Galatians 1:3–10

The exordium is full of a vehement and lofty spirit, and not the exordium only, but also, so to speak, the whole Epistle. For always to address one's disciples with mildness, even when they need severity is not the part of a teacher but it would be the part of a corrupter and enemy. Wherefore our Lord too, though He generally spoke gently to His disciples, here and there uses sterner language, and at one time pronounces a blessing, at another a rebuke. Thus, having said to Peter, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona," (Matt. xvi: 17.) and having promised to lay the foundation of the Church upon his confession, shortly afterwards He says, "Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art a stumbling block unto Me." (Matt. xvi: 23.) Again, on another occasion, "Are ye also even yet without understanding?" (Matt. xv: 16.) And what awe He inspired them with appears from John's saying, that, when they beheld Him conversing with the Samaritan woman, though they reminded Him to take food, no one ventured to say, "What seekest Thou, or why speakest thou with her?" (John iv: 27.) Thus taught, and walking in the steps of his Master, Paul hath varied his discourse according to the need of his disciples, at one time using knife and cautery, at another, applying mild remedies. To the Corinthians he says, "What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in a spirit of meekness?" (I Cor. vi: 21.) but to the Galatians, "O foolish Galatians." (Gal. iii: 1.) And not once only, but a second time, also he has employed this reproof, and towards the conclusion he says with a reproachful allusion to them, "Let no man trouble me;" (Gal. vi: 17.) but he soothes them again with the words, "My little children, of whom I am again in travail:" (Gal. iv: 19): and so in many other instances.

Now that this Epistle breathes an indignant spirit, is obvious to every one even on the first perusal; but I must explain the cause of his anger against the disciples. Slight and unimportant it could not be, or he would not have used such vehemence. For to be exasperated by common matters is the part of the little-minded, morose, and peevish; just as it is that of the more redolent and sluggish to lose heart in weighty ones. Such a one was not Paul, What then was the offence which roused him? it was grave and momentous, one which was estranging them all from Christ, as he himself says further on, "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing;" (Gal. v: 2.) and again, "Ye who would be justified by the Law, ye are fallen away from Grace." (Gal. v: 4.) What then is this? For it must be explained more clearly. Some of the Jews who believed, being held down by the preposessions of Judaism, and at the same time intoxicated by vain-glory, and desirous of obtaining for themselves the dignity of teachers, came to the Galatians, and taught them that the observance of circumcision, sabbaths, and new-moons, was necessary, and that Paul in abolishing these things was not to be borne. For, said they, Peter and James and John, the chiefs of the Apostles and the companions of Christ, forbade them not. Now in fact they did not forbid these things, but this was not by way of delivering positive doctrine, but in condescension to the weakness of the Jewish believers, which condescension Paul had no need of when preaching to the Gentiles; but when he was in Judaea, he employed it himself also. But these deceivers, by withholding the causes both of Paul's condescension and that of his brethren, misled the simpler ones, saying that he was not to be tolerated, for he appeared but yesterday, while Peter and his colleagues were from the first,-that he was a disciple of the Apostles, but they of Christ,-that he was single, but they were many, and pillars of the Church. They accused him too of acting a part; saying, that this very man who forbids circumcision observes the rite elsewhere, and preaches one way to you and another way to others.

"Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ."

This he always mentions as indispensible, and in this Epistle to the Galatians especially; for since they were in danger of falling from grace he prays that they may recover it again, and since they had come to be at war with God, he beseeches God to restore them to the same peace.

"God the Father."

Here again is a plain confutation of the heretics, who say that John in the opening of his Gospel, where he says "the Word was God," used the word "Theos" without the article, to imply an inferiority in the Son's Godhead; and that Paul, where he says that the Son was "in the form of God," did not mean the Father, because the word "Theos" was without the article. For what can they say here, where Paul says, "apo Theou Patros," and not "apo tou Theou"? And it is in no indulgent mood towards them that he calls God, "Father," but by way of severe rebuke, and suggestion of the source whence they became sons, for the honor was vouchsafed to them not through the Law, but through the washing of regeneration. Thus everywhere, even in his exordium, he scatters traces of the goodness of God, and we may conceive him speaking thus: "O ye who were lately slaves, enemies and aliens, what right have ye suddenly acquired to call God your Father? it was not the Law which conferred upon you this relationship; why do ye therefore desert Him who brought you so near to God, and return to your tutor?"

But the Name of the Son, as well as that of the Father, had been sufficient to declare to them these blessings. This will appear, if we consider the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ with attention; for it is said, "thou shalt call His Name Jesus; for it is He that shall save His people from their sins;" and the appellation of "Christ" calls to mind the unction of the Spirit.

He shows that the human race is sustained by the goodness of both, as much Father as Son. Nor does he indicate that the Son is less than the Father when he calls him our Lord, nor that the Father is greater when he calls him our God. He will not be a true Father unless he is also Lord, nor will the Son be a true Lord unless he is also God.

The grace of God, by which our sins are forgiven, is the condition of our being reconciled to him, whereas peace is that wherein we are reconciled.

(Verse 3) Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. Not as in the other Epistles, he puts the grace of God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, and peace, through which without merit of works, and sins were granted to us previously, and peace was granted after forgiveness: but wisely he now argues the cause against those who were prevented by the Law, and thought they could be justified by works, so that they would know that they should continue in grace, in what they had begun.

He lays this down everywhere, and especially now he writes to the Galatians, because they were running the risk of falling away from grace, and returning to circumcision.

— [CHRYSOSTOM] "grace to you." For since they were in danger of falling from grace because of the circumcision, he prays this for them.

He also says, "and peace." For they had been at war with God, by the observance of the ritual precepts.

"from God the Father." Where do you have, he says, the right to call God Father?" Is it not from baptism? Why then do you oppose the law?

Since they were in danger of losing grace out of attachment to the law, he wishes it for them; and since they were warring against God by establishing what was under the law, which He had abolished, he calls them to peace.

God became your Father. In what way? Through the law, to which you are inclined, or through the baptism of Christ? How then can you reject the Benefactor? And note: "from God the Father" (από θεού Πατρός) is written without the article, for the sake of those who placed the Son below the Father on the grounds that John says: "and the Word was God" ("και θεός...") (Jn. 1:1) without the article.

Our master is not the law, but Christ Jesus. And the very names themselves point to His benefactions. For He is called Jesus as the One who delivered the people from sins, and Christ — from the anointing of the Spirit, with which He was anointed for our sake, having sanctified our nature by His incarnation and giving us the right to be so called.

Then when he says, "grace be to you and peace," he mentions the good things he wishes them.

First, he mentions the goods he wishes;

Secondly, the author of these goods (v. 3): "from God the Father and our Lord."

The goods he wishes them are twofold, but in them are included all spiritual goods. The first is grace, which is the beginning of the spiritual life, and to it is ascribed in a Gloss the remission of sins, which is first in the spiritual life. For no one can be in the true spiritual life, unless he first dies to sin. The second is peace, which is the settling down of the mind in its end, and which in a Gloss is said to be reconciliation with God. Thus in wishing them the beginning and the end of all spiritual goods, the Apostle includes, as it were, between the two extremes, the wish that every good come to them. "The Lord will give grace and glory" (Ps 83:12). "The grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the charity of God and the communication of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (2 Cor 13:13).

The author of these goods is God the Father, and so he says, "from God the Father." Here are mentioned:

First, the cause of the goods;

Secondly, the manner of causing (v. 4);

Thirdly, thanksgiving for these goods (v. 5).

The cause and source of good is God the Father as originator, precisely as God, and the entire Trinity, the God of all through creation. "But Thou, O Father, governest it" (Wis 14:3). Hence he says, "from God the Father." Again, the originator is the Lord Jesus Christ as minister; and this insofar as He is man. "For I say that Jesus Christ was a minister" (Rom 15:8). But that grace comes to us through Christ is plain from John (1:17): "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." "Being justified freely by His grace" (Rom 3:24). Peace, too, comes to us through Him. "My peace I give unto you" (Jn 14:27).

For when the human race was held in the dominion of the devil, the Savior offered himself to the willing devil, so that deceiving him by the power of his virtue—for the devil wanted to take possession of one whom he was unable to hold—he could carry off those whom the devil was detaining by a false right.

Now Christ by atoning for our transgressions not only gave us life but also made us his own, so that we might be called children of God, made so through faith. What a great error it is, therefore, to go under the law again after receiving grace.

Neither did the Son give himself without the Father's will, nor did the Father give up the Son without the Son's will.… The Son gave himself, that he himself, as righteousness, might do away with the unrighteousness in us. Wisdom gave itself that it might oust foolishness.

(Verse 4) He gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. Neither did the Son give himself for our sins without the will of the Father, nor did the Father deliver the Son without the Son's will; but this is the will of the Son, to fulfill the will of the Father, as he himself speaks in the psalm: 'I desired to do your will, O my God' (Psalm 40:8). But the Son gave Himself, in order to overthrow the injustice that was in us with justice itself. Wisdom offered itself in order to conquer ignorance. Holiness and strength presented themselves in order to eliminate impurity and weakness. And in this way, not only in the future age according to the promised hope in which we believe, but also here in the present age, He has freed us: while we have died together with Christ, we are transformed into a new way of thinking, and we are not of this world, from which we are rightly not loved. The question is how the present age is called evil. For heretics often take advantage of this, asserting that one is the creator of light and the future age, another of darkness and the present. But we say, that it is not so much the age itself, which runs day and night, years and months, that is called evil, but rather the things that happen in the age: how it is said to be sufficient for its own evil (Matthew VI): and the days of Jacob are said to be few and evil (Genesis XLVII). Not that the period of time in which Jacob lived was bad, but that the things he endured through various trials tested him. Finally, during the time he served for his wives and struggled with many difficulties (Gen. XXIX), Esau was at rest, and so the same period of time was good for some and bad for others; and it would not be written in Ecclesiastes: Do not say that my former days (were better) than these (Eccles. VII, 11), unless in comparison to the bad. Where John says: The whole world is set in evil (1 John 5:19). Not that the world itself is evil, but that evil things happen in the world because of humans. Let us eat and drink, they say, for tomorrow we will die (Isaiah 22:17). And the Apostle himself says: Redeeming the time, because the days are evil (Ephesians 5:16). Even the fields and forests are defamed, when they are full of robberies, not because the earth and woods sin, but because they have also drawn infamy to the places of murder. We detest both the sword by which human blood is shed and the cup in which poison has been mixed, not the sword or the cup themselves, but those who have misused them. Thus, this world, which is a span of time, is not inherently good or evil, but is called such by those who are in it. Therefore, the delusions and fables of Valentinius, who invented thirty aeons based on the mention of ages in the Scriptures, are to be despised. He claimed that they are beings and that he produced as many aeons as the Aeneas's sow produced litters, using squares and octads, decades and duodecades. Also to be sought is what is the difference between saeculum and saeculum saeculi, or saecula saeculorum, and where it is placed for a brief span of time, where it is placed for eternity: because in Hebrew saeculum, that is, Olam (), where the letter Vav is added, signifies eternity, but when it is written without Vav it signifies the fiftieth year, which they call Jubilee. For this reason, that Hebrew who, because of his wife and children, loving his Lord, willingly subjects himself to perpetual servitude, is commanded to serve forever (Exod. XXI), that is, until the fiftieth year. Both the Moabites and the Ammonites (Deuteronomy XXIII) are not allowed to enter the Church of the Lord until the fifteenth generation and even forever: because every hard condition of the Jubilee was solved by His coming. Some say that the same sense exists in the ages of ages as in the holy of holies, in the heavens of heavens, in the works of works, in the Songs of Songs: and they have the same difference as the heavens have from those who belong to the heavens, and as the holy things which are holier than the comparison of the holy things, and as the works which are better than the comparison of the works, and as the Songs which excel among all the Songs: in the same way, they say, the ages have the same relationship to the comparison of ages. Therefore, they have determined that the present age should be counted from the time when the heavens and the earth were created, and it will continue until the end of the world, when Christ will judge all things. They also recall the past and advance to a higher level, debating about past and future ages, whether they have been good or bad, or will be in the future. They delve into such deep questions that they have even written books and countless volumes on this subject. But as for the conclusion of the prologue of Paul in the Hebrew language: Amen (), the Seventy translated it as γένοιτο, that is, let it be done. Aquila rendered it as πεπιστωμένος, truly or faithfully. This is also constantly embraced in the Gospel by the Savior, affirming his own words by Amen.

"Who gave himself for our sins."

Thus it appears, that the ministry which He undertook was free and uncompelled; that He was delivered up by Himself, not by another. Let not therefore the words of John, "that the Father gave His only-begotten Son" for us, lead you to derogate from the dignity of the Only-begotten, or to infer therefrom that He is only human. For the Father is said to have given Him, not as implying that the Son's ministry was a servile one, but to teach us that it seemed good to the Father, as Paul too has shown in the immediate context: "according to the will of our God, and Father." He says not "by the command," but "according to the will," for inasmuch as there is an unity of will in the Father and the Son, that which the Son wills, the Father wills also.

"For our sins," says the Apostle; we had pierced ourselves with ten thousand evils, and had deserved the gravest punishment; and the Law not only did not deliver us, but it even condemned us, making sin more manifest, without the power to release us from it, or to stay the anger of God. But the Son of God made this impossibility possible for he remitted our sins, He restored us from enmity to the condition of friends, He freely bestowed on us numberless other blessings.

"That He might deliver us out of this present evil world."

Another class of heretics seize upon these words of Paul, and pervert his testimony to an accusation of the present life. Lo, say they, he has called this present world evil, and pray tell me what does "world" mean but time measured by days and seasons? Is then the distinction of days and the course of the sun evil? no one would assert this even if he be carried away to the extreme of unreasonableness. "But" they say, "it is not the 'time,' but the present 'life,' which he hath called evil." Now the words themselves do not in fact say this; but the heretics do not rest in the words, and frame their charge from them, but propose to themselves a new mode of interpretation. At least therefore they must allow us to produce our interpretation, and the rather in that it is both pious and rational. We assert then that evil cannot be the cause of good, yet that the present life is productive of a thousand prizes and rewards.

Miserable, wretched man! what is it thou sayest? Is this life evil, wherein we have learnt to know God, and meditate on things to come, and have become angels instead of men, and take part in the choirs of the heavenly powers? What other proof do we need of an evil and depraved mind?

"Why then," they say, "does Paul call the present life evil?" In calling the present world evil, he has accommodated himself to our usage, who are wont to say, "I have had a bad day," thereby complaining not of the time itself, but of actions or circumstances. And so Paul in complaining of evil principles of action has used these customary forms of speech; and he shows that Christ hath both delivered us from our offences, and secured us for the future. The first he has declared in the words, "Who gave Himself for our sins;" and by adding, "that He might deliver us out of this present evil world," he has pronounced our future safety. For neither of these did the Law avail, but grace was sufficient for both.

"According to the will of our God and Father."

Since they were terrified by their notion that by deserting that old Law and adhering to the new, they should disobey God, who gave the Law, he corrects their error, and says, that this seemed good to the Father also: and not simply "the Father," but "our Father," which he does in order to affect them by showing that Christ has made His Father our Father.

He did not speak about the time, but pronounced the present life to be evil.

We have incurred innumerable evils, and have become responsible for the last punishment; for the law not only has not led anyone to reconciliation, but, to condemnation, and besides, it is incapable of emancipating anyone, or putting an end to God's wrath, when it reveals sin; whereas the Son of God, not only has made possible what was impossible, but also has remitted sins and has placed enemies to the position of friends.

"who gave himself." Behold, he gave himself; therefore, when you hear that he has been given by the Father, perceive the Father's good pleasure.

"to deliver us from." He gave Himself for our sins, blotting out the former things and preserving for the future.

He says, "to deliver us from the present evil age," that is, from evil actions and a corrupted life: for he calls this an evil age, not the time itself or the day: Not at all. For we also are accustomed to speak accordingly when something unexpected has happened to us: "I endured an evil day." "of the evil age." By saying "the present evil age," he showed that evil is not uncreated, nor eternal, but temporary.

"according to the will of God and our Father." For since they said that one ought not to abandon the law which had been given by God, he likewise showed that it was the Father's will that they should believe in Christ. For according to the will of the Father the Christ gave himself. You see that there is nowhere a command of the Father to the Son, but only harmony. Again, having said "our Father," he reminds us of baptism. What then do you have of the law?

By "the evil age" he does not mean the elements, as the Manichaeans portentously assert, but the present life, that is, this secular human way of living, in which sin has made a home. For, being enveloped in a mortal nature, some of us venture on the greater sins, some on the lesser. But when we make the transition to that immortal life, and are free from our present corruption and have put on incorruption, we shall be made able to conquer sin.… Yet the present age as such is not vile, but vileness is the enterprise of some who live in it.

Behold, He gave Himself up. So then, He did not render service as a slave. Therefore, when you hear that He was delivered up by the Father, understand it as the consent and will of the Father. And He gave Himself up in order to free us from sins, from which the law was not able to deliver us. How then, after this, having abandoned the One who freed you, do you submit to the law, which rendered no benefit?

The Manichaeans rely on this saying, claiming that he called the present age evil, that is, our life. But this is not so. For the days are not evil in themselves (for what is evil about the movement of the sun or the succession of days), nor is our life bad in itself — and how could it be, when in this life we come to know God and philosophize about the future life? But by the evil age he means wicked actions and a corrupted will. Just as we too are accustomed to say: I had a terrible day, blaming not the time but the circumstances and actions. For Christ did not die in order to put us to death and remove us from the present life, but in order to deliver us for the remaining time from evil actions. Since he said above that He gave Himself for our sins, that is, freed us from previously committed transgressions, he then adds that for the future as well He gave certain proof that He will deliver us from an evil way of life. But the law neither cleansed former sins nor has any power against future ones.

Since they thought that by leaving the law they were not obeying God, he corrects this assumption of theirs, showing that the will of the Father is to set them free through the Son. Notice, he did not say: by the command of the Father, but by the will, that is, by good pleasure. And by calling God our Father, he again reminds them of the Benefactor Christ, who made His own Father our Father as well. How then after this do you reject Him?

The manner in which these goods are caused is also mentioned when he says, "who gave himself for our sins." Here is mentioned, first of all, the efficient cause, which is the death of Christ. Referring to this, he says "who gave himself for our sins." As if to say: Christ is the author of grace and peace, because He gave Himself to death and endured the cross. Hence the very death of Christ is the efficient cause of grace: "You have been justified freely by his grace" (Rom 3:24); "Making peace as to the things that are in heaven" (Col 1:20). And he says, first of all, "who gave himself," i.e., offered Himself voluntarily. "Christ also hath loved us and hath delivered Himself for us" (Eph 5:2); "That He might taste death for all" (Heb 2:9); "Who gave Himself for us" (Tit 2:14). From this, the Apostle plainly is arguing against them that if the death of Christ is the sufficient cause of our salvation, and if grace is conferred in the sacraments of the New Testament, which have their efficacy from the passion of Christ, then it is superfluous to observe, along with the New Testament, the rituals of the Old Law in which grace is not conferred nor salvation acquired, because the Law has led no one to perfection, as is had in Hebrews (7:19).

Secondly, the end and utility of those goods is mentioned—in other words, the final cause. And it is twofold; one is that we be set free of past sins; and as to this he says, "for our sins," namely, that past sins be removed and atoned for, which is the beginning of our salvation. "He loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Rev 1:5). The other end is that He might free us from the power of death; and as to this he says, "that he might deliver us from this present wicked world." "He delivered us from the power of darkness" (Col 1:13). Herein he mentions three things: namely, to deliver us from the present, and the world, and wicked. To deliver us from the present by drawing us to eternal things through desire and hope; from the world, i.e., from being conformed to this world which allures us: "And be not conformed to this world" (Rom 12:2); wicked, leading us back to the truth of justice. And it is called a wicked world, not because of its nature, for it was created good by God, but because of the evils perpetrated in it, as is said in Ephesians (5:16): "The days are evil." And "Jacob said: the days of my pilgrimage are a hundred and thirty years, few and evil" (Gen 47:9).

Now although these things come to us through Christ, God the Father is not excluded. Hence there is mentioned in the third place, acceptance of the divine will. Therefore he says, "according to the will of God and our Father." Of the Father by nature, I say, of Christ Who proceeds from eternity as the Word: "This day have I begotten Thee" (Ps 2:7); "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (Jn 1:1). Also of our Father by adoption: "He gave them power to be made the sons of God" (Jn 1:12). In the first rendering, "God the Father" is taken for the sole person of the Father; in the second, for the whole Trinity.

How much more, therefore, ought men not to claim the credit for themselves if they perform any good work, when the very Son of God in the Gospel said that he sought not his own glory. Nor had he come to do his own will but the will of him who sent him! This will and glory of the Father the apostle now commemorates, that he also, by the example of the Lord who sent him, may indicate that he seeks not his own glory or the performance of his own will in the preaching of the gospel, just as he says a little later, "if I were to please men, I should not be a servant of Christ."

"To whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen."

This too is new and unusual, for we never find the word, "Amen" placed at the beginning of an Epistle, but a good way on; here, however he has it in his beginning, to show that what he had already said contained a sufficient charge against the Galatians, and that his argument was complete, for a manifest offence does not require an elaborate crimination. Having spoken of the Cross, and Resurrection, of redemption from sin and security for the future, of the purpose of the Father, and the will of the Son, of grace and peace and His whole gift, he concludes with an ascription of praise.

Another reason for it is the exceeding astonishment into which he was thrown by the magnitude of the gift, the superabundance of the grace, the consideration who we were, and what God had wrought, and that at once and in a single moment of time. Unable to express this in words, he breaks out into a doxology, sending up for the whole world an eulogium, not indeed worthy of the subject, but such as was possible to him. Hence too he proceeds to use more vehement language; as if greatly kindled by a sense of the Divine benefits, for having said, "To whom be the glory for ever and ever, Amen," he commences with a more severe reproof.

He refers to the evil deeds, to the distorted free choice.

"to whom be the glory forever and ever." Reflecting on the indescribable benefits of God through the things said, he finished his speech in doxology. For he could not express them.

Not using the word "amen" anywhere in the introduction, he placed it here, showing that this speech of his is finished and that what has been said is sufficient for the accusation of the Galatians. And having reminded them of the ineffable benefactions of God, in which is already contained the condemnation of them as those who abandoned their Benefactor Christ; then, filled with amazement before this Benefactor and finding nothing more to say about them, he concludes his speech with a doxology.

And because it is from God our Father, namely, from the whole Trinity, that all things come to us through Christ, therefore to it, i.e., to the whole Trinity, glory in itself, honor from others, be or is, "forever and ever," i.e., always. "Amen." This is a mark of corroboration.

You have therefore, in summary, in the above greeting, the Apostle's authority by which he breaks their pride; the power of the grace by which he exhorts them to observe the Gospel; and the insufficiency of the ceremonies of the Law, in order to call them away from them.

If it were another gospel other than the one that the Lord has given through himself or through some other, it would not be a gospel.

What we want, if men become Christians at all, is to keep them in the state of mind I call "Christianity And". You know--Christianity and the Crisis, Christianity and the New Psychology, Christianity and the New Order, Christianity and Faith Healing, Christianity and Psychical Research, Christianity and Vegetarianism, Christianity and Spelling Reform. If they must be Christians let them at least be Christians with a difference. Substitute for the faith itself some Fashion with a Christian colouring. Work on their horror of the Same Old Thing.

Finally, this seditious practice has already begun to appear; for in our province, through some of its cities, an attack has been made by the multitude upon their rulers, and they have compelled that peace to be given to them immediately which they all cried out had been once given to them by the martyrs and confessors. Their rulers, being frightened and subdued, were of little avail to resist them, either by vigour of mind or by strength of faith. With us, moreover, some turbulent spirits, who in time past were with difficulty governed by me, and were delayed till my coming, were inflamed by this letter as if by a firebrand, and began to be more violent, and to extort the peace granted to them. I have sent a copy to you of the letters that I wrote to my clergy about these matters, and, moreover, what Caldonius, my colleague, of his integrity and faithfulness wrote, and what I replied to him. I have sent both to you to read. Copies also of the letter of Celerinus, the good and stout confessor, which he wrote to Lucian the same confessor-also what Lucian replied to him,-I have sent to you; that you may know both my labour in respect of everything, and my diligence, and might learn the truth itself, how moderate and cautious is Celerinus the confessor, and how reverent both in his humility and fear for our faith; while Lucian, as I have said, is less skilful concerning the understanding of the Lord's word, and by his facility, is mischievous on account of the dislike that he causes for my reverential dealing. For while the Lord has said that the nations are to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and their past sins are to be done away in baptism; this man, ignorant of the precept and of the law, commands peace to be granted and sins to be done away in the name of Paulus; and he says that this was commanded him by Paulus, as you will observe in the letter sent by the same Lucian to Celerinus, in which he very little considered that it is not martyrs that make the Gospel, but that martyrs are made by the Gospel; since Paul also, the apostle whom the Lord called a chosen vessel unto Him, laid down in his epistle: "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

The word for "being carried away" is first found in Genesis where God carries Enoch away and he is not found. … The one whom God carries away is not found by his enemies … but he whom the devil carries away is carried into that which appears to be but is not.

(Verse 6) I am amazed that you are so quickly shifting away from him who called you into the grace of Christ Jesus, to a different gospel which is not another. There are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. We read about the word 'translation' first in Genesis (Gen. 5), where Enoch was translated by God and was not found. And in the books of Kings afterwards (1 Kings 21), when Ahab turned his wife Jezebel from the worship of God to the worship of idols, to do all that the Amorites did, whom the Lord destroyed before the face of the children of Israel. But since there are two translations, one is from God, the other from the devil. Whoever is translated by God is not found by his enemies: nor can the deceiver ambush him. For I think that this signifies and is not found. But whoever is translated by the devil, in this he is translated because he appears to be, but is not. Moreover, the wise men of the world call those who are translated from one teaching to another, translated, like that Dionysius (whose opinion was that pain is not evil: after being overwhelmed by misfortunes and pain of torment, he began to affirm that pain is the greatest of all evils) was called Transposed by them, or Translated, because departing from his previous decree, he fell into the opposite. And so Paul marvels, first because they have been transferred from the freedom of the Gospel to the servitude of legal works. Secondly, because they have been transferred so quickly: for it is not easy to be transferred away from someone's guilt, and to be transferred quickly; just as in martyrdom, not the same punishment is inflicted on one who immediately jumps to denial without struggle and torture, and on one who, between stakes, ropes, and fires, distorted and compelled, denies what he believed. The preaching of the Gospel was still recent, not much time had passed since the Apostle had led the Galatians from idols to Christ. He wonders how quickly they have turned away from Him, to whom they had recently become Christians. And the place itself is remarkable, which can be read in its proper order: I wonder that you are so quickly transferring yourselves from Christ Jesus, who called you by his grace, saying: I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Mark 2:17). For by grace you have been saved, through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. (Ephesians 2:8) But, he says, you have been transferred to another Gospel, which is not another: because everything that is false does not stand, and what is contrary to the truth does not exist, like this: 'Do not give, O Lord, your scepter to those who are not.' (Esther 14:12) And the things that were not, God called into being, in order to make what is not. But if this is said about those who believed in the same God and had the same Scriptures, that they have been transferred to another Gospel, which is not the Gospel, what should we think about Marcion and other heretics, who reject the Creator and falsely pretend to be followers of another God, Christ? Those who do not adhere to the interpretation of the law and letter, or engage in the battle between flesh and spirit, fall and crumble, but they are in discord with the entire authority of the Church. But beautifully he says: Unless there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the Gospel of Christ. They want, he says, to change, pervert, and trouble the Gospel of Christ: but they are not able. For it is the nature of this Gospel that it cannot be anything other than true. Everyone who interprets the Gospel with a different spirit and mind than what is written, disturbs and perverts the Gospel of Christ, turning what is in front into what is behind, and what is behind into what is in front. If someone follows only the letter, they put the later things in the face. If someone relies on Jewish interpretations, they send behind those things which are established in their nature in the face. Moreover, it is appropriately said that the word 'translation' is adapted to the Galatians: for Galatia in our language means 'translation'.

Not another gospel, because all that is false is insubstantial, and that which is contrary to truth finally has no existence.

"I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from Him that called you in the grace of Christ, unto a different Gospel."

Like the Jews who persecuted Christ, they imagined their observance of the Law was acceptable to the Father, and he therefore shows that in doing this they displeased not only Christ, but the Father also, for that they fell away thereby not from Christ only, but from the Father also. As the old covenant was given not by the Father only, but also by the Son, so the covenant of grace proceeded from the Father as well as the Son, and Their every act is common: "All things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine." By saying that they had fallen off from the Father, he brings a twofold charge against them, of an apostasy, and of an immediate apostasy. The opposite extreme, a late apostasy, is also blameworthy, but he who falls away at the first onset, and in the very skirmishing, displays an example of the most extreme cowardice, of which very thing he accuses them also saying: "How is this that your seducers need not even time for their designs, but the first approaches suffice for your overthrow and capture? And what excuse can ye have? If this is a crime among friends, and he who deserts old and useful associates is to be condemned, consider what punishment he is obnoxious to who revolts from God that called him."

He says, "I marvel," not only by way of reproof, that after such bounty, such a remission of their sins, such overflowing kindness, they had deserted to the yoke of servitude, but also in order to show, that the opinion he had had of them was a favorable and exalted one. For, had he ranked them among ordinary and easily deceived persons, he would not have felt surprise. "But since you," he says, "are of the noble sort and have suffered much, I do marvel." Surely this was enough to recover and lead them back to their first expressions. He alludes to it also in the middle of the Epistle, "Did ye suffer so many things in vain? if it be indeed in vain." "Ye are removing;" he says not, "ye are removed," that is, "I will not believe or suppose that your seduction is complete;" this is the language of one about to recover them, which further on he expresses yet more clearly in the words, "I have confidence to you-ward in the Lord that ye will be none otherwise minded."

"From Him that called you in the grace of Christ."

The calling is from the Father, but the cause of it is the Son. He it is who hath brought about reconciliation and bestowed it as a gift, for we were not saved by works in righteousness: or I should rather say that these blessings proceed from Both; as He says, "Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine." He says not "ye are removing from the Gospel" but "from God who called you," a more frightful expression, and more likely to affect them. Their seducers did not act abruptly but gradually, and while they removed them from the faith in fact, left names unchanged. It is the policy of Satan not to set his snares in open view; had they urged them to fall away from Christ, they would have been shunned as deceivers and corrupters, but suffering them so far to continue in the faith, and putting upon their error the name of the Gospel, without fear they undermined the building employing the terms which they used as a sort of curtain to conceal the destroyers themselves. As therefore they gave the name of Gospel to this their imposture, he contends against the very name, and boldly says, "unto a different Gospel."

This, he says, has raised within me much surprise, because those who were taught the mystery of grace in such a way that they could become teachers of others, were so easily persuaded by deceivers.

Just as Peter says, that "there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

Two sins: transferring blame, and doing so quickly, as if deceivers needed no time. Observe carefully. Since they thought to appease the Father by holding to the law, he showed that one who departs from Christ and the Gospel also departs from the Father. For the Father himself, he says, has called us to the grace of his Son. For the Son bestows remission by his blood, by grace and not by merit, for the Father calls to this; truly the Spirit consents. Indeed, it is a common benefit toward us of the holy and blessed Trinity.

"to a different gospel." For they called their deception a "gospel", persuading the Galatians to observe things like Sabbaths and circumcision, using the name as bait.

They bear in mind how the churches were rebuked by the apostle: "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you? " and, "Ye did run so well; who hath hindered you? " and how the epistle actually begins: "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him, who hath called you as His own in grace, to another gospel." That they likewise (remember), what was written to the Corinthians, that they "were yet carnal," who "required to be fed with milk," being as yet "unable to bear strong meat; " who also "thought that they knew somewhat, whereas they knew not yet anything, as they ought to know.

When, again, he mentioned "certain false brethren as having crept in unawares," who wished to remove the Galatians into another gospel, he himself shows that that adulteration of the gospel was not meant to transfer them to the faith of another god and christ, but rather to perpetuate the teaching of the law; because he blames them for maintaining circumcision, and observing times, and days, and months, and years, according to those Jewish ceremonies which they ought to have known were now abrogated, according to the new dispensation purposed by the Creator Himself, who of old foretold this very thing by His prophets.

Since also he makes mention of no other god (and he could have found no other opportunity of doing so, more suitable than when his purpose was to set forth the reason for the abolition of the law-especially as the prescription of a new god would have afforded a singularly good and most sufficient reason), it is clear enough in what sense he writes, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him who hath called you to His grace to another gospel" -He means) "another" as to the conduct it prescribes, not in respect of its worship; "another" as to the discipline it teaches, not in respect of its divinity; because it is the office of Christ's gospel to call men from the law to grace, not from the Creator to another god.

Is he then the same God as He who gave Satan power over the person of Job that his "strength might be made perfect in weakness? " How is it that the censurer of the Galatians still retains the very formula of the law: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established? " How again is it that he threatens sinners "that he will not spare" them -he, the preacher of a most gentle god? Yea, he even declares that "the Lord hath given to him the power of using sharpness in their presence!" Deny now, O heretic, (at your cost, ) that your god is an object to be feared, when his apostle was for making himself so formidable!

He is saying, "You have not departed from this teaching to that but from the one who called you.… The very Father who gave the law is the one who called you to this gospel.… And if you desert this gospel, you will not find another. For the Lord does not preach some things through us and others through the other apostles."

He shows that he had a high opinion of them. For I marvel, he says, that you who have labored so much in the faith are so quickly turning aside. Here there are two faults: "you are turning" and "quickly," so that the deceivers did not even need time, which testifies to the fickleness of those accepting their teaching. And he did not say "you have turned," but "you are turning," that is, I still do not believe and do not think that the deception has already been accomplished. Understand his wisdom. Since they, holding to the law, thought they were serving the Father, he says that those who hold to the law are distancing themselves from the Father: for he says "from Him who called you," that is, from the Father. "By the grace of Christ," that is, they were justified by Christ, not for works, but by grace. For although the Son grants the forgiveness of sins by grace, it is the Father who calls them to it.

The greeting given, it is followed by the epistle message, in which the Apostle refutes their error; secondly, he admonishes them with a view to their correction (5:1): "Stand fast and be not held again under the yoke of bondage." He refutes their error two ways: namely, on the authority of the Gospel teaching; and by reason, using the Old Testament (3:1): "O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you?"

He refutes their error by showing the authority of the Gospel teaching:

First, by showing their fickleness in lightly dismissing the Gospel teaching;

Secondly, by commending the authority of the Gospel teaching, as he intimates that in view of the precious value of that which they so lightly regard, their error is seen to be so much the greater (v. 11).

Regarding the first he does two things:

First, he enlarges upon their guilt;

Secondly, he inflicts a punishment (v. 8).

Concerning the first, he enlarges upon the guilt both of the seduced and of those who seduced them (v. 7): "only there are some that trouble you." As to the first he does three things:

First, he enlarges upon the guilt of those who were misled for their fickleness of mind. Hence he says, "I wonder." As if to say: Although you are aware of the many good things already mentioned that come to you through Christ, and although I instructed you well, nevertheless you are "thus," i.e., so far and so completely removed [transferred], that you seem already to have forgotten; "so soon," i.e., in such a short time, are you removed [transferred]. With this word he alludes to their name, for Galatia means "transferred." As if to say: You are Galatians, because you are so quickly transferred. "He that is hasty to give credit is light of heart" (Sir 19:4).

Secondly, he amplifies their guilt on the part of that which they have abandoned. For if reason withdraws and is removed from evil, it is worthy of praise and does well; but when it departs from the good, it is culpable. And this is how they were removed from good. So he says to them: Although it is amazing that you are so quickly and so far removed, there is additional reason for wonder, namely, because you have removed yourselves "from him," i.e., from God, and from faith in Him "that called you into the grace of Christ," i.e., into the sharing of the eternal good which we have through Christ: "Giving thanks to God who hath called you into his marvelous light" (1 Pet 2:9). Again: "For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice than, after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them" (2 Pet 2:21).

Thirdly, he amplifies their guilt on the part of that to which they have turned, because they have been turned not to good but to evil. Hence he says, "unto another gospel," i.e., of the Old Law, which is a good message only insofar as it does announce some good things, namely, temporal and carnal: "If you be willing and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land" (Is 1:19). Yet it is not completely perfect as is the Gospel, because it does not announce the perfect and loftiest goods, but small and slight ones. But the New Law is perfectly and in the full sense a Gospel, i.e., a good message, because it announces the greatest goods, namely, heavenly, spiritual and eternal. And although it is another gospel according to the tradition of the deceivers, yet according to my preaching it is not. For it is different in the promises, but not in the figure, because the same thing is contained in the Old Testament and in the New: in the Old, indeed, as in a figure, but in the New as in the express reality. Therefore it is another gospel if you consider the outward appearances; but as to the things that are contained and exist within, it is not another gospel.

They wish, he says, to disturb the gospel of Christ but cannot prevail, because it is of such a nature that it cannot be other than the truth.

"Which is not another Gospel."

And justly, for there is not another. Nevertheless the Marcionites are misled by this phrase, as diseased persons are injured even by healthy food, for they have seized upon it, and exclaim, "So Paul himself has declared there is no other Gospel." For they do not allow all the Evangelists, but one only, and him mutilated and confused according to their pleasure. Their explanation of the words, "according to my Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ," is sufficiently ridiculous; nevertheless, for the sake of those who are easily seduced, it is necessary to refute it. We assert, therefore, that, although a thousand Gospels were written, if the contents of all were the same, they would still be one, and their unity no wise infringed by the number of writers. So, on the other hand, if there were one writer only, but he were to contradict himself, the unity of the things written would be destroyed. For the oneness of a work depends not on the number of its authors, but on the agreement or contradictoriness of its contents. Whence it is clear that the four Gospels are one Gospel; for, as the four say the same thing, its oneness is preserved by the harmony of the contents, and not impaired by the difference of persons.

"Only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ."

That is to say, ye will not recognize another Gospel, so long as your mind is sane, so long as your vision remains healthy, and free from distorted and imaginary phantoms. For as the disordered eye mistakes the object presented to it, so does the mind when made turbid by the confusion of evil thoughts. Thus the madman confounds objects; but this insanity is more dangerous than a physical malady, for it works injury not in the regions of sense, but of the mind; it creates confusion not in the organ of bodily vision, but in the eye of the understanding.

"And would pervert the Gospel of Christ." They had, in fact, only introduced one or two commandments, circumcision and the observance of days, but he says that the Gospel was subverted, in order to show that a slight adulteration vitiates the whole. For as he who but partially pares away the image on a royal coin renders the whole spurious, so he who swerves ever so little from the pure faith, soon proceeds from this to graver errors, and becomes entirely corrupted.

Where then are those who charge us with being contentious in separating from heretics, and say that there is no real difference between us except what arises from our ambition? Let them hear Paul's assertion, that those who had but slightly innovated, subverted the Gospel. Not to say that the Son of God is a created Being, is a small matter. Know you not that even under the elder covenant, a man who gathered sticks on the sabbath, and transgressed a single commandment, and that not a great one, was punished with death? and that Uzzah, who supported the Ark when on the point of being overturned, was struck suddenly dead, because he had intruded upon an office which did not pertain to him? Wherefore if to transgress the sabbath, and to touch the falling Ark, drew down the wrath of God so signally as to deprive the offender of even a momentary respite, shall he who corrupts unutterably awful doctrines find excuse and pardon? Assuredly not. A want of zeal in small matters is the cause of all our calamities; and because slight errors escape fitting correction, greater ones creep in.

He rightly said, "those who disturb," and not "those who teach," or "those who persuade," so as to show that the whole case was entirely one of deceit."

"Not that there is another gospel." Which is to say, he declares, only one thing, and there is no other besides this. Unless, then, some of you are troubled, wishing to pervert you and to distort the gospel of Christ.

For nobody had induced them to apostatize from the Creator, that they should seem to "be removed to another gospel," simply when they return again to the Creator. When he adds, too, the words, "which is not another," he confirms the fact that the gospel which he maintains is the Creator's.

So that there are two gospels for two gods; and the apostle made a great mistake when he said that "there is not another" gospel, since there is (on the hypothesis) another; and so he might have made a better defence of his gospel, by rather demonstrating this, than by insisting on its being but one.

Just as with royal currency—anyone who cuts off a little from the impress has debased the whole currency—so one who makes even the smallest change in sound faith adulterates the whole.

Since the deceivers called their error a gospel, he objects to this designation as well, saying that there is no other Gospel besides the one you received. For there is one Gospel, containing the correct teaching, which I preached to you, if only some were not confusing your spiritual eyes and making you see one thing instead of another, wishing to pervert the Gospel of Christ. True, they did not overthrow the entire Gospel, but only introduced the commandment about the Sabbath and circumcision; however, he shows that even a small corruption overthrows the entire Gospel — just as one who cuts off a small part of a royal coin renders the whole coin worthless. Note, this is said for those who say that this is a trifle and not worth attention. And the Marcionites, seizing upon this saying, claim that on this basis one should accept not four, but one Gospel, which they composed, accepting some things and rejecting others. See, they say, even Paul affirms that there is one Gospel. But what does this mean? Just as we say that the four Gospels constitute one, of course by their agreement, so Paul speaks here not of number but of disagreement. Since, he says, the preaching of these deceivers is not in agreement, therefore it is not a Gospel; but if it were in agreement, it would be a Gospel, that is, an apostolic preaching. Thus, the opinion of Marcion is idle chatter.

Yet though it is not in itself another gospel, it can be another, if you consider the guilt of the others, i.e., of the deceivers. Hence in enlarging upon the guilt of the latter he says, "only there are some," namely, the seducers, "that trouble you," i.e., sully the purity of your understanding with which you were imbued with the truth of faith. Because although the same thing is contained, so far as the inward understanding is concerned, in the Old and New Testament, as has been said, yet if the Old is embraced after accepting the New, that is seen to show that the New is not perfect, and that the one is different from the other. Hence he says, "which is not another, only there are some that trouble you," because those deceivers were compelling them to be circumcised after professing faith in the Gospel, showing thereby that circumcision is something different from Baptism and does something that Baptism cannot do, and for that reason they are troubling you. "I would that they were even cut off who trouble you" (5:12).

And they do indeed bring you trouble, because they "would pervert the gospel of Christ," i.e., the truth of the Gospel teaching, into the figure of the Law—which is absurd and the greatest of troubles. For a thing ought to be converted into that to which it is ordained. But the New Testament and the Gospel of Christ are not ordained to the Old, but contrariwise, the Old Law is ordained to the New Law, as a figure to the truth. Consequently the figure ought to be converted into the truth, and the Old Law to the Gospel of Christ, not the truth into the figure, or the Gospel of Christ into the Old Law. This is plain from the way we ordinarily speak; for we do not say that a man resembles the image of a man, but contrariwise, that the image resembles the man: "They shall be turned to thee and thou shalt not be turned to them" (Jer 15:19); "The new coming on, you shall cast away the old" (Lev 26:10).

These are the apostolic doctrines of the Church, for which also we die, esteeming those but little who would compel us to forswear them, even if they would force us by tortures, and not casting away our hope in them. To these Arius and Achilles opposing themselves, and those who with them are the enemies of the truth, have been expelled from the Church, as being aliens from our holy doctrine, according to the blessed Paul, who says, "If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed; even though he feign himself an angel from heaven."

Let no one be surprised that the apostle, when quieting ferocious characters, was so annoyed. He is indignant, for the sake of the Galatians' salvation, with the enemies of the Christian way of life. For this indignation shows that it is no light sin to transfer allegiance to the law after receiving faith.

This could be understood as a hyperbolic statement, not meaning that an apostle or an angel could preach otherwise than they had spoken.… [Yet] angels are also mutable if they have not held fast to their ground.… Lucifer, who rose in the morning, also fell. He who dispensed deceit to all nations is to be trampled on the earth.

(Verse 8) But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. This statement can also be understood hyperbolically, not that either an apostle or an angel could preach differently than they had once said: but even if it were possible for both apostles and angels to be changed, one must not deviate from what had once been accepted, especially since the apostle himself demonstrates the steadfastness of his faith elsewhere, saying: I know that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom. 8:38). I speak the truth, I do not lie, with my conscience bearing witness (Rom. IX, 1). Indeed, these words are not those of one who can ever depart from the Christian faith and love. However, those who do not want this to be understood hypothetically, but truly: that is, that even apostles and angels can be turned to worse things, they oppose it with what even Paul himself knew, that he could stumble if he acted too lazily, saying: But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when preaching to others, I myself should become disqualified (I Cor. IX, 27). Angels also are mutable, who have not preserved their principality; but leaving their own habitation, are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day (Jude, VI). ||The nature of God alone is immutable, of whom it is written: But thou art always the selfsame (Psalm 101: 28). And of himself: For I am the Lord your God, and I change not (Malachi 3: 6). Lucifer has fallen, who once shone brightly; and the one who was once sent to all nations has been crushed on the earth. In this place, the very learned man Tertullian elegantly writes against Apelles and his virgin Philumena, whom a certain angel, possessed by a diabolical and perverse spirit, claimed to be. This angel, according to the prophecy of the Holy Spirit foretold by the Apostle, was cursed long before the birth of Apelles. Furthermore, ἀνάθεμα, a word proper to the Jews, is used both in the book of Joshua (Joshua 6:7) and in the book of Numbers (Numbers 21), when the Lord commanded that everything in Jericho and the detestable Midianites be devoted to destruction and to anathema. Let us question those who assert that Christ and the Apostle Paul, the beloved of God and hitherto unknown, are either the son or the servant who knows not how to curse and does not know how to condemn anyone: how does their Apostle now, in the language of the Jews, that is, of the Creator, use it, and wish to destroy either an angel or an apostle, when he himself is not accustomed to avenge? Moreover, what he added, as we have foretold, and now I say again, shows that he, being careful of this very thing from the beginning, had denounced anathema to those who would preach otherwise, and now that it has been preached, he enforces the anathema which he had foretold before. Therefore, they accused him of doing one thing in Judea and teaching another, and they pronounced a curse on the angel, whom it was even known to be greater than his predecessors, the apostles, so that the authority of Peter and John would not be considered great, since it was not allowed for him who had taught them before, nor for the angel to preach differently than they had learned once. Therefore, he mentioned himself and the angel by name, but the others without a name. If anyone, he said, were to proclaim the gospel to you without doing harm to your predecessors; and yet, he would secretly reveal their names.

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema."

See the Apostle's wisdom; to obviate the objection that he was prompted by vainglory to applaud his own doctrine, he includes himself also in his anathema; and as they betook themselves to authority, that of James and John, he mentions angels also saying, "Tell me not of James and John; if one of the most exalted angels of heaven corrupt the Gospel, let him be anathema." The phrase "of heaven" is purposely added, because priests are also called angels. "For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger [angel] of the Lord of hosts." Lest therefore it should be thought that priests are here meant, by the term "angels," he points out the celestial intelligences by the addition, "from heaven." And he says not, if they preach a contrary Gospel, or subvert the whole of the true one, let them be anathema; but, if they even slightly vary, or incidentally disturb, my doctrine. "As we have said before, so say I now again." That his words might not seem to be spoken in anger, or with exaggeration, or with recklessness he now repeats them. Sentiments may perhaps change, when an expression has been called forth by anger, but to repeat it a second time proves that it is spoken advisedly, and was previously approved by the judgment.

When Abraham was requested to send Lazarus, he replied, "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them: if they hear them not, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead." And Christ introduces Abraham thus speaking, to show that He would have the Scriptures accounted more worthy of credence, even than one raised from the dead: Paul too, (and when I say Paul, I mean Christ, who directed his mind,) prefers them before an angel come down from heaven. And justly, for the angels, though mighty, are but servants and ministers, but the Scriptures were all written and sent, not by servants, but by God the Lord of all. He says, if "any man" preach another Gospel to you than that which we have preached,-not "if this or that man:" and herein appears his prudence, and care of giving offence, for what needed there still any mention of names, when he had used such extensive terms as to embrace all, both in heaven and earth? In that he anathemized evangelists and angels, he included every dignity, and his mention of himself included every intimacy and affinity. "Tell me not," he exclaims, "that my fellow-apostles and colleagues have so spoken; I spare not myself if I preach such doctrine." And he says this not as condemning the Apostles for swerving from the message they were commissioned to deliver; far from it, (for he says, whether we or they thus preach;) but to show, that in the discussion of truth the dignity of persons is not to be considered.

See the apostolic prudence! He includes himself in the anathema, so that no one might say that he constructs his own dogmas on account of vainglory; and he mentioned the angels because they took refuge in authorities, i.e. James and John. Do not tell me, he says, about James and John, for even one of the angels, who are first, should be anathema in corrupting the Gospel.

"But even if we or." So that no one may say that he composes his own preaching out of vainglory, he first accurses himself, if indeed he were willing to alter anything in the Gospel.

"an angel from heaven." Do not say to me, he says, Peter and John and James, but even if the powers above were to pervert the Gospel, let them be accursed. And these things, he says, not as if something different from what others proclaim about Peter (for neither are the powers above) but wishing to stop the mouths of the deceivers who, by means of the office surrounding Peter, were deceiving them.

"contrary to what we preached." The phrase "to what" indicates the extent, however small, of the preaching.

If, therefore, even "an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel" (than theirs), he would be called accursed by us.

To be sure, an amender of that Gospel, which had been all topsy-turvy from the days of Tiberius to those of Antoninus, first presented himself in Marcion alone-so long looked for by Christ, who was all along regretting that he had been in so great a hurry to send out his apostles without the support of Marcion! But for all that, heresy, which is for ever mending the Gospels, and corrupting them in the act, is an affair of man's audacity, not of God's authority; and if Marcion be even a disciple, he is yet not "above his master; " if Marcion be an apostle, still as Paul says, "Whether it be I or they, so we preach; " if Marcion be a prophet, even "the spirits of the prophets will be subject to the prophets," for they are not the authors of confusion, but of peace; or if Marcion be actually an angel, he must rather be designated "as anathema than as a preacher of the gospel," because it is a strange gospel which he has preached.

But perhaps, to avoid this difficulty, you will say that he therefore added just afterwards, "Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed," because he was aware that the Creator was going to introduce a gospel! But you thus entangle yourself still more.

His meaning, however, is clear, for he has mentioned himself first (in the anathema): "But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel." It is by way of an example that he has expressed himself.

To this angel, indeed, of Philumene, the apostle will reply in tones like those in which he even then predicted him, saying, "Although an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." To the arguments, however, which have been indicated just above, we have now to show our resistance.

In like manner, in the passage, "If even an angel of heaven preach unto you any other gospel than that which we have preached unto you, let him be anathema," he calls attention to the artful influence of Philumene, the virgin friend of Apelles.

He mentioned the angels, not speculating that any of the holy angels would say something contrary to the divine gospel, for he knew this to be impossible. But through this he reprehended every novelty of humanity.

Lest anyone should say that he praises his own teaching out of ambition, he anathematizes even himself. And since they were appealing to authority and referring to Peter and James, he therefore mentioned the angels as well. He added the words "from heaven" because priests were also called angels. So, lest you think he is speaking of priests, by the indication of heaven he designated the heavenly powers. And he did not say: if they will preach the opposite, but — if they will proclaim to you anything small beyond what we have proclaimed to you. So then, by subjecting to anathema the angels and himself, he rejects all authority and human friendship in the matter of faith. Do not tell me that your apostles preach something different; I will not spare even myself if I do not preach the Gospel. And he says this not to disparage the apostles, but wishing to shut the mouths of deceivers and to show that he does not recognize authority when it comes to matters of doctrine.

Then after enlarging upon their guilt, the inflicting of the penalty is set forth when he says, "But though we, or an angel from heaven." And with respect to this he does two things:

First, he promulgates the sentence;

Secondly, he gives a reason for the sentence (v. 10).

As to the first he does two things:

First, he presents authority for his sentence;

Secondly, he passes sentence (v. 9).

He shows that his authority for passing sentence is great on the ground that it would affect not only the perverters and seducers, who are subject to him, but also his own equals, as the other apostles, and even those above him, as the angels, were they guilty of this crime, namely, of turning the Gospel into the Old Law. Hence he says: Because the authority behind the sentence which we pass (which is excommunication) has efficacy, not only over those who are doing these things, then "though we," namely, the apostles, or an angel, good or evil, coming "from heaven, preach a gospel besides that which we have preached, let him be anathema," i.e., subject to this sentence that we pass.

To elucidate the foregoing, three things should be investigated. First, the meaning of this word, "anathema." Apropos of this it should be noted that anathema is a Greek word composed of ana, which means above, and thesis, i.e., a placing; hence a placing above. The word arose from an old custom. For the ancients, when they waged war, sometimes took from their enemies certain booty which they were unwilling to turn to their own use, but hung it in the temple or other public place of the city, as though to separate it from the common use of men. Everything so hung up, the Greeks called anathema. And from this arose the custom of declaring anathematized anything excluded from common use. Hence in Joshua (6:17) it is said of Jericho and of everything in it, that Joshua once anathematized it. Consequently, even in the Church the practice arose of declaring anathema those who are excluded from the common society of the Church and from partaking of the sacraments of the Church.

Secondly, we must look for an explanation of his statement, "though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." Here it should be noted that there are three kinds of teachings: the first is that of the philosophers who have arrived at a knowledge of their doctrine with their own reason guiding them. Another is that which has been delivered by angels, as the Old Law. For the Old Law was not issued by a human will but by angels in the hand of a mediator (Gal 3:19). But the third teaching was given immediately by God Himself, as the teaching of the Gospel: "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (Jn 1:18); "In these days He hath spoken to us by his Son" (Heb 1:2); "Which, having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard him" (Heb 2:3).

Now, a teaching passed on by a man can be changed and revoked by another man who knows better, as one philosopher refutes the sayings of another, or by an angel who has a more penetrating knowledge of the truth. Even a teaching handed down by one angel could be supplanted by that of a higher angel or by God. But a teaching that comes directly from God can be nullified neither by man nor angel. Hence if a man or an angel were to state anything contrary to what has been taught by God, such a statement would not contradict God's teaching, so as to void or destroy it; rather, God's teaching would be against him, because one who speaks thus should be expelled and prevented from sharing his teaching. Hence the Apostle says that the dignity of the Gospel teaching, which has come directly from God, is so great that if a man or even an angel preached another Gospel besides that which he has preached among them, he is anathema, i.e., must be rejected and expelled.

Thirdly, we must solve the objections which arise on this point. The first is that, since an equal has no authority over his peers and much less over his superiors, it seems that the Apostle has no power to excommunicate the apostles, who are his peers, and less so, angels who are superior. "He that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" (Matt 11:11). Therefore the anathema is invalid. The answer to this is that the Apostle passed this sentence not on his own authority, but on the authority of the Gospel teaching, of which he was the minister, and the authority of which teaches that whoever says aught contrary to it must be expelled and cast out. "The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day" (Jn 14:48).

A second question arises from the words, "a gospel besides that which we have preached to you." Therefore no one may teach or preach anything but what is written in the epistles and Gospels. But this is false, because it is said in 1 Thessalonians (3:10): "Praying that we may accomplish those things that are wanting to your faith." I answer that nothing is to be taught except what is contained, either implicitly or explicitly, in the Gospels and epistles and Sacred Scripture. For Sacred Scripture and the Gospels announce that Christ must be believed explicitly. Hence whatever is contained therein implicitly and fosters its teaching and faith in Christ can be preached and taught. Therefore, when he says, "besides that which you have received," he means by adding something completely alien: "If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book" (Rev 22:18). And "Neither add anything," i.e., contrary or alien, "nor diminish" (Deut 12:32).

He indicates that he initially, fearing this very thing, denounced an anathema on those who would preach in this way. Now, after it has been preached, he decrees the anathema that he formerly predicted.

So that they may not think I have said these things out of anger, as if not truly believing them, he adds the verb second.

So that they would not think he said this in anger and carried away by emotion, he repeats the same thing again, showing that he spoke not thoughtlessly, but having firmly and unwaveringly resolved this within himself.

Then when he says, "As we said before, so now I say it again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema," he pronounces his sentence on the evil person and says: As I have said of angels and apostles, so I say of the seducers. If any seducer "shall preach a gospel besides that which you have received from me, let him be anathema," i.e., excommunicated. And this is the sentence he passes.

Now it may be asked whether all heretics are thereby excommunicated. And it seems not, because it is said: "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid" (Tit 3:10). I answer that a person might be called a heretic either because he errs solely from ignorance, and then he is not on that account excommunicated; or because he errs through obstinacy and tries to subvert others, and then he falls under the canon of the sentence passed. But whether he was then and there passing sentence on heretics by these words is open to question, since sentence was later passed against heretics in the Councils. Yet it can be said that perhaps he was showing that they deserved to be excommunicated.

No one persuades God, for all things are manifest to him. But a person does well in wishing to persuade others when it is not himself that he wishes them to like but the truth that he persuades them of.… When one pleases others on account of truth, it is not the proclaimer himself but the truth that pleases.… Thus the sense is, "Do I then persuade men or God? And since it is men that I persuade, do I seek to please them? If I still sought to please men, I should not be Christ's servant. For he bids his servants to learn from him to be meek and lowly of heart, which is utterly impossible for one who seeks to please men on his own account, for his own private and special glory." … Both then can be rightly said: "I please" and "I do not please."

[On how the desire to please men — specifically the desire to be admitted to an "Inner Ring" of insiders — will draw even otherwise decent men into wrongdoing, not by appetite or gain, but by the sheer fear of being cast back into the cold outer world of those who are left out]

To nine out of ten of you the choice which could lead to scoundrelism will come, when it does come, in no very dramatic colours. Obviously bad men, obviously threatening or bribing, will almost certainly not appear. Over a drink or a cup of coffee, disguised as a triviality and sandwiched between two jokes, from the lips of a man, or woman, whom you have recently been getting to know rather better and whom you hope to know better still—just at the moment when you are most anxious not to appear crude, or naif or a prig—the hint will come. It will be the hint of something which is not quite in accordance with the technical rules of fair play: something which the public, the ignorant, romantic public, would never understand: something which even the outsiders in your own profession are apt to make a fuss about: but something, says your new friend, which "we always do". And you will be drawn in, if you are drawn in, not by desire for gain or ease, but simply because at that moment, when the cup was so near your lips, you cannot bear to be thrust back again into the cold outer world. Of all passions the passion for the Inner Ring is most skilful in making a man who is not yet a very bad man do very bad things.

For our own part, it befits our conscience, dearest brother, to strive that none should perish going out of the Church by our fault; but if any one, of his own accord and by his own sin, should perish, and should be unwilling to repent and to return to the Church, that we who are anxious for their well-being should be blameless in the day of judgment, and that they alone should remain in punishment who refused to be healed by the wholesomeness of our advice. Nor ought the reproaches of the lost to move us in any degree to depart from the right path and from the sure rule, since also the apostle instructs us, saying, "If I should please men, I should not be the servant of Christ." There is a great difference whether one desires to deserve well of men or of God. If we seek to please men, the Lord is offended. But if we strive and labour that we may please God, we ought to contemn human reproaches and abuse.

Therefore, dearest brother, endeavour that the undisciplined should not be consumed and perish, that as much as you can, by your salutary counsels, you should rule the brotherhood, and take counsel of each one with a view to his salvation. Strait and narrow is the way through which we enter into life, but excellent and great is the reward when we enter into glory. Let those who have once made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven please God in all things, and not offend God's priests nor the Lord's Church by the scandal of their wickedness. And if, for the present, certain of our brethren seem to be made sorry by us, let us nevertheless remain in our wholesome persuasion, knowing that an apostle also has said, "Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? " But if they shall obey us, we have gained our brethren, and have formed them as well to salvation as to dignity by our address. But if some of the perverse persons refuse to obey, let us follow the same apostle, who says, "If I please men, I should not be the servant of Christ." If we cannot please some, so as to make them please Christ, let us assuredly, as far as we can, please Christ our Lord and God, by observing His precepts.

But the discipline of all religion and truth is overturned, unless what is spiritually prescribed be faithfully observed; unless indeed any one should fear in the morning sacrifices, lest by the taste of wine he should be redolent of the blood of Christ. Therefore thus the brotherhood is beginning even to be kept back from the passion of Christ in persecutions, by learning in the offerings to be disturbed concerning His blood and His blood-shedding. Moreover, however, the Lord says in the Gospel, "Whosoever shall be ashamed of me, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed." And the apostle also speaks, saying, "If I pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." But how can we shed our blood for Christ, who blush to drink the blood of Christ?

But if continency follows Christ, and virginity is destined for the kingdom of God, what have they to do with earthly dress, and with ornaments, wherewith while they are striving to please men they offend God? Not considering that it is declared, "They who please men are put to confusion, because God hath despised them; " and that Paul also has gloriously and sublimely uttered, "If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." But continence and modesty consist not alone in purity of the flesh, but also in seemliness, as well as in modesty of dress and adornment; so that, according to the apostle, she who is unmarried may be holy both in body and in spirit. Paul instructs and teaches us, saying, "He that is unmarried careth for the things of the Lord, how he may please God: but he who has contracted marriage careth for the things which are of this world, how he may please his wife. So both the virgin and the unmarried woman consider those things which are the Lord's, that they may be holy both in body and spirit." A virgin ought not only to be so, but also to be perceived and believed to be so: no one on seeing a virgin should be in any doubt as to whether she is one. Perfectness should show itself equal in all things; nor should the dress of the body discredit the good of the mind. Why should she walk out adorned? Why with dressed hair, as if she either had or sought for a husband? Rather let her dread to please if she is a virgin; and let her not invite her own risk, if she is keeping herself for better and divine things. They who have not a husband whom they profess that they please, should persevere, sound and pure not only in body, but also in spirit. For it is not right that a virgin should have her hair braided for the appearance of her beauty, or boast of her flesh and of its beauty, when she has no struggle greater than that against her flesh, and no contest more obstinate than that of conquering and subduing the body.

That we must not please men, but God. In the fifty-second Psalm: "They that please men are confounded, because God hath made them nothing." Also in the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians: "If I wished to please men, I should not be the servant of Christ."

Let us not suppose that the apostle is teaching us by his example to despise the judgments of others … but if it can happen that we can please God and others equally, let us also please others.… The word now is inserted specially here, to show that people are to be pleased or displeased according to the circumstances, so that he who is now displeasing for the sake of gospel truth was at one time pleasing for the sake of people's salvation.

(Verse 10.) For now I advise men or God: or do I seek to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be a servant of Christ. Let us not think that we are taught by the Apostle to despise the judgments of men by his example, who in another place said: Knowing therefore, the fear of the Lord, we persuade men: but we are made manifest to God (2 Corinthians 5:11); and that: Be without offense to the Jews, and to the Gentiles, and to the Church of God: as I also please all in all things, not seeking what is profitable to myself, but what is profitable to many, that they may be saved (1 Corinthians 10). But if it is possible, that we may please both God and men at the same time, it is necessary to please men. But if we do not please men in any other way than if we displease God: we ought to please God rather than men. Otherwise, he himself brings forward the reason why he is pleasing to all through all things: Not seeking, he says, what is useful to me, but what is useful to many, so that they may be saved. But whoever, out of that charity which does not seek its own things, but those that are others', pleases everyone so that they may be saved: certainly he first pleases God, to whom the salvation of men is a care. However, it also has a word, which is specifically added here, either to please people temporarily or to displease them: so that he who does not please at the moment because of the truth of the Gospel, may have pleased formerly for the salvation of many. Paul had pleased the Jews at one time, when he was an emulator of paternal traditions, having lived blamelessly according to the law, and he had such enthusiasm and faith in the ceremonies of the ancestors that he even became involved in the killing of Stephen, and he went to Damascus to bind those who had deserted the law (Acts 9). But after he was transferred to the vessel of election from a persecutor, and began to preach the faith which he had once attacked, he began to displease the Jews, whom he had previously pleased. This is therefore what he says: Am I seeking to please the Jews, by displeasing whom I pleased God? For if I were still pleasing them, I would not be a servant of Christ. For I would affirm the law, and destroy the grace of the Gospel. But now, I am not even brought to the pretense of observing the law, because I cannot please both God and the Jews at the same time. For whoever endeavors to persuade others with a word taken from human usage, with what he himself possesses and has once imbibed, and in many passages of the Scriptures it is read, from which this is one: The persuasion is not from him who called you (Gal. 5:8). And also in the Acts of the Apostles: Therefore many Jews came to him in the inn, to whom he explained, testifying about the kingdom of God and persuading them about Jesus, from the Law of Moses and the Prophets until evening. And all of this happened because it had been spread (or slandered) about him that he secretly observed the Law and had mixed with those who were practicing Judaism in Jerusalem.

"For am I now persuading men: or God?" or am I seeking to please men? if I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ."

Granting, says he, that I might deceive you by these doctrines, could I deceive God, who knows my yet unuttered thoughts, and to please whom is my unceasing endeavor? See here the Apostolical spirit, the Evangelical loftiness! So too he writes to the Corinthians, "For we are not again commending ourselves unto you, but speak as giving you occasion of glorying;" and again, "But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment." For since he is compelled to justify himself to his disciples, being their teacher, he submits to it; but he is grieved at it, not on account of chagrin, far from it, but on account of the instability of the minds of those led away and on account of not being fully trusted by them.

Wherefore Paul now speaks, as it were, thus:-Is my account to be rendered to you? Shall I be judged by men? My account is to God, and all my acts are with a view to that inquisition, nor am I so miserably abandoned as to pervert my doctrine, seeing that I am to justify what I preach before the Lord of all.

He thus expressed himself, as much with a view of withstanding their opinions, as in self-defence; for it becomes disciples to obey, not to judge, their master. But now, says he, that the order is reversed, and ye sit as judges, know that I am but little concerned to defend myself before you; all I do for God's sake, and in order that I may answer to Him concerning my doctrine. He who wishes to persuade men, is led to act tortuously and insincerely, and to employ deceit and falsehood, in order to engage the assent of his hearers. But he who addresses himself to God, and desires to please Him, needs simplicity and purity of mind, for God cannot be deceived. Whence it is plain that I have thus written to you not from the love of rule, or to gain disciples, or to receive honor at your hands. My endeavor has been to please God, not man. Were it otherwise, I should still consort with the Jews, still persecute the Church, I who have cast off my country altogether, my companions, my friends, my kindred, and all my reputation, and taken in exchange for these, persecution, enmity, strife, and daily-impending death, have given a signal proof that I speak not from love of human applause.

If, he says, I was trying to deceive you in saying these things, am I perhaps able to distort God's thought, who knows the secrets of one's mind, and whom I take every care to please in all things?

"For am I now persuading," as if this has been judged and established with him. "am I now persuading people, or God?" Then, that they may not suppose that he wishes to persuade them and proclaim different things to others (for those who deceive him accused him, that to some he proclaims circumcision, to others something else) and that they might fall away as if being flattered, he says: "Or am I seeking to please people?" I do not say these things to flatter and please you, he says. For if I were seeking to please people, I would also be opposing the Judaism, and friends and kinsmen, and would not have run to Christ abandoning all.

Oh blasphemy, bordering on martyrdom, which now attests me to be a Christian, while for that very account it detests me! The cursing of well-maintained Discipline is a blessing of the Name. "If," says he, "I wished to please men, I should not be Christ's servant." But the same apostle elsewhere bids us take care to please all: "As I," he says, "please all by all means.

He intends to defend himself against that of which he is accused. However, lest they become proud, as judges of their teacher, he says: do not think that I am defending myself before you or trying to convince you; no, all my thought and speech are directed toward God. Therefore I write this not with the aim of gaining glory from you and having disciples, but in order to be right before God concerning the dogmas, and not out of a desire to please people. Or thus: since they slandered him, saying that to some he preaches one thing and to others another, and that he adapts himself to people, he asks them: am I trying to persuade men and please them, or God? For if I wished to please men, I would certainly do what you say.

He proves that he does not care about pleasing people — and why would he either flatter them or preach one thing to some and another thing to others? For if he cared about this, he would not have departed from Judaism and would not have turned to Christ; he would not have disregarded relatives, friends, such glory, and would not have chosen persecution, dangers, and dishonor.

Then when he says, "For do I now persuade men, or God?", he gives the reason for his sentence.

First, he gives the reason for his sentence;

Secondly, he discloses here his purpose (v. 10): "Or do I seek to please men?"

For someone might say: Why do you excommunicate in this manner? Perhaps some are your friends or men of some authority. Therefore you ought not act in this way. But the Apostle says in answer: Indeed, one should act in this way, because the things I say now are not to gain the favor of men but to please God, and this is what he means by "do I now," i.e., after my conversion, or in this epistle, "persuade men," i.e., is it my intention to please men "or God?" As if to say: The things I do, I do to please God alone: "We speak, not as pleasing men, but God" (1 Thes 2:4); nor do we speak on the authority of men, but of God. That I do not seek to please men is plain from my intention and purpose. For "I do not seek to please men," i.e., it is not my intention in converting men to please men alone, but for the honor of God. And this is plain, because if I yet sought to please men, as I formerly pleased them, "I should not be the servant of Christ." The reason is that the two are opposed. More precisely, if I were to please men for the sake of men without referring it to God; for if I intend now and then to please men so that I might draw them to God, I do not sin. But if in the first way, I am not the servant of Christ: "For the bed is straitened, so that one must fall out, and a short covering cannot cover both" (Is 28:20); "No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one and love the other; or he will sustain the one and despise the other" (Mt 6:24); "They have been confounded that please men" (Ps 52:6).