Observe what he alleges as a proof of his statement:^[1] Christians at first were few in number and held the same opinions, but when they grew to be a great multitude, they were divided and separated, each wishing to have his own individual party. This was their object from the beginning. That Christians at first were few in number, in comparison with the multitudes who subsequently became Christian, is no doubt true. . . .

He also says that all the Christians were of one mind, not noticing, even in this particular, that from the beginning there were differences of opinion among believers regarding the meaning of the books held to be divine. At all events, while the apostles were still preaching and eyewitnesses of Jesus were still teaching his doctrine, there was no small discussion among the converts from Judaism regarding Gentile believers and whether they ought to observe Jewish customs or reject the burden of clean and unclean meats as not being obligatory on those who had abandoned their ancestral Gentile customs and had become believers in Jesus.

How can he say in his letter to the Galatians, I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me, nor did I move?^[1] We suggest this: in the first place because he had not gone up spontaneously but had been sent by others; and in the second place because he did not come in order to learn something^[2] but to persuade others. Indeed, from the beginning he held that opinion that the apostles approved later, namely, that it was not necessary to circumcise. Until that day, however, it had seemed to them that [Paul] was not worthy of faith, but they rather listened more to those who lived in Jerusalem. So [Paul] went up, not in order to gain what he had been ignorant of before but in order to persuade his opponents because those who were in Jerusalem agreed with them. He had recognized from the start what had to be done and needed no teacher. And he had a clear and sure idea, beyond any discussion, of what the apostles would have decreed after a long discussion. Since it had seemed opportune to the brothers that he might learn something about them, he went up not for himself but for them. Even though he says, I did not go up, we can explain that. He did not go up at the beginning of his preaching or in order to learn. And he means both these things when he says, I did not go immediately in flesh and blood. He did not simply say, I did not go but I did not go immediately.

It is to be noted that the early believers, with much searching and great eagerness, discussed dogmas, and that they benefited to such an extent through their discussions and that the Antiochians did not hesitate to send [someone] to Jerusalem to inquire about the controversy. And yet their inquiry was not, in the first place, about the Godhead, or the providential incarnation of the Son, or the Holy Spirit, or angels, or powers, or heaven, or anything like this, but about circumcision, about the least part of a man’s genitals. They were aware of the fact that the words a single iota and a single point of the law^[1] were full of a great spiritual meaning. The Antiochian disciples were afraid to take authority, but they took so much thought even for questions that seemed to be trifling, seeing that those from Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas to consult those in Jerusalem, while the disciples from Jerusalem sent Judah and Silas back to Antioch with their letters.

See how Peter was, from the beginning, removed from the debate and how he was following the ways of the Jews even still.^[1] You know, he says. Perhaps some of those who had once accused him with regard to Cornelius were present and had entered with him, so that he brings them as witnesses. From the ancient days God chose among you. What does among you mean? It means either in Palestine or the you is those who were present. Through my mouth. See how [Peter] shows that God spoke through him and there was nothing human. And God, who knows human hearts, testified to them—he refers them to the testimony of the Spirit—by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us.

Then he shows that it was not simply because of grace but on account of their virtue that the testimony was given to them and that what was offered to them was in no way less [than what was offered to us]. For he made no distinction, he says, between us and them. It is the heart then that one must always look to, and it is very aptly said, God who knows the heart bore witness to them; and likewise in an earlier instance, Thou, Lord, that knows the hearts of all people.^[1] Notice what he adds to show that this is the meaning, he made no distinction between us and them. When he mentioned the testimony borne to them, he uttered that great word, which Paul speaks, Neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision.^[2] That he may make the two one in himself.^[3]

And God who knows the heart bore witness to them. He refers them to the spiritual testimony, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us. Everywhere he places the Gentiles on an equal footing. And he made no distinction between us and them but cleansed their hearts by faith. From faith alone, he says, they obtained the same gifts. This is also meant as a lesson to those [objectors]; this is able to teach even them that faith alone is necessary, and not works or circumcision. For indeed they do not say all this only as an apology for the Gentiles, but also to teach [the Jewish believers] to abandon the law. For the moment, however, this is not said. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will. What does make trial of God mean? As if he were not strong enough, he means, to save by faith, that is, why do you disbelieve God? Thus it is from a want of faith that the law is brought in. . . . But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will. How powerful are these words! Likewise Paul says in the epistle to the Romans, For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to glory in, but not before God.^[1] Do you see that all this is more a lesson for them than an apology for the Gentiles?

Faith in God purifies the heart, the pure heart sees God. But faith is sometimes defined as followed by people who wish to deceive themselves; as if it were enough merely to believe—some people, you see, promise themselves the vision of God and the kingdom of heaven for believing while living bad lives. Against these the apostle James indignantly took umbrage out of spiritual charity, so he says in his letter, You believe that God is one. You pat yourself on your back for your faith; you observe that many godless people assume there are many gods, and you congratulate yourself for believing that there is only one God. You do well. The demons also believe—and shudder.^[1] Shall they too see God? Those who are pure of heart shall see him. Whoever would say that the unclean spirits are pure of heart? And yet, they believe—and shudder.

So our faith must be distinguished from the faith of demons. Our faith, you see, purifies the heart, their faith makes them guilty. . . . So let us distinguish our faith and see that believing is not enough. That is not the sort of faith that purifies the heart. Purifying their hearts, it says, by faith. But which faith, what sort of faith? The one, surely, which the apostle Paul defines when he says faith that works through love.^[2] This faith is different from the faith of demons, different from the morals of dissolute and desperate people. Faith, he says. Which faith? The one that works through love, hopes for what God promises. You could not have a more perfect, a more carefully thought-out definition than that.

Therefore there is no need of circumcision of the flesh to cleanse those whose hearts were purified by so much faith that even before baptism they deserved to receive the Holy Spirit.

Notice how he concludes with something frightening. He does not discourse to them from the prophets but from things present, of which they themselves were witnesses. Of course the prophets also add their testimony and make the reason stronger by what has now come to pass. And notice how [Peter] first allows the question to be debated in the church and then speaks. And he did not say those of the circumcision but the Gentiles. For this [gradual advance] little by little is stronger. For this is the action of one trying to see if he is able to save even after the law. Look what he does. He shows that they are in danger. For what the law could not do faith had power to do, but if faith falls off, see how they themselves are in perdition. And he did not say, Why do you disbelieve? which is more harsh, even when the fact had been demonstrated.

Why did he say this, unless they were saved through the grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ, not through the law of Moses? Through the law there came not healing but the knowledge of sin, as the apostle teaches when he says, For knowledge of sin came through the law. But now the righteousness of God has been revealed apart from the law, though the law and the prophets have borne witness to it.^[1] Therefore, if it has been revealed, it existed at that time but was hidden. The veil of the temple signified its being hidden, and that veil was torn at Christ’s death to signify its revelation.^[2] At that time the grace of the one mediator between God and human beings, the man Christ Jesus, existed in the people of God, but it was hidden as rain upon fleece—a rain that God bestows on his heritage,^[3] not as something due but as gratuitous. But now, with the fleece squeezed dry, that is, with the Jewish people rejected, it lies revealed in all the nations as upon the threshing floor.^[4]

You, who are enemies of this grace, reject the idea that we should believe that the people of old were saved by the same grace of Jesus Christ. Rather, you distinguish the different times in the manner of Pelagius in whose books this is found. You say that prior to the law they were saved by nature, then through the law and finally through Christ, as if for the human beings of the two earlier periods, namely, prior to the law and under the law, the blood of Christ was not necessary. In that way, you destroy the statement, For there is one God and one mediator between God and humankind, the man Christ Jesus.^[1]

If therefore they also, that is, the fathers who were unable to bear the yoke of the old law, believed that they were saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, it is clear that this grace made even the just people of old to live, for ‘The just person lives by faith.’^[1] Therefore, on account of the diversity of the times the sacramental signs could be diverse, though nevertheless reverting most harmoniously to the unity of the same faith.

There was no arrogance in the church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and no one silences him. James waits patiently and does not jump up. Great is the orderliness [of the proceedings]. No word from John here, and nothing from the other apostles. They hold their peace. For James was invested with the chief rule, and they did not begrudge him, so free was their soul from love of glory.

This James was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last. Here is fulfilled that saying, In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.^[1] But notice his wisdom, how he bases his argument on the prophets of old. For he had no acts of his own to declare, as had Peter and Paul. And indeed it is wisely ordered that this part is assigned to those two, who are not intended to stay in Jerusalem, but James, who is to teach them, is not responsible and so is not separated from them in opinion. . . . Brothers, he says, listen to me. Great is his moderation, and more complete is this speech, as indeed it puts an end to the matter under discussion.

To take out of the Gentiles, he says, a people for his name—not simply he chose but for his name. That is, for his glory. His name is not shamed by taking the Gentiles; indeed, all the greater is his glory. Here something truly great is hinted at, that these are chosen before all.

The tabernacle of David means the race of the Jews. It must be known that after Cyrus had freed Israel from captivity, they returned to Judea and built the temple of God. Then, after they had again fortified the cities that had been destroyed before, they lived in security day by day for a long time, that is, for many days and long periods. They became an example and an assurance for all the other nations that it was necessary thereafter to turn to God. . . . This is an explanation of the history of these things, but a more hidden and truer interpretation would be in Christ. Indeed after he came back to life from the dead in his tabernacle that had fallen into death, that is, after God had raised his earthly flesh, then at that very moment he brought all human things back to their original ordering and all our things that had been overthrown have been brought to a new dignity. For if, as Scripture states,^[1] anyone in Christ is a new creation, we have then been raised together with him. So whereas death demolished the tabernacles of all, God the Father rebuilt them in Christ.

The tabernacle of David signifies a trace of the law, which was corrupted and torn to pieces by the betrayals of the Pharisees. However, with the Lord’s return, that is, his appearance in the flesh, it was built up by God with spiritual grace, so that not only the Jews but also all the Gentile nations would seek after his name.

The objectors did not say that the Gentiles must not be received upon believing but that it must be done in accordance with the law. On this subject Peter spoke forcefully. But when this aroused his listeners above all else, on this point too he soothed them. And notice how Peter brought forward what had to be enacted as a rule, that it is not necessary to keep the law. But what was ours and had been received of old, this is what James says, and he dwells on that concerning which nothing is written, so that he might sooth their minds by what is acknowledged and, at an opportune time, introduce this as well. Therefore my judgment, he says, is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, that is, not upset them. For, if God called them, and these observances upset them, we are fighting against God.

Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the sons of Israel, and tell them: If anyone who is from among the sons of Israel or from among foreigners, who happens to be among you, eats any blood, I shall place my spirit over the spirit which shall have eaten the blood, and I shall abolish it from among the people, since the spirit of every flesh is its blood. To you I have also given the blood so that by it upon the altar there might be propitiations for your spirits, since the blood will make expiation for the spirit. Therefore, I have said to the sons of Israel: Every spirit among you shall not eat blood, and any foreigner among you shall not eat blood.^[1] You see, therefore, that this law regarding blood, given equally to both the sons of Israel and to foreigners, is even observed by us from among the Gentiles who believe in God through Jesus Christ. Scripture tends to call proselytes foreigners, as when it says, The foreigner who is among you will rise up above you, while you descend below. He shall be your head, and you shall be his tail.^[2] Therefore, even the church of the Gentiles took in common with the people of Israel the law regarding blood, for that blessed council of the apostles, understanding that these things had been so written in the law, then ordered and decreed in writing the teachings for the Gentiles that they abstain not only from what had been sacrificed to idols and from fornication, but also from blood and from what had been suffocated. Now perhaps you will ask, If Scripture was so clear with regard to blood, should it not also teach clearly about what has been suffocated, whether a law was given as common to the people of Israel and to foreigners, since the teachings of the apostles decree that Gentiles also observe this law? Listen how observantly even this is guarded against in the laws of God: If a man, any man, it says, from the sons of Israel and from the foreigners among you, hunts a beast or a bird, let him pour out its blood and cover it with earth, for the spirit of every flesh is its blood.^[3]

These concessions were made to those who came from a Gentile life, in view of their rudimentary faith and the long-standing custom of the Gentile world. However, lest these same things be thought to be sufficient even for the more perfect, James watchfully added: [But we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.]

Although they are not now weighed down by us with the full rigor of the precepts, nevertheless, as time goes on, in coming together very often for the reading of the law and the prophets, little by little they will receive the principles of life and the rules requiring the keeping of mutual love. For it is very certain that the primitive church, still practicing Jewish ways, continued to use these [readings] in their sabbath celebrations.

Moses discourses to them. Look how great is the condescension [to their weakness]! Where it did no harm, he set him up as teacher and indulged them with a gratification that hindered nothing, permitting Jews to listen to him in regard to these matters while leading away the Gentiles. Look at his wisdom! He seemed to honor him and to set him up as the authority for his own people, but at the same time he led the Gentiles away from him. Why shouldn’t they learn from him? Because of the strangeness of these things. He shows that even the Jews need observe no more [than these necessary things]. And if we do not write to them, it is not because they are bound to observe anything more but because they have one to tell them. And he does not say, do not offend them or do not turn them back, which is what Paul said to the Galatians, but do not trouble them. He shows that success in this case would bring nothing but nuisance. Thus he made an end of the whole matter. And while he seems to preserve the law by adopting these rules from it, he unbinds it by taking these alone.