 2:12, 14).
… In Jerusalem the two missionaries were received with signs of esteem and mutual brotherhood; nevertheless some zealots did not fail to demand of Paul the circumcision of Titus, according to the most probable interpretation of the intricate passage of Gal. 2:3. Paul not only did not yield to this demand, but he defended so well the thesis that the Mosaic Law no longer bound anyone that in practice his opinion triumphed in the assembly. …
2:6
Already in the Old Testament favoritism is found condemned several times (Deut. 16:19; Prov. 24:23) and in the New Testament it is said that God abhors undue preferences (Lk. 20:21; Acts 6:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6), and by this the Apostles meant to condemn both the claim to privileges on the part of the Jews and the disparity that the pagans intended to maintain between free men and slaves.
2:7
Primacy of Saint Peter and of the Roman Pontiff
St. Paul does not treat explicitly of the primacy of Peter; indeed, he names him in only two letters: six times with the Aramaic name Kefa and twice with the Greek one Πέτρος (Gal. 2:7 and 8). Clement of Alexandria (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., I, 12, 2) had already thought of two distinct individuals in order to conclude that Paul would not have opposed Peter but rather …
… Composed, for the most part, of elements that came from paganism, it falls within the field of work entrusted to him by Jesus (Acts 22:18-21) and acknowledged to him by the Apostles who were the "pillars" (Gal. 2:7 ff.). …
2:8
Primacy of Saint Peter and of the Roman Pontiff
… In reality it would seem that Paul proclaims his equality with Peter (Gal. 2:8) and at least his independence (ibid. 1:1); elsewhere he would appear to claim a certain superiority, going so far as to reprove him publicly (ibid. 2:11); in the same letter he ranks …
2:9
Apostles (Gr. Ἀπόστολος "Sent One", from ἀποστέλλω)
… He and Barnabas were recognized by the Three, that is James, Cephas and John, in their right to go to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:9), but the text does not say directly that they were recognized as apostles, or rather, in what sense their apostolate was interpreted.
a famous compromise (ibid. 15, 13-19), who receives St. Paul on his return from the third apostolic journey (ibid. 21, 18). This Apostle lists our James among the pillars of the Church (Gal. 2, 9), and declares that, when he went up to Jerusalem to pay his respects to Cephas: "I saw none of the other Apostles, except James, the brother of the Lord" (Gal. 1, 19). St. Paul …
John, Apostle, Evangelist, Saint
According to Acts and Gal. 2:9 (he is placed among "the pillars of the Church") G. had preeminent authority in the nascent Church.
In Jerusalem, on the morrow of the dispersion of the Apostles (ca. 44) caused by the persecution of Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:3), James, the brother of the Lord (Gal. 1:19), became the recognized head of the local Church (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18-19; Gal. 2:9, 12; cf. Hegesippus, in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., II, 23; PG 20, 195), with all the prerogatives of a bishop (cf. J. Colson, L'évêque dans les communautés primitives, Paris 1951, pp. 21-26). …
Primacy of Saint Peter and of the Roman Pontiff
Barnabas the right hand as a sign of communion...» (Gal. 2:9). On this point the Protestant K. Holl observes: "If one is to speak of a pope in this hierarchy, it would be James, not Peter" (Der Kirchenbegriff der Paulus, Berlin 1921, p. 932). …
2:10
… Thus, during a famine, the Church of Jerusalem was assisted by the Christians of Antioch and by other churches of the gentiles (Acts 2:29; Gal. 2:10). The form of assistance particularly in vogue at that time was that of gifts in kind. …
Claudius (Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus), Roman Emperor
… Cassius Dio (LX, 11), but also by Acts 11:28. On the occasion of this famine, which tried Palestine harshly in the years 44-48, St. Paul promoted collections in the Churches of Syria and Asia to succor the poor Christians of Jerusalem (cf. Acts 11:29; Gal. 2:10; I Cor. 16:1).
… St. Paul, who had gone there with Barnabas to bring the relief collected at Antioch (Acts 11:27-30) and who had promised the "pillars" (James, Cephas, John) "to remember the poor" of Jerusalem (Gal. 2:10), kept his word.
2:11
… dispute over the relations of the legal observances with the new religion (Acts 14:26-15:1); therefore the solution given by the Apostles assembled for that purpose at Jerusalem was first communicated to A. (Acts 15:2-32). There too we find St. Peter (Gal. 2:11) as head of that community (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 3, 36: PG 20, 228), although we do not know the date and duration of his governance.
… When, shortly afterward, Peter in Antioch would assume an uncertain attitude, avoiding contacts with the Gentile Christians so as not to irritate the touchy Judaizers, Paul would not fear to publicly reprove his dangerous conduct (Gal. 2:11-14).
Primacy of Saint Peter and of the Roman Pontiff
… This recognition has all the more value in that St. Ignatius was bishop of Antioch, which boasted of being the first see of Peter (cf. Gal. 2, 11; Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III, 36).
… preach the Gospel where others have already preached it (Rom. 15:20-21; 16:13-18). This passionate man, who boasts of having "resisted to his face" Peter himself, regarding the application of a point of discipline already regulated by common agreement (Gal. 2:11-21), would he have adapted to this division of labor, if he had believed it necessary to re-establish what his speculations or alleged visions manifested to him as truth, or had he believed …
2:12
ETHNIC-CHRISTIANS. - Name by which one customarily designates the non-Jews converted to Christianity in the apostolic age ("Ἕλληνες: Acts 14:1; 17:4, etc.; Rom. 1:16; 2:9 ff.; Gal. 2:3, etc.; τὰ ἔθνη: Acts 10:45; 11:1, 18; 13:46; Gal. 2:12, 14).
Primacy of Saint Peter and of the Roman Pontiff
… 932). But with St. Thomas it is more natural to explain: "Praemittitur Jacobus quia erat episcopus Jerosolymorum, ubi haec facta sunt" (In Gal. 2, 9), and therefore his adherence was more suited to move the Judaizers who took strength from his name (Gal. 2:12).
2:15
… Sin holds them beneath itself as slaves (Rom. 6:17, 20; John 8:34; 2 Pet. 2:19); they are subject to the devil as subjects to their head (John 12:31; 14:30). The devil is the god (θεός) "of this world" (2 Cor. 4:4; 1 Cor. 2:6; Gal. 2:15).
In the New Testament the distinction remains (cf. Mt. 15:24; Gal. 2:15, etc.) and the Church appears distinct just as the Jews were from the world of the gentiles (Mt. 18:17; M.-J. …
The Jews considered them impure and sinners (Mt. 18, 17; Gal. 2, 15). Their idolatry was culpable, given the knowledge of God that men can draw from
2:16
… James writes: "Faith without works is barren" (2, 21). "A man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (2, 24). Paul seems to contradict him, writing: "We believed in order to be justified by faith and not by the works of the Law" (Gal. 2, 16; cf. Rom. 3, 2 ff.). …
… In this sense one must understand St. Paul's statement that faith justifies (Rom. 1:12; 5:1; 3:28; 9:30; 10:6; Gal. 2:16; 3:24). It is the obligatory way and the first effective step toward justification: "Iustitia Dei per fidem Jesu Christi" (Rom. 3:22, 30). Not that faith is the essential and constitutive …
2:19
… mandato non a battezzare, ma ad evangelizzare; e non in sapienza di parole, ma perché non sia resa vana la C. del Cristo » (I Cor. 1, 17); « Non giudicai di sapere tra di voi alcuna cosa, se non Gesù Cristo, e questo crocifisso » (I Cor. 2, 2; cf. Gal. 2, 19; 5, 11; Eph. 2, 16; Col. 1, 20; 2, 14). The Holy Fathers followed the same path.
… Dogma in the Catholic Church effectively remains the foundation of morality, of mysticism, of action, according to the constant apostolic tradition (Gal. 2:19 ff.; Rom. 14:15; I Io. 4:9 ff. [cf. A. Gardeil, Le donné révélé et la théologie, 2nd ed., Paris 1910, p. 319 ff.; E. Krebs, Dogma und Leben, I, 3rd ed., Paderborn 1930; II, 2nd ed. ibid. …
… And I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me" (Gal. 2, 19). "In me speaketh Christ" (II Cor. 13, 3). "I fill up in my flesh those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, for his body, which is the church" (Col. 1, 24). 2) Hence …
… The whole life of Jesus has redemptive value (Rom. 8:3), but especially his death on the Cross and his Resurrection, which contribute to our salvation not only morally as an example (Phil. 2:5 ff.; Gal. 2:19 ff.; Rom. 6:4 ff.), but also by way of true and proper efficient causality (Rom. 4:25). Christ is constituted a bloody victim for our sins, who offers to the Father his blood and his life …
2:20
… In Sacred Scripture this truth is taught explicitly: "Ipsum audite" (Mt. 17:5; Mk. 9:6; Lk. 9:35; II Pt. 1:17), "Veni, sequere me" (Mt. 8:22; 9:9; 19:21; Mk. 2:14; 9:6; 10:21). St. Paul too invites the faithful to imitate him, as he has imitated Christ (I Cor. 4:16; Gal. 2:20). The imitation of the Saints also, that is, of those Christians who by their heroic virtues and the miracles worked by God to attest their holiness have been canonized, is helpful …
… which is rebirth in the risen Christ (Rom. 6, 4-11), a new life nourished by faith and charity (I Cor. 13; Eph. 3, 14-19), whereby a new creation is brought about (II Cor. 5, 17), the new man clothed in Christ (Col. 3, 9; Gal. 3, 27), living of Christ (Gal. 2, 20). The synthesis of St. Paul's thought, which vibrates in all the Epistles (Eph., first chapters) is read in Tit. 3, 5: « Secundum suam misericordiam salvos nos fecit per laxacrum regenerationis …
… The Thomistic opinion, more deeply rooted in Revelation, deserves greater assent also because it gives prominence to the mystery of the Cross, for which every Christian can and must repeat with St. Paul: «Dilexit me et tradidit semetipsum pro me» (Gal. 2, 20). Redemption does not exclude the other end, the primacy of Christ, if one distinguishes the finis qui (Christ willed for himself) and the finis cui (man to be redeemed). …
… ("Hic est Sanguis meus Novi Testamenti, qui pro multis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum": Mt. 26:28), since in biblical style these two expressions, even taken separately (for the traditio corporis cf. Is. 53:12; Mt. 20:28; Rom. 8:32; Gal. 1:4; 2:20; Eph. 5:25; I Tim. 2:6; Tit. 2:14; Hebr. 10:10; for the effusio sanguinis cf. Rom. 3:25; 5:9; Eph. 1:7; I Cor. 14:20; Hebr. 9:7; I Pt. 1:19; I Io. 1:7) always indicate a sacrificial immolation. …
… Rivoluzione cristiana: non è l'Infinito di tutte le perfezioni sia fisiche che morali, lo stesso Amore (I Io. 4, 16), la cui sapienza, santità e bontà spiegano nello stesso tempo il fine ed il modo della redenzione (mediante la morte del proprio suo figlio; Gal. 2, 20; Eph., 2, 4; 5, 2; Io. 3, 16 ecc.) o le condizioni della sua applicazione. …
Douay-Rheims (Challoner) · Vulgata Clementina · original Douay-Rheims (Rheims 1582), transcription by EEBO-TCP (CC0) · La Sacra Bibbia, tradotta dalla Volgata da Antonio Martini (1769-1781) (LaParola (laparola.net), Martini OSIS text, Public domain (LaParola's electronic edition marks it 'Dominio pubblico')). Public domain.