Thomas Aquinas

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. Concerning this, he does two things. First, he shows what goods we obtain through grace; secondly, from what evils we are freed by it, there [v.12; n. 406] at Therefore as through one man. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he indicates the manner of reaching or the way by which we come to grace; secondly, the good things we obtain through grace, there [v. 2b; n. 384] at And we glory in the hope of glory. 196 In regard to the first he does two things. First, he exhorts to the due use of grace; secondly, he shows us the entrance to grace, there [v. 2; n. 383] at Through whom we have access. 382. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that faith will be reckoned 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" (Jb 22:21); "Who has hardened himself against him and been at peace?" (Jb 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: Through 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, to this grace, i.e., to the state of grace: "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (Jn 1:17). In which, 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. 197 384. 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; secondly, that through grace we have the glory of God, there [v. 11; n. 404] at And not only so. In regard to the first he does three things. First, he shows the greatness of the hope in which we glory; secondly, its vehemence, there [v. 3; n. 386] at And not only so; thirdly, its firmness, there [v. 5; n. 390] 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 sonship (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, then heirs" (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" (1Pet 1:3). This glory, which will be completed in us in the future, is in the meantime begun in us through hope: "For in this hope we were saved" (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. 198 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 not only glory 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" (Ac 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. Secondly, 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. However, James (1:3) seems to say the opposite: "The trial of your faith produces patience." 199 The answer is that trial [probatio] 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. Thirdly, 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" (Wis3:5). 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" (Si 2:10). Secondly, 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, there [v.6; n. 394] at For why did Christ. 200 392. First, therefore, he says: We can be certain that hope does not confound, because the charity of God is poured out in our hearts, through 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 nothing in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God" (Rom 8:39). 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" (Pr 8:17); "Not that we loved God but that he first loved us" (1 Jn 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 Jn 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 Cor 13(:4), "Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful...." 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" (Dt 33:3). Similarly, if they are taken as referring to the love 201 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" (Jn 14:21).

After disclosing that hope is firm, because it is a gift of the Holy Spirit [n. 391], the Apostle now traces its firmness to the death of Christ. First, he asks a question; secondly, a difficulty arises in answering it, there [v. 7; n. 396] at Why, one will hardly; 202 thirdly, he answers the question, there [v. 8; n. 398] at But God shows his love. 395. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that hope does not disappoint. This is obvious to anyone who wonders why, while we were yet weak, Christ died for the ungodly; 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 righteous for the unrighteous" (1 Pt 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" (Mt 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 (v. 7) he shows a difficulty on the part of those for whom Christ died, i.e., the ungodly, saying, One will hardly die for the release of a just man rather, "the righteous man perishes and no one lays it to heart" (Is 57:1). That is why I say that one will hardly die though perhaps for a good man one will even 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" (Jn 15:13). Yet what Christ did is never done, namely, 203 to die for the just 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 shows (v. 8), he responds to the foregoing question. First, he sets out his response; Second, he argues from this to what he intends, there [v. 9b; n. 400] at Much more; Third, he shows how this follows of necessity, there [v. 10; n. 401] at For if while 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 shows his love for us, i.e., through this he shows that he loves us to the greatest degree, because if while we were still sinners, Christ died for us, and this according to the time, as was explained abound. 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 204 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 shows 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 (v. 9) he concludes what he had intended from the foregoing, saying: If Christ died for us while we were still sinners, much more, therefore, being now justified by his blood, as was said above in chapter 3(:25), "whom God set forth as a propitiation through faith," through his blood, shall we be saved from the 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?" (Mt 3:7). 401. Then when he says For if while 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 2Cor (13:4), "He died 205 through weakness," namely the weakness of our flesh, "but lives through the power of God." And this is why he says: with reason I concluded that much more, being enlivened, shall we be saved through him. For if while we were still 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 says in Wis 11(:25), "You have loved all things, and you have hated nothing of the things you have made"; 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 stated in Wisdom (1:13): "God did not make death" in human nature, but it was brought on by sin. Accordingly, Christ’s death, 206 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 Righteous One…and killed the Author of life" (Ac 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 as depending on Christ’s will, which chose to endure 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" (Lk 23:34). 404. Then when he says Not only so (v. 11) 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 we also rejoice in God, i.e., in being even now united to God by faith and charity: "Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord" (2 Cor 10:17). And this through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have even now during this life received our 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 207 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" (Jn 17:22).

After indicating the benefits we obtained through Christ’s grace [n. 381], 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; secondly, from the slavery of the Law, in chapter 7, there [n. 518] Or do you not know, brothers; thirdly, from condemnation, in chapter 8, there [n. 595] at There is therefore now no condemnation. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that by Christ’s grace we are set free from original sin; secondly, that we are shielded against future sins, there [c. 6; n. 468] at What therefore shall we say. In regard to the first be does two things: first, he deals with the history of sin; 208 secondly, of grace destroying sin, there [v. 15; n. 430] at But the gift is not like the trespass. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he sets forth the origin of sin; second, he manifests it, there [v. 13; n. 421] at Sin was indeed in the world. Concerning the first, he does two things: first, he sets forth the origin of sin; secondly, its universality, there [v. 12b; n. 417] at And so death passed. In regard the first he does two things: first, he shows the origin of sin; secondly, the origin of death, there [v. 12b; n. 416] at And through sin death. 407. First, therefore, he says that we have been reconciled through Christ. For reconciliation came into the world from Christ, as sin came into the world through one man, namely, Adam: "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 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, 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). 209 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 Eph (2:3): "We were by nature children of wrath" and Ps 51 (v.5): "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity." 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 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. 210 409. 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. 211 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 through one man sin came into the world, and not "sins," which he would have said, if he were speaking of actual sin. 212 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 bodily desire [fomes] 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" (Si 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. 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 who is born does not sin, the 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 213 22 Augustine, De Nuptiis et Conc., book 2, ch 28. a crack when you have a wide open gate? For according to the Apostle, sin entered into this world through one man."22 416. Then he touches on the entry of death into this world when he says, and death through sin 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 214 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 (v. 12c) 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, spread to 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, because [in whom] all men 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 (Lk 3:23 ff), 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. 215 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 far-fetched, 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 seedly power. But this is not true of Christ, as has been stated. 216 420. 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 (7:22): "I serve the law of God with my mind, but the law of sin with my flesh." 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.

After tracing the origin of sin and death and their entry into the world [n. 406], the Apostle now clarifies what he has said. First, he explains his statement; secondly, he clarifies the comparison he suggested (in v. 12), when he said: "as sin…so death"; thirdly, he explains it, there [v. 14b; n. 429] at who is a figure of the one who was come. 217 Now he had stated that sin and death passed on to all men. Here, in line with Augustine’s exposition [n. 418], 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; secondly, as far as death is concerned [v. 14; n. 424]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that sin existed under the Law; secondly, what the Law did in regard to sin [v. 13b; n. 423]. 422. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that all have sinned in Adam, because even the Law did not take away sin. Before [until] the law, i.e., even under the Law, sin was in the world. This can be understood of the natural law and the Law of Moses; similarly, for 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 Ec (7:20): "There is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins." 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?’" (Pr 20:9). 218 423. 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" (Ex 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 39:11 ff). 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, to Moses, under whom the Law was given: "The law was given through Moses" (Jn 1:17), not only over those who sinned actually, but even over those whose sins were not like 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 219 destroying life, even over those whose sins were not like 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 in Gen (13:13): "The men of Sodom were the wickedest." But sin was not imputed when there was no law, 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 c. 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: "Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see" (Jb 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 to 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" (Dt 5:28). Sin reigned, I say, until Moses, not over all but over those who sinned in the likeness of Adam. 220 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 Gen (c.3); in a way, then, he preferred to 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 charity, 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 (v. 12) that "through one man sin entered this world"; 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 in (4:l5): "Where there is no law, there is no transgression. Consequently, one might suppose that sin entered the world not through a man hut 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, since the law, i.e., divinely given, did not exist. 428. For there were certain persons, as the Philosopher says in Ethics V (ch. 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. 221 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 those who did not sin 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, in the likeness of Adam’s sin, 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 (v.14b) he explains the likeness which was understood in the adverb, "as" [sicut] (v. 12). Hence he says, who, namely, Adam, was a type, i.e., 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 (Jn 19:34), which signify the sacraments by which the Church was formed.

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; secondly, how it removed sin, which superabounded with the coming of the Law [v. 20; n. 448]. 223 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. And concerning this he does two things. First, he compares the causes, namely, Christ’s grace, with Adam’s sin; secondly, he compares their effects [v. 16; n. 435]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he gives the comparison; secondly, he clarifies it [v. 15b; n. 432]. 431. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that Adam is the type of the one who was to come, but not like the trespass is the free 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 thy 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 (v.15b) he explains what he had said, namely, that the gift of grace exceeds Adam’s trespass, saying, if through one man’s trespass, namely, Adam’s, many died, i.e., if sin and death passed on to many others, because it passed on to all who sinned in him, much more have the grace of God and the free gift, where the "and" serves to explicate. Or, grace of God refers to the remission of sin as above (3:24): "Justified by his grace as a gift"; but gift refers to the blessings over and above the remission of sins, as 224 in Ps 67 (v.19): "The Lord gave gifts to men." Much more, I say, have the grace and gifts abounded for 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, in the grace, i.e., through the grace, of that 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" (Jn 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 sin, i.e., the actual sin, of one man, namely Adam, many, 225 not all, died by the death of sin, namely by imitating the sin of Adam by idolatry, as was explained above [n. 426]. Wisdom 13(:10) says of idolaters: "They are unhappy, and their hope is among the dead." And much more has the grace of God 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 the free gift, 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. And concerning this he does three things. First, he states his proposition; secondly, he clarifies it [v. 16b; n. 437]; thirdly, he proves it [v. 17; n. 438]. 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: The free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. 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 (v.16b) he clarifies what he has said: For the judgment, i.e., God’s punishment, following one trespass, i.e., the sin of the first parent, brought condemnation on all men, because they sinned in his sin, as stated above (v.12): "Death spread to all 226 men because all men sinned." But the free gift, which is given through Christ, following many trespasses, i.e., following not only that one original sin but also many actual sins, brings justification, i.e., comp1ete 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, If, because of one man’s trespass, he proves what he has said, namely, that Christ’s grace passes from many sins to righteousness. First, he proves this from something later; secondly, from something earlier [v. 19; n. 445]. 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; secondly, he draws the conclusion [n. 442]. 441. He states the first premise when he says, If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, because it was stated above (v.12): "Sin came into the world through one man and death through sin," much more will those reign in life, namely, eternal, through the one man Jesus Christ, who says (Jn 10:10): "I came that 227 they may have life, and have it abundantly," by sharing in the eternity of life, the abundance being designated here by "kingdom." Hence, it is stated in Rev (20:4) that they will reign with Christ a thousand years, i.e., eternally. The minor premise is presented in the words, those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift 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 by which men are advanced in blessings: "He gave gifts with royal liberality" (Est 2:18). Justice refers to upright actions: "Whom God made our righteousness" (1 Cor 1:30). 442. Then when he says, Therefore as one man’s trespass, he draws the intended conclusion which states the same thing as stated earlier, namely, that as by the sin of one man, Adam, the divine judgment led all men born of him according to the flesh to death, so by the righteous of one, namely, Christ, divine grace passed to all men, leading to acquittal and life for all men. 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 Jn (3:5): "Unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." 228 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, although de facto it passes only to believers. Hence, it is stated in 1 Tim (4:10): "He is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." 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 righteousness; and this is brought about through faith in him "The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe" (Rom 3:22). But the men who believe in him are not only those who lived after the resurrection 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 the Apostle proves the same thing from something prior, when he says, For as by one man’s disobedience. For causes are similar to their effects. But the disobedience of the first parent, which bears the character of unrighteousness, made men sinners and unrighteous. Therefore, the obedience of Christ, which bears the character of righteousness, made them righteous. And this is what he stated previously, namely, that grace proceeds forth into all men unto justification (v.16). 229 446. But there seems to be some problem about the statement that by one man’s disobedience 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 Sir (10:13): "The beginning of every sin is pride." In answer it must be noted that the same writer says in 10(:21), "The beginning of pride makes men separate themselves from God," 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 be 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…in your work. In you labor you shall eat from it all the days of your life" (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 not 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 230 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.

After showing that through the gift of grace that sin is removed, which entered this world through Adam [n. 430], 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; secondly, the absolution of sin through Christ’s grace, there [v.20b; n. 464] 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 secretly [subintravit] that sin might abound. 450. Two problems arise from these statements of the Apostle. 231 First, from the statement that the Law subintravit, 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 18(:20), "I have not spoken in secret." 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: "Who has known the mind of the Lord?" (Rom 11: 34). It can also be said that the Law sub-intravit, 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 [man] 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 Tim 1(:8), "We know that the law is good." 452. A Gloss answers this in three ways [cf. n. 459, 460]. First, that the word that [ut] 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 thy word in my heart, that I might not sin against thee" (Ps 119:11). But, once the Law was given, increase of sin followed in two ways [cf. n. 458]. 232 453. In one way, as to the number of sins. For although the Law pointed out sin, it did not take away desire for sin [concupiscentia]. 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, it is measured as something not capable of being ours at just any time; 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 stated in Ezekiel 5(:5), "This is Jerusalem; I 233 have set her in the center of the nations, with countries round about her. She wickedly rebelled against my ordinances more than the nations, and against my statutes more than the countries round about her." 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 in 1 Sam 16(:7), "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart." 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 234 grace, reached the heights of virtue: "Let us now praise glorious men…men great in virtue" (Sir 44:1). 458. Secondly [n. 453], 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 in 4(:15) that where there was no law there was no transgression. 459. A second answer [n. 452] is that the word that [ut] 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 secretly 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 (3:20) that through the law comes knowledge of sin. 460. The third answer also takes that [ut] 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 Ex 24(:7), "All that the Lord has spoken we will do and will be obedient." 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). 235 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"; secondly, what is the end of the law [n. 463]. 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 15(:25) 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," when this was written in a Psalm [24:19]. But sometimes the "law" refers to the five books of Moses, in accord with Deut 33(:4), "Moses commanded us a law." Thirdly, 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" (Ex 24:12). Fourthly, the entire content of the ceremonial precepts is called the "law," as in Heb 10(:1), "Since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come." Fifthly, any definite ceremonial precept is called a "law," as in Lev (7:11): "This is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings." 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 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 adamant, i.e., sinners 236 and rebels, the proficient and the perfect. With respect to the adamant 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 [mediocres], 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 (7:22); "I delight in the law of God." 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; secondly, the effect of abounding grace, there [n. 467] at that as sin has abounded. 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 superabounded, namely, the grace of Christ forgiving sins: "God is powerful to make every grace abound in you" (2 Cor 9:8). 237 466. 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 loved much" (Lk 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" (Pr 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 unto death, he shows the effect of abounding 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 unto death both temporal and eternal: "The wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23) - grace also, i.e., God’s, 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 to eternal life: "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" (Jn 1:17); he is justice: "Whom God made our righteousness" (1 Cor 1:30); and he is the giver of eternal life: "I give them eternal life" (Jn 10:28).

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 [n. 406], the Apostle now shows that Christ’s grace gives us the power to resist further sin. In regard to this he does two things: first, he raises a question suggested by the foregoing; secondly, he answers it [v. 2; n. 470]. 469. Above he had said that "where sin increased, grace abounded all the more." 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? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? One would have to say, Yes, if increase of sin were the cause and 239 not merely the occasion of grace abounding. Hence he had stated above (3:8): "And why not do evil that good may come? -- as some slanderously charge us with saying." "Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive?" (Jer 12:1). 470. Then (v. 2) he answers the question. First, he states why we should not continue in sin; secondly, he ends with an exhortation [v. 12; n. 492]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows why we should not continue in sin; secondly, he shows that we have the power not to continue in sin [v. 6; n. 478]. 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; secondly, he proves the antecedent [v. 3; n. 472] thirdly, be concludes the consequent [v. 4; n. 476]; fourthly, he proves that the consequent necessarily follows [v. 5; n. 477]. 471. First, therefore, he says, By no means are we to continue in sin that grace may abound, because "God has not given anyone permission to sin" (Si 15:20). For how can we who died to sin, inasmuch as sin has been put to death in us, still live in it? For it is not the natural order of things to return from death to life: "They are dead, they will not live" (Is 25:14); "I had bathed my feet, how could I soil them?" (S of S 5:3). 472. Then (v. 3) he proves the antecedent, namely, that the faithful are dead to sin: 240 first, he presents the fact he uses to prove his point; secondly, he proves it [v. 4; n. 474]. 473. First, therefore, he says: Do you not know? 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 of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus. This can be interpreted in three ways: first, as indicating that baptism was instituted by Jesus Christ; "Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them" (Mt 28:19); secondly, as indicating that it is conferred in the name of Christ: "In the name of Jesus Christ they were baptized, both men and women" (Ac 8:12); thirdly, into Christ Jesus, i.e., into some likeness of Christ Jesus: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal 3:27). Were baptized into 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 into 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 (Jn 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 (v. 4) he proves that we are all baptized in conformity with the death of Christ, saying, we were buried with him by baptism into death. As if to say: Burial is only for the dead: "Let the dead bury their dead" (Mt 18:22). 241 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" (Jn 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 were buried into death, so that in receiving in ourselves the sign of Christ’s burial we might obtain death to sin. 476. Then (v. 4b) 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 was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, i.e., by the Father’s power, whereby the Father himself is glorified: "let thy glory be over all the earth" (Ps 57:5), we too might 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 Bar (3:10) says: "Why is it, O Israel, that you are in the land of your enemies" but whatever 242 leads to restoration 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 (v. 5) 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 united with him in a death like his, i.e., if we are incorporated into him as a branch is grafted to a tree, the, as we are united with Christ in his passion, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his, so as to lead a blameless life and 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 used our likeness to the resurrection of Christ to show that we should not live in sin; which he introduces above as a consequence.

After showing that we should not continue to sin after baptism has made us dead to sin [n. 470], the Apostle now shows that we have the means to do this. Concerning this he does two things. First, he indicates the benefit we have received; secondly, the effect of this benefit [v. 7; n. 482]. Concerning this he does two things. First he sets out the benefit we obtain; Second, the effect of this benefit [v. 6b; n. 481]. 479. First, therefore: We have said that the baptized should walk in newness of life. To anyone who says that this is impossible he responds that we know our old self, i.e., the oldness caused by sin, was crucified with him, i.e., put to death by the Cross of 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. 244 480. 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" 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 (v. 6b) 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." (Jb 41:6). The second effect is that it makes us beware of future sins; hence, he adds: and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For a man is a slave of sin, when he obeys the attraction of sin by consenting to and doing the sin: Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34). 482. Then (v. 7) he clarifies what he had said: first, in regard to the first effect; secondly, in regard to the second [v. 8; n. 484]. 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 245 destroyed when he says he who has died to sin through baptism, in which we die together with Christ, is freed from sin, i.e., transferred to the state of righteousness: "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 away that the body of sin destroyed. 484. Then (v. 8) 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, never to 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; secondly, a condition of this life [n. 487]; thirdly, he draws the conclusion [v. 11; n. 491]. 486. First, therefore, he says: But if we have died with Christ, i.e., if we are dead to sin by virtue of Christ’s death, we believe that we shall also live with him, 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 (v. 9) he describes the condition of life of the risen Christ: first, he states it; 246 secondly, he proves it [v. 10; n. 489]. 488. First, therefore, he says: We believe this, I say, because we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again, but will live an everlasting life: "I died, and behold I am alive for evermore" (Rev 1:18). What is more, death no longer has 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" (Revs 1:18). 489. Then (v. 10) he proves his statement, namely, that the risen Christ will not die again. And he proves this in two ways [n. 490]. First he proves it with a reason based on the death he underwent, saying: The death he died, he died to sin, once for all. 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 Pt 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 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). 247 Therefore, he does not need to die again for sin: "For Christ also died for sins once for all" (1 Pt 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 says in Heb (9:27): "Just as it is appointed for men to die once, so Christ also offered once to bear the sins of many." 490. Secondly, he shows the same thing by considering the condition of life he obtained by rising. Hence he says: But the life he lives he lives to God, i.e., conformed to God. For it says in 2 Cor (13:4): "He was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God." 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 *** 6:16), so Christ’s life is immortal. 491. Then (v. 11) he reaches the intended conclusion that we be 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 you also must consider yourselves dead to sin, i.e., as never to return to sin: "Let not the dead live" (Is 26:14). In regard to the second he says: and alive to 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, 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 248 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).

After showing that we ought not remain in sin [n. 470] and that we have the faculty for this [n. 478], the Apostle concludes with a moral exhortation. And concerning this he does three things: 249 first, he proposes an admonition; secondly, he assigns a reason [v. 14; n. 496]; thirdly, he raises and solves a question [v. 15; n. 499]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he proposes the admonition; secondly, he clarifies [v. 12b; n. 494]. 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. Therefore, let not sin reign in your mortal bodies any longer. He does not say: Let not sin be in your mortal body, because as long as our body is mortal, 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 (v.12b) 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: to make you obey their passions. For it is by obeying the passions of sin with our minds that sin reigns in us: "Go not after thy lusts" (Si 18:30). 250 In a second way sin reigns in us by performing the act. To exclude this, he adds: do not yield your members to sin, i.e., to the inclination to sin, as instruments of wickedness. For when man commits sin through his members, he yields to sin. In this way he seeks to restore sin’s dominion, which grows in us through the habit of sinning: "They went down to hell with their weapons" (Ex 32:27). 495. Then (v.13b) he urges them to the opposite, namely, to mold 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 thy God require of you but that you fear the Lord your God and walk in his ways" (Dt 10:12). And you ought to do this as men who have been brought from death to life, 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). Secondly, with respect to outward actions; hence he says: Yield your members to God, i.e., to his service, as instruments of righteousness 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 (v.14) 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 will have no 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 251 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 Jn (8:36) says: "If the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed." 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 Gal (4:4): "Born under the law," 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 sat us free" (Gal 4:31). 252 498. 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 (v. 15) he raises a question against what he has said. And concerning this he does three things: first, he raises the question; secondly, he answers it [v. 16; n. 501]; thirdly, he shows how awkward it would be to misinterpret his statement [v. 17; n. 502]. 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? Are we to sin, i.e., 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 Gal (5:13): "For you were called to freedom, brethren, only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh." 253 23 Ambrose, De Paradiso, ch. 8. 501. In the same fashion he answers here: By no means should we 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: Do you not know that if you yield yourselves of your own will to anyone as obedient slaves, you are voluntarily the slaves of the one whom you obey. For obedience is a debt which slaves owe to their master: "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: either of sin, i.e., you are its slaves by obeying it, which leads to death, i.e., to the eternal damnation of the one who falls. Concerning this death it says in Rev (2:11): "He who conquers shall not be hurt by the second death." 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, which leads to righteousness: "It is the doers of the law who will 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, disobedience against the heavenly commands.23 502. Then (v.17) he shows the folly o 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 foolish to subject oneself freely to slavery. Hence, since we have been freed from sin by the grace of God, it is foolish willfully to return to the slavery of sin. 254 Secondly, by considering the state into which we were placed after freedom from sin, namely, that we are slaves to righteousness. 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 righteousness, 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 who were once slaves of sin may become obedient, namely, by believing, not as though compelled but from the heart: "For man believes with the heart and so is justified" (Rom 10:10) to the standard of teaching, 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) to which you were committed: 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 having been set free from sin, so that it is not fitting for you to return to the slavery of sin, you have become slaves of righteousness, so that it is not fitting to desert righteousness: "You were bought with a price" (1 Cor 7:23) and are not your own.

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. In regard to this he does three things: first, he describes the terms in which he will present his teaching; secondly, he presents the teaching [v. 19b; n. 506]; thirdly, be gives the reason for the teaching [v. 20; n. 507]. 505. First, therefore, he says: I have advised that you yield yourselves to God. I am now speaking to you in human terms, i.e., as suited to human feebleness. For man is sometimes so presented in Scripture 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 limitations; 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), but lighter precepts are given to weaker men: "As to little ones in Christ, I fed you with milk, not 256 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 body, which is subject to decay is a load on the soul, as it says in Wis (9:15); hence, he adds: of your flesh: "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Mt 26:41). 506. Then (v.19b) he presents the teaching he called human, in which he teaches that the body must be yielded to the slavery of righteousness in the same measure as we yielded it to the slavery of sin. And this is what he says: For just as you once yielded your members, namely, by doing evil works, to impurity and to iniquity born in the heart. Here "impurity" 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 mischief [iniquity] while on his bed" (Ps 36:4). So now, set free from sin, yield your members, namely, by performing good works, to righteousness proposed to us in the divine law: and this for sanctification, i.e., for the increase of holiness: "Let the holy still be holy" (Rev 22:11). He calls this human, because right reason demands that man serve righteousness 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 when he says, When you were slaves, he assigns the reason for this teaching. In regard to this he does two things: first, he presents a reason for the teaching; secondly, he proves something he had presupposed [v. 23; n. 516]. 257 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 righteousness than from sin, we should be more eager to serve righteousness than we were to serve sin. First, therefore, he describes the state of sin; secondly, the state of righteousness [v. 22; n. 512]. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he describes the condition of the sinner; secondly, the effect of sin [v. 21; n. 510]; thirdly, its end [v. 21b; n. 511]. 508. In regard to the first it should be noted 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 righteousness; and then it is in slavery to righteousness 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 righteousness. 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" (Jn 8:34). And in regard to this he says: When you were slaves of sin. Freedom from righteousness, on the other hand, implies that a man rushes headlong into sin without the restraint of righteousness; in regard to this he says: you were free in regard to righteousness. This happens especially in those who sin of set purpose: "Long ago you 258 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" (Jb 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, be 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 (v.21) he shows the effect of sin. One effect he excludes, namely, a fruitful return, when he says: But then what return did you get, 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" (Is 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: from the things, namely, the sins, of which you are now, in the state of repentance, ashamed because of their baseness. "You shall be ashamed of the gardens" (Is 1:29), namely, of the pleasure you had chosen. 511. Then (v.21b) he mentions the end of sin, saying: For the end of those things, 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 259 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: "Those who do such things deserve to die" (Rom 1:32). 512. Then (v.22) he describes the state of righteousness: first, he describes a condition of this state; secondly, the effect [v. 22b; n. 514]; thirdly, the end [v. 22c; n. 515]. 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 righteousness, so when one is by the habit of righteousness 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 righteousness, having been set free from sin: "If the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (Jn 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 righteousness one is a slave of God and obeys him willingly: "Serve the Lord with gladness" (Ps 100:2); "O Lord, I am thy servant" Ps 116 (v.16). And this is what he adds: you have become slaves of God. But this is true freedom and the best form of slavery, because by righteousness man is inclined to what befits him and is turned from what befits concupiscence which is distinctively bestial. 514. Then (v.22b) he mentions the effect of righteousness, saying: The return you get is sanctification, i.e., the fruit of sanctity by good works is your return, inasmuch as 260 these please you in a spiritual and holy way: "My flowers are the fruit of honor and riches" (Si 24:23). 515. After that he mentions the end, saying, and its end, eternal life, which is the goal of all 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" (Mt 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" (Jn 10:27). 516. Then (v.22c) 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: 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: The free gift [grace] of God is eternal life. 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 ex condigno, but only as coming from the grace 261 of the Holy Spirit. Hence it says in Jn (4:14): "The water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." 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" (Jn 6:40).

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 two things: first, he states his proposition; secondly, he excludes an objection [v. 7; n. 532]. In regard to the first he does two things: 263 first, he shows that through the grace of Christ we are freed from the slavery of the Law; secondly, that this liberation is useful [v. 4c; n. 529]. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he makes a statement from which he argues to his proposition; secondly, he clarifies it [v. 2; n. 521]; thirdly, he concludes [v. 4; n. 527]. 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. The reason they should not be ignorant of it is shown when he says: I am speaking 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 is binding on a person, i.e., the natural law, as long as it 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" (Is 24:5), i.e., of the natural law. 264 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 in Acts 18 that Paul found at Corinth a certain Jew named Aquila, who bad recently arrived from Italy, and Priscilla his wife, because Claudius had expelled all the Jews from Rome. 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 Ps 25 (v.12): "He will instruct him in the way that he should choose." Therefore, the obligation of the Law is dissolved by death. 521. Then (v.2) he clarifies what he had said with an example from the law of marriage: first, he gives the example; secondly, he clarifies it by a sign [v. 3; n. 525]. 522. In regard to the first he does two things [n. 523]. First, in the example he states how the obligation endures during life, saying: Thus a married woman is by divine law bound to her husband as long as he lives: "Your husband shall rule over you" (Gen 3:16); "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder" (Mt 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 265 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. Secondly, he shows in the example how the obligation of the law is dissolved by death, saying: But if her husband dies, the woman, after the death of the husband, is discharged from the law concerning the 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" (Mt 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 what is stated in Heb (11:35): "Women received their dead by resurrection!" But one should realize that the women received not their husbands but their sons, as the woman in 1 Kg 17 through Elijah, and another in 2 Kg 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 (v. 3) he clarifies what he had said by a sign. 266 And first, in regard to the obligation of marriage, which continues for the wife as long as the husband is alive. The sign of this is that she will be called an adulteress, if she lives with another man, i.e., as wife and husband, while her husband is alive: "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). Secondly, 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 free from that law by which she is bound to the husband, so that she is not an adulteress, if she is 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 (v. 4) he concludes to his main proposition, saying: Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through 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 267 life. Hence you are held obliged not by the law of the former life but by the law of the new life. 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 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 (v. 4b) he shows the utility of this liberation. In regard to this he does three things: 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" (Jn 15:4). 530. The second is there at While we were living. He shows that this fruit was impeded when we were under the slavery of the Law, saying: while we were living in the flesh, i.e., subject to the concupiscence of the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at 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 for death: "Sin when it is full-grown brings forth death (Jas 1:15). The third is there at But now we are discharged. 268 He shows that this usefulness is acquired by those freed from the slavery of the Law, saying: But we are now discharged 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: "A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy" (Heb 10:28). Or better, it is called the law of death because if offered the occasion for spiritual death, as it says in 2 Cor (3:6): "For the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life." Dead to that which held us captive as slaves under the law: "Before faith came we were confined under the law" (Gal 3:23). We have been freed in such a way that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the 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" Ez (36:26); not in the old written code, 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).

After showing that through Christ’s grace we are freed from the slavery of the Law [n. 518], 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. In regard to this he does two things. First, he solves the objection through which it seems that the Old Law is not good; secondly, he shows that the Law is good, there [v.14; n. 556] at For we know. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he sets out the objection with regard to the Law; secondly, he solves it, there [v.12; n. 551] 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 then shall we say follows from such statements? Shall we say that the law is sin? 270 This can be taken in two ways. In one way, that the Law teaches sin, as is said in Jer 10(:3), "The laws of the people are vain," 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" (Is 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 Let it not be, 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; secondly, what follows from it as from an occasion, there [v. 8; n. 540] at But taking the occasion. 535. Concerning the first he does three things. First, he answers the question, saying: Let it not be, 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" (Pr 8:15). 536. Secondly, there at But I would not have known, he indicates what pertains per se to the Law, namely, to make sin known and not to remove it. 271 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. 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. Thirdly, there 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 had not said: You shall not covet [non concupisces]. 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 says in Leviticus 18(:23), "A woman shall not lie down with a beast." 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 experiences 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 272 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 Ex 20(:17), "You shall not covet [non concupisces] your neighbor’s property." This is the concupiscence involved in avarice, about which it says in 1 Tim (6:10): "The love of money is the root of all evils," because "all things obey money (Ecc 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 Sir (l0:15) that "pride is the beginning of all sin." For pride is the beginning of sin on the side of turning away [from God]; 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, as it says in 1 Sam (16:7): "Man sees those things that appear, but the Lord beholds the heart." But the reason God’s law forbade coveting another’s property, which is taken by stealing, and another’s wife, who is violated by 273 adultery, and not the coveting involved in other sins is that the former sins involve a p1easure in the very coveting, which does not happen in other sins. 540. Then (v.8) he shows what follows from the Law by way of opportunity. First, he states his intention; secondly, he clarifies it [v. 8b; n. 544]. 541. First, therefore, he says that sin, finding opportunity in the commandment of the Law forbidding sin, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness. 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 Jn 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 Jas (1:14): "Each one is tempted by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin." 542. But it is better to say that this refers to the sin he described above (c.5) as entering this world through one man, 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. 274 But to work this effect in man sin finds opportunity in the Law. And that is what he says: finding opportunity. 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 (14:13): "But decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother." But if someone does a righteous 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 opportunity in the Law. 275 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 (v.8b) he clarifies what he had said; and this through experience of the effect: first, he mentions the effect; secondly, he repeats the cause [v. 11; n. 550]. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he describes conditions before the Law; secondly, under the Law [v. 9b; n. 547]; thirdly, from a comparison of the two conditions he concludes to the outcome of the Law [v. 10b; n. 549]. 545. First, therefore, he says: But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness. This is obvious from the fact that apart from the law sin lay 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. 276 546. But the condition so far as man was concerned is indicated when he says: I was once alive apart from 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 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 (v. 9b) he describes conditions under the Law. 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 smote upon my thigh; I was ashamed and I was 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 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. Secondly, 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). 277 549. Then (v.10) he concludes from the comparison between the two states the outcome of the Law, saying that the very commandment which promised life according to the intention of the lawgiver: "I gave them my statutes and showed them my ordinances by whose observance man shall live" (Ez 20:11) proved to be an occasion of death for me, i.e., through sin which existed in man: "His food is turned in his stomach, it is the gall of asps within him" (Jb 20:14). 550. Then (v.11) 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, because sin, finding opportunity in the commandment deceived me through the covetousness it wrought in me. "Beauty hath deceived thee and lust hath perverted thy heart" (Dan 13:56) and by it, namely, the commandment, sin took occasion to kill me: "The written code kills" (2 Cor 3:6). 551. Then (v.12) 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 is holy: "The law of the Lord is without blemish" (Ps 19:7); "We know that the law is good" (2 Tim 1:8). Secondly, with respect to the particular commandments of the Law, saying: and the commandment 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 ordained to his neighbor in the proper way: "The ordinances of the Lord are true and righteous altogether" (Ps 19:9); and good, in regard to the moral precepts: "The law of thy mouth is better to me than thousands of gold and 278 silver pieces" (Ps 119:72). Yet, because all the commandments ordain us to God, he called the whole law holy. 552. Then (v.13b) he raises a question in regard to the effect of the Law. First the question, saying: Did that which is good, namely, in itself, bring death to 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 which promised life proved to be death to me. 553. Secondly, he answers negatively, saying: Let it not be. 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" (Mt 7:18). 554. Thirdly, 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 opportunity in the commandment, brings death. And that is what he says: But sin, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, worked death in me through what is good, because the Law is good by the very fact that it brings knowledge of sin. 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, i.e., before the Law was given. What it means is that sin worked death through the Law, because the damnation of death was increased when the Law came. And this is what he says: that sin might become sinful beyond the previous measure, either because the liability for transgression grew or because the inclination to sin increased with the coming of the Law’s prohibitions. 279 As stated above [n. 541ff.] "sin" here means the devil, or rather the inclination to sin.

After showing that the Law is neither evil nor productive of an evil effect [n. 532], the Apostle now proves that the Law is good. In regard to this he does two things: first, he proves its goodness from the very repugnance to good found in man, a repugnance the Law cannot take away; secondly, he shows what can take away this repugnance [v. 24; n. 589]. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he states his proposition; 280 secondly, he proves it [v. 15; n. 562]; thirdly, he draws the conclusion [v. 21; n. 583]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he asserts the goodness of the Law; secondly, man’s condition [v. 14b; n. 558]. 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 (v.7). Or it is spiritual, i.e., given by the Holy Spirit who is called the finger of God: "If by the finger of God I cast out demons" (Lk 11:20). Hence it says in Ex (31:18): "He gave Moses two tables of stone, written with the finger of God." 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 (v. 14b) he indicates man’s condition. 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. 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 281 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 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" (Is 50:1). 562. Then (v.15) he clarifies what he had stated: first, that the Law is spiritual; secondly, that man is carnal, sold under sin [v. 17; n. 568]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he presents a proof; 282 secondly, he draws the conclusion [v. 16; n. 567]. The proof is based on man’s infirmity, which he first asserts; secondly, he gives the proof [v. 15b; n. 564]. 563. The proof is based on man’s infirmity, revealed by the fact that he does what he knows should not be done; hence he says: For what I do, 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" (Lk 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). 564. Then (v.15b) he proves what he had said by division and by effect. 283 First, he distinguishes under the division between "not doing the good" and "doing evil," because even a person who does not do the good is said to commit sin, i.e., the sin of omission. 565. In regard to he omission of the good therefore, he says: For I do not do the good I want [will]. In one way this can be understood of a man in the state of sin; then I do refers to a complete action performed outwardly with the consent of reason, whereas I will refers not to a complete act of will commanding the deed, but to an incomplete willing by which men want the good in general, just as they have a correct judgment about the good in general; yet this judgment is perverted by a bad habit or a perverse passion with the result that the will goes wrong, when it gets down to the particular case, and does not do what it knows in a general way should be done and would want to do. In another way it is understood of a man healed by grace; then, conversely, I will refers to a complete act of willing which lasts through the act of choosing a particular deed, whereas I do refers to an incomplete action which has gone no further than the sense appetite and has not reached the stage of consent. For a man in the state of grace wants to preserve his mind from wicked desires, but he fails to accomplish this good on account of disorderly movements of desire that arise in the sensitive appetite. This is similar to what he says in Gal (5:17): "So that you do not do all that you will." 566. Secondly, in regard to perpetrating evil he says: But the evil I hate, I do. If this is understood of the sinner, I hate means an imperfect hatred in virtue of which every man naturally hates evil; I do means an action completely performed in keeping with 284 reason’s consent. For that general hatred of evil is frustrated in a particular choice by the inclination of a habit or passion. But if it is understood of a person in the state of grace, I do means an incomplete action which has gone no further than existing as a desire in the sensitive appetite; I hate refers to complete hatred, by which one continues hating evil until its final reprobation: "I hate them with a perfect hatred" (Ps 139:22), namely, evil men, inasmuch as they are sinners: "While the laws were very well observed because of the piety of the high priest Onias and his hatred of wickedness" (2 Macc 3:1). 567. Then (v.16) he concludes from the aforementioned condition of man that the Law is good, saying: But if I do what I do not want. No matter which of the aforementioned ways is taken, by the very fact that I hate evil I agree that the law is good in forbidding evil which I naturally do not want. For it is clear that man’s inclination in keeping with reason to will the good and flee evil is in accord with nature or grace; and each is good. Hence, the Law also, which agrees with this inclination by commanding what is good and forbidding what is evil, is good for the same reason: "I give you good precepts; do not forsake my teaching" (Ps 4:2). 568. Then (v.17) he proves what he had said about man’s condition, namely, that he is carnal and sold under sin. In regard to this he does three things: first, he states his proposition; secondly, he proves it [v. 18; n. 572]; thirdly, he draws the conclusion [v. 20; n. 582]. 285 569. That man is carnal and sold under sin as though somehow a slave of sin, is clear from the fact that he does not act but is led by sin. For a free man acts of himself and is not led by another. Therefore, he says: I have said that I agree with the Law so far as my intellect and will are concerned, but when I act against the Law, it is no longer I that do it, i.e., do what is against the Law, but sin which dwells within me. So it is evident that I am a slave of sin, inasmuch as sin by exercising its dominion over me does it. 570. It is easy to understand this of a man in the state of grace; for the fact that he desires something evil, so far as the sensitive appetite pertaining to the flesh is concerned, does not proceed from the work of reason but from the inclination to sin. But a person is said to do what his reason does, because man is what he is according to reason; hence the movements of concupiscible desire, which are not from reason but from the inclination to sin, the man does not do but the inc1intion to sin, which is here called sin "Whence wars and fightings among you? Is it not your passions that are at war in your members?" (Jas 4:1). But this cannot properly be understood of a man in sin, because his reason consents to sin; therefore, he commits it. Hence Augustine and a Gloss say: Greatly deceived is the man who consents to the desires of the flesh and decides to do what they desire and then thinks he can say of himself: I am not doing this. 571. However, there is a way, although forced, to understand this even of a sinner. For an action is mainly attributed to the principal agent acting in virtue of its proper characteristic, not to the agent acting in virtue of a characteristic proper to some other thing by which it is moved. But it is clear that man’s reason, considered in the light 286 of what is proper to it, is not inclined to evil, but insofar as it is moved by concupiscible desire. Therefore, the doing of evil, which reason does, inasmuch as it has been overcome by desire, is not attributed principally to reason, which is understood here to be man, but rather to the desire or habit in virtue of which reason is inclined to evil. It should be noted that sin is said to dwell in man, not as though sin were some reality, since it is a privation of good, but to indicate the permanence of this kind of defect in man. 572. Then (v.18) he proves that sin dwelling in man does the evil which man commits: first, he presents the medium proving the proposition; secondly, he explains the medium [v. 18b; n. 577]. 573. First, therefore, he proves that sin dwelling in man does the evil which man commits. This proof is clear when the words are referred to a man in the state of grace, who has been freed from sin by the grace of Christ. Therefore, as to a person in whom Christ’s grace does not dwell, he has not yet been freed from sin. But the grace of Christ does not dwell in the flesh but in the mind; hence it is stated below (8:10) that "if Christ is in us, the body is indeed dead because of sin, but the spirit lives because of righteousness.’’ Therefore, sin, which the desire of the flesh works, still rules in the flesh. For he takes "flesh" here to include the sensitive powers. For the flesh is thus distinguished against the spirit and fights it, inasmuch as the sensitive appetite tends to the contrary of what reason seeks, as it says in Gal (5:17): "The desires of the flesh are against the spirit." 287 574. He says, therefore: We have said that in me, even though healed by grace, sin acts; but this must be understood of me according to the flesh along with the sensitive appetite. For I know through reason and experience that the good, namely, of grace by which I have been reformed, does not dwell in me. But lest this be understood to include reason according to the manner explained above, he adds: that is, in my flesh. For in me, i.e., in my heart, this good does dwell, for it says in Eph (3:17): "That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith." 575. This makes it clear that this passage does not favor the Manicheans who want the flesh not to be good according to its nature and, consequently, not a good creature of God, whereas it is written: "Everything created by God is good" (1 Tim 4:4). For the Apostle is not discussing a good of nature but the good of grace, by which we are freed from sin. 576. If this passage referred to man existing under sin, it would be superfluous to add, "that is, in my flesh," because in a sinner the good of grace does not dwell either in regard to the flesh or the mind. A forced interpretation would explain this passage by saying that sin, which is the privation of grace, is somehow derived from the flesh to the mind. 577. Then (v.18b) he clarifies what he had said: first, from man’s capabilities; secondly, from his action which proves his capability [v. 19; n. 581]. 578. Man’s capability is described first in regard to willing, which seems to be in man’s power; hence he says, I can will. For nothing is so much within man’s power as his will. 288 Secondly, he describes man’s capability, or rather his difficulty in achieving an effect, when he says: But I cannot do the good, i.e., I do not find it within my power, as it says in Pr (1:9); "The heart of a man disposes his way, but the Lord directs his steps." 579. This passage of Paul seems to favor the Pelagians who said that the start of a good work is from us, inasmuch as we will the good. And this is what the Apostle seems to say: But I cannot do the good. However, he rejects this interpretation in Phil (2:13): "But God is at work in you both to will and to do." 580. Therefore, the fact that I can will, once I have been healed by grace, is due to the work of divine grace, through which I not only will the good but also do some good, because I resist concupiscence and, led by the Spirit, act against it; but I do not find it within my power to accomplish that good so as to exclude concupiscence entirely. This indicates that the good of grace does not reside in the flesh, because if it did, then just as I have the faculty of willing the good because of grace dwelling in the mind, so I would have the faculty of accomplishing the good in virtue of grace residing in the flesh. 581. But if be referred to man existing under sin, then it could be explained so that to will is taken for an incomplete act of willing, which from the impulse of nature is good in some who sin. Then when he says, I do not do the good I want, he manifests what he had said by citing man’s action, which is a sign and effect of human capability. For man does not have the strength to accomplish good, because he does not do the good he wants but does the evil he does not want. This has been explained earlier [n. 564ff]. 582. Then (v.20) he concludes to what he had previously proposed, saying: Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it but sin which dwells within me. This, too, has been explained earlier. 289 But it should be noted that in virtue of the same medium the Apostle concludes to the two things he had proposed above, namely, the goodness of the law, when he said: "If I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good" (v.16), and the dominion of sin in man, when he says here: "If I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells in me." The first of these conclusions pertains to his statement that the Law is spiritual; the second to the statement: "But I am carnal, sold under sin." But he draws the first conclusion, which is about the goodness of the law, from that medium by reason of "I do not want," because his mind does not want what the law forbids, which shows that the Law is good. But in virtue of the phrase, "I do" he concludes that sin, which functions against reason’s will, holds sway over man.

After showing that the Law is good because it concords with reason [n. 556], the Apostle now draws two conclusions based on the two things he had posited; 290 the second conclusion is there [v. 23; n. 586] at But I see. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he draws a conclusion from what he had said; secondly, he offers a sign to clarify it [v. 22; n. 585]. 584. Now he had posited two things: the first was that the Law is spiritual, from which he concludes: So I find, namely, by experience, it to be a law consistent with that of Moses, when I will to do the good, i.e., there is agreement between the Law of Moses and my reason, by which I approve the good and detest evil, just as that Law commands the good and forbids evil: "The word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that you mayst do it" (Dt 30:14). And in this way it was necessary that evil, i.e., sin or the inclination of sin, lie at hand, i.e., lie next to my reason, as though dwelling in my flesh: "Guard the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your bosom," i.e., from the flesh (Mic 7:5). 585. Then (v.22) he presents a sign to show that the Law agrees with reason. For no one delights except in that which agrees with him. But man according to his reason delights in the Law of God; therefore, the Law of God agrees with reason. And that is what he says: I delight in the law of God in my inner man, i.e., according to reason or mind, which is called the inner man, not that the soul is fashioned according to man’s figure, as Tertullian supposed, or that it alone is man, as Plato said that man is a soul using a body; but because that which is more important in man is called man, as was explained above [n. 570]. But in man that which is more important, so far as appearance is concerned, is outward, namely, the body so fashioned that it is called the outward man. But so far as 291 the truth is concerned, the more important is within, namely, the mind or reason, which is here called the inner man: "How sweet to my taste are your words" (Ps 119:103). 586. Then (v.23) he presents the other conclusion which corresponds to his previous statement that "I am carnal." The conclusion is this: But I see another law in my members, which is the inclination to sin and can be called a law for two reasons: first, by reason of the effect. For just as the Law induces to do good, so the inclination induces to sin. Secondly, by reason of their cause. 587. But since the inclination to sin is a punishment for sin, it has a twofold cause: one cause is sin, which has taken mastery over the sinner and imposed its law on him, i.e., the inclination to sin, just as a master imposes his law on a vanquished slave. The other cause of the inclination is God, who imposed this punishment on sinful man, i.e., that his lower powers do not obey reason. And in this sense the very disobedience of the lower powers constitutes the inclination to sin and is called a law, inasmuch it was introduced by the law of divine justice, just as the sentence of a just judge has the force of law: "And this has been done from that day forward, and was since made a statute, and an ordinance, and as a law in Israel" (1 Sam 30:25). 588. This law is found in the sensitive appetite as in its source, but it is found spread over all the members which play a role for concupiscent desire in sinning: "Just as you once yielded your members to serve impurity and every iniquity, so now yield your members to serve righteousness" (Rom 6:19). Hence he says "in my members." Now this law has two effects in man: first, it resists reason; hence he says: at war with the law of my mind, i.e., with the Law of Moses, which is called the law of the mind, 292 inasmuch as it agrees with the mind or with the natural law, which is called the law of the mind, because it is present by nature in the mind: "They show that what the law requires is written in their hearts" (Rom 2:15). Concerning this resistance it says in Gal (5:17): "The desires of the flesh are against the spirit." The second effect is that it makes man a slave; hence he says: and making me captive, or leading me captive, according to another text, to the law of sin which is in my members, i.e., in myself, following the Hebrew custom of speech whereby a noun is used in place of a pronoun. But the law of sin makes man captive in two ways: the sinner it makes captive through consent and action; the man in grace through the movement of concupiscent desire. Psalm 126 says of this captivity: "When the Lord led back the captives of Zion." 589. Then (v.24) he deals with liberation from the law of sin and does three things: first, he poses a question; secondly, he answers [v. 25; n. 592]; thirdly, he draws a conclusion [v. 25b; n. 594]. In regard to the first he does two things. 590. First, he declares his misery when he says: Wretched man that I am. This wretchedness is the result of sin which dwells in man: either in the flesh only, as in the just man, or also in the mind, as in the sinner: "Sin makes nations miserable" (Pr 14:34). 591. Secondly he asks: Who will deliver me from this body of death? This question seems to express the desire voiced in Ps 142 (v.7): "Bring my soul out of prison." 293 Yet it should be remembered that in man’s body one can consider the very nature of the body which agrees with the soul. It is not from this that he desires to be separated: "We do not wish to be unclothed, but to be clothed over" (2 Cor 5:4). One can also consider the corruptible body which is a load upon the soul, as it says in Wis (9:15). Hence it is significant that he says: from this body of death. 592. Then (v.25) he responds to the question. For man by his own power cannot be freed from the corruption of the body, nor even of the soul, although he agrees with reason against sin, but only by the grace of Christ, as it says in Jn (8:36): "So if the Son makes you free, you are free indeed." Therefore, he says: the grace of God will free me and it is given through Jesus Christ: "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (Jn 1:17). 593. This grace liberates from the body of this death in two ways: in one way so that the corruption of the body does not dominate the soul and draw it to sinning; in another way so that the corruption of the body is taken away entirely. In regard to the first, it is fitting for the sinner to say: Grace has freed me from the body of this death, i.e., from sin into which the soul is led by the corruption of the body. But the just man has already been freed to that point; hence, it befits him to say in regard to the second: The grace of God has freed me from the body of this death, so that in my body is neither the corruption of sin nor of death: which will happen at the resurrection. 594. Then (v.25b) he draws the conclusion which follows in different ways from the foregoing words, depending on how they are explained. For if they are explained in the person of a sinner, the conclusion is inferred in the following manner: It has been said that the grace of God has freed me from the body of 294 this death, so that I am not led into sin by it; therefore, when I have been freed, I serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin, which law remains in my flesh in regard to the inclination to sin, in virtue of which the desires of the flesh are against the spirit. But if the words are understood as spoken in the person of a just man, the conclusion is inferred in this manner: The grace of God through Jesus Christ has freed me from the body of this death, so that the corruption of sin and death is not in me. So then I, one and the same before being freed, serve the law of God with my mind by consenting to it; but with my flesh I serve the law of sin, inasmuch as my flesh is moved to concupiscent desire according to the law of the flesh.

After showing that we are freed from sin [n. 406] and the Law [n. 518] through Christ’s grace, the Apostle now shows that through the same grace we are freed from damnation. First he shows that through the grace of Christ we are freed from the damnation of guilt; secondly, from the damnation of punishment, there [v.10; n. 628] at And if Christ. In regard to the first he does two things. 296 First, he sets forth his intention; secondly, he proves his proposition, there [v.2; n. 600] at For the law of the spirit of life. 596. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he mentions the benefit which grace confers, drawing his conclusion from the foregoing in this way: The grace of God through Jesus Christ has freed me from the body of this death and in this consists our redemption. Therefore, now that we have been freed through grace, there is no damnation left, because the damnation has been removed both as regards guilt and as regards punishment: "It is he himself who grants peace, who is there who will condemn?" (Job 34:29). Secondly, he shows to whom this benefit is granted and he mentions two conditions required for it. He sets out the first when he says for those who are in Christ Jesus, i.e., incorporated in him by faith and love and the sacrament of faith: "As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal 3:27); "As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me" (Jn 15:4). But to those who are not in Christ damnation is due. Hence John (15:6) continues: "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered together, thrown into the fire and burned." Then he sets out the second condition, saying who do not walk according to the flesh, i.e., do not follow the desires [concupiscentia] of the flesh: "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not make war according to the flesh" (2 Cor 10:3). 597. From these words some want to infer that in unbelievers who are not in Christ Jesus the first movements [of desire] are mortal sins, even though they do not 297 consent to them, and that this is what is meant by walking according to the flesh. For regarding those who do not walk according to the flesh, if the fact that they serve the law of sin in their flesh through the first movements of desire is not damnable for them precisely because they are in Christ Jesus, it follows from the contrary sense, that for those who are not in Christ Jesus [the first movements of desire] are damnable. They also give this argument. They say that an act is necessarily damnable which proceeds from the habit of a damnable sin. But original sin is damnable, because it deprives man of eternal life, and its habit remains in the unbeliever whose original sin has not been remitted. Therefore, any movements of desire that arise from original sin are a mortal sin in their case. 598. First, it is necessary to show that this position is false. For the reason why the first movement [of desire] is not a mortal sin is because it does not reach reason, in which the notion of sin is completed. But this reason is present even in unbelievers; therefore, the first stirrings in unbelievers cannot be mortal sins. Furthermore, in the same type of sin a believer sins more gravely than an unbeliever: "How much more punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God and profaned the blood of the covenant?" (Heb 10:29). Therefore, if the first stirrings in unbelievers were mortal sins, all the more so in believers. 599. Secondly, it is necessary to respond to their reasons. For, first of all, they cannot derive this position from the words of the Apostle. For the Apostle does not say that the only thing not damnable for those who are in Christ Jesus is that in the flesh they serve the law of sin according to the movements of desire, but that there is no 298 condemnation at all for them. But for those who are not in Christ Jesus, this very fact is damnable. Furthermore, if this passage refers to first movements [of desire] experienced by those not in Christ Jesus, such stirrings are damnable according to the condemnation due to original sin, which still remains in them and from which those in Christ Jesus have been freed. But this does not mean that a new condemnation is added on account of such stirrings. Neither does their second argument conclude of necessity to what they intend. For it is not true that any act proceeding from the habit of a damnable sin is itself damnable, but only when it is a act perfected by the consent of reason. For if the habit of adultery is present in a person, the stirring of adulterous desire, which is an imperfect act, is not a mortal sin for that person, but only the perfect motion that exists by the consent of reason. Furthermore, an act proceeding from such a habit does not have a new reason for condemnation added to the reason for condemning the habit. Accordingly, the first stirrings in unbelievers, inasmuch as they proceed from original sin, do not receive the condemnation due to mortal sin but only to original sin. 600. Then when he says For the law, he proves what he had said. And first, in regard to the first condition that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus; secondly, in regard to the second condition, i.e., for those who do not walk according to the flesh, there [v. 4b; n. 612] at who walk not according to the flesh. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he presents a proof; 299 secondly, he manifests his presupposition through its cause, there [v. 3; n. 606] at For what was impossible for the Law. 601. In regard to the first he presents this argument. The law of the spirit frees man from sin and death; but the law of the spirit is in Christ Jesus. Therefore, by the fact that one is in Christ Jesus, he is freed from sin and death. That the law of the spirit frees from sin and death he proves thus: The law of the spirit is the cause of life; but sin and death, which is an effect of sin, are excluded by life, for sin itself is spiritual death for the soul. Therefore, the law of the spirit frees man from sin and death. But damnation is only through sin and death. Therefore, nothing of damnation exists in those who are in Christ Jesus. This, therefore, is what he says: The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death. 602. In one way this law can be the Holy Spirit, so that the law of the spirit means the law which is the Spirit. For a law is given in order that through it men may be led to the good; hence, the Philosopher says in Ethics II that the intention of the lawgiver is to make citizens good. Human law does this by merely indicating what ought to be done; but the Holy Spirit dwelling in the mind not only teaches what is to be done by instructing the intellect but also inclines the affection to act aright: "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things," as to the first, "and suggest to you all things," as to the second, "all that I have said to you" (Jn 14:26). 300 24 This citation from 1John does not precisely match the Vulgate or modern editions. 603. In another way the law of the spirit can be the proper effect of the Holy Spirit, namely, faith working through love. This faith teaches what is to be done: "His anointing teaches you about everything" (1 Jn 2:27) and inclines the affections to act: "The love of Christ controls us" (2 Cor 5:l4). And this law of the spirit is called the new law, which is the Holy Spirit himself or something which the Holy Spirit produces in our hearts: "I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts" (Jer 31:33). But when he spoke about the old law [n. 557] he said only that it is spiritual, i.e., given by the Holy Spirit. 604. And so, considering what has been said, we find four laws mentioned by the Apostle: first, the law of Moses, about which he says: "I delight in the law of God in my inmost self"; secondly, the law of inclination to sin [fomes]: "I see in my members another law"; thirdly, the natural law in one sense of the term, concerning which he adds, "at war with the law of my mind"; fourthly, the new law, when he says: the law of the spirit. 605. He adds, of life, because just as the natural spirit makes the life of nature, so the divine Spirit makes the life of grace: "It is the Spirit that gives life" (Jn 4:63); "The Spirit of life was in the wheels" (Ezek 1:2). He adds, in Christ Jesus, because this Spirit is given only to those who are in Christ Jesus. For just as the natural spirit does not reach a member not connected to the head, so the Holy Spirit does not reach a man not joined to Christ, the head: "By this we know that he abides in us, because he gave us of his own Spirit" (1 Jn 3:24);24 "The Holy Spirit whom God has given those who obey him" (Ac 5:32). 301 This law, I say, since it is in Christ Jesus, has set me free: "If the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (Jn 8:38). Free from the law of sin, i.e., from the law of evil inclinations [fomes] which inclines to sin. Or from the law of sin, i.e., from consenting to and committing sin, which holds man bound after the manner of a law. For sin is remitted by the Holy Spirit: "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven" (Jn 20:22). And of death, not only spiritual but also bodily, as will be proved below. And this because he is the Spirit of life: "Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain that they may live" (Ezek 37:9). 606. Then when he says For what was impossible, he manifests what he had said, namely, that the law of life, which is in Christ Jesus, frees man from sin; for it will be proved later that it frees from death. He proves this by an argument taken from the resurrection of Christ. In regard to this he mentions three things. First, the need for the Incarnation [n. 611]; secondly, the mode of the Incarnation, there [v. 3b; n. 607] at God, sending his own son; thirdly, the fruit of the Incarnation, there [v. 3c; n. 609] at and of sin. To make the explanation easier we shall take the second point first, then the third, and finally the first, in this way. 607. I am correct in saying that the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus frees from sin, for God, the Father, sending his own Son, i.e., his own consubstantial and co-eternal Son: "He said to me, ‘You are my son; this day I have begotten you’" (Ps 2:7) -- sending, i.e., not creating or making him but as already existing he sent him: "Afterward 302 25 The Hebrew text says only "I have walked," but the Vulgate rendering, ingressus sum, carries the note of entrance. he sent his son to them" (Mt 21:37). He sent him not to exist where he previously did not exist, because as it says in John 1(:10), "He was in the world," but to exist in a way in which he did not exist in the world, i.e., visibly by means of the flesh he assumed; hence in the same passage (John 1:14): "And the Word became flesh.....and we have beheld his glory"; "Afterwards he appeared upon earth" (Bar 3:37). 608. Therefore he adds in the likeness of sinful flesh. This should not be taken to mean that he did not have true flesh but only the likeness of flesh, as though it were imaginary, as the Manicheans say, since the Lord himself says: "A spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have" (Lk 24:40). Hence, he does not merely say in the likeness of flesh, but in the likeness of sinful flesh. For he did not have sinful flesh, i.e., conceived with sin, because his flesh was conceived by the Holy Spirit who takes away sin: "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 1:20). Hence Ps 25(:11) says, "I have entered in my innocence,"25 namely entered into the world. But he had the likeness of sinful flesh, i.e., he was like sinful flesh in the fact that he was able to suffer. For man’s flesh before sin was not subject to suffering: "Therefore, he had to be made like his brethren, so that he might be made merciful" (Heb 2:17). 609. Then he mentions the two effects of the Incarnation, the first of which is removal of sin, which he sets out when he says and of sin has condemned sin in the flesh. This can be read: of sin [de peccato], i.e., for the sin [pro peccato] committed against the flesh of Christ by his executioners at the devil’s instigation, he condemned, i.e., destroyed, sin; because since the devil conspired to deliver over to death an innocent 303 person over whom he had no rights, it was just that he lose his power. Therefore, by his passion and death he is said to have destroyed sin: "He disarmed," namely, on the cross, "the principalities and powers, triumphing over them in him" (Col 2:15). But it is better to say that he condemned sin in the flesh, i.e., weakened the inclination to sin [fomes] in our flesh, of sin, i.e., through the power of his passion and death, which is called sin on account of its likeness to sin or because through it he was made a victim for sin. For in sacred scripture such a victim is called sin: "They feed on the sin of my people" (Hos 4:8). Hence it says in 2 Cor 5(:21), "Him who did not know sin for our sake God made to be sin," i.e., a victim for sin. And so by satisfying for our sin, he took away the sins of the world: "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (Jn 1:29). 610. He sets out the second effect when he says that the justification of the law, i.e., the justice which the Law promised and which some hoped to obtain from the Law, might be fulfilled, i.e., made perfect, in us, who exist in Christ Jesus: "The Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained the righteousness which is through faith" (Rom 9:30); and in 2 Cor 5(:21) after saying, "Him who did not know sin for our sake he made to be sin," he adds, "so that in him we might be made the justice of God." 611. The only way this could be done was through Christ. Therefore, he prefaced this passage by saying that he was able to condemn sin in the flesh and to enact justification, which the law could not do: "For the law made nothing perfect" (Heb 7:19). Now the reason why the Law could not do this was not due to a shortcoming in the Law, but because it was weakened by the flesh, i.e., because of a weakness of the flesh, a weakness which was in man due to the corruption of inclination [fomes], with the 304 result that in spite of the Law man was overcome by sinful desire [concupiscentia]: "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Mt 26:41). "I am speaking in natural terms on account of the weakness of the flesh" (Rom 6:19). From this it is clear that it was necessary for Christ to be incarnated; for it says in Gal 2(:21), "If justification were through the law, then Christ died gratis," i.e., for no reason. Therefore it was necessary that Christ be incarnated, because the Law could not justify. 612. Then when he says who walk not according to the flesh, he proves his point in regard to the second condition and shows that in order to avoid condemnation it is necessary that one not walk according to the flesh. In regard to this he does three things. First, he states his proposition; secondly, he proves it, there [v. 5; n. 614] at For those who are according to the flesh; thirdly, he clarifies something he had presupposed in the proof, there [v. 7; n. 619] at Because the wisdom of the flesh. 613. First, therefore, he says: We have stated that the justification of the Law is fulfilled in us who not only are in Christ Jesus but also walk not according to the flesh but according to the spirit, i.e., who do not follow the desires [concupiscentias] of the flesh but the prompting of the Spirit: "walk by the Spirit" (Gal 5:16). 614. Then when he says For those who [walk] according to the flesh, he proves what he had said. 305 And he brings in two syllogisms. One is on the side of the flesh, and runs like this: All who follow the prudence of the flesh are brought to death; but those who walk according to the flesh follow the prudence of the flesh. Therefore, all who walk according to the flesh are brought to death. He sets out the other syllogism on the side of the spirit, and it runs like this: All who follow the prudence of the spirit obtain life and peace; but those who walk according to the spirit follow the prudence of the spirit. Therefore, all who walk according to the spirit obtain life and peace. And so it is clear that those who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the spirit, are freed from the law of sin and death. 615. First, therefore, he states the minor of the first syllogism, saying: For those who are according to the flesh, that is, who obey the flesh as though subject to it, "such men serve not the Lord but their own belly" (Rom 16:18). Savor [sapiunt] the things of the flesh—as if to say: they have the wisdom [sapientia] of the flesh. For to savor the things of the flesh is to approve and judge as good that which is according to the flesh: "You savor not the things of God but of men" (Mt 16:23); "They are skilled in doing evil" (Jer 4:22). 616. Secondly, he states the minor of the second syllogism, saying: but those who are according to the spirit, i.e., who follow the Holy Spirit and are led according to him, in accord with Gal 5(:18), "If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law," sense the things of the spirit, i.e., have a right sense in spiritual matters: "Think [sentite] concerning the Lord with uprightness" (Wis 1:1). 306 The reason for these facts, as the Philosopher says in Ethics III, is that as a person is, so the end seems to him. Hence a person whose soul is invested with a good habit or a bad habit, judges about his goal according to the demands of that habit. 617. Thirdly, he states the major of the first syllogism, saying: for the prudence of the flesh is death. To understand this it should be noted that prudence is right reason concerning the doable, as the Philosopher says in Ethics IV. But right reason concerning things to be done presupposes one thing and does three things. For it presupposes a goal which functions as a principle in human actions, just as the speculative reason presupposes principles from which it proceeds to demonstration. But right reason concerning the doable does three things: first, it plans correctly; secondly, judges correctly about plans; thirdly, it correctly and firmly commands what was planned. Hence, for prudence of the flesh it is required that a person presuppose as his goal a pleasure of the flesh and that he plan and judge and command what leads to this end. That is why such prudence is death, i.e., the cause of eternal death: "He who sows in the flesh will from the flesh reap corruption" (Gal 6:8). 618. Fourthly, he states the major of the second syllogism, saying: but the prudence of the spirit is life and peace. Now according to what has just been said, there is prudence of the spirit when someone, presupposing a spiritual good as the goal, plans and judges and commands the things which are suitably ordered to that goal. Hence such prudence is life, i.e., the cause of grace and glory: "He who sows in the spirit will from the spirit reap eternal life" (Gal 6:8); and it is peace, i.e., the cause of peace, for peace is caused by the Holy Spirit: 307 "Great peace have those who love thy law" (Ps 119:165); "The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace...." (Gal 5:22).

In the preceding section [n. 612] the Apostle had presupposed that the prudence of the flesh is death, and here he intends to prove this. And first, he proves it; 308 secondly, he shows that the believers to whom he writes are immune to such prudence, there [v. 9; n. 625] at But you are not in the flesh. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he proves his statement about prudence of the flesh in the abstract; secondly, he applies what he had said about prudence of the flesh to those who follow prudence of the flesh, there [v. 8; n. 624] at And those who are in the flesh. In regard to the first he sets out three middle [terms], each of which proves the one before it. 620. Using the first middle, he proves something stated earlier [n. 617], namely, that the prudence of the flesh is death, in the following way: He that is hostile to God incurs death: "But as for those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me" (Lk 19:27); and this because God is our life: "For he is your life" (Dt 30:20). And so, he that is hostile to God incurs death; but the wisdom of the flesh is hostile to God. Therefore, the prudence of the flesh is the cause of death. 621. Here it should be noted that what he earlier called the prudence of the flesh he now calls the wisdom of the flesh, not because prudence and wisdom are absolutely the same but because wisdom in human matters is prudence: "Wisdom is prudence to a man" (Pr 10:23). To understand this it should be recognized that one who knows the highest cause on which all things depend is called wise in the strict sense. But the supreme cause absolutely of all things is God. Therefore, wisdom in the strict sense is knowledge of divine things, as Augustine says in The Trinity: "Yet among the mature we do impart 309 wisdom" (1 Cor 2:6). Now one who knows the highest cause in a particular genus is said to be wise in that genus. For example, in the art of building it is not the man who knows how to cut wood and stones but the one who conceives and plans the house who is called wise; for the entire building depends on him. Hence the Apostle says in 1 Cor 3(:10), "As a wise architect I have laid the foundation." Thus, therefore, one is called wise in human matters who has a good understanding about the goal of human life and regulates the whole of human life accordingly, which pertains to prudence. And thus the wisdom of the flesh is the same as the prudence of the flesh, about which James 3(:15) says that it is "not such as comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, devilish." This wisdom is said to be hostile to God, because it inclines a man against God’s law: "Running stubbornly against him with a thick-bossed shield" (Jb 15:26). 622. To prove this he uses another middle, adding: it is not subject to the law of God. For a person cannot hate God according to what he is in himself, since God is the very essence of goodness; but a sinner hates God inasmuch as some precept of the divine law is contrary to his will, as an adulterer hates God inasmuch as he hates the precept: "You shall not commit adultery." And so all sinners, inasmuch as they are unwilling to submit to God’s law, are hostile to God: "Should you love those who hate the Lord?" (2 Chr 19:2). Hence, he has satisfactorily proved that the prudence or wisdom of the flesh is hostile to God, because it is not subject to the law of God. 310 623. He proves this [argument] through a third middle [term], saying: nor can it be. For the prudence of the flesh is a form of vice, as is clear from what has been said. But although a person subject to a vice can be freed from it and submit to God, as it says above (6:18): "Having been set free from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness," the vice itself cannot submit to God, since the vice itself is a turning away from God or from God’s law; just as something black can become white, but the blackness itself can never become white: "An evil tree cannot bear good fruit" (Mt 7:18). From this it is clear that the Manicheans were not correct in using these words to support their error, for they wished by these words to show that the nature of the flesh is not from God, since it is hostile to God and cannot be subject to God. For the Apostle is not dealing here with the flesh, which is a creature of God, but of the prudence of the flesh, which is a human vice, as has been said. 624. Then when he says And those who are in the flesh, he applies what he had said about prudence of the flesh to men whom the prudence of the flesh rules, saying: Those who are in the flesh, i.e., who follow the desires of the flesh by the prudence of the flesh, so long as they are this way cannot please God, because, as it says in Ps 147(:11), "The Lord takes pleasure in those who fear him." Hence those who do not submit to him cannot please him, so long as they remain such. But they can cease to be in the flesh according to the manner described and then they will be pleasing to God. 625. Then when he says But you, he shows that those to whom he is speaking are immune from the prudence of the flesh. In regard to this he does three things. First, he 311 describes the state of believers, saying: But you are not in the flesh. This makes it clear that he is not speaking about the nature of the flesh. For the Romans, to whom he was speaking, were mortal men clothed in flesh. Rather, he is taking flesh for the vices of the flesh, as in 1 Cor 15(:50), "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." Hence he says You are not in the flesh, i.e., you are not in the vices of the flesh as though living according to the flesh: "Living in the flesh, we do not wage war according to the flesh" (2 Cor 10:3). But in the spirit, i.e., you follow the spirit: "I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day" (Rev 1:10). 626. Secondly, he appends a condition, saying: if the Spirit of God dwells in you, namely, through love: "You are God’s temple, and God’s Spirit dwells in you" (1 Cor 3:16). He appends this condition because, even though they received the Holy Spirit in baptism, they might through a later sin have lost the Holy Spirit. Concerning this it says in Wis 1(:5) that [the Holy Spirit] "will not abide when iniquity comes in." 627. Thirdly, he shows that this condition should be found in them, saying: Now if anyone does not have not the Spirit of Christ, he is not his. For just as that is not a bodily member which is not enlivened by the body’s spirit, so he is not Christ’s member who does not have the Spirit of Christ: "By this we know that we abide in him, because he has given us of his own Spirit" (1 Jn 4:13). It should be noted that the Spirit of Christ and of God the Father is the same; but he is called the Spirit of God the Father inasmuch as he proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit of Christ inasmuch as he proceeds from the Son. Hence the Lord always ascribes him to both, as in John 14(:26), "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father 312 will send in my name" and again: "When the Counselor comes whom I will send to you from the Father" (Jn 15:26). 628. Then [n. 595] when he says But if Christ, he shows that through the grace of Christ or through the Holy Spirit we are freed from punishment. And first, he shows that we are freed by the Holy Spirit in the future from bodily death; secondly that in the meantime the Holy Spirit helps us against the infirmities of the present life, there [v. 26; n. 686] at Similarly the Spirit; Concerning the first he does three things. First, he sets out what he intends; Secondly, he draws a corollary from this, there [n. 631] at Therefore, brethren; Thirdly, he proves his proposition, there [v. 14; n. 634] at For all who are led. In regard to the first it should be recalled that above he mentioned the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ, although it is one and the same Spirit. First, therefore, he shows what we obtain from the Spirit inasmuch as he is the Spirit of Christ; secondly, inasmuch as he is the Spirit of God the Father, there [v. 11; n. 630] at And if the Spirit of him. 629. He says, therefore: We have said that if one does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him; hence, since you belong to Christ, you have the Spirit of Christ and Christ himself dwelling in you through faith: "That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith" (Eph 3:17). But if Christ is thus in you, you should be conformed to Christ. 313 Now Christ so came into the world that as far as the Spirit was concerned, he was full of grace and truth, but as for the body, he had the likeness of sinful flesh, as was stated above. Hence this should also be in you, that your body indeed, because of sin which still remains in your flesh is dead, i.e., subject to the necessity death: "In whatsoever day you eat it, you shall die the death" (Gen 2:17), i.e., subject to the necessity of death; but the spirit lives, being recalled from sin: "Be renewed in the spirit of your minds" (Eph 4:23); it lives with the life of grace because of justification, through which it is justified by God: "The life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of sod" (Gal 2:20); "The just man lives by faith" (Rom 1:17). 630. Then when he says And if the Spirit, he shows what we obtain from the Holy Spirit inasmuch as he is the Spirit of the Father, saying: If the Spirit of him, namely, of God the Father, who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you: "But do thou, O Lord, be gracious to me and raise me up" (Ps 41:10); "Him God raised from the dead" (Acts 3:14). Although Christ rose by his own power, because the power of the Father and of the Son is the same, it follows that what God the Father did in Christ, he can also do in us. And this is what he says: He who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will enliven your mortal bodies. He does not say "dead" but "mortal," because in the resurrection there will be taken away from our bodies not only that they are dead, i.e., necessarily having to die, but also that they are mortal, i.e., capable of dying, as was Adam’s body before sin. For after the resurrection our bodies will be wholly immortal: "Thy dead shall live, their bodies shall rise" (Is 26:19); "After two days he will revive us" (Hos 6:2). 314 And this because of his indwelling Spirit in you, i.e., in virtue of the Spirit dwelling in you: "Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live" (Ezek 37:5). And this is because of his indwelling Spirit, i.e., on account of the dignity our bodies have from being receptacles of the Holy Spirit: "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit?" (1 Cor 6:19). Those indeed whose bodies were not temples of the Spirit will also rise, but their bodies will be able to suffer. 631. Then when he says Therefore, brethren, he draws a corollary from the foregoing. And first, he sets out a conclusion; secondly, he gives the reason, there [v. 13; n. 633] at For if. First, therefore, he says: We have said that many benefits flow to us through the Holy Spirit and that from the prudence of the flesh follows death; therefore, we are debtors, not to the flesh, but to the Holy Spirit on account of the benefits received from him, to live according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh: "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit" (Gal 5:25). 633. Then when he says For if you live according to the flesh, he gives the reason for the above conclusion. And first, as to the flesh, saying: If you live according to the flesh, namely, by following the desires of the flesh, you will die, namely, the death of guilt in the present and the death of damnation in the future: "She who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives" (1 Tim 5:6). 315 Secondly, he gives a reason as to the spirit, saying: but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, i.e., deeds which flow from the desires of the flesh, you will live, namely, the life of grace in the present and the life of glory in the future: "Put to death what is earthly in you" (Col 3:5); "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified their flesh with its passions and desires" (Gal 5:24).

After stating that through the Holy Spirit will be given to us the life of glory, which will exclude all mortality from our bodies [n. 628], the Apostle now proves this: first, he shows that this glorious life is given by the Holy Spirit; secondly, why it is deferred [v. 17b; n. 650]. In regard to the first he presents this argument: All who are sons of God obtain the inheritance of a glorious life; but those who are ruled by the Holy Spirit are sons of God. Therefore, all who are ruled by the Holy Spirit obtain the inheritance of a glorious life. First, therefore, he posits the minor of this proof; 316 secondly, the major [v. 17; n. 646]. In regard to the first he does two things; first, he states his proposition; secondly, he proves it [n. 637]. 635. In regard to the first there two things to consider. First, how some are led by the Spirit of God. This can be understood in the following way: All who are led by the Spirit of God, i.e., ruled as by a leader and director, which the Spirit does in us, inasmuch as he enlightens us inwardly about what we ought to do: "Let thy good spirit lead me" (Ps 143:10). But because one who is led does not act on his own, whereas the spiritual man is not only instructed by the Holy Spirit regarding what he ought to do, but his heart is also moved by the Holy Spirit, it is necessary to get a better understanding of what is meant by all who are led by the Spirit of God. For those are led who are moved by a higher instinct. Hence we say that animals do not act but are led, because they are moved to perform their actions by nature and not from their own impulse. Similarly, the spiritual man is inclined to do something not as though by a movement of his own will chiefly, but by the prompting of the Holy Spirit, as it says in Is (59:19): "He will come like a rushing stream, which the wind of the Lord drives," and in Lk (4:1): "Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness." However, this does not mean that spiritual men do not act through will and free choice, because the Holy Spirit causes the very movement of the will and of free choice in them, as it says in Phil (2:13): "God is at work in you both to will and to work." 317 636. Secondly, we must consider how those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. This is clarified by a likeness to natural children, who are produced by the natural seed coming from the father. But the spiritual seed proceeding from the Father is the Holy Spirit. Therefore, through this seed some men are born as sons of God: "No one born of God commits sin, because the seed of God abides in him" (1 Jn 3:9). 637. Then (v.15) he proves that men who receive the Holy Spirit are sons of God; and this in three ways. First, by distinguishing the gifts of the Holy Spirit; secondly, by our own testimony [v. 15b; n. 644]; thirdly, by the testimony of the Spirit [v. 16; n. 645]. 638. In regard to the first it should be noted that the Holy Spirit produces two effects in us: one is fear: "His delight shall be in the fear of the Lord" (Is 11:3); the other is love: "God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom 5:5). But fear makes slaves; love does not. To realize this it is necessary to consider that fear bears on two things, namely, the evil from which someone flees through fear, and whatever seems to be the source of that evil. For a person is said to fear being killed and the king who has the power to kill. But sometime it happens that the evil from which someone recoils is contrary to a bodily or temporal good which a person sometimes loves inordinately and recoils from having it injured or destroyed by a mere man. This is human or worldly fear and is not from the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Lord forbids such fear: "Do not fear those who kill the body" (Mt 10:28). 318 639. There is a second type of fear which recoils from an evil contrary to created nature, namely, the evil of being punished, and shrinks from having this evil inflicted by a spiritual cause, namely, by God. Such fear is praiseworthy at least in one respect, namely, that it fears God: "Oh that they had such a mind as this always, to fear me and to keep all my commandments" (Dt 5:29). In this respect it is from the Holy Spirit. But insofar as such fear does not recoil from an evil opposed to ones spiritual good, namely, sin, but only punishment, it is not praiseworthy. It has this shortcoming not from the Holy Spirit but from man’s guilt; just as deformed faith is from the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as it is faith but not its deformity. Hence, even if a person does something good under the influence of such fear, he does not act well, because he does not act spontaneously but compelled by fear of punishment -- and this is characteristic of slaves. Therefore, this fear is properly called servile, because it makes a man act as a slave does. 640. There is a third type of fear which recoils from evil opposed to a spiritual good, namely, from sin or separation from God, which a person fears to incur from the just vengeance of God. Thus it bears on spiritual goods, but with an eye on punishment. This is called initial fear, because it is usually found in men at the beginning of their conversion. For it fears punishment due to past sins and it fears separation from God through sin because of grace infused with charity. This is the fear mentioned in Ps 111 (v.10): "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." 641. The fourth type of fear has its eye entirely on spiritual things, because it fears nothing except separation from God. This is holy fear which endures forever," as it says in Ps 19 (v.9). But just as initial fear is caused by imperfect love, so this fear is caused by 319 perfect love: "Perfect love casts out fear" (1 Jn 4:18). For this reason initial fear and chaste fear are not distinguished against charity’s love which is the cause of both, but the fear of punishment is; because just as this fear produces slavery, so charity’s love produces the freedom of sons. For it makes a man act voluntarily for the honor of God -- which is characteristic of sons. 642. Now the Old Law was given in fear which was signified by the thunder and things of that sort which occurred when it was given, as it says in Ex 19 and in Heb (12:21): "So terrifying was the sight that Moses said, ‘I tremble with fear." So the Old Law, which induced men to obey God’s commandments by inflicting punishments, was given in a spirit of slavery; hence it says in Gal (4:24): "One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery." 643. Therefore, he says here: It was correct to say that "all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God." For in the New Law you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, namely, of punishments; but you have received the Spirit of sonship, by which we are adopted as children of God: "That we might receive adoption as sons" (Gal 4:5). This does not mean that there is one spirit and another spirit, but that it is the same spirit, who produces servile fear in some and love in others. 644. Then (v.15b) he manifests the same thing by our confession. For we confess that we have God as our Father, when we follow the -Lord’s instruction to pray: "Our Father, who art in heaven" (Mt 6:9). And since it is suitable not only for the Jews but also for Gentiles to say this, he uses two words to signify "Father," namely, "Abba," which is Hebrew, and "Pater," which can be Latin or Greek. Even the 320 Lord himself says: Father, all things are possible to you" (Mk 14:36); "You will call me, My Father" (Jer 3:19). We say this not so such with the sound of our voice as with the intention of our heart, an intention so strong that it is called a cry, as with Moses to whom it was said: "Why do you cry to me? (Ex 14:15), namely, with the intention in your heart. But the great strength of this intention comes from the feeling of filial fear which he produces in us. Therefore, he says: In which, namely, the Holy Spirit, we cry: Abba, Father. Hence it says in Is (6:3) that the seraphim, burning with the fire of the Holy Spirit, "cried one to another: Holy, holy, holy...". 645. Then (v.16) he manifests the same thing through the testimony of the Holy Spirit, to show that we are not deceived in our confession; hence he says: The reason I say that "we cry, Abba, Father" in the Holy Spirit is that the Spirit himself is bearing witness to our spirit that we are children of God. He bears this testimony not with external words that reach men’s ears, as the Father gave testimony to his own Son in Mt (3:17), but through the effect of filial love he produces in us. Therefore, he says that he bears testimony not to our ears but to our spirit. 646. Then (v.17) he posits the major. First he shows that to children is owed the inheritance, saying: If some are children, namely, through the Spirit, it follows that they are heirs, because the inheritance is owed not only to the natural child but also to the adopted: "We have been born anew to an inheritance which is imperishable" (1 Pt 1:4); "Yea, I have a goodly heritage" (Ps 16:6). 647. Secondly, he shows what that inheritance is. 321 First he describes it in relation to God the Father, saying: heirs of God. Now one’s heir is a person who receives or gets his chief goods and not some small gifts, as we read in Gen (25:15) that Abraham gave all his possessions to Isaac, but to the sons of his concubines he bestowed gifts. Now the chief good by which God is rich is himself. For he is rich of himself and not in virtue of something else, because he does not need the goods others have, as it says in Ps 15 (v.2): "You do not need my goods." Hence the children of God obtain God himself as their inheritance: "The Lord is my chosen portion" (Ps 16:5); "The Lord is my portion, says my soul" (Lam 3:24). 648. But since the child does not obtain the inheritance unless the Father dies, it seems that man cannot be an heir of God, who never dies. The answer is that this applies to temporal goods which cannot be possessed by many at the same time; hence one must die, if another is to inherit. But spiritual goods can be held by many at the same time; therefore, it is not necessary that the Father die in order that the children become heirs. Yet it can be said that God dies for us inasmuch as he is in us by faith. 649. Secondly, he describes this inheritance on the part of Christ, saying: fellow heirs with Christ, because just as he is the chief Son with whom we share sonship, so he is the chief heir, to whom we are united in the inheritance: "This is the heir" (Mt 21:38). 650. Then (v.17b) he shows why this glorious life is delayed: first, he gives the reason concerned with suffering; secondly, the preeminence of glory over suffering [v. 18; n. 652]. 651. In regard to the first it must be recalled that Christ, the principal heir, attained to the inheritance, of glory through suffering: "Was it not necessary that the 322 Christ should suffer these things and enter his glory?" (Lk 24:26). But we must not expect to obtain the inheritance by an easier way. Therefore, it is necessary that we attain to that inheritance through suffering: "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God" (Ac 14:22). For we do not receive an immortal and unsuffering body at once, in order that we might suffer along with Christ. Hence he says, provided we suffer with him, i.e., along with Christ endure the tribulations of this world patiently, in order that we may also be glorified with Christ: "If we have died with him, we shall also reign with him" (2 Tim 2:11).

After proving that we are freed through the grace of Christ [n. 650], the Apostle now assigns the cause of the postponement of immortal life, which is the 323 inheritance of the children of God, namely, that it is necessary for us to suffer with Christ in order to reach the fellowship of his glory. But because someone might say that such an inheritance is burdensome, since it cannot be obtained except by enduring suffering, he shows the superiority of future glory over the sufferings of the present life: first he states his proposition; secondly, he proves it [v.19; n. 656]. 653. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that it is necessary for us to suffer in order to be glorified, and that we should not reject sufferings, if we would have glory. For I, who have experienced both, consider: "A man of much experience will speak with understanding" (Si 34:9). He endured many sufferings: "with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings" (2 Cor 11:23) and was a beholder of future glory: "Caught up into Paradise, he heard things that cannot be told" (2 Cor 12:3). This I consider, namely, that the sufferings of this time are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 654. Herein he mentions four things to show the excellence of that glory. First, he designates its eternity when he says: the glory that is to be, namely, after the present time; but there is nothing after the present time except eternity. Hence that glory surpasses the sufferings of this time as the eternal surpasses the temporal: "For this slight momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison" (2 Cor 4:17). Secondly, he designates its dignity when he says: glory, which suggests a splendor of dignity: "Let the faithful exult in glory" (Ps 149:5). 324 Thirdly, he designates how it will be manifested when he says: to be revealed. For the saints have glory now, but it is hidden in their conscience: "Our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience" (2 Cor 1:12). But later that glory will be revealed in the sight of all, both good and bad, about whom Wis (5:2) says: "They will be amazed at his unsuspected salvation." Fourthly, he designates its truth when he says: in us. For the glory of this world is vain, because it is based on things outside a person, namely, in the trappings of wealth and in the opinion of men: "They boast of the abundance of their riches" (Ps 49:6). But that glory will be based on something within a man, as it says in Lk (17:21): "The kingdom of God is within you." 655. Thus, the sufferings of this life, if they are considered in themselves, are slight in comparison to the quantity of this glory: "For a brief moment I forsook you, but with great compassion I will gather you" (Is 54:7). But if these sufferings are considered insofar as they are voluntarily endured for God out of love, which the Holy Spirit produces in us, then man merits eternal life ex condigno through them. For the Holy Spirit is a fountain whose waters, i.e., effects, well up to eternal life, as it says in Jn (4:14). 656. Then (v.19b) he proves his proposition by the excellence of that glory: first, by the eager longing of the creature; secondly, by the eager longing of the apostles [v. 23; n. 675]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he mentions the eager longing of the creature; secondly, he manifests it [v. 20; n. 661]. 325 657. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that future glory exceeds present sufferings. Yet this is obvious, for the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God: "We are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be" (1 Jn 3:2). For the dignity of divine sonship is hidden in the saints on account of the things they suffer outwardly; but that dignity will be revealed later, when they receive immortal and glorious life, and when the wicked will say: "Behold how they have been numbered among the sons of God" (Wis 5:5). And he says that the eager longing eagerly longs to designate by such repetition the intensity of the eager longing, in accord with Ps 39:1, "Eagerly longing I have eagerly longed for the Lord." 658. It should be noted that creation or "creature" can be interpreted in three ways here. In one way for just men, who are called God’s creature in a special way, either because they continue in the good in which they were created, or on account of their excellence, because every creature somehow serves them: "Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures" (Jas 1:18). But this creature, i.e., the just man, waits for the revealing of the sons of God as a reward promised him: "Awaiting the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God" (*** 2:23). 659. Secondly, the creature can be human nature itself, which is the substratum of the goods of grace. In the unrighteous this nature is not yet sanctified but is as though without form. 326 In the men who have already been justified it is partially formed now with grace, but it is still, as it were, without form and awaits the final form which comes through glory. Thus, therefore, this creature, i.e., we ourselves, in virtue of our human nature wait for the revealing of the sons of God. We also wait for this in virtue of the grace received into our nature, as we might say that matter waits for its form or colors wait for the completed picture: "All the days of my service I would wait till my release should come" (Jb 14:14). In a third way it can be understood of the visible creature, as are the elements of this world: "From the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator" (Wis 13:5) [n. 665, 668]. This sort of creature waits for something in two ways, for the eager longing of a sensible creature, according as it has its origin in God, is ordered to some end. And this happens in two ways. In one way, inasmuch as God endows this creature with a natural form and powers that incline it to some natural end. Thus we might say that a tree waits for is fruit to be produced or that fire waits for its higher natural place. In another way the visible is ordained by God to an end which transcends its natural form. For just as the human body will be clothed with the form of supernatural glory, so all visible creation in that glory of the children of God will itself obtain a new glory: "I saw a new heaven and a new earth" (Rev 21:1). In this way the visible creature waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 661. Then (v.20) he explains this waiting: 327 first, the need to wait; secondly, its terminus [v. 21; n. 66]; thirdly, the sign of waiting [v. 22; n. 670]. 662. Now the need to wait is due to a defect to which the creature is subject. For a thing subject to no defect has no need to wait for something. He shows the creature’s defect when he says: for the creature was subjected to vanity. 663. If by creature is understood the just man, he is understood to be subject to vanity, i.e., to those bodily things which are changeable and inclined to fail. Hence they are called vain: "Vanity of vanities. All is vanity" (Ec 1:2). But it is subjected to them, because the needs of the present life require that he occupy himself with them, not of his own will, because he does not love such temporal things as those do against whom it is said in Ps 4 (v.3): "How long will you love vanity and seek after lies?" But this creature is subjected to such vanity by the will of him, i.e., by God’s ordinance, who subjected it, i.e., the just man, to these visible creatures; but in hope, name1y, that at some time he will be freed from such occupation "in the resurrection" when "they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven" (Mt 22:30). 664. If by creature is understood human nature itself [n. 659], then such a creature is subjected to vanity, i.e., to changeableness; "Every man stands as a mere breath" (Ps 39:5). Not of its own will, because such vanity is inflicted on human nature as a punishment; but punishment is involuntary just as guilt is voluntary. But human nature is subjected to such sufferings by the will of him, i.e., by the sentence of God, who subjected 328 it, namely, human nature, to defects, but nevertheless in hope of the time when such sufferings will be avoided: "The thresher shall not thresh it forever" (Is 28:28). 665. But if by creature is understood the sensible creation [n. 660], then such creation was subjected to futility, i.e., to changeability, but not of its own will. For the defects which follow on changeableness, such as aging and ceasing to be and the like, are contrary to the particular nature of this or that thing which seeks self-preservation, although they are in keeping with the general nature of things. Nevertheless, the visible creature is subjected to such vanity by the ordinance of God who subjected it in hope, i.e., in expectation of a glorious renewal a was stated above. 666. Then (v.21) he indicates the terminus of this waiting. For its waiting or hope is not in vain, because the creature itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. If by creature is meant the just man, its bondage to decay means his care in seeking food and clothing and the other things which serve our mortal life. This is a form of slavery from which the saints are freed, as they struggle toward the liberty of the children of God. Although they have the liberty of righteousness by which they are released from the slavery of sin, they do not yet have the liberty of glory, which is release from the slavery of misery: "Who has let the wild ass go free?" (Jb 39:5). 667. If by creature is meant human nature, it will be set free from its bondage to decay, i.e., from suffering and decay, and tend toward the glorious liberty of the children of God, which is freedom not only from guilt but from death, as it says in 1 Cor (15:54): "Death is swallowed up in victory." 329 668. But if it is taken for the visible creature, then that creature will be set free from its bondage to decay, i.e., changeableness: because in every change there is an element of decay, as Augustine says and the Philosopher too in Physics VIII this will contribute to the glorious liberty of the children of God, because just as they will be renewed, so will their dwelling place be renewed: "I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things will not be remembered," i.e., the former changeableness of the creature (Is 65:l7). 669. But he says, the creation itself will be set free from its bondage. According to one sense it means not only we Apostles, but also the other just. In the second sense it means not only the just but human nature, too. In a third sense: not only men but other creatures. 670. Then (v.22) he presents the sign of this waiting, saying: We know, namely, the apostles instructed by the Holy Spirit and also by experience, that every creature has been groaning in travail together until now. 671. If this is understood of the visible creature, it presents two difficulties. First, because he says, groans in travail, for this seems to fit only the rational creature. But this can be explained so that "groan" is the same as the previous expression, "not of its own will." For we groan against things repugnant to our will. Therefore, inasmuch as the defects of the visible creature are contrary to the natural desire of a particular nature, the visible creature is said to groan. When he says, in travail, it is the same as the previous expression, "awaits." For travail is part of the process of producing offspring. 330 672. The second difficulty lies in the fact that he says, every creature, because that would include the heavenly bodies; hence a Gloss says that the sun and moon do not complete their assigned span without labor. But this must be explained in such a way that labor is taken for motion, just as rest is sometimes taken for cessation from work, as God is said to have rested on the seventh day. Accordingly, by groaning is understood decay, which is an element of local motion, inasmuch as a body ceases to be in one place and begins to be in another. By travail is understood the destiny of heavenly bodies to be renewed. 673. But if it is understood of men, then human nature is said to be every creature, because it shares something with every creature: with the spiritual creature it shares intellect, with the animal it shares bodily life, with the corporeal creature it shares bodily existence. Therefore, this creature, i.e., man, groans, partly because of the evils it suffers and partly because of the good things it hopes for but are delayed: "Many are my groans" (Lam 1:22). It is in travail, because it endures with affliction of soul the postponement of the glory it awaits: "Hope deferred makes the heart sick" (Pr 13:12); "A woman in travail has sorrow" (Jn 16:21); "Anguish as of a woman in travail" (Ps 48:6). 674. He says, until now, because this groaning was not removed when we were made righteous, but it remains until now, i.e., until death. Or until now, i.e., even though those in glory have been set free, the rest of us still remain. Or until now, because not only the ancient fathers who lived before Christ, but we also who did not live until the time of grace, suffer the same things. In 2 Pt (3:4) scoffers are described as saying: "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation." 331 It should be noted that "God’s creature" can mean everything under God. Hence some try to explain the above words about every creature in such a way as to include angels. But it is quite awkward to suppose that they are subjected to futility or that they groan or are in travail, because they already have the glory, the likeness of which we await, for it says in Mt (22:30): "They will be as the angels in heaven." Therefore, ours is a more suitable explanation.

After showing the excellence of future glory from the longing of the creature [n. 656], the Apostle now shows the same from the longing of the apostles. For that cannot be a trifle which is desired so anxiously by great men. In regard to this he does two things: 332 first, he states his proposition; secondly, he proves it [v. 24; n. 681]. 676. In regard to the first he does three things [n. 679, 680]. First, he describes the dignity of those longing when he says: And not only the creature awaits the glory of the sons of God, but we ourselves, namely, the apostles, who have the first fruits of the spirit, namely, because the apostles had the Holy Spirit before others and more abundantly than others, just as earthly fruit which ripens earlier is richer and more delicious: "Israel was holy to the Lord, the first fruits of his harvest" (Jer 2:3); "You have come to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven" (Heb 12:23). From this it is clear that the apostles are greater than all other saints no matter what their credentials, whether virginity or learning or martyrdom, because they have the Holy Spirit more fully. 677. But someone might say that some other saints have endured more torture and greater austerities for Christ than the apostles. But it should be recognized that the amount of one’s merit depends principally and in respect to essential reward on charity. For the essential reward consists in the joy one has in God. But it is plain that one who loves God more will enjoy Him more. Hence, the Lord promises that blessed vision to those who love: "He who loves me will be loved by my Father and I will love him and manifest myself to him" (Jn 14:21). But according to the quantity of his works man merits an accidental reward which is joy taken in those works. Therefore, the apostles performed the works they did with greater charity, which made their hearts prepared for much greater ones, if it had been opportune. 333 678. But if it is said: Someone can try so hard that he will have charity equal to that of the apostles the answer is that a man’s charity is not derived from himself but from God’s grace, which is given to each "according to the measure of Christ’s gift" (Eph 4:7). Now he gives to each the grace proportionate to his calling. Thus, the most excellent grace was given to Christ, because he was called to have his human nature taken into the unity of his divine person; after him the greatest fullness of grace was conferred on blessed Mary, who was called to be the mother of Christ. Among the rest, however, the apostles were called to a greater dignity than all others, for they received from Christ himself the things that pertain to salvation and the commission to deliver them to others. Hence, the Church is in a sense founded on them, as it says in Rev (21:14): "The wall of the city had twelve foundations and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." Therefore, God gave them a greater abundance of grace than the rest. 679. Secondly, he mentions the anxiety with which they wait, when he says, we groan inwardly. This groaning indicates the distress caused by the postponement of something desired with great longing, as it says in Pr (13:12); "Hope deferred makes the heart sick"; "I am weary with my moaning" (Ps 6:6). This groaning, however, is more internal than external, because it proceeds from the hidden fee1ings of the heart and because it is concerned with internal goods. Hence he says, we groan inwardly: "My groans are many" (Lam 1:22). 680. Thirdly, he mentions what is awaited, saying: as we wait for adoption as sons, i.e., for the completion of this adoption. For this adoption was begun by the Holy 334 Spirit justifying the soul: "You have received the spirit of adoption as sons" (Rom 8:15). But it will be brought to fulfillment, when the body is glorified: "We rejoice in the hope of sharing the glory of the children of God" (Rom 5:2). And that is why he adds: the redemption of our bodies, so that as our spirit has been redeemed from sin, so our body might be redeemed from corruption and death: "I shall ransom them from death"(Hos 13:14); "He will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body" (Phil 3:21). 681. Then when he says, For in this hope, he proves what he had said with the following reason: Hope is concerned with things not seen in the present but awaited in the future. But we have been saved through hope; therefore, we wait for the completion of salvation as something future. 682. First, therefore, he presents the minor, saying: For we, the apostles and the rest of the believers, were saved in hope, namely, because we hope for our salvation: "We have been born anew to a living hope" (1 Pt 1:3); "Hope in him at all times, O people" (Ps 62:8). 683. Secondly, he presents the major, saying: Now hope, i.e., the thing hoped for, which is seen, as though possessed at present, is not hope, i.e., not something hoped for, but something possessed. For hope is the expectation of something future: "Wait for me, for the day when I arise" (Zeph 3:8). 684. Thirdly, he presents proof of the major, saying: For who hopes for what he sees? As if to say: Hope implies a movement of the soul toward something not possessed. But when something is already possessed, there is no need for one to be moved toward it. 335 And it should be noted that because hope somehow springs from faith, he attributes to hope something that belongs to faith, namely, that it is concerned with something not seen: "Faith is the conviction of things not seen" (Heb 11:1). 685. Fourthly, he presents the conclusion, saying: But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it in patience. Hence it should be noted that patience, properly speaking, inclines one to tolerate tribulation with a certain evenness of mind: "Be patient in tribulation" (Rom 12:12). But because the postponement of something good has an aspect of evil, even the continued wait for absent goods with evenness of mind is attributed to patience, although they pertain more to long-suffering; "Be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord" (Jas 5:7). But patience is taken in both ways here, because the apostles awaited glory with evenness of mind, along with the delay and tribulation. 686. Then [v. 26; n. 628] he shows how we are helped by the Holy Spirit in the defects of the present life: first, for the fulfillment of desires; secondly, for the direction of external events [v. 28; n. 695]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he states his proposition; secondly, he clarifies it [v. 26b; n. 688]. 687. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that our mortal bodies will be vivified by the Holy Spirit, when our weakness shall be removed from us. Likewise in the present life in which we are still subject to weakness the Spirit helps us in our weakness, even though he does not take it away entirely: "The Spirit lifted me up and 336 took me away, and I went in bitterness in the heart of my spirit," as though weakness was not yet entirely removed, "for the hand of the Lord was with me, strengthening me" (Ez 3:14); and in this way he helped me: "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Mt 26:41). 688. Then (v. 26b) he clarifies what he had said: first, he shows the need for the Spirit’s help, which pertains to a weakness of the present life; secondly, he indicates the way he helps [v. 26c; n. 692]; thirdly, he shows the efficacy of the help [v. 27; n. 694]. 689. First, therefore, he says: I am correct in saying that the Spirit helps our weakness, for in this we suffer a weakness that we do not know how to pray as we ought: "Why does God surround with darkness the man whose way is hid?" (Jb 3:23). 690. And it should be noted that the Apostle says there are two things we do not know, namely, what we should ask for in prayer and the manner in which we ought to ask [n. 691]. But both seem to be false. For in the first place we know what we should ask for, because the Lord taught us in Mt (6:9): "Hallowed be thy name." The answer is that we can know in a general way what it is suitable to pray for, but we cannot know this in particular. First of all, if we desire to perform a virtuous deed, which is to fulfill God’s will on earth as it is in heaven, it can happen that the virtuous deed does not befit this or that person. For example, the quiet of contemplation is not expedient for a person who can press onward usefully in action, as Gregory says in 337 Morals on Job 5:26: "You shall come to your grave in ripe old age." Hence it says in Pr (14:12): "There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death." Secondly, a person desires a temporal good to sustain life, which is to seek one’s daily bread, but it puts him in danger of death. For many have perished because of riches: "Riches were kept by their owner to his hurt" (Ec 5:13). Thirdly, a person desires to be freed from a bothersome trial which, nevertheless, is for him a guardian of humility. For example, St. Paul sought the removal of a thorn of the flesh, but it had been given him to keep him from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, as it says in 2 Cor (12:7). 691. Likewise, it also seems that we know how to pray as we ought, since it says in Jas (1:6): "Let him ask in faith, with no doubting." Here, too, the answer is that we can know in general, but we cannot discern exactly the special motive; for example, whether we are asking from anger or from a zeal for justice. Hence in Mt (20:20) the petition of the sons of Zebedee was refused because, although they seemed to be asking to share in divine glory, their petition proceeded from vain glory or from elation. 692. Then (v.26c) he tells the way the Holy Spirit helps when he says: but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with sighs too keep for words. This statement seems to support the error of Arius and Macedonius, who held that the Holy Spirit is a creature and lower than the Father and Son. For intercession is the role of a lesser person. But if from the fact that he is said to intercede we understand that he is a creature subject to suffering and inferior to the Father, then from the fact that he intercedes with sighs, we should 338 suppose that he is a creature subject to suffering and not yet enjoying beatitude -- which no heretic has ever said. For a sigh proceeds from pain which pertains to wretchedness. Consequently we must explain intercedes [asks], i.e., makes us ask; as in Gen (22:12): "Now I know that you fear God," i.e., I have made you know. 693. For the Holy Spirit makes us ask, inasmuch as he causes right desires in us, because to ask is to make desires known. Now right desires arise from the ardor of love, which he produces in us: "God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom 5:5). But with the Holy Spirit directing and inciting our heart, our desires can not but be profitable to us: "I am the Lord who teaches you to profit" (Is 48:17); therefore, he adds: for us. But when we desire something strongly and pray for it longingly, we suffer its delay with pain and sighing; therefore, he adds: with sighs, which he causes in our heart, inasmuch as he inspires us to desire heavenly things which are postponed for the soul. These are the sighs or moanings of the dove, which the Holy Spirit causes in us: "Moaning like doves" (Nah 2:7). They are indescribable: either because they concern an indescribable thing, namely, heavenly glory: "He heard things that cannot be told" (2 Cor 12:4); or because those movements of the heart cannot be sufficiently described, inasmuch as they proceed from the Holy Spirit: "Who can explain the wisdom of the heavens?" (Jb 38:37). 694. Then (v. 27) he shows the efficacy of the help with which the Holy Spirit aids us, saying: He who searches the hearts, i.e., God, who alone searches the heart: "Thou who tried the minds and hearts" (Ps 7:9). 339 But God is said to search hearts, not as though He investigates the secrets of the heart, but because he knows clearly the hidden things of the heart: "I will search Jerusalem with lamps" (Zeph 1:12). God, I say, searches the hearts and knows, i.e., approves, what is the mind of the Spirit, i.e., what he makes us desire: "All my desires are known to you" (Ps 38:9). But the desires which the Holy Spirit causes in the saints are accepted by God, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints, i.e., makes them ask according to the will of God, i.e., for things pleasing to God: The desire of the righteous ends in all good (Pr 11:23). As an example of this the Lord said to the Father: "Not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Mt 26:39).

Having shown that the Holy Spirit helps us in the weaknesses of the present life in regard to fulfilling our desires [n. 686], the Apostle now shows how he helps us in relation to external events by directing them to our good. First, he states his proposition; secondly, he proves it [v. 29; n. 701]; thirdly, he draws a conclusion [v. 35; n. 721]. 696. In regard to the first there are two things to consider [cf. n. 699]. First, the greatness of the benefit conferred on us by the Holy Spirit, namely, that all things work together for good. To realize this we should consider that whatever happens in the world, even if it be evil, accrues to the good of the universe; because, as Augustine says in Enchiridion: "God is so good that he would permit no evil, unless he were powerful enough to draw some good out of any evil." However, the evil does not always accrue to the good of that in which it is. Thus, the death of one animal accrues to the good of the universe, inasmuch as by the destruction of one thing something else begins to be, although it does not accrue to the good of that which ceases to be; because the good of the universe is willed by God according to itself and to this good all the parts of the universe are ordained. 697. The same seems to apply to the relationship of the noblest parts to the other parts, because the evil affecting the other parts is ordained to the good of the noblest parts. But whatever happens to the noblest parts is ordained only to their good, because his care for them is for their sake, whereas his care for the others is for the sake of the noblest: as a physician allows a malady in the foot that he might cure the head. 341 But the most excellent parts of the universe are God’s saints to each of whom applies the word of Mt (25:23): "He will set him over all his goods." Therefore, whatever happens to them or to other things, it all accrues to the benefit of the former. This verifies the statement in Pr (11:20): "The fool will be servant to the wise," namely, because even the evil of sinners accrues to the good of the just. Hence, God is said to exercise a special care over the just, as it says in Ps 34 (v.15): "The eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous," inasmuch as he takes care of them in such a way as to permit no evil to affect them without converting it to their good. This is obvious in regard to the penal evils which they suffer, hence it says in the Gloss [of Lombard, col. 1488 D] that "because in their weakness humility is exercised, in affliction patience, in contradictions wisdom and in hatred good will." Hence it says in 1 Pt (3:14): "If you suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed." It might be asked whether their sins also work together for their good. Some say that sins are not included when he says, all things, because according to Augustine: "Sin is nothing and men become nothing, when they sin." But contrary to this a Gloss says: "God makes all things work together for their good to the extent that if they deviate and stray from the path, he even makes this contribute to their good." Hence it says in Ps 37 (v.24): "Though the righteous man fall, he shall not be cast headlong, for the Lord is the stay of his hand." But according to this it seems that they always arise with greater love, because man’s good consists in love in such a way that without it the Apostle says that he is nothing (1 Cor 13:2). 342 The answer is that man’s good consists not only in the amount of love but especially in his perseverance until death, as it says in Mt (24:13): "He who endures to the end will be saved." Furthermore, because he has fallen, he rises more cautious and more humble; hence, the Gloss adds that this makes them progress, because they return to themselves more humble and wiser; for they fear extolling themselves or trusting in their powers to persevere. 699. Secondly, we consider the recipients of this benefit and see something on God’s part and on man’s part. He indicates what is involved on man’s part when he says: for those who love God. For the love of God is in us through the indwelling Spirit. But it is the Holy Spirit who directs us in the right path; hence it says in 1 Pt (3:13): "Who is there to harm you, if you are zealous for what is right?" and in Ps 119 (v. 165): "Great peace have they who love your law; nothing can make them stumble." And this is reasonably so, because, as it says in Pr (8:17): "I love those who love me." To love is to will good to the beloved; but for God to will is to accomplish, for "whatever the Lord wills he does" (Ps. 135:6). Therefore, God turns all things to the good of those who love him. 700. Then he considers what is involved on God’s part who, first of all, predestined believers from all eternity; secondly, calls them in time; thirdly, sanctifies them. He touches on these three things when he says: Who are called according to his purpose, i.e., the predestined, the called and the sanctified; "purpose" here refers to predestination which, according to Augustine, is the resolve to be merciful: "according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will" 343 (Eph 1:11). "Called" refers to calling: "He called him to follow him" (Is 41:2). "Saints" refers to sanctification: "I am the Lord who sanctifies you" (Lev 21:8). The Apostle says that he knows this, saying: we know: "He gave him knowledge of holy things" (Wis 10:10). This knowledge arises from experience and from considering the efficacy of love: "Love is as strong as death" (S of S 8:6) and of eternal predestination: "My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose" (Is 46:10). 701. Then (v.29) he proves what he had said with the following proof: No one can harm those whom God advances; but God advances the predestined who love him. Therefore, nothing can harm them, but everything works for their good. First, therefore, he proves the minor, namely, that God advances them; secondly, the major [v. 31; n. 710]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he mentions things that refer to advancement of the saints from all eternity; secondly, those that occur in time [v. 30; n. 707]. 702. First, therefore, he presents two things, namely, foreknow1ede and predestination when he says: Those whom he foreknew he also predestined. Now some say that predestination is taken here for the preparation which occurs in time, during which God prepares the saints for grace. They say this in order to distinguish foreknowledge from predestination. But closer examination shows that both are eternal and that they differ in notion. For, as was stated above, predestination implies the mental preordaining of things which a person intends to do. But from all eternity God has predestined the benefits which he intends to give his saints. Hence, predestination is eternal. But foreknowledge differs 344 conceptually from predestination; because foreknowledge implies only the knowledge of future things, whereas predestination implies causality in regard to them. Consequently, God has foreknowledge even of sins, but predestination bears on salutary goods. Hence The Apostle says in Eph (1:5): "Predestined according to the purpose of his will, to the praise and glorious grace which he freely bestowed." 703. Regarding the order between foreknowledge and predestination some say that foreknowledge of good and of evil merits is the reason for predestination and reprobation, in the sense that God predestines certain ones, because he foresees that they will act well and believe in Christ. According to this the present text reads: "Those whom he foreknew to be conformed to the image of his Son, he also predestined." This interpretation would be reasonable, if predestination were restricted to eternal life which is bestowed for merits. But under predestination falls every salutary benefit prepared for man from all eternity by God; hence all the benefits he confers on us in time he prepared for us from all eternity. Hence, to claim that some merit on our part is presupposed, the foreknowledge of which is the reason for predestination, is nothing less than to claim that grace is given because of our merits, and that the source of our good works is from us and their consummation from God. Hence, it is more suitable to interpret the present text as stating that those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. Then this conformity is not the reason for predestination, but its terminus or effect. For the Apostle says: "He destined us to be his adopted sons through Jesus Christ" (Eph 1:5). 704. For the adoption as sons is nothing more than that conformity, because a person adopted into the sonship of God is conformed to his true Son. 345 First, in the right to the inheritance, as was stated above (v. 17): If sons, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ." Secondly, in sharing his splendor. For he is begotten of the Father as the splendor of his glory (Heb 1:3). Hence by enlightening the saints with the light of wisdom and grace, he makes them be conformed to himself. 705. The phrase, to the image of his Son, can be interpreted in two ways: in one way so that it means: conformed to the image of his Son, who is an image: "He is the image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15). In another way so that the sense is this: He predestined us to be conformed to his Son in the fact that we bear his image: "Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven" (1 Cor 15:49). He says, those whom he foreknew he also predestined not because he predestines all the foreknown, but because he could not predestine them, unless he foreknew them: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" (Jer 1:5). 706. Then he indicates what follows from this predestination, when he says: in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. For just as God willed to communicate His natural goodness to others by imparting to them a likeness of his goodness, so that he is not only good but the author of good things, so the Son of God willed to communicate to others conformity to his sonship, so that he would not only be the Son but the first-born among sons. Thus, he who is the only-begotten through an eternal origin, as it says in Jn (1:18): "The only Son who is in the bosom of the Father," is the first-born among many brethren by the bestowal of grace: "He is the first-born of the dead, and ruler of kings on earth" (Rev 1:5). 346 Therefore, Christ has us as brothers, both because he communicated to us a likeness of his sonship and because he assumed the likeness of our nature, as it says in Heb (2:17): "He had to be made like his brethren in every respect." 707. Then (v. 30) he mentions what happens on the part of the saint as a consequence of predestination. First, he mentions the call, when he says: Those whom he predestined he also called. For predestination cannot be voided: "The Lord of hosts has sworn, ‘As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand" (Is 14:24). Predestination begins to be carried out with the person’s being called. This call is twofold: one is external and is made by the mouth of a preacher: "She has sent out her maids to call from the highest places" (Pr 9:3). In this way God called Peter and Andrew, as it says in Mt (4:18). The other call is internal and is nothing less than an impulse of the mind whereby a man’s heart is moved by God to assent to the things of faith or of virtue: "Who stirred up one from the east and called him to follow?" (Is 41:2). This call is necessary, because our heart would not turn itself to God, unless God himself drew us to him: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (Jn 6:44); "Turn us to thyself, O Lord, that we may be turned" (Lam 5:21). Furthermore, this call is efficacious in the predestined, because they assent to the call: "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me" (Jn 6:45). 708. Hence secondly, he mentions justification when he says: those whom he called he also justified by infusing grace: "They are justified by his grace as a gift" (Rom 3:24). 347 Although this justification is frustrated in certain persons, because they do not persevere to the end, in the predestined it is never frustrated. 709. Thirdly, he mentions glorification, when he adds: and those he also glorified and this in two ways, namely, by growth in virtue and grace and by exaltation to glory: "In all things, O Lord, thou hast exalted and glorified thy people" (Wis 19:22). He uses the past for the future, either because the future is certain, or because what is future in some is already fulfilled in others. 710. Then (v. 31) he clarifies the major premise, namely, that nothing can harm those advanced by God: first, he shows that they cannot suffer any loss through the evil of punishment; secondly, nor through the evil of guilt [v. 33; n. 715]. 711. The evil of punishment is twofold: one consists in the imposition of evils, the other in the removal of good things. First he shows that those who are advanced by God do not suffer harm from the efforts of persecutors, saying: What then shall we say? As if to say: since God bestows so many good things on his elect, what can be said against this, so as to nullify it? As if to say: Nothing. "No wisdom, no understanding, no counsel, can avail against the Lord" (Pr 21:30). Or: What shall we say? For one is struck with amazement, when he considers these things: "I considered thy works and became terrified" (Hab 3:2). Or: What shall we say to this? i.e., what return could we make to God for such great blessings: "What shall I render to the Lord for all his bounty to me" (Ps 116:12). Then he continues, If God is for us by predestining, calling, justifying and glorifying, who is against us, i.e., successfully? "Let us stand up together, who is my 348 adversary?" (Is 50:8); "Place me next to you, and let anyone’s hand fight against me" (Jb 17:3). 712. Secondly, he shows that God’s holy ones cannot suffer loss by the removal of good things, saying: He who did not spare his own Son. But whereas he spoke earlier about adopted sons, he separates this Son from all others, saying: his own Son, i.e., not adopted, as heretics pretend, but natural and co-eternal: "That we may be in his true son, Jesus Christ" (1 Jn 5:20) of whom the Father says in Mt (3:17): "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." 713. He says, did not spare, to indicate that he did not exempt him from punishment. For there was no guilt in him to forgive: "He who spares the rod hates his son" (Pr l3:24). However, God the Father did not spare his Son, as though to add something to him who is in all things perfect God; rather he subjected him to the passion for our benefit. And this is what he adds: but gave him up for us all, i.e., in expiation for our sins: "He was put to death for our trespasses" (Rom 3:25); "The Lord put on him the iniquity of us all" (Is 53:6). God the Father gave him up to death by appointing him to become incarnate and suffer and by inspiring his human will with such love that he would willingly undergo the passion. Hence he is said to have given himself over: "He gave himself up for us" (Eph 5:2). Judas, too, and the Jews gave him up, as was explained at the end of ch. 4. 714. It should be noted that in saying, He did not spare his own Son, it is as though he were saying: He not only exposed other holy men to tribulation for their 349 salvation: "I have hewn them by the prophets" (Hos 6:5); "If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation" (2 Cor 1:6), but even his own Son. But in the Son of God all things exist as in their primordial and preoperative cause: "He is before all things and in him all things hold together" (Col 1:17). Therefore, when he was given up for us, all things were given to us; hence he adds: how has not had also, with him, given us all things, the highest things, namely, the divine persons to enjoy, rational spirits to live with, all lower things to use, not only prosperity but adversity as well: "All are yours and you are Christ’s and Christ is God’s" (l Cor 3:23). Hence, it is clear that, as it says in Ps 34 (v.9): "Those who fear him have no want."