especially that which the apostle says is in secret; so that it is better to be justified out of faith than through faith, just as "from a man," insofar as it is from a man, is understood to be better "through a woman," insofar as it is through a woman. But concerning the Savior it is not said "through a woman" but "from a woman," because this holds true for every man, since before being through a woman he has come from a man, but in the case of the Savior, not having come from a man, it is not the case that he has come through a woman; wherefore there, since what is born of the flesh is flesh, his flesh, not having come from a man, came from a woman and not through a woman. [Rom. 3, 31] we ask why he did not say "Out of faith" but "Through faith." What is justified out of faith is the circumcision, and we do not doubt whether the law is not nullified out of faith, since the circumcision is justified out of faith; but with the uncircumcision being justified through faith, then through faith is the law nullified? But now we have taken the law of Moses as not being nullified through faith; for faith also establishes the law as being from God; but it is clear that we are speaking about correct faith *** Therefore, every saint and one who believes soundly establishes the law, and especially the spiritual law, and in no way nullifies it *** But if someone should oppose from the second epistle to the Corinthians the passage, "But if the ministry of death, engraved in letters on stones, came in glory, so that the sons of Israel could not gaze at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, which was being brought to an end," we shall say that "Is the law then nullified?" is not the same as "Do we then nullify the law?" For Paul himself does not effect the nullification of the law; for if the law is indeed nullified, it is nullified by the surpassing glory and, as I might say, not by Paul nor by any other of the holy men, but by him who says he is lord of the sabbath. And what has been glorified has not been glorified in this respect, in comparison with the surpassing glory. At any rate, he called that of Christ "remaining"; and that which does not remain "being nullified," since the law is a pedagogue until the fullness of time should come; and just as I would say that the work of the pedagogue is necessary as long as the one being tutored is an infant, but that the work of the pedagogue is nullified by the perfection of the one being tutored, so I would say that the work of the law is nullified when the fullness of time comes, when also the son who once differed in no way from a slave receives his paternal inheritance *** For just as the knowledge in Paul and in Peter is nullified, not being reviled in its being nullified, but when the perfect comes, so Paul does not nullify the law, but establishes it; but if the surpassing glory of Christ should be revealed, then that which before it [..] appears and is said to be glorified <is nullified> by the surpassing glory *** Of such things is also that "He must increase, but I must decrease," so that the things of infancy and the pedagogue taken on because of it are nullified by perfection and not by the one being tutored himself. For he says: "Do we then nullify the law through faith? May it never be." He did not say: "Is the law then nullified?" but "Do we then nullify the law?" And similar is also "But we establish the law." Tome VI [Rom. 4, 1-8] "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?" having said before that there are two laws, one of which he named the law of works, and the other the law of faith, and having said that boasting is excluded not through the law of works but through the law of faith and having added to these that a man can then be justified by faith apart from works of the law *** and secondly, showing concerning Abraham that he was justified more out of faith than out of works *** he says that he no less performed works correctly, as one who loves to follow faith worthy of justification *** and throughout this whole passage he seems to suggest two justifications, one he named from works, and the remaining from faith ... from the law

μάλιστα ἥν φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος τὴν ἐν κρυπτῷ· ὥστε βέλτιον ἐκ πίστεως δικαιωθῆναι ἢ διὰ πίστεως, ὡς βέλτιον νοεῖται τὸ «ἐξ ἀνδρὸς» καθὸ ἐξ ἀνδρός <ἢ> τὸ «διὰ γυναικός» καθὸ διὰ γυναικός. Περὶ δὲ τοῦ Σωτῆρος οὐκ εἴρηται «διὰ γυναικὸς» ἀλλ' «ἐκ γυναικός», ὅτι ἐπὶ παντὸς μὲν ἀνθρώπου χώραν ἔχει τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ πρὸ τοῦ διὰ γυναικὸς 174 γέγονεν ἐξ ἀνδρός, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ Σωτῆρος μὴ γενομένου ἐξ ἀνδρὸς οὐκ ἔχει τὸ γεγονέναι αὐτὸν διὰ γυναικός· διόπερ ἐκεῖ, ἐπεὶ τὸ γεγενημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστιν, ἡ σὰρξ αὐτοῦ, μὴ γενομένη ἐξ ἀνδρός, γέγονεν ἐκ γυναικὸς καὶ οὐ διὰ γυναικός. [Rom. 3, 31] ζητοῦμεν διὰ τί μὴ εἶπεν «Ἐκ πίστεως» ἀλλὰ «∆ιὰ τῆς πίστεως». Τὸ ἐκ πίστεως δικαιούμενον ἡ περιτομή ἐστιν, καὶ οὐκ ἀμφιβάλλομεν εἰ μὴ καταργεῖται ἐκ πίστεως νόμος, δικαιουμένης ἐκ τῆς πίστεως τῆς περιτομῆς· τῆς δὲ ἀκρο βυστίας διὰ τῆς πίστεως δικαιουμένης, <ἆρα διὰ τῆς πίστεως> καταργεῖται ὁ νόμος; Ἀλλὰ νῦν νόμον ἐλάβομεν τὸν Μωσέως διὰ τῆς πίστεως οὐ καταργούμενον· ἡ γὰρ πίστις ἵστησι καὶ τὸν νόμον ὡς ἐκ Θεοῦ ὄντα· πρόδηλον δὲ ὡς περὶ τῆς ὀρθῆς πίστεως φαμέν *** Ἵστησιν οὖν πᾶς ὁ ἅγιος καὶ ὑγιῶς πιστεύων τὸν νόμον καὶ μάλιστα τὸν πνευματικὸν καὶ οὐδαμῶς αὐτὸν καταργεῖ *** Εἰ δέ τις ἀντιθήσει ἐκ τῆς δευτέρας πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολῆς τὸ «Εἰ δὲ ἡ διακονία τοῦ θανάτου ἐν γράμμασιν ἐντετυπωμένη λίθοις ἐγενήθη ἐν δόξῃ ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι ἀτενίσαι τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραὴλ εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον Μωϋσέως διὰ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ τὴν καταργουμένην», ἐροῦμεν ὅτι οὐ ταὐτόν ἐστι τὸ «Νόμος οὖν καταργεῖται;» τῷ «Νόμον οὖν καταργοῦμεν;» Οὐδὲ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐνεργεῖ ὁ Παῦλος τὸ καταργεῖν τὸν νόμον· εἰ γὰρ 176 καὶ καταργεῖται ὁ νόμος, ὑπὸ τῆς ὑπερβαλλούσης δόξης καταρ|γεῖται καὶ ὡς ἂν εἴποιμι οὐχ ὑπὸ Παύλου οὐδ' ὑπὸ ἄλλου τινὸς τῶν ἁγίων ἀνδρῶν, ἀλλ' ὑπὸ τούτου ὅς φησιν κύριος εἶναι τοῦ σαββάτου. Καὶ οὐ δεδόξασται τὸ δεδοξασμένον ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει ὡς πρὸς σύγκρισιν τῆς ὑπερβαλλούσης δόξης. Μένον γοῦν ὠνόμασε τὸ Χριστοῦ· τὸ δὲ μὴ μένον καταργούμενον, ἐπεὶ ὁ νόμος παιδαγωγὸς ἕως ἔλθῃ τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου· καὶ ὥσπερ εἴποιμ' ἂν τὸ ἔργον τοῦ παιδαγωγοῦ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι ἕως νηπιός ἐστιν ὁ παι‖δαγω γούμενος, καταργεῖσθαι δὲ τὸ ἔργον τοῦ παιδαγωγοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς τελειότητος τοῦ παιδαγωγουμένου, οὕτως ἂν εἴποιμι καταργεῖσθαι τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου ὅτε ἔρχεται τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, ὅτε καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὅ ποτε μὴ διαφέρων δούλου ἀπολαμβάνει τὴν πα|τρῴαν κληρονομίαν *** ὡς γὰρ καταργεῖται ἡ ἐν Παύλῳ καὶ ἐν Πέτρῳ γνῶσις οὐ λοιδορουμένη ἐν τῷ καταργεῖσθαι ἀλλ' ὅταν ἔλθῃ τὸ τέλειον, οὕτως Παῦλος μὲν οὐ καταργεῖ τὸν νόμον, ἀλλ' ἵσ τησιν· ἐὰν δὲ ἀποκαλυφθῇ ἡ ὑπερβάλλουσα δόξα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, τότε τὸ πρὸ αὐτῆς [··]·ι φαινόμενον καὶ λεγόμενον εἶναι δεδο|ξασμένον υ῾̣[πὸ τῆς ὑπ]ερβαλλούσης δόξης <καταργεῖται> *** τοιούτων τινῶν ἔχεται καὶ τ̣[ὸ 178 «Ἐκεῖνον δ]ε̣ι῀̣ α̣υ᾿̣ξάνειν, ἐμὲ δὲ ἐλαττοῦσθαι», ὥστε τὰ τῆς νη̣πιότητος καὶ ὁ παραλημφθεὶς δι' αὐτὴν παιδαγωγὸς ἀπὸ τ[ῆς τελειό]τητος καταρ γεῖται καὶ οὐκ ἀπ' αὐτοῦ τοῦ παιδαγω[γου]μένου. Φησὶν γάρ· «Νόμον οὖν καταργοῦμεν διὰ | τῆς πίστεως; Μὴ γένοιτο». Οὐκ εἶπεν· «Νόμος οὖν καταργεῖται;» ἀλλὰ «Νόμον οὖν καταργοῦμεν;» Ὅμοιον δὲ καὶ τὸ «Ἀλλὰ νόμον ἱστάνομεν». Tome VI [Rom. 4, 1-8] «Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπά τορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα;» δύο προειπὼν εἶναι νόμους, ὧν τὸν μὲν ἕτερον νόμον ἔργων ὠνόμασεν, τὸν δὲ ἕτερον νόμον πίστεως, καὶ φήσας ἐκκεκλεῖσθαι τὴν καύχησιν οὐ διὰ τοῦ νόμου τῶν ἔργων ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦ νό|μου τῆς πίστεως καὶ τούτοις ἐπαγαγὼν ὡς ἄρα δύνασθαι δὲ πίστει δικαιοῦσθαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου *** δεύτερον δὲ περὶ τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ παριστὰς ὅτι ἐκ πίστεως μᾶλλον ἐδικαιώθη ἤπερ ἐξ ἔργων *** οὐδὲν ἧττόν φησιν αὐτὸν κατορθῶσαι τὰ ἔργα ὡς φιλοῦντα παρακολουθεῖν τῇ ἀξίᾳ δικαιώσεως πί[σ]τει *** καθ' ὅλον δὲ τοῦτον | τὸν τόπον δύο ἔοικεν ὑποβάλλειν δικαιώσεις <ὧν> τὴν μὲν ἑτέραν ἐξ ἔργων ὠνόμασεν, τὴν δὲ λοιπὴν ἐκ πίστεως ········θαι ἀπὸ νόμου