guides of the blind. Who then? The Pharisees, whose 'minds the god of this age has blinded,' being 'unbelievers' because they had not believed in Jesus Christ, and he blinded them 'so that the light of the gospel of the glory of God in the face of Christ might not shine on them'. One must not only avoid being led by those blind men who perceive they need guides, because they have not yet received the power to see for themselves; but indeed, concerning all who profess to guide in sound teaching, one must listen carefully, and apply sound judgment to what is said, lest by chance, being led through ignorance by those who are blind and do not see the matters of sound teaching, we ourselves should be found to be blind for not seeing the meaning of the scriptures, so that both, the one leading and the one being led, fall into the pit of which we have spoken before. Next to these things, it is written in what way Peter, answering, said to the Savior—as not understanding that 'not what enters into the mouth defiles the man, but what comes out of the mouth'—'Explain to us the parable'. To which the Savior says, 'Are you also still without understanding?,' as if to say, 'being with me for so long a time, do you still not understand the meaning of what is said, and do you still not perceive that for this reason it does not defile a person, since what enters his mouth goes into the stomach and proceeding from it is cast into the latrine?' It was not on account of the law, in which they seemed to believe, that the Pharisees were not a planting of Jesus' Father, but on account of their wicked interpretation of the law and of the things written in it. For since two things are understood according to the law, both a ministry of 'death' engraved in 'letters' and having nothing akin to the spirit, and a ministry of life which is understood in the spiritual law, those who are able from a truthful disposition to say 'for we know that the law is spiritual', and for this reason 'the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good', these were a planting which the heavenly Father planted; but those who were not such, but only attended to the 'letter' that kills, were not a planting of God, but of him who hardened their heart and put a veil upon it, being strong in them so long as they did not turn to the Lord; 'for if one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away; and the Lord is the Spirit.' And someone coming to this passage might say that, just as what enters the mouth does not defile the person, even if it is considered common by the Jews, so what enters the mouth does not sanctify the person, even if the so-called bread of the Lord is thought by the more simple to sanctify. And the argument, I think, is not to be despised and for this reason requires a clear exposition, which seems to me to be as follows. Just as it is not the food, but the conscience of the one eating with doubt that defiles the one who eats—'for he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because it is not from faith', and just as nothing is clean in itself to the one who is defiled and unbelieving, but on account of his defilement and unbelief, so that which is sanctified 'through the word of God and prayer' does not by its own nature sanctify the one who partakes of it. For if this were so, it would sanctify even the one who eats 'unworthily' of the Lord, and no one on account of this food would become weak or sick or would have fallen asleep; for Paul indicated something of this sort in the words, 'For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number have fallen asleep'. And so, in the case of the Lord's bread, the benefit is for the one who partakes, when with an undefiled mind and a pure conscience he partakes of the bread. Thus, neither from not eating, from the very fact of not eating of the bread sanctified by the word of God and prayer, are we 'lacking' in any good thing, nor from eating do we 'abound' in any good thing. For the cause of lacking is wickedness and sins, and the cause of abounding is righteousness and right actions; so that what is said by Paul is of such a kind: 'neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse'. But if every
ὁδηγοὶ τυφλῶν. Τίνες δή; οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, ὧν «ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἐτύφλωσε τὰ νοήματα», ὄντων «ἀπίστων» παρὰ τὸ μὴ πεπιστευκέναι εἰς Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, καὶ ἐτύφλωσεν «εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι αὐτοῖς τὸν φωτισμὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν προσώπῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ». Οὐ μόνον δὲ ἀπ' ἐκείνων φευκτέον ὁδηγεῖσθαι τυφλῶν τῶν αἰσθανομένων δεῖσθαι ὁδηγῶν, παρὰ τὸ μηδέπω αὐτοὺς ἀπειληφέναι τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ δι' αὑτῶν βλέπειν· ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ ἐπὶ πάντων τῶν ἐπαγγελλομένων ὁδηγεῖν ἐν ὑγιεῖ διδασκαλίᾳ ἐπιμελῶς ἀκουστέον, καὶ κρίσιν ὑγιῆ τοῖς λεγομένοις προσακτέον, μήποτε κατ' ἄγνοιαν τυφλῶν καὶ μὴ βλεπόντων τὰ πράγματα τῆς ὑγιοῦς διδασκαλίας ὁδηγούμενοι, τυφλοὶ καὶ αὐτοὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ βλέπειν τὸν νοῦν τῶν γραφῶν τυγχάνοντες φανῶμεν, ὡς ἀμφοτέρους, τόν τε ὁδηγοῦντα καὶ <τὸν> ὁδηγούμενον, ἐμπεσεῖν εἰς τὸν βόθυνον περὶ οὗ προειρήκαμεν. Ἑξῆς δὲ τούτοις γέγραπται τίνα τρόπον ὁ Πέτρος ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπε τῷ σωτῆρι-ὡς μὴ νοήσας τὸ οὐ τὸ εἰσερχόμενον εἰς τὸ στόμα κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκ τοῦ στόματος-τὸ φράσον ἡμῖν τὴν παραβολήν. Πρὸς ὃ ὁ σωτήρ φησι τὸ ἀκμὴν καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε, οἱονεὶ τοσούτῳ μοι συνόντες χρόνῳ ἔτι οὐ συνίετε τοῦ βουλήματος τῶν λεγομένων, καὶ ἔτι οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι διὰ τοῦτο οὐ κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἐπεὶ τὸ εἰσερχόμενον αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ στόμα εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν χωρεῖ καὶ προχωροῦν ἀπ' αὐτῆς εἰς ἀφεδρῶνα βάλλεται. Οὐ παρὰ τὸν νόμον, ᾧ πιστεύειν ἐδόκουν, οὐκ ἦσαν φυτεία τοῦ πατρὸς Ἰησοῦ Φαρισαῖοι, ἀλλὰ παρὰ τὴν μοχθηρὰν περὶ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ γεγραμμένων ἐκδοχήν. ∆ύο γὰρ νοουμένων κατὰ τὸν νόμον, διακονίας τε «θανάτου» τῆς ἐντετυπω μένης «γράμμασι» καὶ οὐδὲν οἰκεῖον ἐχούσης πρὸς τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ διακονίας ζωῆς τῆς νοουμένης ἐν τῷ πνευματικῷ νόμῳ, οἱ μὲν δυνάμενοι ἀπὸ διαθέσεως ἀληθευούσης λέγειν τὸ «οἴδαμεν γὰρ ὅτι ὁ νόμος πνευματικός ἐστι», καὶ διὰ τοῦτο «ὁ νόμος ἅγιος, καὶ ἡ ἐντολὴ ἁγία καὶ δικαία καὶ ἀγαθή», οὗτοι ἦσαν φυτεία ἣν ἐφύτευσεν ὁ οὐράνιος πατήρ· οἱ δὲ μὴ τοιοῦτοι ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀποκτεῖνον «γράμμα» περιέ ποντες μόνον οὐκ ἦσαν φυτεία τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ τοῦ πωρώσαντος αὐτῶν τὴν καρδίαν καὶ κάλυμμα ἐπιθέντος αὐτῇ, ἰσχύον ἐν ἐκείνοις ὅσον οὐκ ἐπέστρεφον πρὸς τὸν κύριον· «ἐὰν γάρ τις ἐπιστρέψῃ πρὸς τὸν κύριον, περιαιρεῖται τὸ κάλυμμα· ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν.» Εἴποι δ' ἄν τις κατὰ τὸν τόπον γενόμενος ὅτι, ὥσπερ οὐ τὸ εἰσερχόμενον εἰς τὸ στόμα κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, κἂν νομίζηται εἶναι ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων κοινόν, οὕτως οὐ τὸ εἰσερχό μενον εἰς τὸ στόμα ἁγιάζει τὸν ἄνθρωπον, κἂν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκεραιοτέρων νομίζηται ἁγιάζειν ὁ ὀνομαζόμενος ἄρτος τοῦ κυρίου. Καὶ ἔστιν, οἶμαι, ὁ λόγος οὐκ εὐκαταφρόνητος καὶ διὰ τοῦτο δεόμενος σαφοῦς διηγήσεως οὕτως ἐμοὶ δοκούσης ἔχειν. Ὥσπερ οὐ τὸ βρῶμα, ἀλλ' ἡ συνείδησις τοῦ μετὰ διακρίσεως ἐσθίοντος κοινοῖ τὸν φαγόντα-»ὁ» γὰρ «διακρινόμενος ἐὰν φάγῃ κατακέκριται, ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ πίσ τεως», καὶ ὥσπερ οὐδὲν καθαρὸν οὐ παρ' αὐτό ἐστι τῷ μεμιασμένῳ καὶ ἀπίστῳ, ἀλλὰ παρὰ τὸν μιασμὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀπιστίαν, οὕτως τὸ ἁγιαζόμενον «διὰ λόγου θεοῦ καὶ ἐντεύξεως» οὐ τῷ ἰδίῳ λόγῳ ἁγιάζει τὸν χρώμενον. Εἰ γὰρ τοῦτο, ἡγίαζεν ἂν καὶ τὸν ἐσθίοντα «ἀναξίως» τοῦ κυρίου, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἂν διὰ τὸ βρῶμα τοῦτο ἀσθενὴς ἢ ἄρρωστος ἐγίνετο ἢ ἐκοιμᾶτο· τοιοῦτον γάρ τι ὁ Παῦλος παρέστησεν ἐν τῷ «διὰ τοῦτο ἐν ὑμῖν πολλοὶ ἀσθενεῖς καὶ ἄρρωστοι καὶ κοιμῶνται ἱκανοί». Καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἄρτου τοίνυν τοῦ κυρίου ἡ ὠφέλεια τῷ χρωμένῳ ἐστίν, ἐπὰν ἀμιάντῳ τῷ νῷ καὶ καθαρᾷ τῇ συνειδήσει μεταλαμβάνῃ τοῦ ἄρτου. Οὕτω δὲ οὔτε ἐκ τοῦ μὴ φαγεῖν, παρ' αὐτὸ τὸ μὴ φαγεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγιασθέντος λόγῳ θεοῦ καὶ ἐντεύξει ἄρτου, «ὑστερούμεθα» ἀγαθοῦ τινος, οὔτε ἐκ τοῦ φαγεῖν «περισσεύομεν» ἀγαθῷ τινι. Τὸ γὰρ αἴτιον τῆς ὑστερήσεως ἡ κακία ἐστὶ καὶ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα, καὶ τὸ αἴτιον τῆς περισ σεύσεως ἡ δικαιοσύνη ἐστὶ καὶ τὰ κατορθώματα· ὡς τοιοῦτο εἶναι τὸ παρὰ τῷ Παύλῳ λεγόμενον ἐν τῷ «οὔτε ἐὰν φάγωμεν περισσεύομεν, οὔτε ἐὰν μὴ φάγωμεν ὑστερού μεθα». Εἰ δὲ πᾶν τὸ