Cornelius a Lapide
Table of Contents
Synopsis of the Chapter
Paul teaches that he conferred his Gospel with Peter, James, and John, and that it was approved by them in all respects, so that nothing was added to or taken from his doctrine by them.
Secondly, in verse 7, he teaches that he received from them the right hands of fellowship, so that they might evangelize the Jews while Paul evangelized the Gentiles.
Thirdly, in verse 11, he relates that he openly rebuked Peter, because he was incautiously simulating Judaism and thus inciting the Gentiles to Judaize.
Fourthly, in verse 16, he proves that we are justified not by the works of the law but by faith in Christ, and this by three arguments: The first, in verse 17, because otherwise Christ, by abolishing the law, would be a minister of sin. The second, in verse 19, because the law itself professes that it ceases and dies in Christ. The third, in verse 21, because otherwise Christ would have died in vain.
Vulgate Text: Galatians 2:1-21
1. Then, after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. 2. And I went up according to revelation: and conferred with them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but apart with those who seemed to be something, lest perhaps I should run, or had run, in vain. 3. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised: 4. but because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privately to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage. 5. To whom we yielded not by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the Gospel might continue with you; 6. but of these who seemed to be something (whatsoever they were sometime, it makes no matter to me: God accepts no man's person), for to me they who seemed to be something added nothing. 7. But on the contrary, when they had seen that to me was committed the Gospel of the uncircumcision, as the Gospel of the circumcision was to Peter 8. (for He who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought in me also among the Gentiles); 9. and when they had known the grace that was given to me, James, and Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, but they to the circumcision: 10. only that we should be mindful of the poor: which same thing also I was careful to do. 11. But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12. For before that some came from James, he ate with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. 14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If you, being a Jew, live after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews, how do you compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15. We by nature are Jews, and not of the Gentiles, sinners. 16. But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ: even we believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. 17. But if while we seek to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ then the minister of sin? God forbid. 18. For if I build again the things which I have destroyed, I make myself a prevaricator. 19. For I, through the law, am dead to the law, that I may live to God: with Christ I am nailed to the cross. 20. And I live, now not I; but Christ lives in me. And that I live now in the flesh: I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself for me. 21. I cast not away the grace of God. For if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain.
Verse 1: After Fourteen Years I Went Up Again to Jerusalem
Verse 1. After fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem. — You will ask: From what point are these years to begin? From Paul's conversion, of which he spoke in chapter I, verse 15, or from the three-year period after it spent at Damascus and in Arabia, mentioned in chapter I, verse 18? St. Jerome reckons from the completion of the three years after his vocation; add these fourteen years, and it becomes the 17th year from Paul's vocation, the 54th of Christ (for from Christ's year 36, in which Paul was converted, if you count 17 years, you reach the year of Christ 54), the 12th of Emperor Claudius, in which this ascent of Paul occurred. But since Claudius ceased to reign the following year (the 13th), and Nero immediately succeeded him, in whose 2nd year Paul was sent bound to Rome, as is described in Acts 27, it would follow that all the deeds of Paul described from Acts 15 (for the journey of Paul here is the same as in Acts 15, as I shall presently show) up to chapter 27 of Acts, were accomplished in two years, namely from the 12th of Claudius to the 2nd of Nero, which does not seem likely; for those deeds, so many and so great, require more time: especially since from Acts 18:11 it is established that after these things done at Jerusalem, Paul remained at Corinth a year and a half, and again spent three years at Ephesus, as is clear from Acts 20:31. Wherefore Baronius and others more truly think that these fourteen years should be reckoned from Paul's vocation, of which he speaks in chapter I, verse 15, for it is to that he refers: for he counts and dates years from his vocation as illustrious, just as we count the years of our calling to the papacy, episcopate, or Religious life, and establish for each such an era as it were of Paul, namely in the 16th year from the Passion of Christ, which was the 9th year of Emperor Claudius, the 51st of Christ. So Baronius.
Verse 2: I Conferred with Them the Gospel Which I Preach
Verse 2. I conferred with them the Gospel which I preach. — Ἀνεθέμην, I conferred, I communicated, I set forth in their midst my Gospel to Peter and the Apostles, constituting them as judges as it were of my Gospel, so that whatever they decreed about it, and by common counsel approved, disapproved, added, or removed, I should undertake to be so believed and so taught. See what was said on chapter I, verse 16.
Note that the Apostle did not confer with the Apostles his Gospel because he doubted its truth or integrity, or whether it agreed with the Gospel of Peter and the other Apostles: for he knew most certainly, by revelation of God, that he had received from God the same full and perfect Gospel as the other Apostles, as is clear from chapter I, verses 11 and 12. He therefore conferred the Gospel with the Apostles not for his own sake, but for the sake of others converted to the faith of Christ, among whom Paul had been defamed by the Judaizing pseudo-Apostles, as if he were detracting from the law of Moses among the Gentiles, while Peter, James, and John taught and did the contrary — indeed, even Paul himself Judaized among the Jews. Paul therefore, in order to show the contrary, and that his doctrine agreed with the doctrine of the Apostles, and likewise to safeguard his authority, confers with them the Gospel: "Lest perhaps," he says, "I should run, or had run, in vain."
With them. — Namely, with the first and chief Christians of Jerusalem: for that adjective hidden in the noun "Hierosolyma" which preceded, in the Hebrew manner, indicates the pronoun "them," namely the Jerusalemites, to whom I ascended at Jerusalem.
Who seemed to be something. — That is, who seemed to be (as he says in verse 9) pillars of the Church and chief Apostles. So Jerome. The Greek here, and in verse 6, has only τοῖς δοκοῦσι, "those who seemed," that is, as Oecumenius says, those who were held in esteem. For the Greeks call δοκοῦντες those who are of great authority; ἀδοκοῦντες, those whose authority is none or little.
Note: This journey of Paul to Jerusalem is the same as the one in Acts 15 by which he went up to the Council of Jerusalem: for the cause is the same, the place the same, the persons the same on both sides. So the Fathers, except Chrysostom, whose argument is this: in Acts 15 Paul was sent to Jerusalem by men, namely the Christians of Antioch; but here in verse 2 he says he went up to Jerusalem according to (that is, by) revelation; therefore this journey was not the same, but a different one.
I reply: I deny the consequence: for both are true, namely that Paul was sent by the Antiochenes and that he went up according to revelation: because, as Bede notes, he was admonished by a divine oracle to undertake this mission and embassy entrusted to him by the Antiochenes on their behalf, both for the deciding of that common question concerning the keeping of the legal observances, as is found in Acts 15, and for his own particular cause, namely that he might confer his doctrine and Gospel with the chief of the Apostles and the foremost Apostles, as is said here in verse 2.
From which it follows that the Council of Jerusalem was celebrated 14 years after the conversion of Paul, namely in the 16th year from the Passion of Christ, which was the 9th year of Emperor Claudius, the 51st of Christ. So Baronius.
Lest I should run in vain. — Lest, with the pseudo-Apostles boasting that my doctrine had been reproved by the Apostles, the faithful might not believe me and my faith, and thus all my labor would be rendered void. So Jerome, Epistle 11 to Augustine, among the epistles of Augustine himself; Tertullian, Book IV Against Marcion; and expressly Augustine, Book XXVIII Against Faustus, chapter IV, where from this passage he teaches against Luther that even the most sincere word of God and all its preachers need the testimony and authority of men. "Who is so mad," says St. Augustine in the cited passage, "as today to believe that what Manichaeus has produced is an epistle of Christ, and not believe that what Matthew has written are the deeds and sayings of Christ? Or if he also doubts about Matthew, whether he himself wrote those things, regarding Matthew himself also would he not rather believe that which he finds in the Church, which from Matthew's own times to this present is declared by a sure succession: and would he believe some unknown person coming sideways from Persia after two hundred years or more and persuading us rather to believe him concerning what Christ said or did? Whereas the Apostle Paul himself, called from heaven after the Lord's ascension, if he had not found the Apostles in the flesh with whom by communicating his Gospel he might appear to be of the same fellowship, the Church would not believe him at all?"
Let the Innovators note these things and apply them to themselves, who prefer to believe Calvin coming after 1500 years and bringing forth new dogmas, rather than the Church and the consensus of so many centuries.
Note that this testimony does not pertain to lay magistrates, but to Peter and the Apostles, that is, to the Roman Pontiff and Bishops, the successors of the Apostles, whether individually or in their common Council: for this is the testimony both of his doctrine and of his apostleship that Paul sought from the Council of Jerusalem, in which the Apostles were judges, with Peter as it were presiding and giving the sentence first. Thus from the time of the Apostles up to the present, the entire Christian world has sought from the Roman Pontiff and from the Councils — over which the Roman Pontiff presides either by himself or through legates — the decision and testimony of truth in doubts of faith, in new dogmas, and in springing-up heresies; and the dogmas or teachers condemned by them it has held as heresies and heretics. Only heretics, because as heretics they were to be condemned by this Council, have refused this judgment and this testimony, and have shunned it in every age. Hence it is no wonder if our Innovators flee from the same: indeed this very thing is a sure argument of novelty, bad faith, and heresy.
Verse 3: Neither Was Titus, Being a Gentile, Compelled to Be Circumcised
Verse 3. Neither was Titus, being a Gentile, compelled to be circumcised. — Note: he says, "was compelled," as if to say: although the Jews and the false brethren were urgent and as it were forcing me, I was unwilling to yield and concede that Titus, being a Gentile, should be circumcised: for thus by the very fact I would have seemed to assert to the Gentiles that circumcision and the law of Moses were necessary. Hence the fact that afterwards in Acts 16:3 I had Timothy circumcised, I did not do compelled, but spontaneously, lest I provoke the Jews: for Timothy was not purely a Gentile, but from a Jewish mother a half-Jew, and from a Gentile father a half-Gentile.
Gentile. — Greek Ἕλλην, "Greek," that is, Gentile: for in the time of Alexander the Greeks were the most celebrated and best known of the Gentiles to the Jews.
Verse 4: But Because of False Brethren Unawares Brought In
Verse 4. But. — Supply, by Hebraism, "neither" from the preceding verse, as if to say: Not even with the Jews urging — who were false brethren — was Titus circumcised. So Chrysostom, Oecumenius. Secondly, St. Jerome removes "but," so that it coheres with the preceding verse, as if to say: Neither was Titus compelled to be circumcised on account of the false brethren brought in unawares. Thirdly, most aptly and clearly, take the Greek διὰ δέ, which Our Translator renders "but on account of," as standing for διὰ or διὰ καί, that is, "namely," of which enallage Budaeus has examples; as if to say: He was not compelled, namely, or, as Gagneius translates, even when the false brethren urged him to be circumcised. For some, with Primasius, take the little word "but" properly and adversatively, as if Paul wishes to say that Titus indeed was not compelled by the Apostles to be circumcised, but nevertheless because of the importunity of the false brethren was circumcised; this plainly conflicts both with the following words, when he says, "To whom we yielded not by subjection, no, not for an hour," and with sound faith. For now, with circumcision abrogated and the Gospel and baptism promulgated, it was unlawful for Gentiles to be circumcised: but Titus was plainly and on both sides Gentile by parentage. Thus concerning Titus, besides others, St. Augustine expressly teaches in Epistle 19 to Jerome and in his book On Lying, chapter 5.
Brought in unawares (παρεισάκτους, which Vatablus renders "entered in passing"; better Our Translator: "subintroductos," that is, secretly introduced), who (namely, while we were doing other things, like spies plotting ambushes) came in privately, παρεισῆλθον, that is, crept in stealthily and treacherously: for this is what παρά suggests, which is often taken in a bad sense; and it denotes deceits and ambushes, concerning which I spoke at Romans 5:20.
To spy out our liberty (from the servitude and burden of so many manifold ceremonies and legal observances), which we have in Christ Jesus. — Through Christ, in the faith of Christ, in the Church, in religion.
Verse 5: To Whom We Yielded Not by Subjection
Verse 5. To whom we yielded not by subjection, no, not for an hour. — Through subjection, by subjecting ourselves to the Judaizers. Wrongly do some read in the dative, "to subjection."
Verse 6: From Those Who Seemed to Be Something
Verse 6. But from those who seemed to be something (supply: nothing of doctrine was conferred upon me; for the Apostle is carried away in his customary manner and inserts a parenthesis); whatsoever they were sometime, it makes no matter to me (and presently he returns, but with the prior case changed into the one to which he had been carried away, when he subjoins): for to me they who seemed to be something (namely, Peter, John, James, the chief Apostles), conferred nothing. — So Anselm.
Whatsoever they were sometime. — Namely, that these chief Apostles, who seem to be something, were unlearned, fishermen, poor, despised, while I, a Roman citizen, excelled in zeal and in knowledge of the law. So Ambrose and Anselm; for since Paul was being pressed by the authority of the other Apostles as Judaizers, he diminishes it in order to elevate his own authority and consequently his doctrine, yet modestly. Hence he adds: "God accepts not the person of man," as is here clear, since He chose fishermen as Apostles.
Secondly, Augustine takes "what they were" as referring to sinners, as if to say: There is therefore no reason for anyone to object to me the sins of my persecution, or certainly to object to Peter that he denied Christ in His Passion.
Thirdly, Chrysostom and Jerome take "what they were" as referring to their doctrine and observance of circumcision and the legal observances, [saying]: it is nothing to me; they shall render account to God; for God accepts no man's person. The first sense seems to be most plain according to the mind of the Apostle.
God accepts not the person of man. — "Person," that is, the conditions of person, which are irrelevant to God's gratuitous calling: for to attend to these in conferring benefits and offices is in man a vice opposed to distributive justice, which is called προσωποληψία, that is, acceptance of persons; in God it would not be a vice, but less congruous to His liberality and loftiness, as I said at Romans 2:11.
To me they conferred nothing. — Valla [translates], they added nothing: but the Greek is οὐδὲν προσανέθεντο, they communicated nothing, content with my sufficient communication and exposition of my doctrine, which I preach. See what was said on chapter I, verse 16.
Verse 7: The Gospel of the Uncircumcision Was Committed to Me
Verse 7. The Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to me (that is, of the uncircumcised Gentiles), as that of the circumcision to Peter, — that is, of the circumcised Jews. So Theophylact. See Canon 21.
You will say: Therefore Peter was not the head of the Church, but only Apostle and Pope of the Jews. So Illyricus and others. Some respond that these things are said only concerning the care and division of patronage: namely, that Peter was appointed to protect the Jews, Paul the Gentiles; but because he adds: "For He who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision," that is, that he might be Apostle of the circumcised, "wrought also in me among the Gentiles," that is, that I might be Apostle of the Gentiles, that I might have the office, graces, and Apostolic charisms among the Gentiles —
Hence Jerome responds better: at that time, namely the beginning of the Church, when the Jews still naturally shrank from the Gentiles, as is clear in verse 12, Peter and Paul divided not power, but labors, so that Paul, hateful to the Jews, should preach first and chiefly to the Gentiles, and Peter to the Jews: for otherwise that Paul also evangelized the Jews is clear from Acts 9; and that Peter [evangelized] the Gentiles is clear from Acts 10, and because he transferred his see to Rome to the Gentiles, as all historians, Fathers, chronicles, and monuments agree. See those things in Bellarmine: so much so that to wish to doubt about this matter and tradition is not the mark of a sound brain, but of a deranged mind, or certainly of a brazen forehead.
Verse 8: Who Wrought in Peter for the Apostleship of the Circumcision
Verse 8. Who wrought in Peter (ὁ ἐνεργήσας Πέτρῳ, who operated in Peter, who showed in Peter His energy, power, and efficacy) for the apostleship of the circumcision, — that is, that he might become the Apostle of the circumcised Jews; the same One showed it in me, Paul, among and between the Gentiles. The Syriac translates, He who was efficacious in Peter, in me also was efficacious in performing so many wonders and miracles, in such efficacy of speech, in the conversion of so many Gentiles brought about through me.
Verse 9: Cephas, and the Right Hands of Fellowship
Verse 9. Cephas. — Clement of Alexandria, in Eusebius, Book II of History, chapter XII, and Dorotheus in his Synopsis, thought that this Cephas was not Peter the Apostle, but one of the 70 disciples. But the Church neither knows nor celebrates any other Cephas than St. Peter, and that he is here designated is clear from what he adds: "Who seemed to be pillars"; he was therefore an Apostle, indeed the chief of the Apostles. Hence Paul here in verse 14 set himself against him as the foremost, before James and John. He therefore who in Syriac in Syria, namely at Antioch, was called Cephas, the same in Greek was called by the Greeks Petrus. Hence the one whom he here calls Cephas, in verse 7 he calls Peter. So Jerome, Anselm, Baronius, Bellarmine, and others.
They gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship. — That is, the right hands of partnership as a symbol of fellowship, because in faith and doctrine we were both in concord and associated. So Anselm.
That we should go unto the Gentiles (to the Gentiles, toward the Gentiles; the Syriac, among the Gentiles, supply: should exercise our apostleship), but they (James, Cephas, and John) unto the circumcision, — that is, among the circumcised Jews. So that, just as Christ was promised and given to the Jews as to the first and chief, whence He is called "the minister of the circumcision," that is, of the circumcised, in Romans 15:8, so the chief Apostles should bestow their first labors among the same.
Verse 10: Only That We Should Be Mindful of the Poor
10. Only (supply: they admonished or asked) that we should be mindful of the poor. — "Of the poor," namely those of Judea, who because of the faith of Christ had been stripped of their goods by the Jews, Hebrews 10:34. So Chrysostom. The same is proved by the particle "only," which otherwise would not cohere well. Or, as Jerome holds, "of the voluntary poor," who had sold their possessions and given the price to the Apostles to be distributed among the faithful, especially the poor, of whom there was a great number, Acts 2:45.
Which also I was careful to do this very thing. — "This very thing" is redundant by Hebraism: for the Hebrews repeat the antecedent with the relative.
Verse 11: I Withstood Him to His Face
11. I withstood him (Cephas) to his face. — "To the face," that is, in appearance, outwardly, with simulation and by mutual arrangement. So some, with Erasmus. Secondly, more plainly and truly, "to the face," that is, as we commonly say, to his mouth, to his beard, openly and publicly I withstood Peter, and this so that by this means his public scandal might be corrected by a public reproof. So Augustine, Ambrose, Bede, Anselm, and others everywhere.
Because he was to be blamed. — ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν, because he had been censured, namely by other brethren, who had been offended by this deed of Peter, being ignorant of Peter's legitimate mind and cause, says Chrysostom and Jerome. Hence the Syriac also translates, because they were offended at him.
Secondly, as Theophylact and Oecumenius say, Peter had been censured by the other Apostles because he had taken food with Cornelius the Gentile at Caesarea. Hence fearing lest he should again be censured by them or by other Jews, he withdrew himself from the tables and company of the Gentiles.
Thirdly and better, Ambrose: he had been censured namely from evangelical truth and liberty, which liberates and exempts from the shadows and servitude of Judaism.
Fourthly, Our Translator best renders "reprehensibilis": for by Hebraism, passive participles are often taken for verbal adjectives ending in "bilis," which the Hebrews lack. So Latin writers everywhere, and it is clear from the antecedent and the consequent: for he gives the cause why he withstood him, namely this: "because he was reprehensible," that is, in the simulation of Judaism, as follows.
It is asked whether Peter was truly reprehensible and rebuked by Paul. There was a sharp dispute on this matter for many years between St. Jerome and Augustine, as is clear from the epistles of each, in vol. II of Augustine's works, chapters 8, 9, and following. Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Baronius deny it, and think that the rebuke was only simulated on both sides: namely that Peter, who at Jerusalem had lived among the Jews in Jewish manner, and that lawfully, on coming to Antioch lived in Gentile manner with the Gentiles; but on the arrival of Jews sent from James from Jerusalem to Antioch, lest he offend them, since they were the first and chief in the faith and Church of Christ, as I said in verse 9, he withdrew himself from the Gentiles to the Jews; at the same time so as to give Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, occasion to rebuke him; and so that, by yielding to him, he might by that very act teach the Jews that there was no longer to be Judaizing. On the contrary, St. Augustine asserts that Peter was truly reprehensible and was truly rebuked by Paul: for the words clearly signify this.
Hence secondly, between Jerome and Augustine arose a question concerning simulation and lying. For Jerome asserts that it is lawful sometimes to simulate, after the example of Peter here. Augustine denies that Peter simulated, and teaches that it is never lawful to lie or simulate, especially in matters of faith and religion. But in this second question Jerome and Augustine do not seem to have sufficiently understood one another; for Jerome did not say that Peter lied, or simulated Judaism externally while detesting it inwardly in his heart — as Augustine seems to have understood Jerome, when he inveighs so sharply against him, as if he taught that Peter lawfully simulated Judaism: for thus the profession of false faith and heresy would be lawful to any believer, which is an error in faith. But Jerome only teaches, as also Chrysostom does, that the rebuke of Peter by Paul was not real but simulated: that by mutual arrangement and consent of both, Paul rebuked Peter, not for simulation but for the dissimulation already mentioned that was incautious, and Peter accepted this rebuke by arrangement, so that, with Peter being rebuked in appearance, the Judaizers might be truly rebuked, and that with Peter they might recognize that they should not Judaize: which Augustine does not deny is lawful; yet he denies that it so happened, since in his judgment this rebuke was real and not simulated.
Wherefore wrongly, from this passage, Cassian (Conferences 17, ch. 17 to 25), Origen, Clement, Erasmus, and others (in Sixtus of Siena, Book V, annotation 103) think it lawful to lie sometimes, and approve that axiom of Plato: "Although a lie is a bad thing, yet it must sometimes be used, just as we use hellebore or some other medicine." For this is already a certain error condemned by Innocent III, title On Usury, chapter "Super eo"; indeed by Ecclesiasticus 7:14: "Be not willing," he says, "to make any manner of lie." And against this error Augustine expressly wrote his book On Lying, and the book Against Lying. Nor is there reason for anyone to object Jerome and Chrysostom here: because they, as I said, do not admit or excuse a lie in Peter, but only the simulation of an act, namely of rebuke, or rather a hidden arrangement: for such is sometimes lawful, as is clear in the stratagems of soldiers by which they entice enemies into hidden ambushes by simulating flight.
There was also a third question between St. Jerome and Augustine, namely when the old law and the legal precepts ceased. But this belongs elsewhere; concerning which, however, I say briefly: As to obligation, the old law ceased at Pentecost; for then the new law was promulgated and began to oblige; and accordingly the old law was abolished and ceased to oblige: yet it did not so cease that it could not still be observed for a time, until the Jews should be gradually and gently drawn away from it, and bury it with honor. In this disagreement of Augustine and Jerome, the opinion of St. Augustine seems truer.
I say, then, first: In this deed of Peter there was some sin, not of error in faith, as some have rashly asserted, but in the act, namely of incautious simulation and profession of Judaism, in that he gave scandal to the Gentiles to Judaize with him, namely by withdrawing himself from the Gentiles, with whom he had been living until then, and suddenly going over to the Jews who were arriving, and living with them in Jewish manner. Hence the Gentiles could rightly suppose that Judaism was as necessary for them as for him for salvation, and that it bound Christians: for although the old law and ceremonies were not yet death-bringing, and could be observed for the sake of the law being gently and honorably buried, and to draw the minds of the Jews to the faith of Christ, yet they were dead, and moreover death-bringing if anyone observed them thinking, or so conducting himself as if he were bound to them, and as if the old law bound Christians. But Peter, although he did not think this, nevertheless conducted himself so incautiously that he gave the Gentiles a just occasion for suspecting this.
It is clear, because Paul plainly teaches this here secondly and thirdly: "Him," he says, "I withstood, because he was to be blamed." And verse 14: "When I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas: How do you compel the Gentiles to live as Jews?" — namely, by simulation, and, as the Greek has it, hypocrisy: all of which prove that Peter sinned; or else (God forbid) Paul lies, says St. Augustine in Epistles 8, 9, and 19 to Jerome; Cyprian, in his Epistle to Quintus.
I reply: I deny the consequence; for that superiors can be corrected by inferiors with humble charity, for the defense of truth, Augustine teaches here in Epistle 19, as do Cyprian, Gregory, St. Thomas and the others above, who clearly teach that Peter, the superior, was rebuked by Paul, the inferior. Hence I infer: since Paul was equal to the other Apostles, these too were inferior to Peter, and consequently Peter is the head of the Apostles and of the whole Church, whose Apostles are heads. Hence Gregory aptly says, Homily 18 on Ezekiel: "Peter was silent, so that he who was first in the height of apostleship might be first in humility." And Augustine, Epistle 19 to Jerome: "A rarer and holier example, he says, did Peter give to posterity, that they should not disdain to be corrected by their successors, than Paul, by which lesser men might confidently dare to resist their superiors for the defense of truth, with charity preserved."
I say, secondly: This sin of Peter was nevertheless slight and venial, or only material, arising from inconsideration or defect of light and prudence: for Peter in good faith thought he had to guard rather against giving offense to the Jews, of whom he had hitherto been chiefly the doctor and Apostle, than to the Gentiles, and that the Gentiles could know or easily perceive this same thing. But in this opinion of his Peter erred; for although, says St. Thomas, the Holy Spirit descending upon the Apostles at Pentecost confirmed them thenceforward in prudence and grace, that they might avoid all mortal sins, yet not so that they should escape all venial ones.
Note, that just as there can be lying in words, so also in deeds. For example, if someone outwardly bears himself as a friend or upright man, when he is in fact an enemy or wicked, he lies, and this is a lie of deed, which is properly called hypocrisy. Thus if some Christian at Rome wears a yellow cap, he lies that he is a Jew.
Where however note with Cajetan, that deeds are more easily excused from lying or hypocrisy than words. The reason is that words are properly and expressly signs of the mind's concepts, and have been instituted to signify them: deeds are not so, but admit a broader interpretation. Hence if soldiers feign fear and flight in order to lure the enemy into ambush, this is not properly hypocrisy or a lie; it would, however, be a lie if they were to declare the same thing in word, saying: "We flee because we fear your strength, O enemies."
Note here secondly this rule: when in some deed there is a just cause for concealing and dissimulating the truth, there is no hypocrisy or lie in it. Thus in this deed and dissimulation of his, Peter had a partly just cause, namely the fear of offending the Jews: for to withdraw himself from the Gentiles and to associate with the Jews is not to say absolutely: "I am a Jew, and I judaize"; but it is to say: "I prefer to serve and adhere to the Jews rather than the Gentiles; for of this thing I have a just cause, namely that I am an Apostle and teacher of the Jews rather than of the Gentiles." I say "in some part": for not in every part and altogether was this cause just; for Peter ought so to have cared for the Jews that nevertheless he might not neglect nor offend the Gentiles; for he was the pastor and ruler of all, both Jews and Gentiles. Hence in this respect, namely that he offended the Gentiles, Peter sinned from inconsideration and venially. For scarcely can the weakness of the human mind in perplexing matters so consider and weigh all circumstances that it does not sometimes go blind and choose that which seems good to it in one respect, not considering that it is bad in another respect.
You will say: Therefore Paul, inasmuch as he reproved and corrected Peter, was equal in authority to Peter, or superior, and consequently Peter was not the head and prince of Paul and of the Apostles.
Verse 11. He ate with the Gentiles, — without distinction, swine's flesh and other foods which Moses forbade to the Jews, Leviticus 11, by this deed teaching that this distinction and the observance of the whole law was not necessary. So Anselm.
Verse 13: And the Other Jews Consented to His Simulation
Verse 13. And the other Jews consented to his simulation, — that is to say, the other Jews dissembled along with Peter. So the Greeks.
It is asked, what and of what kind was this simulation? Jerome, Chrysostom, and Oecumenius reply that it was a dispensation, prudence, and caution, namely lest they should offend the Jews, and that they prudently veiled their immunity from the law. Better, Augustine, Anselm, and the Latins judge that it was the vice of hypocrisy, which is opposed to simplicity and truth. Hence the Greek is συνυπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ, "they acted hypocritically with them." For they feigned observance of the law, though they did not truly intend to keep it: for they knew it had been abolished, yet they intended to accommodate themselves to the other Jews. Following these Barnabas himself also feigned, that is, so bore himself as if he distinguished foods with the Jews and abhorred the conversion of the Gentiles, as if Jews were to be preferred to converted Gentiles, and as if the old law were necessary for salvation: for they so behaved that the Gentiles could rightly judge so from their deed, although they did not intend it — indeed perhaps Peter and Barnabas did not advert to it.
Verse 14: I Said to Cephas Before Them All
Verse 14. But when I had seen that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel. — For "walked uprightly," it is more significantly said in Greek ὀρθοποδοῦσι, which corresponds to the Hebrew אשר, isscher and iaschur, and signifies to walk with upright foot, to direct one's step rightly, that you neither stumble, nor deflect to the right or to the left.
I said to Cephas: If thou, being a Jew, livest as a Gentile, and not as a Jew, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as Jews? — "Livest as a Gentile," that is, hitherto you have lived with the Gentiles indifferently in common food and at table, knowing namely that the ceremonies of the law have been abolished through Christ, and are dead, though not yet death-bringing, until the Gospel be solemnly promulgated. So Anselm: as if to say, If you, O Peter, being a Jew, are accustomed to live with the Gentiles after the manner of the Gentiles, and have hitherto so lived: why do you now flee them, and live as a Jew, and by your example compel the Gentiles to judaize?
Verse 15: We by Nature Are Jews
Verse 15. We by nature (by natural generation, origin, lineage) are Jews, not sinners of the Gentiles, — not gentile sinners. For the Jews used to call the Gentiles, because they were idolaters, with arrogant contempt "sinners," as if they themselves were just, say Augustine and Anselm.
Verse 16: Man Is Not Justified by the Works of the Law
Verse 16. Man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ. — "But" [Nisi], that is, but; for the Greek ἐὰν μή corresponds to the Hebrew כי אם, that is, "true, nevertheless"; thus also the Latins use the little word nisi, as Cicero, in book XIII of the Familiar Letters: "About the matter," he says, "I can decide nothing, except (i.e. but) I am certainly persuaded that you, being such a man, have done nothing rashly." So the Syriac, and elsewhere others, Beza too and Oecumenius, and it is plain from the antithesis: for he wishes that justification be attributed not to the works of the law, but to the faith of Christ. Since therefore he signifies this antithesis by "nisi" and thereby opposes faith to works, it follows that "nisi" here is adversative, and is the same as "but." It would be otherwise if it were set down simply without antithesis. For example, when I say: "Man does not live except through the soul," here "nisi" means the same as "only": for this exceptive proposition is equivalent to these two by which it must be expounded — namely, man lives by the soul, and by no other thing does man live than by the soul. Wrongly therefore do the Innovators here expound "nisi per fidem Christi" as meaning, they say, "but only by the faith of Christ." Add: even if the Apostle wished and said this, he would still be saying nothing for their faith-alone justification; for this proposition is here admitted by St. Thomas and Adam Sasbout: "Man is not justified by works of the law, but only by the faith of Christ": for here the little word "tantum" [only] excludes only works of the law, not [those] of hope, fear, charity, penance, which faith generates and produces; for these are understood under faith as daughters under their mother, as I have said on Canon 3.
We believe in Christ Jesus. — In Greek εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, "into Christ Jesus." Note: For the Hebrews it is the same to "believe God," "believe in God," and "believe into God"; so it is the same to believe Christ, to believe in Christ, and to believe into Christ — namely, to believe that He is the Christ, that is, the Messiah, the Savior and Redeemer of the world: for in Hebrew the ב signifies contact, namely mental. Thus the Hebrews say האמין באדני, heemin badonai, "I have believed in the Lord" or "into the Lord," that is, "I have believed the Lord." Francisco Ribera demonstrates this with many examples in Jonah III, no. 29.
We believe that we may be justified. — In Greek ἐπιστεύσαμεν, "we believed that we might be justified." So Jerome, Vatablus and others. And this corresponds more aptly to the following verse, which hangs upon this, as on a condition already set down and past. Because (or, that is, because, on account of which) by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified, — that is, no man; for "not all" for the Hebrews is the same as "no one," and "flesh" synecdochically is the same as "man."
Verse 17: Is Christ Then the Minister of Sin?
Verse 17. But if, while we seek to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ then the minister of sin? — That is to say, If we are still in sin, because we sought the remission of sin and justification in Christ's faith, when it is not to be sought there but in the law, as the Judaizers wish — then Christ fosters sin; for He removed the law which alone takes away sin. "Is Christ then a minister of sin?" — that is, Does Christ serve sin by fostering and preserving it, by the very fact that He removes the law necessary for justification and the blotting out of sin (as they themselves say), and establishes His own law of grace as though it alone justifies, when (as they say) without the law it cannot justify? — as if to say: by no means. So Jerome, Chrysostom, Primasius, Anselm, Theophylact.
Secondly, Vatablus says: to be found a sinner is to teach that, together with the Gospel law, the observance of the Mosaic law is necessary for justification: for to teach this is a sin and an error in faith — as if to say, If at any time (as the Judaizers slander us, falsely and calumniously) we have so taught falsely, is Christ on that account the minister of sin? Is the law and Gospel doctrine of Christ the handmaid of sin? — namely, that He teaches the same thing, viz. that the law of Moses is necessary for righteousness; for to teach this is sin.
Thirdly, others [explain], as if to say: But if we too, who boast that we have been justified through Christ, are found sinners — because, namely, we indulge our desires no less than the Jews or Gentiles alien from Christ — must we therefore say that this doctrine of justification by the faith of Christ is false? as if Christ, unless conjoined with the law, would render us sinners, and not just. Far from it; for that some who follow Christ's faith indulge the flesh and sin, this is not the fault of Christ, nor of the faith, but of those who abuse the grace of Christ.
The first sense, which is that of the Fathers, is more pressing and better, because it supplies nothing from elsewhere, as the second does (supplying that "they are called sinners" because they teach that the law is to be kept along with the Gospel) and the third (because they indulge their desires). Furthermore, because it is more in accord with the mind and aim of the Apostle: for he wishes to prove that we are justified by the faith of Christ, not by the law of Moses; otherwise, if while pursuing Christ's faith we are still found sinners, it follows that Christ has deceived us, promising a justification from faith which He could not deliver; and He will be not the conqueror or destroyer of sin but its supporter and minister, especially because (as they say) the law that justifies and conquers sin He has abolished, and consequently has restored and established the reign of sin.
Note the Hebraism. For the Hebrews express a consequence by interrogation, especially when they infer something absurd. "Is Christ then the minister of sin?" — that is, as the Syriac and others have it, "therefore Christ is the minister of sin," which is absurd. Hence, explaining this, he adds: "God forbid." So "numquid" is taken for "therefore" in Romans 3:5; John 8:53; Jeremiah 18:20. Add: ἆρα, if marked not with the circumflex but with the acute accent, means "certainly, therefore, accordingly," as is clear here in the last verse; for with the circumflex it means "is it not?" or "surely not," as Our author and the Greeks read and translate it here.
Verse 18: For If I Build Up Again the Things Which I Have Destroyed
Verse 18. For if I build up again the things which I have destroyed (if the power of justifying which I have taken from the observance of the law) I again build up (that is, I again attribute it to the law, so that the Jews calumniate me as secretly judaizing, therefore) I make myself a transgressor, — because like a Proteus I change my faith to every wind. This is another argument proving that Christians must persevere in the abolition of the law; or rather it meets a tacit objection and mental calumny. He says: You will say or think what the Jews — but falsely — impress upon you, that I judaize secretly among the Jews; but far be this hypocrisy from me. For if those things which I publicly destroy I rebuild privately or among my own, surely I am a transgressor, because a hypocrite and impostor: which no one would say.
Verse 19: For I, Through the Law, Am Dead to the Law
Verse 19. For I, through the law (showing forth Christ, ending and dying in Him) have died to the law, — that is, I have ceased to be subject to the law: to the ceremonial absolutely and entirely, but to the moral and the Decalogue not absolutely, but insofar as that law has ceased to be merely a pedagogue, accuser and avenger of crimes. Therefore through the law I died to the law, because the law itself dictated that one must die to the law, but live to Christ. So Augustine. See Chrysostom. This is the second reason (for the first was at verse 16) proving that we are justified not by the law but by the faith of Christ, that is to say: The law itself indicated and showed Christ to me, it itself sent me to Christ, indeed led me, and itself bore witness and professed that it ends, dies, and is fulfilled in Christ. Why then, O Jews, do you wish, against its will, to revive and restore the law that is willingly dead and yielding to Christ? Yet from this it in no way follows that the law of the Decalogue has ceased as to its obligation through Christ, and has been abrogated. For that law in this part is not old, not Mosaic, but natural, eternal, and immutable. See what was said on Romans 7:1.
Wherefore Luther speaks impiously on this passage, and again in chapter IV of this epistle: "To die to the law," he says, "is nothing other than not to be bound to the law, and to be free from it, whether it be ceremonial or moral; for it is certain that the Decalogue was given to the Jews alone, and not to us." Likewise in his book On Christian Liberty: "For the Christian," he says, "neither works nor law are necessary, because through faith he is free from every law." Again, vol. I of the Wittenberg edition, fol. 189 and 190: "It is needful," he says, "that the human heart hate beyond measure the law of God, and indeed God Himself." Hear these things, you who have been miserably deceived by him and his followers, and shudder at this voice — not of a man, but of Satan: for what could Satan, the sworn enemy of God and men, say about God more blasphemous and horrible, or suggest to men for their ruin?
Not unlike is Calvin, whose dialogism is this, in Institutes book III, ch. xix, §§ 2, 4, 7: "When conscience says, You have sinned, answer: Indeed I have sinned: therefore will God punish and condemn? No; but the law says this? But I have nothing to do with the law. Why? Because I have liberty."
Is this the pure and unalloyed Gospel? Did Paul think or teach this? "Do we then destroy the law through faith?" he says, Romans 3:31. "God forbid: but we establish the law." Hear St. Augustine, book III Against the Epistle of the Pelagians, ch. iv: "Who," he says, "is so impious as to say that on this account he does not observe the commandments, because being a Christian he is not under the law but under grace?" Who would believe that Luther and Calvin were teachers and reformers of the Church sent by God, who shake off, enervate, and abolish every yoke, every law — not only human, but also divine and natural?
Verses 19 and 20. With Christ I am nailed to the cross: and I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me. — That is to say, I, having been crucified with Christ through baptism, and being dead, as I have said, to sin and the old life, to the ceremonies and the law, am thus as it were cut off from the old tree, in order to be grafted as a new branch onto the new tree of Christ's cross, and from it to draw life and the sap of grace, so that it is not so much I that live as Christ that lives in me: for not the law, not nature, not concupiscence, not my own will, but Christ Himself, by the motions of His grace as of the soul, and of the virtues as of its faculties, drives me to every good, and to vital actions of the virtues, that the humility, fortitude, wisdom, joy, peace, and other virtues of Christ may live and flourish in me. So Jerome, Chrysostom, Anselm, and St. Gregory, Homily 32 on the Gospels, whom hear: "Then," he says, "we leave ourselves, then we deny ourselves, when we change what we were through the old, and strain toward that to which we are called through the new. Let us consider how Paul had denied himself, who said: 'Now I live, no longer I.' For that fierce persecutor had been extinguished, and the pious preacher had begun to live. For if he were himself, he would surely not be pious. But let him who denies that he lives say whence it is that he proclaims holy words through the doctrine of truth. He immediately adds: 'But Christ liveth in me.' As if he openly said: 'I indeed am extinguished from myself, because I do not live carnally; but I am not essentially dead, because I live spiritually in Christ.'"
"Behold," says St. Chrysostom, "the exact rule of life, and admire. For since he had wholly given himself to Christ and to the cross, and did all things according to His will, he did not say: I live for Christ; but, what is far greater, Christ liveth in me." "He does not live," says St. Jerome, "who once lived in the law, since he persecuted the Church. But Christ lives in him as wisdom, fortitude, peace, joy, and the other virtues; and whoever has not these, cannot say: Christ liveth in me."
Hence St. Bernard, sermon 7 in Lent: "I live," he says, "now not I, but Christ liveth in me. As if he said: To all other things indeed I am dead — I do not feel, I do not attend, I do not care; but if there be aught of Christ's, these find me alive and ready. For if I can do nothing else, at least I feel: that pleases me which I see done unto His honor; those things displease me which are done otherwise. Indeed I live, not so much I, as Christ in me."
Therefore Christ in me teaches, preaches, prays, labors, suffers, and works all my works in me: so that Paul is not so much Paul as Christ, and Paul is seen to be transformed into Christ, and conversely Christ into Paul. "For each of us is such as his love is: if you love earth, you will be earth; if you love God, you will be God," says St. Augustine, tract. 2 on the First Epistle of John. For love transforms the lover into the thing loved, as St. Dionysius says. Hence also Hosea 9:10: "They became," he says, "abominable like the things which they loved."
It is a metaphor or allegory: the old law is as it were an old tree, the new law and the cross as a new tree; from the former we have been cut off, and grafted into the latter, that we may draw from it a new life of grace. So at Romans 6 he said that we have been planted together, buried together, crucified together, dead together, and rising together with Christ, as I have said there. Hence you may translate more clearly word-for-word from the Greek, Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι, "I have been co-crucified with Christ," as it were grafted and planted together upon the tree of Christ's cross, that I may draw the common sap and life of the tree, namely grace and charity. Hence St. Ignatius, in his epistle to the Romans: ἔρως ἐμὸς ἐσταύρωται, "My love," he says, "has been crucified" — Christ namely, who is my love, my life, my soul; so namely that with Christ together as it were my love, my soul, and I myself wholly am crucified.
Note here the properties of love and charity. The first is that which St. Dionysius hands down, On the Divine Names, ch. iv: "Love," he says, "is a virtue effecting union." This the Apostle signifies here when he says: "I am nailed with Christ to the cross," that is to say, I am united and as one with the crucified Christ.
The second property of love is the mutual inherence by which God and man mutually love and love in return, and reciprocally will and procure good things for each other, so as to say with the spouse in the Canticle: "My beloved to me, and I to Him." This Paul signifies here, when he says that he lives in Christ, and Christ in him.
The third property of charity is to think assiduously and to have Christ and God before the eyes of the mind: for love is the bond of souls; and it cannot bind souls together, if it does not join their thoughts. This Paul signifies by the words "I live" and "He lives" — surely with the rational life of memory, intellect, and will.
The fourth is ecstasy: "Ecstasy," says Dionysius in the cited passage, "is wrought by divine love; it removes lovers from their own state, and does not allow them to be of their own right, but transfers them wholly into those things which they love. Therefore Paul, that great one, when he was inflamed with divine love and was made an excessive partaker of that virtue, said: I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me — as a true lover, suffering an ecstasy of mind. We shall venture also to say this, that the very Author of all things is, by the greatness of His amative goodness, beside Himself, in reaching out to all things by the manifold reason of His providence." For ecstatic love seized God — both that He might communicate Himself and His goods to creatures by creation, and rather that He might communicate the hypostasis of His Word to the human creature which He assumed by Incarnation: "For He emptied Himself for us, taking the form of a servant, made into the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man." Ecstasy therefore transformed the Word into man, and made Him crucified, and having the appearance of a sinner, because we were sinners and subject to death and the cross; for our form, sin excepted, in all things pertaining to man Christ assumed out of His vast and ecstatic love for us.
This ecstasy of love transmuted Paul's heart by dilating it into the heart of Christ, and as it were transformed Paul into Christ: just as we read of Catherine of Siena, that out of the vehemence of her love for Christ she begged of Him that, her own heart being taken away, He would communicate His heart to her — and that Christ assented to her, removed her heart, and put in her a new Christiform one. This is what St. Chrysostom says, Homily 23 on the Epistle to the Romans, in the moral section, where citing these words of Paul, "I live now not I, but Christ liveth in me," he adds: "And so the heart of Christ was the heart of Paul, the tablet of the Holy Spirit, and the volume of charity." Hence the same a little higher calls Paul's heart "the heart of the world," and gives the reason: "For that heart was so wide that it received within itself even whole cities and peoples and nations. For my heart," he says, "has been dilated. Yet though it was wide, those things that love itself was dilating, often occupied and pressed it. 'Out of much tribulation,' he says, 'and anguish of heart I wrote to you.' And I would even wish to see that heart dissolved, kindled and on fire toward each one of those perishing, suffering a second time the abortion of his children — a heart that sees God, more sublime than the heavens themselves, broader than the world, more cheerful than the sun's rays, more fervent than fire, more solid than adamant, sending forth rivers of living water, where there was a leaping fountain, and watering not the surface of the earth, but the souls of men."
This ecstasy of Christ the Saints, snatched into the love of Christ, deeply experienced. St. Dominic, while elevating the body of Christ at Mass, was lifted on high, and his body, borne up by the fire with which it inwardly burned, as if turned into fire, leaving the earth was carried into heaven, that he might be joined and immersed in Christ his love. St. Francis received from that Seraph that had appeared to him by night a marvelous ardor in his mind, as St. Bonaventure says, and admitted into his flesh a no less marvelous likeness, so that he was now believed to be not so much an earthly man as a heavenly Seraphic one and an image of the Crucified, when, as if wholly transformed into Christ, he brought down from the mountain the five wounds of the Savior and the five burnings of the fire of Christ's charity, becoming a marvel and portent to the whole world.
Hear also Gregory of Nyssa, Homily 15 on the Canticle: "'Christ is my life': With these words," he says, "the Apostle all but cries out that no human affection lives in him — not pride, not swelling, not pleasure, not pain, not anger, not fear, not boldness, not memory of injuries, not envy, no desire of revenge, of avarice, of honor or of glory; but, all these things being scraped away, He alone (he says) remains to me, who is none of these, who is sanctification itself, and purity, and immortality, and light, and truth, who feeds among the lilies in the splendors of the Saints."
Thus St. Andrew the Apostle gloried in the cross of Christ, and longed for it. For when, condemned by Aegeas the Proconsul of Achaia, he was approaching the cross prepared for him, he cried out and said: "O good cross, long desired, anxiously loved, without intermission sought, and at last prepared for my longing soul, secure and rejoicing I come to you: and may you, exulting, receive me, the disciple of Him who hung upon you, my Master; that through you He may receive me, who through you redeemed me." Having so saluted the cross and made his prayer, he stripped himself of his garments and handed them to the executioners, who, approaching, lifted him upon the cross and, stretching his whole body with cords (as on a rack), suspended him. Suspended on this cross, teaching the people, he survived for two days; and having asked the Lord that he should not be allowed to be taken down from the cross, encircled with a great splendor from heaven, the light afterwards departing, he gave up his spirit. So have his most trustworthy Acts.
Thus St. Peter, condemned to the cross by Nero, asked and obtained that he should not be hung head upward like Christ, but with his body inverted, head downward. At Hierapolis, a city of Asia, in the reign of Claudius, St. Philip the Apostle preached the faith to the Scythians, and after many had been baptized, was at last crucified by infidels and crushed with stones, attaining a happy martyrdom. So Eusebius, and from him Baronius, in the year of Christ 54.
In Greater Armenia under King Astyages, St. Bartholomew the Apostle, having sown the word of God throughout Lycaonia, having dedicated the temple of Astaroth in lower India to the true God, and having baptized King Polemius together with the whole royal city, was apprehended a few days afterward, first beaten with cudgels, then nailed to a cross, his skin flayed from his living body, and on the twenty-fourth day following, his head being cut off, he was put to death.
At Rome, under the Emperors Decius and Valerian, St. Sixtus the Pope was cast into the Tullian prison, and then nailed to a cross, as Prudentius testifies, in περὶ στεφάνων (On the Crowns), Hymn 2 on St. Lawrence, where he speaks thus: "The priest had foretold this would be: now Sixtus, fastened to the cross, seeing Lawrence weeping at the foot of the very cross, [said:] Cease to pour out grievous weeping at my departure. I go before, brother; you too will follow after this in three days' time."
At Paris under the Emperor Hadrian, St. Dionysius the Areopagite, first beaten with scourges, then exposed to fire and beasts and not harmed, was soon raised upon a cross, from which, taken down and beaten again, he carried his own severed head with his own hands for two thousand paces. So Baronius in the Martyrology, October 9.
St. Calliopius, a pious youth, when invited to a banquet prepared for the celebration of the gods, replied: "I am a Christian, and I celebrate Christ with fasts; nor is it lawful for what has been offered to wicked and impure idols to enter into the mouth of those who worship Christ." When the Prefect heard this, he ordered him to be terribly beaten, and at last, after many blows and rebukes, said: "Now at least depart from your madness, and obeying the decrees of the Emperors, sacrifice to the gods, that you may live: otherwise, like your master, you shall be hung on a cross." "I marvel," said Calliopius, "at your impudence — you who, when you have often heard from me that I am a Christian, and that as a Christian I shall die, and shall live in Christ, so impudently continue to attack the truth. I hasten to undergo the same death which my master endured."
When he had said these things, the Prefect, perceiving from the Martyr's answers that he could not be drawn from his purpose, passed sentence that on the fifth day of the Paschal week he should be put on a cross. His mother, learning this, gave the executioners five coins, that they should fix him to the cross in the contrary manner to that in which Christ the Lord was crucified. On the fifth day of the week therefore he was crucified head-downward, and on the day of Preparation gave up his soul. And a voice was heard from heaven, sounding thus: "Come, citizen of Christ, and co-heir of the holy angels." So has his Life in Surius, April 7.
Truly marvelous was the love of the cross of the boy St. Wernher, and his martyrdom in it: for he, having confessed and received holy communion, was secretly seized by the Jews; on the day of Preparation, in imitation of Christ, in hatred of Him, he was suspended by them on a wooden column, sharply scourged, his veins cut through the whole body with a knife with barbarous savagery, and also lacerated with shears in feet, hands, neck and head with the utmost torment, that they might press out all his blood, so that he was seen all worn out with wounds. And the holy boy remained thus suspended on the column for three days, until the blood ceased to flow. Enduring these torments with the greatest patience, in the praises of God he rendered up his spirit to the crucified Christ. So has his Life in Surius, April 2. Similar things about boys customarily crucified by the Jews are written by Socrates, in book VII of his History, ch. xvi.
Ado in his Martyrology, May 22, and from him Baronius, in the year of Christ 440, relates a similar thing of Julia, a holy handmaid: she was captured by the prince Felix, and when Felix could not by blandishments persuade her to sacrifice to idols, he ordered her to be struck on the cheeks, then twisted by the hair, scourged, and at length crucified, and thus on the cross she breathed forth her holy spirit, from whose mouth a dove went out and flew into heaven. "Who shall find a valiant woman? far and from the uttermost coasts is her price."
Recently in Japan, by the king Taicosama, six Franciscan friars, three from our [Jesuit] Society, seventeen Japanese laymen — among whom was Aloysius, a boy of twelve years, and Anthony, of thirteen years — each fixed to his own cross, pierced through the right side with a sword's point, joyful and exulting, completed the contest of martyrdom.
Verse 20: Who Loved Me, and Delivered Himself Up for Me
Verse 20. Who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me. — Note "Himself" and "me," not "us" or "for us"; for he speaks thus, first, out of the vehemence and delights of love. Secondly, because beyond all others he judged himself liable to sins and guilty of Christ's death. Thirdly, as Chrysostom says, because each one ought to give thanks to Christ for His passion and death, as if He had suffered for him alone, since He profited each one as much as all, and Christ would have had to die equally for the redeeming of one alone. "Blessed and most happy," says Jerome, "is he who, with Christ living in him, through each thought and work can say: In the faith I live of the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself for me." Christ has given Himself wholly to you; give yourself wholly — nay, give yourself back wholly to Christ.
Verse 21: I Do Not Cast Away the Grace of Christ
Verse 21. I do not cast away the grace of Christ. — οὐκ ἀθετῶ, "I do not reject, I do not repel, I do not spurn"; Ambrose, "I am not ungrateful to the grace of God"; Augustine, "I do not make the grace of God void," as do those who wish to establish a law and a justification from the law, says Jerome — and as do also those, he says, who after baptism are defiled by sins. But this is moral; the prior is literal and according to the mind of the Apostle.
For if justification be by the law, then Christ died in vain. — Because Christ died to procure for us righteousness by the price of His death: but He gave this price in vain, He spent it in vain, if from the law we could have the same righteousness. This is the third argument from the impossible, that is to say: No one is so witless as to say that Christ suffered so many and so great things and died in vain; but He suffered all these things and died for the procuring of righteousness for us: therefore this righteousness comes to us not from Moses, but from Christ; not from the law, but from faith.