Salutation and Introduction

Paul the apostle

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God [n. 15]

15. This letter is divided into two parts, namely, the greeting and the body of the letter, which begins at first, I give thanks (Rom 1:8).

In the first part three things are done.

First, the person sending the greeting is described;

second, the persons greeted, at to all who are at Rome (Rom 1:7);

third, the blessings invoked, at grace to you (Rom 1:7).

Concerning the first, he does two things. First, the person of the author is described; second, his office is commended, at which he had promised before (Rom 1:2).

16. The person writing is described by four things.

First, by his name, Paul, concerning which one should consider three things.

First, its accuracy; for this name, as it is spelled here, cannot be Hebrew because Hebrew does not have the letter P in its alphabet; but it can be Greek and Latin. Still, if it be taken as some letter close to P, it can be Hebrew.

17. Second, one should consider its meaning. Considered as Hebrew, it means ‘wonderful’ or ‘chosen’; taken as Greek, it means ‘quiet’; taken as Latin, it means ‘small.’

And these meanings suit him. For he was chosen as regards grace; hence he is a chosen vessel of mine (Acts 9:15). He was wonderful in his work: a marvelous vessel, the work of the Most High (Sir 43:2). He was quiet in contemplation: when I enter my house, I shall find rest with her (Wis 8:16). He was small by humility: I am the least of the apostles (1 Cor 15:9).

18. Third, one should consider when that name was conferred on the Apostle, since he had formerly been called Saul, as is found in Acts 9.

There are three opinions about this.

Jerome says that whereas he had formerly been called Saul, later he wished to be called Paul on account of something notable he had done, namely that he converted Sergius Paulus, a proconsul (Acts 13:7), just as Scipio was called Africanus because he had conquered Africa.

Others say that this name was conferred on account of the growth in virtue, which is signified by this name, as was said. For names are conferred by God on certain men at the very beginning of their lives to indicate the grace they receive at the beginning, as in the case of John the Baptist (Luke 1:13). In other cases the names of persons are changed to indicate their growth in virtue, as Chrysostom says. This is clear in the cases of Abraham (Gen 17) and Peter (Matt 16).

But others have a better explanation, namely, that Paul always went by two names. For it was customary among the Jews, along with their Hebrew name, to take a name from among the people they served; thus, those who served the Greeks took Greek names, as is clear in the cases of Jason and Menelaus (2 Macc 4).

19. Now the name Paul was held in esteem among the Romans from the earliest times; accordingly, he was called Saul among the Hebrews and Paul among the Romans, although he does not seem to have used the latter until he began to preach to the gentiles. Hence, it is said: but Saul, who is also called Paul (Acts 13:9). This third opinion is the one Augustine favors.

20. Second, the writer’s person is described by his station, when he says, a servant of Christ.

Now the state of servitude seems a lowly one, if it be considered absolutely; this is why it is imposed with a curse as a punishment for sin: cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers (Gen 9:25). But it is made commendable by reason of what is added, namely, of Jesus Christ.

For Jesus means savior: he will save his people from their sins (Matt 1:21); Christ means anointed: therefore God, your God, has anointed you (Ps 45:7). This indicates Christ’s dignity both in regard to his holiness, since priests were anointed, as is clear from Exodus 29; and in regard to his power, since kings, too, were anointed, as is clear in the cases of David and Solomon; and in regard to his knowledge, since prophets were also anointed, as in the case of Elisha.

Furthermore, it is praiseworthy for a person to be subjected to his own well-being and to the spiritual anointing of grace, because a thing is perfect to the extent that it is subjected to its perfection, as the body to the soul and air to light: O Lord, I am your servant (Ps 116:16).

21. This seems to conflict with John: no longer do I call you servants, but friends (John 15:15).

But one should say that there are two kinds of servitude: one is the servitude of fear, which does not befit saints: you have not received the spirit of slavery again in fear: but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons (Rom 8:15); the other is that of humility and love, which does befit saints: say: we are unworthy servants (Luke 17:10).

For while a free man is one who exists for his own sake, a servant is one who exists for the sake of another, as moving by reason of another’s moving him; if then a person acts for the sake of another as though moved by him, the service is one of fear, which forces a man to act in opposition to his own will. But if he acts for the sake of another as an end, then it is the servitude of love; because a friend serves and does good to his friend for the friend’s own sake, as the Philosopher says in the ninth book of the Ethics.

22. Third, the person writing is described by his dignity when it says, called to be an apostle.

The apostolic dignity is the foremost in the Church, in accord with 1 Corinthians: God has appointed in the Church, first, apostles (1 Cor 12:28). For apostle means ‘sent’: as the Father has sent me, even so I send you (John 20:21), i.e., out of the same love and with the same authority.

Moreover, he says, called to be an apostle, to indicate a gift: one does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God as Aaron was (Heb 5:4); or to emphasize excellence, so that just as Rome is antonomastically called ‘the city,’ so Paul is called the apostle: I worked harder than any of them (1 Cor 15:10); or to show his humility, as though to say: I do not dare to call myself an apostle, but men call me that: I am unfit to be called an apostle (1 Cor 15:9).

23. Fourth, the person writing is described by his office when it says, separated unto the Gospel of God.

Separated, I say, from unbelievers by his conversion: but when he who had set me apart from the womb of my mother, i.e., of the synagogue (Gal 1:15); or separated from other disciples by his being chosen: set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them (Acts 13:2).

Gospel means good news. For it announces the news of man’s union with God, which is man’s good: it is good for me to cleave to God (Ps 73:28).

24. Indeed, a threefold union of man with God is announced in the Gospel.

The first is by the grace of union: the Word was made flesh (John 1:14). The second is by the grace of adoption, as implied in the Psalm: I say: you are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you (Ps 82:6). The third is by the glory of attainment: this is eternal life, that they know you (John 17:3); how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good tidings (Isa 52:7).

These good tidings were not from men, but from God: what I have heard from the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, I announce to you (Isa 21:10). Hence he says, unto the Gospel of God.

The promise of the Gospel

which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, [n. 26]

the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh [n. 29]

25. The person of the writer described, now the task committed to him is commended, namely, the Gospel, which has already been commended from two viewpoints in the preceding verse. One of these concerns the usefulness it has due to its content, which is signified by its very name, Gospel, which implies that in it good things are announced. The other is based on the authority it has on the side of its author, which is set out when it says, of God (Rom 1:1).

Now the Apostle pursues these two commendations further:

first, on the part of the author;

second, on the part of its content, at concerning his Son.

26. From the first viewpoint the Gospel is commended in four ways:

First, by its antiquity. This was required against the pagans, who belittled the Gospel as something suddenly appearing after all the preceding centuries. To counter this he says, which he had promised before, because, although it began to be preached at a certain point in time, it had been foretold previously in a divine way: before they came to pass, I announced them to you (Isa 48:5).

Second, from its reliability, which is indicated when he says, he had promised, because the promise was made beforehand by one who does not lie: we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled (Acts 13:32).

Third, from the dignity of its ministers or witnesses, when he says, through his prophets, to whom had been revealed the things fulfilled concerning the incarnate Word: the Lord will not make a word, namely, make it be incarnate, without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets (Amos 3:7); to him all the prophets bear witness (Acts 10:43).

It is significant that he says, his prophets, for some prophets spoke by a human spirit: they speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord (Jer 23:16). Hence, he says to Titus: one of themselves spoke, a prophet of their own (Titus 1:12). There are even prophets of demons who are inspired by an unclean spirit, such as the prophets whom Elijah slew (1 Kgs 18:40). But those are called God’s prophets who are inspired by the divine Spirit: I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh and your sons and daughters will prophesy (Joel 2:28).

Fourth, from the way it was delivered, because these promises were not merely spoken but recorded in writing. Hence he says, in the Scriptures: write the vision; make it plain upon tablets (Hab 2:2). For it was the custom to record only important matters worthy of remembrance and of being handed down to later generations. Consequently, as Augustine says in City of God XVIII, the prophecies about Christ made by Isaiah and Hosea began to be written when Rome was being founded, under whose rule Christ would be born and his faith preached to the gentiles: you search the Scriptures because you think to have eternal life by them (John 5:39).

27. He adds holy to distinguish these writings from those of the gentiles. They are called holy, first, because, as it is written: men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Pet 1:21); all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16). Second, because they contain holy things: give thanks to his holy name (Ps 97:12). Third, because they make holy: make them holy in the truth; your word is truth (John 17:17). Hence, it is said: we have as encouragement the holy books which are in our hands (1 Macc 12:9).

28. Second, he continues the commendation on the part of the good things announced in the Gospel and which make up the content of the Gospel, which is Christ, whom he commends in three ways:

first, from his origin;

second, from his dignity or virtue, at who was predestined (Rom 1:4);

third, from his liberality, at through whom we have received (Rom 1:5).

29. He describes the origin of Christ in two ways.

First he describes his eternal origin when he says, concerning his Son. In this he reveals the excellence of the Gospel, for the mystery of the eternal generation had been previously hidden; hence Solomon asks: what is his name and the name of his son, if you know? (Prov 30:4). But it has been revealed in the Gospel on the testimony of the Father: this is my beloved Son (Matt 3:17).

Indeed, the Son of God is deservedly called the subject matter of the Holy Scriptures, which reveal the divine wisdom, as Deuteronomy declares: this will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of all the peoples (Deut 4:6).

For the Son is said to be the Word and wisdom begotten: Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:24).

30. But men have erred in three ways about this sonship.

For some said that he has an adoptive sonship; for example, Photinus taught that Christ derived his origin from the Virgin Mary as a mere man, who by the merits of his life reached such an exalted state that he could be called a Son of God above all other saints.

But if this were true, Christ would not be described as lowering himself to manhood but as rising up to the Godhead, whereas it is said: I have come down from heaven (John 6:38).

31. Others taught that this sonship was a sonship in name only, as Sabellius, who said that the Father himself became incarnate and for that reason took the name of Son, such that the person would be the same and the names alone different.

But if this were true, the Son would not be described as sent by the Father; which is false, since he himself said that he came down from heaven to do the will of him who sent him (John 6:38).

32. Others, such as Arius, taught that this sonship was a created one, so that the Son of God would be the most perfect creature, albeit produced from nothing after previously not existing.

But if this were true, all things would not have been made through him, the contrary of which is stated in John (John 1:3). For the one through whom all things were made cannot himself have been made.

33. These three opinions are excluded by the significantly added word, his, i.e., his very own and natural. For Hilary says: this true and personal Son is a Son by origin and not by adoption, in truth and not in name only, by birth and not by creation; for he comes forth from the Father as a word from the heart. Such a word belongs to the same nature, especially in God, in whom nothing inheres accidentally. Hence he himself says, I and the Father are one (John 10:30). The fact that he says ‘one’ frees you from Arius; that he says ‘we are’ frees you from Sabellius, as Augustine says.

34. Second, he touches on the temporal origin when he says, who was made.

Here right away the three aforementioned errors seem to find a defense in the fact that it says, who was made to him. For they do not admit an eternal Son but one that was made. But the words that follow destroy their goal.

For when he says, who was made to him, the error of Sabellius is excluded. For he could not be made a Son for the Father if he were the same person as the Father; rather, through the Incarnation he will be the Son of the Virgin.

By saying of the seed of David, he destroys Photinus’s goal. For if he were made the Son of God by adoption, he would not be described as made from the seed of David but from the Spirit, who is the Spirit of adoption of sons (Rom 8:15), and from the seed of God (1 John 3:9).

The words, according to the flesh, destroy Arius’s opinion that he was created both according to the flesh and the divine nature.

35. We should also recall that men have erred in a number of ways in regard to the mystery of the Incarnation itself.

For Nestorius taught that the union of the Word with human nature consisted solely in an indwelling, in the sense that the Son of God dwelt in that man more fully than in others.

But it is obvious that the substance of the dweller and that of the dwelling are distinct, for example, a man and a house. Accordingly, he taught that the person or hypostasis of the Word was distinct from that of the man, so that the Son of God would be one person and the Son of man another.

This is shown to be false by the fact that the Apostle in Philippians calls this sort of union an emptying of himself (Phil 2:7). But since the Father and the Holy Spirit dwell in men, as John declares: we will come to him and make our home with him (John 14:23), it follows that they too would be emptying themselves, which is absurd. This opinion, therefore, is excluded when the Apostle says, concerning his Son who, namely, the Son of God, was made according to the flesh, i.e., having his flesh of the seed of David. He would not have spoken in this manner if the union were a mere indwelling.

Furthermore, in regard to others in whom the Word dwells, it is never said that the Word was made this or that person, but that it was made to Jeremiah or Isaiah.

Therefore, since the Apostle, after saying concerning his Son, added, who was made to him of the seed of David, the above error is clearly excluded.

36. Others again, although they do not suppose two persons in Christ, do suppose two hypostases or supposita. But this amounts to the same thing, because a person is nothing other than a hypostasis or suppositum of a rational nature. Therefore, since there is only one hypostasis and suppositum in Christ, which is the suppositum or hypostasis of the eternal Word, that hypostasis cannot be said to have become the Son of God, because it never began to be the Son of God. Therefore, it is not altogether correct to say that man was made God or the Son of God. Yet if this is found to be taught by any teacher, it should be interpreted thus: it was made to be that man be God.

Accordingly, it is correct to say that the Son of God was made man because he was not always man. Therefore, what is written here must be understood so that the who refers to the subject, the sense being that this Son of God was made of the seed of David, and not to the predicate, because then the sense would be that someone existing of the seed of David became the son of God, which is neither true nor correct, as has been said.

37. Again, there were others who taught that the union was made by the conversion of the Word into flesh, as it is said that air is made to become fire. Hence Eutyches said that before the Incarnation there were two natures, but after the Incarnation only one.

But this is clearly false because, since God is immutable—I, the Lord, do not change (Mal 3:6)—he cannot be changed into anything else.

Hence, when it is said, was made, this should not be understood as a change but as a union without any divine change.

For something can be newly said of something in a relative sense without the thing itself being changed; thus, a person remaining in one place comes newly to be on the right of something, which was moved from his right to his left. This is the way God is said to be Lord or Creator from a certain time, namely, by reason of a change affecting the creature. In the same way he is said to have been made something anew: Lord, you have become our refuge (Ps 90:1). Therefore, since union is a relation, it is through a change in the creature that God is newly said to have been made man, i.e., united in person to a human nature.

38. Finally, there were others, namely Arius and Apollinaris, who said that Christ had no soul, but that the Word was there in place of the soul.

But this is refuted by John: no one takes my soul (John 10:18). The words, according to the flesh, do not exclude a soul from Christ; rather, flesh stands for the entire man, as in Isaiah: all flesh shall see it together for the mouth of the Lord has spoken (Isa 40:5).

39. It may be asked, since we believe that Christ was born of the Virgin, why the Apostle says he was made from a woman.

The answer is this: that is born which is produced in the natural order, as fruit from a tree or children from parents; that which is produced from the will of one acting, not according to the order of nature, as a house by a carpenter, cannot be said to be born but made.

Therefore, because Christ proceeded from the Virgin in the natural order in a certain respect, namely, that he was conceived from a woman and remained in her womb for a space of nine months, it is true to say that he was born. But because he proceeded in a certain respect not in the natural order but solely from divine power without male seed, he is said to have been made. Thus, Eve is described as made, not born, from Adam; Isaac was born, not made, from Abraham.

40. Another question is why he is said to have descended of the seed of David in particular and not of the seed of Abraham, to whom the promises about Christ had been made: now the promises were made to Abraham (Gal 3:16).

The answer is that this was done to give hope of pardon to sinners, for David was a sinner from whose seed Christ was born, while Abraham was a just man, and also to commend Christ’s royal dignity to the Romans, who ruled the nations.

41. The Apostle’s words also exclude three errors of the Manicheans.

First, their assertion that the God of the Old Testament and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ are not the same. This is excluded when the Apostle says, which God had promised before, through his prophets, in the holy Scriptures, i.e., of the Old Testament, concerning his Son.

Second, their condemnation of the Old Testament writings, which the Apostle here calls holy. For no other writings were holy before the Gospel except those.

Third, their claim that Christ had an imaginary body. This is excluded when the Apostle says that Christ was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh, to him, i.e., to the glory of the Father: I seek not my glory, but his who sent me (John 8:50).

Christ’s power

and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, [n. 42]

42. Having commended Christ’s origin, he now commends his power, and mentions three things.

First, his predestination, when he says, who was predestined;

second, his dignity or power, when he says, the Son of God in power;

third, the sign or effect, when he says, according to the Spirit of sanctification.

43. In regard to the first it should be noted that the word ‘predestination’ is taken from ‘destination’; for something is said to be predestined as though destined beforehand. But destination is taken in two senses: in one sense, to destine is to send, for those who are sent to achieve some purpose are said to be destined, in accord with 1 Maccabees: some of the people were destined, and they went to the king (1 Macc 1:14). In another sense, to destine is to determine, as in 2 Maccabees: Eleazar destined not to do any unlawful things (2 Macc 6:20). But this second meaning seems to be derived from the first. For as a courier who is sent is directed to something, so whatever we determine we direct to some end. According to this, therefore, to predestine is nothing more than to determine beforehand in the heart what is to be done in regard to some thing.

44. Now someone can determine about a future thing or action: in one way, as to its make-up, as a builder determines how he should build a house; in another way, as to the use or governance of the thing, as when someone determines how to use his horse. It is to this second predetermination and not the first that predestination pertains.

45. For what one uses is referred to an end, because, as Augustine says in the book, On Christian Doctrine: to use is to refer something to an end to be enjoyed. When, however, a thing is made, it is not by that very fact directed to something else. Hence, the pre-determination of a thing’s make-up cannot properly be called predestination. Therefore, to deny predestination is the same as to deny the eternal divine pre-determination about things to be done in time. But because all natural things pertain to the make-up of the thing itself, for they are either the principles of which things are made or what follows from such principles, it follows that natural things do not properly fall under predestination; for example, it is not proper to say that man is predestined to have hands. What is left is that predestination is properly said only of things that are above nature, to which things the rational creature is ordained.

46. But God alone is above the nature of the rational creature, who is united to him by grace: in one way, as regards God’s own act, as when foreknowledge of the future, which belongs to God alone, is communicated to a man by the grace of prophecy. Of this sort are all the graces called graces freely given. In another way, as regards God himself, to whom the rational creature is united in the common manner through the effect of love: he who abides in love abides in God and God in him (1 John 4:16). This is done through sanctifying grace, which is the grace of adoption. In another way, which is particular to Christ, it is done through a union in personal being; and this is called the grace of union.

Therefore, just as a man’s union with God through the grace of adoption falls under predestination, so also the union with God in person through the grace of union falls under predestination. And as regards this he says, who was predestined the Son of God.

47. But to prevent this from being referred to the sonship of adoption, he adds, in power. As if to say: he was predestined to be such a Son as to have equal, indeed the same, power as God the Father, because, as it is said: worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive power and divinity (Rev 5:12); in fact Christ himself is the power of God: Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:24). Hence, whatever the Father does the Son does likewise (John 5:19).

In regard to the graces freely given, one is not said to be predestined in the strict sense, because such graces are not directly ordained to direct to his ultimate end the one who receives them, but to direct others by them, as it is said: to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit unto profit (1 Cor 12:7).

48. Now it is obvious that anything which exists of itself is the measure and rule of things which exist in virtue of something else and through participation. Hence, the predestination of Christ, who was predestined to be the Son of God by nature, is the measure and rule of our life and therefore of our predestination, because we are predestined to adoptive sonship, which is a participation and image of natural sonship: whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be made conformed to the image of his Son (Rom 8:29).

Therefore, just as the man Christ was not predestined to be the natural Son of God because of any antecedent merits, but solely from grace, so we are predestined to be adopted sons of God solely from grace and not from our merits: do not say in your heart, after the Lord your God has thrust them out before you: it is because of my justice that the Lord has brought me in to possess this land (Deut 9:4).

It is clear, therefore, what the goal of that predestination is, namely, that one be a son of God in power.

49. But we must still inquire who it is that has been predestined to this.

For since predestination implies antecedence, it seems that the one predestined to be the Son of God in power was not always the Son of God in power; for predestination does not seem to be concerned with what always has been, since that involves nothing antecedent. Hence if we suppose, according to Nestorius, that the person of the Son of man were other than the person of the Son of God, there would be no problem, because we could say that the created person of the Son of man did not exist eternally but began in time to be the Son of God in power.

The same would apply if one were to say the hypostasis or suppositum of the Son of God and of the Son of man were distinct.

But this is alien to the faith, as has been said.

Therefore, since not only the person but also the hypostasis and suppositum of the Son of God and of the Son of man are the same, so that it cannot be truly and properly said that the Son of man was made the Son of God, lest any created suppositum be implied of whom Son of God would be newly predicated, for an equal reason it does not seem possible to say that the Son of man was predestined to be the Son of God, because ‘the Son of man’ presupposes the eternal suppositum, who was always the Son of God. Hence, the antecedent which predestination involves has no place.

50. For this reason Origen says that the text should not read, who was predestined, but, who was destined the Son of God in power, so that no antecedence is indicated. If this is accepted, the sense is plain, because Christ was destined, i.e., sent into the world by God the Father as the true Son of God in divine power.

But because all the Latin texts generally have who was predestined, others have explained this according to the custom of Scripture whereby something is considered to be made when it is made known, as the Lord after the resurrection says: all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me (Matt 28:18), because it was after the resurrection that he made known that such power had been given to him from eternity.

But if this is correct, the word predestined is not taken in the proper sense, because predestination concerns matters pertaining to grace; whereas no grace was given to Christ by the fact that his divine power was made known, but rather to us.

Hence, it is even stated in a Gloss that according to this sense, predestined is used in the wider sense of ‘foreknown,’ so that the sense would be: Christ was predestined, i.e., foreknown, from eternity to be revealed in time as the Son of God in power.

51. Therefore, others, relating predestination to the union itself, did not attribute it to the person but to the nature, so that the sense would be: who was predestined the Son of God in power, i.e., whose nature was predestined to be united to him who is the Son of God in power.

But even this explanation is improper and extorted. For since predestination implies an ordering to an end, predestination affects that to which it belongs to be ordered to an end by its own activity. But it is not the nature but the person that acts for an end.

Therefore, if the word ‘predestination’ be taken in the strict sense, predestination must be attributed to the very person of Christ. But because the person of Christ subsists in two natures, the human and the divine, something can be said of him with respect to either nature. For just as something can be said of a man regarding his body, for example, to be touched or wounded, and something regarding his soul, for example, to understand and to will, so, too, something can be said of Christ both as to his divine nature, as when he says: I and the Father are one (John 10:30), and as to his human nature, as when we say that he was crucified and died. It is in this way that he is said to be predestined according to his human nature. For although the person of Christ has always been the Son of God, nevertheless it was not always a fact that, while existing in a human nature, he was the Son of God; rather, this was due to an ineffable grace.

52. There is another consideration concerning the participle made (Rom 1:3), which designates a real act, and the participle predestined, which designates an act of the soul.

For the soul, through its intellect and reason, can distinguish things that are joined in reality. For one can think of a white wall and speak separately about the fact that it is a wall and separately about the fact that it is white. So, too, in predestination. For predestination can be attributed to the person of Christ inasmuch as he subsists in a human nature, even though it is not attributed to him as subsisting in the divine nature.

This is why the Apostle first presents the Son of God as being incarnate and then attributes predestination to him, to let it be understood that he was predestined according as he was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh (Rom 1:3). Thus, in explaining the mystery of the Incarnation, from the Son of God he descends to the flesh and from the flesh; according to predestination, he ascends to the Son of God, in order to show that neither did the glory of the Godhead prevent the weakness of the flesh nor did the weakness of the flesh diminish the majesty of the Godhead.

53. In the Gloss it is asked, first, whether Christ is the Son of God according as he is man.

It seems so, because here is Christ, who was predestined to be the Son of God; but he was predestined to be the Son of God according as he is a man. Therefore, as a man he is the Son of God.

However, I answer that if the as denotes the unity of the person, it is true that as man he is the Son of God, because the person of God and man is one. But if it designates the condition of the nature or its cause, it is false. For it is not from the human nature that he is Son of God.

In the argument there is a fallacy of composition and division, because the as can modify the participle predestined, and taken this way it is true that as man he is predestined; or it can modify that being the Son of God to which the predestination is ordained, and taken this way it is false. For he was not predestined that as man he be Son of God; and this is the sense of the words assumed by the argument.

54. The second question is whether Christ as man is a person.

55. Likewise, an objection is made against a statement in the Gloss, namely, that the one who assumed and what he assumed are one person. But what the Son of God assumed is a human nature. Therefore, the human nature is a person.

56. The fourth question is whether this is true: a man was assumed by the Word.

It would seem so according to the Psalm: blessed is he whom you did choose and assume (Ps 65:4).

57. The fifth question is whether this is true: this man has always existed.

The answer is that it is true, because a man supposes a suppositum, in this case an eternal one. Hence it is said: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever (Heb 13:8). However, the statement is not true if man is taken precisely as man. For it is not true that that man, as man, always has existed, but as he is Son of God.

So, the matters concerning the preordainment and power of the Son of God are clear.

58. But a third matter remains, namely concerning the sign, which is touched upon when he says, according to the Spirit of sanctification.

It is the custom of divine power to sanctify men by conferring the Holy Spirit: I am the Lord who sanctifies you (Lev 20:8). He alone can give the Holy Spirit: thus says God, the Lord who created the heavens, who gives breath to the people upon it and the Spirit to those who walk in it (Isa 42:5). Therefore, it is clear that Christ has divine power, because he gives the Holy Spirit: when the Counselor comes whom I shall send (John 15:26). Furthermore, it is by his power that we are sanctified: you were sanctified, you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (1 Cor 6:11).

He says, therefore, that Christ is the Son of God in power and appears according to the Spirit of sanctification, i.e., inasmuch as he gives the sanctifying Spirit. This sanctification began by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead: for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified (John 7:39). However, this does not mean that no one had received the sanctifying Spirit before Christ’s resurrection, but that from the time he arose, a more copious and general Spirit of sanctification began to be given.

59. It can also mean that two signs of the divine power in Christ are designated here.

First, indeed, from the fact that he says, according to the Spirit of sanctification, whether it be understood according to the sanctifying Spirit, as has been explained, or in view of the fact that he was conceived in the Virgin’s womb by the Holy Spirit—which, of course, is a sign of the divine power in him according to the words of Luke: the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and further on: therefore, the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God (Luke 1:35).

The second sign of the divine power is the raising of the dead: as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also the Son (John 5:21).

The sense, therefore, is this: that Christ is the Son of God in power is evident from his resurrection from the dead, i.e., from the fact that he made the dead rise with him: many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised (Matt 27:52), and will finally make all rise: all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth (John 5:28).

Or it can be understood of a spiritual resurrection of the dead, i.e., from sin: awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead (Eph 5:14). Those who are raised by him are called Christ’s dead because they are raised by him just as those under a doctor’s care are called his sick.

But these two signs can be referred to two previous clauses in this way: who was made to him according to the flesh of the seed of David, according to the flesh (Rom 1:3), and this according to the Spirit of sanctification, from whom his flesh was conceived; and who was predestined the Son of God in power, and this is apparent in the resurrection of the dead.

But the first explanation is better.

Christ’s liberality

through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, [n. 60]

including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ; [n. 65]

To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. [n. 66]

60. After commending Christ in his origin and power, he now commends him in his liberality, which is shown by the gifts he conferred on believers.

And he sets out two gifts.

One is common to all believers, namely grace, by which we are restored. We receive this from God through Christ; hence, he says, through whom we believers have received grace; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17); and below: by whom also we have access through faith to this grace wherein we stand (Rom 5:2).

For it is fitting that just as all things were made by the Word (John 1:3), so by the Word as by the art of God Almighty all things should be restored; as an artisan repairs a house by means of the same art as he built it: God was pleased to reconcile through him all things, whether on earth or in heaven (Col 1:20).

61. The other spiritual gift was conferred on the apostles. This he touches on when he says, and apostleship, which is the chief office in the Church: God has appointed in the Church, first, apostles (1 Cor 12:28).

‘Apostle’ is the same as ‘sent.’ For they were sent by Christ, bearing, as it were, his authority and office: as the Father has sent me, even so I send you (John 20:21), i.e., with full authority. Hence Christ himself is called an apostle: consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession (Heb 3:1); hence, too, through him as chief apostle or one sent, the others secondarily obtained apostleship: he chose twelve whom he called apostles (Luke 6:13).

Now he sets out the grace of apostleship as a preface both because they obtained apostleship not through their merits but from grace: I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle; but by the grace of God I am what I am (1 Cor 15:9); and because apostleship cannot be worthily obtained unless sanctifying grace precedes it: grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift (Eph 4:7).

62. Then he describes this apostleship: first, from its aim, when he adds, for obedience to the faith. As if to say: we have been sent with this aim, to induce men to obey the faith.

Obedience finds its scope in things we can do voluntarily; in matters of faith, since they are above reason, we consent voluntarily. For no one believes unless he wills to, as Augustine says. Consequently, in matters of faith, the following has a place: but have obeyed from the heart unto that form of doctrine into which you have been delivered (Rom 6:17). Concerning this aim it is said: I appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide (John 15:16).

63. Second, it is described from its extent when he says in all the nations, because they were directed to instruct not only the Jews but all nations: go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:19).

Paul in particular had received a mandate to all nations, so that the words of Isaiah apply to him: it is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will give you as a light to the nations (Isa 49:6). Yet the Jews were not excluded from his apostolate, especially those who lived among the gentiles: inasmuch as I am an apostle to the gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them (Rom 11:13–14).

64. Third, from the completeness of its power when he says for his name, i.e., in his place and with his authority.

For as Christ is said to have come in the Father’s name and had the Father’s full authority, so the apostles are said to have come in Christ’s name, as though in Christ’s person: what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the person of Christ (2 Cor 2:10).

Or by these words it is described from its end, i.e., to broadcast his name without seeking any earthly reward for himself: he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name (Acts 9:15). Hence, he urged all believers to do the same: do everything in the name of Jesus Christ (Col 3:17).

65. Fourth, as to his power over those to whom he was writing and who were subject to his apostleship. Hence he says among whom, i.e., I number among those subject to my apostolate even you Romans howsoever lofty: he lays it low, the lofty city, the foot of the poor, i.e., of Christ, tramples it, the steps of the needy, namely, of the apostles Peter and Paul (Isa 26:5ff.); we were the first to come all the way to you with the Gospel of Christ (2 Cor 10:14).

He adds the called of Jesus Christ, in accord with Hosea: I will call ‘not my people’ mine (Hos 1:9); or, you are called that you may be of Jesus Christ, as is said below: those whom he predestined he also called (Rom 8:30). Or, you are called of Jesus Christ, i.e., you are named from Christ, Christians: so that at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians (Acts 11:21).

66. Then the persons greeted are described: first, from their place when he says to all who are in Rome.

To all, indeed, because he sought the salvation of all: I wish that all were as I myself am (1 Cor 7:7); also the Lord had said to him: you must bear witness also at Rome (Acts 23:11).

67. Second, they are described from their gift of grace, the beloved of God.

First, the primary source of grace is mentioned, namely, God’s love: he loved his people, all those consecrated to him were in his hand (Deut 33:3); not that we loved God first, but that he first loved us (1 John 4:10). For God’s love is not called forth by any goodness in a creature, as human love is; rather, he causes the creature’s goodness, because to love is to will goodness to the beloved. But God’s love is the cause of things: whatever the Lord desires, he makes (Ps 135:6).

68. Second, their calling when he adds called.

This call is twofold. One is outward, as when he called Peter and Andrew (Matt 4:18–19), while the other is inward, when it is according to an interior inspiration: I called and you refused to listen (Prov 1:24).

69. Third, he mentions the grace of justification when he says to be saints, i.e., sanctified by grace and the sacrament of grace: but you were washed, you were sanctified, to be beloved by God, called to be saints (1 Cor 6:11).

70. Then the blessings he wishes them are mentioned. These are grace and peace. One of these, namely grace, is the first among God’s gifts, because by it the sinner is made holy: they are justified by his grace as a gift (Rom 3:24). The other, namely peace, is his last gift, which is completed in happiness: he makes peace in your borders (Ps 147:14). For perfect peace will exist when the will is at rest in the fullness of all good, a state that results from being free of all evil: my people will abide in the beauty of peace (Isa 32:18).

Consequently, in these two blessings all those between are understood.

71. Then he shows from whom these blessings are to be expected when he adds from God our Father: every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights (Jas 1:17). The Lord bestows grace and glory (Ps 84:11).

He adds and from the Lord Jesus Christ because, as it is said: grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17). He himself says: my peace I give to you (John 14:27).

72. The phrase God our Father can be taken for the whole Trinity, which is called Father, because names implying a relationship to the creature are common to the whole Trinity, for example, Creator and Lord.

But he adds and from the Lord Jesus Christ not to imply that he is another person distinct from the three, but to stress the human nature by whose mystery the gifts of grace come to us: through whom he has granted to us his precious and very great promises (2 Pet 1:4).

Or it might be said that the phrase from God our Father stands for the person of the Father, who is called the Father of Christ by propriety, but our Father by appropriation: I am ascending to my Father and to your Father (John 20:17).

73. Then the person of the Son is meant when it is said, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. The person of the Holy Spirit is not expressly mentioned, because he is understood in his gifts, which are grace and peace, or even because he is understood whenever there is mention of the Father and of the Son, for he is their union and bond.

Prayer of thanksgiving

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. [n. 74]

For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers, [n. 78]

asking that somehow by God’s will I may now at last succeed in coming to you. [n. 83]

For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, [n. 87]

that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine. [n. 88]

I want you to know, brethren, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles. [n. 89]

I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish: [n. 92]

so I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. [n. 95]

For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. [n. 96]

74. After the greeting, the Apostle begins the message, wherein

first he shows his affection for his readers, in order to render them benevolent hearers;

second, he instructs them in the truth about the power of Christ’s grace, at for it is the power of God.

He shows his affection for them in three ways:

first, by giving thanks for their blessings;

second, by the prayer he directs to God on their behalf, at for God is my witness;

third, by his desire to visit them, at always in my prayers.

75. In regard to the first, three things should be noted.

First, the order in which he gives thanks, when he says first, I give thanks to my God.

For it is necessary that in all affairs, we begin by giving thanks: give thanks in all circumstances (1 Thess 5:18); indeed, a person is not worthy to receive a blessing, if he does not express thanks for past blessings: the hope of an ungrateful man will melt like wintry frost (Wis 16:29) and to the place where the streams flow, there they return (Eccl 1:7), because to the source whence blessings come they return, namely, by giving thanks, to flow again by repeated blessings.

But we need God’s blessing in all we seek or do; consequently, before all else thanks should be given.

76. Second, he designates three persons, one of whom is the person to whom thanksgiving is made when he says my God to whom thanks are due for all our blessings, because they flow from him: every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above (Jas 1:17). And although he is God of all through creation and governance, as is said below: Lord of all (Rom 10:12), he is particularly the God of the just for three reasons: first, on account of the special care he shows them: the eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous (Ps 34:15) and again: the Lord is my light (Ps 27:1); on account of their special worship: this is my God and I will praise him (Exod 15:2); third, because he is their reward: I am your reward exceedingly great (Gen 15:1).

The second person is the mediator, whom he mentions when he says through Jesus Christ. For thanks should be returned to God in the same order in which graces come to us, namely, through Jesus Christ: through him we have access to this grace in which we stand (Rom 5:2).

The third is the person of those for whom he gives thanks, for all of you, because he regarded their graces as his on account of the bond of love. As if to say: I have no greater grace than to hear that my children walk in the truth (3 John 1:4).

He purposely says for all of you because he desires to please them all: just as I try to please all men in everything I do (1 Cor 10:33) and wishes the salvation of all: I wish that all were as I myself am (1 Cor 7:7).

77. Third, he indicates the point about which he is grateful, because your faith is proclaimed in the whole world.

He gives thanks for their faith, because it is the foundation of all spiritual blessings: faith is the substance of things hoped for (Heb 11:1).

But the reason he commends the Romans on their faith is that they embraced it with ease and continued in it firmly. Hence, even today very many signs of faith are seen by those who visit the holy places, as Jerome says in On the Epistle to the Galatians. However, their faith was not yet perfect, because some of them had been reached by false apostles, who taught that the rites of the law must be joined to the Gospel.

But he rejoices and gives thanks for their faith not only on their account but on account of the benefits accruing therefrom, namely because, being the rulers of the world, their example would lead other nations to accept the faith; for, as a Gloss says, the lesser are quick to do what they see done by the greater. On this account prelates are advised to be good examples to the flock (1 Pet 5:3).

78. Then when he says for God is my witness, he shows his affection for them from the prayer he offers for them.

And because the business of prayer is carried on in secret in God’s presence: when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father in secret (Matt 6:6), he calls on God to testify that he prays for them.

First, therefore, he calls on the witness; second he shows on what point he calls the witness.

79. He calls on the witness when he says God is my witness under whose witness all things are done: I am judge and witness (Jer 29:23).

Then, to show that he is not mistaken in calling on the just witness, he mentions how he is joined to him. First, in regard to service when he says whom I serve, namely, with the worship of latria: the Lord your God shall you adore and him alone shall you serve (Deut 6:13). Second, in regard to the way he served when he says, in my spirit. As if to say: not only in outward bodily service, but especially within, according to the spirit: God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth (John 4:24). Or in spirit, i.e., in spiritual observances, not in carnal, as the Jews: we are the true circumcision who worship God in spirit (Phil 3:3). Third, in regard to the office in which he serves, namely, in the Gospel of his Son: separated unto the Gospel (Rom 1:1). It is the Gospel of the Son in three ways: first, because it is about him: I bring you good news of a great joy (Luke 2:10). Second, because it was preached by him as a special duty: I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose (Luke 4:43). Third, because it was enjoined by him: preach the Gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15).

80. But since, as Augustine says, it is the same to say for God is my witness and I swear by God, the Apostle seems to be acting against the Lord’s command: I say to you, do not swear at all (Matt 5:34); above all, my brethren, do not swear (Jas 5:12).

However, as Augustine also says, the meaning of Sacred Scripture is gathered from the actions of the saints. For it is the same Spirit who inspired the Sacred Scriptures: men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Pet 1:21) and who moves holy men to act: all who are led by the Spirit are sons of God (Rom 8:14).

Consequently, if Paul is found to swear, it shows that the Lord’s word and that of the apostle James are not to be understood as indicating that an oath is absolutely unlawful, but that men should strive as far as possible not to use oaths as though they were something good and desirable of their very nature. And this on account of the danger involved in frequent swearing, namely, the possibility of perjury due to a slip of the tongue. Ecclesiastes says, do not accustom your mouth to oaths for many are tripped by them (Sir 23:9). Also because it seems contrary to the reverence we owe God for one to call God as witness without necessity. Hence: let not the naming of God be usual in your mouth (Sir 23:10). For this reason the Apostle never made an oath except in writing, when a man speaks with greater deliberation and caution.

81. Yet an oath is sometimes necessary to lend credence to a speaker, which in turn often benefits the hearer. Consequently, the Apostle makes an oath for the benefit of his hearer, for whom it was beneficial to believe, as though not seeking what was useful to himself but to the majority, namely, their salvation.

Hence, the Lord’s statement that anything more than this, i.e., than a simple word, comes from evil (Matt 5:37) does not imply that it comes from evil in the one who swears, but in the one who demands the oath: it comes not from the evil of sin, except in the case where a person judges that the one from whom he demands the oath will swear falsely—in which case it is a serious sin, as Augustine says. Rather, it implies that it comes from the evil of punishment, i.e., our ignorance of whether something said to us is true.

82. It should be noted that there are two ways of making an oath: one is by a simple statement, as when it is said by God or God is my witness. This is the form the Apostle uses here. The other is by an imprecation, namely, when a person calls on God’s witness in the form of some punishment to be inflicted on the speaker if he is lying: if I have requited evil with evil (Ps 7:3ff.). The Apostle also uses this form, as in 2 Corinthians: I call God to witness against my life (2 Cor 1:23).

83. Then he mentions the matter concerning which he calls God to witness when he says, that without ceasing I make a commemoration of you, i.e., because in his prayers he always prayed for them on account of the general benefits that arose from their conversion: far be it from me that I should sin against the Lord by ceasing to pray for you (1 Sam 12:23).

The statement I make a commemoration of you can be understood in two ways: in one way according to the sense of a psalm: let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember you (Ps 137:6); in another way I make a commemoration of you, i.e., I pray to God, who receives the prayers of the humble. Therefore, when the saints pray for certain people, they are somehow presented to his gaze, just as their other actions are. Hence, the woman said to Elijah: you have come to bring my sin to remembrance (1 Kgs 17:18), as though whatever is done against the just is in the memory and eyes of God.

84. That he claims to pray without ceasing is in agreement with what he tells the Thessalonians: pray constantly (1 Thess 5:7) and with Luke: they ought always to pray and not lose heart (Luke 18:1).

This can be understood in three ways: in one way, as to the very act of praying, and then one is praying always or without ceasing, if he prays at the appointed times and hours: Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour (Acts 3:1). In another way, as to the purpose of prayer which is that our mind rise up to God; and so a man prays as long as he directs his entire life to God: whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31). Third, as to the cause; for when a person so acts that others pray for him, he seems to be praying, as in the case of those who give alms to the poor who pray for them: store up almsgiving in the heart of the poor (Eccl 29:12).

Therefore, I give thanks to my God for you because I regard your blessings as my own. This is obvious from the fact that I pray for you as I do for myself.

85. Then when he says, making request, he proves his affection by his desire to visit them.

First, he mentions the desire;

second, his intention of acting on this desire, at and I would not have you ignorant.

In regard to the first he does two things:

first, he mentions a sign of this desire;

second, the cause of his desire, at for I long.

86. The sign of the desire is the prayer he said for them, which implies such a desire.

That the desire itself was intense is shown when he says making request for something very important which is beyond my merits: the poor use entreaties, but the rich answer roughly (Prov 18:23); for something intensely desired seems great to the one desiring.

Second, it is an anxious desire, for he says if by any means. For if a person anxiously desires something, he seeks to get it by any means, easy or difficult: what then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I shall rejoice (Phil 1:18–19).

Third, the desire was of long standing, for he says now at length, i.e., after long desiring it. For the just are concerned not for a short time but continuously: a friend loves at all times (Prov 17:17).

Fourth, the desire was correct, because it was in keeping with God’s will. Hence he adds if by any means now at length I may have a prosperous journey, i.e., in keeping with his will, in terms of which I judge success: not as I will, but as you will (Matt 26:39).

87. Then when he says for I long to see you, he mentions the causes of the desire, and there are two.

First, the welfare of those he would visit; hence, I long to see you: I yearn for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus (Phil 1:8), not for a trifling reason as in worldly friendship, but that I may impart unto you some spiritual grace, not as its author but as its minister: one should regard us as stewards of the mysteries of God (1 Cor 4:1); and this to strengthen you in the faith you have received: when you have been converted, strengthen your brethren (Luke 22:32).

Now a minister imparts grace in a number of ways, one of which is by the administration of the sacraments of grace: as each has received a gift, administer it to one another as good dispensers of God’s grace (1 Pet 4:10) and by exhorting in sermons: let no evil talk come out of your mouth, but only such as is good for edifying . . . that it may impart grace to those who hear (Eph 4:29).

88. The second cause is the mutual consolation found in friendly communication. Hence he continues that I may be comforted together in you, i.e., me by seeing you and imparting a grace, and all of us by that which is common to us both, your faith and mine.

For it is a source of mutual consolation to be one in the faith: but God who comforts the downcast comforted us by the coming of Titus: not only by his coming but also by the comfort with which he was comforted in you (2 Cor 6:6).

89. Then when he says I would not have you ignorant, he mentions his intention to fulfill his plan lest it appear to be a vain desire.

First, he mentions his plan;

second, its cause, at that I might have some fruit;

third, his eagerness, at so, as much as is in me.

Regarding the first he does two things:

first, he mentions his plan;

second, the obstacle, at and have been hindered hitherto.

90. He says, therefore, first: not only do I desire to see you, but I have decided to fulfill this desire, and I want you to know, brethren, that I have often intended to come to you to prove my love not only in word or speech but in deed and in truth (1 John 3:18).

91. Second, he touches on the obstacle preventing him from having fulfilled that intention, saying, and have been hindered hitherto either by the devil, who endeavors to prevent the preaching from which man’s salvation results: the north wind drives away rain (Prov 25:23), i.e., the doctrines of the preachers; or perhaps by God, according to whose nod the journeys and words of preachers are arranged: the clouds, i.e., preachers, scatter his lightning. They turn round and round by his guidance to accomplish all that he commands them (Job 37:11ff.). Hence in Acts it is recorded: they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia (Acts 16:6); and again: they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them.

But the Apostle wants them to know both these things for their own benefit, so that seeing his affection, they might receive his words with more reverence, and recognizing their own conduct as the obstacle hitherto preventing his visit, they might amend their lives. So the words of Isaiah express a punishment for sin: I will command the clouds to rain no rain upon it (Isa 5:6).

92. Then he gives two reasons for his intention. The first is utility; hence he says that I may impart unto you some spiritual grace, to strengthen you to whom I have preached.

This can be taken in two ways: in one way as though he were saying: that I may reap some harvest among you by my preaching: you should go and bear fruit (John 15:16). In another way as though from their conversion a harvest would grow for him: he who reaps, receives wages and gathers fruit for eternal life (John 4:36).

93. The other reason is the responsibility of his office: woe to me, if I do not preach the Gospel (1 Cor 9:16).

And because he had undertaken the general apostolate of the gentiles, he asserts that he is under obligation to all: although I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all (1 Cor 9:19).

94. And for this reason he sets out two diversities. One is along the lines of the diversity of nations, when he says, to Greeks and to barbarians.

A person is called a barbarian, either because he is cut off from some people in one way or another in the sense of 1 Corinthians: if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a barbarian to the speaker and the speaker to me (1 Cor 13:11); or because he is cut off from the human race, inasmuch as he is not ruled by reason. Hence, they are properly called barbarians who are not directed by reason. This is implied in 2 Maccabees: do not act so fiercely and barbarously (2 Macc 15:2), i.e., inhumanly.

Now because the Greeks were the first to establish laws, he calls all the gentiles ruled by human laws Greeks.

He makes no mention of the Jews who were ruled by divine laws, because he was not appointed apostle to the Jews but to the gentiles: we to the gentiles and they to the circumcised (Gal 2:9).

95. Both reasons account for his readiness of will, so that he says so (as much as is in me), i.e., as far as I am concerned, I am ready, unless prevented, to preach the Gospel to you also who are at Rome: then all the people departed from the presence of Moses. And they came everyone whose heart stirred him (Exod 35:20).

96. He rejects the obstacle to eagerness, namely shame, on account of which many fail to do what they would otherwise do readily; hence he says, I am not ashamed of the Gospel, which, indeed, seemed to be an occasion of shame for some in the presence of unbelievers, as he states in 1 Corinthians: we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and folly to the gentiles (1 Cor 1:23). But there is really no reason for shame, because he continues: but unto them who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God. Hence it is said: whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him the Son of man will be ashamed (Luke 9:26).

That is why the baptized are anointed with the chrism in the form of a cross on the forehead, where shame has its seat, namely, lest they be ashamed of the Gospel.

Wrath of God against man’s ungodliness

For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, He who through faith is righteous shall live. [n. 102]

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. [n. 109]

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [n. 113]

Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; [n. 117]

97. After eliciting the good will of the Roman believers, to whom he was writing, by showing his affection for them, the Apostle now begins to instruct them in matters pertinent to the teachings of the Gospel for which he had been set apart.

First, he shows them the power of the Gospel grace;

second, he urges them to perform the works of this grace, at I beseech you therefore (Rom 12:1).

first, he sets forth what he intends;

second, he explains it, at for the wrath of God.

In regard to the first he does three things:

first, he sets forth the power of the Gospel grace;

second, he explains it, at for the justice;

third, he supports his explanation, at as it is written.

98. He says, therefore: I am not ashamed of the Gospel, because, although the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, to us who are being saved it is the power of God (1 Cor 1:18). For it is the power of God.

This can be understood in two ways. In one way, that the power of God is manifested in the Gospel: he has shown the people the power of his works (Ps 111:6); in another way, that the Gospel itself contains in itself God’s power, in the sense of the Psalm: he will give to his voice a voice of power (Ps 67:34).

99. In regard to this power three things can be considered.

First, to what it extends. This is answered when he says, unto salvation: receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your soul (Jas 1:21). This happens in three ways: first, insofar as sins are forgiven by the word of the Gospel: you are made clean by the word I have spoken to you (John 15:3). Second, insofar as a man obtains sanctifying grace through the Gospel: sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth (John 17:17). Third, insofar as it leads to eternal life: you have the words of eternal life (John 6:68).

100. The second consideration is how the Gospel confers salvation, namely, through faith, which is indicated when he says, to everyone who believes. This happens in three ways. First, through preaching: preach the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved (Mark 16:15). Second, by confessing the faith: with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (Rom 10:10). Third, by the Scripture; hence even the written words of the Gospel have a saving power, as Barnabas cured the sick by placing the Gospel upon them.

Nonetheless, one must beware the superstitions of characters, because this is superstitious. Hence in Ezekiel, those were saved who had written on their foreheads a Tau (Ezek 9:6), which is the sign of the cross.

101. The third thing to be considered is the people for whom the Gospel works salvation, namely, both the Jews and the gentiles. For God is God not of the Jews only, but also of the gentiles, as he says below (Rom 3:19); hence he adds to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

By Greek is meant all the gentiles, because the gentiles’ wisdom arose from the Greeks.

But since he says below there is no distinction between Jew and Greek (Rom 10:12), why does he say here that the Jew is first?

The answer is that there is no distinction as far as the goal of salvation to be obtained is concerned, for both obtain an equal reward, just as in the vineyard the early and the late workers received one coin (Matt 20:10). But in the order of salvation the Jews are first, because the promises were made to them (Rom 3:2), whereas the gentiles were included in their grace like a branch grafted into a cultivated olive tree (Rom 11:24). Also, our savior was born from the Jews: salvation is from the Jews (John 4:22).

102. Then he explains how the Gospel works unto salvation when he says, for the justice of God is revealed therein from faith unto faith.

This can be understood in two ways.

In one way it can refer to the justice by which God is just: the Lord is just and has loved justice (Ps 11:7). Taken this way, the sense is that the justice of God, by which he is just in keeping his promises, is revealed in him, namely, in the man who believes the Gospel, because he believes that God has fulfilled what he promised about sending the Christ. And this is from faith, namely, of God who promised: the Lord is faithful in all his words (Ps 145:13); unto faith, namely of the man who believes.

Or it can refer to the justice of God by which God makes men just. For the justice of men is that by which men presume to make themselves just by their own efforts: not knowing the justice of God and seeking to establish their own justice, they did not submit to the justice of God (Rom 10:3). This justice is revealed in the Gospel inasmuch as men are justified by faith in the Gospel in every age. Hence he adds, from faith unto faith, i.e., proceeding from faith in the Old Testament to faith in the New, because in both cases men are made just and are saved by faith in Christ, since they believed in his coming with the same faith as we believe that he has come. Therefore, it is stated in 2 Corinthians: we have the same type of faith as he had who wrote: I believed, and so I spoke (2 Cor 4:13).

103. Or it can mean from faith of the preachers to the faith of the hearers: how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? (Rom 10:14).

Or from faith in one article, unto faith in another, because justification requires belief in all the articles: blessed is he who reads and hears the words of this prophecy (Rev 1:3).

It can be taken as from present faith and unto future faith, i.e., into the full vision of God, which is called faith by reason of the certainty and solidity of the knowledge, while this present faith is called faith by reason of the knowledge of the Gospel: for now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face (1 Cor 13:12).

104. He supports this explanation when he adds as it is written: my just man lives by faith. This follows the Septuagint text, for in our text, which follows the Hebrew truth, it says the just man lives by his faith.

It says my just man, i.e., justified by me and reputed just before me, as is said below, but if Abraham was justified by works of the law, he has glory, but not before God. For what do the Scriptures say? Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice (Rom 4:2). Hence it adds lives by faith, i.e., by the life of grace: the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God (Gal 2:20).

105. Four things must be considered here concerning faith.

First, what faith is. For it involves willed assent, with certitude, to that which is not seen: because, as Augustine says, no one believes unless he is willing. According to this definition a believer differs from a doubter, who assents to neither side; he also differs from one holding an opinion, who assents to one side not with certitude but with fear concerning the other side; he differs also from one who knows scientifically, who through certitude assents by the necessity of reason. Accordingly, faith is midway between scientific knowledge and opinion.

106. The second consideration is whether faith is a virtue.

Clearly it is not, if faith is taken for that which is believed, as in the statement: this is the Catholic faith, that we venerate one God in Trinity. But if it is taken for the habit by which we believe, then sometimes it is a virtue and sometimes not.

For a virtue is a principle of a perfect act. But an act depending on two principles cannot be perfect, if either of the principles lacks its perfection, just as riding cannot be perfect, if the horse does not run well or the rider does not know how to guide the horse. Now the act of faith, which is to believe, depends on the intellect and on the will moving the intellect to assent. Hence, the act of faith will be perfect, if the will is perfected by the habit of charity and the intellect by the habit of faith, but not if the habit of charity is lacking. Consequently, faith formed by charity is a virtue; but not unformed faith.

107. The third point to be considered is that the same numerical habit of faith which was not formed by charity becomes a virtue with the advent of charity, because, since charity is outside the essence of faith, the substance of faith is not changed by the coming or going of charity.

108. Fourth, we must consider that just as the body lives its natural life through the soul, so the soul lives the life of grace through God. First of all, God dwells in the soul through faith: that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith (Eph 3:17); but this indwelling is not perfect, unless faith is formed by charity, which by the bond of perfection unites us to God (Col 3:14). Consequently, the phrase lives by faith must be understood of formed faith.

109. Then when he says the wrath of God is revealed, he proves what he had said, namely, that the power of the Gospel’s grace exists for all men unto salvation.

First, he shows that it is necessary for salvation;

second, that it is efficacious or sufficient, at being justified therefore by faith (Rom 5:1).

In regard to the first he does two things.

First, he shows that the power of the Gospel grace was necessary for the gentiles’ salvation, because the wisdom in which they trusted could not save them;

second, he shows that it was necessary for the Jews, because circumcision, the law, and other things in which they trusted, did not bring them salvation, at wherefore you are inexcusable (Rom 2:1).

In regard to the first he does two things:

First, he states his intention;

second, he manifests it, at because that which is known of God.

110. And he sets forth three things. First, punishment, when he says: rightly do I say that the justice of God is revealed in it, for in it the wrath of God is revealed, i.e., God’s vengeance, which is called wrath in comparison to angry men who seek vengeance exteriorly; although God takes vengeance with a tranquil spirit: you, our Lord, judge with tranquility (Wis 12:18).

Of this anger of God it is said: he that does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him (John 3:36).

This is stated, because some philosophers said that punishments for sin are not from God, contrary to what is said in the Psalm: he that chastises the nations, does he not chastise us? (Ps 94:19).

That is why he adds from heaven, because they believed that God’s providence was so occupied with the heavens that it did not extend to earthly affairs: he walks about the poles of heaven, nor does he consider our things (Job 22:14). But as it says in the Psalm: from heaven the Lord looked at the earth (Ps 102:19).

Or he is said to prove their iniquity from heaven, because they should have recognized the power of the Creator above all from the greatness of the heavens: the heavens will reveal his iniquity (Job 20:27).

Or from heaven he will come to judge: Jesus will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven (Acts 1:11).

111. Second, he mentions the sin for which the punishment is inflicted.

First, the sin against God, when he says: against all ungodliness. For just as godliness refers to worship paid to God, as to the highest parent, so ungodliness is a sin against divine worship: the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself (Ezek 18:20).

Second, he sets forth the sin committed against man, when he says and injustice. For justice is that through which men come together and engage one another reasonably: your justice will help a son of man (Job 35:8).

112. Third, he sets out the knowledge they had of him, when he says: of those men who detain the truth of God, i.e., true knowledge of God, in injustice. For true knowledge of God, by its very nature, leads men to good, but it is bound, as though held captive, by a love of wickedness through which, as the Psalm says, truths have vanished from among the sons of men (Ps 11:1).

113. Then when he says because that which is known of God, he manifests what he has said, but in reverse order.

For he first admits that wise men among the gentiles knew the truth about God;

second, he shows that there was ungodliness and injustice among them, at so that they are inexcusable;

third, that they have incurred God’s wrath, at who, having known the justice of God (Rom 1:32).

In regard to the first he does three things.

First, he shows what they knew about God;

second, from whom they obtained this knowledge, at for God has manifested it unto them;

third, how they obtained it, at for the invisible things.

114. First, therefore, he says: rightly do I say that they have suppressed the truth about God. For they did possess some true knowledge of God, because that which is known of God, i.e., what can be known about God by men through reason, is manifest in them, i.e., is manifest to them from something in them, i.e., from an inner light.

Therefore, it should be noted that some things about God are entirely unknown to man in this life, namely, what God is. Hence Paul found in Athens an altar inscribed: to the unknown God (Acts 17:23). The reason for this is that man’s knowledge begins with things connatural to him, namely, sensible creatures, which are not proportioned to representing the divine essence.

115. But man is capable of knowing God from such creatures in three ways, as Denis says in The Divine Names.

He knows him, first of all, through causality. For since these creatures are subject to change and decay, it is necessary to trace them back to some unchangeable and unfailing principle. In this way, it can be known that God exists.

Second, he can be known by the way of excellence. For all things are not traced back to the first principle as to a proper and univocal cause, as when man produces man, but to a common and exceeding cause. From this it is known that God is above all things.

Third, he can be known by the way of negation. For if God is a cause exceeding his effects, nothing in creatures can belong to him, just as a heavenly body is not properly called heavy or light or hot or cold. And in this way, we say that God is unchangeable and infinite; and we use other negative expressions to describe him.

Men had such knowledge through the light of reason bestowed on them: many say: O, that we might see some good! Lift up the light of your countenance upon us, O Lord (Ps 4:6).

116. Then when he says God has manifested it unto them, he shows by what author such knowledge was manifested to them and says that it was God: he teaches us more than the beasts of the earth (Job 35:11).

Here it should be noted that one man manifests something to another by unfolding his own thought by means of such external signs as vocal sounds or writing. But God manifests something to man in two ways: first, by endowing him with an inner light through which he knows: send out your light and your truth (Ps 43:3); second, by proposing external signs of his wisdom, namely, sensible creatures: he poured her out, namely, wisdom, over all his works (Sir 1:9).

Thus God manifested it to them either from within by endowing them with a light or from without by presenting visible creatures, in which, as in a book, the knowledge of God may be read.

117. Then when he says for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world, he shows the manner in which they received such knowledge.

Here the first points to be considered are the things they have known about God. He mentions three.

First, the invisible things of him, through which one understands God’s essence, which, as was said, cannot be seen by us: no one has ever seen God (John 1:18), i.e., in his essence, no one living in this mortal life: to the king of ages, immortal, invisible (1 Tim 1:17).

He says invisible things, using the plural, because God’s essence is not known to us in regard to what it is, i.e., as it is in itself one. That is the way it will be known in heaven: on that day the Lord will be one and his name one (Zech 14:9). But it is now manifested to us through certain likenesses found in creatures, which participate in manifold ways in that which is one in God. Accordingly, our intellect considers the unity of the divine essence under the aspects of goodness, wisdom, power, and so on, all of which are one in God.

Therefore he calls these the invisible things of God, because the one reality in God which corresponds to these names or notions is not seen by us: so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear (Heb 11:3).

Another thing known about God is his power, in virtue of which all things proceed from him as from a principle: great is the Lord and abundant in power (Ps 147:5). This power the philosophers knew to be eternal; hence it is called his eternal power.

The third thing known is what he calls divinity, namely, they knew God as the ultimate end unto which all things tend.

For the divine good is called the common good in which all things participate; on this account he says divinity, which signifies participation, rather than deity, which signifies God’s essence: for in him the whole fullness of divinity dwells bodily (Col 2:9).

These three things are referred to the above-mentioned three ways of knowing. For the invisible things of God are known by the method of negation; the eternal power by the method of causality; the divinity by way of excellence.

118. Second, one must consider the medium through which they knew those things. This is designated when he says by the things that are made.

For just as an art is shown by an artist’s works, so God’s wisdom is shown by his creatures: from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their creator (Wis 13:5).

119. Third, he shows how God is known through them when he says clearly seen, being understood.

For it is by the intellect that God is known, not by the senses or imagination, which do not extend beyond bodily things: but God is spirit (John 4:24); behold my servant shall understand (Isa 52:13).

120. Fourth, he designates the things from which God is known by this medium when he says from the creation of the world. In one way, this can be understood as referring to man: preach the Gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15), either on account of the excellence of man, who in the order of nature is less than the angels but greater than lower creatures: yet you have made him less than the angels; you have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen (Ps 8:5), or because he has something in common with every creature. For he has existence in common with stones, life in common with trees, sense in common with animals, and intelligence in common with angels, as Gregory says.

In another way it can be understood of all creation. For no creature by its own natural power can see God’s essence in itself. Hence it is said even of the Seraphim, with two wings they covered their head (Isa 6:2). But just as man understands God through visible creatures, so an angel understands God by understanding its own essence.

121. Or, creation of the world can be taken to mean not created things but the creation of things, as though it were said: from the creation of the world. In this case, one interpretation would be that the invisible things of God are understood by means of things made since the creation of the world and not only since the time of grace. Another interpretation would be that from the creation of the world men began to know God through the things that were made: all men have looked on it (Job 36:25).

122. But a Gloss says that by the invisible things of God is meant the person of the Father: whom no man has ever seen or can see (1 Tim 6:16); by the eternal power the person of the Son: Christ the power of God (1 Cor 1:24); by divinity the person of the Holy Spirit, to whom goodness is appropriated. Not that philosophers under the lead of reason could arrive by means of created things to a knowledge of the persons, so as to know what are proper to each, which do not signify any causal connection with creatures; but by way of appropriation. Yet they are said to have failed in the third sign, i.e., in the Holy Spirit, because they did not mention anything corresponding to the Holy Spirit, as they did for the Father, namely the very first principle, and for the Son, namely the first mind created, which they called the Father’s understanding, as Macrobius says in his book On the Dream of Scipio.

Impiety and injustice of the gentiles

for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. [n. 126]

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [n. 131]

and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. [n. 132]

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, [n. 137]

because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. [n. 141]

123. After showing that truth about God was known by the gentiles, he now states that they were guilty of the sins of ungodliness and injustice.

First, he shows this with regard to the sin of impiety;

second, in regard to injustice, at and as they liked not to have (Rom 1:28).

But someone might believe that they would be excused from the sin of ungodliness on account of ignorance, as the Apostle says of himself in 1 Timothy: I received mercy, because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief (1 Tim 1:13).

First, therefore, he shows that they are without excuse;

second, he states their sin, at and they changed the glory.

124. In regard to the first it should be noted that ignorance excuses from guilt, when it precedes and causes guilt in such a way that the ignorance itself is not the result of guilt; for example, when a person, after exercising due caution, thinks he is striking a foe, when he is really striking his father. But if the ignorance is caused by guilt, it cannot excuse one from a fault that follows. Thus, if a person commits murder, because he is drunk, he is not excused from the guilt, because he sinned by intoxicating himself; indeed, according to the Philosopher, he deserves a double penalty.

125. First, therefore, he states his intention, saying so, i.e., things about God are so well known to them, that they may be without excuse, i.e., they cannot be excused on the plea of ignorance: whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin (Jas 4:17); wherefore, you are inexcusable (Rom 2:1).

126. Second, he proves his statement at because that, when they knew.

First, he shows that their first guilt did not proceed from ignorance;

second, that their ignorance proceeded from this guilt, at but became vain.

127. That their basic guilt was not due to ignorance is shown by the fact that, although they possessed knowledge of God, they failed to use it unto good. For they knew God in two ways: first, as the supereminent being, to whom glory and honor were due. They are said to be without excuse, therefore, because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, either because they failed to pay him due worship or because they put a limit to his power and knowledge by denying certain aspects of his power and knowledge, contrary to Ecclesiastes: when you exalt him, put forth all your strength (Eccl 43:30).

Second, they knew him as the cause of all good things. Hence, in all things he was deserving of thanks, which they did not render; rather, they attributed their blessings to their own talent and power. Hence, he adds or given thanks, namely, to the Lord: give thanks to him in all circumstances (1 Thess 5:18).

128. Then when he says but became vain he shows that in their case, ignorance was the result of their guilt.

First, he states his charge;

second, he explains it, at for, professing themselves.

129. First, then, he mentions the guilt which caused their ignorance, when he says, became vain.

For something is futile when it lacks stability or firmness. But God alone is changeless: I, the Lord, do not change (Mal 3:6). Consequently, the human mind is free of futility only when it leans on God. But when God is rejected and the mind rests in creatures, it incurs futility: for all men who were ignorant of God were foolish and could not know God from the good things which are seen (Wis 13:1); the Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are vain (Ps 94:11). In their thoughts they became vain, because they put their trust in themselves and not in God, ascribing their blessings not to God but to themselves, as the Psalmist says: our lips are with us; who is our master? (Ps 11:4).

130. Second, he mentions the ignorance which followed, when he says was darkened, i.e., by the fact that their foolish heart was darkened, i.e., deprived of the light of wisdom, through which man truly knows God. For just as a person who turns his bodily eyes from the sun is put in darkness, so one who turns from God, presuming on himself and not on God, is put in spiritual darkness: where there is humility, which subjects a man to God, there is wisdom; where there is pride, there is a disgrace (Prov 11:2); you have hidden these things from the wise, as they seemed to themselves, and revealed them to babes, i.e., to the humble (Matt 11:25); the gentiles live in the futility of their mind; they are darkened in their understanding (Eph 4:17).

131. Then when he says professing themselves he explains his statement.

And first, how they became futile in their thinking, when he says professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Professing themselves, i.e., ascribing wisdom to themselves as of themselves: woe to those who are wise in their own eyes (Isa 5:21); how can you say to Pharaoh: I am the son of the wise, a son of ancient kings? Where now are your wise men? (Isa 19:11).

Second, he explains his statement that their foolish heart was darkened when he says they became fools to the point of acting contrary to divine wisdom: every man is stupid and without knowledge of his own on which he presumed (Jer 10:14).

132. Then when he says and they changed the glory, he mentions the punishment for the gentiles’ sin of ungodliness.

First, in regard to sinning against God’s glory;

second, how they sinned against the truth of nature itself, at who changed the truth.

first, he sets forth the sin of ungodliness;

second, the punishment, at wherefore, God gave them up.

133. Their sin, indeed, was that, so far as in them lay, they transferred divine honor to something else: my people have changed their glory for that which does not profit (Jer 2:11).

First, therefore, he mentions what they changed;

second, that into which they changed it, at into the likeness.

134. In regard to the first, three things should be noted on the part of God.

First, his glory, which he mentions when he says and they changed the glory. This can be interpreted in two ways: first, as referring to the glory with which man gives glory to God by rendering him the worship of latria: to the only God be honor and glory (1 Tim 1:17). They exchanged this, when they paid to others the worship due to God. Second, as referring to the glory with which God is glorious, which is incomprehensible and infinite: he that is a searcher of majesty shall be overwhelmed by glory (Prov 25:27). This glory, of course, is nothing less than the brilliance of the divine nature; for he dwells in unapproachable light (1 Tim 6:16).

This glory they exchanged, when they attributed it to other things, for men gave the incommunicable name to stones and wood (Wis 14:21).

Second, his immortality is noted when he says incorruptible. For he alone is perfectly incorruptible who is entirely unchangeable; for every change is a form of ceasing to be. Hence, it is said: he alone has immortality (1 Tim 6:16).

Third, he notes the sublimity of his nature, when he says God, for it is said: great is the Lord (Ps 48:1).

135. On the part of that into which they exchanged it, three corresponding things are mentioned. For in contrast to glory he says into the likeness of the image, i.e., for a likeness of something produced in the form of an image. For it is plain that the likeness in an image is subsequent to the thing whose image it is. But God’s glory or brilliance is the principle of every nature and form; consequently, when they exchanged God’s glory for images, they put the first being in last place: for a father consumed with grief made an image of his child, who had been suddenly taken from him (Wis 14:15).

In contrast to immortal he says corruptible: what profit is there in my blood, if I go down to the pit? (Ps 30:9), i.e., what good is a dead thing? He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead (Wis 15:17).

In contrast to God he says man: I will not show partiality to any man and I will not equate God with man (Job 32:21).

But what is more abominable, man exchanged God’s glory not only for man, who is made to the image of God, but even for things inferior to man. Hence, he adds of birds, things that fly, and of fourfooted beasts, things that walk, and of creeping things, things that crawl. He omits fish as being less familiar to ordinary human life. Now all these things were put under man by God: you have put all things under his feet (Ps 8:8); go in and see the vile abominations that they are committing here. So I went in and saw; and there, portrayed upon the wall round about were all kinds of creeping things and loathsome beasts (Ezek 8:9).

136. It might be mentioned, as a Gloss says, that from the time of Aeneas’ arrival in Italy, images of men were cultivated, e.g., Jupiter, Hercules, and so on. But after the conquest of Egypt during the reign of Caesar Augustus, the Romans took up the worship of animal images (on account of the figures of animals discovered in the sky), to which the Egyptians, given to astrology, rendered divine worship. Hence, the Lord himself instructed the children of Israel raised in Egypt against such worship, when he said: beware lest you lift up your eyes to heaven and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, you be drawn away and worship them (Deut 4:19).

137. Then when he says wherefore, God gave them up he mentions the punishment for such a sin.

Here it should be noted that man holds a place midway between God and the beasts and has something in common with both: with God, intellectuality; with animals, sensibility. Therefore, just as man exchanged that which was of God for what is bestial, so God subjected the divine in man, namely reason, to what is of the beast in him, his sensual desire, as it is stated: man cannot abide in his pomp (Ps 49:20), i.e., understand the likeness of the divine image in him through reason, he is like the beasts that perish. This, therefore, is why he says wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, so that their reason would be ruled by the desires of the heart, namely, lustful affections, about which he says below: make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscences (Rom 13:14). But this is contrary to man’s natural order, in which reason dominates the sense appetites: its desire is under you and you must master it (Gen 4:7).

Consequently, he releases men to the desires of the heart as to cruel masters: I will give over the Egyptians into the hand of a hard master (Isa 19:4).

138. It is chiefly with respect to the sense appetite that a certain bestial derangement is present in carnal sins. For the pleasures of touch, which delight gluttony and lust, are common to us and to beasts. Hence, they are more detestable, being more brutish, as the Philosopher says in Ethics III.

This is designated when he says unto uncleanness, which refers to sins of the flesh, as is clear from Ephesians: every fornicator or impure man (Eph 5:5); because it is especially through such sins that man turns to and is drawn to what is beneath him. For a thing is said to be impure or tainted from being mixed with something base, as silver mixed with lead. Hence, in explanation he continues: to dishonor, by base and unclean acts, their own bodies among themselves, i.e., not as though compelled by others, for example, by savages, but they do this among themselves spontaneously. Below: has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vase for honor and another for dishonor? (Rom 9:21). Namely, for menial use.

139. But since impurity of this kind is a sin, it seems that God would not give men over to it: God himself tempts no one to evil (Jas 1:13).

The answer is that God does not give men over to impurity directly, as though inclining a man’s affection toward evil, because God ordains all things to himself: the Lord has made everything for himself (Prov 16:4), whereas something is sinful through its turning from him. But he gives men over to sin indirectly, inasmuch as he justly withdraws the grace through which men are kept from sinning, just as a person would be said to cause another to fall, if he removed the ladder supporting him. In this way, one’s first sin is a cause of the next, which is at the same time a punishment for the first one.

To understand this it should be noted that one sin can be the cause of another directly or indirectly: directly, inasmuch as from one sin he is inclined to another in any of three ways. In one way, when it acts as a final cause; for example, when someone from greed or envy is incited to commit murder. Second, when it acts as a material cause, as gluttony leads to lust by administering the material. Third, when it acts as a moving cause, as when many repetitions of the same sin produce a habit inclining a person to repeat the sin.

Indirectly, when the first sin merits the exclusion of grace, so that once it is removed, a man falls into another sin. In this way the first sin is the cause of the second indirectly or incidentally, inasmuch as it removes the preventative.

140. It should be borne in mind, however, that sin as such cannot be a punishment, because we suffer punishment against our will, whereas sin is voluntary, as Augustine says. But because sin has certain features contrary to the will of the sinner, it is by reason of them that a sin is called a punishment of a previous sin. One of these features is something preceding the sin, as the withdrawal of grace, from which it follows that a man sins. Another is something that accompanies the sin either interiorly, as that the mind is disarranged; hence Augustine says in Confessions I: you have commanded it, O Lord, and so it comes to pass that every disarranged mind is a punishment to itself; or in regard to its outward acts, which involve difficulties and labors, as sinners aver: we journeyed through trackless deserts (Wis 5:7). The third feature is something that follows the sin, such as remorse of conscience, bad reputation, and so on.

141. Then, when he says, who changed the truth, he mentions the sin of ungodliness committed against the truth of the divine nature.

First, he mentions the sin;

second, the punishment, at wherefore, God gave them up.

142. The divine nature can be considered in two ways: in one way, as being the first truth. In this respect he says that they changed the truth of God into a lie.

This can be taken in two ways: first, that they changed the true knowledge they received from God into false dogmas with their perverse reasoning; for example when they claimed that certain idols are gods or that God is not all-powerful or all-knowing: they have taught their tongue to speak lies (Jer 9:5). In another way, they exchanged the truth about God for a lie, because they attributed the nature of divinity, which is truth itself, to an idol, which is a lie, inasmuch as it is not God: our fathers have inherited nothing but lies; worthless things in which there is no profit. Can man make for himself gods? Such are no gods! (Jer 16:19).

The divine nature can be considered in another way as being the source of existence for all things though creation. Consequently, men owed him worship: inwardly, the worship of a pious love: if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, him he hears (John 9:31); outwardly, the service of latria: the Lord, your God, shall you adore and him alone shall you serve (Deut 9:13).

143. Then he continues, charging that they worshipped and served the creature rather than the creator. For they worshipped heavenly bodies and air and water and other such things: they supposed that fire or wind or swift air or the circle of the stars (Wis 13:2).

With these words he censures the wise men of the gentiles who, although they never believed that anything divine was present in images, as the followers of Hermes believed, or that the fables created by poets concerning the gods were true, nevertheless paid divine worship to certain creatures, thus lending support to the fables. Thus, Varro supposed that the universe was God on account of its soul and taught that divine worship can be paid to the whole universe, namely, to the air, which they called Juno, to the water, which they called Liaeus, and to other things. Even the Platonists taught that divine worship was owed to all the rational substances above us; for example, to demons, to the souls of the heavenly bodies, and to the intelligences, i.e., the separated substances.

Now, although we should show some reverence to those above us, it should never be the worship of latria, which consists chiefly in sacrifices and oblations, through which man professes God to be the author of all good things. Similarly, in any kingdom certain honors are due the supreme ruler and it is not lawful to transfer them to anyone else.

144. And for this reason he adds who is blessed, i.e., whose goodness is evident, just as we are said to bless God, when we admit his goodness with our heart and express it orally: when you bless him, put forth all your strength (Eccl 43:30).

He adds forever because his goodness is everlasting; it depends on no one else, but is the source of all good. For this reason the worship of latria is due him.

He ends with amen to indicate absolute certainty: he who blesses himself in the land shall be blessed by the God of truth (Isa 65:16). Amen, i.e., it is true, or so be it.

145. It seems that the Apostle touches on the three theologies of the gentiles.

First, the civil, which was observed by their priests adoring idols in the temple; in regard to this he says: they changed the glory of the incorruptible God.

Second, the theology of fables, which their poets presented in the theater. In regard to this he says: who changed the truth of God into a lie.

Third, their natural theology, which the philosophers observed in the world, when they worshipped the parts of the world. In regard to this he says: and worshipped and served the creature rather than the creator.

The punishments of the gentiles

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, [n. 146]

and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. [n. 150]

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. [n. 152]

They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, [n. 156]

slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, [n. 162]

foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. [n. 165]

Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them. [n. 166]

146. Having set forth the sin of ungodliness, according to which they have sinned against the divine nature, he now sets forth the punishment whereby they have been reduced to sinning against their own nature.

First, he mentions the punishment;

second, he explains it, at for their women;

third, its fittingness, at and receiving in themselves.

147. Therefore, he says for this cause, i.e., because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie, God delivered them up not, of course, by impelling them to evil but by abandoning them to shameful affections, i.e., sins against nature, which are called passions in the sense that a passion implies that a thing is drawn outside the order of its own nature, as when water becomes hot or when a man becomes sick. Hence, because man departs from the natural order, when he commits such sins, they are fittingly called passions, as in Romans: the passions of sins (Rom 7:5).

They are called shameful affections, because their acts are not worthy of man: it is a shame even to speak of the things that they do in secret (Eph 5:12). For if sins of the flesh are shameful, because through them man is lowered to what is bestial in him, much more so are sins against nature, through which man sinks below the bestial: I will change his glory into shame (Hos 4:7).

148. Then when he says for their women he explains his statement.

First, in regard to women;

second, in regard to men, at and, in like manner, the men also.

149. He says therefore first: the reason why I say that they have been given up to dishonorable passions is that their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. Does not nature itself teach you? (1 Cor 11:14); they have transgressed the laws, broken the everlasting covenant, i.e., the natural law (Isa 24:5).

It should be noted that something is against man’s nature in two ways: in one way, against the nature of what constitutes man, i.e., rationality. In this way, every sin is said to be against man’s nature, inasmuch as it is against right reason. Hence, Damascene says that an angel in sinning was turned from what is according to nature into what is contrary to nature.

In another way, something is said to be against man’s nature by reason of his general class, which is animal. Now it is obvious that according to the intent of nature, sexual union in animals is ordained to the act of generation; hence, every form of union from which generation cannot follow is against the nature of animal as animal. In line with this it is stated in the Gloss that the natural use is that a man and a woman come together in one copulation, but it is against nature that a man pollute a man and a woman a woman. The same is true of every act of intercourse from which generation cannot follow.

150. Then when he says and, in like manner, he explains in regard to males, who leaving the natural use of the women, have burned, i.e., lusted for something beyond the intent of nature: they blazed like a fire of thorns (Ps 118:12); and this in their lusts, i.e., carnal desires, men with men, working that which is filthy: I will uncover your shame before them and they will see all your baseness (Ezek 16:37).

151. Then he shows that this recompense suited their guilt, when he says, and receiving in themselves, i.e., in the deformation of their nature, the recompense which was due to their error, i.e., the error of exchanging the truth of God for a lie; the recompense which was due, i.e., the retribution they deserved to receive according to the order of justice, which required that those who insulted God’s nature by attributing to creatures what is his alone, should be affronts to their own nature.

Although recompense seems to imply something good, it is taken here for any retribution, even evil: the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23); all their wages shall be burned with fire (Mic 1:7).

It should be noted that the Apostle very reasonably considers vices against nature, which are the worst carnal sins, as punishments for idolatry, because they seem to have begun as idolatry, namely, at the time of Abraham, when idolatry is believed to have begun. That seems to be the reason why they are first recorded to have been punished among the people of Sodom (Gen 19). Furthermore, as idolatry became more widespread, these vices grew. Hence it is written that Jason founded a gymnasium right under the citadel, and he induced the noblest of the young men to wear the Greek hat (2 Macc 4:12), i.e., put them in brothel houses. Now this was not the beginning, but an increase and progression of the heathenish and foreign manners.

152. Then when he says and as they liked not, he shows that they fell under a penalty of justice.

First, he shows that previous sin brought them to these sins;

second, he enumerates the differences among these sins, at being filled with all iniquity.

153. He mentions the preceding sin when he says and as they liked not to have God in their knowledge. This can be interpreted in two ways: in one way, that although they could have had true knowledge about God by the light of reason considering visible things, nevertheless, to sin more freely, they did not like to have God in their knowledge, i.e., they did not approve having God in their knowledge: they said to God: depart from us. We do not desire knowledge of your ways (Job 21:14).

In another way it can mean that they did not acknowledge that God knows about human behavior: the Lord does not see: the God of Jacob does not perceive (Ps 94:7). According to this interpretation the punishment is shown to fit this sin, when he says God delivered them up to a reprobate sense.

154. Sense here does not mean man’s external sense, by which sense-perceptible things are known, but the interior sense, according to which he judges his behavior: to fix one’s thoughts on her, i.e., wisdom, is to have perfect sense (Wis 6:15).

It is called a base sense, because it reached discommendable judgments about behavior: men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith (2 Tim 3:8); refuse silver they are called (Jer 6:30).

155. Therefore, he continues: to do those things which are not fitting, i.e., behavior not in accord with right reason: their works are useless (Wis 3:11).

Yet it is fitting that those who sinned against knowing God either by refusing to acknowledge him or by thinking that they do not know him, should be given up to a perverse sense. That is why it is written: a just penalty always pursues the transgression of the unrighteous (Wis 14:31).

156. Then when he says being filled, he enumerates these unbecoming actions. First, he describes their general state, saying being filled with all iniquity, because, as it is said: all sin is wickedness (1 John 3:4).

For just as every virtue, inasmuch as it carries out a precept of the law, qualifies as justice, so every sin, inasmuch as it is at variance with the rule of the divine law, qualifies as wickedness. And so sins are particularly reprehended in the Sacred Scripture.

He stresses their guilt in two ways: first, in its enormity, when he says filled. For that person seems to be filled with wickedness whose affections are totally dedicated to sinning: their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness (Ps 13:3). Second, in its extent, because they sin not in one matter only but in all: the worship of idols is the beginning and cause and end of every evil (Wis 14:27).

157. Then when he says malice, he enumerates their sins in detail.

First, their transgressions which disobey negative precepts;

second, their omission, which disregard affirmative precepts, at proud.

first, he mentions the sins by which a person deteriorates within himself;

second, those by which he becomes harmful to his neighbor, at wickedness.

158. In regard to the first he describes the source of deterioration in general terms, when he says malice, which is a habit of vice opposed to virtue. Hence it is that a person who sins from habit is said to sin from malice: why do you boast of malice? (Ps 51:1).

In regard to particulars, he mentions first the sin by which a person is disarranged in regard to the desire for bodily pleasures, when he says fornication. For although fornication, strictly speaking, is with prostitutes who offered themselves publicly near the fornices, i.e., the triumphal arches, yet here it is taken for any unlawful concubinage: beware, my son, of all fornication (Tob 4:12).

Second, the vice through which a person is misaligned in his desire for external things, when he says, avarice, which is the untamed desire for possessing: keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have (Heb 13:5).

159. Then the sins which tend to harm one’s neighbor are mentioned: first, wickedness, i.e., villainy, which inclines a person to attempt what he cannot accomplish. This happens especially in regard to harming one’s neighbor, whom one does not always succeed in harming as planned: let the evils of the wicked come to an end (Ps 7:9).

Second, he mentions the root of these sins, when he says full of envy, which consists in being grieved at another’s good; as a result one is incited to harm the other: through the devil’s envy death entered the world (Wis 2:24).

160. Then are mentioned the wrongs: first, the obvious ones that are deeds, when he says murders, which are the chief wrongs: there is swearing, lying, killing, stealing, and committing of adultery (Hos 4:2). He says murders in the plural because murder is present not only in the action but also in the will: anyone who hates his brother is a murderer (1 John 3:15), i.e., who hates him to kill him.

Second, the obvious ones that are words, when he says contention, which is an attack on the truth launched with the self-assurance of shouting: it is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife (Prov 20:3).

161. Then he mentions the covert injuries: first, one that is general, when he says deceit, i.e., when one thing is pretended and something else is done: their tongue is a deadly arrow; it speaks deceitfully; with his mouth each speaks peaceably to his neighbor, but in his heart he plans an ambush for him (Jer 9:8).

After these he mentions the inner root of these harmful deeds, when he says malignity, which implies an evil fire, i.e., ill will in the heart: they speak peace with their neighbors, while mischief is in their hearts (Ps 28:3); the Lord abhors deceitful men (Ps 5:6).

162. Then he mentions the covert wrongs that are perpetrated by words when he says whisperers , i.e., those who secretly whisper in men’s ears to sow discord among them: curse the whisperer and deceiver, for he has destroyed many who were at peace (Eccl 28:15); detractors, i.e., persons who detract from another’s reputation secretly, i.e., saying evil things about another without his knowing it: if a serpent bites before it is charmed, there is no advantage in a charmer (Eccl 10:11).

But lest these sins be regarded as trivial, because they are committed only by words, he adds hateful to God; for they mainly attack something that God loves in men, namely, mutual love: this is my commandment, that you love one another (John 15:12); hence it is said: there are six things which the Lord hates, and a seventh is an abomination to him (Prov 6:16), namely, a person who sows discord among brothers.

He adds contumelious, namely, those who insult another to his face: though I formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted him (1 Tim 1:13).

Thus he mentioned three vices that agree on one point, namely, they say something evil about one’s neighbor.

But they differ in their aim, for the whisperer intends discord, the slanderer ill repute, and the insolent injury.

163. Then he mentions the sins that involve omission: first, the root of these sins, when he says proud.

They are called haughty, as though moving on a higher plane than they ought. On account of an unregulated desire for excellence, they wish to be first, refuse any rule outside themselves, and, therefore, ignore commands: the beginning of all sin is pride (Eccl 10:13), which is true, insofar as sin is a turning from God, but not insofar as sin is a turning to a perishable good. For it is stated: the love of money is the root of all evils (1 Tim 6:10).

164. Second, he describes the progress of pride. First, from it is born in the heart a boastful attitude, so that a person esteems himself above others: I am not like other men (Luke 18:11). Against those who over-esteem themselves it is said: my eyes are not raised too high (Ps 131:1).

Second, from pride arises presumption to be new and different in behavior, to which he alludes, when he says inventors of evil things. For since good things have already been established by God and men, the result is that they devise new evils: their devisings are against the Lord (Isa 3:8).

165. Then the omissions are mentioned: first, in regard to authority; hence, in regard to parents he says disobedient to parents, contrary to what is commanded in Ephesians: children, obey your parents in the Lord (Eph 6:1). In regard to God’s authority he says, foolish, i.e., acting contrary to God’s wisdom: the fear of the Lord is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding (Job 28:28).

Second, he mentions a sin of omission relating to oneself, when he says dissolute in appearance and in gait: a man’s attire and open-mouthed laughter and a man’s manner of walking show what he is (Eccl 19:30). Some fall under this indictment, when their manner conflicts with the common customs of the people among whom they live.

Third, he mentions omission touching one’s equals, toward whom we ought to have, first of all, affection in the heart; hence, he says without affection: the heart of the wicked is cruel (Prov 12:10); men will be lovers of self and not of others (2 Tim 3:2). Second, a man should live in social life with his equals, in contrast to which he says without fidelity; consequently, they do not live in society with others: they smote them with the edge of the sword (Judg 18:27ff.); woe to him that is alone when he falls and has no one to lift him up (Eccl 4:10).

Fourth, he mentions an omission affecting one’s inferiors, when he says without mercy, which we ought to show to the desolate: judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy (Jas 2:13).

166. Then when he says who, having known the justice, he shows that they are deserving of God’s anger or vengeance.

In this regard there are three points to consider.

First, their naturalistic attitude, because although they knew that God is just and possessed of all other perfections, they did not believe that he would punish their sins: they say in their hearts: the Lord will not do evil (Zeph 1:12). This is why he says, who, having known the justice of God, did not understand.

167. Second, the punishment due to their sins, when he says, are worthy of death. The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23).

For it is fitting that the soul which deserts God should be deserted by its own body through bodily death and in the end be deserted by God through eternal death: the death of the wicked is very evil (Ps 34:22); over such the second death has no power (Rev 20:6).

168. Third, he considers those who deserve this punishment: first, they who do such things, i.e., the above mentioned sins: you hate all evildoers. You destroy those who speak lies (Ps 5:5–6).

But not only they who do them, but they also who consent to those who do them. And this in two ways: in one way directly, by applauding sin: the wicked is praised in the desires of his heart (Ps 10:3), or even by offering advice and help: should you help the wicked (2 Chr 19:2). In another way, indirectly, by not objecting or opposing in any way, and especially when one is obliged by his office. Thus, the sins of his sons were imputed to Eli (1 Sam 3:13). In particular, this is directed against those gentile wise men who, even though they did not worship idols, did nothing to oppose those who did.

Divine Judgment and the Jewish Law

Man’s inordinate judgment

Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. [n. 169]

We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things. [n. 178]

Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? [n. 180]

Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? [n. 183]

But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. [n. 186]

169. After showing that the gentiles did not become just from the knowledge of the truth they had, the Apostle now shows that neither were the Jews made just by the things in which they gloried. Consequently, both of them need the power of the Gospel’s grace for salvation.

First, therefore, he says that the Jews were not made just by the law;

second, that they were not made just by the race in which they gloried: what advantage then has the Jew? (Rom 3:1).

third, that they were not made just by circumcision: what shall we say then? (Rom 4:1).

170. In regard to the first point it should be noted that Jews and gentiles converted to the faith judged each other on their previous life. For the Jews objected to the gentiles that when they lived without God’s law, they sacrificed to idols. The gentiles on their part objected to the Jews that even though they received God’s law, they did not keep it.

First, therefore, he rebukes both sides and their extravagant judgment;

second, he shows that the Jews were not worthy of a reward, because the things they glory in were not sufficient for salvation, at for not the hearers of the law (Rom 2:13).

Concerning the first, he does two things:

First, he confutes human judgment;

second, he discloses and commends the divine judgment, at for we know.

Concerning the first he does two things.

first, he proposes that although they judge one another, neither has an excuse;

second, he gives the reason, at for wherein you judge.

171. First, therefore, he concludes from what he stated in the first chapter that even though the gentiles by their wickedness suppressed the truth they knew about God, you are inexcusable, O man, whosoever you are who judges another man, just as he said earlier: so that they are inexcusable (Rom 1:20).

He says whoever you are as if to say: whether Jew or gentile, because even the gentiles, who might seem to have an excuse, cannot be excused on the plea of ignorance, as he stated above (Rom 1:20ff.); do not pronounce judgment before the time (1 Cor 4:5).

172. Then when he says for wherein you judge he gives the reason by rejecting the causes for excuse:

first, ignorance;

second, innocence, at for you do the same.

173. Ignorance is excluded by the very act of judging. For whoever judges another an evildoer shows that he knows that the conduct is evil and, therefore, that he is himself worthy of condemnation. And this is what he says: you have no excuse, for wherein you judge another as an evildoer you condemn yourself, i.e., you show that you are worthy of being condemned: judge not, that you may not be judged (Matt 7:1).

174. This does not mean that every judgment is a cause of condemnation.

For there are three kinds of judgment: one is just, i.e., made according to the rule of justice: love justice, you rulers of the earth (Wis 1:1); another is not just, i.e., made contrary to the rule of justice: although servants of his kingdom, you did not rule rightly (Wis 6:4); the third is rash judgment against which it is said: be not rash with your mouth (Eccl 5:2).

A rash judgment is made in two ways: in one way, when a person passes judgment on a matter committed to him without due knowledge of the truth, contrary to what is stated: I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know (Job 29:16). In another way, when a person presumes to judge about hidden matters, of which God alone has the power to judge, contrary to what is stated: do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness (1 Cor 4:5).

175. But some things are hidden not only in relation to us but of their very nature and so belong solely to God’s knowledge: first, the thoughts of the heart: man’s heart is deceitful and unsearchable. Who can understand it? I, the Lord, search the mind and try the heart (Jer 17:9); second, the contingent future: tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know you are gods (Isa 41:23). Hence, as Augustine says: there are two cases in which we must beware of rash judgment: when it is not certain in what spirit something was done, or when it is not certain how a person will turn out, who now appears to be good or to be wicked.

The first judgment is not a cause for condemnation, but the second and third are.

176. Then when he says for you do the same, he rejects the other excuse, namely, innocence. As if to say: the reason why you, the judge of others, condemn yourself is that for you do the same things which you judge, i.e., for which you condemn them; consequently, it seems that you are acting against your conscience: why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? (Matt 7:3).

177. However, it should be noted that it is not always true, when someone judges another concerning a sin which he himself commits, that he automatically draws a condemnation upon himself, because he does not always sin mortally by so judging; yet he always reveals his own damnation.

For if he is publicly guilty of the sin concerning which he judges another, he seems to be giving scandal by judging, unless perhaps he humbly reproves himself along with the other and laments his sin.

But if he is secretly guilty of the same sin, he does not sin by judging another about the same sin, especially when he does so with humility and with an effort to rise again, as Augustine says in The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount: when necessity compels us to correct someone, let us first examine whether it is a vice, such as we never had: and then let us reflect that we could have had it or that we once had it and no longer have it: and then our common weakness will prod the memory, so that mercy and not hatred will guide that correction. But if we discover that we are presently guilty of the same vice, we should not scold but lament together and invite the other to join you in grieving.

178. Then when he says for we know, he discloses and commends God’s judgment. And concerning this he does three things.

First, he declares the truth of God’s judgment;

second, he rejects a contrary opinion, at do you think this;

third, he manifests the truth, at who will render (Rom 2:6).

179. First, therefore, he says: the reason I say that you condemn yourself, when you do the same things that you judge, is that we know, i.e., we hold it as certain, that the judgment of God is against those who do such things i.e., God’s judgment threatens them: the avenger of sin is the sword, that you may know there is a judgment (Job 19:29); God will bring every deed into judgment (Eccl 12:14).

We also know that this judgment will be according to truth: he will judge the earth with justice (Ps 96:13).

But man’s judgment, even though it be formed justly, is not always based on the truth of the affair, but on the words of witnesses, which sometimes clash with the truth. But this cannot happen in the divine judgment, because, as is said: I am the judge and witness (Jer 21:23). Nor is he deceived by false allegations: I will not spare him, nor his mighty words, and framed to make supplication (Job 41:12).

180. Then when he says do you think this, he rejects a contrary opinion.

First, he states it;

second, the cause of it, at or do you despise;

third, he disproves it, at do you not know.

181. First, therefore, he says: I have said that God’s judgment is in accordance with the truth, against those who do such things. But do you not, O man, whoever you are, who judges those who do such things and yet do the same things, do you not fear a higher judgment? Do you suppose that you will escape the judgment of God? As if to say: if you suppose this, you are wrong: whither shall I go from your Spirit? or whither shall I flee from your presence? (Ps 139:7); all way of escape will be lost to them (Job 11:20).

182. Then when he says or do you despise, he shows the cause of this false supposition. For since man is not punished at once by God for sin, he supposes that he will not be punished, which is contrary to Sirach: do not say, ‘I sinned, and what happened to me?’ For the Lord is slow to anger (Sir 4:5); because sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the sons of men is fully set to do evil (Eccl 8:11).

Yet the fact that the sinner does evil a hundred times and is patiently endured should not lead him to presume on God, but to conclude that it is good to fear him. Therefore, he says here or do you despise: when wickedness comes, contempt comes also (Prov 18:3); the riches, i.e., the abundance: God who is rich in mercy (Eph 2:3); of his goodness, through which he diffuses his blessings on us: you open your hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing (Ps 145:16). For according to Dionysius the good involves the notion of diffusing itself: the Lord is good to those who wait on him (Lam 3:25); and patience, through which he endures those who sin grievously and from malice: God is a just and patient judge. Is he indignant every day? (Ps 7:11); and longsuffering, through which he endures for a long time those who sin from weakness and continue in their sin for a long time: and count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation (2 Pet 3:15).

183. Then when he says do you not know, he disproves the aforementioned cause, namely the cause of contempt of the divine patience.

First, he discloses the purpose of God’s patience;

second, the danger of contempt, at but according to your hardness.

184. First, therefore, he says it is hard to understand your scorn: do you not know that the benignity of God in postponing punishment leads you to penance? The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance (2 Pet 3:9); the Lord waits to be gracious to you (Isa 30:18).

185. As is said in the Gloss, the Apostle seems to touch upon three groups of sinners: those who promise themselves impunity; those who scorn God’s goodness; and the ignorant. Hence, the Gloss says: you sin, O man, as long as you promise yourself that you will escape punishment; you sin more gravely, because you scorn; you sin most gravely, because you are ignorant.

But this seems to be false, for ignorance makes a sin less serious, rather than more serious.

The answer, as is held by some, is that it is more serious, i.e., more dangerous for some, because those who are ignorant of sin do not seek a remedy. Or it is most serious, if it is the form of ignorance that pertains to unbelief, which is the gravest sin: if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized (1 Cor 14:38). Or it is most serious in ingratitude, as Augustine says: one who does not recognize a blessing is more ungrateful than one who belittles, i.e., scorns it.

186. Then when he says but according to your hardness, he shows the danger of contempt, because it is not softened by the blessings of God’s goodness: a hard heart will be afflicted at the end (Sir 4:26); and impenitent heart, which is not moved to repent by God’s forbearance and patience: no man repents of his wickedness (Isa 8:6), you treasure up to yourself wrath, i.e., you are multiplying the debt of punishment: you have laid up a treasure of wrath for the last days (Jas 5:3).

Hence there follows against the day of wrath, i.e., on the day of judgment: a day of wrath is that day (Zeph 1:15), namely, because God does not now inflict the punishment He will inflict then, as is stated: at the set time I will judge with equity (Ps 75:2); and revelation of the just judgment of God, because the justice of God’s judgment will be revealed then, whereas now it is not believed or does not seem just: for my salvation is near to come, and my justice to be revealed (Isa 56:1).

187. Because the Gloss says that by hardness and impenitent heart is meant a sin against the Holy Spirit, which is unforgivable, it is important to see what a sin against the Holy Spirit is and why it is unforgivable.

Accordingly, it should be noted that in the opinion of the earlier Fathers of the Church who preceded Augustine, namely, Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome and Chrysostom, the sin against the Holy Spirit was the blasphemy whereby the works of the Holy Spirit are attributed to an unclean spirit (Matt 12:31). It is considered unforgivable both in this life and in the future, because the Jews were punished for this sin even in this life by the Romans and in the life to come by devils; or because it has no basis for being excused, unlike the blasphemy they spoke against Christ, inasmuch as he was a son of man: behold a glutton and a drunkard (Matt 11:19). They could have been led to say this on account of the weakness of the flesh, as occurred even in the Old Testament, when the children of Israel complained about the lack of bread and water, as we read in Exodus (16:2 et seq.). This could be considered a human failing and easy to forgive. But later on when they declared before an idol: these are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt (Exod 32:4), they sinned against the Holy Spirit, for they attributed God’s work to demons. Hence their sin is called unforgivable, when the Lord answers: nevertheless, in the day when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them (Exod 32:34).

Augustine, on the other hand, calls a sin against the Holy Spirit any word or blasphemy a person speaks against the Holy Spirit, through whom sins are forgiven, as is stated: receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven (John 20:22). Indeed, this sin is committed in the heart, in word and in deed, as long as one continues in sin to the end. Consequently, final impenitence is a sin against the Spirit and of its very nature unforgivable.

Later teachers call a sin against the Holy Spirit one that is committed with deliberate malice, which is opposed to the goodness appropriated to the Holy Spirit, just as a sin against the Son of God is one committed from ignorance, which is opposed to the wisdom appropriated to the Son. Similarly, a sin against the Father is one committed through weakness, which is opposed to the power appropriated to the Father.

Consequently, a sin against the Father and against the Son is deemed forgivable, because the very fact that it is committed from ignorance or from weakness seems to be a ground for excuse. But one committed from deliberate malice has no ground for excuse; hence, it is deemed unforgivable, because it has nothing in it to plead forgiveness; although God does forgive it sometimes, because he is good, just as he sometimes used his power to cure a naturally incurable disease.

188. In light of the foregoing, six kinds of sin against the Holy Spirit are listed, each excluding something by which sin is forgiven. The first two are taken on the part of God, namely, hope in his mercy, to which is opposed despair, and fear of God’s justice, to which is opposed presumption.

Two others are taken on the part of man, namely, contempt for the changeable good, to which is opposed obstinacy, which is here called hardness, through which a person hardens his soul to sin; and abandonment of the state of being turned away from God, to which is opposed an impenitent heart, which never intends to repent and return to God.

The last two are taken on the part of God’s gifts, one of which is faith: by faith sins are cleansed (Prov 15:27), to which is opposed resistance to the acknowledged truth. The other is charity: charity covers all offenses (Prov 10:12), to which is opposed envy of a brother’s grace.

The justice of divine judgment

For he will render to every man according to his works: [n. 189]

to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [n. 195]

but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. [n. 198]

There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [n. 201]

but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. [n. 204]

For God shows no partiality. [n. 205]

All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. [n. 207]

189. After suggesting that God’s judgment is true and refuting the contrary opinion, the Apostle here unfolds the truth of God’s judgment.

First, he presents his intention;

second, he manifests it, at to those indeed who, according to patience.

190. First, he states facts about God’s judgment in regard to two things, namely, persons and their works.

In regard to works, God does not repay in the present life according to one’s works, for sometimes he gives grace to evil-doers, as to the apostle Paul, who obtained mercy after being a blasphemer and persecutor. But this will not be so on the day of judgment, when the time comes to judge according to justice: at the set time which I appoint, I will judge with equity (Ps 75:2); hence, another passage says: requite them according to their works (Ps 28:4).

With regard to persons, equality of retribution will be observed toward all: we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor 5:10).

191. However, it seems that retribution will not be made according to one’s works, because an eternal punishment will be paid for a temporal sin.

The answer, as Augustine says in The City of God XXI, is that in justice’s repayment equality in time between sin and punishment is not a consideration, because even in human judgment for a sin of adultery committed in a short time the death penalty is inflicted. Here the legislator is not interested in the time it takes to punish, but rather that the adulterer’s death will forever separate him from the society of the living. Thus, in his way man, too, punishes a temporal sin with an eternal punishment.

Consequently, it is not strange if sins committed against charity, through which is formed a society between God and men, are punished eternally by the divine judgment.

192. The justice of this is clear on three counts.

First, on account of the infinite dignity of God who is sinned against. For a sin is graver, the greater the dignity of the person sinned against, just as it is a greater crime to strike a prince than to strike a private citizen. Consequently, since the guilt of mortal sin is in a sense infinite, an infinite punishment should balance it. Therefore, since it cannot be infinite in intensity, it must be infinite in duration.

193. Second, on account of the will of the sinner.

For whoever sins mortally turns from the unchangeable good and fixes his end in a changeable good, as a fornicator in a pleasure of the flesh and a covetous person in money. And because the end is sought for itself, whoever seeks the end is borne toward it and wills to possess it always, if something else does not hinder. Hence, one who sins mortally has the will to remain in sin forever, unless something changes him accidentally, as when he fears punishment. Consequently, it is fitting that if a man through his will seeks sin to be enjoyed forever, he should be punished for it eternally. For God, who sees the heart, directs his special attention to the will of the sinner.

194. Third, on account of the effect of sin, namely, the withdrawal of grace, from which it follows that a man left to himself would remain forever in sin, from which he cannot be extricated except by the help of grace. But it is not fitting that, the sin remaining, the penalty should cease; consequently, the penalty lasts forever.

The statement to render to every man according to his works does not mean according to equality of works because the reward exceeds the merit, but according to proportion, because he will render good to the good and better to the better. The same applies to evil.

195. Then when he says to those indeed who, according to patience, he clarifies his statement:

first, in regard to works;

second, in regard to persons, at upon every soul.

In regard to works he shows the truth of God’s judgment:

first, to the good;

second, to the wicked, there at but to those who are contentious.

196. In regard to the first there are two things to consider, namely, merit and reward.

Three things combine in merit: first, patience, which can mean God’s patience as referred above: do you despise the riches of his goodness and patience? Then those who have patience in good work would be those who make good use of God’s patience by doing good.

Or it can mean man’s patience, and this in two ways: in one way, so that patience implies tolerating adversity with equanimity of heart. For it is necessary that one not give up good works on account of the evils he suffers, and this is what he says: according to patience in good work. Patience has a perfect work (Jas 1:4); by your patience you will gain your lives (Luke 21:19). In another way, patience can be taken for long-suffering or for perseverance, which keeps a person from abandoning a good work on account of tedium: you also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand (Jas 5:8); you have need of patience (Heb 10:36).

The second feature of merit is the goodness of a work, which is good, if it is directed to its proper end and if it conforms to its proper rule, which is God’s law and human reason: let us not grow weary in well-doing (Gal 6:9).

The third feature is a right intention, i.e., to seek eternal life, so that in the evils a man suffers or in the good he does he is not seeking something temporal, but eternal: seek first the kingdom of God (Matt 6:33).

197. In regard to the reward he touches on three things: the first is glory, which signifies the splendor of the saints: either intrinsic glory, with which the mind will be filled: the Lord will fill your soul with brightness (Isa 58:11), or external glory, with which their body will shine: the just will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their father (Matt 13:43); let the faithful exult in glory (Ps 149:5).

The second is honor, through which is signified the dignity of the saints and the reverence paid to them by every creature. For they will be kings and priests: you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God (Rev 5:10) and will be numbered among the sons of God: why has he been numbered among the sons of God? (Wis 5:5); your friends are made exceedingly honorable, O God (Ps 139:17).

The third is incorruption, because that glory and honor will not pass, as they do in this world: they do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable (1 Cor 9:25).

198. Then when he says but to those who are contentious, he shows the truth of God’s judgment on the wicked and touches on sin and punishment.

In regard to sin three things are mentioned. The first is the obstinacy of the factious, which can be understood of man toward God calling him to himself by his blessings, against which a man seems to struggle by resisting them: behold, while I am yet alive with you, you have always been rebellious against the Lord (Deut 31:27). Second, it is understood of man’s struggle against faith: avoid disputing with words (2 Tim 2:14). Third, it can be understood of men struggling with one another, which is contrary to charity, the mother of the virtues: where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice (Jas 3:16).

The second is the hardness of those who obey not the truth. This can be understood in one way of the truth of faith: if I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? (John 9:46); in another way, of the truth of God’s justice, to which they do not acquiesce, not believing the truth of his justice: you say: the way of the Lord is not just (Ezek 18:29). In a third way, it can be understood of the truth of life, in which they do not acquiesce who live perversely: he who does what is true comes to the light (John 3:21).

The third is malice; hence, he says: but give credit to iniquity, either because they consent to those who urge wickedness: an evil-doer listens to wicked lips (Prov 17:4); or because they believe that sins will not be punished, which would make God wicked: do not say: I have sinned and what happened to me? (Sir 5:4); or they give credit to iniquity, i.e., unbelief, namely, teachings against the faith: so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unjustice (2 Thess 2:12).

199. In regard to punishment four things are mentioned, which can be distinguished in two ways.

In one way, so that wrath, i.e., punishment and corporal vengeance is understood to come after the judgment: a day of wrath is that day (Zeph l:15); indignation during the judgment, when the wicked will be angry at themselves for the sins they committed: it was we who strayed from the way of truth (Wis 5:6). Tribulation and anguish pertain to the soul separated from the body before the resurrection: when distress and anguish come upon you (Prov 1:27).

200. Or they can be distinguished in another way, so that the first two are taken on the part of God, whose wrath is his disposition to punish, which is horrible for the wicked: they will call to the mountains and rocks: fall on us (Rev 6:16). His indignation refers to the fact that he will consider sinners unworthy of eternal life: I swore in my anger that they should not enter into my rest (Ps 95:11).

But the other two are taken on the part of man. The word tribulation comes from tribulus, a prickly plant; hence, anything that causes pain can pertain to tribulation: the sound of the day of the Lord is bitter; the mighty man meets tribulation there (Zeph 1:14). But anguish is so called from the fact that a man’s spirit is in anguish, being unable to find a remedy against the evils he fears or already suffers: I am hemmed in on every side and know not what to choose (Dan 13:22); will God hear his cry when trouble comes upon him? (Job 27:9).

201. Then when he says upon every soul, he shows the truth of God’s judgment in regard to persons.

First, he proposes its equity;

second, he assigns the reason for this, at for there is no respect of persons;

third, he explains the reason, at for whosoever has sinned.

202. The truth of the divine judgment in regard to persons is shown, first, as it affects the wicked, when he says, upon every soul of man who works evil, i.e., against every soul, because just as the glory of the saints passes from the soul to the body, so the punishment of the wicked is first and chiefly in the soul and second in the body which, on account of defect or sin, will rise capable of suffering: the soul that sins shall die (Ezek 18:4).

203. But he says of the Jew first, and also of the Greek, because a greater punishment was due the Jews as knowing God’s will through the law: that servant who knew his master’s will but did not do it . . . shall receive a severe beating (Luke 12:47). Similarly, Christians are punished more severely than unbelievers for the same sin, e.g., adultery or theft: how much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God and profaned the blood of the covenant in which he was sanctified? (Heb 10:29).

But as to total punishment, that of unbelievers is more severe on account of the sin of unbelief, which is the gravest. Hence, it is said that God’s wrath rests upon unbelievers (2 Pet 2:2).

204. Second, he shows this in regard to the good: first, he repeats the two things mentioned above, namely, glory and honor, but the third, namely, peace, he mentions instead of immortality, which includes peace among many other things.

For a man’s peace cannot be complete as long as he fears he might lose the good things he has; rather, one has true peace of heart when he has everything he desires and no fear of losing them: my people will abide in a peaceful habitation (Isa 32:18).

In these things, too, he gives primacy to the Jews, because they were first promised to them, and the gentiles entered into their promises: others have labored and you have entered into their labors (John 4:38).

205. Then when he says for there is no respect of persons, he assigns the reason for his statement, namely, because there is no respect of persons with God: truly I perceive that God shows no partiality (Acts 10:34).

Respect of persons is opposed to distributive justice, through which one distributes to each according to the person’s worth; therefore, there is respect of persons, when more is given or less is given without regard to worth. This happens when the person rather than his qualifications is accepted as a cause. In this case there is a cause, i.e., a rule of action, but the person is taken as the cause of doing something. Thus, if one gives more inheritance to another on account of a blood relationship, it is not respect of persons, because this relationship is a fitting cause why he should receive such benefits. But if a prelate gives more ecclesiastical goods to someone on account of a blood relationship, it would be respect of persons, if some other qualification were not present. For blood relationship is not a suitable reason for receiving spiritual goods.

Therefore, because God does everything for the best of reasons, respect of persons does not enter into his actions: wisdom orders all things well (Wis 8:l).

206. Yet he seems to be a respecter of persons, because he abandons some sinners and calls others to himself.

The answer is that respect of persons is opposed to justice; hence, it finds its sphere in the payment of debts, with which justice is concerned. But God calls sinners to repentance not from debt but as a favor: and if by grace, it is not now by works (Rom 11:6); not because of deeds done by us in justice, but in virtue of his own mercy he saved us (Titus 3:5).

In such gifts not only God, but man too, is free to give to whom he will: am I not allowed to give what I choose with what belongs to me? (Matt 20:15).

207. Then when he says, for whosoever, he explains the reason.

For if all who sinned are punished, it is clear that there is no respect of persons with God. Hence, he speaks first of those who have not received the law, saying that for whosoever has sinned without the law received from God by Moses, will perish without the law, i.e., will be condemned, but not for transgression of the law: because no one understands, they will perish forever (Job 4:20).

Second, he speaks of those who received the written law, and he says that whosoever has sinned in the law, i.e., after the written law, will be judged by the law, i.e., precisely for having transgressed a precept of the law: the word which I have spoken will be his judge on the last day (John 12:48).

208. The Apostle’s manner of speaking here has been taken as an occasion of error by some. Because the Apostle does not say that all who sinned under the law will perish by the law, as he had said of those who are without the law that they will perish without the law, some believed that those who sin after receiving the law will be judged by some means, i.e., in the present, but will not perish.

But as the Gloss says: what Christian would say that the Jew will not perish for not believing in Christ, when the Lord says that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for them? (Matt 10:15). Hence it says: I have no pleasure in the death of the sinner (Ezek 18:32).

209. But the Apostle uses these different expressions because, as Gregory says on Job 36:6: he gives judgment to the poor, some will perish in the future judgment without being judged, i.e., the wicked who are without faith and the law: the wicked will not stand in the judgment (Ps 1:5), namely, because there is no basis for discussion with one entirely estranged from God: he who does not believe is condemned (John 3:18).

But others who sin in spite of having received the law and faith will perish in such a way as also to be judged through a discussion held with them; hence, it is said: I judge between sheep and sheep, rams and he-goats (Ezek 34:17), just as a king condemns enemies without a hearing, but citizens with a careful examination, as Gregory says.

The doers of the law

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [n. 211]

When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [n. 213]

They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them [n. 219]

on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. [n. 222]

210. After confuting the human judgment with which the gentiles and Jews judged one another and commending God’s judgment, the Apostle now undertakes to show that the things in which the Jews gloried do not suffice for their salvation.

First, he states his position;

second, he answers arguments against his position, at what advantage then has the Jew? (Rom 3:1).

The Jews gloried in two things, namely, the law and circumcision, which stemmed not from the law but from the patriarchs (John 7:22).

First, therefore, he shows that the Jewish law heard or accepted was not enough for salvation;

second, he shows the same about circumcision, at circumcision indeed (Rom 2:25).

In regard to the first, he does two things.

first, he sets forth his position;

second, he clarifies it, at for when the gentiles.

211. In regard to the first he sets forth two things: one by rejecting; the other by asserting.

For he rejects the Jewish opinion that they were made just by merely hearing the law. Hence he says: I have said that all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law, for the hearers of the law, i.e., in virtue of having heard the law, are not just before God, even if they are deemed just before men: every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them is like a foolish man (Matt 7:26); if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror (Jas 1:23).

Second, he declares that the doers of the law are righteous, when he says, but the doers of the law will be justified: everyone who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man (Matt 7:24); be doers of the word and not hearers only (Jas 1:22); a good understanding have all those who practice it (Ps 111:10).

212. But this point seems to conflict with his own statement below that by the works of the law no flesh will be justified before him (Rom 3:20). Consequently, no one is justified precisely for doing the works of the law.

The answer is that justification can be taken in three ways: in one way, in regard to reputation; then one is said to be justified, when he is regarded as just: you have made your sisters appear justified, i.e., by reputation (Ezek 16:51). In this sense, the doers of the law will be justified, i.e., are considered just before God and men.

Second, by doing what is just: this man went down to his home justified (Luke 18:14), because the publican performed a work of justice by confessing his sin. In this way is verified the statement that the doers of the law will be justified, i.e., by performing the justice of the law.

In a third way justification can be considered in regard to the cause of justice, so that a person is said to be justified, when he newly receives justice: being justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God (Rom 5:1). It must not be supposed, however, that the doers of the law are justified as though acquiring justice through the works of the law. This cannot be accomplished either by the ceremonial works, which confer no justifying grace, or by the moral works, from which the habit of justice is not acquired; rather, we do such works in virtue of an infused habit of justice.

213. Then when he says for when the gentiles, he clarifies his position.

First, he shows that doers of the law are justified even without being hearers;

second, that hearers of the law are not justified without observing the law, at but if you are called a Jew (Rom 2:17).

In regard to the first he does three things:

first, he mentions the worthiness of those who observe the law without having heard it;

second, he clarifies what he had said, at who show the work of the law;

third, he proves it, at their conscience bearing witness.

214. In regard to the first he touches on three things relating to the gentiles.

First, their lack of the law, saying, for when the gentiles, who have not the law, namely, the divine law, which they have not received. For the law was not delivered to the gentiles but to the Jews: the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the congregations of Jacob (Sir 24:24); he has not dealt thus with any other nation (Ps 147:20); when Moses commanded us a law, as a possession for the assembly of Jacob (Deut 33:4).

From this it is clear that the gentiles did not sin by not observing the ceremonies of the law.

215. Second, he commends their observance of law, when he says they do by nature those things that are of the law, i.e., the moral precepts, which flow from a dictate of natural reason. Thus Job was blameless and upright, fearing God and turning away from evil. Hence he himself says: my foot has held fast to his steps; I have kept his ways (Job 23:11).

216. But the expression by nature causes some difficulty.

For it seems to favor the Pelagians, who taught that man could observe all the precepts of the law by his own natural powers.

Hence by nature should mean nature reformed by grace. For he is speaking of gentiles converted to the faith, who began to obey the moral precepts of the law by the help of Christ’s grace. Or by nature can mean by the natural law showing them what should be done, as in a psalm: there are many who say, ‘who shows us good things?’ The light of your countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us (Ps 4:6), i.e., the light of natural reason, in which is God’s image. All this does not rule out the need of grace to move the affections any more than the knowledge of sin through the law (Rom 3:20) exempts from the need of grace to move the affections.

217. Third, he shows their worth in that they, having not the law, are a law to themselves, inasmuch as they function as a law to themselves by instructing and inducing themselves to the good, because the Philosopher says: law is a statement laying down an obligation and proceeding from prudence and understanding (Ethics 11). Therefore, it is said that the law is not laid down for the just (1 Tim 1:9), who is not compelled by a law outside of him, but for the lawless, who need to be compelled from without.

It is, of course, the highest level of greatness among men, when they are induced toward the good not by others but by themselves. The second level belongs to those who are induced by others but without force. The third belongs to those who need to be forced to do good. The fourth belongs to those who cannot be directed to the good even by force: in vain have I smitten your children; they took no correction (Jer 2:30).

218. Then when he says who show, he explains how they are a law to themselves. This can be likened to a law presented to man from without and which it is customary to deliver in writing on account of the memory’s weakness; whereas, those who observe the law without externally hearing the law show the work of the law written not with ink, but first and chiefly with the Spirit of the living God (2 Cor 3:3), and second through study: write them on the tablet of your heart (Prov 3:3), i.e., the precepts of wisdom. Hence, here, too, he continues in their hearts, not on parchment or on stone or copper tablets: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts (Jer 31:33).

219. Then when he says their conscience bearing witness he proves his statement that the work of the law is written in their hearts by citing actions which announce its presence.

First, he mentions those actions, one of which is the witness of conscience. He touches on this when he says their conscience bearing witness, conscience being the application of one’s knowledge in judging whether some action was good or bad to do.

Hence, this conscience sometimes gives testimony of good: our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience (2 Cor 1:12); and sometimes of evil: your conscience knows that many times you have yourself cursed others (Eccl 7:23).

However, no one can testify that an action is good or bad, unless he has knowledge of the law. Hence, if conscience bears witness about good or evil, this is a clear sign that the work of the law has been written in the man’s heart.

220. Another function is to accuse and defend. Here, too, knowledge of the law is required.

In regard to this he says and their conflicting thoughts accusing or also defending, following the Greek practice whereby a genitive is used for accusing and defending in place of an ablative. And these are conflicting.

For an accusing thought in regard to some action arises in a man, when he has reason to suppose that he has acted evilly: now I rebuke you and lay the charge before you (Ps 50:21); the show of their countenance witnesses against them (Isa 3:9).

But sometimes a defending thought arises, when he has reason to suppose that he has acted well: my heart does not reproach me for any of my days (Job 27:6). Between this accusation and defense the testimony of conscience has the final say.

221. This passage, their conscience bearing witness to them, can be interpreted in another way, so that there is consciousness not only of one’s deeds but also of thoughts; but the first is better.

222. But because testimony, accusation, and defense occur during a trial, he mentions the time, when he says in the day. He says this not to designate the quality of the time but the disclosure of things hidden: I will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness (1 Cor 4:5).

Yet it is sometimes called night on account of the uncertainty of that hour: at midnight there was a cry (Matt 25:6).

The accusing or defending thoughts are not those which will arise on the day of judgment, because on that day each one’s salvation or damnation will be clear to him; rather, such thoughts as exist now and the testimony of conscience that exists now will be represented to a man on that day by divine power, as Augustine says in The City of God II.

Indeed, the recognition of those thoughts that remain in the soul seems to be nothing less, as a Gloss says, than the debt of punishment or the reward, which follows them.

223. Then he shows the author of the judgment, when he says, when God shall judge: he will judge the world with justice (Ps 96:13).

He also describes what the judgment will concern, when he says, the secrets of men, matters about which men cannot now judge. He will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness (1 Cor 4:5).

He also shows the teaching from which faith in this judgment is had when he says, according to my Gospel, i.e., preaching by me: on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word (Matt 12:36).

He says according to my Gospel, although he could not say, my baptism, and be a minister of both, because in baptism a man’s diligence effects nothing, but in preaching the Gospel the preacher’s industry achieves something: when you read this you can perceive my insight in the mystery of Christ (Eph 3:4)

Then he mentions the judge, when he says, by Christ Jesus, who has been appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead (Acts 10:42); the Father has given all judgment to the Son (John 5:20), who will appear to the good and the wicked during the judgment: to the good in the glory of the Godhead: your eyes will see the king in his beauty (Isa 33:17), but to the wicked in his human form: every eye will see him (Rev 1:7).

Circumcision of the heart

But if you call yourself a Jew and rely upon the law and boast of your relation to God [n. 224]

and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed in the law, [n. 227]

and if you are sure that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, [n. 229]

a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth -- [n. 230]

you then who teach others, will you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? [n. 232]

You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?

You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? [n.235]

For, as it is written, The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you. [n.236]

Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. [n. 237]

So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? [n. 240]

Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. [n. 241]

For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. [n. 242]

He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God. [n. 244]

224. After showing that the doers of the law are justified even without being hearers, which pertained to the gentiles, the Apostle now shows that hearers are not justified, unless they are doers, which pertains to the Jews.

First, therefore, he shows the Jews’ privileged state in receiving the law;

second, their shortcomings in transgressing the law, at you, therefore, who teaches another.

He shows their privileged state on three counts:

first, in being the race to whom the law was given;

second, as regards the law itself, at and rest in the law;

third, as regards the effect or work of the law, at and knows his will.

225. In regard to race he says, but if you are called a Jew, which is an honorable name: Judah became his sanctuary (Ps 114:2); salvation is from the Jews (John 14:22).

They are called Jews not after Judas Maccabeus as some say, probably on the ground that he united and protected that people, when they were scattered: he gladly fought for Israel (1 Macc 3:2); for the name ‘Jews’ was in use before his time, as in Esther: the Jews had light and gladness (Esth 8:16).

Rather, it seems that the Jews were named after the patriarch Judah: Judah, your brothers shall praise you (Gen 49:8); for in the time of Roboam, when ten tribes seceded from his kingdom and adored a golden calf, they were led away captive by the Assyrians (1 Sam 17). Scripture makes no mention of their return; rather, the land remained occupied by strangers later called Samaritans. But two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, remained in the kingdom of Roboam and persevered in the worship of God. Although they were led away captive to Babylon, they were permitted to return to their native land by Cyrus, the Persian king (1 Ezra 1). Then, because the tribe of Judah was the greater, the entire group was named after him: not only those from the tribe of Benjamin but those from the other tribes who joined them.

226. Then when he says and rests in the law he mentions their prerogative in regard to the law.

First, in regard to the law itself, when he says, and rests in the law, as certifying what they believed and did. For an intellect in doubt is not at rest but is solicited by both sides; but once it has the certainty of wisdom it rests: when I enter my house, I shall find rest with her (Wis 8:16).

Second, in regard to the lawgiver, when he adds and make your boast of God, i.e., in their worship and knowledge of one God: let him who glories glory in this, that he understands and knows me (Jer 9:24); let him who boasts boast in the Lord (1 Cor 1:31).

227. Then when he adds and know his will, he mentions their prerogative in regard to the fruit of the law:

first, with respect to the person himself;

second, with respect to others, at are confident.

228. In regard to the first he mentions two fruits.

The first corresponds to boasting of their relation to God, when he says, and knows his will, i.e., what God wants us to do: that you may prove what is the will of God (Rom 12:2).

The second corresponds to their resting in the law, when he says, and approves the more profitable things, i.e., you know to select not only good from bad things but also better from less good. Hence someone asked: which is the great commandment? (Matt 22:36).

And this, being instructed by the law: blessed is the man whom you will instruct, O Lord, and will teach him out of your law (Ps 93:12)

229. Then he mentions its fruit with respect to others who find themselves in three different situations, so far as knowledge of the law is concerned.

For some are entirely ignorant of the law, because they lack natural talent, just as a man is physically blind, because he lacks visual power: we grope for the wall like the blind (Isa 59:10). To such persons cannot be given the light of knowledge enabling them to see by themselves what to do; rather, they must be led, as the blind are, by commanding them to do this or that, even though they do not understand the reason for the command: I became an eye to the blind (Job 29:15); they are blind and leaders of the blind (Matt 15:14).

Others are ignorant through lack of training, being as it were in the exterior darkness and not enlightened by teaching. To such persons a wise man can offer the light of training, so that they will understand what is commanded. This is why he says, a light of those who are in darkness: to give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death (Luke 1:79).

230. Second, he touches on those who are on the way to knowledge they have not yet attained, in one way through lack of full instruction; hence he says, an instructor of the foolish, i.e., of those who have not yet received wisdom who are said to be instructed, i.e., free from ignorance which is present in everyone from the beginning when they are first instructed: do you have children? Discipline them (Sir 7:23).

In another way, through lack of age, as children. Hence he says, a teacher of infants: where is the teacher of little ones? (Isa 33:18).

231. A third group are already advanced in knowledge, but they need instruction from the wise in order to possess the authoritative sayings of wisdom as their rule or pattern. In regard to this he says, having the form of knowledge: follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me (2 Tim 1:13); mark those who so live as you have an example in us (Phil 3:17).

However, people so patterned must be instructed by the authority of their forebears, if they are to know what has been handed down in the law. Therefore, he says, of knowledge: wisdom gave him knowledge of holy things (Wis 10:10).

This is also necessary if they are to know the true understanding of what has been handed down. That is why he says, and of truth: send out your light and your truth (Ps 43:3).

232. Then when he says you who teaches another, he indicates some of their failings.

First, failings toward themselves, when he says you who teaches another, by directing them to the good, teaches not yourself.

This can be taken as a question asked with an overtone of indignation or with an overtone of mildness which, nevertheless, suggests wickedness on their part, as it does in Job: behold, you have instructed many . . . the scourge has now touched you and you faint (Job 4:3–5).

233. Second, their failings toward their neighbor.

First, in regard to things taken furtively, when he says: you who preaches against stealing, steals. Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves (Isa 1:23).

Second, in regard to defiling another person through adultery, when he says: you who say men should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? They are all adulterers, like a heated oven (Hos 7:4); each neighing for his neighbor’s wife (Jer 5:8).

234. Third, he indicates their failings with respect to God: first, that they sin against his worship, when he says, you, who abhors idols, since you know from the law that they are not to be adored, committs sacrilege by abusing the things of divine worship.

This they did during the old law: you profane it when you say that the Lord’s table is polluted (Mal 1:12) and later, when they blasphemed Christ: it is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons (Matt 12:24).

235. Second, that they sin against his glory, when he says: you, who makes your boast of the law, by transgression of the law dishonors God.

For as observance of the law by good works is an occasion for others to honor God, so its transgression by evil works is an occasion for others to blaspheme: that they may see your good deeds and glorify God (1 Pet 2:12).

Hence, he says: let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed (1 Tim 6:1), and in a psalm it is said: I look at the faithless with disgust, because they do not keep your commands (Ps 119:158).

236. In support of this he quotes an authority, when he says, the name of God through you is blasphemed among the gentiles, i.e., because the gentiles, noting the evil practices of the Jews, laid it to evil training dictated by the law.

He says: as it is written, namely, in Isaiah: their rulers wail, and continually all the day my name is despised (Isa 52:5) and in Ezekiel: it is not for your sake, O house of Israel, but for the sake of my holy name which you have profaned among the nations (Ezek 36:22).

237. Then when he says circumcision, he shows that circumcision is not sufficient for salvation any more than the law is, and for the same reason, namely, that without circumcision there is value in the law’s observance, without which circumcision has no benefit, as was said above.

In regard to this he does three things.

First, he compares circumcision to the circumcised Jews;

second, to the uncircumcised gentiles, at if then, the uncircumcised;

third, he explains what he had said, at for he is not a Jew who is so outwardly.

Concerning the first, he does two things.

first, he shows how circumcision is of value;

second, how not, at but if you be a transgressor.

238. First, therefore, he says: circumcision profits indeed, inasmuch as it remits original sin; hence, it is written: any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people (Gen 17:14). But it will benefit you as an adult, if you keep the law, just as profession benefits a religious, if he keeps the rule. For circumcision is a form of profession obliging men to observe the law: I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law (Gal 5:3).

However, the Apostle’s statement that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you (Gal 5:2), refers to the era after grace; but now he is referring to the time before the passion of Christ, when circumcision had status.

239. Second, at but if you be a transgressor, he shows how circumcision has no value, when he says: if you, a Jewish adult, be a transgressor of the law, your circumcision is made uncircumcision, i.e., has no more value than your previous condition, because you do not observe what you profess by circumcision: all these nations are uncircumcised and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart (Jer 9:26). In fact they are more guilty for not observing what they promised: a foolish and faithless promise displeases him (Eccl 5:3).

240. Then when he says, if then, the uncircumcised, he considers circumcision in relation to the gentiles in two ways.

First, from the aspect that the gentiles obtain the benefits of circumcision by observing the law. Hence he says: since circumcision profits, if the law is observed, but not, if it is not; then, if then, the uncircumcised keep the justices of the law, i.e., the moral precepts of the law: all your commandments are true (Ps 119:86), will not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? As if to say: he will enjoy the fruit of true circumcision.

For a man is circumcised outwardly in the flesh in order to circumcise himself in the heart: circumcise yourselves to the Lord, remove the foreskin of your hearts (Jer 4:4).

241. Second, at and will not that which by nature, he shows that on account of observing the law the gentile is preferred to the Jew. Hence he says, will not that which by nature is uncircumcision, i.e., an uncircumcised gentile, if it fulfill the law through natural reason, judge you, the circumcised Jew, who by the letter is a transgressor of the law, by transgressing the precepts of the law, and have circumcision, i.e., of the flesh. Hence on the basis of this comparison it is written: the men of Nineveh will arise with this generation (Matt 12:4).

242. Then when he says for he is not a Jew who is so outwardly, he assigns the reason for his statements.

First, he gives the reason;

second, he proves it, at whose praise.

And regarding the first, he does two things.

first, he assigns the reason why circumcision or Judaism without observance of the law is fruitless;

second, why observance of the law without Judaism and circumcision has value, at but he who is one inwardly.

243. He says, therefore, that circumcision in one who breaks the law is uncircumcision and will be judged by the uncircumcised who obey the law, for he is not a real Jew, who is so outwardly, according to carnal birth: for all are not Israelites that are of the circumcision, but they who are the children of the promise (Rom 9:6, 8). Similarly, true circumcision is not that which appears in the flesh, for it is a sign: it shall be a sign of the covenant between you and me (Gen 17:11). But it is not a true sign, unless the reality signified corresponds to it. Hence, if a Jew transgressed the covenant, his circumcision would not be true; consequently, it would be regarded as uncircumcision.

244. Then when he says but he who is one inwardly, he assigns the reason why the uncircumcision of one who keeps the law is regarded as circumcision and will judge bodily circumcision. The reason is that he is truly a Jew who is one inwardly, i.e., whose heart is possessed by the precepts of the law, which the Jews professed: your Father who sees in secret will repay you (Matt 6:6).

Again, true circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, i.e., made by one’s spirit, which expels superfluous thoughts from the heart. Or in the spirit, i.e., effected by a spiritual understanding of the law, and not in the letter: for we are the true circumcision who worship God in spirit (Phil 3:3).

245. Then when he says whose praise he proves this reason.

For it is obvious that in all matters the divine judgment must prevail over the human. Now things that appear outwardly, such as Judaism or circumcision, are praised by men, but things that exist within are judged according to God’s judgment, because man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart (1 Sam 16:7).

Hence, inward Judaism and circumcision prevail over the outward. And this is what he says: whose praise, i.e., of inward circumcision, is not of men but of God: it is not the man who commends himself that is accepted, but the man whom the Lord commends (2 Cor 10:18).

Faith and the Purpose of the Law

The Jew’s advantage

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? [n. 247]

Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God. [n. 248]

What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? [n. 251]

By no means! Let God be true though every man be false, as it is written, That thou mayest be justified in thy words, [n. 254] and prevail when thou art judged. [n. 254]

But if our wickedness serves to show the justice of God, what shall we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) [n. 262]

By no means! For then how could God judge the world? [n. 265]

But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? [n. 267]

And why not do evil that good may come? -- as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

246. After showing that Judaism, which involved receiving the law and circumcision, is not sufficient for salvation without the law’s observance, through which the gentile without external Judaism and circumcision obtains the fruit of each, he now objects to his own doctrine:

first, he presents the objection;

second, he answers it, at much every way.

247. First, he objects: if what I say is so, i.e., that the true Jew and true circumcision are not something outward but inward in the heart, what advantage then has the Jew, i.e., what has been given to him more than to others? It seems to be nothing. But this is not fitting, since the Lord had said: the Lord, your God, has chosen you to be a people for his own possession (Deut 7:6). Or what is the profit of circumcision, i.e., outward? It seems from his previous teaching that there is no value. But this is not fitting, since it was imposed by God, who says: I am the Lord, your God, who teaches you unto profit (Isa 48:17).

248. Then when he says much every way, he answers the objection:

first, in regard to Judaism’s prerogative;

second, in regard to the value of circumcision, at what shall we say then? (Rom 4:1).

Regarding the first, he does two things.

first, he shows Judaism’s prerogative;

second, he rejects their boasting over the gentiles, at what then? Do we excel them? (Rom 3:9).

Concerning the first he does three things.

first, he states his position;

second, he explains it, at first indeed;

third, he excludes an objection, at for what if some.

249. First, therefore, he says: the question is raised what advantage has the Jew. The advantage is both quantitative, which is indicated when he says much, and numerical, which is indicated when he says in every way.

For they have an advantage both in contemplating divine matters: in Judah God is known (Ps 76:1) and in the provision of temporal things: he has not dealt thus with any other nation (Ps 147:20). They have further advantages relating to their ancestors, to the promises, and to their offspring: to whom belongs the adoption as of children and the glory and the testament (Rom 9:4).

In each of these there is no small advantage, but great and important ones, which are summed up when he says much.

For man’s greatest good lies in knowing God, in clinging to God, and in being instructed by God: blessed is the man whom you teach out of your law (Ps 93:12).

250. Then when he says first indeed, he explains his statement, saying: first indeed, i.e., the chief advantage is that the words of God were committed to them, as to his friends: I have called you friends (John 15:15). This is important, because the words of God are trustworthy: the ordinances of the Lord are true and just altogether (Ps 19:9) and pleasant: how sweet are your words to my taste (Ps 119:103) and useful for avoiding sin: I have laid up your word in my heart, that I may not sin against you (Ps 119:11).

251. Then when he says for what if some of them, he excludes an objection:

first, he presents it;

second, he rejects it by showing its consequences, at shall their unbelief;

third, by showing that the consequence is unfitting, at but God is true.

252. Someone could belittle the Jews’ prerogative by citing their ingratitude, through which they would seem to have set aside the value of God’s message. Hence he says, what if some of them have not believed? Does this show that the Jew has no advantage, especially in the light of 2 Peter: it would have been better for them never to have known the way of justice than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandments delivered to them (2 Pet 2:21)?

For they did not believe the lawgiver: they had no faith in his promises (Ps 106:24) or the prophets: for you are among unbelievers and destroyers (Ezek 2:6) or the Son of God: if I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? (John 8:46).

253. Then when he says shall their unbelief, he excludes this objection by showing the unsuitable conclusion it engenders. For if the Jews’ prerogative were taken away on account of the unbelief of some, it would follow that man’s unbelief would nullify God’s faithfulness—which is an unacceptable conclusion.

This is what he says: shall their unbelief, namely, of those who have not believed, make the faith of God without effect?

This can be understood in two ways: in one way, as referring to the faith by which one believes in God. For the faith of believers is not nullified by those who have not believed, because the evil in some members of society does not nullify the good in other members: some of them he blessed and exalted and some of them he made holy and brought near to himself; some he cursed and brought low, and he turned them out of their place (Sir 33:12). This is against those of whom Augustine says in The Letter to the People of Hippo: what other motive inspires them and what else do they discuss save that when a bishop or cleric or monk or nun falls, they believe that all are such, but not all can be exposed?

In another way, it can be understood as referring to the faith with which God is faithful in keeping his promises: he who promised is faithful (Heb 10:23). This faithfulness would be nullified, if it happened that the Jews had no advantage, just because some have not believed. For God promised to multiply that people and make it great: I will multiply your descendants (Gen 22:l6).

254. Then when he says, God forbid! But God is true, he shows that it is unfitting for God’s faithfulness to be nullified on account of men’s unbelief.

First, he gives a reason for this;

second, he cites a text, at as it is written;

third, he excludes a false understanding of this text, at but if our injustice.

255. The reason is based on the fact that God in himself is true: the Lord is the true God (Jer 10:10); this is the true God and life eternal (1 John 5:20); and every man a liar: I said in my consternation: men are all a vain hope (Ps 116:11). Hence, it is plain that man’s mendacity or unbelief in not adhering to the truth does not nullify God’s truth or faithfulness.

This is easier to understand, if we consider that truth implies agreement between thing and understanding. But things are in agreement with our understanding in one way and with God’s in another way. For our intellect derives its knowledge from things; consequently, the cause and measure of our truth stems from the thing’s being. For an opinion is called true or false depending on whether the thing is as stated or is not. Hence, our understanding can be true or it can be false, for it can be in agreement or disagreement. But whatever is open to being or not being needs someone acting to make it be; otherwise, it continues not to be. For as air without something illuminating it remains dark, so our intellect by itself, unless it is enlightened by the first truth, continues in falseness. Hence, of himself every man is false in his intellect and is true only in virtue of participating in the divine truth: send out your light and your truth (Ps 43:3).

The divine intellect, on the other hand, is the cause and measure of things. For this reason it is of itself unfailingly true, and everything else is true inasmuch as it conforms to that intellect.

Similarly, considering truth on the part of the thing, man of himself does not have truth, because his nature is convertible into nothing. Only the divine nature, which is not produced from nothing or convertible into nothing, has of itself truth.

256. Then when he says as it is written, he proves his statement on the authority of a text in a psalm: that you may be justified in your words and may overcome when you are judged (Ps 51:4). How this is to the point can be gathered from considering what the Psalmist had said just ahead of it.

For he says just before this, against you, you only, have I sinned, and then: that you may be justified in your words and may overcome when you are judged. For God through the prophet Nathan had promised David that he would establish his kingdom forever in his seed (2 Sam 7:16). But later, when he fell into serious sin, namely, adultery and murder (2 Sam 11:2ff.), some said that on account of these sins God would not keep the promises made to him.

257. Hence, the Psalmist’s intention bears on two things.

First, that God’s justice, which involves keeping his promises, is not changed on account of sin. Touching on this he says, that you may be justified in your words, i.e., that you may be shown just in your words, since you do not disregard them because of my sins: all the words of my mouth are righteous (Prov 8:8); the Lord is faithful in all his words (Ps 145:13).

Second, that God’s promise imitates men’s judgment. And this is what he says, and may overcome, namely, by keeping your promise, when you are judged, namely, by men, that on account of my sins you did not keep your promises: be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good (Rom 12:21), which is said to men. Accordingly, it is truer of God.

258. It should be noted that God’s promise to David was to be fulfilled in Christ’s Incarnation. Hence it was a predestinative prophecy, in which something is promised as destined to be fulfilled in every way; whereas something promised or foretold by a prophecy of warning is not predicted as destined to be fulfilled in every way but according to men’s merits, which can change.

Therefore, if the promise made to David had not been fulfilled, it would have been prejudicial to God’s justice; whereas the non-fulfillment of a promise made through a prophecy of warning is not prejudicial to God’s justice, but indicates a change in human merits. Hence it is written: if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it (Jer 18:7).

Therefore, it is plain, according to this sense, that man’s sin does not exclude God’s faithfulness.

259. Other senses of this text are presented in the Gloss, but they are not closely related to the Apostle’s intention. The first is that these words are linked with the words, wash me more thoroughly from my iniquity (Ps 50:4), to the end that you may be justified, i.e., appear just, in your words, in which you promised pardon to sinners not only in Ezekiel, because these words antedated that, but also in Leviticus: if they make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember my covenant (Lev 26:41), and Deuteronomy: if, led by repentance of heart, you turn to God, the Lord your God will bring you back, and have compassion on you (Deut 30:1). Thus you may overcome when you are judged by men that you ought not pardon me.

260. Second these words are connected with the verse against you only have I sinned, i.e., in comparison with you who alone are just. And this is what he means when he says that you may be justified, i.e., may you appear just in comparison to me and other sinners: the Lord is just, and loves justice (Ps 10:8), and this not only in deeds but also in your words, which is the greatest of all according to James, if anyone does not offend in word (Jas 3:2). And may overcome when you are judged, i.e., when you are compared to anyone else in judgment: judge between me and my vineyard (Isa 5:3).

261. Third, these words are referred to Christ, who alone is without sin: he committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips (2 Pet 2:22) and is, therefore, justified in his words as compared to all men. And overcome sin, death, and the devil: the Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered (Rev 5:5), when you are judged unjustly by Pilate: your cause has been judged as that of the wicked (Job 36:17).

262. Then when he says, but if our wickedness, he excludes a false understanding of the text he cited.

For someone might understand these words according to the sense that that would be taken in a causal, not a consecutive, sense. Then it would follow that man’s sin would be directly ordained to commend God’s justice.

But the Apostle shows that this is false. Hence he says that that is used consecutively, on the ground that David sinned and then the manifestation of divine justice followed, but not causally, as if a man’s sin commended God’s justice.

He proves this by showing that it leads to something unfitting in two ways:

first, on the part of divine judgment;

second, on the part of human judgment.

Concerning the first, he does three things.

first, he presents the false sense;

second, he shows that something unfitting follows from this, at what shall we say? Is God unjust;

third, he shows that it is unfitting, at God forbid!

263. It should be noted that above the Apostle had made two comparisons; in the first he compared divine truth to human falsity when he said: but God is true and every man a liar; in the second, God’s justice to human sin, in the words of a psalm, where it is said: against you, you only, have I sinned (Ps 51:4), that you may be justified.

In regard to the first comparison he says: if these words are taken to mean that our iniquity directly commends God’s justice, what shall we say? In other words, we could not accept the unfittingness that follows. For sin is not necessary for God to have his justice commended: he does not desire a multitude of faithless and useless children (Sir 16:1).

264. He expresses the unfittingness that follows, when he says: is God unjust, who executes wrath, i.e., vengeance for sin. For this follows from the supposition.

For if sin were directly ordained to commending justice, it would not be deserving of punishment but of reward. Consequently, God would be unjust in punishing men for sin, contrary to what is stated in Deuteronomy: God is faithful and without iniquity (Deut 32:4).

265. He rejects this unfittingness, when he says God forbid, that God is unjust. I speak according to man, i.e., I say these words not from my understanding but from that of a man in error, as is said: for while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh? (1 Cor 3:3).

266. He shows that this must not be admitted, adding: otherwise, namely, if God is unjust, how shall God judge this world, i.e., how could he be the universal and supreme judge of the world?

For it is necessary that the first and highest item in every class be unerring, just as the first mover is unchangeable. Hence it is written: I will judge the world with justice (Ps 96:13).

A like argument is presented in Job: of a truth God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice. Who gave him charge over the earth and who laid on him the whole world? (Job 34:12). In other words: if he were not to judge justly, it would be necessary to suppose that someone else is judge of the world.

267. Then when he says for if the truth, he shows the same on the part of human judgment.

He does three things:

first, he presents the false understanding of the above words;

second, he shows the unfittingness that follows, at why am I also yet judged;

third, he shows that it is unfitting, at whose damnation.

268. He expresses the false understanding according to the comparison of divine truth to human falsity, when he says: but if through my lie, i.e., on account of my falsity, the truth of God, being manifested, has more abounded unto his glory, man’s falsity directly obtains an increase of glory. This is contrary to what is stated in Job: does God need you to speak deceitfully for him? (Job 13:7).

269. Then he adds two unfitting conclusions that follow: one is that man should not be regarded a sinner for lying, on the ground that it is directly ordained to God’s glory. And this is what he says: why am I, i.e., even now, yet judged by men as a sinner for being false: whereas wickedness is fearful, it bears witness of its condemnation (Wis 17:8), because sinners are condemned by the judgment of all.

The other unfitting conclusion is that it lends support to the false accusation leveled against the apostles. For they preached that through the abounding grace of Christ the debt for an abundance of sins was paid, as is stated below: where sin abounded, grace did more abound (Rom 5:20). For this the apostles were blasphemed, as if preaching that men should do evil in order that good be obtained. This would follow, if man’s falsehood directly commended God’s grace and truth. Therefore, he says: and why not do evil by sinning and teaching falsehood, that there may come good, i.e., that God’s truth and justice be commended, as we are slandered: when slandered, we try to conciliate (1 Cor 4:13), and as some affirm that we say, by twisting our words: which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction (2 Pet 3:16).

270. He rejects these unfitting conclusions when he says whose damnation is just, i.e., those who do evil that good may come.

For just as it is not correct to deduce truth from falsity, so it is wrong to reach a good end through evil means: why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive? (Jer 12:1).

Or whose, namely, those who accuse us of this falsely, damnation is just. For perverters of sacred doctrine are justly condemned: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book (Rev 22:18).

The law gives knowledge of sin

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, [n. 271]

as it is written: None is righteous, no, not one; [n. 276]

no one understands, no one seeks for God.

All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one.

Their throat is an open grave, they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. [n. 282]

Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.

Their feet are swift to shed blood,

in their paths are ruin and misery,

and the way of peace they do not know.

There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. [n. 290]

For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. [n. 295]

271. After showing the Jews’ advantage over the gentiles so far as God’s blessings are concerned, the Apostle now rejects their vainglory, by which they preferred themselves to gentiles converted to the faith.

First, he states his point;

second, he proves it, at for we have charged.

272. First, therefore, he says: I have asked what advantage has the Jew. The first is that God’s words were delivered to them. What then shall we Jews say to converts to the faith? Do we excel them, namely, those gentiles converted to the faith? For this was a matter discussed among them: a dispute also rose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest (Luke 23:24). He answers this when he says, no, not so.

273. But this seems to be at variance with an earlier statement, which said that their advantage was much every way (Rom 3:2).

The Gloss explains that in the first statement the Apostle was thinking of the Jews in the time of the law, but now he is speaking of the time of grace because, as is written in Colossians: in Christ there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised (Col 3:11), since these make no difference so far as the state of grace is concerned.

But this explanation does not seem to be altogether in keeping with the Apostle’s intention, because later he will show that even while they were under the law, they were under the power of sin, just as the gentiles were, and even more so: this is Jerusalem; I have set her in the center of the nations, with countries round about her. And she has wickedly rebelled against my ordinances and become more wicked than these countries (Ezek 5:5).

Hence, it seems that above he was showing the excellence of God’s blessings; consequently, he did not say that the Jew was more excellent, but that something greater had been conferred on the Jew. Here he is rejecting the notion that they are excellent persons, because in spite of receiving God’s blessings they did not use them properly.

274. Then when he says for we have charged, he establishes his points:

first, that the Jews do not excel the gentiles so far as the state of sin is concerned;

second, so far as the state of justice is concerned, at but now, without the law.

He establishes the first in two ways:

first, from what has been stated above;

second, from an authority, at as it is written.

275. First, therefore, he says: we have charged, i.e., we have supported with reasons, that Jews and Greeks, i.e., gentiles, are all under sin: from the sole of the foot even to the head there is no soundness in him (Isa 1:6).

For he showed, first of all, that the gentiles suppressed the truth they knew by their wickedness and injustice; second, that the Jews, after receiving the law, dishonored God by transgressing it.

276. Then when he says as it is written, he establishes his point by the authority of the Psalmist:

first, he quotes him;

second, he explains, at now we know.

first, he mentions sins of omission;

second, sins of commission, at their throat.

He touches on the sins of omission in two ways:

first, by removing the sources of good works;

second, by removing the good works themselves, at all have turned out of the way.

277. Now there are three sources or principles that make a work good: one of these pertains to the justice of the work, namely, justice, which he says is lacking: there is not any man just (Ps 13:3). The godly man has perished from the earth; and there is none upright among men (Mic 7:2).

No man is just can be interpreted in three ways: in one way as meaning that no one is just within himself and of himself, but of himself everyone is a sinner and it is owing to God that he is righteous: the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty (Exod 34:6).

In another way it means that no one is just in every way but has some sin according to Proverbs: who can say: I have made my heart clean? (Prov 20:9), and Ecclesiastes: surely there is not a just man on earth who does good and never sins (Eccl 7:20).

In a third way it can be understood as referring to the wicked members of a populace, among which no one is just. For it is the custom of Scripture sometimes to speak of an entire populace in terms of its evil members and sometimes of its good members, as in Jeremiah, where it is stated that when Jeremiah finished saying everything the Lord had commanded him to say to the entire populace, the priests and prophets and the entire people took hold of him and said that he would die the death (Jeremiah 26:8ff.). Then it is added: then the princes and all the people said to the priests and prophets: this man does not deserve the sentence of death (Jer 26:16).

However, the first two meanings seem to be more in keeping with the Apostle’s intent; and the same must be said for the following.

278. The second element that makes a work good is intellectual discernment, whose absence is declared when he says, there is none who understands: they have neither knowledge nor understanding (Ps 82:5); he would not understand (Ps 36:3).

279. The third element is a right intention, whose absence is described when he says, there is none who seeks after God, namely, by directing his intention toward him: it is time to seek the Lord that he may come and rain salvation upon you (Hos 10:12).

280. Then he removes the good works themselves.

First, he cites offenses against the divine law when he says, all have turned out of the way, namely, from regulation by divine law: they have all turned to their own way (Isa 56:11).

Second, failure to pursue the end; hence he adds, they have become unprofitable together. For we call unprofitable whatever does not attain its end. Therefore, when men turn from God for whom they were made, they are rendered unprofitable: the brood of the ungodly will be of no use (Wis 4:3).

Third, he excludes the good works themselves, when he adds, there is none who does good: they are skilled in doing evil, but how to do good they know not (Jer 4:22).

281. He adds, not so much as one. This can be taken exclusively, to mean: except the one who alone did good by redeeming the human race: one man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found (Eccl 7:28).

Or it can be taken inclusively, to mean: there is not even one pure man doing good, i.e., what is perfect: search the squares to see if you can find a man, one who does justice and seeks truth (Jer 5:1).

282. Then when he says their throats, he mentions the sins of commission:

first, sins of speech;

second, sinful deeds, at their feet swift. The sins of the heart can be gathered from these.

283. In regard to sins of speech he mentions four things.

First, readiness and foulness, when he says: their throat is an open sepulchre.

For an open grave has two features. For it is ready to receive the dead. According to this, a man’s throat is said to be an open grave, when it is prepared to utter deadly remarks in the manner described by Jeremiah: their quiver is like an open tomb (Jer 5:16). Second, it exudes a foul odor: you are like white-washed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness (Matt 23:27). Therefore, a person from whose mouth proceeds the foul odor of filthy remarks has a throat which is an open grave: fire and smoke and sulphur issued from their mouths (Rev 9:17).

284. Second, in regard to sins of speech, he touches on deception when he says, with their tongues they have dealt deceitfully, having one thing in their heart and another in their words: their tongue is a deadly arrow; it speaks deceitfully (Jer 9:8).

285. Third, he mentions the havoc wrought by their words, when he says: the venom of asps is under their lips, because they utter words which kill their neighbor either spiritually or bodily: their wine is the poison of serpents and the cruel venom of asps (Deut 32:33).

286. Fourth, he designates the abundance of these sins when he says: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness, because they have a plentiful supply of curses, for they curse in slandering others, contrary to what he says below: bless them and curse not (Rom 12:14).

And bitterness, inasmuch as they do not hesitate to say insulting words to their neighbor’s face, being provoked by bitterness, contrary to what is written in Ephesians: let all bitterness be put away from you (Eph 4:31).

287. Then when he says their feet swift he touches on sinful deeds, in regard to which he mentions three things.

First, readiness to do wickedly. Hence he says, their feet swift, i.e., their feelings, to shed blood, i.e., to commit any serious sin, because among the sins committed against our neighbor, murder is the most grievous: their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed blood (Prov 1:16).

288. Second, he touches on the number of injuries they inflict on others when he adds: in their ways, i.e., in their deeds, are destruction; because they crush others by oppressing them: it is in his mind to destroy (Isa 10:7); and misery, inasmuch as they deprive men of their goods and reduce them to wretchedness: they send men away naked, taking away their clothes (Job 24:7).

Yet these two, destruction and misery, can be taken as designating the punishment rather than the sin. Then the sense is: in their paths are destruction and misery, i.e., their deeds, which are signified as paths, lead them to misery. In this case, destruction would refer to the oppressive punishment they suffer for their sins: they shall be broken as a potter’s vessel (Isa 30:14) and misery, to the punishment of damnation, because they will be refused eternal happiness: they are miserable, with their hopes set on dead things (Wis 14:10).

289. Third, he shows their persistence in evil, from which men are returned in two ways.

In one way by a desire to be at peace with others. Against this he says, the way of peace they have not known, i.e., have not accepted: among those who hate peace I was peaceful (Ps 120:6). In another way by the fear of God; but they neither fear God nor regard man (Luke 18:2). Hence he adds, there is no fear of God before their eyes, i.e., in their plans: the fear of the Lord casts out sin; for without fear a person cannot be justified (Sir 1:27).

This could also refer in a particular way to the Jews who did not believe Christ, i.e., that they have not known the way of peace, namely, Christ, of whom it is written: he is our peace (Eph 2:14).

290. Then when he says now we know that what things soever, he explains the text he quoted in three ways:

first, by expounding its sense;

second, its intention, at that every mouth;

third, he gives the reason for his words, at because by the works of the law.

291. It should be noted that the Jews, against whom the Apostle was speaking, could, to excuse themselves, pervert the sense of the text he cited and claim that it referred to the gentiles, not to the Jews.

But the Apostle rejects this, saying: now we know that what things soever the law speaks, it speaks to those who are in the law, i.e., to whom the law is given and who profess the law: when Moses commanded us a law (Deut 33:4). But the gentiles were not under the law; accordingly, the above words pertain to the Jews.

292. Two objections are raised here.

The first is that the above words were not taken from the law but from a psalm.

The answer is that the word law is sometimes taken for the entire Old Testament, not for the five books of Moses alone, as in John: it is to fulfill the word that is written in their law: they hated me without cause (John 15:25), which was written in the Old Testament, not in the five books of Moses. This is the way law is taken here.

Again, the Old Testament is sometimes divided into three parts, namely, the law, the Psalms, and the prophets, as in Luke: that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled (Luke 24:44).

Finally, the entire Old Testament is sometimes divided into two, namely, the law and the prophets, as in Matthew: on these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets (Matt 22:40). In this sense the Psalter is included under the prophets.

293. The second objection is that in the law, i.e., in the Old Testament, many things are said that pertain to other nations, as is clear in many passages of Isaiah and Jeremiah, where many statements are directed against Babylon and other nations. Therefore, not everything that the law says speaks to those and about those who are under the law.

The answer is that whatever it says indeterminately seems to be directed to those to whom the law has been given; but when the Scripture speaks of others it mentions them by name, as when it is written: the burden of Babylon, the burden of Tyre, etc. Furthermore, whatever was said against other nations in the Old Testament was somehow directed to the Jews, inasmuch as ill fortune was foretold for their consolation or fear, just as any preacher should say what pertains to his audience, not what pertains to others: declare to my people their transgressions (Isa 58:1), as if to say: not others’ transgressions.

294. Then when he says that every mouth, he states the intent of the text cited, for Sacred Scripture accuses all of injustice for two reasons.

First, to suppress their boasting, by which they considered themselves just, as in Luke: I fast twice a week (Luke 18:12). In regard to this he says, that every mouth may be stopped, which presumptuously ascribes justice to itself: for the mouths of liars will be stopped (Ps 63:11); talk no more so very proudly (1 Sam 2:3).

Second, so that recognizing their guilt, they might subject themselves to God as the sick to a physician. Hence he continues: and all the world may be made subject to God, i.e., not only the gentiles but the Jews also, after recognizing their guilt: shall not my soul be subject to God? (Ps 62:1).

295. Then when he says because by the works of the law, he assigns the reason for these words:

first, he assigns the reason;

second, he explains it, at for by the law.

296. First, therefore, he says: the reason there is not any man just is that no flesh shall be justified before him, i.e., according to his judgment, by the works of the law; because, as is stated in Galatians: if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose (Gal 2:21), and in Titus: not because of deeds done by us in justice, but in virtue of his own mercy he saved us (Titus 3:5).

297. However, a work of the law is of two kinds: one is peculiar to the Mosaic law, as the observance of ceremonial precepts; the other is a work of the law of nature, because it pertains to the natural law, as you shall not kill, you shall not steal, etc.

Now some take the Apostle’s words as referring to the first works, namely, that the ceremonials did not confer the grace through which men are made just.

But this does not seem to be the Apostle’s intent, for he immediately adds: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But it is clear that sins are made known through prohibitions contained in the moral precepts. Consequently, the Apostle intends to say that by no works of the law, even those commanded by the moral precepts, is man justified in the sense that justice would be caused in him by works, because, as he states below: and if by grace, it is not now by works (Rom 11:6).

298. Then when he says, for by the law, he proves his statement, namely, that the works of the law do not justify.

For the law is given that man might know what to do and what to avoid: he has not dealt thus with any other nation; they do not know his ordinances (Ps 147:20); the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light and the way of life (Prov 6:23). But from the fact that man knows a sin he should avoid as being forbidden, it does not at once follow that he avoids it (because this pertains to the nature of justice), because concupiscence subverts the judgment of reason, when it bears on a particular moral action as performable. Consequently, the law is not enough to make one just; another remedy is needed to suppress concupiscence.

Christ the redemption for all

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, [n. 299]

the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; [n. 304]

since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, [n. 307]

whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; [n. 310]

it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus. [n. 311]

299. After showing that Jews and gentiles are equal as far as the state of previous guilt is concerned, the Apostle now shows that they are also equal as far as the state of subsequent grace is concerned.

In regard to this he does three things:

first, he states his teaching;

second, he explains something he had presupposed, at or is he the God of the Jews only? (Rom 3:29).

Third, he answers an objection, at do we then destroy the law? (Rom 3:31).

With respect to the first he does three things:

first, he states his teaching;

second, he manifests it, at for there is no distinction;

third, he draws the intended conclusion, at where is then your boasting? (Rom 3:27).

first, he states the relation between justice and the law;

second, he gives the cause of justice, at even the justice of God;

third, he shows that such justice is available to all, at unto all.

300. First, he sets down a twofold comparison or relation of justice to the law.

The first is that it is not caused by the law. This is what he says: It has been stated that in times past God’s justice could not exist in virtue of the works of the law, either because the just one himself fulfills the promises about men’s justification: for I say that Christ was minister of the circumcision for the truth of God (Rom 15:8). Or, rather, God’s justice, by which a person is justified by God, of which it says below: not knowing the justice of God (Rom 10:3).

This justice of God, I say, is now, i.e., in the time of grace, made manifest by the teachings of Christ, by his miracles, as well as by the evidence of the fact, inasmuch as it is evident that many have been divinely made just. And this without the law, i.e., without the law causing justice: you are severed from Christ, you who had been justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace (Gal 5:4); soon my salvation will come, and my justice will be revealed (Isa 56:1).

301. But lest anyone suppose that this justice is contrary to the law, second, he sets down another relation of justice to the law when he says: being witnessed by the law and the prophets.

The law bears witness to Christ’s justice by foretelling and prefiguring it: if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me (John 5:46); and also by its effect, for, since it could not justify, it bore witness that justice was to be sought elsewhere.

The prophets bore witness by foretelling it: to him all the prophets bear witness (Acts 10:43).

302. Then he assigns the cause of this justice, and says the justice of God is through the faith of Christ Jesus, i.e., which he delivered: looking to Jesus the perfecter of our faith (Heb 12:2); or which is held concerning him: for if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved (Rom 10:9).

God’s justice is said to exist through faith in Christ Jesus, not as though by faith we merit being justified, as if faith exists from ourselves and through it we merit God’s justice, as the Pelagians assert; but because in the very justification, by which we are made just by God, the first motion of the mind toward God is through faith: whoever would draw near to God must believe (Heb 11:6). Hence faith, as the first part of justice, is given to us by God: by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing; for it is the gift of God (Eph 2:8).

But this faith, out of which justice exists, is not the unformed faith about which James says, faith without works is dead (Jas 2:26), but it is faith formed by charity: for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails any thing without faith (Gal 5:6), through which Christ dwells in us. That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith (Eph 3:17), which does not happen without charity: he who abides in love abides in God and God in him (1 John 4:16). This is the faith about which it is said, he cleansed their hearts by faith (Acts 15:9), a cleansing that does not occur without charity: love covers all offenses (Prov 10:12).

303. And lest anyone suppose that only the Jews are made just through this faith, third, he shows that this justice is common, when he adds unto all. In other words, this justice is in the heart, not in fleshly observances, about which Hebrews says that carnal observances were directed to the justification of the flesh, being regulations for the body and imposed until the time of reformation (Heb 9:10). And upon all, because it transcends human power and merit: not that we are sufficient of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us (2 Cor 3:5).

He adds, who believe in him, which refers to the living faith, by which man is justified, as has been said.

304. Then when he says for there is no distinction, he manifests what he had said:

first, in regard to the common availability of justice;

second, as to its cause, at being justified freely;

third, as to its manifestation, at to the showing of his justice.

305. First, therefore, he says: it has been stated that the justice of God is in all and above all who believe in Christ. For in this matter there is no distinction between Jew and gentile: in Christ Jesus there is not gentile and Jew (Col 3:11), namely who has some distinction, as though the Jew does not need to be made just by God as the gentile does. For all have sinned, as has been shown above: all we like sheep have gone astray (Isa 53:6) and for this reason need the glory of God, i.e., the justification that redounds to God’s glory. Furthermore, man should not ascribe this glory to himself: not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name give glory (Ps 115:1); give glory to God (Ps 66:2).

306. Consequently, because all have sinned and cannot of themselves be justified, they need some other cause to make them just. This cause he indicates when he continues, being justified.

First, he shows that such justification exists without the law, i.e., that it does not come from the works of the law, when he says being justified freely, i.e., without the merit of previous works: you were sold for nothing and you shall be redeemed without money (Isa 52:3). And this is by his grace, namely, God’s, to whom glory is due on this account: by the grace of God I am what I am (1 Cor 15:10).

307. Second, he shows what is the cause of justification. First, he discloses the cause itself, when he says, through the redemption.

For as it is said: everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin (John 8:34). From this slavery a man is redeemed, if he makes satisfaction for sin. For example, if a man owes a king a fine for some guilty action, the one who paid the fine would be said to have redeemed him from the debt. Now, this debt involved the whole human race, which was infected by the sin of the first parent. Hence no other person could satisfy for the sin of the entire human race except Christ alone, who was immune from all sin.

Hence he adds, that is in Christ Jesus. As if to say: in no other could there be redemption: not with perishable things, such as silver and gold (1 Pet 1:18).

308. Second, he shows whence this redemption has efficacy, when he says whom God has proposed to be a propitiation.

For Christ’s satisfaction was efficacious for justifying and redeeming by the fact that God had assigned him to this in his plan, which he designates when he says whom God has proposed to be a propitiation: according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will (Eph 1:11).

Or proposed, that is, he put forward for all, because the human race had no way of making satisfaction unless God himself gave them a redeemer and satisfier: he sent redemption to his people (Ps 111:9).

And so, while making satisfaction, he redeems us from the debt of sin and obtains pardon for our sins, which the Psalmist begged: be propitious to our sins (Ps 79:9); and this is why he calls him a propitiation: propitiation (1 John 2:2). As a figure of this it was commanded in Exodus that a propitiatory, i.e., Christ, be placed on the ark, i.e., the Church (Exod 25:17).

309. Third, he indicates how the effect of redemption reached us, when he says, through faith in his blood, i.e., faith concerning his blood poured out for us.

For in order to satisfy for us, it was fitting that he undergo the penalty of death for us, a penalty man had incurred by sin, as indicated in Genesis, in the day that you eat of it you shall die (Gen 2:17). Hence 1 Peter states, for Christ also died for sins once for all (1 Pet 3:18). This death of Christ is applied to us through faith, by which we believe that the world has been redeemed by his death: I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (Gal 2:20). For even among men payment made by one man does not benefit another, unless he considers it valid.

And so it is clear how there is justification through faith in Jesus Christ, as has been stated above.

310. But because he had stated above that God’s justice is manifested now, he considers this manifestation. First, he touches on the manner of this manifestation, saying to the showing. As if to say: I say that we are justified by the redemption of Christ and by faith in his blood, to the showing of his justice, i.e., to the end that God might show his justice, and this for the remission of former sins.

For in remitting former sins, which the law could not remit or men by their own power sufficiently guard against, God showed that the justice by which they are made just by God is necessary for men. But only through the blood of Christ could sins both present and past be remitted, because the power of Christ’s blood works through man’s faith, which the men who lived before his passion had, just as we have: since we have the same spirit of faith . . . we too believe (2 Cor 14:13).

Hence another way of reading it is: for the remission of the sins of those men who preceded the passion of Christ: he will tread our iniquities under foot and he will cast all our sins into the depth of the sea (Mic 7:19).

311. Second, he shows the time of its manifestation, when he adds: through the forbearance of God, for the showing of his justice in this time. As if to say: former sins before the passion of Christ were through the forbearance of God as, so to speak, under a certain divine support, because he neither damned believers and penitents for them nor completely absolved them, in the sense that, the sins notwithstanding, they might enter into glory.

Or, according to another reading, it can mean that the saintly fathers themselves were in God’s forbearance, because they were detained in limbo, not suffering sensible pain but waiting to enter into glory through the passion of Christ: wait for the forbearance of God (Sir 2:3). For this purpose, I say, previous sins and the ancient fathers were through the forbearance of God, namely for the showing of his justice in this time, i.e., that in this time of grace he might manifest his justice perfectly by granting full remission of sins: now is the acceptable time; now is the day of salvation (2 Cor 6:2). And this is what he had said above, namely that God’s justice is now manifest.

Up to this present time former sins had been in the forbearance of God, in order to convince man of his lack of knowledge, since in the time of the law of nature man fell into errors and base sins; and of his lack of power, since after the written law, which gave knowledge of sin, man still sinned through weakness.

312. Third, he shows that by remitting sins God’s justice is shown, whether it be taken as the justice of God by which he himself is just or as the justice by which he justifies others.

Hence he continues: that he himself may be just, i.e., that by remitting sins God may appear to be just in himself, both because he remitted sins as he had promised and because it belongs to God’s justice to destroy sins by leading men back to his justice: the Lord is righteous, he loves just deeds (Ps 11:7).

And also the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ, i.e., who approaches God through faith in Jesus Christ: whoever would draw near to God must believe (Heb 11:6).

The law of faith

Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith. [n. 313]

For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. [n. 317]

Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, [n. 318]

since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.

Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. [n. 321]

313. After showing that Jews have no advantage over the gentiles either in regard to sin or to justice, he now presents the intended conclusion, by rejecting the boasts whereby they preferred themselves to the gentiles.

He does three things.

First, he proposes that this boasting be excluded;

second, the reason for this exclusion, at by what law;

third, the way it is excluded, at for we account.

314. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he raises a question: inasmuch as you, Jew, are under sin just as the gentile, and the gentile is made just by faith just as you are, where is then your boasting, whereby you take glory in the law, as stated above, and on this ground wish to prefer yourself to the gentile? Your boasting is not good (1 Cor 5:6); let us have no self-conceit, envying one another (Gal 5:26).

Second, he answers this, saying, it is excluded, i.e., is taken away: the glory has been taken away from Israel (1 Sam 4:21); I will change their glory into shame (Hos 4:7).

Or excluded, i.e., expressly manifested.

For the Jews gloried in the glory and worship of the one God, and he says that their glory was excluded, i.e., pressed out by Christ, as artists who press out an image in silver are called excludors, in accord with the Psalm, that they might exclude those who were tried by silver (Ps 67:31).

But the first meaning is more literal.

315. Then when he says by what law, he states the cause of this exclusion.

Since the Jews’ boasting was about the law, as has been stated above, it seemed that their boasting had to be excluded by something of the same genre, i.e., by some law. Therefore, he asks by what is their boasting to be excluded?

For someone might suppose that the Apostle means their boasting was excluded by certain legal precepts which commanded greater works. That is why he asks, of works? As if to say: do I say that their boasting has been excluded by some law of works? But he answers: no, but by the law of faith.

So it is plain that the Apostle alludes here to two laws, that of works and that of faith. At first glance it would seem that by the law of works is meant the old law and by the law of faith the new law, through which the gentile is made equal to the Jew.

316. But there is some doubt about this distinction.

For even in the old law faith was necessary, just as it is in the new: you who fear the Lord believe him (Sir 2:8); I believed; therefore I have spoken (Ps 116:10). And indeed, works are required in the new law, namely, the works of certain sacraments, as commanded in Luke: do this in memory of me (Luke 22:19) and of moral observances: be doers of the word and not hearers only (Jas 1:22).

Consequently, it should be said that what he calls the law of works is the law outwardly presented and written, through which men’s external works are directed, when it prescribes what he ought to do and forbids what ought to be avoided. But what he calls the law of faith is the law inwardly written, through which are directed not only external works but even the very motions of the heart, among which the act of faith is first: with the heart, we believe unto justice (Rom 10:10). Of this second law he speaks below: the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:2).

317. Then when he says, for we account, he shows how the Jews’ boasting is excluded by the law of faith, saying: for we apostles, being taught the truth by Christ, account a man, whomsoever he be, whether Jew or gentile, to be justified by faith: he cleansed their hearts by faith (Acts 15:9). And this without the works of the law.

Not only without the ceremonial works, which did not confer grace but only signified it, but also without the works of the moral precepts, as stated in Titus, not because of deeds done by us in justice (Titus 3:5). This, of course, means without works prior to becoming just, but not without works following it, because, as is stated in James: faith without works (Jas 2:26), i.e., subsequent works, is dead, and, consequently, cannot justify.

318. Then when he says or is he the God of the Jews only, he manifests something he had presupposed, namely, that the justice of faith stands in the same common relation to all.

He had previously explained this with a reason based on the material cause, when he stated above that all have sinned and need the glory of God (Rom 3:23), i.e., they are sinners, who need to be made just by the grace of God. But a proof based solely on the material cause is not enough, because matter is not moved to a form by itself without an agent cause. Accordingly, he now presents a proof based on the agent cause, i.e., the justifier, who is God: God is he who justifies (Rom 8:33).

Now it is manifest that our God by justifying saves those whose God he is, according to a psalm, our God is a God of salvation (Ps 68:20). But he is the God not of the Jews only but of the gentiles also; therefore, he justifies both.

319. On this point he does three things.

First, he raises a question concerning the Jews, when he says, is he the God of Jews only? It might seem that he is, because it says in Exodus, the God of the Hebrews called us (Exod 5:3).

Hence it must be said that he was the God of the Jews only by the special worship paid to God by them; hence it is stated in a psalm: in Judah God is known (Ps 76:1); yet he was the God of all by his common reign over all things, as is stated in a psalm: God is king of all the earth (Ps 47:8).

Second, he raises the question on the side of the gentiles, saying: is he not also of the gentiles? and he answers: yes, of gentiles also, whom he governs and rules: who would not fear you, O king of the nations? (Jer 10:7).

Third, at for it is one God, he manifests what he had said with a sign, as if to say: it is clear that he is the God not only of the Jews but also of the gentiles, for it is one God who justifies circumcision, i.e., the Jews, from faith, as is said in Galatians, in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail (Gal 5:6).

320. According to the Gloss, from faith and through faith are exactly the same. However, a slight difference can be noted.

For the preposition ‘from’ sometimes designates a remote cause, while the preposition ‘through’ designates a nearer cause. Therefore, the Jews are said to be justified from faith because faith was the first cause from which circumcision and the other sacraments of the law proceeded; thus, faith justified the Jews as a primary cause through intermediate causes. But the gentiles are justified by faith itself immediately.

321. Then when he says do we then destroy, he excludes an objection.

For someone might claim that he is overthrowing the aforementioned law; therefore, he asks: do we then destroy the law through faith, inasmuch as we say that men are justified without the works of the law?

He answers: God forbid! in keeping with Matthew, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law (Matt 5:18). Rather, he adds: but we establish the law, i.e., by faith we complete and fulfill the law, as Matthew says, I have come not to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17).

This is true as regards the ceremonial precepts because, being figures, they were upheld and fulfilled by the fact that the truth signified by them is shown forth in the faith of Christ. This is also true as regards the moral precepts, because the faith of Christ confers the help of grace to fulfill the moral precepts of the law and even adds special counsels, through which the moral precepts are more safely and securely kept.

Abraham’s Justification

Abraham not justified by circumcision

What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? [n. 322]

For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. [n. 323]

For what does the scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. [n. 326]

Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. [n. 328]

And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.

So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: [n. 332]

Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;

blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin.

Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised? We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. [n. 339]

How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.

322. After excluding the glory which the Jews took in the law, on the basis of which they preferred themselves to the gentiles, the Apostle now excludes their glory in regard to circumcision.

About this he does two things.

First, he takes up the question he had raised earlier, when he asked, what is the profit of circumcision? (Rom 3:1). And because Abraham was the first to receive the command about circumcision, as stated in Genesis (Gen 17:10), he repeats the question in the person of Abraham himself, saying: if it is true that God justifies the uncircumcised as well as the circumcised, what profit shall we say then that Abraham has found, who is our father according to the flesh? That is, according to circumcision and other bodily observances. For it does not seem fitting to say that he found no usefulness, since it is stated in Isaiah, I am the Lord, your God, who teaches you useful things (Isa 48:17).

323. Second, when he says, for if Abraham, he answers the question he had raised.

He does two things.

First, he shows that Abraham did not obtain justification through circumcision and the other works of the law, but rather through faith;

second, he commends his faith, at who against hope (Rom 4:18).

First, he explains his position with a reason based on divine acceptance;

second, by reason of God’s promise, at for not through the law (Rom 4:13).

First, he proposes a conditional statement;

second, he disproves the consequent, at for what says the Scripture?

Third, he proves the conditional statement, at as David also.

324. In regard to the first the Apostle intends to argue in the following manner: if Abraham were justified from works of the law, he would have no glory with God; therefore, he was not justified from works.

Hence, he presents the conditional statement, saying: it has been asked what Abraham found in virtue of bodily circumcision, and it is obvious that he did not find himself justified from works of the law, such that his justice consisted in the works of the law; he has glory, namely, before men, who see the outward works, but not before God, who sees in secret: the Lord looks on the heart (1 Sam 16:7); so let no one boast of men (1 Cor 3:21). Hence it is written against some that they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God (John 12:43).

325. Against this one might object that becoming accustomed to outward works generates an inward habit, according to which a man’s heart is also well disposed and so made ready to perform well and take pleasure in good works, as the Philosopher teaches in Ethics II.

The answer is that this takes place in human justice, through which man is ordained to the human good. For the habit of this justice can be acquired through human works, but the justice which obtains glory before God is ordained to the divine good, namely future glory, which exceeds human ability, as is said: it has not arisen in the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love him (1 Cor 2:9).

Consequently, a man’s works are not proportioned to causing the habit of this justice; rather, a man’s heart needs first to be justified inwardly by God, so that he can perform works proportioned to divine glory.

326. Then when he says, for what says, he disproves the consequent, which was negative, by proving the opposite affirmative, namely, that Abraham did have glory before God.

He proves this on the authority of Scripture:

first, he cites the authority;

second, he explains, at now to him.

327. First, therefore, he says: I say that Abraham was justified in a way that gave him glory before God. For what says the Scripture? Abraham believed God who promised that his seed would be multiplied (Gen 15:6). Believe God and he will help you (Sir 2:6). And it was reputed to him, i.e., by God, unto justice: was not Abraham found faithful when tested? (1 Macc 2:52). Consequently, it is clear that before God, by whom that he believed was reckoned to him as justice, he has glory.

But it should be noted that Abraham expressed the justice described, which God regards, not in some outward work but in the inward faith of the heart, which God alone sees. Indeed, since the act of faith is said to be threefold, namely, to believe in God, to believe God, and to believe unto God, he mentions this act, namely to believe God, which is the proper act of faith and indicates its nature. For to believe unto God shows the ordering of faith to its end, which is through charity; for to believe unto God is to go to God by believing, which charity does. Consequently, it follows upon the nature of faith.

But to believe in God indicates the matter of faith taken as a theological virtue, having God for its object. Consequently, this act does not yet attain the nature of faith, because if one believes in God in virtue of certain human reasons and natural signs, he is not yet said to have the faith of which we now speak, but only when he believes something for the reason that it was said by God—which is indicated by the phrase, ‘to believe God.’ It is from this that faith takes its nature, just as any cognitive habit takes its nature from the reason in virtue of which it assents to something. For a person possessing scientific philosophical knowledge is inclined to assent to its statements for one reason, namely, through demonstration, but one having the habit of opinion is inclined to assent for a different reason, namely, through a dialectical syllogism.

328. Then, when he says, now to him who works, he explains the aforementioned biblical citation as regards the words it was reputed to him as justice.

Two explanations of these words are given in the Gloss. In the first explanation they are linked to the final reward, concerning which

second, how it is related to faith, at but to him who works not.

329. First, therefore, he says that to him who works the works of justice, the reward of eternal recompense—concerning which it is said, behold his reward is with him (Isa 40:10)—is not reckoned as a gift only, but according to debt: did you not agree with me for a denarius? (Matt 20:13).

The answer is that human works can be considered in two ways. In one way, according to the substance of the works, and considered this way they do not have anything deserving that the reward of eternal glory should be given.

In another way, they can be considered according to their source, namely, insofar as they are performed under God’s impulse in accord with the intention of God who predestines. And in this respect the aforesaid reward is due them by debt, because, as is stated below: for whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God . . . and if sons, heirs also (Rom 8:14, 17).

330. Then when he says but to him, he shows how the eternal reward is related to faith, saying, but to him who works not outward works, for example, because he does not have time to work, as in the case of one who dies immediately after baptism, yet believes in him who justifies the ungodly, namely, in God, of whom he says below: God is he who justifies (Rom 8:33), his faith is reputed, i.e., faith alone without outward works, to justice, so that in virtue of it he is called just and receives the reward of justice, just as if he had done the works of justice, as he says below: with the heart, we believe unto justice (Rom 10:10), and this according to the purpose of the grace of God, i.e., accordingly as God proposes to save men gratuitously: to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints (Rom 8:28); he accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will (Eph 1:11).

331. Another explanation refers those words to man’s justification.

He says therefore, to him who works, i.e., if anyone be justified by works, the justice would be reckoned as a reward, not according to grace, but according to debt: and if by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise grace is no more grace (Rom 11:6). But to him who works not, so as to be justified by his works, yet believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God, not that he merits justice through faith, but because the believing itself is the first act of the justice God works in him. For from the fact that he believes in God justifying, he submits himself to his justification and thus receives its effect.

This is the literal explanation and accords with the intention of the Apostle, who lays special stress on the words, it was reputed to him as justice (Gen 15:6), a saying which is used when that which is lacking on someone’s part is reckoned to him gratis, as if he had accomplished the whole.

That is why the Apostle says that such reckoning would have no place, if justice were from works, but only as it is from faith.

332. Then when he says, as David also, he proves the conditional statement by a quotation from a psalm.

First, he gives its sense;

second, he presents its words, at blessed are they;

third, he excludes a false interpretation, at this blessedness, then.

333. He says: as David also terms the blessedness of a man to whom God reputes, i.e., confers, justice without works, i.e., gratis, without preceding works: not because of deeds done by us in justice (Titus 3:5).

But man’s blessedness is from God, as the Psalm says: blessed is the man who makes the Lord his hope (Ps 40:5). Hence, it is plain that he has glory before God who is justified not by the works of the law, as has been said.

334. Then when he says, blessed are they, he presents David’s words containing the previous judgment and says that those whose sins are forgiven are blessed; consequently, they did not previously have good works, from which they obtained justice or happiness.

335. But sin is divided into three classes: original, actual mortal, and actual venial.

First, in regard to original sin he says: blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven.

Here it should be noted that original sin is called iniquity, because it is the lack of that original justice, by which in equity man’s reason was subject to God, the lower powers to reason, and the body to the soul. This equity is removed by original sin, because after reason ceased to be subject to God, the lower powers rebel against reason and the body is withdrawn from obedience to the soul and subjected to decay and death. Hence: I was brought forth in iniquities (Ps 51:5).

In both texts original sin is presented in the plural, either because of the multitude of men in whom original sin is multiplied or better because it virtually contains within itself all sins in some way.

Such original sin is said to be forgiven, because the state of guilt passes with the coming of grace, but the effect remains in the form of fomes, or concupiscence, which is not entirely taken away in this life, but is remitted or mitigated.

336. Second, in regard to actual mortal sin he says, and whose sins are covered.

For sins are said to be covered from the divine gaze, inasmuch as he does not look upon them to be punished: you covered all their sin (Ps 84:3).

337. Third, in regard to venial sin he says, blessed is the man to whom the Lord has not imputed sin, where sin refers to venial sins which, although light, if they be many, man is separated and distant from God: the good Lord will pardon everyone who sets his heart to seek God, even though not according to the sanctuary’s rules of cleanness (2 Chr 30:18).

338. These three can be distinguished in another way.

For in sin are three things, one of which is offense against God. In regard to this he says, blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, the way man is said to remit an offense committed against him: her iniquity is pardoned (Isa 40:2).

The second thing is the fact that the disordered deed has been done and cannot be said not to have occurred, once it has been perpetrated; but it is covered over by the hand of God’s mercy and is held as if not committed.

The third is the debt of punishment, in regard to which he says, blessed is the man to whom the Lord has not imputed sin, i.e., unto punishment.

339. Then when he says, this blessedness then, he excludes a false interpretation of the text.

For a Jew could interpret it as meaning that the grace of forgiveness of sins is conferred only on the circumcised.

Therefore, to exclude this the Apostle first raises the question, this blessedness then, by which God confers justice without works, does it remain in the circumcised only, i.e., does it affect only the circumcised, or in the uncircumcision also, i.e., on the gentiles? Plainly it is for both, according to what he says below: the same Lord is riches unto all that call upon him (Rom 10:12).

Second, at for we say, to show this he appeals to the authority of Scripture (Gen 15:6), as if to say: I ask this, for we say that unto Abraham faith was reputed to justice.

Third, from this text he concludes to the answer, although he states it in the form of a question: how then was it reputed to him, namely, Abraham’s faith as justice; that is, when he was in circumcision, i.e., when he was circumcised, or in uncircumcision, i.e., when still uncircumcised?

340. He answers: not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. This is obvious from the reported sequence of events. For Genesis reports that faith was reckoned to Abraham as justice (Gen 15:6), but the fact of receiving circumcision is not recorded until Genesis (17:23 et seq.). Therefore, if Abraham, still uncircumcised, was justified by faith, it is plain that the justice of faith, through which sins are forgiven gratis, occurs not only in circumcision but also in uncircumcision, i.e., in gentiles.

Circumcision the seal of faith’s justice

He received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, [n. 341]

and likewise the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but also follow the example of the faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world, did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. [n. 351]

If it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. [n. 354]

For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. [n. 356]

341. Having shown that the blessing of forgiveness of sins is obtained not only in circumcision but also in uncircumcision on the ground that Abraham was justified when he was still uncircumcised, the Apostle now responds to an objection.

For someone could say: if Abraham was justified before circumcision, then he was circumcised without reason and for no purpose.

To exclude this objection,

he first states that circumcision was not the cause but the sign of justice;

second, he shows what he obtains from this sign, at that he might be the father;

third, how he obtains it, at not to those only.

342. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he states that circumcision is a sign: you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin and it shall be a sign of the covenant between you and me (Gen 17:10).

Second, he shows what it is a sign of, saying: a seal of the justice of the faith, i.e., the justice that comes through faith, which faith is in uncircumcision, i.e., which Abraham had while he was still uncircumcised.

343. Seal is said in two ways. In one way, a seal is a visible sign possessing a likeness to the thing signified, as in Ezekiel: you were the seal of likeness, full of wisdom (Ezek 28:12). Circumcision had this visible likeness to Abraham’s faith. First, in regard to what he believed. For Abraham believed that his seed would be multiplied; hence, it was fitting to receive its sign in the organ of reproduction. Second, in regard to the effect of his faith, namely, the removal of fault, and this is signified by the removal of superfluous skin.

In another way, seal means a sign hiding something which is to be revealed to friends, as is clear in the case of a sigillo: worthy are you, who were slain, to take the scroll and to open its seals (Rev 6:9). Hence, the secret of the Incarnation of Christ from the seed of Abraham was enclosed under the seal of circumcision.

344. Then he shows what follows from what has been said.

For Abraham, still uncircumcised, was justified by faith and later received circumcision. From this he obtains the honor of being the father not only of the circumcised but also of uncircumcised believers. And this is what he says: that he might be the father, i.e., from the foregoing it comes about that Abraham might be the father of all those who believe, being uncircumcised, i.e., who are in the state of uncircumcision. Or Abraham is the father through uncircumcision, i.e., in virtue of what he had in uncircumcision, that unto them also it may be reputed to justice, namely, the fact that they believe, just as it was reckoned to Abraham. The power of this fatherhood is indicated in Matthew: God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham (Matt 3:9). And he might be the father of circumcision, who derive their origin from him: Abraham is our father (John 8:39).

345. Then he shows the manner in which he is the father even of the uncircumcised, namely, by imitation. And this is what he says: that he might be the father . . . not to those only who are of the circumcision, but to those also who follow the steps of the faith that is in the uncircumcision of our father Abraham, i.e., which Abraham had, while he was still uncircumcised: if you were Abraham’s children, you would do what Abraham did (John 8:39).

346. Since we are speaking of circumcision, it is fitting to consider three things about it, namely, why it was instituted, what power it had, and why it was changed.

347. In regard to the first it should be noted that circumcision, just as the other ceremonies of the law, was instituted for two purposes.

First, for divine worship, for which men were disposed in accordance with these ceremonies.

In keeping with this, circumcision had three reasons for being instituted, the first of which was to signify the faith and obedience by which Abraham submitted to God, so that those who accepted the circumcision of Abraham should observe his faith and obedience. For it is stated in Hebrews: by faith Abraham was circumcised (Heb 4:11). Hence, circumcision was instituted to signify his faith in future descendants, as has been stated.

The second reason was to express in a bodily sign something that was to occur spiritually, namely, just as superfluous skin was removed from the organ of reproduction, which is the chief servant of concupiscence, so every superfluous desire should be removed from man’s heart, as Jeremiah says: circumcise yourself to the Lord, remove the foreskin of your hearts (Jer 4:4).

The third reason was to distinguish the people worshipping God from all other people. This is why God commanded circumcision for the children of Israel, who were to dwell among the other nations after first living alone and uncircumcised in the desert.

348. The other purpose of circumcision and all the ceremonies is based on a relation to Christ, to whom they are compared as the figure to the reality and as the members to the body: these are only a shadow of what is to come, but the body belongs to Christ (Col 2:17).

Accordingly, by bodily circumcision is signified the spiritual circumcision to be accomplished by Christ: first in the soul, inasmuch as it is through him that concupiscence and the effects of sin are removed by Christ: in him, namely, Christ, also you were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ (Col 2:11).

Second, in regard to the body, namely, when in the resurrection all possibility of suffering and death is removed from the bodies of the elect. Hence, circumcision took place on the eighth day, because it signified the eighth era. For the seventh is the era of those who are at rest in Christ, while the other six are the eras during which the world runs its course. Again, circumcision was done with knives of stone (Josh 5:2) to signify that spiritual circumcision was to be effected by the rock, who is Christ, as is said (1 Cor 10:4). However, it was not the general practice to use a knife made of stone.

349. In regard to the second question, namely, what power circumcision had, it should be noted that, as the Gloss says here—the quotation is taken from Bede—during the law, circumcision offered the same curative help against the wound of original sin as baptism is wont to give in the era of revealed grace. This shows that the power of circumcision extended to the removal of original sin.

However, some say that grace was not conferred in circumcision; for without justice God’s grace cannot be present. But the Apostle says in Galatians: if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose (Gal 2:21).

And we can argue in the same way: if justifying grace were through circumcision, Christ died to no purpose. But this cannot be, for sin is never forgiven without grace: justified by his grace we have peace with God (Titus 3:7).

Therefore, others say that grace was conferred in circumcision to produce privative effects, namely, to remove guilt, but not positive effects, namely, the work of justice.

But this does not seem fitting either, for the positive effects of any form precede in the order of nature the privative effects; for example, light does not expel darkness except by illuminating. Similarly, grace expels guilt by producing justice. But if the prior is removed, the subsequent is removed.

Therefore, it is better to say that ex opere operato circumcision did not have effective power either to remove guilt or to produce justice. It was merely a sign of justice, as the Apostle says here. But through faith in Christ, of which circumcision was a sign, it removed original sin and conferred the help of grace to act righteously.

350. In regard to the third question, it is clear from what has been said, why circumcision had to be changed. For it was a sign of something to come. But the same sign does not suit the present, past, and future. Therefore, baptism, as the sign of present grace, produces a more copious and more beneficial effect of grace, because the closer the agent is in time and place, the more effectively it works.

351. Then when he says, for not through the law, he explains his statement that circumcision or any work of the law did not justify in virtue of a divine promise.

In regard to this he does two things:

first, he states his proposition;

second, he proves it, at for if they who are of the law.

352. First, therefore, the Apostle accepts on the authority of Genesis the promise made to Abraham and his seed that he should be heir of the world, i.e., that all the nations of the world would be blessed in him: by you all the families of the earth shall be blessed (Gen 12:3).

He says, and to his seed, because even though this promise was not to be fulfilled in him, it was to be fulfilled in his descendants: by your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed (Gen 22:18).

But this seed is principally understood as Christ: now the promises were made to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say, ‘and to seeds,’ referring to many, but referring to one (Gal 3:16), because in the one in whom it is to be fulfilled it is shown that he would be heir of the world: ask of me and I will make the nations your heritage (Ps 2:8). Secondarily, it is fulfilled in those who through Christ’s grace are spiritually the seed of Abraham: the children of the promise are accounted for the seed (Rom 9:8). Through Christ they inherit the world, inasmuch as all things are for the glory of the elect: all are yours and you are Christ’s (1 Cor 3:22).

353. In regard to this promise he denies one thing and asserts another.

He denies that such a promise came through the law. This is not said on account of the promise itself, because at the time of the promise the law had not been given, but in reference to the fulfillment of the promise, so that the sense is that such a promise was not made to Abraham as something to be fulfilled through the law, because, as it is said: the law made nothing perfect (Heb 7:19).

What he asserts is that such a promise was to be fulfilled through the justice of faith, because the saints through faith conquered kingdoms (Heb 11:33).

354. Then when he says, for if they, he proves his statement:

first, in regard to the denial that the promise is to be fulfilled through the law;

second, in regard to the assertion that it is to be fulfilled through the justice of faith, at therefore it is of faith (Rom 4:16).

In regard to the first he presents this argument: if the promise made to Abraham were to be fulfilled through the law, Abraham’s faith believing the promise would be null, because the promise made to him would be abolished. But this is not fitting. Therefore, the first.

In regard to this he does two things:

first he presents a conditional statement;

second, he proves it, at for the law.

The destruction of the consequent is manifest.

355. He says first, therefore, that the promise was not made through the law.

For if they who are of the law are to be the heirs, i.e., if, in order to share in the promised inheritance, it is required that one obtain this from observing the law, faith is made void, i.e., the faith has been made futile by which Abraham believed God’s promise in Genesis 15. But this is not in keeping with what has been stated in 1 Corinthians: if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins (1 Cor 15:17).

Why it is futile is shown when he adds, the promise is made of no effect, i.e., emptied, because it does not produce its effect. But this is contrary to what is stated in Hebrews: she considered him faithful who had promised (Heb 11:11) and to what is stated in this chapter: whatsoever he has promised, he is able also to perform (Rom 4:21).

356. Then when he says for the law he proves the conditional statement through the effect or result of the law.

First, he proposes the effect or result of the law;

second, he proves it, at for where there is no law.

357. He proves the conditional thus: If a promise is to be fulfilled through something which prevents its fulfillment, such a promise is void and the faith of believers futile. But the law prevents one from obtaining the inheritance, for the law works wrath; therefore, if the promise is to be fulfilled through the law, faith is made void: the promise is made of no effect.

Now the law is said to bring wrath, i.e., vengeance, because through the law men were made deserving of God’s vengeance: great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, i.e., of the law (2 Kgs 22:13).

But someone might suppose that the law brings wrath as far as legal ceremonies observed in the era of grace are concerned, in line with Galatians: if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you (Gal 5:2). However, what is stated here refers even to moral precepts, not because they command something which makes its observers deserving of God’s wrath, but because the law commands and does not confer the grace to fulfill, according to 2 Corinthians: the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:6), namely, because the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity (Rom 8:26).

358. Then when he says for where there is no law, he shows how it brings wrath, saying: for where there is no law, neither is there transgression, because even though a person, with no law given, could sin by commission against what is naturally just, he is not called a transgressor, unless he violates a law: I looked at the transgressors with disgust, because they did not keep your commands (Ps 118:158). Yet every sinner can be called a transgressor, inasmuch as he transgresses the natural law: I have accounted all the sinners of the earth transgressors (Ps 118:119).

However, it is more grievous to transgress at once the law of nature and the written law than the law of nature alone. Hence, the law having been given without the help of grace, transgression increased and deserved greater wrath.

Abraham’s faith in the promise

That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants -- not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all, [n. 359]

as it is written, I have made you the father of many nations - in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.

In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations; as he had been told, So shall your descendants be. [n. 367]

He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead because he was about a hundred years old, or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb.

No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, [n. 374]

fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised.

That is why his faith was reckoned to him as righteousness. [n. 377]

But the words, it was reckoned to him, were written not for his sake alone,

but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord,

who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

359. After showing that the promise made to Abraham and his seed was not to be fulfilled through the law, the Apostle now shows that it is to be fulfilled through faith.

And concerning this he does three things.

first, he shows through what such a promise is to be fulfilled;

second, in whom it is to be fulfilled, at to all the seed;

third, by whom it is to be fulfilled, at who quickens the dead.

360. First, therefore, he concludes to his proposition, as it were by division.

For it seems necessary that the promise be fulfilled either by faith or by the law; but not by the law, because the promise would be abolished. Hence, he concludes, therefore it is of faith, if we are to attain the promise of being heirs of the world: this is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith (1 John 5:4).

Then he confirms this with a middle term contrary to the one he used above. For it was stated that if justice were from the law, the promise would be abolished; but if it be from faith, the promise remains solid in virtue of the power of divine grace justifying man through faith. And that is what he says, that the promise of God might be firm not on actions, which can fall short, but according to grace, which is infallible: my grace is sufficient for you (2 Cor 12:9); for all the promises of God are in him, namely, Christ, i.e., they are true (2 Cor 1:20).

361. Then when he says, to all the seed, he shows in whom this promise is fulfilled.

First, he proposes what he intends and says that this promise, which is to be thus fulfilled through faith, is guaranteed by grace to all the seed, i.e., to every man who would be in any way descended from Abraham: their prosperity will remain with their descendants, and their inheritance to their children’s children (Sir 44:11).

362. Second, at not to that only, he explains what he meant by all the seed.

For there is a bodily descendant: we are the descendants of Abraham (John 8:33), and there is a spiritual descendant: God is able from these stones, i.e., from the gentiles, to raise up children to Abraham (Matt 3:9). Only the bodily descendants of Abraham kept the law, but the spiritual descendants also imitate his faith.

Thus, if the promise were solely through the law, it would be fulfilled not in all the descendants but only in the bodily ones. But because it is fulfilled through faith, which is common to all, it is plain that it is fulfilled in all his descendants.

363. Third, at who is the father, he proves something he had presupposed, namely, that the descendants of Abraham are not only the children of the law but also the children of faith. He proves this with a text from Scripture. First, he gives its sense, saying, who, namely, Abraham, is the father of us all, i.e., of all believers, Jew or gentile: that he might be the father of all them that believe (Rom 4:11); look to Abraham, your father (Isa 51:2).

Second, he cites the text, saying, as it is written: I have made you a father of many nations (Gen 17:4). Another version has, I have appointed you. But it does not change the sense. Abraham was the great father of a multitude of nations (Sir 44:19).

Third, at before God, he explains what he had said. For I have made you seems to imply that something destined to be fulfilled in the distant future had already come to pass. However, things that are future in themselves are present in God’s providence: before the universe was created, it was known to him; so it was also after it was finished (Sir 23:20). Accordingly, the Apostle says that the statement, I have made you, should be understood before God, i.e., in his presence, whom he believed. For Abraham had believed God promising things to come as if he saw them present, because, as is stated in Hebrews: faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Heb 11:1).

364. Then when he says who quickens the dead he shows by whom this promise is to be fulfilled, saying, who, namely, God, quickens the dead, i.e., the Jews, who were dead in sin for acting against the law; he vivifies with faith and grace to enable them to rea1ize the promise to Abraham: as the Father raises the dead and gives them life so the Son gives life to whom he will (John 5:21).

And calls those things that are not, i.e., he calls the gentiles to grace as those that are, i.e., as the Jews: I will call that which was not my people, my people (Rom 9:25).

He refers to the gentiles as those things that are not, because they were completely estranged from God, and it is stated in 1 Corinthians: if I do not have charity, I am nothing (1 Cor 13:2). Consequently, through this call the promise to Abraham is fulfilled even in the gentiles.

365. Or, and calls those things that are not refers not to one’s temporal calling but to the call of eternal predestination, because even those who are not, are called and chosen as if they were: he chose us in him before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4). Concerning this call it is stated below: not of works but of him who calls, it was said to her: the elder shall serve the younger (Rom 9:12).

Or he is calling God’s simple knowledge a call, or the knowledge by which he knows the future as present. This is the way it is taken in the Psalm: he calls the stars by their names (Ps 147:4). According to this sense, what is said here is mentioned on account of an earlier statement: before God, whom he believed.

366. Two things seem to militate against what was said: I have made you a father of many nations. One of these was that Abraham was as good as dead from old age. Against this he says, who quickens the dead. The other is that those many nations did not exist yet. Against this he says: and calls those things that are not, as those that are.

367. Then when he says who against hope, he commends Abraham’s faith.

First, he shows the greatness of his faith;

second, its efficacy or fruit, at and therefore it was reputed.

first, he shows the greatness of Abraham’s faith as far as the promise of multiplying his descendants is concerned;

second, in regard to the promise to exalt his descendants, at in the promise also.

first, he shows that his faith was great;

second, that it was solid, at and he was not weak in faith.

368. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he mentions the greatness of Abraham’s faith, saying, who, namely, Abraham, believed in this hope, that he might be made the father of many nations, but against another hope.

Here it should be noted that hope implies a certain expectation of a future good, the certainty being based sometimes on a human or natural cause as in 1 Corinthians: the plowman should plow in hope (1 Cor 9:10), or on a divine cause as in the Psalm: in you, O Lord, have I hoped (Ps 30:2).

Therefore, in regard to this good of becoming the father of many nations Abraham had certainty on the part of God promising, but the contrary appeared on the part of natural or human causes. Hence, he says, who against hope of natural and human causes believed in hope of the divine promise.

369. Second, this promise is set out when he says, according to that which was said to him, namely, in Genesis: so shall your seed be as the stars of heaven and as the sand on the seashore (Gen 22:17).

Both of these are mentioned, because they suggest an uncountable multitude. For as to the stars it is stated in Deuteronomy: the Lord your God has multiplied you, and you are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude (Deut 1:10); as to the grains of sand it is stated in 1 Kings: Judah and Israel were as many as the sand by the sea (1 Kgs 4:20).

Yet a difference between the two can be noted, if the just, who were of Abraham’s seed, be compared to the stars: those who turn many to justice are like the stars forever and ever (Dan 12:3) and sinners be compared to the grains of sand, because they are overcome by the waves of the world as of a sea: I placed the sand as the bound for the sea (Jer 5:22).

370. Then when he says, and he was not weak, he shows Abraham’s firmness. For as temperance is shown not to be weak, because it is not overcome by strong temptations, so faith is shown not to be weak but strong, because it is not overcome by great difficulties: resist him, firm in your faith (1 Pet 5:9).

371. Second, at neither did he consider, he mentions the difficulties from which it is shown that his faith was not weak.

First, on the part of Abraham himself when he says, neither did he consider, namely, to question the promise, his own body, now dead, namely, because the reproductive power in it was slack on account of old age; hence he says, whereas he was almost an hundred years old. For Abraham was a hundred years old when Isaac was born (Gen 21:15) and it was the year before that a son had been promised him: the Lord said: I will surely return to you in the spring, and Sarah your wife shall have a son (Gen 18:10).

372. But it seems that his body was not dead as far as the reproductive power was concerned, because even after Sarah died he took another wife, Keturah, who bore him a number of sons, as is recorded in Genesis (Gen 25:1).

Some answer that the reproductive power in him was dead as far as reproducing from an old woman was concerned, but not as far as reproducing from a young woman. For old men are wont to beget offspring from the young but not from old women, who are less fit for conception. However, it seems better to say that Abraham’s reproductive power was miraculously restored both in regard to Sarah and to all women.

373. Second, he mentions a difficulty on the part of the wife when he says, nor the dead womb of Sarah, i.e., he does not consider it so as to question the promise.

He says, dead, on account of sterility as well as old age. For it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women (Gen 18:11). Hence in Isaiah, where it is written: look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you (Isa 51:2), the preceding passage says: look to the rock from which you were hewn and to the quarry from which you were dug out, in order to show the feebleness and frigidity of both.

374. Then when he says, in the promise also of God, he commends Abraham’s faith in the repeated promise that his seed would be exalted.

First, he mentions the firmness of faith;

second, the cause of the firmness, at giving glory to God.

375. First, therefore, he says: in the promise also of God, i.e., the promise that his seed would be exalted or that it would be multiplied, which was repeated: look toward heaven and number the stars. . . . So shall your descendants be (Gen 15:5); you shall be the father of a multitude of nations (Gen 17:4); I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven (Gen 22:17).

Or, in the promise of God can refer to the exaltation of his descendants, because when he had said: I will multiply your descendants, he added at once: and your descendants shall possess the gates of their enemies and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.

Concerning this promise of God he staggered not by distrust, i.e., he did not doubt the truth of the divine promise: he who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind (Jas 1:6); but was strengthened in faith, i.e., clung firmly to his belief: resist him, firm in your faith (1 Pet 5:9).

376. Then when he says, giving glory to God, he gives the reason why Abraham’s faith was firm, for he grew strong in his faith giving glory to God by considering his omnipotence: great is his power (Ps 147:5).

Hence he continues: most fully knowing that whatsoever he has promised, he is able also to perform: you have power to act whenever you choose (Wis 12:18).

From this it is clear that whoever is not firm in faith detracts from God’s glory either in regard to his veracity or his power.

377. Then when he says, and therefore it was reputed to him, he commends Abraham’s faith in regard to its effect.

First, he mentions the effect it had in him, saying, and therefore, namely, because Abraham believed this so firmly, it was reputed to him unto justice: and it was reckoned to him as justice (1 Macc 2:52).

378. Second, he shows the effect which his faith had on others. In regard to this he does three things.

First, he shows the likeness between the effect it had in him and in others, saying, now it is not written only for him, that it was reputed to him unto justice, so as to make us think that for Abraham alone faith was reckoned as justice, but also for us, to whom it, namely, faith, shall be reputed as justice: what things soever were written were written for our learning (Rom 15:4).

Therefore, it was written for him that he might be an example to us, and for us that he might raise our hope for justice.

379. Second, at if we believe in him, he shows a likeness in faith.

For what was reckoned as justice was Abraham’s faith in believing that his body, as good as dead, and the barren womb of Sarah could be vivified for procreating children. It shall be reputed also to us if we believe in him that raised up Jesus Christ, our Lord, from the dead and in God the Father, to whom he says in a psalm: but do you, O Lord, be gracious to me and raise me up (Ps 41:10). And because the power of the Father and of the Son is the same, he also rose by his own power.

That this faith justifies is shown below: if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised him up from the dead, you shall be saved (Rom 10:9).

380. Third, at who was delivered up for our sins, he assigns the cause why faith in the resurrection of Christ justifies, saying, who, namely, Christ, was delivered up, namely to death, by God the Father: he that spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us all (Rom 8:32), by himself: he gave himself up for us (Eph 5:25), by Judas: he who delivered me to you has the greater sin (John 19:11), and by the Jews: they will deliver him to the gentiles to be mocked (Matt 20:19).

And rose again for our justification, i.e., to justify us by rising: that, as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life (Rom 6:4).

That he was put to death for our sins seems plain from the fact that by his death he merited the remission of our sins, but he did not merit by rising, because in the risen state he was not a pilgrim but one who had arrived.

Therefore, it must be said that Christ’s death was salutary for us not only by way of merit but also by way of effecting it. For since Christ’s human nature was somehow the instrument of his divinity, as Damascene says, all the acts and sufferings of his human nature were salutary for us, considering that they flowed from the power of his divinity. But because an effect has to some extent a similarity to its cause, the Apostle says that Christ’s death, by which mortal life was extinguished in him, is the cause of extinguishing our sins. But his resurrection, by which he returns to a new life of glory, he calls the cause of our justification, by which we return to the new life of justice.

Redemption from Death by Christ

Glory in hope and tribulation

Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. [n. 381]

Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God. [n. 384]

More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance,

and endurance produces character, and character produces hope,

and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us. [n. 390]

381. After showing the need for Christ’s grace, because without it neither the knowledge of the truth benefited the gentiles nor circumcision and the law benefited the Jews unto salvation, the Apostle now begins to extol the power of grace (C. 3, L. 3–C. 4, L. 3).

Concerning this, he does two things.

First, he shows what goods we obtain through grace;

second, from what evils we are freed by it, at wherefore as by one man (Rom 5:12).

First, he indicates the manner of reaching or the way by which we come to grace;

second, the good things we obtain through grace, at and glory in the hope of the glory.

First, he exhorts to the due use of grace;

second, he shows us the entrance to grace, at by whom also we have access.

382. First, therefore, he says: it has been stated that faith will be reputed as justice to all who believe in Christ’s resurrection, which is the cause of our justification. Being justified therefore by faith, inasmuch as through faith in the resurrection we participate in its effect, let us have peace with God, namely, by submitting ourselves and obeying him: agree with God and be at peace (Job 22:21); who has hardened himself against him and been at peace? (Job 9:4).

And this through our Lord Jesus Christ, who has led us to that peace: he is our peace (Eph 2:14).

383. Hence he continues, by whom, namely, Christ, we have access as through a mediator: one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5); through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father (Eph 2:18).

Access, I say, into this grace, i.e., to the state of grace: grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17). Wherein, i.e., through which grace, we have not only risen from sin but we stand firm and erect in the heavens through love: our feet have been standing within your gates, O Jerusalem (Ps 122:2); we have risen and stand upright (Ps 20:8). And this through faith, through which we obtain grace, not because faith precedes grace, since it is rather through grace that there is faith: by grace you have been saved through faith (Eph 2:8), i.e., because the first effect of grace in us is faith.

384. Then when he says, and glory in the hope of the glory, he indicates the blessings that have come to us through grace.

First, he says that through grace we have the glory of hope;

second, that through grace we have the glory of God, at and not only so.

First, he shows the greatness of the hope in which we glory;

second, its vehemence, at and not only so;

third, its firmness, at and hope does not confound.

385. The greatness of hope is considered in terms of the greatness of things hoped for. He sets this out when he says, and glory in the hope of the glory of the sons of God, i.e., in the fact that we hope to obtain the glory of sons of God.

For through Christ’s grace we have received the spirit of adoption of sons (Rom 8:15); behold how they have been numbered among the sons of God (Wis 5:5). But to sons is due the father’s inheritance: if sons, heirs also (Rom 8:17). This inheritance is the glory which God has in himself: have you an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his? (Job 40:9). Our hope for this has been given to us by Christ: we have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and to an inheritance which is incorruptible (1 Pet 1:3). This glory, which will be completed in us in the future, is in the meantime begun in us through hope: for we are saved by hope (Rom 8:24); all those who love your name will glory in you (Ps 5:11).

386. Then when he says, and not only so, he shows the vehemence of this hope.

For anyone who vehemently hopes for something endures difficult and bitter things for it, as a sick person who strongly desires health gladly drinks a bitter medicine to be healed by it. Therefore, the sign of the vehement hope we have for Christ is that we glory not only in virtue of our hope of future glory but also in the evils we suffer for it. Hence he says, and not only so, i.e., we not only glory in the hope of glory, but we glory also in tribulation, through which we arrive at glory: through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22); count it all joy when you meet various trials (Jas 1:2).

387. Then he shows the cause when he says, knowing that.

Here he mentions four things in order: the first is tribulation, about which he says, tribulation works patience, not in the sense that tribulation is the cause that begets it, but because suffering is the material and occasion for exercising the act of patience: be patient in tribulation (Rom 12:12).

388. Second, he mentions the effect of patience when he says, and patience trial: for gold is tested in the fire and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation (Sir 2:5).

For it is plain that we accept the loss of some thing easily for the sake of another thing we love more. Hence, if a person endures patiently the loss of bodily and temporal goods for the sake of obtaining eternal benefits, this is sufficient proof that such a person loves eternal blessings more than temporal.

The answer is that ‘trial’ can be understood in two ways. In one way, as it takes place in the one tested; then the trial is the very suffering through which a man is tested. Hence, it is the same to say that tribulation produces patience and that tribulation tests patience. In another way, trial is taken for the fact of having been tested. This is the way it is taken here, because if a person endures sufferings patiently, he has been tested.

389. Third, he mentions the third, saying, and trial hope, namely, trial brings about hope, because after a person has been tested, hope can be had by himself and by others that he will be admitted to God’s inheritance: God tested them and found them worthy of himself (Wis 3:5).

Therefore, from the first to the last it is clear that suffering paves the way to hope. Hence, if a person rejoices strongly in hope, it follows that he will glory in his sufferings.

390. Then when he says, and hope does not confound, he shows the firmness of such hope.

First, he asserts it, saying, hope, namely, by which we hope for the glory of the sons of God, does not confound, i.e., does not fail, unless the man fails it. For a person is said to be confounded in his hope, when he falls away from the thing he hoped for: in you, O Lord, have I hoped; let me never be disappointed (Ps 31:1); no one has hoped in the Lord and been disappointed (Sir 2:10).

391. Second, at because the charity of God, he presents two arguments for the certainty of hope.

The first is based on a gift of the Holy Spirit;

the second on the death of Christ, at for why did Christ (Rom 5:6).

392. First, therefore, he says: we can be certain that hope does not confound, because the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Spirit who is given to us.

The love of God can be taken in two ways: in one way, for the love by which God loves us: he loved you with an everlasting love (Jer 31:3); in another way for the love by which we love God: I am sure that neither death, nor life . . . shall be able to separate us from the love of God (Rom 8:38–39). Both these loves of God are poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

For the Holy Spirit, who is the love of the Father and of the Son, to be given to us is our being brought to participate in the love who is the Holy Spirit, and by this participation we are made lovers of God. The fact that we love him is a sign that he loves us: I love those who love me (Prov 8:17); not that we first loved God but that he first loved us (1 John 4:10).

The love by which he loves us is said to be poured into our hearts, because it is clearly shown in our hearts by the gift of the Holy Spirit sealed in us: by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit he has given us (1 John 3:24).

But the love by which we love God is said to be poured into our hearts, because it reaches to the perfecting of all the moral habits and acts of the soul; for, as is stated in 1 Corinthians: love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful (1 Cor 13:4).

393. Both interpretations of these words lead to the conclusion that hope does not confound. For if they are taken to mean the love of God by which he loves us, it is clear that God does not deny himself to those whom he loves: he loved his people; all the holy ones were in his hand (Deut 33:3). Similarly, if they are taken as referring to the love by which we love God, it is clear that he has prepared eternal goods for those who love him: he who loves me will be loved by my Father and I will love him and manifest myself to him (John 14:21).

Reconciled by Christ’s death

While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. [n. 394]

Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man -- though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die.

But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. [n. 398]

Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received our reconciliation. [n. 404]

394. After disclosing that hope is firm, because it is a gift of the Holy Spirit, the Apostle now traces its firmness to the death of Christ.

First, he asks a question;

second, a difficulty arises in answering it, at for scarce for a just man;

third, he answers the question, at but God commends his charity.

395. First, therefore, he says: it has been stated that hope does not disappoint. This is obvious to anyone who wonders, why did Christ, when as yet we were weak, that is, languishing in sin: be gracious to me, O Lord, for I am languishing (Ps 6:2).

For just as the due harmony of the humors is destroyed by bodily sickness, so by sin the correct order of our affections is removed. Therefore, when we were yet helpless, Christ . . . died for the ungodly: Christ died for sins once for all, the just for the unrighteous (1 Pet 3:18).

And this according to the time, i.e., he was to remain dead for a definite time and then rise on the third day: for as Jonah was three days in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matt 12:40).

Therefore, this is marvelous, if we consider who died; also if we consider for whom he died. But it could not have been so marvelous, if no fruit were to be obtained: what profit is there in my death, if I go down to the pit? (Ps 30:8). None, if the salvation of the human race does not follow.

396. Then when he says, for scarce, he shows a difficulty on the part of those for whom Christ died, i.e., the ungodly, saying, for scarce . . . will one, that is, anyone, die for the release of a just man; rather, the just man perishes and no one lays it to heart (Isa 57:1). That is why I say that scarce . . . will one die, yet perhaps for a good man some one would dare to die, on account of his zeal for virtue.

It is rare, because it is so great; for no man has greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13). Yet what Christ did is never done, namely, to die for the ungodly and the unjust. That is why there is reason to wonder why Christ did this.

397. This passage can be interpreted in another way, so that a just man will be one trained in virtue, and a good man one who is innocent. And although according to this the just man would be more excellent than the good man, yet scarcely anyone dies for the just man. The reason is that an innocent person, who is understood as good, seems more worthy of pity on account of his lack of years or of some such thing. But the just person, because he is perfect, lacks any defect that would elicit pity. Therefore, should anyone die for an innocent person, it could be through pity; but to die for a just man requires zeal for virtue, which is found in fewer persons than the emotion of pity.

398. Then when he says, but God commends, he responds to the foregoing question.

First, he sets out his response;

Second, he argues from this to what he intends, at much more;

Third, he shows how this follows of necessity, at for if, when we were enemies.

399. He says therefore first: it was asked why Christ died for the ungodly, and the response to this is that, through this, God commends his charity towards us, i.e., through this he shows that he loves us to the greatest degree, because if when as yet we were sinners . . . Christ died for us, and this according to the time, as was explained above.

The very death of Christ shows God’s love for us, because he gave his own son that he should die in making satisfaction for us: for God so loved the world that he gave his only Son (John 3:16). And so as the love of God the Father for us is shown by the fact that he gives his own Spirit to us, as was said above, so also it is shown by the fact that he gave his Son, as is said here.

But by the fact that he says, commends, he indicates a certain immensity of the divine love, which is shown both by his own deed, because he gave his Son, and by our condition, because he was not moved to do this by our merits, since we were still sinners: God who is rich in mercy, on account of the exceedingly great love wherewith he has loved us, while we were still dead in sins, has raised us to life with Christ (Eph 2:4).

400. Then when he says, much more, therefore, he concludes what he had intended from the foregoing, saying: if Christ died for us while we were still sinners, much more being now justified by his blood, as was said above, whom God has proposed to be a propitiation through faith (Rom 3:25), through his blood, shall we be saved from wrath, i.e., from the vengeance of eternal condemnation, which men incur by their sins: brood of vipers, who showed you to flee from the wrath to come? (Matt 3:7).

401. Then when he says, for if, when we were enemies, he shows the necessity of his conclusion, which proceeds by arguing from the lesser to the greater.

And one should observe here two comparisons of lesser to greater, one on our part and one on the part of Christ. On our part he compares enemies to those who are reconciled. For it seems a lesser thing that someone should treat enemies well who are already reconciled. On the part of Christ he compares death to life. For his life is more powerful than his death because, as is said the last chapter of 2 Corinthians: he died through weakness, namely the weakness of our flesh, but lives through the power of God (2 Cor 13:4).

And this is why he says: with reason I concluded that much more, being enlivened, shall we be saved through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God, and this by the death of his Son: much more now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved, and this by his life.

402. Now one should note that a man is said to be an enemy of God in two ways. In one way, because he practices hostility towards God when he resists his commands: he has run against him with his neck raised up (Job 15:26).

In another way, a man is said to be an enemy of God by the fact that God hates men, not indeed insofar as he made them, because in this regard it is said, you have loved all things, and you have hated nothing of the things you have made (Wis 11:25); but insofar as the enemy of man, i.e., the devil, has worked in man: i.e., as regards sin: similarly God hates the ungodly (Wis 14:9), and the Most High hates sinners (Sir 12:7).

403. Once the cause of enmity, namely, sin, has been removed by Christ, reconciliation through him follows: God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor 5:19); for our sin was removed through the death of his Son.

In this regard it should be noted that Christ’s death can be considered in three ways.

First, precisely as a death; and so it is said: God did not make death (Wis 1:13) in human nature, but it was brought on by sin. Accordingly, Christ’s death, precisely as death, was not so acceptable to God as to be reconciled through it, because God does not delight in the death of the living (Wis 1:13).

In another way Christ’s death can be considered with emphasis on the action of the killers, which greatly displeased God. Hence St. Peter says against them: you denied the holy and just one . . . and killed the author of life (Acts 3:14). From this aspect Christ’s death could not be the cause of reconciliation but rather of indignation.

It can be considered in a third way according as it proceeds from the will of Christ suffering, which was a will formed to the endurance of death, in obedience to the Father: he became obedient to the Father even unto death (Phil 2:8) and out of love for men: Christ loved us and gave himself up for us (Eph 5:2). From this aspect Christ’s death was meritorious and satisfied for our sins; it was accepted by God as sufficient for reconciling all men, even those who killed Christ, some of whom were saved at his prayer: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34).

404. Then when he says, not only so, he shows what benefits we obtain even now through grace, saying, not only so, i.e., not only in the hope of the glory we expect in the future, but also we glory in God, i.e., in being even now united to God by faith and charity: let him who boasts, boast in the Lord (1 Cor 1:31 and 2 Cor 10:17). And this through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have even now during this life received reconciliation, so that we have been changed from enemies to friends: through him he reconciled to himself all things (Col 1:20).

405. The verse, not only so, can be connected with the preceding one, so that the sense would be: we shall be saved by his life from sin and punishment; and not only shall we be saved from evils, but shall rejoice in God, i.e., in the fact that we shall be the same in the future with him: that they may be one in us, even as we are one (John 17:22).

Sin and death through Adam

Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned -- [n. 406]

406. After indicating the benefits we obtained through Christ’s grace, the Apostle now indicates the evils from which we were set free.

And concerning this he does three things:

First, he shows that through Christ’s grace we have been freed from the slavery of sin;

second, he shows that through his grace we have been freed from the slavery of the law, at or know you not, brethren (Rom 7:1);

third, he shows that through his grace we have been freed from condemnation, at there is now therefore no condemnation (Rom 8:1).

first, he shows that by Christ’s grace we are set free from original sin;

second, that we are shielded against future sins, at what shall we say then (Rom 6:1).

first, he deals with the history of sin;

second, of grace destroying sin, at but not as the offense (Rom 5:15).

first, he sets forth the origin of sin;

second, he manifests it, at for until the law (Rom 5:13).

second, its universality, at and so death passed.

407. First, therefore, he says that we have been reconciled through Christ.

For reconciliation came into the world from Christ, as by one man, namely Adam, sin entered into this world: as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Cor 15:22).

Here it should be noted that the Pelagian heretics, who denied the existence of original sin in infants, claim that these words of the Apostle must be understood of actual sin which, according to them, entered this world through Adam, inasmuch as all sinners imitate the sin of Adam: but like Adam they transgressed the covenant (Hos 6:7).

But, as Augustine says against them, if the Apostle were speaking of the entrance of actual sin, which is through imitation, he would not have said that sin entered this world through a man but rather through the devil, whom sinners imitate: through the devil’s envy death entered the world (Wis 2:24).

Therefore, the interpretation is that sin entered this world through Adam not only by imitation but also by propagation, i.e., by a vitiated origin of the flesh in accordance with Ephesians: we were by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3) and the Psalm: behold, I was brought forth in iniquity (Ps 51:5).

408. But it seems impossible that sin be passed from one person to another through carnal origin.

For sin exists in the rational soul, which is not passed on by carnal origin, not only because the intellect is not the act of any body and so cannot be caused by the power of bodily seed, as the Philosopher says in On the Generation of Animals, but also because the rational soul, being a subsistent reality (inasmuch as it can perform certain acts without using the body and is not destroyed when the body is destroyed), is not produced in virtue of the body’s being produced (unlike other forms which cannot subsist of themselves), but is caused by God. Therefore, it seems to follow that sin, too, which is an accident of the soul, cannot be passed on by carnal origin.

The reasonable answer seems to be that although the soul is not in the seed, nevertheless there is in it a power disposing the body to receive the soul which, when it is infused into the body, is also adapted to it in its own way for the reason that everything received by something exists in it according to a mode of the recipient. That is why children resemble parents not only in bodily defects, as a leper begets a leprous child and a person with gout a gouty child, but also in defects of the soul, as an irascible parent begets irascible children and mad parents mad offspring. For although the foot subject to gout or the soul subject to anger and madness are not in the seed, nevertheless in the seed is a power which forms the bodily members and disposes them for the soul.

409. Yet a difficulty remains, because defects traced to a vitiated source do not involve guilt. For they are not deserving of punishment but rather of pity, as the Philosopher says of one born blind or in any other way defective. The reason is that it is the character of guilt that it be voluntary and in the power of the one to whom the guilt is imputed. Consequently, if any defect in us arose through origin from the first parent, it does not seem to carry with it the nature of guilt but of punishment.

Therefore, it must be admitted that as actual sin is a person’s sin, because it is committed through the will of the person sinning, so original sin is the sin of the nature committed through the will of the source of human nature.

410. For it must be remembered that just as the various members of the body are the parts of one human person, so all men are parts and, as it were, members of human nature. Hence Porphyry says that by sharing in the same species many men are one man.

Furthermore, the act of sin performed by a member, say the hand or the foot, does not carry the notion of guilt from the hand’s or foot’s will but from the whole person’s will, from which as from a source the movement of sin is passed to the several members. Similarly, from the will of Adam, who was the source of human nature, the total disorder of that nature carries the notion of guilt in all who obtain that nature precisely as susceptible to guilt. And just as an actual sin, which is a sin of the person, is drawn to the several members by an act of the person, so original sin is drawn to each man by an act of the nature, namely, generation. Accordingly, just as human nature is obtained through generation, so, too, by generation is passed on the defect it acquired from the sin of the first parent.

This defect is a lack of original justice divinely conferred on the first parent not only in his role as a definite person but also as the source of human nature—a justice that was to be passed along with human nature to his descendants. Consequently, the loss of this original justice through sin was passed on to his descendants. It is this loss that has the aspect of guilt in his descendants for the reason given. That is why it is said that in the progression of original sin a person infected the nature, namely, Adam sinning vitiated human nature; but later in others the vitiated nature affects the person in the sense that to the offspring is imputed as guilt this vitiated state of nature on account of the first parent’s will, as explained above.

411. From this it is clear that although the first sin of the first parent is passed on to the descendants by generation, nevertheless his other sins, or even those of other men, are not passed on to their children, because it was only through the first sin that the good of nature, originally intended to be passed on by generation, was lost. Through all later sins the good of personal grace is lost, which does not pass on to one’s descendants.

This also explains why, although Adam’s sin was removed by his repentance: she delivered him from his transgression (Wis 10:2), nevertheless his repentance could not remove the sin of descendants, because his repentance was performed by a personal act, which did not extend beyond him personally.

412. Consequently, there is but one sole original sin, because the defect following upon the first sin is the only one passed on to the descendants. Therefore, the Apostle is careful to say that by one man sin entered into this world, and not sins, which he would have said, if he were speaking of actual sin.

But sometimes it is said in the plural: and in sins did my mother conceive me (Ps 51:7) because it contains many sins virtually, insofar as the corruption of the fomes, or concupiscence, inclines one to many sins.

413. It seems, however, that original sin entered this world not through one man, namely, Adam, but through one woman, namely, Eve, who was the first to sin: from a woman sin had its beginning and because of her we all die (Sir 25:24).

This is answered in a Gloss in two ways: in one way, because the custom of Scripture is to present genealogies not through the woman but through the men. Hence, the Apostle in giving, as it were, the genealogy of sin makes no mention of the woman but only of the man.

In another way, because the woman was taken from the man; consequently, what is true of the woman is attributed to the man.

414. But this can be explained in another and better way, namely, that since original sin is passed on along with the nature, as has been said, then just as the nature is passed on by the active power of the man, while the woman furnishes the matter, so too original sin. Hence, if Adam had not sinned, but Eve only, sin would not have been passed on to their descendants.

For Christ did not contract original sin, because he took his flesh from the woman alone without male seed.

415. Augustine uses these words from the apostle Paul to respond to the heretic Julian, who asked: the one who is born does not sin, the one who begot him does not sin, the one who bore him does not sin; through what crack, therefore, in such a garrison of innocence do you suppose sin has entered? But Augustine responds: why do you seek a crack when you have a wide open gate? For according to the Apostle, sin entered into this world through one man.

416. Then he touches on the entry of death into this world when he says, and by sin death entered this world: ungodliness purchases death (Wis 1:12).

However, it seems that death does not arise from sin but from nature, being due to the presence of matter. For the human body is composed of contrary elements and, therefore, is corruptible of its very nature.

The answer is that human nature can be considered in two ways: in one way according to its structural principles, and then death is natural. Hence Seneca says that death is natural, not penal, for man.

In another way man’s nature can be considered in the light of what divine providence had supplied it through original justice. This justice was a state in which man’s mind was under God, the lower powers of the soul under the mind, the body under the soul, and all external things under man, with the result that as long as man’s mind remained under God, the lower powers would remain subject to reason, and the body to the soul by receiving life from it without interruption, and external things to man in the sense that all things would serve man, who would never experience any harm from them.

Divine providence planned this for man on account of the worth of the rational soul, which, being incorruptible, deserved an incorruptible body. But because the body, which is composed of contrary elements, served as an instrument for the senses, and such a body could not in virtue of its nature be incorruptible, the divine power furnished which was lacking to human nature by giving the soul the power to maintain the body incorruptible, just as a worker in metal might give the iron, from which he makes a sword, the power never to become rusty.

Thus, therefore, after man’s mind was turned from God through sin, he lost the strength to control the lower powers as well as the body and external things. Consequently, he became subject to death from intrinsic sources and to violence from external sources.

417. Then when he says, and so death passed, he shows the universality of this process in regard both to death and to sin, but in reverse order. For above he treated first of the entry of sin, which is the cause of death’s entry; but now he deals first with the universality of death as with something more obvious. Hence he says, and so death, or the sin of the first parent, passed upon all, because men merit the necessity of dying on account of a vitiated origin: we must all die (2 Sam 14:14); what man can live and never see death? (Ps 89:48).

418. Then he touches on the universality of sin when he says, in whom all have sinned. According to Augustine this can be understood in two ways: in one way, in whom, i.e., in the first man, or in which, namely, in that sin; because while he was sinning, all sinned in a sense, inasmuch as all men were in him as in their first origin.

419. But since Christ derived his origin from Adam (Luke 3:23ff.), it seems that even he sinned in Adam’s sin.

Augustine’s answer in On Genesis is that Christ was not in Adam as completely as we were, for we were in him according to bodily substance and according to seed. But Christ was in him in the first way only.

Some who interpreted these words incorrectly supposed that the entire substance of all human bodies, which is required for a true human nature, was actually in Adam and that in virtue of a multiplication traced to God’s power, something taken from Adam was increased to form such a quantity of bodies.

But this is unfitting, because it explains the works of nature by a miracle. Indeed, it is obvious that the human body, even though it is required for the integrity of human nature, corrupts and becomes a corpse.

Hence it is better to say that, because everything generable is corruptible and vice versa, the matter which was present under some form other than human before a man is begotten, received the form proper to human flesh. Accordingly, not everything in our bodies that belongs to the integrity of human nature was in Adam actually, but only according to origin in the way that an effect is present in its active principle.

According to this, therefore, there are in human generation the bodily material, which the woman proffers, and an active force, which is in the male’s seed; both are derived originally from Adam as their first principle. Hence, they are said to have been in him according to seed and according to bodily substance, inasmuch as both came forth from him. But in Christ’s generation there was the bodily substance which he obtained from the virgin; in place of the male seed was the Holy Spirit’s active power, which is not derived from Adam. Consequently, Christ was not in Adam according to his seedly power, but only according to bodily substance.

Thus, therefore, we not only receive sin from Adam and contract it; we also derive human nature from him as from an active principle—which amounts to being in him according to the power of the seed. But this is not true of Christ, as has been stated.

420. Finally, it seems that original sin does not pass on to all, because the baptized are cleansed of original sin. Hence, it seems that they cannot transmit to their descendents something they do not have.

The answer is that through baptism a man is freed from original sin as far as the mind is concerned, but the infection of sin remains as far as the flesh is concerned. Hence the Apostle says below: I serve the law of God with the mind, but with the flesh, the law of sin (Rom 7:25). But man does not beget children with the mind but with the flesh; consequently, he does not transmit the new life of Christ but the old life of Adam.

Reign of death from Adam to Moses

sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [n. 421]

Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. [n. 424]

421. After tracing the origin of sin and death and their entry into the world, the Apostle now clarifies what he has said.

First, he explains his statement;

second, he clarifies the comparison he suggested, when he said: wherefore as by one man (Rom 5:12);

third, he explains it, at who is a figure of him who was to come.

Now he had stated that sin and death passed on to all men. Here, in line with Augustine’s exposition, he intends to explain this by the fact that sin remained even under the law, implying that it was unable to expel it.

In regard to this he does two things:

first, he explains his statement as far as sin is concerned;

second, as far as death is concerned, at but death reigned.

first, he shows that sin existed under the law;

second, what the law did in regard to sin, at but sin was not imputed.

422. First, therefore, he says: it has been stated that all have sinned in Adam, because even the law did not take away sin. Until the law, i.e., even under the law, as until is taken inclusively, sin was in the world. This can be understood of the natural law and the law of Moses; similarly, of actual sin and original sin.

For original sin was in the child until the law of nature, i.e., until he reached the use of reason through which man adverts to these laws: in sins did my mother conceive me (Ps 51:5). Nor does this sin pass away with the coming of the natural law in a man; rather, it grows through the addition of actual sin, because, as stated in Ecclesiastes: there is not a just man on earth who does good and never sins (Eccl 7:20).

But if we understand it of the law of Moses, then the statement that sin was in the world until the law can be understood not only of original sin but also of actual, because both sins continued in the world before the law and under the law: who can say: I have made my heart clean? (Prov 20:9).

423. But although the law did not remove sin, it produced knowledge of sin which previously was not recognized.

Hence he continues, but sin was not imputed. This is obvious, if it is understood of the natural law. For although original sin is in the child before the natural law and is counted against him by God, it was not imputed to him by men.

But if it be understood of the law of Moses, it is clear that some actual sins were not imputed before the law, as those which are specifically forbidden by the law, which men did not regard as sins; for example, you shall not covet (Exod 20:17). But certain sins were imputed, inasmuch as they were against the law of nature. Hence, Joseph is sent to prison on a charge of adultery (Gen 39:11ff.).

424. Then he deals with death, saying: although sins were not imputed before the law, yet death, i.e., spiritual, i.e., sin or eternal damnation, of which it is written: the death of the wicked is very evil (Ps 34:21), reigned, i.e., exercised its power over men, by bringing them to damnation, from Adam through whom sin entered the world, unto Moses, under whom the law was given: the law was given through Moses (John 1:17), not only over those who sinned actually, but even over them also who have not sinned, after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who sinned actually: but like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me (Hos 6:7), because even the children incurred damnation.

425. Under this sense it is also possible to understand bodily death, through which is shown the presence of sin, even when it was not imputed. As if to say: sin indeed was not imputed before the law, but we know that it existed, because death reigned, i.e., bodily, first by bringing suffering, such as hunger, thirst and sickness, and finally by destroying life, even over them who have not sinned, after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, i.e., even over children who committed no actual sins, because even they suffered bodily death before and after the law: what man can live and never see death? (Ps 89:48).

426. Ambrose explained these words in another way, namely, of actual sin only, and of the Mosaic law. According to him these words were written to explain that sin entered this world through the first parent and passed on to everyone.

For until the law, i.e., before the law of Moses, sin was in the world, namely, actual sin. For men sinned against the law of nature in manifold ways. Hence, it is said: the men of Sodom were the wickedest (Gen 13:13). But sin was not imputed, when the law was not, not as though it was not imputed as something to be punished by men, since there are records of men being punished for sin before the time of the law (Gen 39–40); but it was not considered as something to be punished by God. For at that time men did not believe that God would punish or reward men’s actions: he walks about the poles of heaven, nor does he consider our things (Job 22:14). But after the law was given by God, it was recognized that sins are imputed by God for punishment and not only by men. Consequently, because men did not believe that they would be punished by God for their sins, they sinned freely and without restraint, whenever they did not fear human judgment. Hence he adds: But death, i.e., sin, reigned, i.e., exercised its power in every way, from Adam unto Moses excluded. For when the law was given through Moses, it began to weaken the reign of sin, inculcating fear of divine judgment: oh, that they had such a mind as this always, to fear me and keep my commandments (Deut 5:28). Sin reigned, I say, until Moses, not over all, but over them who have sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam.

For Ambrose says that not is not found in the ancient manuscripts; hence, he believes it was added by corrupters. Adam, indeed, believed the devil’s promise more than God’s threat, as is clear in Genesis 3; in a way, then, he preferred the devil to God. Therefore, idolaters sin in the likeness of Adam’s sin, because they abandon the worship of God to venerate the devil. Over such, therefore, death, i.e., sin, reigned completely, because it possessed them entirely. But there were true worshippers of God before the law; yet even if they sinned, sin did not reign over them, because it did not separate them totally from God. Rather, they sinned under God, i.e., under faith in the one God, if they sinned mortally, or under the charity of God, if they sinned venially.

427. From both these interpretations a third can he obtained which seems more in accord with the Apostle’s intention.

For he had said that by one man sin entered into this world (Rom 5:12); but because sin is a transgression of the divine law, it might seem that this would not be true during the time before the law, especially since he had stated: for where there is no law, neither is there transgression (Rom 4:15). Consequently, one might suppose that sin entered the world not through a man but through the law. To exclude this he says, until the law, i.e., the time before the law, sin was in the world, both original and actual, but it was not recognized as something to be punished by God. And this is what he adds, but sin was not imputed, namely, as something against God, when the law, i.e., the divinely given law, was not.

428. For there were certain persons, as the Philosopher says (Ethics V.10), who believed that nothing is just by nature and, consequently, nothing unjust, but only because there is a human law. According to this, a sin was not imputed as being contrary to God, especially original sin, since it was not known.

But the error of this opinion is shown by the effect, because bodily death reigned from Adam, through whom original sin entered the world, until Moses, under whom the law was given. Consequently, since death is the effect of sin, especially original, it is clear that before the law there was original sin in the world.

But lest anyone suppose that they died on account of actual sins, he excludes this, when he says that it reigned even over them who have not sinned by their own act, namely, children and the just who did not sin mortally, but did sin in the first man, as has been stated. Therefore, he adds, after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, inasmuch as they contracted the likeness of that sin through their origin along with the likeness of nature. As if to say: the fact that they died without personal sin shows that the likeness of Adam’s sin had been spread in them in virtue of origin. And this is what the Apostle intends to convey, namely, that original sin entered the world through Adam.

429. Then when he says, who is a figure of him, he explains the likeness which was understood in the adverb, as (Rom 5:12). Hence he says, who, namely, Adam, was a figure of the one who was to come, i.e., of Christ, although in an opposite way.

For just as sin and death entered the world through Adam, so justice and life entered through Christ: the first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven (1 Cor 15:47).

There are other likenesses between Christ and Adam, namely, that just as Adam’s body was formed without intercourse, so Christ’s body from the Virgin. Again, just as the woman was taken from the side of the sleeping Adam, so from the side of the sleeping Christ flowed blood and water (John 19:34), which signify the sacraments by which the Church was formed.

Life of all through the justice of one

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. [n. 430]

And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. [n. 435]

If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. [n. 438]

Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. [n. 442]

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. [n. 445]

430. After discussing the entry of sin into this world, the Apostle treats of the history of grace, which abolishes sin.

And concerning this he does two things.

First, he shows how the grace of Christ removed sin, which entered the world through one man;

second, how it removed sin, which superabounded with the coming of the law, at now the law entered in (Rom 5:20).

In showing how Christ’s grace removed the sin introduced into the world by Adam, he compares Christ’s grace to Adam’s sin, stating that Christ’s grace can accomplish more good than Adam’s sin accomplishes evil.

Concerning this he does two things.

First, he compares the causes, namely, Christ’s grace with Adam’s sin;

second, he compares their effects, at and not as it was by one sin.

first, he gives the comparison;

second, he clarifies it, at for if by the offense of one.

431. First, therefore, he says: it has been stated that Adam is the type of the one who was to come, but not as the offense, so also the gift. As if to say: the efficacy of Adam’s trespass must not be considered the equal of Christ’s gift.

The reason is that sin came from the weakness of the human will, but grace comes from the immensity of the divine goodness, which excels the human will, especially in its weakness. Therefore, the power of grace exceeds every sin; consequently, David said: have mercy on me, O God, according to your abundant mercy (Ps 51:1). For this reason Cain’s attitude is justly reproved: my sin is too great to merit pardon (Gen 4:13).

432. Then, when he says for if by the offense of one, he explains what he had said, namely, that the gift of grace exceeds the offense of Adam, saying for if by the offense of one, namely of Adam, many died, that is, if from the offense of Adam sin and death crossed into many others, because into all who sinned in him, much more the grace of God and the gift, that is, the gratuitous gift of God, in order that and be expositively comprehended. Or the grace of God refers to the remission of sin. As above: being justified freely by his grace (Rom 3:24). Gift however is referred to the good superadded beyond the remission of sins, as a psalm says, according to another version, the Lord gave gifts to men (Ps 47:19). Much more, I say, grace and gifts of this kind, has abounded unto many.

For the more potent something is, the more it can extend to a greater number. But the fact of death, which was Adam’s sin, extended to many. Hence, he says significantly that by the trespass of one many have died. For death is the argument for original sin, as stated above, for God said to Adam: in the day that you eat of it, you shall die (Gen 2:17). God’s grace, which is stronger, extends much more abundantly to many: who brings many sons to glory (Heb 2:10).

433. It should be noted that he says, abounded, because God’s grace reached many not only to erase the sin incurred from Adam but also to remove actual sins and to bestow many other blessings: God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance (2 Cor 9:8).

For just as sin abounded from one man to many through the first suggestion of the devil, so God’s grace abounded to many through one man. Hence, he says, by the grace, i.e., through the grace, of one man, Jesus Christ. For grace is poured out by God upon many, in order that we might receive it through Christ, in whom every fullness of grace is found: from his fullness have we all received, grace upon grace (John 1:16).

434. This is how the text should be read according to Augustine’s interpretation, such that the word many is not taken comparatively but absolutely. So Augustine would have it that the comparison points to this, that if the sin of the one man Adam spread to many, much more will the grace of the one man Christ spread to many.

But according to Ambrose the word many should be taken comparatively, so that the meaning is that by the offense, i.e., the actual sin, of one, namely Adam, many, not all, died by the death of sin, namely by imitating the sin of Adam by idolatry, as was explained above. It is said of idolaters: they are unhappy, and their hope is among the dead (Wis 13:10). And much more the grace of God . . . has abounded unto many, namely more than in the idolaters who sinned in the likeness of Adam, because not only their sins are taken away by the grace of Christ but also the sins of those who persevered in the faith of the one God: he will put away our iniquities: and he will cast all our sins into the bottom of the sea (Mic 7:19).

435. Then when he says, and not as it was, he compares Christ’s grace to Adam’s sin as regards the effect, because not only does each affect many, but Christ’s grace had a greater effect than Adam’s sin.

First, he states his proposition;

second, he clarifies it, at for judgment indeed;

third, he proves it, at for if by one man’s offense.

436. First, therefore, he says: not only does Christ’s grace more abound for many than Adam’s sin, but it produces a greater effect in them. And this is what he says: and not as it was by one sin, so also is the gift. As if to say: not as great an effect comes to many through the one sin of Adam as comes to many through the gift of Christ’s grace. For the effect of a stronger cause is stronger. Hence, since it has been established that grace is stronger than Adam’s sin, it follows that it produces a greater effect.

437. Then when he says, for judgment, he clarifies what he has said: for judgment, i.e., God’s punishment, indeed was by one, i.e., by the sin of the first parent, unto condemnation on all men, because they sinned in his sin, as stated above: death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned (Rom 5:12). But the grace of God, which is given through Christ, is of many offences, i.e., following not only that one original sin but also many actual sins, unto justification, i.e., complete cleansing: and such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified (1 Cor 6:11).

438. Then when he says, for if by one man’s offense, he proves what he has said, namely, that Christ’s grace passes from many sins to justice.

First, he proves this from something later;

second, from something earlier, at for as by the disobedience.

439. In regard to the first it should be noted that in the foregoing comparison the Apostle does not posit things that correspond, i.e., things of the same class. For on the side of sin he posits condemnation, which pertains to punishment, while on the side of grace he posits justification, which does not pertain to reward but to the state of merit.

Consequently, in stating that sin brings condemnation the Apostle intends to show that grace brings justification. He uses this argument: As the condemnation of death proceeds from the first parent’s sin, so the kingdom of life proceeds from Christ’s grace.

440. For these two correspond uniformly, but no one can attain to the kingdom of life save by justice. Therefore, men are justified by Christ’s grace.

First, he lays down the premises;

second, he draws the conclusion, at therefore, as by the offense.

441. He states the first premise when he says, for if by one man’s offense death reigned through one, because it was stated above: as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death (Rom 5:12), much more will men reign in life, namely, eternal life, through one, Jesus Christ, who says: I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly (John 10:10), by sharing in the eternity of life, the abundance being designated here by reigning. Hence, it is stated in Revelation that they will reign with Christ a thousand years, i.e., eternally (Rev 20:24).

The minor premise is presented in the words, they who receive abundance of grace and of the gift and of justice. As if to say: men cannot attain to the kingdom of life except by receiving this. Here Christ’s grace is referred to the remission of sin, which no merits can anticipate and, therefore, is due entirely to grace: if it is from works, it is no longer by grace (Rom 11:6).

Gift refers to the gifts of grace by which men are advanced in blessings: he gave gifts with royal liberality (Esth 2:18).

Justice refers to upright actions: whom God made our justice (1 Cor 1:30).

442. Then when he says, therefore as by the offense, he draws the intended conclusion which states the same thing as stated earlier, namely, that as by the offense of one man, Adam, the divine judgment led all men born of him according to the flesh to the condemnation of death, so also by the justice of one, namely, Christ, divine grace passed unto all men, to justification of life, that is, the grace that leads to life.

443. But this seems false, since not all men are justified by Christ, although all men die through Adam.

To answer this it must be noted that just as all men born according to the flesh from Adam incur condemnation through his sin, so all men who are reborn spiritually through Christ obtain the justification of life, because, as stated in John: unless one is born of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).

Although it can be said that Christ’s justification passes on to justify all men in the sense that it is capable of doing so, de facto it passes only to believers. Hence, it is said: he is the savior of all men, especially of those who believe (1 Tim 4:10).

444. From what is said here we should gather that as no one dies except through Adam’s sin, so no one is justified except through Christ’s justice; and this is brought about through faith in him: the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all that believe in him (Rom 3:22).

But the men who believe in him are not only those who lived after his Incarnation but even those who lived before. For as we believe in him as one who was born and suffered, so they believed in him as one who would be born and suffer. Hence, our faith and theirs is the same: having the same spirit of faith . . . we too believe and so we speak (2 Cor 4:13).

Thus it is that the grace of Christ redounds to the justification of many by appeal to something later, namely to the reign of life.

445. Then when he says, for as by the disobedience, the Apostle proves the same thing from something prior.

For causes are similar to their effects. But the disobedience of the first parent, which bears the character of injustice, made men sinners and unrighteous. Therefore, the obedience of Christ, which bears the character of justice, made them righteous.

And this is what he stated previously, namely, that grace proceeds forth into all men to justification.

446. But there seems to be a problem about the statement that by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners, i.e., all who are born from his seed. For his first sin seems to have been pride rather than disobedience, as is stated in Sirach: the beginning of every sin is pride (Sir 10:13).

In answer it must be noted that the same writer says in Sirach, the beginning of pride makes men separate themselves from God (Sir 10:21), because the first step of pride consists in a man’s not willing to be subject to God’s precepts, which pertains to disobedience. Hence, man’s first sin seems to have been disobedience, not as far as the outward action was concerned but in regard to the inner movement of pride, by which he wills to go against the divine command. Hence, the Lord reproves his disobedience: because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘you shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground (Gen 3:17). On the other hand, Christ’s obedience consisted in accepting death for our salvation in accordance with the Father’s command: he became obedient unto death (Phil 2:8).

This, of course, does not contradict the statement that Christ died out of love for us (Eph 5:2), because the obedience proceeded from the love he had for the Father and for us.

447. And one should note that by obedience and disobedience he proves that through one man we were made sinners and through one man we were justified, because legal justice, which is the ensemble of all virtues, is recognizable in observing the precepts of the law, which pertains to the notion of obedience. But legal injustice, which is the ensemble of all wickedness, is recognizable in transgressing the precepts of the law, which pertains to the notion of disobedience.

Consequently, it is fittingly stated that by obedience men were made just and by disobedience sinners.

The superabundance of grace

Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, [n. 464]

so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. [n. 467]

448. After showing that through the gift of grace sin is removed, which entered this world through Adam, the Apostle now shows that through Christ’s grace is taken away the sin that increased when the law came.

Concerning this he does two things.

First, he mentions the increase of sin through the law;

second, the absolution of sin through Christ’s grace, at and where sin abounded.

449. First, therefore, he says: it has been stated that through the obedience of one man many are made just. However, it was not the law that could achieve this; rather, the law entered in that sin might abound.

450. Two problems arise from these statements of the Apostle.

First, from the statement that the law entered in, i.e., entered secretly, after original and actual sin or after the natural law, as the Gloss says. For the law did not come in secretly but was given openly, in accord with John: I have not spoken in secret (John 18:20).

The answer is that although the legislation had been given openly, the mysteries of the law were hidden, especially in regard to God’s intention in promulgating the law, which would point out sin without healing it: for who has known the mind of the Lord? (Rom 11:34).

It can also be said that the law entered, i.e., entered into the middle, so to speak, between man’s sin and the gift of Christ’s grace, each of which he had said above passed from one to many.

451. The second problem arises from the statement that the law came in that sin might abound.

For this would seem to make increase of sin the purpose of the law; consequently, the law would be evil, because a thing whose purpose is evil is itself evil. But this is contrary to the statement in 1 Timothy: we know that the law is good (1 Tim 1:8).

452. A Gloss answers this in three ways.

First, that the word that should be taken as indicating not a causal connection but a mere sequence. For the law was not given in order that sins might increase; rather, the law, as far as in it lay, forbade sin: I have laid up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you (Ps 119:11). But, once the law was given, increase of sin followed in two ways.

453. In one way, as to the number of sins. For although the law pointed out sin, it did not take away desire for sin. Indeed, when someone is forbidden what he desires, he burns with a stronger desire for it, as a torrent flows with greater force against an obstacle erected against it and finally breaks it.

454. There can be three reasons for this.

First, because when something is subject to a man’s power he does not consider it anything great, whereas he perceives a thing beyond his power as great. But a prohibition against something desired puts that thing, as it were, beyond man’s power; consequently, the desire for it increases as long as it is prohibited.

The second reason is that internal affections, when they are kept within and permitted no outlet, burn the more strongly within. This is clear in sorrow and anger which, when they are kept within, continually increase; but if they are given any kind of release outwardly, their vigor is dissipated. But a prohibition, since it threatens a penalty, compels man not to give outward expression to his desire, so that, being kept within, it burns more vigorously.

The third reason is that anything not forbidden is regarded as something possible to do any time it pleases us; therefore, even when the opportunity is present, we often avoid doing it. But when something is forbidden, we see it as something we may not always have; therefore, when the opportunity arises to obtain it without fear of punishment, we are readier to seize it.

455. These, then are the reasons why in the face of the law, which forbade acts of concupiscence and yet did not mitigate that concupiscence, the concupiscence itself leads men more feverishly toward sin. Hence, it is said, this is Jerusalem; I have set her in the center of the nations, with countries round about her. She wickedly rebelled against my ordinances more than the nations (Ezek 5:5).

456. But according to this it seems that every human law, which of course does not confer grace to lessen concupiscence, would make sin increase. However, that seems to be against the lawgiver’s intention, because his aim is to make the citizen good, as the Philosopher says in Ethics II.

The answer is that the intention of human law is one thing and that of divine law another. For human law is subject to human judgment, which is concerned with external acts; but the divine law is subject to divine judgment, which is concerned with the inward movement of the heart, as is said, man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart (1 Sam 16:7). Accordingly, human law achieves its aim when by means of prohibitions and threats of punishment it prevents external sinful acts, even though the inward concupiscence increases more. But as far as the divine law is concerned, it imputes as sin even the inward evil desires, which increase when the law forbids them without destroying them.

457. Yet it should be noted, as the Philosopher says in Ethics X, that although a legal prohibition restrains the ill disposed from outward sins by the fear of punishment, it nevertheless guides the well disposed through love of virtue. Now that good disposition is present to a certain extent by nature, although its perfection is achieved only by grace. Consequently, even after the old law had been given, sin did not increase in all but in the majority. But some, guided by the law’s prohibitions and further strengthened by grace, reached the heights of virtue: let us now praise glorious men . . . men great in virtue (Sir 44:1).

458. Second, with the coming of the law sin abounded as far as the weight of guilt was concerned. For sin was more grievous when it became a transgression not only of the law of nature but also of the written law. Hence it was said above that where there is no law, neither is there transgression (Rom 4:15).

459. A second answer is that the word that can be taken causally but in the sense that the Apostle is speaking of sin’s increase as far as our knowledge of it is concerned. As if to say: law entered in that sin might abound, i.e., that sin might be more abundantly known, according to the manner of speaking whereby something is said to come to pass when it is recognized. Hence, he said above that by the law is the knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20).

460. The third answer also takes that in a causal sense, but not as meaning that increase of sin is the goal of the law’s entering in, but what results from sin’s increase, namely, man’s humiliation.

For after the law came in, sin abounded, as was said in the first explanation. The consequence of this increase of sin was that man, recognizing his weakness, was humbled. For the proud man, presuming on his own strength, said: there is no lack of doers, but of commanders, in accord with Exodus, all that the Lord has spoken we will do and will be obedient (Exod 24:7). But when, after the law had been given, the number of sins increased, men recognized how weak they were in observing the law: man is weak and short-lived, with little understanding of judgment and laws (Wis 9:5).

Therefore, God’s intention in giving the law is not aimed at increasing sin but at man’s humility, for the sake of which he permitted sin to abound. Accordingly, because this purpose was hidden, he says that the law entered in secretly.

461. Since we are dealing with the law and the end of the law, two things propose themselves for consideration. First, the number of senses of the word ‘law’; second, what is the end of the law.

462. In regard to the first it should be noted that ‘law,’ taken one way, names the entire scripture of the Old Testament; for example, John says, it is to fulfill the word that is written in the law, that now they have sin and hated both me and my Father (John 15:25), when this was written in a psalm (Ps 24:19). But sometimes the ‘law’ refers to the five books of Moses, in accord with Deuteronomy, Moses commanded us a law (Deut 33:4). Third, the precepts of the Decalogue are called the ‘law’: I will give you the tables of stone, with the law and commandment, which I have written for their instruction (Exod 24:12). Fourth, the entire content of the ceremonial precepts is called the ‘law,’ as in Hebrews, since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come (Heb 10:1). Fifth, any definite ceremonial precept is called a ‘law,’ as in Leviticus: this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings (Lev 7:11).

But in this section of the epistle, the Apostle takes ‘law’ in a general way, i.e., as referring to the total doctrine of the Mosaic law, namely, the moral and ceremonial precepts, because through the ceremonies of the law grace was not given to help man fulfill the precepts and to reduce concupiscences.

463. In regard to the end of the law it should be noted that among the Jewish people, as among every people, there were three kinds of men: the obstinate, i.e., sinners and rebels, the proficient, and the perfect.

With respect to the obstinate the law was given as a scourge both as to the moral precepts to whose observance they were compelled by threats of punishment, as is evident from Leviticus 2, and as to the ceremonial precepts, which were multiplied to prevent them from cultivating alien gods: with a strong hand and outstretched arm, and with anger poured out I will rule over you (Ezek 20:34).

For the proficient, who are called the ordinary people, the law was a pedagogue: the law was our pedagogue in Christ (Gal 3:24). It was so with respect to the ceremonial precepts, by which they were restrained in divine worship, and with respect to the moral precepts, by which they were advanced toward justice.

For the perfect the law regarding ceremonies was a sign: I gave them my sabbaths, as a sign between me and them, that they might know that I the Lord sanctify them (Ezek 20:12); the law regarding morals acted as a consolation, as expressed below: I am delighted with the law of God (Rom 7:22).

464. Then when he says, where sin abounded, he shows how increase of sin was taken away by grace.

First, he sets out that grace abounded;

second, the effect of abounding grace, at that as sin has reigned.

465. First, therefore, he says: it has been stated that with the coming of the law sin abounded. But this was no obstacle to the divine plan for the salvation of the Jews and of the whole human race, because where sin abounded, namely, in the human race and especially among the Jews, grace did more abound, namely, the grace of Christ forgiving sins: God is powerful to make every grace abound in you (2 Cor 9:8).

466. Two reasons can be given for what is said here.

One is based on the effect of grace. For just as the enormity of a disease is not cured except by a strong and effective medicine, so an abundant grace was required to heal the abundance of sins: many sins are forgiven her, for she has loved much (Luke 7:47).

The other reason is based on the attitude of the sinner. Some, realizing the enormity of their sins, give way to despair and contempt: when wickedness comes, contempt comes also (Prov 18:3); others by the help of divine grace are humbled when they consider their sins and so obtain a greater grace: their infirmities were multiplied; afterwards they made haste (Ps 16:4).

467. Then when he says that as sin has reigned to death, he shows the effect of abundant grace, an effect that corresponds by way of opposition to that of sin.

That as sin, introduced by the first man and abounding through the law, has reigned, i.e., obtained complete dominion over men, and this until it brought them to death both temporal and eternal: the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23), so also grace, i.e., God’s grace, might reign, i.e., rule entirely in us, by justice, which it produces in us: they are justified by his grace (Rom 3:24). And this until it brings us unto life everlasting: the free gift of God is eternal life (Rom 6:23).

And all of this is through Jesus Christ our Lord, who is the giver of grace: grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17). He is justice: whom God made our justice (1 Cor 1:30); and he is the giver of eternal life: I give them eternal life (John 10:28).

Dying and Rising with Christ

Baptism into death

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? [n. 468]

By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? [n. 470]

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. [n. 474]

For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. [n. 477]

468. After showing that it is through Christ’s grace that we are freed from the sin of our first parent and from that which abounded by reason of the law, the Apostle now shows that Christ’s grace gives us the power to resist further sin (C. 5, L. 5–6.).

In regard to this he does two things.

first, he raises a question suggested by the foregoing;

second, he answers it, at God forbid! For we that are dead.

469. Above he had said that where sin abounded, grace did more abound (Rom 5:20). This could be misinterpreted by supposing that an increase of sin causes grace to abound all the more. That is why he asks: what shall we say, then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? One would have to say, yes, if increase of sin were the cause and not merely the occasion of grace abounding. Hence he had stated above: as we are slandered and as some affirm that we say, let us do evil that there may come good (Rom 3:8). Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive? (Jer 12:1).

470. Then when he says God forbid, he answers the question.

First, he states why we should not continue in sin;

second, he ends with an exhortation, at let not sin therefore reign (Rom 6:12).

First, he shows why we should not continue in sin;

second, he shows that we have the power not to continue in sin, at knowing this (Rom 6:6).

In regard to the first he presents the following argument: if we are dead to sin, we ought not live in sin. But we are dead to sin. Therefore, we ought not live in sin.

Therefore, in regard to this he does four things.

First, he states the conditional proposition;

second, he proves the antecedent, at know you not;

third, he concludes the consequent, at that as Christ is risen;

fourth, he proves that the consequent necessarily follows, at for if we have been planted.

471. First, therefore, he says, God forbid that we to continue in sin that grace may abound, because God has not given anyone permission to sin (Sir 15:20). And the reasoning is this: for we that are dead to sin, inasmuch as sin has been put to death in us, how shall we live any longer therein? For it is not the natural order of things to return from death to life: they are dead, they will not live (Isa 25:14); I had bathed my feet, how could I soil them? (Song 5:3).

472. Then when he says, know you not, he proves the antecedent, namely, that the faithful are dead to sin:

first, he presents the fact he uses to prove his point;

second, he proves it, at for we are buried together.

473. First, therefore, he says: know you not, as if to say: what I am about to propose to you is so obvious that you cannot fail to see it—if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized (1 Cor 14:38)—namely, that all we who are baptized in Christ Jesus: which can be interpreted in three ways. First, as indicating that baptism was instituted by Jesus Christ: make disciples of all nations, baptizing them (Matt 28:19); second, as indicating that it is conferred in the name of Christ: in the name of Jesus Christ they were baptized (Acts 8:12); third, in Christ Jesus, i.e., as indicating baptism into some likeness of Christ Jesus: for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Gal 3:27).

Are baptized in his death, i.e., into a likeness of his death as re-presenting in ourselves the very death of Christ: always carrying in the body the death of Jesus (2 Cor 4:10); I bear on my body the marks of Jesus (Gal 6:17). Or in his death, i.e., by virtue of his death: he freed us from our sins by his blood (Rev 1:5).

Hence, from the side of Christ hanging on the cross flowed blood and water after his death (John 19:34). Therefore, just as we are configured to his death, inasmuch as we have died to sin, so he has died to his mortal life, in which there was the likeness of sin, although no sin was there. Therefore, all we who are baptized are dead to sin.

474. Then when he says, for we are buried together, he proves that we are all baptized in conformity with the death of Christ, saying, we are buried together with him by baptism into death. As if to say: burial is only for the dead. Let the dead bury their dead (Matt 18:22).

By baptism, however, men are buried with Christ, i.e., conformed to his burial. For just as a buried man is put under the earth, so one being baptized is submerged under water. Hence, there are three immersions in baptism not only to indicate belief in the Trinity but also to represent the three days of Christ’s burial. And just as the three days of burial were one burial, so the triple immersion constitutes one baptism. That is also why solemn baptism is celebrated in the Church on Holy Saturday, when the burial of Christ is commemorated and on the vigil of Pentecost in honor of the Holy Spirit, from whom the water of baptism derives its power to cleanse: unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3:5).

475. Yet it must be noted that in the body one dies before he is buried, but in the spiritual order the burial of baptism causes the death of sin, because the Sacraments of the new law bring about what they signify. Hence, since the burial which occurs through baptism is a sign of the death of sin, it produces such a death in the baptized. And this is what he says, namely, that we are buried . . . into death, so that in receiving in ourselves the sign of Christ’s burial we might obtain death to sin.

476. Then when he says, that, as Christ, he infers the consequent, namely, that we should not live in sin. To this end he adduces a likeness to the resurrection of Christ, saying that, as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, i.e., by the Father’s power, whereby the Father himself is glorified: let your glory be over all the earth (Ps 57:5), so we also may walk in newness of life, i.e., advance in the spiritual life through good works.

For the life of sin carries with it the weakness of old age, because it leads to dissolution: what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away (Heb 8:13); hence it is said: why is it, O Israel, that you are in the land of your enemies (Bar 3:10); but whatever leads to restoration, i.e., to being without sin, is called newness of life: your youth is renewed like the eagle’s (Ps 103:5); be renewed in the spirit of your minds (Eph 4:25).

477. Then when he says, for if we, he shows how the consequence follows necessarily.

For after he died, Christ arose; hence it is fitting that those who are conformed to Christ’s death in baptism should be conformed also to his resurrection by leading a blameless life. And that is what he says: for if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, i.e., if we are incorporated into his death as a branch is grafted to a tree, then, as we are united with Christ in his passion, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection, so as to live blamelessly in our present life and to attain to a glory similar to his in the future life: he will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body (Phil 3:21); if we have died with him, we shall also live with him (2 Tim 2:11).

Thus, after using our likeness to the death of Christ to prove that we are dead to sin, the Apostle uses our likeness to the resurrection of Christ to show that we should not live in sin; which he introduces above as a consequence.

Christ’s triumph over death

We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. [n. 478]

For he who has died is freed from sin. [n. 482]

But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. [n. 484]

For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. [n. 487]

The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. [n. 489]

So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. [n. 491]

478. After showing that we should not continue to sin after baptism has made us dead to sin, the Apostle now shows that we have the means to do this.

And he does two things in this regard.

First, he indicates the benefit we have received;

second, the effect of this benefit, at for he that is dead.

First he sets out the benefit we obtain;

Second, the effect of this benefit, at that the body of sin.

479. First, therefore: we have said that the baptized should walk in newness of life, namely, by desisting from sin. To anyone who says that this is impossible he responds, knowing this, that our old man, i.e., the oldness caused by sin, is crucified, i.e., put to death by the cross of Christ, with him, namely, with Christ. For as was stated above, man’s oldness was brought about by sin—in the sense that the goodness of his nature was corrupted by sin—and is predominant as long as he continues in sin. But because what is predominant in a man characterizes the man himself, it follows that the oldness of sin in a man subject to sin is an apt description of the man himself. That is why he says the old self.

480. Now the oldness of sin can refer to the guilt of sin or to the stain of actual sins or even to the habit of sinning, which engenders a sort of compulsion to sin, or even to the fomes, or concupiscence, deriving from the sin of the first parent.

Thus, therefore, our old self is said to be crucified together with Christ, inasmuch as the aforesaid oldness is removed by the power of Christ; either because it has been entirely removed, as the guilt and stain of sin are entirely removed in baptism, or because its force has been diminished, i.e., the force of the fomes or even of the custom of sinning: having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross (Col 2:14).

481. Then when he says, that the body of sin, he mentions the twofold effect of this benefit, the first of which is the removal of previous sins. Hence he says: that the body of sin may be destroyed. The body of sin is the assemblage of evil deeds, just as the assemblage of members makes one natural body: his body is like molten shields (Job 41:6).

The second effect is that it makes us beware of future sins; hence, he adds: to the end that we may serve sin no longer. For a man is a slave of sin, when he obeys the concupiscence of sin by consenting to and doing the sin: everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin (John 8:34).

482. Then when he says, for he that is dead, he clarifies what he had said:

first, in regard to the first effect;

second, in regard to the second, at now, if we be dead.

483. In regard to the first it should be noted that the assemblage of sins is destroyed when a man has his sins remitted. So he clarifies how the body of sin is destroyed when he says, he that is dead to sin through baptism, in which we die together with Christ, is justified from sin, i.e., transferred to the state of justice: and such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified (1 Cor 6:11).

Therefore, because man dies to sin through the cross of Christ, he is freed from sin in such a way that the body of sin is destroyed.

484. Then when he says, now, if we be dead, he clarifies the second effect by showing how it conforms one to the life of Christ. The reasoning is this: one who dies with the dying Christ also lives with the rising Christ.

But Christ rose from the dead, in such a way that he will never die again. Therefore, one who has died to sin lives with the risen Christ in such a way that he has the faculty of never returning to sin.

485. In regard to this he does three things:

first, he shows the believer’s conformity to the risen Christ;

second, he gives a condition of this life, at knowing that Christ;

third, he draws the intended conclusion, at so do you also.

486. First, therefore, he says, now, if we be dead with Christ, i.e., if we are dead to sin by virtue of Christ’s death, we believe that we shall live also together with Christ, i.e., in the likeness of his life. We shall live, I say, the life of grace here and the life of glory in the future: when we were dead through sin, he made us alive together with Christ (Eph 2:5).

487. Then when he says, knowing, he describes the condition of life of the risen Christ:

first, he states it;

second, he proves it, at for in that he died.

488. First, therefore, he says: we believe this, I say, because we know that Christ, rising again from the dead, dies now no more, but will live an everlasting life: I died, and behold I am alive forevermore (Rev 1:18).

What is more, death shall no more have dominion over him, but it does over man: not only when his soul and body are separated when he dies, but also before he dies, when he is subject to sickness, hunger, thirst, and such things as lead to death. From all these things the life of the risen Christ is free. Consequently, he is not subject to the dominion of death; rather, he has dominion over death: I have the keys of death and Hades (Rev 1:18).

489. Then when he says, for in that he died to sin, he proves his statement, namely, that the risen Christ will not die again. And he proves this in two ways.

First he proves it with a reason based on the death he underwent, saying: for in that he died to sin, he died once.

This must not be taken to mean that he died to sin he committed or contracted, because sin had no place whatever in him: who did no sin (1 Pet 2:22). But he is said to have died to sin in two ways: in one way, because he died to take away sin: for our sake he made him who knew no sin to be sin (2 Cor 5:21), i.e., a victim for sin. In another way, because he died to the likeness of sinful flesh, i.e., to a suffering and mortal body: God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3).

In both ways it can be concluded that Christ died once, from the fact that he died to sin. In regard to the first it is clear that he wiped out all sins through one death: by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified (Heb 10:14). Therefore, he does not need to die again for sin: for Christ also died for sins once for all (1 Pet 3:18). In regard to the second the same can be concluded. For if Christ endured death in order that the likeness of death disappear from him, his death ought to have been like that of others, who wear the flesh of sin and die but once. Hence, it is said: just as it is appointed for men to die once, so Christ also was offered once to bear the sins of many (Heb 9:27).

490. Second, he shows the same thing by considering the condition of life he obtained by rising. Hence he says: but in that he lives, he lives unto God, i.e., conformed to God. For it is said: he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God (2 Cor 13:4).

Now the effect is conformed to the cause. Hence, the life which the rising Christ acquired is deiform. Therefore, just as God’s life is everlasting and without decay: who alone has immortality (1 Tim 6:16), so Christ’s life is immortal.

491. Then when he says, so do you also, he reaches the intended conclusion that we are conformed to the life of the risen Christ both with respect to its death to sin, i.e., to the mortal life which has the likeness of sin, never to return to it, and with respect to living conformed to God.

In regard to the first he says: so do you also reckon that you are dead to sin, i.e., as never to return to sin: let not the dead live (Isa 26:14).

In regard to the second he says: but alive unto God, i.e., to the honor and in the likeness of God, that we never die through sin: the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God (Gal 2:20).

So he adds, in Christ Jesus our Lord, i.e., through Jesus Christ, through whom we die to sin and live to God; or in Christ Jesus, i.e., as incorporated into Christ Jesus, that by his death we may die to sin and by his resurrection live to God: he made us alive together with Christ, by whose grace you have been saved through Christ (Eph 2:5).

Servants not of sin but of justice

Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. [n. 492]

Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness.

For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. [n. 496]

What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! [n. 499]

Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,

and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

492. After showing that we ought not remain in sin and that we have the faculty for this, the Apostle concludes with a moral exhortation.

first, he proposes an admonition;

second, he assigns a reason, at for sin shall not;

third, he raises and solves a question, at what then? Shall we sin.

first, he proposes the admonition;

second, he clarifies it, at so as to obey.

493. First, therefore, he says: we have said that our old self was crucified once, so that the body of sin may be destroyed. This means that the power of sin has been so weakened that it cannot rule us. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body any longer.

He does not say: let not sin be in your mortal body, because as long as our body is mortal, i.e., bound to the necessity of death, it is not possible for sin not to be in our body, i.e., the inclination to sin. But since we have been freed from the kingdom of sin by God, we must struggle in order that sin not recover its dominion now lost in our body. And this is what he says: let not sin reign in your mortal body. This is something about which one must be on his guard, as long as we wear the mortal body: the corruptible body is a load upon the soul (Wis 9:15).

494. Then when he says, so as to obey, he clarifies this admonition.

In regard to this it should be noted that sin reigns in man in two ways: in one way, through internal consent of the mind. To remove this he says, so as to obey the lusts thereof. For it is by obeying the passions of sin with our minds that sin reigns in us: go not after your lusts (Sir 18:30).

In a second way sin reigns in us through the performance of the act. To exclude this, he adds, neither yield your members unto sin, i.e., to the inclination to sin, as instruments of iniquity, i.e., as instruments for committing sin. For when man commits sin through his members, he yields to sin. In this way he seems to fight to restore sin’s dominion, which grows in us through the habit of sinning: they went down to hell with their weapons (Exod 32:27).

495. Then when he says, but yield yourselves to God, he urges them to the opposite, namely, to yield themselves to God.

And first with regard to the internal faculties when he says, but yield yourselves to God by submitting your mind to God: and now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you but that you fear the Lord your God and walk in his ways (Deut 10:12). And you ought to do this as those that are alive from the dead, i.e., as led from the death of sin to the life of grace. Hence it is fitting, since he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised (2 Cor 3:15).

Second, with respect to outward actions; hence he says, yield your members . . . unto God, i.e., to his service, as instruments of justice with which to fight against God’s enemies: put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil (Eph 6:11).

496. Then when he says, for sin shall not, he assigns the reason for this admonition.

For someone might excuse himself, alleging that sin’s dominion is an obstacle to obeying the admonition. But the Apostle excludes this, saying, for sin shall not have dominion over you, i.e., if you begin to resist sin and yield yourself to God: draw near to God and he will draw near to you. Resist the devil and he will flee from you (Jas 4:8). As if to say: you can observe my admonition, because you do not find sin dominating and holding you. For we have been freed by Christ, as John says: if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed (John 8:36).

497. Then he clarifies what he had said, saying, for you are not under the law, but under grace.

Here it should be noted that he is not speaking of the law merely with respect to its ceremonial precepts, but even with respect to moral matters. For one is said to be under the law in two ways.

In one way, as voluntarily subject to the observance of the law. Even Christ was under the law in this way according to Galatians: born under the law (Gal 4:4), namely, because he observed the law, not only the moral but also the ceremonial precepts. But the faithful of Christ are under the law in this way, with respect to the moral precepts but not the ceremonial.

In another way, one is said to be under the law as though compelled by the law. In this way, one is under the law when he does not obey it voluntarily from love but is compelled by fear. But such a one lacks grace which, if it were present, would incline the will to observe the law and fulfill its moral precepts from a motive of love. Therefore, as long as one is under the law in such a way that he does not fulfill it voluntarily, sin has dominion over him. As a result, such a man’s will is inclined to choose what is contrary to the law. But through grace such dominion is removed; consequently, a man observes the law not as existing under the law but as free: we are not children of the slave but of the free woman, by the freedom with which Christ has set us free (Gal 4:31).

498. This grace, making men freely obey the law, was not conferred by the sacraments of the old law, but Christ’s sacraments conferred it. Consequently, those who submitted themselves to the ceremonies of the law were not, so far as the power of those sacraments was concerned, under grace but under the law, unless they happened to obtain grace through faith. But one who submits to Christ’s sacraments obtains grace from his power, so as not to be under the law but under grace, unless they enslaved themselves to sin through their own fault.

499. Then when he says, what then, he raises a question against what he has said.

first, he raises the question;

second, he answers it, at God forbid! Know you not;

third, he shows how unfitting it would be to misinterpret his statement, at but thanks be to God.

500. In regard to the first it should be noted that his statement could be falsely interpreted, namely, that Christ’s faithful are not under the law with respect to being obliged to obey its moral precepts. For it would follow that Christ’s faithful could lawfully commit sin and act against the moral precepts.

Therefore, in this context he raises the question: what then? Shall we sin, i.e., shall we act against the moral precepts, because, as has been said, we are not under the law, but under grace? This interpretation the Apostle rejects in Galatians: for you were called to freedom, brethren, only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh (Gal 5:13).

501. In the same fashion he answers here, God forbid that we should sin, because we have been set free from the law; because if we were to sin, we would once more be reduced to the slavery of sin.

Hence, he continues, know you not that to whom you yield yourselves of your own will as servants to obey voluntarily, his servants you are whom you obey. For obedience is a debt which slaves owe to their masters: slaves, be obedient to your earthly masters (Eph 6:5). Hence, when someone obeys another, he admits that he is his slave by obeying. But different masters are obeyed for different remunerations. For the one who obeys sin is led to death through the slavery of sin. And this is what he says: whether it be of sin, i.e., you are its slaves by obeying it, unto death, i.e., to the eternal damnation of the one who falls. Concerning this death it is said: he who conquers shall not be hurt by the second death (Rev 2:11). But the one who obeys God is made a slave of this obedience, because through the habit of obeying the mind is inclined more and more to obeying and as a result achieves holiness. Therefore, he says: or of obedience, namely, of the divine precepts, unto justice: the doers of the law shall be justified (Rom 2:13).

Sin and obedience are fittingly presented as opposites, because, as Ambrose says, sin is a transgression of the divine law and a disobedience against the heavenly commands.

502. Then when he says, but thanks be to God, he shows the folly of obeying sin and thereby returning to the slavery of sin: first, by considering the benefit we have received. For if someone, by another’s graciousness is freed from slavery, it is unfitting to subject oneself freely to slavery. Hence, since we have been freed from sin by the grace of God, it is unfitting willfully to return again to the slavery of sin.

Second, by considering the state into which we were led after freedom from sin, namely, that we are slaves to justice. But, it is not lawful for a slave to subject himself to the dominion of an opposite master; hence, it is not lawful, if we have been made slaves of justice, to return to the slavery of sin.

503. The Apostle touches on both of these considerations, when he says: I thank God, and you too should thank God, that you were the servants of sin, because he who commits sin, is a servant of sin (John 8:34), but have obeyed, namely, by believing: for obedience to the faith, in all nations (Rom 1:5); and this not as though compelled, but from the heart: for with the heart, we believe unto justice (Rom 10:10), unto that form of doctrine, i.e., to the doctrine of the Catholic faith: follow the pattern of the sound words you have heard from me (2 Tim 1:13), into which you have been delivered: i.e., gave yourselves entirely: but first they gave themselves to the Lord and to us by the will of God (2 Cor 8:5). And by this being then freed from sin, so that it is not fitting to desert justice: you were bought with a price (1 Cor 7:23) and are not your own.

The grace of God is life eternal

I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification. [n. 504]

When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. [n. 507]

But then what return did you get from the things of which you are now ashamed? The end of those things is death.

But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life. [n. 512]

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. [n. 516]

504. After showing with a reason based on God’s grace that we should not continue in sin but should serve God, the Apostle shows the same thing with a reason based on a condition of the former life.

first, he describes the terms in which he will present his teaching;

second, he presents the teaching, at for as you have yielded;

third, he gives the reason for the teaching, at for when you were the servants.

505. First, therefore, he says: I have advised that you yield yourselves to God. I speak to you a human thing, i.e., as suited to human feebleness. For man is sometimes so presented in Scripture as to signify a weakness of the human condition: I am a weak man, and of a short time, and falling short of the understanding of judgment and laws (Wis 9:5); since there are jealousy and strife among you, are you not carnal and walking as mere men? (1 Cor 3:3).

He assigns the cause, when he adds, because of the infirmity; for it is to the mature that the more perfect precepts are given: wisdom, however, we speak among those who are mature (1 Cor 2:6); solid food is for the mature (Heb 5:14). Lighter precepts are given to weaker men: as to little ones in Christ, I fed you with milk, not with solid food (1 Cor 3:1); you have become such as have need of milk and not of solid food (Heb 5:12).

But this weakness comes not from the spirit but from the flesh, because the corruptible body is a load on the soul (Wis 9:15); hence, he adds: of your flesh: the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak (Matt 26:41).

506. Then when he says, for as you have yielded, he presents the teaching he called human, in which he teaches that the body must be yielded to the slavery of justice in the same measure as we yielded it to the slavery of sin. And this is what he says: for as you have yielded your members to serve, namely, by doing evil works, uncleanness and iniquity born in the heart. Here uncleanness refers to sins of the flesh: but immorality and every uncleanness, let it not even be named among you (Eph 5:3), and iniquity to spiritual sins, particularly those that harm one’s neighbor: he plots iniquity while on his bed (Ps 36:4). Which sins having been born in the heart, the members serve unto iniquity, namely to the work of committing iniquity. And here the Psalmist uses iniquity to mean uncleanness and iniquity, for all sin is iniquity (1 John 3:4). And this in so far as it is discordant with the justice of the divine law.

So now, set free from sin, yield your members, namely, by performing good works, to serve justice proposed to us in the divine law: and this unto sanctification, i.e., for the performance and increase of holiness: let the holy still be holy (Rev 22:11).

He calls this human, because right reason demands that man serve justice more than he previously served sin: for as it was your mind to go astray from God; so when you return again, you shall seek him ten times as much (Bar 4:28).

507. Then he assigns the reason for this teaching, saying, for when you were the servants.

With respect to this he does two things:

first, he presents a reason for the teaching;

second, he proves something he had presupposed, at for the wages of sin is death.

The reason behind the above teaching is that the state of grace is preferable to the state of sin. For if more benefits accrue to us from the state of justice than from sin, we should be more eager to serve justice than we were to serve sin.

First, therefore, he describes the state of sin;

second, the state of justice, at but now being made free.

first, he describes the condition of the sinner;

second, the effect of sin, at what fruit therefore;

third, its end, at for the end of them is death.

508. In regard to the first it should be considered that man is by nature free because of his reason and will, which cannot be forced but can be inclined by certain things. Therefore, in regard to the freedom of the will man is always free of compulsion, although he is not free of inclinations.

For the free judgment is sometimes inclined to the good through the habit of grace or justice; and then it is in slavery to justice but free from sin. But sometimes the free judgment is inclined to evil through the habit of sin; and then it is in slavery to sin and free from justice. Now, slavery to sin consists in being drawn to consent to sin against the judgment of reason: everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin (John 8:34).

And in regard to this he says, for when you were the servants of sin. Freedom from justice, on the other hand, implies that a man rushes headlong into sin without the restraint of justice; in regard to this he says, you were free men to justice. This happens especially in those who sin of set purpose. For those who sin out of weakness or passion are restrained by some bridle of justice, that they do not seem to be freed from justice altogether: long ago you broke your yoke and burst your bonds; and you said, ‘I will not serve’ (Jer 2:20); a vain man is lifted up into pride, and thinks himself born free like a wild ass’ colt (Job 11:12).

509. Yet it should be noted that this state involves true slavery and only apparent freedom.

For since man should act according to reason, he is truly a slave when he is led away from what is reasonable by something alien. Furthermore, if he is not restrained by the yoke of reason from following concupiscence, he is free only in the opinion of those who suppose that the highest good is to follow one’s concupiscence.

510. Then when he says, what fruit therefore, he shows the effect of sin.

One effect he excludes, namely, a fruitful return, when he says, what fruit therefore had you, namely, when you were committing those sins. For the works of sin are unfruitful, because they do not help man to obtain happiness: their works are unprofitable works (Isa 59:6); woe to you that devise that which is unprofitable and work evil in your beds (Mic 2:1).

The effect he mentions is confusion, saying, in those things, namely, the sins, of which you are now, in the state of repentance, ashamed because of their baseness. After you instructed me, I struck my thigh; I was confounded and ashamed (Jer 31:19). You shall be ashamed of the gardens (Isa 1:29), namely, of the pleasure you had chosen.

511. Then he mentions the end of sin, saying, for the end of them, namely of sins, is death.

This of course is not the objective in the mind of the sinner, because be does not intend to incur death by sin; nevertheless, it is the end of those sins, because of their very nature they bring temporal death. For when the soul separates God from itself, it deserves to have its body separated from it. Sins also bring eternal death, because when one wills to be separated from God for a time, he deserves to be separated from him forever; and this is eternal death: they who do such things are worthy of death (Rom 1:32).

512. Then when he says, but now, he describes the state of justice:

first, he describes a condition of this state;

second, the effect, at you have your fruit;

third, the end, at and the end life.

513. In regard to the first it should be noted that just as when one is by sin inclined to evil, he is free from justice, so when one is by the habit of justice and grace inclined to good, he is free from sin, so that he is not overcome by it to the point of consenting to it. Hence he says: but now in the state of justice, being made free from sin: if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed (John 8:36).

On the other hand, just as in the state of sin one is a slave of sin which he obeys, so in the state of justice one is a slave of God and obeys him willingly: serve the Lord with gladness (Ps 100:2). And this is what he adds: and become servants to God: O Lord, I am your servant (Ps 116).

But this is true freedom and the best form of slavery, because by justice man is inclined to what befits him and is turned from what befits concupiscence which is distinctively bestial.

514. Then when he says, you have your fruit, he mentions the effect of justice, saying, you have your fruit unto sanctification, i.e., the fruit of sanctity by good works is your return, inasmuch as these please you in a spiritual and holy way: my flowers are the fruit of honor and riches (Sir 24:23); but the fruit of the Spirit is joy, peace (Gal 5:22).

515. After that he mentions the end, saying, and you have the end, life everlasting, which is the goal of just men who do all their works for the sake of obtaining eternal life: seek first the kingdom of God and all these things will be added unto you (Matt 6:33). It is also the end of the works themselves which merit eternal life, since they are done out of obedience to God and in imitation of God: my sheep hear my voice, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life (John 10:27).

516. Then when he says, for the wages of sin, he clarifies what he had said about the ends of evil and of good.

First, in regard to evil he says: we have stated that the end of sins is death: for the wages of sin is death. Wages or stipends were the salaries paid soldiers. These were paid in money. Therefore, because by sinning one makes war by using his members as arms for sin, death is said to be the wages of sin, i.e., the return paid to those who serve it.

Death, therefore, is the return which pays those who are its slaves. It is not the end they seek but the end paid to them: on the wicked he will rain coals of fire and brimstone; a scorching wind will be the portion of their cup (Ps 11:6).

517. In regard to the good he says, but the grace of God, life everlasting.

For since he had said that just men have eternal life, which it is certain cannot be had except through grace, then the very fact that we do what is good and that our works are worthy of eternal life is the result of God’s grace: he bestows grace and glory (Ps 84:11).

Thus, therefore, if our works are considered in themselves and as coming from our free will they do not merit eternal life condignly, but only as coming from the grace of the Holy Spirit. Hence it is said: the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life (John 4:14).

And this in Christ Jesus our Lord, i.e., through Christ or inasmuch as we exist in him through faith and love: every one who sees the Son and believes in him has eternal life (John 6:40).

The Law and Sin

Do you not know, brethren -- for I am speaking to those who know the law -- that the law is binding on a person only during his life? [n. 518]

Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. [n. 521]

Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. [n. 525]

Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. [n. 527]

While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.

But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit. [n. 531]

518. After showing that we are set free from sin through the grace of Christ, the Apostle now shows that through the same grace we are freed from slavery to the law.

In regard to this he does three things:

first, he states his proposition;

second, he excludes an objection, at what shall we say, then (Rom 7:7).

first, he shows that through the grace of Christ we are freed from the slavery of the law;

second, that this liberation is useful, at that we may bring forth fruit to God.

first, he makes a statement from which he argues to his proposition;

second, he clarifies it, at for the woman who has a husband;

third, he concludes, at therefore, my brethren.

519. The statement he makes is presented as something known to them.

Hence he says, do you not know, brethren? As if to say: you should not be ignorant of this. But if any man does not know, he will not be known (1 Cor 14:38).

The reason they should not be ignorant of it is shown when he says, for I speak to those who know the law.

520. But since the Romans were gentiles and ignorant of the law of Moses, it seems that what is said here does not apply to them. Therefore, some explained this as referring to the natural law, of which the gentiles were not ignorant, as he said earlier: when the gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves (Rom 2:14). Hence it is added: that the law has dominion over a man, i.e., the natural law, as long as he lives, i.e., the law in man. And it lives as long as natural reason functions efficaciously in a person; but it dies, as long as natural reason succumbs to the passions: they have broken the everlasting covenant (Isa 24:5), i.e., of the natural law.

But this interpretation does not seem to agree with the intention of the Apostle who always has in mind the law of Moses, when he speaks of the law with no modifying qualifications.

Therefore, it is better to say that the Roman believers were not only gentiles; there were many Jews among them. Hence it says that Paul found at Corinth a certain Jew named Aquila, who had recently arrived from Italy, and Priscilla his wife, because Claudius had expelled all the Jews from Rome (Acts 18:2).

Therefore, the law is binding on a person as long as he lives. For the law was given to direct man in the way of this life, as it says in the Psalm: he will instruct him in the way that he should choose (Ps 25:12). Therefore, the obligation of the law is dissolved by death.

521. Then he clarifies what he had said with an example from the law of marriage, when he says for the woman who has a husband:

first, he gives the example;

second, he clarifies it by a sign, at therefore, while.

522. In regard to the first he does two things.

First, in the example he states how the obligation endures during life, saying, for the woman who has a husband, i.e., who is under the power of a man, is, from the divine law, in which it is said: your husband shall rule over you (Gen 3:16), bound to the law, namely, in which it is obligatory to live with the man: what God has joined together, let no man put asunder (Matt 19:6).

And this indissolubility of marriage is especially considered, inasmuch as it is the sacrament of the indissoluble union of Christ and the Church, or of the Word and human nature in the person of Christ: this is a great mystery, and I take it to mean Christ and the Church (Eph 5:32).

523. Second, he shows in the example how the obligation of the law is dissolved by death, saying, but if her husband dies, she, after the death of the husband, is loosed from the law of her husband, i.e., from the law of marriage by which she is obliged to the husband.

For since, as Augustine says in his book On Marriage and Concupiscence, marriage is a good of mortal man, its obligation does not extend beyond mortal life. For this reason in the resurrection, when life will be immortal, they neither marry nor are given in marriage (Matt 22:30).

From this it is plain that if a person were to die and be restored to life, as Lazarus was, the one who had been his wife is no longer so, unless he marries her again.

524. But against this one might bring in what is stated in Hebrews: women received their dead by resurrection (Heb 11:35).

But one should realize that the women received not their husbands but their sons, as the woman in 1 Kings 17 through Elijah, and another in 2 Kings 4 through Elisha.

The case is different with sacraments which imprint a character, which is a consecration of an immortal soul. Now every consecration endures as long as the consecrated thing lasts, as is plain in the consecration of a church or altar. Therefore, if a baptized or confirmed or ordained person were to die and rise again, he would not have to repeat these sacraments.

525. Then he clarifies what he had meant by a sign, when he says therefore, while her husband.

And first, in regard to the obligation of marriage, which continues for the wife while her husband lives. The sign of this is that she will be called an adulteress, if she be with another man, i.e., as wife and husband, while her husband lives: if a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man’s wife, would not she be polluted and contaminated? (Jer 3:1).

Second, he adduces a sign of the fact that the obligation of the law of marriage is dissolved by death, saying, but if her husband dies, she is delivered from the law by which she is bound to the husband, so that she is not an adulteress, if she be with another man, i.e., carnally united to another man, particularly if she has married him: if the husband dies, namely, the woman’s, she is free to be married to whom she wishes only in the Lord (1 Cor 7:39).

526. This shows that second, third, or fourth marriages are lawful of themselves, and not only by dispensation as Chrysostom seems to say, when he says that just as Moses permitted a bill of divorce, so the Apostle permitted second marriages.

For there is no reason, if the marriage law is dissolved by death, why the survivor may not marry again. It is not because second marriages are illicit that the Apostle says: a bishop should be married only once (1 Tim 3:2), but on account of the sacramental sign: for he would not be one of one, as Christ is the spouse of one Church.

527. Then when he says, therefore, my brethren, he concludes to his main proposition, saying, therefore, my brethren, you also have died to the law, by the body of Christ, i.e., in becoming members of the body of Christ, dying and being buried with him, as stated above; you have died to the law in the sense that the obligation of the law ceases in you, so that you may belong to another, namely, Christ, in whom, through rising with him, you have received a new life. Hence you are held obliged not by the law of the former life but by the law of the new life.

528. But this application seems awkward, because in the preceding example the man died and the woman remarried without obligation of the law. But here the one released from obligation is said to die.

However, if we consider it another way, there is a parallel, because since marriage is between two, it makes no difference which one dies. In either case the law of marriage is taken away by death. Hence the obligation of the old law ceases in virtue of the death by which we die with Christ.

529. Then he shows the utility of this liberation, when he says, that we may bear fruit.

first, he mentions the utility, saying: that we may bear fruit to God. For if we have been made members of Christ and abide in Christ, we can bear fruit, i.e., good works, for the honor of God: as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine (John 15:4).

530. The second is at for when we were in the flesh.

He shows that this fruit was impeded when we were under the slavery of the law, saying, for when we were in the flesh, i.e., subject to the concupiscences of the flesh. But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit (Rom 8:9). Our passions, however, and affections of sins, which were either explained or rather are occasionally adduced as proof by the law, are accustomed to work in our members, i.e., moved our members: what causes wars and what causes fightings among you? Is it not your passions? (Jas 4:1). And this to bear fruit unto death, i.e., so that they would cause the fruit of death: sin when it is full-grown brings forth death (Jas 1:15).

531. The third is at but now we are loosed.

He shows that this usefulness is acquired by those freed from the slavery of the law, saying, but now we are loosed by the grace of Christ from the law of death, i.e., from the slavery of the law of Moses, which is called the law of death, because it killed violators without mercy (Heb 10:28). Or better, it is called the law of death because if offered the occasion for spiritual death: for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:6).

In which law we were detained, as though servants under the law: before faith came we were confined under the law (Gal 3:23). We have been freed in such a way so that we should serve in newness of spirit, i.e., renewed in the spirit through the grace of Christ: a new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you (Ezek 36:26); not in the oldness of the letter, i.e., not according to the old law. Or not in the old written code of sin which the letter of the law could not remove: I have grown weak in the midst of all my foes (Ps 6:7).

The law makes sin beyond measure

What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin. I should not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, You shall not covet. [n. 534]

But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead. [n. 544]

I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died; [n. 547]

the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me. [n. 549]

For sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and by it killed me. [n. 550]

So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good. [n. 551]

Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, working death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. [n. 552]

532. After showing that through Christ’s grace we are freed from the slavery of the law, and that this liberation is useful, the Apostle now answers an objection which arises from the foregoing, namely, that the old law seems not to be good.

First, he solves the objection through which it seems that the old law is not good;

second, he shows that the law is good, at for we know (Rom 7:14).

First, he sets out the objection with regard to the law;

second, he solves it, at wherefore the law indeed.

533. First, therefore, he says: I have said that sinful passions existed by means of the law and that it is a law of death. What shall we say, then follows from such statements? Shall we say that the law is sin?

This can be taken in two ways. In one way, that the law teaches sin: the laws of the people are vain (Jer 10:3), namely because they teach vanity. In another way, that the law is called sin, because the one who gave the law sinned by decreeing such a law. These two follow one from the other, because if the law teaches sin, the lawgiver sins by decreeing the law: woe to them that make wicked laws (Isa 10:1). Now it seems that the law does teach sin, if the sinful passions come through the law, and if the law leads to death.

534. Then when he says, God forbid, he solves the aforesaid objection.

Concerning this it should be noted that if the law per se and directly caused sinful passions or death, it would follow that the law is sin in either of the two ways mentioned; but not if the law were the occasion of sinful passions and death.

In regard to this he does two things.

First, he shows what the law does per se;

second, what follows from it as from an occasion, at but sin, taking occasion.

535. Concerning the first he does three things.

First, he answers the question, saying, God forbid, namely that the law be sin.

For it does not teach sin: the law of the Lord is perfect (Ps 19:7). Nor has the lawgiver sinned as though decreeing an unjust law: by me kings reign and lawgivers decree just things (Prov 8:15).

536. Second, at but I would not have known sin, he indicates what pertains per se to the law, namely, to make sin known and not to remove it.

And that is what he says: but I would not have known sin, except through the law: through the law comes knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20). This is clear if it is understood of the natural law, because man distinguishes between good and evil through the natural law: he filled their heart with wisdom and showed them both good and evil (Sir 17:6). But here the Apostle seems to be speaking of the old law, which he signified above when he said the oldness of the letter (Rom 7:6).

One should say therefore that without the law sin could be known insofar as it has the character of ignobility, i.e., as something contrary to reason, but not inasmuch as it is an offense against God, because through the laws divinely decreed, man learns that human sins displease God, since he forbids them and commands that they be punished.

537. Third, at for I would not have known concupiscence, he proves what he had said, saying, for I would not have known concupiscence, if the law did not say: you shall not covet.

In regard to this it should be noted that his statement, I would not have known sin, except through the law, could be interpreted as referring to the sinful act which the law brings to man’s attention, when it forbids it. This, of course, is true in some cases, for it is said, a woman shall not lie down with a beast (Lev 18:23). But that this is not the Apostle’s meaning is clear from what he says here. For no one is unaware of the act of concupiscence, since all experience it.

Therefore, it must be interpreted as saying that, as was stated above, it is only through the law that sin is recognized as something subject to punishment and an offense against God. He uses concupiscence to prove this, because corrupt concupiscence is common to all sins. Hence a Gloss says, with Augustine, here the Apostle chose a general sin, i.e., concupiscence. Therefore the law is good, because when it forbids concupiscence, it forbids all evils.

538. It might be supposed that concupiscence is a general sin according as it is taken for the desire for something illicit, which is of the essence of any sin. This is not the way Augustine called concupiscence a general sin, but because the root and cause of every sin is some special concupiscence. Hence a Gloss says that concupiscence is a general sin from which all sins come.

For the Apostle quotes a precept from Exodus: you shall not covet your neighbor’s property (Exod 20:17). This is the concupiscence involved in avarice, about which it is said: the love of money is the root of all evils (1 Tim 6:10), because all things obey money (Eccl 10:19). Therefore, the concupiscence about which he is now speaking is a general evil, not with the commonness of a genus or species but with the commonness of causality.

Nor is this contrary to what is stated in Sirach, that pride is the beginning of all sin (Sir 10:15). For pride is the beginning of sin on the side of turning away; but covetousness is the beginning of sins on the side of turning toward a changeable good.

539. But it can be said that the Apostle takes covetousness to clarify his proposition, because he wants to show that without the law sin was not known, i.e., its aspect as offense against God. This is particularly clear from the fact that the law forbids covetousness, which is not forbidden by man. For God alone considers man guilty for coveting with the heart: man sees those things that appear, but the Lord beholds the heart (1 Sam 16:17). But the reason God’s law forbade coveting another’s property, which is taken by stealing, and another’s wife, who is violated by adultery, and not the coveting involved in other sins is that the former sins involve a pleasure in the very coveting, which does not happen in other sins.

540. Then he shows what follows from the law by way of opportunity, when he says, but sin, taking the occasion.

First, he states his intention;

second, he clarifies it, at for without the law.

541. First, therefore, he says that sin, taking occasion by the commandment of the law forbidding sin, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence.

By sin can be understood the devil, because he is the beginning of sin; and according to this he works all kinds of covetousness in man: he who commits sin is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning (1 John 3:8).

But because the Apostle had not mentioned the devil here, it can be said that each actual sin, as apprehended in thought, works in man a desire for it, as it says in James: each one is tempted by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin (Jas 1:14).

542. But it is better to say that this refers to the sin he described above as entering this world through one man (Rom 5:12), namely, original sin, which before the grace of Christ is in men according to guilt and punishment. But with the coming of grace its liability to punishment passes, although it abides with respect to inclination or habitual covetousness, which works in man every act of covetousness, whether it be the kinds of covetousness involved in various sins (for the covetousness involved in stealing is not the same as that in adultery) or the various degrees of covetousness as found in thought, pleasure, consent, and deed.

But to work this effect in man sin finds opportunity in the law. And that is what he says: taking occasion. Or because with the coming of the precept the aspect of transgression is added, for where there is no law there is no transgression (Rom 4:15); or because desire for the forbidden sin increases, for the reasons given above.

543. It should be noted that he does not say that the law gave the opportunity for sin, but that sin itself found opportunity by reason of the law.

For one who gives an opportunity scandalizes and, as a consequence, sins. This happens when someone commits an unrighteous act by which his neighbor is offended or takes scandal; for example, if someone frequents places of evil even with no evil intention. Hence he says below: but decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother (Rom 14:13). But if someone does a just act, for example, if he gives alms, by which someone else is scandalized, he is not giving an opportunity for scandal; hence he neither gives scandal nor sins, but the one scandalized finds the act an opportunity for taking scandal and sins. Thus, therefore, the law did what is right, because it forbade sin; hence it gave no opportunity for sinning, but man takes opportunity from the law. For this reason it follows that the law is not sin, but rather that sin is on the part of man.

Consequently, sinful passions, which pertain to the covetousness involved in sin, do not exist in virtue of the law as though the law wrought them, but sin causes them, taking occasion from the law. And for the same reason it is called a law of death, not because the law begets death, but because sin begets death by finding occasion in the law.

Now in the same sense the words can be arranged another way to say that sin worked all concupiscence through the command of the law, and this by taking occasion from the command; but the first exposition is simpler and better.

544. Then when he says, for without the law, he clarifies what he had said; and this through experience of the effect:

first, he mentions the effect;

second, he repeats the cause, at for sin.

first, he describes conditions before the law;

second, under the law, at but when the commandment came;

third, from a comparison of the two conditions he concludes to the outcome of the law, at and the commandment that was ordained to life.

545. First, therefore, he says, but sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. This is obvious from the fact that for without the law sin was dead, not as though sin did not exist, because through one man sin entered this world before the law (Rom 5:12), but in the sense that it was dead either with respect to man’s knowledge, which did not know that certain things forbidden by the law were sins, for example, covetousness; or because it was dead as compared to what it was later. For it did not have as much power to lead men to death as it had later, when it took opportunity from the law. For that is considered dead whose strength is weakened: mortify your members which are on earth (Col 3:5). This, therefore, was the condition before the law as far as sin was concerned.

546. But the condition so far as man was concerned is indicated when he says, and I lived some time without the law.

This can also be understood in two ways; in one way with respect to the fact that it seemed to man that he was alive, so long as he did not know that sin was that by reason of which he was dead: you have the name of being alive, but you are dead (Rev 3:1). Or in another way, this is said in comparison to the death which followed by occasion of the law. For those who sin less are said to be alive in comparison to those who sin more.

547. Then he describes conditions under the law, when he says, but when the commandment came.

First, in regard to sin when he says: but when the commandment came, i.e., after the law was decreed, sin revived. This can be understood in two ways: in one way with respect to the knowledge of man, who began to know that sin existed in him, which he did not know before: after I was instructed, I struck my thigh; I was ashamed and confounded (Jer 31:19). He says, revived because in paradise man had full knowledge of sin, although he did not have it through experience. Or, in another way, sin revived as to its power, because after the law was given, the opportunity was given for the power of sin to increase: the power of sin is the law (1 Cor 15:56).

548. Second, with respect to man himself; hence he says, and I died. This can also be understood in two ways: in one way as referring to man’s knowledge, so that I died means that I knew myself dead. In another way in comparison to the previous state, so that the sense is: I died, i.e., I was more bound to death than before. Hence what was said to Moses and Aaron is somewhat true: you have killed the Lord’s people (Num 16:13).

549. Then he concludes from the comparison between the two states the outcome of the law, saying that the commandment that was ordained to life . . . was found according to the intention of the lawgiver; second insofar as it pertains to the honesty and devotion of the one subject to the mandate: I gave them my statutes and showed them my ordinances by whose observance man shall live (Ezek 20:11) proved to be an occasion unto death to me, i.e., through sin which existed in man: his food is turned in his stomach, it is the gall of asps within him (Job 20:14).

550. Then when he says, for sin, he repeats the cause as though intending to clarify it by the outcome of the law, saying: this happened, namely, that the commandment which promised life proved to be death, for sin, taking occasion by the commandment, seduced me through the covetousness it wrought in me. Beauty has deceived you and lust has perverted your heart (Dan 13:56), and by it, namely, the commandment, sin took occasion to kill me: the letter kills (2 Cor 3:6).

551. Then when he says, wherefore the law, he reaches the main conclusion, namely, that the law is not only not sin but furthermore is good, making sin to be known and forbidding it.

First he concludes with respect to the whole law, saying: as is clear from the foregoing, the law indeed is holy: the law of the Lord is without blemish (Ps 19:7); we know that the law is good (1 Tim 1:8).

Second, with respect to the particular commandments of the law, saying: and the commandment of the law is holy in regard to the ceremonial precepts by which men are directed in the worship of God: be holy because I am holy (Lev 20:7) and just, in regard to the judicial precepts by which man is ordered to his neighbor in the proper way: the ordinances of the Lord are true and just altogether (Ps 19:9); and good, in regard to the moral precepts: the law of your mouth is better to me than thousands of gold and silver pieces (Ps 119:72). Yet, because all the commandments ordain us to God, he called the whole law holy.

552. Then, when he says, did that then which is good, he raises a question in regard to the effect of the law.

First, the question, saying, did that then which is good, namely, in itself, bring death unto me, i.e., act as a per se cause of death? For someone could falsely gather this from what he stated above, namely, that the commandment that was ordained to life . . . was found to be unto death to me.

553. Second, he answers negatively, saying, God forbid. For that which in itself is good and life-giving cannot be the cause of evil and death, because a good tree cannot bear evil fruit (Matt 7:18).

554. Third, at but sin, he shows that what he is now saying is in agreement with what he had said above. For the commandment itself does not bring death; but sin, finding occasion in the commandment, brings death.

And that is what he says: but sin, that it may appear sin, through the good of the law, wrought death in me, i.e., through the commandment of the law, because the law is good by the very fact that it brings knowledge of sin. And this occasionally, as it makes sin manifest.

555. This does not mean that sin worked death through the law, as though there was no death without the law. For it was stated above that death reigned from Adam to Moses (Rom 5:14), i.e., before the law was given. This should be understood to mean that sin worked death through the law, because the condemnation of death was increased when the law came.

And this is what he says: I say that the working of sin is death through good, that sin, by the commandment, might become sinful, that is, as if, on occasion, it makes one sin on account of the precept of the law. And this above measure either because the liability for transgression grew or because the inclination to sin increased with the coming of the law’s prohibitions.

As stated above, sin here means the devil, or rather the inclination to sin.

The flesh under the law of sin

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. [n. 556]

I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. [n. 562]

Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. [n. 567]

So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. [n. 568]

For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. [n. 577]

For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.

Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. [n. 582]

556. After showing that the law is neither evil nor productive of an evil effect, the Apostle now proves that the law is good.

first, he proves its goodness from the very repugnance to good found in man, a repugnance the law cannot take away;

second, he shows what can take away this repugnance, at unhappy (Rom 7:24).

First, he sets forth his intention;

second, he proves it, at for that which I work;

third, he draws the conclusion, at I find then a law (Rom 7:21).

first, he asserts the goodness of the law;

second, man’s condition, at but I am carnal.

557. First, therefore he says: we have stated that the law is holy. We said this because we, who are wise in divine matters, know that the law, i.e., the old, is spiritual, i.e., in harmony with man’s spirit: the law of the Lord is stainless (Ps 19:7). Or it is spiritual, i.e., given by the Holy Spirit who is called the finger of God in the Scriptures: if by the finger of God I cast out demons (Luke 11:20). Hence it is said: he gave Moses two tablets of stone, written with the finger of God (Exod 31:18).

Yet the new law is not only called spiritual but the law of the Spirit (Rom 8:2), because it is not only given by the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit imprints it on the heart in which he dwells.

558. Then he indicates man’s condition, when he says, but I am carnal.

This passage can be interpreted in two ways: in one way so that the Apostle is speaking in the person of a man existing in sin. This is the way Augustine explained it in the book of 83 Questions. But later in a book against Julian he explained it as though the Apostle is speaking in his own person, i.e., of a man in the state of grace.

Let us continue, therefore, by showing how these words and those that follow can be explained under both interpretations, although the second explanation is better.

559. The first statement, therefore, but I am carnal, is so interpreted that the word I stands for man’s reason, which is the chief thing in man; hence each man seems to be his own reason or intellect, as a city seems to be the ruler of the city, so that whatever he does the city seems to do.

560. But man is called carnal, because his reason is carnal. It is called carnal in two ways: in one way from the fact that it is submissive to the flesh and consents to things to which the flesh urges it: for while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh? (1 Cor 3:3). In this way it is understood of man not yet healed by grace. In another way reason is said to be carnal, because it is under attack from the flesh: the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit (Gal 5:17). In this way, even the reason of a man in the state of grace is said to be carnal. In both cases it is carnal on account of sin; hence he adds, sold under sin.

561. But it should be noted that the carnality, which implies rebellion of the flesh against the spirit, arises from the sin of the first parent, because this pertains to the inclination to sin derived from that sin. But the carnality which implies submission of reason to the flesh arises not only from original sin but also from actual, through which a man by obeying the desires of the flesh makes himself a slave of the flesh; hence he adds: sold under sin, namely, of the first parent or of the self.

He says, sold, because the sinner sells himself into the slavery of sin as payment for fulfilling his own will: for your iniquities you were sold (Isa 50:1).

562. Then he clarifies what he had stated, when he says, for that which I work:

first, that the law is spiritual;

second, that man is carnal, sold under sin, now then it is no more.

first, he presents a proof;

second, he draws the conclusion, at if then I do that which I will not.

The proof is based on man’s infirmity, which he first asserts;

second, he gives the proof, at for the good which I will.

563. The proof is based on man’s infirmity, revealed by the fact that he does what he knows should not be done; hence it is said: for that which I work, I do not understand, i.e., do not know that it should be done.

This can be taken in two ways: in one way of a person subject to sin, who understands in general that sin should not be committed, but overcome by the suggestion of the devil or by passion or by the inclination of a perverse habit, he commits it. Therefore, he said to do what he understands is not to be done, acting against conscience, just as the servant who knew his master’s will but did not act according to his will (Luke 12:47).

In another way it can be understood of one in the state of grace. He does evil not by performing the deed or consenting with the mind, but only by desiring through a passion in the sensitive appetite; and that desire escapes the reason or intellect, because it exists before the intellect’s judgment. When the judgment is made, the desire is impeded. Therefore, it is significant that he does not say: I understand it is not to be done but I do not understand; namely, because such a desire arises before the intellect has deliberated or has perceived it: the desires of the flesh are against the spirit, and the desires of the spirit are against the flesh (Gal 5:17).