Ver. 20. “Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.”93 What can the heretics94 say to this? for as, according to them, the expression “the Only True God” excludes the Son from being true God, so here the phrase “God is One,” excludes Him from being God in any sense. But if, although the Father is called “One God,” the Son is nevertheless God, it is very plain that though the Father is called “Very God,” the Son is very God likewise. Now a mediator, says he, is between two parties; of whom then is Christ the Mediator? plainly of God and of men. Observe, he says, that Christ also gave the Law; what therefore it was His to give, it is His to annul. 29 Ver. 21. “Is the Law then against the promises of God?” For if the blessing is given in the seed of Abraham, but the Law brings in the curse, it must be contrary to the promises. This objection he meets, first, by a protest, in the words, Ver. 21. “God forbid:” And next he brings his proof; Ver. 21. “For if there had been a law given which could make alive verily righteousness would have been of the Law.” His meaning is as follows; If we had our hope of life in the Law, and our salvation de- pended on it, the objection might be valid. But if it save you, by means of Faith, though it brings you under the curse, you suffer nothing from it, gain no harm, in that Faith comes and sets all right. Had the promise been by the Law, you had reasonably feared lest, separating from the Law, you should separate from righteousness, but if it was given in order to shut up all, that is, to convince all and expose their individual sins, far from excluding you from the promises, it now aids you in obtaining them. This is shown by the words, Ver. 22. “Howbeit the scripture95 hath shut up all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.” 93 [“This verse is counted the most difficult passage in the New Testament, and has given rise to about 300 interpretations.” That of Lightfoot seems to satisfy the context, and is thus forcibly put by him: “The law is of the nature of a contract between two parties. God on the one hand and the Jewish people on the other. It is valid only so long as both parties fulfil the terms of contract. It is therefore contingent and not absolute. Unlike the law the promise is absolute and unconditional. It depends on the sole decree of God. There are not two contracting parties. There is nothing of the nature of a stipulation. The giver is everything and the recipient nothing.”—Com. in loco.—G.A.] 94 The heretics refered to are the Anomœans, who held Arianism in its most developed form, against whom S. Chrysostom has written Homilies. For the particular objection answered in the text, vid. also Basil, in Eunom, iv. p. 294. Athan. Or in Arian, iii. 9. Greg. Naz. Orat. 36, p. 586. 95 [“The Law then though differing widely from the promise is not antagonistic to it, does not interfere with it. On the contrary, we might imagine such a law as would justify and give life. This was not the effect of the law of Moses, however; on the contrary (ἀλλὰ) the Scripture (that, namely, about the curse, v. 10:) testifies that the Law condemned all alike, yet not finally and irrevocably but only as leading the way for the dispensation of 58 Galatians 3:1