Thomas Aquinas

This man is to me a chosen vessel to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel (Ac 9:15). 1. In sacred Scripture men are compared to vessels from four viewpoints: their construction, contents, use and fruit. From the viewpoint of construction, vessels depend on the good pleasure of their maker: "he reworked it into another vessel as it seemed good to him" (Jer 18:4). In the same way men’s construction1 depends on God’s good pleasure: "He fashioned us and not we ourselves" (Ps 100:3 Vul 99:3); hence Is (45:9) asks: "Does the clay say to him who fashions it, ‘What are you making?’": In the same vein St Paul asks: "Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘ Why have you made me thus?’" (Rom 9:20). Hence, it is the Creator’s will that determines the variety of construction among his vessels: "In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and earthenware" (2 Tim 2:20). In the above words, blessed Paul is described as a vessel. What sort of vessel he was is described in Sirach (50:9): "As a vessel of solid gold adorned with all kinds of precious stones." He was a golden vessel on account of his brilliant wisdom; what is said in Genesis (2:12) can be understood as speaking of this: "The gold of that land is the best," because, as is said in Proverbs (3:15), "it is more precious than all riches." Whence even blessed Peter bears witness to him: "So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him" (2 Pt 3:15). 1 Latin constitutio can refer both to the "construction" of a vessel and to the "character" of a man. 6 2 Reading propinavit for propinabit. 3 This does not exactly match the phrasing of the Vulgate or of the Hebrew. He was solid on account of the virtue of love, of which the Song of Songs (8:6) says, "Love is strong as death." Hence Paul himself writes: "I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God" (Rom 8:38ff). Furthermore, he was adorned with all manner of precious stones, i.e., with all the virtues, concerning which it says in 1 Cor (3:12): "Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones …, each man’s work will become manifest." Hence, he says: "Our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience that we have conducted ourselves in the world with simplicity of heart and godly sincerity, not by earthly wisdom but by the grace of God" (2 Cor 1:12). 2. The nature of this vessel is thus indicated by the sort of things it poured out;2 for Paul taught the mysteries of the most lofty divinity, which requires wisdom: "Among the mature we do speak wisdom" (1Cor 2:6). He extolled love in the loftiest terms in 1 Corinthians 13. He taught men about the different virtues: "Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, meekness … patience" (Col 3:12). 3. In the second place it is customary for vessels to be filled with some sort of liquid, as is clear in 1King (4:3), "They gave him vessels and she filled them."3 Now it is by reason of what is poured into them that vessels are classified: for some are wine vessels, some oil vessels, and so on. In the same way, God fills men with diverse graces, as though with diverse liquids: "To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit" (1 Cor 12:8). 7 But the vessel about which we are now speaking was filled with a precious liquid, the name of Christ, of which it is said: "Your name is oil poured out" (Song 1:3). Hence, our text says to carry my name, for he seems to have been thoroughly filled with this name, in accord with Revelation 3(:12), "I will write my name upon him." For he possessed this name in the knowledge of his intellect: "For I decided to know nothing among you except Christ" (1 Cor 2:2). He also possessed this name in the love of his affections: "Who will separate us from the love of Christ?" (Rom 8:35); "If any one does not love our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed" (1 Cor 16:21). Finally, he possessed it in his whole way of life; Hence he said, "It is no longer I who love, but Christ who lives in me" (Gal 2:20). 4. In the third place, with regard to use, one should consider that all vessels are set aside for a definite use, but some for a more honorable and some for a baser use: "Has not the potter power to make from the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for dishonor?" (Rom 9:21). So, too, according to God’s decree, men are set aside for different uses: "All men are from the ground and from the earth, whence also Adam was created. In the fullness of his knowledge the Lord distinguished them and appointed their different uses; some of them he blessed and exalted, but some of them he cursed and brought low" (Sir 33:11-12). This vessel, however, was set apart for noble use, for it is a vessel such as carries the divine name; for [the text] says to carry my name. It was, indeed, necessary for this name to be carried, because it was far from men: "Behold the name of the Lord comes from afar" (Is 30:27). 8 It is far from us on account of sin: "Salvation is far from the wicked" (Ps 119:155). It is also far from us on account of the darkness of our understanding; hence it was said of some that "they beheld it from afar" (Heb 11:13) and "I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh" (Num 24:17). Consequently, just as the angels bestow God’s light on us as being far from God, so the apostles brought us the gospel teaching from Christ; and just as in the Old Testament after the law of Moses the prophets were read to instruct the people in the teachings of the law—"Remember the law of my servant, Moses" (Mal 4:4)—so also, in the New Testament, after the gospels are read the teachings of the apostles, who handed down to the faithful the words they had heard from the Lord: "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you" (1 Cor 11:23). 5. The blessed Paul carried Christ’s name, first of all, in his body by imitating his life and sufferings: "I bear on my body the marks of Jesus" (Gal 6:17). 6. Secondly, in his speech, for he names Christ very frequently in his epistles: "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" (Mt 12:34). Hence, he can be signified by the dove of which it is said that it returned to the ark bearing an olive branch in its mouth (Gen 8:11). For since the olive signifies mercy, it is fittingly taken to stand for Christ’s name, which also signifies mercy: "You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins" (Mt 1:21). This olive branch bearing leaves was brought to the ark, i.e., to the church, when he explained its power and meaning in many ways, disclosing Christ’s grace and mercy. Thus, he says: "I received mercy for this reason that in me, as in the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience" (1 Tim 1:16). Hence, just as the most frequently used writings of the Old Testament in the church are the psalms of David, who 9 obtained pardon after his sin, so the most frequently used writings of the New Testament are the epistles of Paul, who obtained mercy, so that by these examples of sinners might be aroused to hope; although another reason for this custom could be that in each of these writings is contained almost the whole teaching of theology. 7. Thirdly, he carried this name not only to those who were present but also to those absent and as yet unborn by handing down the meaning of the Scriptures: "Take a large tablet and write upon it in common characters" (Is 8:1). 8. In this role of carrying God’s name his excellence is shown in regard to three things: first, in regard to the grace of being chosen; hence he is called a chosen vessel: "He chose us in him before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4). Secondly, in regard to his dedication, because he sought nothing of his own but what was Christ’s: "For what we preach is not ourselves but Jesus Christ as Lord" (2 Cor 4:5). Hence, it is stated that he is a chosen vessel of mine. Thirdly, in regard to his unique excellence: "I worked harder than any of them" (1 Cor 15:10). Hence, he is a chosen vessel of mine in a more outstanding way than the others. 9. As regards fruit, one should consider that that some men are, so to speak, useless vessels, either on account of sin or of error, in accord with Jer (51:34): "He has made me an empty vessel." But Paul was free of sin or of error; consequently, he was a useful chosen vessel, as he himself testified: "If anyone purifies himself from these things," i.e., from errors and sins, "then he will be a vessel set aside for a noble use, useful to the Lord" (2 Tim 2:21). Hence the usefulness or fruit of this vessel is expressed by the words, before the Gentiles, whose teacher he was: "A teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim 2:7), 10 and kings, to whom he preached the faith of Christ, for example, to Agrippa (Ac 16) and even to Nero and his princes. Hence he says: "What has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel, so that it has become known throughout the whole praetorian guard that my imprisonment is for Christ" (Phil 1:12); "Kings shall see and princes shall arise" (Is 49:7). And the sons of Israel, against whom he argued about Christ: "But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ" (Ac 9:22). 10. From the words of our text, therefore, we gather the four causes of this work, i.e. of Paul’s letters, which we have before us. First, the author, in the word, vessel; secondly, the matter, in the words, my name, of which the vessel is full, because this entire teaching is about the teaching of Christ; thirdly, the manner, in the word, carry. For this teaching is conveyed in the manner of letters which were customarily carried by messengers: "So curriers went with letters from the king and his princes" (2 Ch 30:6). Fourthly, the difference [distinctio] of the work in the usefulness mentioned. 11. For he wrote fourteen letters, nine of which instructed the church of the Gentiles; four, the prelates and princes of the church, i.e., kings; and one to the people of Israel, namely, the letter to the Hebrews. For this entire teaching is about Christ’s grace, which can be considered in three ways: In one way, as it is in the Head, namely, Christ, and in this regard it is explained in the letter to the Hebrews. 11 In another way, as it is found in the chief members of the Mystical Body, and this is explained in the letters to the prelates. In a third way, as it is found in the Mystical Body itself, that is, the Church, and this is explained in the letters sent to the Gentiles. These last letters are distinguished from one another according to the three ways the grace of Christ can be considered: in one way, as it is in itself, and thus it is set out in the letter to the Romans; in another way, as it exists in the Sacraments of the Church, which is explained in the two letters to the Corinthians—in the first of these the nature of the Sacraments is treated; in the second, the dignity of the minister—and in the letter to the Galatians, in which superfluous sacraments are rejected against certain men who wanted to join the old sacraments to the new ones. In a third way, Christ’s grace is considered in regard to the unity it produces in the Church. Hence, the Apostle deals first with the establishment of ecclesial unity in the letter to the Ephesians; secondly, with its consolidation and progress in the letter to the Philippians; thirdly, of its defense against certain errors in the letter to the Colossians; against existing persecutions in the first letter to the Thessalonians and against persecutions to come, especially in the time of anti-Christ, in the second letter to the Thessalonians. He instructs the prelates of the Church, both spiritual and temporal. He instructs the spiritual prelates of the Church about establishing, preserving and governing ecclesial unity in the first letter to Timothy, about resistance against persecutors in the second, and about defense against heretics in the letter to Titus. He instructs temporal lords in the letter to Philemon. 12 4 See Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica, book 3, chapter 1. 5 For the pseudo-Clementine writings, see Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha (trans. R. McL. Wilson; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), II: 536-570; for the preaching of Barnabas, see page 538 of the same volume. And thus the division and order of all the epistles is clear. 12. But it appears that the letter to the Romans is not first. For he seems to have written first to the Corinthians, according to the last chapter of Romans (16:1): "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is in the ministry of the church at Cenchreae," which is a Corinthian port. But one should say rather that the letter to the Corinthians is first as regards its time of writing. Nonetheless, the letter to the Romans is placed ahead of it, both because of the dignity of the Romans, who ruled the other nations, since in this letter pride is rebuked, which is the source of all sin (Sir 10:14); and because the order of teaching requires that grace should first be considered in itself before being considered as it as found in the Sacraments. 13. Another question concerns the place from which the Apostle wrote this letter. Augustine says that it was written in Athens, Jerome that it was written from Corinth. Both could be right, because he could have begun it in Athens and finished it in Corinth. 14. Finally, there is an objection against what is said in the gloss, that some believers preached to the Romans before Peter did, whereas in the Ecclesiastical History it says that Peter was the first to preach to them.4 However this can be taken to mean that Peter was the first apostle to teach the Romans and the first to reap a great harvest among them. Already Barnabas had preached at Rome, as the Itinerary of Clement states.

15. This letter is divided into two parts, namely, the greeting and the body of the letter [epistularem tractatum], which begins there [n. 74] at "first indeed" and so on (1:8). In the first part three things are done: first, the person sending the greeting is described; secondly, the persons greeted, there [n. 66] at "to all who are in Rome" (1:7a); thirdly, the blessings invoked, there [n. 70] at "Grace to you" and so on (1:7b). 16. The person writing is described by four things [nn. 16, 20, 22, 23]. First, by his name, Paul, concerning which one should consider three things [nn 17-19]. First, its accuracy; for this name, as it is spelled here, cannot be Hebrew because Hebrew does not have the letter P in its alphabet; but it can be Greek and Latin. Still, if it be taken as some letter close to P, it can be Hebrew. 17. Secondly, one should consider its meaning. Considered as Hebrew, it means "wonderful" or "chosen"; taken as Greek, it means "quiet;" taken as Latin it means "small." And these meanings suit him. For he was chosen as regards grace; hence "he is a chosen vessel of mine" (Ac 9:15). He was wonderful in his work: "A marvelous vessel, the work of the Most High" (Si 43:2). He was quiet in contemplation: "When I enter my house, I shall find rest with her" (Wis 8:16). He was small by humility: "I am the least of the apostles: (1 Cor 15:9). 18. Thirdly, one should consider when that name was conferred on the Apostle, since he had formerly been called Saul, as is found in Acts 9. There are three opinions about this. Jerome says that whereas he had formerly been called Saul, later he wished to be called Paul on account of something notable he had done, namely that he converted Sergius Paulus, a proconsul (Act 13), just as Scipio was called Africanus because he had conquered Africa. Others say that this name was conferred on account of the growth in virtue which is signified by this name, as was said. For names are conferred by God on certain men at the very beginning of the lives to indicate the grace they receive at the beginning, as in the case of John the Baptist. In other cases the names of persons are changed to indicate their growth in virtue, as Chrysostom says. This is clear in the cases of Abraham (Gen 17) and Peter (Mt 16). But others have a better explanation, namely, that Paul always went by two names. For it was customary among the Jews, along with their Hebrew name, to take a name from among the people they served; thus, those who served the Greeks took Greek names, as is clear in the cases of Jason and Menelaus (2 Macc 4). 19. Now the name Paul was held in esteem among the Romans from the earliest times; accordingly, he was called Saul among the Hebrews and Paul among the Romans, although he does not seem to have used the latter until he began to preach to the Gentiles. 15 6 See Augustine’s Expositions on the Psalms, at Psalm 73. 7 Salus might also be rendered "salvation." Hence, Acts (13:9) says: "But Saul, who is also called Paul." This third opinion is the one Augustine favors.6 20. Secondly, the writer’s person is described by his station when he says, a servant of Christ. Now the state of servitude seems a lowly one, if it be considered absolutely; this is why it is imposed with a curse as a punishment for sin: "Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers" (Gen 9:25). But it is made commendable by reason of what is added, namely, of Jesus Christ. For "Jesus" means Savior: "He will save his people from their sins" (Mt 1:21); "Christ" means anointed: "Therefore God, your God, has anointed you" (Ps 45:7). This indicates Christ’s dignity both in regard to his holiness, since priests were anointed, as is clear from Exodus 29; and in regard to his power, since kings, too, were anointed, as is clear in the cases of David and Solomon; and in regard to his knowledge, since prophets were also anointed, as in the case of Elisha. Furthermore, it is praiseworthy for a person to be subjected to his well-being7 and to the spiritual anointing of grace, because a thing is perfect to the extent that it is subjected to its perfection, as the body to the soul and air to light: "O Lord, I am your servant" (Ps 116:16). 21. This seems to conflict with John 15(:15), "No longer do I call you servants, but friends." But one should say that there are two kinds of servitude: one is the servitude of fear, which does not befit saints: "You did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back 16 8 Antonomasia is the substitution of a title or epithet for a proper name, as Aquinas illustrates by the example of Rome. into fear, but you have received the spirit of the adoption of sons" (Rom 8:15); the other is that of humility and love, which does befit saints: "Say, ‘We are unworthy servants.’" (Lk 17:10). For since a free man is one who exists for his own sake [causa sui], whereas a servant is one who exists for the sake of another [causa alterius], as moving by reason of another’s moving him; then, if a person acts for the sake of another [causa alterius] as though moved by him, the service is one of fear, which forces a man to act in opposition to his own will. But it he acts for the sake of another [causa alterius] as an end, then it is the servitude of love; because a friend serves and does good to his friend for the friend’s own sake, as the Philosopher says in the ninth book of the Ethics [chapter 4]. 22. Thirdly, the person writing is described by his dignity when it says called to be an apostle. The apostolic dignity is the foremost in the Church, in accord with 1Corinthians 12(:18), "God has appointed in the church, first, apostles." For "apostle" means "sent": "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you" (Jn 20:21), i.e., out of the same love and with the same authority. Moreover, he says, called to be an apostle, to indicate a gift: "One does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God as Aaron was" (Heb 5:4); or to emphasize the excellence of apostleship, so that just as Rome is antonomastically8 called the city, so Paul is called the apostle: "I worked harder than any of them" (1 Cor 15:10); or to show his humility, as though to say: I do not dare to call myself an apostle, but men call me that: "I am unfit to be called an apostle" (1 Cor 15:9). 17 23. Fourthly, the person writing is described by his office when it says set apart for the gospel for God. Set apart, I say, from unbelievers by his conversion: "But when he who had set me apart from the womb of my mother," i.e., of the synagogue (Gal 1:15); or set apart from other disciples by his being chosen: "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them" (Ac 13:2). "Gospel" means good news. For it announces the news of man’s union with God, which is man’s good: "It is good for me to cleave to God" (Ps 73:28). 24. Indeed, a threefold union of man with God is announced in the gospel. The first is by the grace of union: "The Word was made flesh" (Jn 1:14). The second is by the grace of adoption, as implied in Psalm 82(:6) "I say, ‘You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.’" The third is by the glory of attainment: "This is eternal life, that they know you" (Jn 17:3); "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good tidings" (Is 52:7). These good tidings were not from men, but from God: "What I have heard from the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, I announce to you" (Is 21:10). Hence he says, for the gospel of God. 18

25. The person of the writer described [n. 16], now the task committed to him is commended, namely, the gospel, which has already been commended from two viewpoints in the preceding verse. On of these concerns the usefulness it has due to its content, which is signified by its very name, "gospel," which implies that in it good things are announced. The other is based on the authority it has on the side of its author, which is set out when it says, of God. Now the Apostle pursues these two commendations further: first, on the part of the author; secondly, on the part of its content there [n. 28] at "concerning his Son" (v. 3). 26. From the first viewpoint the Gospel is commended in four ways: First, by its antiquity. This was required against the pagans, who belittled the Gospel as something suddenly appearing after all the preceding centuries. To counter this he says which he promised beforehand; because, although it began to be preached at a certain point in time, it had been foretold previously in a divine way: "Before they came to pass, I announced them to you" (Is 48:5). Secondly, from its reliability, which is indicated when he says, he promised, because the promise was made beforehand by one who does not lie: "We bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled" (Ac 13:32). 19 Thirdly, from the dignity of its ministers or witnesses, when he says, through his prophets, to whom had been revealed the things fulfilled concerning the Incarnate Word: "The Lord will not make a word," namely, make it be incarnate, "without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7); "To him all the prophets bear witness," and so on (Acts 10:43). It is significant that he says "his" prophets, for some prophets spoke by a human spirit: "They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord" (Jer 23:16). Hence, he says: "One of themselves spoke, a prophet of their own" (Titus 1:12). There are even prophets of demons who are inspired by an unclean spirit, such as the prophets whom Elijah slew (1 Kg 18). But those are called God’s prophets who are inspired by the divine Spirit: "I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh and you sons and daughters will prophesy" (Joel 2:28). Fourthly, from the way it was delivered, because these promises were not merely spoken but recorded in writing. Hence he says in the holy scriptures: "Write the vision; make it plain upon tablets" (Hab 2:2). For it was the custom to record only important matters worthy of remembrance and of being handed down to later generations. Consequently, as Augustine says in City of God XVIII, the prophecies about Christ made by Isaiah and Hosea began to be written when Rome was being founded, under whose rule Christ would be born and his faith preached to the Gentiles: "You search the scriptures because you think to have eternal life by them (Jn 5:39). 27. He adds, holy, to distinguish these writings from those of the Gentiles. They are called holy first because, as it is written: "Men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Pt 1:21); "All Scripture is inspired by God" (2 Tim 3:16). Secondly, because 20 they contain holy things: "Give thanks to his holy name" (Ps 97:12). Thirdly, because they make holy: "Make them holy in the truth; thy word is truth" (Jn 17:17). Hence, it says in 1 Macc (12:9): "We have as encouragement the holy books which are in our hands." 28. Secondly [n. 25], he continues the commendation on the part of the good things announced in the Gospel and which make up the content of the Gospel, which is Christ, whom he commends in three ways: first, from his origin; secondly, from his dignity or virtue, there [n. 42] at "who was predestined" (v. 4); thirdly, from his liberality, there [n. 60] at "through whom we have received" (v. 5). 29. He describes the origin of Christ in two ways [cf. n. 34]. First he describes his eternal origin when he says, concerning his Son. In this he reveals the excellence of the gospel, for the mystery of the eternal generation had been previously hidden; hence Solomon asks: "What is his name and the name of his son, if you know?" (Pr 30:4). But it has been revealed in the Gospel on the testimony of the Father: "This is my beloved Son" (Mt 3:17). Indeed, the Son of God is deservedly called the subject matter of the Holy Scriptures, which reveal the divine wisdom, as Deuteronomy (4:6) declares: "This will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of all the peoples." For the Son is said to be the Word and wisdom begotten: "Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:24). 30. But men have erred three ways about this sonship. 21 For some said that he has an adoptive sonship; for example, Photinus taught that Christ derived his origin from the Virgin Mary as a mere man, who by the merits of his life reached such an exalted state that he could be called a son of God above all other saints. But if this were true, Christ would not be described as lowering himself to manhood but as rising up to the Godhead, whereas it says in Jn (6:38): "I have come down from heaven." 31. Others taught that this sonship was a sonship in name only, as Sabellius, who said that the Father himself became incarnate and for that reason took the name of Son, such that the Person would be the same and the names alone different. But if this were true, the Son would not be described as sent by the Father; which is false, since he himself said that he came down from heaven to do the will of him who sent him (Jn 6:38). 32. Others, such as Arius, taught that this sonship was a created one, so that the Son of God would be the most perfect creature, albeit produced from nothing after previously not existing. But if this were true, all things would not have been made through Him, the contrary of which is stated in John 1(:3). For the one through whom all things were made cannot himself have been made. 33. These three opinions are excluded by the significantly added word, his, i.e., his very own and natural. For Hilary says: "This true and personal Son is a Son by origin and not by adoption, in truth and not in name only, by birth and not by creation; for he 22 9 See book 3 of Hilary’s De Trinitate. 10 See Augustine’s Tractates on the Gospel of John, number 36. comes forth from the Father as a word from the heart."9 Such a word belongs to the same nature, especially in God, to whom nothing inhere accidentally. Hence he himself says, "I and the Father are one" (Jn 10:30). "The fact that he says one frees you from Arius; that he says we are frees you from Sabellius," as Augustine says.10 34. Secondly, he touches on the temporal origin when he says, who was made. Here right away the three aforementioned errors seem to find a defense in the fact that it says who was made for him. For they do not admit an eternal Son but one that was made. But the words that follow destroy their goal. For when he says, was made to him, the error of Sabellius is excluded. For he could not be made a son for the Father if he were the same person as the Father; rather, through incarnation he will be the son of the Virgin. By saying, descended from David, he destroys Photinus’ goal. For if He were made the Son of God by adoption, he would not be described as made from the seed of David but from the Spirit, who is the Spirit of adoption of sons, (Rom 8:23) and from the seed of God (1 Jn 3:9). The words, according to the flesh, destroy Arius’ opinion that He was created both according to the flesh and the divine nature. 35. We should also recall that men have erred in a number of ways in regard to the mystery of the incarnation itself. For Nestorius taught that the union of the Word with human nature consisted solely in an indwelling, in the sense that the Son of God dwelt in that man more fully than in others. 23 But it is obvious that the substance of the dweller and that of the dwelling are distinct, for example, a man and a house. Accordingly, he taught that the person or hypostasis of the Word was distinct from that of the man, so that the Son of God would be one person and the Son of Man another. This is shown to be false by that fact that the Apostle in Philippians 2(:7) calls this sort of union an emptying of himself (Phil 2:7). But since the Father and the Holy Spirit dwell in men, as John (14:23) declares: "We will come to him and make our home with him," it follows that they, too, would be emptying themselves; which is absurd. This opinion, therefore, is excluded when the Apostle says, concerning his Son who, namely, the Son of God, was made according to the flesh, i.e., having his flesh, from the seed of David. He would not have spoken in this manner if the union were a mere indwelling. Furthermore, in regard to others in whom the Word dwells, it is never said that the Word was made this or that person, but that it was made to Jeremiah or Isaiah. Therefore, since the Apostle, after saying, concerning his Son, added, who was made to him from the seed of David, the above error is clearly excluded. 36. Others again, although they do not suppose two persons in Christ, do suppose two hypostases or supposita. But this amounts to the same thing, because a person is nothing other than a suppositum or hypostasis of a rational nature. Therefore, since there is only one hypostasis and suppositum in Christ, which is the suppositum or hypostasis of the eternal Word, that hypostasis cannot be said to have become the Son of God, because it never began to be the Son of God. Therefore, it is not altogether correct to say that man was made God or the Son of God. Yet if this is found to be taught by any teacher, it should be interpreted thus: it was made to be that man be God. 24 Accordingly, it is correct to say that the Son of God was made man because He was not always man. Therefore, what is written here must be understood so that the who refers to the subject, the sense being that this Son of God was made from the seed of David, and not to the predicate, because then the sense would be that someone existing from the seed of David became the Son of God, which is neither true nor correct, as has been said. 37. Again, there were others who taught that the union was made by the conversion of the Word into flesh, as it is said that air is made to become fire. Hence Eutyches said that before the Incarnation there were two natures, but after the Incarnation only one. But this is clearly false because, since God is immutable—"I, the Lord, do not change" (Mal 3:6)—he cannot be changed into anything else. Hence, when it is said, he was made, this should not be understood as a change but as a union without any divine change. For something can be newly said of something in a relative sense without the thing itself being changed; thus, a person remaining in one place comes newly to be on the right of something, which was moved from his right to his left. This is the way God is said to be Lord or Creator from a certain time, namely, by reason of a change affecting the creature. In the same way he is said to have been made something anew: "Lord, you have become our refuge" (Ps 90:1). Therefore, since union is a relation, it is through a change in the creature that God is newly said to have been made man, i.e., united in person to a human nature. 25 11 Aquinas here supplies the word "soul" from the previous verse in the Vulgate, which is a more literal rendering of the Greek than our English translations. 38. Finally, there were others, namely Arius and Apollinaris, who said that Christ had no soul, but that the Word was there in place of the soul. But this is refuted by John (10:18): "No one takes my soul."11 The words, according to the flesh, do not exclude a soul from Christ; rather, flesh stands for the entire man, as in Isaiah 40(:5), "All flesh shall see it together for the mouth of the Lord has spoken." 39. It may be asked, since we believe that Christ was born of the Virgin, why the Apostle says he was made from a woman. The answer is this: that is born which is produced in the natural order, as fruit from a tree or children from parents; that which is produced from the will of one acting, not according to the order of nature, as a house by a carpenter, cannot be said to be born but made. Therefore, because Christ proceeded from the Virgin in the natural order in a certain respect, namely, that he was conceived from a woman and remained in her womb for a space of nine months, it is true to say that he was born. But because he proceeded in a certain respect not in the natural order but solely from divine power without male seed, he is said to have been made. Thus, Eve is described as made, not born, from Adam; Isaac was born, not made, from Abraham. 40. Another question is why he is said to have descended from the seed of David in particular and not from the seed of Abraham, to whom the promises about Christ had been made: "Now the promises were made to Abraham" (Gal 3:16). 26 The answer is that this was done to give hope of pardon to sinners, for David was a sinner from whose seed Christ was born, while Abraham was a righteous man; and to commend Christ’s royal dignity to the Romans, who ruled the nations. 41. The Apostle’s words also exclude three errors of the Manicheans. First, their assertion that the God of the Old Testament and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ are not the same. This is excluded when the Apostle says, which God promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, i.e. of the Old Testament, concerning his Son. Secondly, their condemnation of the Old Testament writings, which the Apostle here calls holy. For no other writings were holy before the Gospel except those. Thirdly, their claim that Christ had an imaginary body. This is excluded when the Apostle says that Christ was made from the seed of David according to the flesh, to him, i.e., to the glory of the Father: "I seek not my glory, but his who sent me" (Jn 8:50) 27 12 The Douay renders the Vulgate as follows: "Some of the people determined to do this…." This translation takes destinaverunt in the second of the two senses proposed by Aquinas, which fits the context better and in fact seems a better rendering of the Greek text of Maccabees. Here one must reckon with the possibility that the student transcribing the lecture has supplied a biblical example where Aquinas had either none or some other example.

42. Having commended Christ’s origin [n. 28], he now commends his power; and mentions three things. First, his predestination, when he says, who was predestined; secondly, his dignity or power, when he says [n. 49] Son of God in power; thirdly, the sign or effect, when he says [n. 58] according to the spirit of sanctification. 43. In regard to the first it should be noted that the word "predestination" is taken from "destination," for something is said to be predestined as though destined beforehand. But destination is taken in two senses: in one sense, to destine is to send, for those who are sent to achieve some purpose are said to be destined, in accord with 1Mac 1(:14), "Some of the people destined, and they went to the king."12 In another sense to destine is to determine, as in 2Mac 6(:20): "Eleazar destined not to do any unlawful things." But this second meaning seems to be derived from the first. For as a courier, who is sent, is directed to something, so whatever we determine we direct to some end. According to this, therefore, to predestine is nothing more than to determine beforehand in the heart what is to be done in regard to some thing. 44. Now someone can determine about a future thing or action. In one way, as to its make-up, as a builder determines how he should build a house; in another way, as to 28 13 On Christian Doctrine, book 1, chapter 4. the use or governance of the thing, as when someone determines how to use his horse. It is to this second pre-determination and not the first that predestination pertains. 45. For what one uses is referred to its end, because, as Augustine says in the book On Christian Doctrine, "To use is to refer something to an end to be enjoyed."13 When, however, a thing is made, it is not by that very fact directed to something else. Hence, the pre-determination of a thing’s make-up cannot properly be called predestination. Therefore, to deny predestination is the same as to deny the eternal divine pre-determination about things to be done in time. But because all natural things pertain to the make-up of the thing itself, for they are either the principles of which things are made or what follows from such principles, it follows that natural things do not properly fall under predestination; for example, it is not proper to say that man is predestined to have hands. What is left is that predestination is properly said only of things that are above nature, to which things the rational creature is ordained. 46. But God alone is above the nature of the rational creature, who is united to him by grace: in one way, as regards God’s own act, as when foreknowledge of the future, which belongs to God alone, is communicated to a man by the grace of prophecy. Of this sort are all the graces called graces freely given [gratia gratis data]. In another way, as regards God himself, to whom the rational creature is united in the common manner through the effect of love: "He who abides in love abides in God and God in him" (1 Jn 4:16). This is done through sanctifying grace [gratia gratum facientem], which is the grace of adoption. In another way, which is particular to Christ, it is done through a union in personal being [esse personali]; and this is called the grace of union. 29 14 Due to a copyist’s error, the Latin text of Rev 5:12 has divinitatem instead of divitias, which would be the proper rendering of the Greek text. Therefore, just as a man’s union with God through grace of adoption falls under predestination, so also the union with God in person though the grace of union falls under predestination. And as regards this he says, who was predestinated son of God. 47. But to prevent this from being referred to the sonship of adoption, he adds, in power. As if to say: He was predestinated to be such a Son as to have equal, indeed the same, power as God the Father, because, as it is said in Revelation 5(:12), "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive power and divinity";14 in fact Christ himself is the power of God: "Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:24). Hence, "whatever the Father does the Son does likewise" (Jn 5:19). In regard to the graces freely given [gratia gratis data], one is not said to be predestined in the strict sense, because such graces are not directly ordained to direct to his ultimate end the one who receives them, but to direct others by them, as it is stated in 1 Cor 12(:7), "To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit unto profit." 48. Now it is obvious that anything which exists of itself is the measure and rule of things which exist in virtue of something else and through participation. Hence, the predestination of Christ, who was predestinated to be the Son of God by nature, is the measure and rule of our life and therefore of our predestination, because we are predestined to adoptive sonship, which is a participation and image of natural sonship: "Those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son" (Rom 8:29). Therefore, just as the man Christ was not predestined to be the natural Son of God because of any antecedent merits, but solely from grace, so we are predestined to be 30 adopted sons of God solely from grace and not from our merits: "Do not say in you heart, after the Lord your God has thrust them out before you, ‘It is because of my righteousness that the Lord has brought me in to possess this land’" (Dt 9:4). It is clear, therefore, what the goal of that predestination is, namely, that one be son of God in power. 49. But we must still inquire who it is that has been predestined to this. For since predestination implies antecedence, it seems that the one predestined to be the son of God in power was not always the son of God in power; for predestination does not seem to be concerned with what always has been, since that involves nothing antecedent. Hence if we suppose, according to Nestorius, that the person of the Son of man were other than the person of the Son of God, there would be no problem, because we could say that the created person of the son of man did not exist eternally but began in time to be the son of God in power. The same would apply if one were to say the hypostasis or supposit of the Son of God and of the Son of Man were distinct. But this is alien to the faith, as has been said [n. 34ff]. Therefore, since not only the person but also the hypostasis and suppositum of the Son of God and of the Son of man are the same, so that it cannot be truly and properly said that the son of man was made the Son of God, lest any created suppositum be implied of whom "Son of God" would be newly predicated, for an equal reason it does not seem possible to say that the son of man was predestined to be the son of God, because "the son of man" presupposes the eternal suppositum, who was always the Son of God. Hence, the antecedence which predestination involves has no place. 31 50. For this reason Origen says that the text should not read "who was predestinated" but "who was destined" to be the son of God in power so that no antecedence is indicated. If this accepted, the sense is plain, because Christ was destined, i.e., sent into the world by God the Father as the true Son of God in divine power. But because all the Latin texts generally have, who was predestined, others have explained this according to the custom of Scripture whereby something is considered to be made when it is made known, as the Lord after the resurrection says: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Mt 28:18), because it was after the resurrection that he made known that such power had been given to him from eternity. But if this is correct, the word "predestinated" is not taken in the proper sense, because predestination concerns matters pertaining to grace; whereas no grace was given to Christ by the fact that his divine power was made known, but rather to us. Hence, it is even stated in a Gloss that according to this sense "predestinated" is used in the wider sense of "foreknown," so that the sense would be: Christ was predestinated, i.e., foreknown, from eternity to be revealed in time as the Son of God in power. 51. Therefore, others, relating predestination to the union itself, did not attribute it to the person but to the nature, so that the sense would be: Who was predestinated son of God in power, i.e., whose nature was predestinated to be united to him who is the Son of God in power. But even this explanation is improper and extorted. For since predestination implies an ordering to an end, predestination affects that to which it belongs to be ordered to an end by its own activity. But it is not the nature but the person that acts for an end. 32 Therefore, if the word "predestined" be taken in the strict sense, predestination must be attributed to the very person of Christ. But because the person of Christ subsists in two natures, the human and the divine, something can be said of him with respect to either nature. For just as something can be said of a man regarding his body, for example, to be touched or wounded, and something regarding his soul, for example, to understand and to will, so, too, something can be said of Christ both as to his divine nature, as when he says: "I and the Father are one" (Jn 10:30), and as to his human nature, as when we say that he was crucified and died. It is in this way that He is said to be predestinated according to His human nature. For although the person of Christ has always been the Son of God, nevertheless it was not always a fact that, while existing in a human nature, he was the Son of God; rather, this was due to an ineffable grace. 52. There is another consideration concerning the participle made, which designates a real act, and the participle predestinated, which designates an act of the soul. For the soul, through its intellect and reason, can distinguish things that are joined in reality. For one can think of a white wall and speak separately about the fact that it is a wall and separately about the fact that it is white. So, too, in predestination. For predestination can be attributed to the person of Christ inasmuch as he subsists in a human nature, even though it is not attributed to him as subsisting in the divine nature. This is why the Apostle first presents the Son of God as being incarnated and then attributes predestination to him, to let it be understood that he was predestined according as he was made from the seed of David according to the flesh. Thus from the Son of God he descends to the flesh and from the flesh, by way of predestination, he ascends to the Son of God, in order to show that neither did the glory of the Godhead prevent the 33 weakness of the flesh nor did the weakness of the flesh diminish the majesty of the Godhead. 53. In the Gloss it is asked, first, whether Christ is the Son of God according as he is man. It seems so, because here is Christ, who was predestined to be [the Son of God]; but he was predestined to be [the Son of God] according as he is a man. Therefore, as a man he is the Son of God. However, I answer that if the "as" denotes the unity of the person, it is true that as man he is the Son of God, because the person of God and man is one. But if it designates the condition of the nature or its cause, it is false. For it is not from the human nature that he is Son of God. In the argument there is a fallacy of composition and division, because the "as" can modify the participle "predestined," and taken this way it is true that as man he is predestined; or it can modify that being the Son of God to which the predestination is ordained, and taken this way it is false. For he was not predestined that as man he be Son of God; and this is the sense of the words assumed by the argument. 54. The second question [in the Gloss] is whether Christ as man is a person. I answer that if the "as" is referred to the very supposit of the man, it must be admitted that this supposit is a divine person. But if it designates the condition of the nature or the cause, taken this way Christ as man is not a person, because the human nature does not cause a new personhood in Christ. For it is joined to a nobler person into whose personhood it passes. 34 55. Likewise, an objection is made against a statement in the Gloss, namely, that the one who assumed and what he assumed are one person. But what the Son of God assumed is a human nature. Therefore, the human nature is a person. I answer that such expressions must be explained so that the meaning is this: he who assumed and the nature he assumed are united in one person. 56. The fourth question is whether this is true: "A man was assumed by the Word." It would seem so according to Ps (65:4): "Blessed is he whom thou dist choose and assume." I answer that since a man implies a supposit, in this case an eternal one, it cannot properly be said that a man was assumed by the Word; for a same thing is not assumed by itself. Hence, wherever the expression "man was assumed" is found, it is taken as the human nature. 57. The fifth question is whether this is true: "This man has always existed." The answer is that it is true, because a man supposes a supposit, in this case an eternal one. Hence it is stated in Heb (13:8): "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." However, the statement is not true if man is taken precisely as man. For it is not true that that man, as man, always has existed, but as He is Son of God. So, the matters concerning the preordainment and power of the Son of God are clear. 58. But a third matter remains, namely concerning the sign, which is touched upon when he says, according to the Spirit of holiness. 35 It is the custom of divine power to sanctify men by conferring the Holy Spirit: "I am the Lord who sanctify you" (Lev 20:8). He alone can give the Holy Spirit: "Thus says God, the Lord who created the heavens, who gives breath to the people upon it and the Spirit to those who walk in it" (Is 42:5). Therefore, it is clear that Christ has divine power, because He gives the Holy Spirit: "When the Counselor comes whom I shall send" (Jn 15:26). Furthermore, it is by His power that we are sanctified: "You were sanctified, you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor 6:11). He says, therefore: that Christ is the Son of God in power appears according to the Spirit of holiness, i.e., inasmuch as He gives the sanctifying Spirit. This sanctification began with the resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ our Lord: "For as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (Jn 7:39). However, this does not mean that no one had received the sanctifying Spirit before Christ’s resurrection, but that from the time He arose, a more copious and general Spirit of sanctification began to be given. 59. It can also mean that two signs of the divine power in Christ are designated here. First, indeed, from the fact that he says, according to the Spirit of holiness, whether it be understood according to the sanctifying Spirit, as has been explained, or in view of the fact that He was conceived in the Virgin’s womb by the Holy Spirit - which, of course, is a sign of the divine power in Him according to the words of Lk (1:25): "The Holy Spirit will come upon you" and further on (1:35): Therefore, the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God." 36 The second sign of the divine power is the raising of the dead: "As the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also the Son" (Jn 5:21). The sense, therefore, is this: that Christ is the Son of God in power is evident from His resurrection from the dead, i.e., from the fact that He made the dead rise with Him: "many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised" (Mt 27:52) and will finally make all rise: "All who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth" (Jn 5:28). Or it can be understood of a spiritual resurrection of the dead, i.e., from sin: "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead" (Eph 5:14). Those who are raised by Him are called Christ’s dead because they are raised by him just as those under a doctor’s care are called his sick. But these two signs can be referred to two previous clauses in this way, who was made to him according to the flesh from the seed of David: and this according to the Spirit of Holiness, from Whom His flesh was conceived. Who was predestined Son of God in power, and this is apparent in the resurrection of the dead. But the first explanation is better.

60. After commending Christ in his origin and power [n. 28], he now commends him in his generosity, which is shown by the gifts he conferred on believers. And he sets out two gifts [n. 61]. One is common to all believers, namely grace, by which we are restored. We receive this from God through Christ; hence, he says, through whom we believers have received grace; "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (Jn 1:17); and below (5:2): "Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand." For it is fitting that just as all things were made by the Word (Jn 1:3), so by the Word as by the art of God Almighty all things should be restored; as an artisan repairs a house by means of the same art as he built it: "God was pleased to reconcile through him all things, whether on earth or in heaven" (Col 1:20). 61. The other spiritual gift was conferred on the apostles. This he touches on when he says, and apostleship, which is the chief office in the Church: "God has appointed in the church, first, apostles" (1 Cor 12:28). Apostle is the same as sent. For they were sent by Christ, bearing, as it were, his authority and office: "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you" (Jn 20:21), i.e., with full authority. Hence Christ himself is called an apostle: "Consider Jesus, the apostle and 38 high priest of our confession" (Heb 3:1); hence, too, through him as chief apostle or "one sent," the others secondarily obtained apostleship: "He chose twelve whom he called apostles" (Luke 6:13). Now he sets out the grace of apostleship as a preface both because they obtained apostleship not through their merits but from grace: "I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle; but by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor 15:9); and because apostleship cannot be worthily obtained unless sanctifying grace precedes it: "Grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift" (Eph 4:7). 62. Then he describes this apostleship: first, from its aim when he adds, to bring about the obedience of faith. As if to say: We have been sent with this aim, to induce men to obey the faith. Obedience finds its scope in things we can do voluntarily; in matter of faith, since they are above reason, we consent voluntarily. For no one believes unless he will to, as Augustine says. Consequently, in matters of faith, the following has a place: "You have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed" (Rom 6:17). Concerning this aim Jn (15:16) says: "I appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide." 63. Secondly, it is described from its extent when he says, among all the nations, because they were directed to instruct not only the Jews but all nations: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations" (Mt 28:19). Paul in particular had received a mandate to all nations, so that the words of Is (49:6) apply to him: "It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will give you as a light to the 39 nations." Yet the Jews were not excluded from his apostolate, especially those who lived among the Gentiles: "Inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them" (Rom 11:13-14). 64. Thirdly, from the completeness of its power when he says, for the sake of his name, i.e., in His place and with His authority. For as Christ is said to have come in the Father’s name and had the Father’s full authority, so the apostles are said to have come in Christ’s name, as though in Christ’s person : "What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the person of Christ" (2 Cor 2:10). Or by these words it is described from its end, i.e., to broadcast His came without seeking any earthly reward for himself: "He is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before kings and the Gentiles and the children of Israel" (Ac 9:15). Hence, he urged all believers to do the same: "Do everything in the name of Jesus Christ (Col 3:17). 65. Fourthly, as to his power over those to whom he was writing and who were subject to his apostleship. Hence h says, including yourselves, i.e. I number among those subject to my apostolate even you Romans howsoever lofty: "He lays it low, the lofty city," the foot of the poor, i.e., of Christ, tramples it, "the steps of the needy," namely, of the apostles Peter and Paul (Is 26:5-6); "We were the first to come all the way to you with the gospel of Christ" (2 Cor 10:14). He adds, the called of Jesus Christ, in accord with Hos 1(:9), "I will call ‘not my people’ mine"; or, you are called that you may be of Jesus Christ, as is said below (8:30), "Those whom he predestined he also called." Or, you are called of Jesus Christ, i.e., you 40 are named from Christ, "Christians": "So that at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians" (Acts 11:21). 66. Then the persons greeted are described: first [n. 67], from their place when he says to all in Rome. To all, indeed, because he sought the salvation of all: "I wish that all were as I myself am" (1 Cor 7:7); also the Lord had said to him: "You must bear witness also at Rome" (Ac 23:10). 67. Secondly, they are described from their gift of grace, God’s beloved. First [n. 68ff.], the primary source of grace is mentioned, namely, God’s love: "He loved his people, all those consecrated to him were in his hand" (Dt 33:3); "Not that we loved God first, but that he first loved us" (1 Jn 4:10). For God’s love is not called forth by any goodness in a creature, as human love is; rather, He causes the creature’s goodness, because to love is to will goodness to the beloved. But God’s love is the cause of things: "Whatever the Lord pleases, he makes" (Ps 135:6). 68. Secondly, their calling when he adds, called. This call is twofold. One is outward, as when He called Peter and Andrew (Mt 4), while the other is inward, when it is according to an interior inspiration: "I called and you refused to listen" (Pr 1:24). 69. Thirdly, he mentions the grace of justification when he says, to be saints, i.e., sanctified by grace and the sacrament of grace: "But you were washed, you were sanctified," to be beloved by God, called to be saints (1 Cor 6:11). 70. Then [cf. n 15] the blessings he wishes them are mentioned. These are grace and peace. One of these, namely, grace is the first among God’s gifts, because by it the 41 sinner is made holy: "They are justified by his grace as a gift" (Rom 3:24). The other, namely, peace, is His last gift, which is completed in happiness: "He makes peace in your borders" (Ps 147:14). For perfect peace will exist when the will is at rest in the fullness of all good, a state that results from being free of all evil: "My people will abide in the beauty of peace" (Is 32:18). Consequently, in these two blessings all those between are understood. 71. Then he shows from whom these blessings are to be expected when he adds, from God our Father: "Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights" (Jas 1:17) "The Lord bestows grace and glory" (Ps 84:11). He adds, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, because, as stated in Jn (1:17): "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." He Himself says: "My peace I give to you" (Jn 14:27). 72. The phrase, God the Father, can be taken for the whole Trinity, which called Father, because names implying a relationship to the creature are common to the whole Trinity, for example, Creator and Lord. But he adds, and the Lord Jesus Christ, not to imply that He is another person distinct from the three, but to stress the human nature by whose mystery the gifts of grace come to us: "Through whom he has granted to us his precious and very great promises" (2 Pt 1:4). Or it might be said that the phrase, God the Father, stands for the person of the Father, Who is called the Father of Christ by propriety, but our Father by appropriation: "I am ascending to my Father and to your Father" (Jn 20:17). 42 73. Then the person of the Son is meant when he says, and the Lord Jesus Christ. The person of the Holy Spirit is not expressly mentioned, because he is understood in his gifts, which are grace and peace, or even because He is understood whenever there is mention of the Father and of the Son, for He is their union and bond.

74. After the greeting [n. 15], the Apostle begins the message, wherein First he shows his affection for his readers, in order to render them benevolent hearers; secondly, he instructs them in the truth about the power of Christ’s grace, there [v. 16b; n. 97] at For it is the power of God. He shows his affection for them in three ways: first, by giving thanks for their blessings; secondly, by the prayer he directs to God on their behalf, there [v. 9; n. 78] at For God is my witness; thirdly, by his desire to visit them, there [v. 10; n. 85] at Always in my prayers. 75. In regard to the first, three things should be noted [n. 76, 77]. First, the order in which he gives thanks, when he says, first, I thank my God. For it is necessary that in all affairs, we begin by giving thanks: "Give thanks in all circumstances" (1 Th 5:18); indeed, a person is not worthy to receive a blessing, if he does not express thanks for past blessings: "The hope of an ungrateful man will melt like wintry frost" (Wis 16:29) and "to the place where the streams flow, there they return" (Ec 1:7), because to the source whence blessings come they return, namely, by giving thanks, to flow again by repeated blessings. But we need God’s blessing in all we seek or do; consequently, before all else thanks should be given. 76. Secondly, he designates three persons, one of whom is the person to whom thanksgiving is made when he says, my God, to whom thanks are due for all our 44 blessings, because they flow from Him: "Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above" (Jas 1:17). And although He is God of all through creation and governance, he is particularly the God of the just for three reasons: first, on account of the special care he shows them: ‘The eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous" (Ps 34:15) and again: "The Lord is my light" (Ps 27:1); on account of their special worship; "This is my God and I will praise him" (Ex 15:2); thirdly, because he is their reward: "I am your reward exceedingly great" (Gen 15:1). The second person is the mediator, whom he mentions when he says, through Jesus Christ. For thanks should be returned to God in the same order in which graces come to us, namely, through Jesus Christ: "Through him we have access to this grace in which we stand" (Rom 5:2). The third is the person of those for whom he gives thanks, for all of you, because he regarded their graces as his on account of the bond of love. As if to say: "I have no greater grace than to hear that my children walk in the truth" (3 Jn 1:4). He purposely says, for all, because he desires to please them all: "Just as I try to please all men in everything I do" (1 Cor 10:33) and wishes the salvation of all: "I wish that all were as I myself am (1 Cor 7:7). 77. Thirdly, he indicates the point about which he is grateful, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. He gives thanks for their faith, because it is the foundation of all spiritual blessings: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for" (Heb 11:1). But the reason he commends the Romans on their faith is that they embrace it with ease and continued in it firmly. Hence, even today very many signs of faith are seen 45 by those who visit the holy places, as Jerome says On the Epistle to the Galatians. However, their faith was not yet perfect, because some of them had been reached by false apostles, who taught that the rites of the Law must be joined to the Gospel. But he rejoices and gives thanks for their faith not only on their account but on account of the benefits accruing therefrom, namely, because, being the rulers of the world, their example would lead other nations to accept the faith; for, as a Gloss says, the lesser are quick to do what they see doe by the greater. On this account prelates are advised to be good examples to the flock (1 Pt 5:3). 78. Then when he says, God is my witness, he shows his affection for them from the prayer he offers for them. And because the business of prayer is carried on in secret in God’s presence: "When you pray, go into you room and shut the door and pray to your Father in secret" (Mt 6:6), he calls on God to testify that he prays for them. First therefore he calls on the witness; secondly he shows on what point he calls the witness [v. 9b; n. 83]. 79. He calls on the witness when he says, God is my witness, under whose witness all things are done: "I am judge and witness" (Jer 29:23). Then, to show that he is not mistaken in calling on the just witness, he mentions how is joined to Him. First, in regard to service when he says, whom I serve, namely, with the worship of latria: "The Lord your God shall you adore and him alone shall you serve" (Dt 6:13). Secondly, in regard to the way he served when he says, with my spirit. As if to say: Not only in outward bodily service, but especially within, according to the spirit: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth" (Jn 46 4:24). Or in spirit, i.e., in spiritual observances, not in carnal, as the Jews: "We are the true circumcision who worship God in spirit" (Phil 3:3). Thirdly, in regard to the office in which he serves, namely, in the gospel of his Son: "Set apart for the gospel" (Rom 1:1). It is the gospel of the Son in three ways: first, because it is about Him: "I bring you good news of a great joy" (Lk 2:10). Secondly, because it was preached by Him as a special duty: "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose" (Lk 4:43). Thirdly, because it was enjoined by Him: "Preach the gospel to every creature" (Mk 16:15). 80. But since, as Augustine says, it is the same to say "God is my witness" and "I swear by God" the Apostle seems to be acting against the Lord’s command: "I say to you, Do not swear at all" (Mt 5:34); "Above all, my brethren, do not swear" (Jas 5:12). However, as Augustine also says, the meaning of Sacred Scripture is gathered from the actions of the saints. For it is the same Spirit Who inspired the sacred Scriptures: "Men moved by the Holy Spirit spike from God" (2 Pt 1:21) and Who moves holy men to act: "All who are led by the Spirit are sons of God" (Rom 8:14). Consequently, if Paul is found to swear, it shows that the Lord’s word and that of the apostle James are not to be understood as indicating that an oath is absolutely unlawful, but that men should strive as far as possible not to use oaths as though they were something good and desirable of their very nature. And this on account of the danger involved in frequent swearing, namely, the possibility of perjury due to a slip of the tongue. Si (23:9) says, "Do not accustom your mouth to oaths for many are tripped by them." Also because it seems contrary to the reverence we owe God for one to call 47 God as witness without necessity. For this reason the Apostle never made an oath except in writing, when a man speaks with greater deliberation and caution. 81. Yet an oath is sometimes necessary to lend credence to a speaker, which in turn often benefits the hearer. Consequently, the Apostle makes an oath for the benefit of his hearer, for whom it was beneficial to believe, as thought hot seeking what was useful to himself but to the majority, namely, their salvation. Hence, the Lord’s statement that "anything more than this," i.e., than simple word, "comes from evil" (Mt 5:37) does not imply that it comes from evil in the one who swears, but in the one who demands the oath: it comes not from the evil of sin, except in the case where a person judges that the one from whom he demands the oath will sear falsely - in which case it is a serious sin, as Augustine says. Rather, it implies that it comes from the evil of punishment, i.e., our ignorance of whether something said to us is true. 82. It should be noted that there are two ways of making an oath: one is by a simple statement, as when it is said, "by God" or "God is my witness." This is the form the Apostle uses here. The other is by an imprecation, namely, when a person calls on God’s witness in the form of some punishment to be inflicted on the speaker if he is lying: "if I have requited evil with evil…, let my enemy pursue me…" (Ps 7:3-5). The Apostle also uses this form, as in 2 Cor (1:23): "I call God to witness against my life." 83. Then he mentions the matter concerning which he calls God to witness when he says, that I mention [remember] you always in my prayers without ceasing, i.e., because in his prayers he always prayed for them on account of the general benefits that 48 arose from their conversion: "Far be it from me that I should sin against the Lord by ceasing to pray for you" (1 Sam 12:23). The statement, I remember, can be understood in two ways: in one way according to the sense of Ps 137 (v.6): "Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember you"; in another way, I remember you, i.e., I pray to God, Who receives the prayers of the humble. Therefore, when the saints pray for certain people, they are somehow presented to His gaze, just as their other actions are. Hence, the woman said to Elijah: "You have come to bring my sin to remembrance" (1 Kg 17:18), as though whatever is done against the just is in the memory and eyes of God. 84. That he claims to pray without ceasing is in agreement with what he tells the Thessalonians: "Pray constantly" (1 Th 5:7) and with Lk (18:1) that "they ought always to pray and not lose heart." This can be understood in three ways: in one way, as to the very act of praying, and then one is praying always or without ceasing, if he prays at the appointed times and hours: "peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour" (Ac 3:1). In another way, as to purpose of prayer which is that our mind rise up to God; and so a man prays as long as he directs his entire life to God: "Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). Thirdly, as to the cause; for when a person so acts that others pray for him, he seems to be praying, as in the case of those who give alms to the poor who pray for them: "Store up almsgiving in the heart of the poor: and it shall obtain help for you against all evil" (Si 29:12). Therefore, I thank my God for you, because I regard your blessings as my own. This is obvious from the fact that I pray for you as I do for myself. 49 85. Then when he says, asking that somehow … I may succeed in coming to you, he proves his affection by his desire to visit them. First, he mentions the desire; secondly, his intention of acting on this desire, there [v. 13; n. 89] at And I would not have you ignorant. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he mentions a sign of this desire; secondly, the cause of his desire, there [v. 11; n. 87] at For I long. 86. The sign of the desire is the prayer he said for them, which implies such a desire. That the desire itself was intense is shown when he says, asking [entreating], for something very important which is beyond my merits: "The poor use entreaties, but the rich answer roughly" (Pr 18:23); for something intensely desired seems great to the one desiring. Secondly, it is an anxious desire, for he says, somehow [by any means]. For if a person anxiously desires something, he seeks to get it by any means, easy or difficult: "What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I shall rejoice" (Phil 1:18-19). Thirdly, the desire was of long standing, for he says, that I may now at last, i.e., after long desiring it. For the just are concerned not for a short time but continually: "A friend loves at all times" (Pr 17:17). Fourthly, the desire was correct, because it was in keeping with God’s will. Hence he adds, that by God’s will I may at last succeed in coming to you, i.e., in keeping 50 with His will, in terms of which I judge success: "not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Mt 26:39). 87. Then when he says, For I long to see you, he mentions the causes of the desire, and there are two [n. 88]. First, the welfare of those he would visit; hence, I long to see you: "I yearn for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus" (Phil 1:8), not for a trifling reason as in worldly friendship, but that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, not as its author but as its minister: "One should regard us as stewards of the mysteries of God" (1 Cor 4:2); and this to strengthen you in the faith you have received: "When you have been converted, strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32). Now a minister imparts grace in a number of ways, one of which is by the administration of the sacraments of grace: "As each has received a gift, administer it to one another as good dispensers of God’s grace" (1 Pt 4:10) and by exhorting in sermons: "Let no evil talk come out of your mouth, but only such as is good for edifying…, that it may impart grace to those who hear" (Eph 4:29). 88. The second cause is the mutual consolation found in friendly communication. Hence he continues, that we may be mutually encouraged, i.e., me by seeing you and imparting a grace, and all of us by each other’s faith, both yours and mine. For it is a source of mutual consolation to be one in the faith: "But God who comforts the downcast comforted us by the coming of Titus: not only by his coming but also by the comfort with which he was comforted in you." (2 Cor 6:6). 89. Then when he says, I would not have you ignorant, he mentions his intention to fulfill his plan lest it appear to be a vain desire. 51 First, he mentions his plan; secondly, its cause, there [v. 13b; n. 92] at that I might have some fruit; thirdly, his eagerness, there [v. 15; n. 95] at So, as much as in me. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he mentions his plan; secondly, the obstacle, there [v. 13b; n. 91] at and have been hindered. 90. He says, therefore, first: Not only do I desire to see you, but I have decided to fulfill this desire, and I want you to know, brethren, that I have often intended to come to you to prove my love "not only in word or speech but in deed and in truth" (1 Jn 3:18). 91. Secondly, he touches on the obstacle preventing him from having fulfilled that intention, saying, but thus far I have been prevented either by the devil, who endeavors to prevent the preaching from which man’s salvation results: "the north wind drives away rain" (Pr 25:23), i.e., the doctrines of the preachers; or perhaps by God, according to Whose nod the journeys and words of preachers are arranged: "The clouds," i.e., preachers, "scatter his lightning. They turn round and round by his guidance to accomplish all that he commands them" (Jb 37: 11-12). Hence in Ac (16:6) it is recorded: "They went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia"; and again: "They attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them." But the Apostle wants them to know both these things for their own benefit, so that seeing his affection, they might receive his words with more reverence, and recognizing their own conduct as the obstacle hitherto preventing his visit, they might 52 amend their lives. Ro the words of Is (5:6) express a punishment for sin: "I will command the clouds to rain no rain upon it." 92. Then he gives two reasons for his intention. The first is utility; hence he says, in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles, to whom I have preached. This can be taken in two ways: in one way as though her were saying: that I may reap some harvest among you by my preaching: "You should go and bear fruit" (Jn 15:16). In another way as though from their conversion a harvest would grow for him: "He who reaps, receives wages and gathers fruit for eternal life" (Jn 4:36). 93. The other reason is the responsibility of his office: "Woe to me, if I do not preach the gospel" (1 Cor 9:16). And because he had undertaken the general apostolate of the Gentiles, he asserts that he under obligation to all: "Although I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all" (1 Cor 9:19). 94. And for this reason he sets out two diversities. One is along the lines of the diversity of nations, when he says, to Greeks and to barbarians. A person is called a barbarian, either because he is cut off from some people in one way or another in the sense of 1 Cor (13:11): "If I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a barbarian to the speaker and the speaker to me"; or because he is cut off from the human race, inasmuch as he is not ruled by reason. Hence, they are properly called barbarians who are not directed by reason. This is implied in 2 Macc (15:2): "Do not act so fiercely and barbarously," i.e., inhumanly. 53 Now because the Greeks were the first to establish laws, he calls all the Gentiles ruled by human laws Greeks. He makes no mention of the Jews who were ruled by divine laws, because he was not appointed apostle to the Jews but to the Gentiles: "We to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised" (Gal 2:9). 95. Both reasons account for his readiness of will, so that he says, I am eager, i.e., as far as I am concerned, I am prepared, unless prevented, to preach the Gospel even to you in Rome: "Then all the people departed from the presence of Moses. And they came everyone whose heart stirred him" (Ex 35:20). 96. He rejects the obstacle to eagerness, namely, shame, on account of which many fail to do what they would otherwise do readily; hence he says, I am not ashamed of the gospel, which, indeed, seemed to be an occasion of shame for some in the presence of unbelievers, as he states in 1 Cor (1:23); "We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and folly to the Gentiles." But there is really no reason for shame, because he continues (v. 24): "but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks [?] Hence it is said: "Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him the Son of man will be ashamed" (Lk 9:26). That is why the baptized are anointed with the chrism in the form of a cross on the forehead, where shame has its seat, namely, lest they be ashamed of the gospel.

97. After eliciting the good will of the Roman believers, to whom he was writing, by showing his affection for them [n. 74], the Apostle now begins to instruct them in matters pertinent to the teachings of the Gospel for which he had been set apart. First he shows them the power of the gospel grace; secondly, he urges them to perform the works of this grace, at chapter 12, there [n. 953] at I beseech you. In regard to the first he does to things: first, he sets forth what he intends; secondly, he explains it, there [v. 18; n. 109] at For the wrath of God. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he sets forth the power of the gospel grace; secondly, he explains, there [v. 17; n. 102] at For the justice; thirdly, he supports his explanation, there [17b; n. 104] at As it is written. 55 98. He says, therefore: I am not ashamed of the Gospel, because, although "the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor :18). For it is the power of God. This can be understood in two ways. In one way, that the power of God is manifested in the Gospel: "He has shown the people the power of his works" (Ps 111:6); in another way, that the Gospel itself contains in itself God’s power, in the sense of Ps 68 (v. 33): "He will give to his voice a voice of power." 99. In regard to this power three things can be considered. First, to what it extends. This is answered when he says, for salvation: "Receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your soul" (James 1:21). This happens in three ways: first, insofar as sins are forgiven by the word of the Gospel: "You are made clean by the word I have spoken to you" (Jn 15:3). Secondly, insofar as a man obtains sanctifying grace through the Gospel: "Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth" (Jn 17:17). Thirdly, insofar as it leads to eternal life: "You have the words of eternal life" (John 6:68). 100. The second consideration is how the Gospel confers salvation, namely, through faith, which is indicated when he says, to everyone who believes. This happens in three ways. First, through preaching: "Preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:15). Secondly, by confessing the faith: with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (Rom 10:10). Thirdly, by the Scripture; hence even the written words of the Gospel have a saving power, as Barnabas cured the sick by placing the Gospel upon them. 56 15 In Quodlibet 12, Q. 9, A. 2 corp., Thomas mentions that St. Cecilia carried a bit of the text of the gospel next to her heart, but he points out that she did not add other words or characters to the text. This would have indicated a superstitious belief in magic phrases or signs. Nonetheless, one must beware the superstitions of characters, because this is superstitious.15 Hence in Ezekiel 9:6, those were saved who had written on their foreheads a Tau, which is the sign of the cross. 101. The third thing to be considered is the people for whom the Gospel works salvation, namely, both the Jews and the Gentiles. For God is God not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles, as he says below in 3(:19); hence he adds to the Jews first and also to the Greeks. By Greek is meant all the Gentiles, because the Gentiles’ wisdom arose from the Greeks. But since he says below (10:12) There is no distinction between Jew and Greek, why does he say here that the Jew is first? The answer is that there is no distinction as far as the goal of salvation to be obtained is concerned, for both obtain an equal reward, just as in the vineyard the early and the late workers received one coin in Matt 20(:10). But in the order of salvation the Jews are first, because the promises were made to them, as is said below in chapter 3(:2), whereas the Gentiles were included in their grace like a branch grafted into a cultivated olive tree, as is said in chapter 11(:24). Also, our savior was born from the Jews: "Salvation is from the Jews" (Jn 4:22). 102. Then he explains how the Gospel works unto salvation when he says, For the justice of God is revealed in it from faith unto faith. This can be understood in two ways. 57 In one way it can refer to the justice by which God is just: "The Lord is just and has loved justice" (Ps 11:7). Taken this way, the sense is that the justice of God, by which he is just in keeping his promises, is revealed in it [in eo], namely, in the man who believes the Gospel, because he believes that God has fulfilled what he promised about sending the Christ. And this is from faith, namely, [the faithfulness] of God who promised: "The Lord is faithful in all his words (Ps 145:13); to faith, namely of the man who believes. Or it can refer to the justice of God by which God makes men just. For the justice of men is that by which men presume to make themselves just by their own efforts: Not knowing the justice of God and seeking to establish their own justice, they did not submit to the justice of God (Rom 10:3). This justice [of God] is revealed in the gospel inasmuch as men are justified by faith in the gospel in every age. Hence he adds, from faith to faith, i.e., proceeding from faith in the Old Testament to faith in the New, because in both cases men are made just and are saved by faith in Christ, since they believed in his coming with the same faith as we believe that he has come. Therefore, it is stated in 2Cor 4(:13), "We have the same type of faith as he had who wrote, ‘I believed, and so I spoke’." 103. Or it can mean from the faith of the preachers to the faith of the hearers: "How are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?" (Rom 10:14) Or from faith in one article to faith in another, because justification requires belief in all the articles: "Blessed is he who reads and hears the words of this prophecy" (Rev 1:3). 58 It can be taken as from present faith into future faith, i.e., into the full vision of God, which is called faith by reason of the certainty and solidity of the knowledge, [while] this [present faith is called faith] by reason of the knowledge of the Gospel: "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face" (1Cor 13:12). 104. He supports this explanation when he adds, As it is written: My just man lives by faith (Hab 2:4). This follows the Septuagint text, for in our text, which follows the Hebrew truth, it says "The just man lives by his faith." It says My just man, i.e. justified by me and reputed just before me, as is said below in chapter 4(:2), But if Abraham was justified by works of the Law, he has glory, but not before God. For what do the Scriptures say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice." Hence it adds, lives by faith, i.e. by the life of grace: "The life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God" (Gal 2:20). 105. Four things must be considered here concerning faith [n. 106-108]. First, what faith is. For it involves willed assent, with certitude, to that which is not seen: because, as Augustine says, no one believes unless he is willing. According to this definition a believer differs from a doubter, who assents to neither side; he also differs from one holding an opinion, who assents to one side not with certitude but with fear concerning the other side; he differs also from one who knows scientifically, who through certitude assents by the necessity of reason. Accordingly, faith is midway between scientific knowledge and opinion. 106. The second consideration is whether faith is a virtue. Clearly it is not, if faith is taken for that which is believed, as in the statement: "This is the Catholic faith, 59 that we venerate one God in Trinity." But if it is taken for the habit by which we believe, then sometimes it is a virtue and sometimes not. For a virtue is a principle of a perfect act. But an act depending on two principles cannot be perfect, if either of the principles lacks its perfection, just as riding cannot be perfect, if the horse does not run well or the rider does not know how to guide the horse. Now the act of faith, which is to believe, depends on the intellect and on the will moving the intellect to assent. Hence, the act of faith will be perfect, if the will is perfected by the habit of charity and the intellect by the habit of faith, but not if the habit of charity is lacking. Consequently, faith formed by charity is a virtue; but not unformed faith. 107. The third point to be considered is that the same numerical habit of faith which was not formed by charity becomes a virtue with the advent of charity, because, since charity is outside the essence of faith, the substance of faith is not changed by the coming or going of charity. 108. Fourthly, we must consider that just as the body lives its natural life through the soul, so the soul lives the life of grace through God. First of all, God dwells in the soul through faith: "That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith" (Eph 3:17); but this indwelling is not perfect, unless faith is formed by charity, which by the bond of perfection unites us to God, as Col 3(:14) says. Consequently, the phrase, lives by faith, must be understood of formed faith. 109. Then when he says, the wrath of God is revealed, he proves what he had said, namely, that the power of the gospel’s grace exists for all men unto salvation. First, he shows that it is necessary for salvation; 60 secondly, that it is efficacious or sufficient, at chapter 5, there [n. 381] at Being justified therefore by faith. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he shows that the power of gospel grace was necessary for the Gentiles’ salvation, because the wisdom in which they trusted could not save them; secondly, he shows that it was necessary for the Jews, because circumcision, the Law and other things in which they trusted, did not bring them salvation. Chapter 2, there [n. 169] at Therefore you have no excuse. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he states his intention; secondly, he manifests it, there [v. 19; n. 113] at Because what is known about God. 110. And he sets forth three things. First, punishment, when he says: Rightly do I say that the justice of God is revealed in it, for in it the wrath of God is revealed, i.e., God’s vengeance, which is called wrath in comparison to angry men who seek vengeance exteriorly; although God takes vengeance with a tranquil spirit: "You, our Lord, judge with tranquility" (Wis 12:18). Of this anger of God, John says: "He that does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him" (John 3:36). This is stated, because some philosophers said that punishments for sin are not from God, contrary to what is said in Psalm 94(:19), "He that chastises the nations, does he not chastise us?" 61 That is why he adds, from heaven, because they believed that God’s providence was so occupied with the heavens that it did not extend to earthly affairs: "He walks among the poles of the clouds, nor does he consider us" (Job 22:14). But as it says in Ps 102(:19), "From heaven the Lord looked at the earth." Or he is said to prove their iniquity from heaven, because they should have recognized the power of the Creator above all from the greatness of the heavens: "The heavens will reveal his iniquity" (Job 20:27). Or from heaven he will come to judge: "Jesus will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven" (Acts 1:11). 111. Secondly, he mentions the sin for which the punishment is inflicted. First, the sin against God, when he says: against all ungodliness. For just as godliness refers to worship paid to God, as to the highest parent, so ungodliness is a sin against divine worship: "The wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself" (Ezek 18:20). Secondly, he sets forth the sin committed against man, when he says: and injustice. For justice is that through which men come together and engage one another reasonably: "Your justice will help a son of man" (Jb 35:8). 112. Thirdly, he sets out the knowledge they had of him, when he says: of men who suppress the truth of God, i.e., true knowledge of God, by their wickedness. For true knowledge of God, by its very nature, leads men to good, but it is bound, as though held captive, by a love of wickedness through which, as Ps 11(:1) says, "truths have vanished from among the sons of men." 62 113. Then when he says: For what can be known about God, he manifests what he has said, but in reverse order. For he first admits that wise men among the Gentiles knew the truth about God; secondly, he shows that there was ungodliness and injustice among them, there [v.20b; n. 123] at So that they are without excuse; thirdly, that they have incurred God’s wrath, there [v. 32; n. 166] at Who, knowing the justice of God. In regard to the first he does three things. First, he shows what they knew about God; secondly, from whom they obtained this knowledge, there [v.19b; n. 116] at For God has made it clear; thirdly, how they obtained it, there [v.20; n. 117] at For the invisible things. 114. First, therefore, he says: Rightly do I say that they have suppressed the truth about God. For they did possess some true knowledge of God, because what is known about God, i.e., what can be known about God by men through reason, is manifest in them, i.e., is manifest to them from something in them, i.e. from an inner light. Therefore, it should be noted that some things about God are entirely unknown to man in this life, namely, what God is. Hence Paul found in Athens an altar inscribed "To the unknown God" (Acts 17:23). The reason for this is that man’s knowledge begins with things connatural to him, namely, sensible creatures, which are not proportioned representing the divine essence. 63 16 De Divinis Nominibus chapter 7, lecture 4. 115. But man is capable of knowing God from such creatures in three ways, as Denis says in The Divine Names.16 He knows him, first of all, through causality. For since these creatures are subject to change and decay, it is necessary to trace them back to some unchangeable and unfailing principle. In this way, it can be known that God exists. Secondly, he can be known by the way of excellence. For all things are not traced back to the first principle as to a proper and univocal cause, as when man produces man, but to a common and exceeding cause. From this it is known that God is above all things. Thirdly, he can be known by the way of negation. For if [God ]is a cause exceeding [his effects], nothing in creatures can belong to him, just as a heavenly body is not properly called heavy or light or hot or cold. And in this way, we say that God is unchangeable and infinite; and we use other negative expressions to describe him. Men had such knowledge through the light of reason bestowed on them: "Many say, ‘O, that we might see some good!’ Lift up the light of your countenance upon us, O Lord" (Ps 4:6). 116. Then when he says God has manifested it to them, he shows by what author such knowledge was manifested to them and says that it was God: "He teaches us more than the beasts of the earth" (Jb 35:11). Here it should be noted that one man manifests something to another by unfolding his own thought by means of such external signs as vocal sounds or writing. But God manifests something to man in two ways: first, by endowing him with an inner light through which he knows: "Send out your light and you truth" (Ps 43:3); secondly, by 64 proposing external signs of his wisdom, namely, sensible creatures: "He poured her out," namely, wisdom, "over all his works" (Sir 1:9). Thus God manifested it to them either from within by endowing them with a light or from without by presenting visible creatures, in which, as in a book, the knowledge of God may be read. 117. Then when he says, For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world, he shows the manner in which they received such knowledge. Here the first points to be considered are the things they have known about God. He mentions three. First, the invisible things of him, through which one understands God’s essence, which, as was said [n. 114], cannot be seen by us: "No one has ever seen God" (Jn 1:18), i.e., in his essence, no one living in this mortal life: "To the king of ages, immortal, invisible" (1 Tim 1:17). He says, invisible things, using the plural, because God’s essence is not known to us in regard to what it is, i.e., as it is in itself one. That is the way it will be known in heaven: "On that day the Lord will be one and his name one" (Zech 14:9). But it is now manifested to us through certain likenesses found in creatures, which participate in manifold ways that which is one in God. Accordingly, our intellect considers the one divine essence under the aspects of goodness, wisdom, power and so on, all of which are one in God. Therefore he calls these the invisible things of God, because the one reality in God which corresponds to these names or notions is not seen by us: "So that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear" (Heb 11:3). 65 Another thing known about God is his power, in virtue of which all things proceed from him as from a principle: "Great is the Lord and abundant in power" (Ps 147:5). This power the philosophers knew to be eternal; hence it is called his eternal power. The third thing known is what he calls divinity, namely, they knew God as the ultimate end unto which all things tend. For the divine good is called the common good in which all things participate; on this account he says, divinity, which signifies participation, rather than "deity," which signifies God’s essence: "For in him the whole fullness of divinity dwells bodily" (Col 2:9). These three things are referred to the above-mentioned three ways of knowing. For the invisible things of God are known by the method of negation; the eternal power by the method of causality; the divinity by way of excellence. 118. Secondly, one must consider the medium through which they knew those things. This is designated when he says, by the things that are made. For just as an art is shown by an artist’s works, so God’s wisdom is shown by his creatures: "From the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their creator" (Wis 13:5). 119. Thirdly he shows how God is known through them when he says, clearly seen, being understood. For it is by the intellect that God is known, not by the senses or imagination, which do not extend beyond bodily things: "But God is spirit" (John 4:24); "Behold my servant understands [intelligit]" (Is 52:13). 66 17 Gregory the Great, Expositio in librum Iob, book 8. 120. Fourthly, he designates the things from which God is known by this medium when he says, from the creature of the world. In one way, this can be understood as referring to man: "Preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15), either on account of the excellence of man, who in the order of nature is less than the angels’ but greater than lower creatures: "Yet you have made him less than the angels; you have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen" (Ps 8:5), or because he has something in common with every creature. For he has existence in common with stones, life in common with trees, sense in common with animals, and intelligence in common with angels, as Gregory says.17 In another way it can be understood of all creation. For no creature by its own natural power can see God’s essence in itself. Hence it is said even of the Seraphim, "with two wings they covered their head" (Is 6:2). But just as man understands God through visible creatures, so an angel understands God by understanding its own essence. 121. Or, creature of the world can be taken to mean not created things but the creation of things, as though it were said: from the creation of the world. In this case, one interpretation would be that the invisible things of God are understood by means of things made since the creation of the world and not only since the time of grace. Another interpretation would be that from the creation of the world men began to know God through the things that were made: "All men have looked on it" (Jb 36:25). 122. But a gloss says that by the invisible things of God is meant the person of the Father: "Whom no man has ever seen or can see" (1 Tim 6:16); by the eternal power the person of the Son: "Christ the power of God" (1 Cor 1:24); by divinity the person of the Holy Spirit, to whom goodness is appropriated. Not that philosophers under the lead of 67 reason could arrive by means of created things to a knowledge of the persons, so as to know what are proper to each, which do not signify any causal connection with creatures; but [this is said] by way of appropriation. Yet they are said to have failed in the third sign, i.e., in the Holy Spirit, because they did not mention anything corresponding to the Holy Spirit, as they did for the Father, namely the very first principle, and for the Son, namely the first mind created, which they called the Father’s understanding [paternum intellectum], as Macrobius says in his book on The Dream of Scipio.

123. After showing that truth about God was known by the Gentiles [n. 113], he now states that they were guilty of the sins of ungodliness. 68 First, he shows this with regard to the sin of impiety; secondly, in regard to injustice, there [v. 28; n. 152] at And since they did not see fit. But someone might believe that they would be excludes from the sin of ungodliness on account of ignorance, as the Apostle says of himself in 1 Tim (1:13): "I received mercy, because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief." First, therefore, he shows that they are without excuse; secondly, he states their sin, there [v.23; n. 132] at And they changed the glory. 124. In regard to the first it should be noted that ignorance excuses from guilt, when it precedes and causes guilt in such a way that the ignorance itself is not the result of guilt; for example, when a person, after exercising due caution, thinks he is striking a foe, when he is really striking his father. But if the ignorance is caused by guilt, it cannot excuse one from a fault that follows. Thus, if a person commits murder, because he is drunk, he is not excused from the guilt, because he sinned by intoxicating himself; indeed, according to the Philosopher, he deserves a double penalty. 125. First, therefore, he states his intention, saying: So, i.e., things about god are so well known to them, that they are without excuse, i.e., they cannot be excused on the plea of ignorance: "Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin" (Jas 4:17); "Therefore, you have no excuse" (Rom 2:1). 126. Secondly, he proves his statement at For, although they knew (v. 21). First, he shows that their first guilt did not proceed from ignorance; secondly, their ignorance proceeded from this guilt, there [v. 21b; n. 128] at but became vain. 69 127. That their basic guilt was not due to ignorance is shown by the fact that, although they possessed knowledge of God, they failed to use it unto good. For they knew God in two ways: first, as the supereminent being, to Whom glory and honor were due. They are said to be without excuse, therefore, because, although they knew god, they did not honor him as God; either because they failed to pay Him due worship or because they put a limit to His power and knowledge by denying certain aspects of His power and knowledge, contrary to Si (43:30): "when you exalt him, put forth all your strength." Secondly, they knew Him as the cause of all good things. Hence, in all things he was deserving of thanks, which they did not render; rather, they attributed their blessings to their own talent and power. Hence, he adds: nor did they give thanks, namely, to the Lord: "Give thanks to Him in all circumstances" (1 Th 5:18). 128. Then when he says did not give thanks (v.21b) he shows that in their case, ignorance was the result of their guilt. First, he states his charge; secondly, he explains it, there [v. 22; n. 131] Claiming. 129. First, then, he mentions the guilt which caused their ignorance, when he says, they became futile. For something is futile, when it lacks stability or firmness. But God alone is changeless: "I, the Lord, do not change" (Mal 3:6). Consequently, the human mind is free of futility, only when it leans on god. But when God is rejected and the mind rests in creatures, it incurs futility: "For all men who were ignorant of god were foolish and could not know God from the good things which are seen" (Wis 13:1); "The Lord knows the 70 thoughts of man, that they are vain" (Ps 94:11). In their thinking they were futile, because they put their trust in themselves and not in god, ascribing their blessings not to God but to themselves, as the Psalmist says: "Our lips are with us; who is our master?" (Ps 11:4). 130. Secondly, he mentions the ignorance which followed, when he says, were darkened, i.e., by the fact that it was darkened their mind became senseless, i.e., deprived of the light of wisdom, through which man truly knows God. For just as a person who turns his bodily eyes from the sun is put in darkness, so one who turns from God, presuming on himself and not on God, is put in spiritual darkness: "Where there is humility," which subjects a man to God "there is wisdom; where there is pride, there is a disgrace" (Pr 11:2); "Thou hast hidden these things from the wise," as they seemed to themselves, "and revealed them to babes," i.e., to the humble (Mt 11:25); "The gentiles live in the futility of their mind; they are darkened in their understanding" (Eph 4:17). 131. Then when he says, claiming, he explains his statement. And first, how they became futile in their thinking, when he says, claiming to be wise, they became fools. Claiming, i.e. ascribing wisdom to themselves as of themselves: "Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes" (Is 5:21); "How can you say to Pharaoh, ‘I am the son of the wise, a son of ancient kings? Where now are your wise men?" (Jb 19:11) Secondly, he explains his statement that their senseless minds were darkened, when he says, they became fools to the point of acting contrary to divine wisdom: "Every man is stupid and without knowledge" of his own on which he presumed (Jer 10:14). 71 132. Then when he says, and exchanged the glory, he mentions the punishment for the Gentiles’ sin of ungodliness. First, in regard to sinning against God’s glory; secondly, how they sinned against the truth of nature itself, there [v.25; n. 141] at They who changed the truth. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he sets forth the sin of ungodliness; secondly, the punishment, there [v. 24; n. 137] at Wherefore God gave them up. 133. Their sin, indeed, was that, so far as in them lay, they transferred divine honor to something else: "My people have changed their glory for that which does not profit" (Jer 2:11). First, therefore, he mentions what they changed; secondly, that into which they changed it, there [v. 23; n. 135] at into the likeness. 134. In regard to the first, three things should be noted on the part of God. First, his glory, which he mentions when he says, they exchanged the glory. This can be interpreted in two ways: first, as referring to the glory with which man gives glory to God by rendering Him the worship of latria: "To the only God be honor and glory" (1 Tim 1:17). They exchanged this, when they paid to others the worship due to God. Secondly, as referring to the glory with which god is glorious, which is incomprehensible and infinite: "He that is a searcher of majesty shall be overwhelmed by glory" (Pr 25:27). This glory, of course, is nothing less than the brilliance of the divine nature; for "he dwells in unapproachable light" (1 Tim 6:16). 72 This glory they exchanged, when they attributed it to other things, for "men bestowed on objects of stone and wood the name that ought not to be named" (Wis 14:21). Secondly, his immortality is noted when he says, immortal. For He alone is perfectly immortal Who is entirely unchangeable; for every change is a form of ceasing to be. Hence, it is stated in 1 Tim (6:16): "He alone has immortality." Thirdly, he notes the sublimity of His nature, when he says, God, for it is stated in Ps 48 (v.1): "Great is the Lord." 135. On the part of that into which they exchanged it, three corresponding things are mentioned. For in contrast to glory he says, for images resembling, i.e., for a likeness of something produced in the form of an image. For it is plain that the likeness in an image is subsequent to the thing whose image it is. But God’s glory or brilliance is prior to and the source of every nature and form; consequently, when they exchanged God’s glory for images, they put the first being in last place: "For a father consumed with grief, made an image of his child, who had been suddenly taken from him" (Wis 14:15). In contrast to immortal he says, mortal: "What profit is there in my blood, if I go down to the Pit?" (Ps 30:9), i.e., what good is a dead thing? "He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead" (Wis 15:17). In contrast to God he says, man: "I will not show partiality to any man and I will not equate God with man" (Jb 32:21). But what is more abominable, man exchanged God’s glory not only for man, who is made to the image of God, but even for things inferior to man. Hence, he adds, of birds, things that fly, or animals, things that walk, or reptiles, things that crawl. He omits 73 fish as being less familiar to ordinary human life. Now all these things were put under man by God: "Thou hast put all things under his feet" (Ps 8:8); "Go in and see the vile abominations that they are committing here. So I went in and saw; and there, portrayed upon the wall round about were all kinds of creeping things and loathsome beasts…" (Ez 8:9) 136. It might be mentioned, as a gloss says, that from the time of Aeneas’ arrival in Italy, images of men were cultivated, e.g., Jupiter, Hercules and so on. But after the conquest of Egypt during the reign of Caesar Augustus, the Romans took up the worship of animal images (on account of the figures of animals discovered in the sky), to which the Egyptians, given to astrology, rendered divine worship. Hence, the Lord himself instructed the children of Israel raised in Egypt against such worship, when He said: "Beware lest you lift up your eyes to heaven and when you see the sun and the moon and the starts, you be drawn away and worship them" (Dt 4:19). 137. Then when he says Wherefore God gave them up (v.24) he mentions the punishment for such a sin. Here it should be noted that man holds a place midway between God and the beasts and has something in common with both: with God, intellectuality; with animals, sensibility. Therefore, just as man exchanged that which was of God for what is bestial, so God subjected the divine in man, namely, reason, to what is of the beast in him, his sensual desire, as it is stated in Ps 49 (v.20): "Man cannot abide in his pomp," i.e., understand the likeness of the divine image in him through reason, "he is like the beasts that perish." This, therefore, is why he says, therefore, God gave them up to the lusts of their hearts, so that their reason would be ruled by the desires of the heart, namely, 74 lustful affections, about which he says below: "Make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires." But this is contrary to man’s natural order, in which reason dominates the sense appetites: "Its desire is under you and you must master it" (Gen 4:7). Consequently, he releases men to the desires of the heart as to cruel masters: "I will give over the Egyptians into the hand of a hard master" (Is 19:4). 138. It is chiefly with respect to the sense appetite that a certain bestial derangement is present in carnal sins. For the pleasures of touch, which delight gluttony and lust, are common to us and to beasts. Hence, they are more detestable, being more brutish, as the Philosopher says in Ethics III. This is designated when he says, to impurity, which refers to sins of the flesh, as is clear from Eph (5:5): "Every fornicator or impure man"; because it is especially through such sins that man turns to and is drawn to what is beneath him. For a thing is said to be impure or tainted from being mixed with something base, as silver mixed with lead. Hence, in explanation he continues: to the dishonoring, by base and unclean acts, of their bodies among themselves, i.e., not as though compelled by other, for example, by savages, but they do this among themselves spontaneously. Below, 9(:21), "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vase for honor and another for dishonor?", namely, for menial use. 139. But since impurity of this kind is a sin, it seems that God would not give men over to it: "God himself tempts no one to evil" (Jas 1:13). The answer is that God does not give men over to impurity directly, as though inclining a man’s affection toward evil, because God ordains all things to Himself: "The Lord has made everything for himself" (Pr 16:4), whereas something is sinful through its 75 turning from Him. But he gives men over to sin indirectly, inasmuch as He justly withdraws the grace through which men are kept from sinning, just as a person would be said to cause another to fall, if he removed the ladder supporting him. In this way, one’s first sin is a cause of the next, which is that the same time a punishment for the first one. To understand this it should be noted that one sin can be the cause of another directly or indirectly: directly, inasmuch as from one sin he is inclined to another in any of three ways. In one way, when it acts as a final cause; for example, when someone from greed or envy is incited to commit murder. Secondly, when it acts as a material cause, as gluttony leads to lust by administering the material. Thirdly, when it acts as a movent cause, as when many repetitions of the same sin produce a habit inclining a person to repeat the sin. Indirectly, when the first sin merits the exclusion of grace, so that once it is removed, a man falls into another sin. In this way the first sin is the cause of the second indirectly or incidentally, inasmuch as it removes the preventative. 140. It should be borne in mind, however, that sin as such cannot be a punishment, because we suffer punishment against our will, whereas sin is voluntary, as Augustine says. But because sin has certain features contrary to the will of the sinner, it is by reason of them that a sin is called a punishment of a previous sin. One of these features is something preceding the sin, as the withdrawal of grace, from which it follows that a man sins. Another is something that accompanies the sin either interiorly, as that the mid is disarranged; hence Augustine says in Confessions I: "You have commanded it, O Lord, and so it comes to pass that every disarranged mid is a punishment to itself"; or in regard to its outward acts, which involve difficulties and labors, as sinners aver in Wis 76 (5:7): "We journeyed through trackless deserts." The third feature is something that follows the sin, such as remorse of conscience, bad reputation and so on. 141. Then, when he says, because they exchanged the truth, he mentions the sin of ungodliness committed against the truth of the divine nature. First he mentions the sin; secondly, the punishment, there [v. 26; n. 146] at Wherefore God gave them up 142. The divine nature can be considered in two ways: in one way, as being the first truth. In this respect he says that they exchanged the truth about God for a lie. This can be taken in two ways: first, that they changed the true knowledge they received from God into false dogmas with their perverse reasoning; for example when they claimed that certain idols are gods or that God is not all-powerful or all-knowing: They have taught their tongue to speak lies" (Jer 9:5). In another way, they exchanged the truth about God for a lie, because they attributed the nature of divinity, which is truth itself, to an idol, which is a lie, inasmuch as it is not God: "Our fathers have inherited nothing but lies; worthless things in which there is no profit. Can man make for himself gods? Such are no gods!" (Jer 16:19). The divine nature can be considered in another way as being the source of existence for all things though creation. Consequently, men owed Him worship: inwardly, the worship of a pious love: "If anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will him he hears" (Jn 9:31); outwardly, the service of latria: "The Lord, your God, shall you adore and him alone shall you serve" (Dt 9:13). 143. Hence, he continues, charging them that they worshipped and served the creature rather than the creator. For they worshipped heavenly bodies and air and water 77 and other such things: "They supposed that fire or wind or swift air or circle of the stars … were the gods that rule the world" (Wis 13:2). With these words he censures the wise men of the Gentiles who, although they never believed that anything divine was present in images, as the followers of Hermes believed, or that the fables created by poets concerning the gods were true, nevertheless paid divine worship to certain creatures, thus lending support to the fables. Thus, Varro supposed that the universe was God on account of its soul and taught that divine worship can be paid to the whole universe, namely, to the air, which they called Juno, to the water, which they called Liaeus, and to other things. Even the Platonists taught that divine worship was owed to all the rational substances above us; for example, to demons, to the souls of the heavenly bodies and to the intelligences, i.e., the separated substances. Now, although we should show some reverence to those above us, it should never be the worship of latria, which consists chiefly in sacrifices and oblations, through which man professes God to be the author of all good things. Similarly, in any kingdom certain honors are due the supreme ruler and it is not lawful to transfer them to anyone else. 144. And for this reason he adds, who is blessed, i.e., Whose goodness is evident, just as we are said to bless God, when we admit His goodness with our heart and express it orally: "When you exalt [bless] him, put forth all your strength" (Si 43:30). He adds, for ever, because His goodness is everlasting; it depends on no one else, but is the source of all good. For this reason the worship of latria is due Him. He ends with Amen to indicate absolute certainty: "He that blesses himself in the land shall be blessed by the God of truth" (Is 65:16). Amen, i.e., it is true, or "so be it." 145. It seems that the Apostle touches on the three theologies of the Gentiles. 78 First, the civil, which was observed by their priests adoring idols in the temple; in regard to this he says: they exchanged the glory of the immortal God. Secondly, the theology of fables, which their poets presented in the theatre. In regard to this he says, they exchanged the truth about God for a lie. Thirdly, their natural theology, which the philosophers observed in the world, when they worshipped the parts of the world. In regard to this he says, they worshipped and served the creature rather than the creator.

146. Having set forth the sin of ungodliness [n. 141], according to which they have sinned against the divine nature, he now sets forth the punishment whereby they have been reduced to sinning against their own nature. First, he mentions the punishment; secondly, he explains it, there [26b; n. 148] at For their women; thirdly, its fittingness, there [27b; n. 151] at the recompense. 147. Therefore, he says, for this reason, i.e., because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie, God gave them up not, of course, by impelling them to evil but by abandoning them, to dishonorable passions, i.e., sins against nature, which are called passions in the sense that a passion implies that a thing is drawn outside the order of its own nature, as when water becomes hot or when a man becomes sick. Hence, because man departs from the natural order, when he commits such sins, they are fittingly called passions, as in Rom (7:5): "The passions of sins." They are called dishonorable passions, because their acts are not worthy of man: "It is a shame even to speak of the things that they do in secret" (Eph 5:12). For if sins of the flesh are shameful, because through them man is lowered to what is bestial in him, much more so are sins against nature, through which man sinks below the bestial: "I will change his glory into shame" (Hos 4:7). 148. Then when he says For their women (v.26b) he explains his statement. First, in regard to women; 80 secondly, in regard to men, there [v. 27; n. 150] at And, in like manner, the men also. 149. He says therefore first: the reason why I say that they have been given up to dishonorable passions is that their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural: "Does not nature itself teach you?" (1 Cor 11:14); "They have transgressed the laws, broken the everlasting covenant," i.e., the natural law (Is 24:5). It should be noted that something is against man’s nature in two ways: in one way, against the nature of what constitutes man, i.e., rationality. In this way, every sin is said to be against man’s nature, inasmuch as it is against right reason. Hence, Damascene says that an angel in sinning was turned from what is according to nature into what is contrary to nature. In another way, something is said to be against man’s nature by reason of his general class, which is animal. Now it is obvious that according to the intent of nature, sexual union in animals is ordained to the act of generation; hence, every form of union from which generation cannot follow is against the nature of animal as animal. In line with this it is stated in a gloss that "the natural use is that a man and a woman come together in one copulation, but it is against nature that a man pollute a man and a woman a woman." The same is true of every act of intercourse from which generation cannot follow. 150. Then when he says, And, in like manner, the men also, he explains in regard to males, who gave up natural relations with women and were consumed, i.e., lusted for something beyond the intent of nature: "They blazed like a fire of thorns" (Ps 118:12); and this in their desires, i.e., carnal desires, men committing shameful acts with men: "I will uncover your shame before them and they will see all your baseness" (Ez 16:37). 81 151. Then he shows that this punishment suited their guilt, when he says, and receiving in their own person, i.e., in the deformation of their nature, the due reward of their error, i.e., the error of exchanging the truth of God for a lie; the due reward, i.e., the retribution they deserved to receive according to the order of justice which required that those who insulted God’s nature by attributing to creatures what is his alone, should be affronts to their own nature. Although "reward" seems to imply something good, it is taken here for any retribution, even evil: "Wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23); "All their wages shall be burned with fire" (Mic 1:7). It should be noted that the Apostle very reasonably considers vices against nature, which are the worst carnal sins, as punishments for idolatry, because they seem to have begun as idolatry, namely, at the time of Abraham, when idolatry is believed to have begun. That seems to be the reason why they are first recorded to have been punished among the people of Sodom (Gen 19). Furthermore, as idolatry became more widespread, these vices grew. Hence it is written in 2 Macc (4:12) that Jason "founded a gymnasium right under the citadel, and he induced the noblest of the young men to wear the Greek hat," i.e., put them in brothel houses. Now this was not the beginning, but an increase and progression of the heathenish and foreign manners. 152. Then when he says And as they did not see fit (v. 28) he shows that they fell under a penalty of justice. First, he shows that previous sin brought them to these sins; secondly, he enumerates the differences among these sins, there [n. 156] at Filled with all iniquity. 82 153. He mentions the preceding sin when he says, and since they did not see first to acknowledge God. This can be interpreted in two ways: in one way, that although they could have had true knowledge about God by the light of reason considering visible things, nevertheless, to sin more freely, they did not acknowledge God, i.e., they did not approve having God in their knowledge: "They said to God: ‘Depart from us. We do not desire knowledge of your ways.’" (Jb 21:14). In another way it can mean that they did not acknowledge that God knows about human behavior: "The Lord does not see: the God of Jacob does not perceive" (Ps 94:7). According to this interpretation the punishment is shown to fit this sin, when he says, God gave them up to a base mind [sense]. 154. "Sense" here does not mean man’s external sense, by which sense-perceptible things are known, but the interior sense, according to which he judges his behavior: "To fix one thoughts on her," i.e., wisdom, "is to have perfect understanding [sense]" (Wis 6:12). It is called a base sense, because it reached discommendable judgments about behavior: "Men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith" (2 Tim 3:8); "Refuse silver they are called" (Jer 6:30). 155. Therefore, he continues: and to improper conduct, i.e., behavior not in accord with right reason: "Their works are useless" (Wis 3:11). Yet it is fitting that those who sinned against knowing God either by refusing to acknowledge Him or by thinking that they do not know Him, should be given up to a perverse sense. That is why it is written in Wis (14:31): "A just penalty always pursues the transgression of the unrighteous." 83 156. Then when he says, they were filled with all manner of wickedness, he enumerates these unbecoming actions. First, he describes their general state, saying that they were filled with all manner of wickedness, because, as stated in 1 Jn (3:4): "All sin is wickedness." For just as every virtue, inasmuch as it carries out a precept of the Law qualifies as righteousness, so every sin, inasmuch as it is at variance with the rule of the divine law, qualifies as wickedness. And so sins are particularly reprehended in the sacred scripture. He stresses their guilt in two ways: first, in its enormity, when he says, filled. For that person seems to be filled with wickedness whose affections are totally dedicated to sinning: "Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness" (Ps 13:3). Secondly, in its extent , because they sin not in one matter only but in all: "The worship of idols is the beginning and cause and end of every evil" (Wis 14:27). 157. Then when he says, evil, he enumerates their sins in detail. First, their transgressions which disobey negative precepts; secondly, their omission, which disregard affirmative precepts, there [v. 30b; n. 163] at proud. Regarding the first he does two things: first, he mentions the sins by which a person deteriorates within himself; secondly, those by which he becomes harmful to his neighbor, there [n. 159] at wickedness. 158. In regard to the first he describes the source of deterioration in general terms, when he says, evil, i.e., malice, which is a habit of vice opposed to virtue. Hence it is that 84 18 The Latin has nequitia derived from nequire, meaning "to be unable." a person who sins from habit is said to sin from malice: "Why do you boast of malice?" (Ps 51:1). Getting down to particulars, he mentions first the sin by which a person is disarranged in regard to the desire for bodily pleasures, when he says, fornication. For although fornication, strictly speaking, is with prostitutes who offered themselves publicly near the "fornices," i.e., the triumphal arches, yet here it is taken for any unlawful concubinage: "Beware, my son, of all immorality" (Tb 4:12). Secondly, the vice through which a person is misaligned in his desire for external things, when he says, covetousness, which is the untamed desire for possessing: "Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have" (Heb 13:5). 159. Then the sins which tend to harm one’s neighbor are mentioned: first, malice, i.e. villainy, which inclines a person to attempt what he cannot accomplish.18 This happens especially in regard to harming one’s neighbor, whom one does not always succeed in harming as planned: "let the evils of the wicked come to an end" (Ps 7:9). Secondly, he mentions the root of these sins, when he says, full of envy, which consists in being grieved at another’s good; as a result one is incited to harm the other: "Through the devil’s envy death entered the world" (Wis 2:24). 160. Then are mentioned the wrongs: first, the obvious ones that are deeds, when he says, murders, which are the chief wrongs: "There is swearing, lying, killing, stealing and committing of adultery" (Hos 4:2). He says murders in the plural because murder is present not only in the action but also in the will: "Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer" (1 Jn 3:15), i.e., who hates him to kill him. 85 Secondly, the obvious ones that are words, when he says, strife [contention], which is an attack on the truth launched with the self-assurance of shouting: "It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife" (Pr 20:3). 161. Then he mentions the covert injuries: first, one that is general, when he says, deceit, i.e., when one thing is pretended and something else is done: "Their tongue is a deadly arrow; it speaks deceitfully; with his mouth each speaks peaceably to his neighbor, but in his heart he plans an ambush for him" (Jer 9:8). After these he mentions the inner root of these harmful deeds, when he says, malignity, which implies an evil fire, i.e., ill will in the heart: "They speak peace with their neighbors, while mischief is in their hearts" (Ps 28:3); "The Lord abhors deceitful men" (Ps 5:6). 162. Then he mentions the covert wrongs that are perpetrated by words, when he says, gossips [whisperers], i.e., those who secretly whisper in men’s ears to sow discord among them: "Curse the whisperer and deceiver, for he has destroyed many who were at peace" (Si 28:15); slanderers, i.e., persons who detract from another’s reputation secretly, i.e., saying evil things about another without his knowing it: "If a serpent bites before it is charmed, there is no advantage in a charmer" (Ec 10:11). But lest these sins be regarded as trivial, because they are committed only by words, he adds, hateful to God; for they mainly attack something that God loves in men, namely, mutual love: "This is my commandment, that you love one another" (Jn 15:12); hence it is stated in Pr (6:16): "There are six things which the Lord hates, and a seventh is an abomination to him, namely, a person who sows discord among brothers." 86 He adds, insolent, namely, those who insult another to his face: "Though I formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted him" (1 Tim 1:13). Thus he mentioned three vices that agree on one point, namely, they say something evil about one’s neighbor. But they differ in their aim, for the whisperer intends discord, the slanderer ill repute, and the insolent injury. 163. Then he mentions the sins that involve omission: first, the root of these sins, when he says, haughty. They are called haughty, as though moving on a higher plane than they ought. On account of an unregulated desire for excellence, they wish to be first, refuse any rule outside themselves and, therefore, ignore commands: "The beginning of all sin is pride" (Si 10:13), which is true, insofar as sin is a turning from God, but not insofar as sin is a turning to a perishable good. For it is stated in 1 Tim (6:10): "The love of money is the root of all evils." 164. Secondly, he describes the progress of pride. First, from it is born in the heart a boastful attitude, so that a person esteems himself above others: "I am not like other men" (Lk 18:11). Against those who over esteem themselves Ps 131 (v.1) says: "My eyes are not raised too high." Secondly, from pride arises presumption to be new and different in behavior, to which he alludes, when he says, inventors of evil. For since good things have already been established by God and men, the result is that they devise new evils: "Their devising are against the Lord" (Is 3:8). 87 165. Then the omissions are mentioned: first, in regard to authority; hence, in regard to parents he says, disobedient to parents, contrary to what is commanded in Eph (6:1): "Children, obey your parents in the Lord." In regard to God’s authority he says, foolish, i.e., acting contrary to God’s wisdom: "The fear of the Lord is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding" (Jb 28:28). Secondly, he mentions a sin of omission relating to oneself, when he says, faithless [slovenly] in appearance and in gait: "A man’s attire and open-mouthed laughter and a man’s manner of walking show what he is" (Si 19:30). Some fall under this indictment, when their manner conflicts with the common customs of the people among whom they live. Thirdly, he mentions omission touching one’s equals, toward whom we ought to have, first of all, affection in the heart; hence, he says, heartless: "The heart of the wicked is cruel" (Pr 12:10); "Men will be lovers of self" and not of others (2 Tim 3:2). Secondly, a man should live in social life with his equals, in contrast to which he says, without fidelity; consequently, they do not live in society with others: "They smote them with the edge of the sword … and there was no deliverer, … because they had no dealings with anyone" (Jg 18:27); "Woe to him that is alone when he falls and has no one to lift him up" (Ec 4:10). Fourthly, he mentions an omission affecting one’s inferiors, when he says, ruthless [without mercy], which we ought to show to the desolate: "Judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy" (Jas 2:13). 166. Then (v. 32) he shows that they are deserving of God’s anger or vengeance. In this regard there are three points to consider [n. 167ff.]. 88 First, their naturalistic attitude, because although they knew that god is just and possessed of all other perfections, they did not believe that He would punish their sins: "They say in their hearts, ‘The Lord will not do well, and will not do ill’" (Zeph 1:12). This is why he says, although they knew God’s decree, they do these things. 167. Secondly, the punishment due to their sins, when he says, they deserve to die: "The wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). For it is fitting that the soul which deserts God should be deserted by its own body through bodily death and in the end be deserted by God through eternal death: "The death of the wicked is very evil" (Ps 34:22); "Over such the second death has no power" (Rev 20:6). 168. Thirdly, he considers those who deserve this punishment: first, those who do these things, i.e., the above mentioned sins: "Thou hatest all evildoers. Thou destroyest those who speak lies" (Ps 5:5-6).

169. After showing that the Gentiles did not become just from the knowledge of the truth they had, the Apostle now shows that neither were the Jews made just by the things in which they gloried. Consequently, both of them need the power of the gospel’s grace for salvation. First, therefore, he says that the Jews were not made just by the Law; secondly, that they were not made just by the race in which they gloried, in chapter 3 [n. 246] at Then what advantage has the Jew?; 90 thirdly, that they were not made just by circumcision, in chapter 4 [n. 322] at What therefore shall we say? 170. In regard to the first point it should be noted that Jews and Gentiles converted to the faith judged each other on their previous life. For the Jews objected to the Gentiles that when they lived without God’s law, they sacrificed to idols. The Gentiles on their part objected to the Jews that even though they received God’s law, they did not keep it. First, therefore, he rebukes both sides and their extravagant judgment; secondly, he shows that the Jews were not worthy of a reward, because the things they glory in were not sufficient for salvation, there [v. 13; n. 210] at For it is not the hearers of the Law. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he confutes human judgment; secondly, he discloses and commends the divine judgment, there [v. 2; n. 178] at For we know. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he proposes that although they judge one another, neither has an excuse; secondly, he gives the reason, there [v. lb; n. 172] at for in passing judgment. 171. First, therefore, he concludes from what he stated in the first chapter that even though the Gentiles by their wickedness suppressed the truth they knew about God, you have no excuse, 0 man, whoever you are, when you judge another, just as he said earlier: "So they are without excuse" (Rom 1:20). 91 He says, whoever you are, as if to say: Whether Jew or Gentile, because even the Gentiles, who might seem to have an excuse, cannot be excused on the plea of ignorance, as he stated above in 1:20 ff; "Do not pronounce judgment before the time" (1 Cor 4:5). 172. Then when he says For in passing judgment he gives the reason by rejecting the causes for excuse: first, ignorance; secondly, innocence, there [v. 1c; n. 176] at because you, the judge. 173. Ignorance is excluded by the very act of judging. For whoever judges another an evildoer shows that he knows that the conduct is evil and, therefore, that he is himself worthy of condemnation. And this is what he says: You have no excuse, for in passing judgment upon him as an evildoer you condemn yourself, i.e., you show that you are worthy of being condemned: "Judge not, that you may not be judged" (Mt 7:1). 174. This does not mean that every judgment is a cause of condemnation. For there are three kinds of judgment: one is just, i.e., made according to the rule of justice: "Love justice, you rulers of the earth" (Wis 1:1); another is not just, i.e., made contrary to the rule of justice: "Although servants of his kingdom, you did not rule rightly" (Wis 6:4); the third is rash judgment against which Ec (5:2) says: "Be not rash with your mouth." A rash judgment is made in two ways: in one way, when a person passes judgment on a matter committed to him without due knowledge of the truth, contrary to what is stated in Jb (29:16): "I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know." In another way, when a person presumes to judge about hidden matters, of which God alone has the power to judge, contrary to what is stated in 1 Cor (4:5): "Do not pronounce 92 judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness." 175. But some things are hidden not only in relation to us but of their very nature and so belong solely to God’s knowledge: first, the thoughts of the heart: "Man’s heart is deceitful and unsearchable. Who can understand it? I, the Lord, search the mind and try the heart" (Jer 17:9); secondly, the contingent future: "Tell us what is to come hereafter that we may know you are gods" (Is 41:23). Hence, as Augustine says: "There are two cases in which we must beware of rash judgment: when it is not certain in what spirit something was done, or when it is not certain how a person will turn out, who now appears to be good or to be wicked." The first judgment is not a cause for condemnation, but the second and third are. 176. Then when he says for you, the judge, he rejects the other excuse, namely, innocence. As if to say: The reason why you, the judge of others, condemn yourself is that you are doing the very same things for which you condemn them; consequently, it seems that you are acting against your conscience: "Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?" (Mt 7:3). 177. However, it should be noted that it is not always true, when someone judges another concerning a sin which he himself commits, that he automatically draws a condemnation upon himself, because he does not always sin mortally by so judging; yet he always reveals his own damnation. For if he is publicly guilty of the sin concerning which he judges another, he seems to be giving scandal by judging, unless perhaps he humbly reproves himself along with the other and laments his sin. 93 But if he is secretly guilty of the same sin, he does not sin by judging another about the same sin, especially when he does so with humility and with an effort to rise again, as Augustine says in The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount: "When necessity compels us to correct someone, let us first examine whether it is a vice, such as we never had: and then let us reflect that we could have bad it or that we once had it and no longer have it: and then our common weakness will prod the memory, so that mercy and not hatred will guide that correction. But if we discover that we are presently guilty of the same vice, we should not scold but lament together and invite the other to join you in grieving." 178. Then when he says For we know (v. 2), he discloses and commends God’s judgment. And concerning this he does three things. First, he declares the truth of God’s judgment; secondly, he rejects a contrary opinion, there [v. 3; n. 180] at Do you suppose; thirdly, he manifests the truth, there [v. 6; n. 189] at Who will render. 179. First, therefore, he says: The reason I say that you condemn yourself, when you do the same things that you judge, is that we know, i.e., we hold it as certain, that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things i.e. God’s judgment threatens them: "The avenger of sin is the sword, that you may know there is a judgment" (Jb 19:29); "God will bring every deed into judgment" (Ec 12:14). We also know that this judgment will be based on the truth: "He will judge the earth with righteousness" (Ps 96:13). But man’s judgment, even though it be formed justly, is not always based on the truth of the affair, but on the words of witnesses, which sometimes clash with the truth. But this cannot happen in the divine judgment, because, as is said in Jer (21:23): "I am 94 the judge and witness." Nor is He deceived by false allegations: "I will not spare him, nor his mighty words, and framed to make supplication" (Jb 41:12). 180. Then when he says Do you suppose (v. 3) he rejects a contrary opinion. First, he states it; secondly, the cause of it, there [v. 4a; n. 182] at Or do you despise; thirdly, he disproves it, there [v. 4b; n. 183] at Do you not know. 181. First, therefore, he says: I have said that God’s judgment is in accordance with the truth, against those who do such things. But do you not, O man, whoever you are, who judges those who do such things and yet do them yourself, do you not fear a higher judgment? Do you suppose that you will escape the judgment of God? As if to say: If you suppose this, you are wrong: "Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from your presence? (Ps 139:7); "All way of escape will be lost to them" (Jb 11:20). 182. Then when he says, Or do you presume, he shows the cause of this false supposition. For since man is not punished at once by God for sin, he supposes that he will not be punished, which is contrary to Si (4:5): "Do not say, ‘I sinned, and what happened to me? For the Lord is slow to anger"; "because sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the sons of men is fully set to do evil" (Ec 8:11) Yet the fact that the sinner does evil a hundred times and is patiently endured should not lead him to presume on God, but to conclude that it is good to fear Him. Therefore, he says here, do you presume upon: "When wickedness comes, contempt comes also" (Pr 18:3); the riches, i.e., the abundance: "God who is rich in mercy" (Eph 2:3); of his kindness, through which He diffuses His blessings on us: Thou openest thy 95 hand and satisfiest the desire of every living thing" (Psl45:l6). For according to Denis the good involves the notion of diffusing itself: "The Lord is good to those who wait on him." (Lam 3:25); and longsuffering, through which Be endures for a long time those who sin from weakness and continue in their sin for a long time: "And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation" (2 Pt 3:15); and patience, through which He endures those who sin grievously and from malice: "God is a righteous and patient judge. Is he indignant every day?" (Ps 7:11). 183. Then when he says Do you not know (v.4b) he disproves the aforementioned cause, namely the cause of contempt of the divine patience. First, he discloses the purpose of God’s patience; secondly, the danger of contempt, there [v. 5; n. 186] at But by your hardness. 184. First, therefore, he says it is hard to understand your scorn; do you not know that God’s kindness in postponing punishment is meant to lead you to repentance? "The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" (2 Pt 3:9); "The Lord waits to be gracious to you" (Is 30:l8). 185. As is said in the gloss [of Lombard], the Apostle seems to touch upon three groups of sinners: those who promise themselves impunity; those who scorn God’s goodness; and the ignorant. Hence, the Gloss says: "You sin, O man, as long as you promise yourself that you will escape punishment; you sin more gravely, because you scorn; you sin most gravely, because you are ignorant. 96 But this seems to be false, for ignorance makes a sin less serious, rather than more serious. The answer, as is held by some, is that it is more serious, i.e., more dangerous for some, because those who are ignorant of sin do not seek a remedy. Or it is most serious, if it is the form of ignorance that pertains to unbelief, which is the gravest sin: "If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized" (1 Cor 14:38). Or it is most serious in ingratitude, as Augustine says: "One who does not recognize a blessing is more ungrateful than one who belittles, i.e., scorns it." 186. Then when he says But by your hardness (v. 5) he shows the danger of contempt, because it is not softened by the blessings of God’s goodness: "A hard heart will be afflicted at the end" (Si 4:26); and impenitent heart, which is not moved to repent by God’s forbearance and patience: "No man repents of his wickedness" (Is 8:6), you are storing up wrath for yourself, i.e., you are multiplying the debt of punishment: "You have laid up a treasure of wrath for the last days" (Jas 5:3). Hence there follows on the day of wrath, i.e., on the day of judgment: "A day of wrath is that day" (Zeph 1:15), namely, because God does not now inflict the punishment He will inflict then, as is stated in Ps 75 (v.2): "At the set time I will judge with equity"; when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed, because the justice of God’s judgment will be revealed then, whereas now it is not believed or does not seem just: "Soon my salvation will come and my justice revealed" (Is 56:1). 187. Because the gloss [of Lombard, col. 1340] says that by hardness and impenitent heart is meant a sin against the Holy Spirit, which is unforgivable, it is important to see what a sin against the Holy Spirit is and why it is unforgivable. 97 Accordingly, it should be noted that in the opinion of the earlier Fathers of the Church who preceded Augustine, namely, Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome and Chrysostom, the sin against the Holy Spirit was the blasphemy whereby the works of the Holy Spirit are attributed to an unclean spirit, as in Matthew (12:31). It is considered unforgivable both in this life and in the future, because the Jews were punished for this sin even in this life by the Romans and in the life to come by devils; or because it has no basis for being excused, unlike the blasphemy they spoke against Christ, inasmuch as He was a son of man: "Behold a glutton and a drunkard" (Mt 11:19). They could have been led to say this on account of the weakness of the flesh, as occurred even in the Old Testament, when the children of Israel complained about the lack of bread and water, as we read in Ex (16:2 ff). This could be considered a human failing and easy to forgive. But later on when they declared before an idol: "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt" (Ex 32:4), they sinned against the Holy Spirit, for they attributed God’s work to demons. Hence their sin is called unforgivable, when the Lord answers: "Nevertheless, in the day when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them" (Ex 32:34). Augustine, on the other hand, calls a sin against the Holy Spirit any word or blasphemy a person speaks against the Holy Spirit, through Whom sins are forgiven, as is stated in Jn (20:22): "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven." Indeed, this sin is committed in the heart, in word and in deed, as long as one continues in sin to the end. Consequently, final impenitence is a sin against the Spirit and of its very nature unforgivable. 98 Later teachers call a sin against the Holy Spirit one that is committed with deliberate malice, which is opposed to the goodness appropriated to the Holy Spirit, just as a sin against the Son of God is one committed from ignorance, which is opposed to the wisdom appropriated to the Son. Similarly, a sin against the Father is one committed through weakness, which is opposed to the power appropriated to the Father. Consequently, a sin against the Father and against the Son is deemed forgivable, because the very fact that it is committed from ignorance or from weakness seems to be a ground for excuse. But one committed from deliberate malice has no ground for excuse; hence, it is deemed unforgivable, because it has nothing in it to plead forgiveness; although God does forgive it sometimes, because He is good, just as He sometimes used His power to cure a naturally incurable disease. 188. In light of the foregoing, six kinds of sin against the Holy Spirit are listed, each excluding something by which sin is forgiven. The first two are taken on the part of God, namely, hope in His mercy, to which is opposed despair, and fear of God’s justice, to which is opposed presumption. Two others are taken on the part of man, namely, contempt for the changeable good, to which is opposed obstinacy, which is here called hardness, through which a person hardens his soul to sin; and abandonment of the state of being turned away from God, to which is opposed an impenitent heart, which never intends to repent and return to God. The last two are taken on the part of God’s gifts, one of which is faith "by faith sins are cleansed," to which is opposed resistance to the acknowledged truth. The other is 99 charity: "Charity covers all offenses" (Pr 10:12), to which is opposed envy of a brother’s grace.

189. After suggesting that God’s judgment is true and refuting the contrary opinion [n. 178], the Apostle here unfolds the truth of God’s judgment. First, he presents his intention; secondly, he manifests it, there [v. 7; n. 195] at To those who by patience. 190. First, he states facts about God’s judgment in regard to two things, namely, persons and their works. 100 In regard to works, God does not repay in the present life according to one’s works, for sometimes He gives grace to evil-doers, as to the apostle Paul, who obtained mercy after being a blasphemer and persecutor. But this will not be so on the day of judgment, when the time comes to judge according to justice: "At the set time which I appoint, I will judge with equity" (Ps 75:2); hence, another passage says: "Requite them according to their works" (Ps 28:4). With regard to persons, equality of retribution will be observed toward all: "We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ" (2 Cor 5:10). 191. However, it seems that retribution will not be made according to one’s works, because an eternal punishment will be paid for a temporal sin. The answer, as Augustine says in the City of God, is that in justice’s repayment equality in time between sin and punishment is not a consideration, because even in human judgment for a sin of adultery committed in a short time the death penalty is inflicted. Here the legislator is not interested in the time it takes to punish, but rather that the adulterer’s death will forever separate him from the society of the living. Thus, in his way man, too, punishes a temporal sin with an eternal punishment. Consequently, it is not strange if sins committed against charity, through which is formed a society between God and men, are punished eternally by the divine judgment. 192. The justice of this is clear on three counts. First, on account of the infinite dignity of God Who is sinned against. For a sin is graver, the greater the dignity of the person sinned against, just as it is a greater crime to strike a prince than to strike a private citizen. Consequently, since the guilt of mortal sin 101 is in a sense infinite, an infinite punishment should balance it. Therefore, since it cannot be infinite in intensity, it must be infinite in duration. 193. Secondly, on account of the will of the sinner. For whoever sins mortally turns from the unchangeable good and fixes his end in a changeab1e good, as a fornicator in a pleasure of the flesh and a covetous person in money. And because the end is sought for itself, whoever seeks the end is borne toward it and wills to possess it always, if something else does not hinder. Hence, one who sins mortally has the will to remain in sin forever, unless something changes him accidentally, as when he fears punishment. Consequently, it is fitting that if a man through his will seeks sin to be enjoyed forever, he should be punished for it eternally. For God, Who sees the heart, directs His special attention to the will of the sinner. 194. Thirdly, on account of the effect of sin, namely, the withdrawal of grace, from which it follows that a man left to himself would remain forever in sin, from which he cannot be extricated except by the help of grace. But it is not fitting that, the sin remaining, the penalty should cease; consequently, the penalty lasts forever. The statement, to render to every man according to his works, does not mean according to equality of works because the reward exceeds the merit, but according to proportion, because He will render good to the good and better to the better. The same applies to evil. 195. Then when he says to those who by patience (v. 7) he clarifies his statement: first, in regard to works; secondly, in regard to persons, there [v. 9b; n. 201] at on every soul. In regard to works he shows the truth of God’s judgment: 102 first, to the good; secondly, to the wicked, there [v. 8; n. 198] at but for those who are factious. 196. In regard to the first there are two things to consider, namely, merit and reward [n. 197]. Three things combine or merit: first, patience, which can mean God’s patience as referred above: "Do you presume upon the riches of his goodness and patience?" (v.4). Then those who by patience in well-doing would be those who make good use of God’s patience by doing good. Or it can mean man’s patience, and this in two ways: in one way, so that patience implies tolerating adversity with equanimity of heart. For it is necessary that one not give up good works on account of the evils he suffers, and this is what he says: by patience in well-doing. "Patience has a perfect work" (Jas 1:4); "By your patience you will gain your lives" (Lk 21:19). In another way, patience can be taken for long-suffering or for perseverance, which keeps a person from abandoning a good work on account of tedium: "You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand" (Jas 5:8); "you have need of patience" (Heb 10:36). The second feature of merit is the goodness of a work, which is good, if it is directed to its proper end and if it conforms to its proper rule, which is God’s law and human reason: "Let us not grow weary in well-doing" (Gal 6:9). The third feature is a right intention, i.e., to seek eternal life, so that in the evils a man suffers or in the good he does he is not seeking something temporal, but eternal: "Seek first the kingdom of God" (Mt 6:33). 103 197. In regard to the reward he touches on three things: the first is glory, which signifies the splendor of the saints: either intrinsic glory, with which the mind will be filled: "The Lord will fill your soul with brightness" (Is 58:11), or external glory, with which their body will shine: "The righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their father" (Mt 13:43); "Let the faithful exult in glory" (Ps 149:5). The second is honor, through which is signified the dignity of the saints and the reverence paid to them by every creature. For they will be kings and priests: "Thou hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God" (Rev 5:10) and will be numbered among the sons of God: "Why has he been numbered among the sons of God?" (Wis 5:5); "Thy friends are made exceedingly honorable, O God" (Ps 139:17). The third is immortality, because that glory and honor will not pass, as they do in this world: "They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable" (1 Cor 9:25). 198. Then when he says, but for those who are factious, he shows the truth of a God’s judgment on the wicked and touches on sin and punishment. In regard to sin three things are mentioned. The first is the obstinacy of the factious, which can be understood of man toward God calling him to Himself by His blessings, against which a man seems to struggle by resisting them: "Behold, while I am yet alive with you, you have always been rebellious against the Lord" (Dt 31:27). Secondly, it is understood of man’s struggle against faith: "Avoid disputing with words" (2 Ti 2:14). Thirdly, it can be understood of men struggling with one another, which is contrary to charity, the mother of the virtues: "Where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice" (Jas 3:16). 104 The second is the hardness of those who do not obey the truth. This can be understood in one way of the truth of faith: "If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?" (Jn 9:46); in another way, of the truth of God’s justice, to which they do not acquiesce, not believing the truth of His justice: "You say: ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’" (Ez 18:29). In a third way, it can be understood of the truth of life, in which they do not acquiesce who live perversely: "He who does what is true comes to the light" (Jn 3:21). The third is malice; hence, he says: but obey [believe] wickedness, either because they consent to those who urge wickedness: "An evil-doer listens to wicked lips" (Pr 17:4); or because they believe that sins will not be punished, which would make God wicked: "Do not say: ‘I have sinned and what happened to me’?" (Si 5:4); or they believe wickedness, i.e., unbelief, namely, teachings against the faith: "So that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Th 2:12). 199. In regard to punishment four things are mentioned, which can be distinguished in two ways. In one way, so that wrath, i.e., punishment and corporal vengeance is understood to come after the judgment: "A day of wrath is that day" (Zeph l:15); fury during the judgment, when the wicked will be angry at themselves for the sins they committed: "It was we who strayed from the way of truth" (Wis 5:6). Tribulation and distress pertain to the soul separated from the body before the resurrection: "When distress and anguish come upon you" (Pr 1:27). 105 200. Or they can be distinguished in another way, so that the first two are taken on the part of God, Whose wrath is His disposition to punish, which is horrible for the wicked: "They will call to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the force [?] of the one sitting on the throne and from the fury of the Lamb" (Rev 6:16). His fury refers to the fact that He will consider sinners unworthy of eternal life: "I swore in my anger that they should not enter into my rest" (Ps 95:11). But the other two are taken on the part of man. The word, tribulation, comes from tribulus, a prickly plant; hence, anything that causes pain can pertain to tribulation: "The sound of the day of the Lord is bitter; the mighty man meets tribulation there" (Zeph 1:14). But distress is so called from the fact that a man’s spirit is in anguish, being unable to find a remedy against the evils he fears or already suffers: "I am hemmed in on every side and know not what to choose" (Sus 1:22); "Will God hear his cry when trouble comes upon him?" (Jb 27:9). 201. Then when he says on every soul (9b) he shows the truth of God’s judgment in regard to persons. First, he proposes its equity; secondly, he assigns the reason for this, there [v. 11; n. 205] at For there is no respect of persons; thirdly, he explains the reason, there [v. 12; n. 207] All who have sinned. 202. The truth of the divine judgment in regard to persons is shown, first, as it affects the wicked, when he says, for every human being who does evil, i.e., against every soul, because just as the glory of the saints passes from the soul to the body, so the punishment of the wicked is first and chiefly in the soul and secondly in the body which, 106 on account of defect or sin, will rise capable of suffering: "The soul that sins shall die" (Ez 18:4). 203. But he says, the Jew first and also the Greek, because a greater punishment was due the Jews as knowing God’s will through the Law: "That servant who knew his master’s will but did not make ready or act according to his will shall receive a severe beating" (Lk 12:47). Similarly, Christians are punished more severely than unbelievers for the same sin, e.g., adultery or theft: "How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the son of God and profaned the blood of the covenant in which he was sanctified?" (Heb 10:29). But as to total punishment, that of unbelievers is more severe on account of the sin of unbelief, which is the gravest. Hence, it says in 2 Pt (2:2) that "God’s wrath rests upon unbelievers." 204. Secondly, he shows this in regard to the good: first, he repeats the two things mentioned above, namely, glory and honor, but the third, namely, peace, he mentions instead of immortality, which includes peace among many other things. For a man’s peace cannot be complete as long as he fears he might lose the good things he has; rather, one has true peace of heart when he has everything he desires and no fear of losing then: "My people will abide in a peaceful habitation" (Is 32:18). In these things, too, he gives primacy to the Jews, because they were first promised to them, and the Gentiles entered into their promises: "Others have labored and you have entered into their labors" (Jn 4:38). 107 205. Then when he says, God shows no partiality, he assigns the reason for his statement, namely, because there is no respect of persons with God: "Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality" (Ac 10:34). Respect of persons is opposed to distributive justice, through which one distributes to each according to the person’s worth; therefore, there is respect of persons, when more is given or less is given without regard to worth. This happens when the person rather than his qualifications is accepted as a cause. In this case there is a cause, i.e., a rule of action, but the person is taken as the cause of doing something. Thus, if one gives more inheritance to another on account of a blood relationship, it is not respect of persons, because this relationship is a fitting cause why he should receive such benefits. But if a prelate gives more ecclesiastical goods to someone on account of a blood relationship, it would be respect of persons, if some other qualification were not present. For blood relationship is not a suitable reason for receiving spiritual goods. Therefore, because God does everything for the best of reasons, respect of persons does not enter into His actions: "Wisdom orders all things well" (Wis 8:l). 206. Yet He seems to be a respecter of persons, because He abandons some sinners and calls others to Himself. The answer is that respect of persons is opposed to justice; hence, it finds its sphere in the payment of debts, with which justice is concerned. But God calls sinners to repentance not from debt but as a favor: "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works" (Rom 11:6); "Not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy he saved us" (Titus 3:5). 108 In such gifts not only God, but man too, is free to give to whom he will: "Am I not allowed to give what I choose with what belongs to me?" (Mt 20:15). 207. Then when he says All who have sinned (v.12) he explains the reason. For if all who sinned are punished, it is clear that there is no respect of persons with God. Hence, he speaks first of those who have not received the Law, saying that all who have sinned without the Law received from God by Moses, will perish without the law, i.e., will be condemned, but not for transgression of the Law: "Because no one understands, they will perish forever" (Job 4:20 Vul.). Secondly, he speaks of those who received the written law, and he says that all who have sinned under the Law, i.e. after the written Law, will be judged by the Law, i.e., precisely for having transgressed a precept of the Law: "The word which I have spoken will be his judge on the last day" (Jn 12:48). 208. The Apostle’s manner of speaking here has been taken as an occasion of error by some. Because the Apostle does not say that all who sinned under the Law will perish by the Law, as he had said of those who are without the Law that they will perish without the law, some believed that those who sin after receiving the law will be judged by some means, i.e., in the present, but will not perish. But as the Gloss [of Lombard, col. 1344] says: "What Christian would say that the Jew will not perish for not believing in Christ, when the Lord says that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for them" (Mt 10:15). Hence Ez (18:32) says: "I have no pleasure in the death of the sinner." 109 209. But the Apostle uses these different expressions because, as Gregory says on Jb (36:6): "He gives judgment to the poor," some will perish in the future judgment without being judged, i.e., the wicked who are without faith and the Law: "The wicked will not stand in the judgment" (Ps 1:5), namely, because there is no basis for discussion with one entirely estranged from God: "He who does not believe is condemned" (Jn 3:18). But others who sin in spite of having received the Law and faith will perish in such a way as also to be judged through a discussion held with them; hence, Ez (34:17): "I judge between sheep and sheep, rams and he-goats," just as a king condemns enemies without a hearing, but citizens with a careful examination, as Gregory says.

210. After confuting the human judgment with which the Gentiles and Jews judged one another and commending God’s judgment [n. 169], the Apostle now undertakes to show that the things in which the Jews gloried do not suffice for their salvation. First, he states his position; secondly, he answers arguments against his position, in chapter 3, there [n. 246] at Then what advantage has the Jew? The Jews gloried in two things, namely, the Law and circumcision, which stemmed not from the Law but from the patriarchs, as stated in John 7(:22). First, therefore, he shows that the Jewish Law heard or accepted was not enough for salvation; secondly, he shows the same about circumcision, there [v. 25; n. 237] at Circumcision indeed. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he sets forth his position; secondly, he clarifies it, there [v. 14; n. 213] at For when Gentiles. 211. In regard to the first he sets forth two things: one by rejecting; the other by asserting. For he rejects the Jewish opinion that they were made righteous by merely hearing the Law. Hence he says: I have said that all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law, for it is not the hearers of the law, i.e., in virtue of having heard the Law, who are righteous before God, even if they are deemed righteous before men: "Every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them is like a foolish man" 111 (Mt 7:26); "If anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror..." (Jas 1:23). Secondly, he declares that the doers of the Law are righteous, when he says, but the doers of the law will be justified: "Everyone who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man" (Mt 7:24); "Be doers of the word and not hearers only" (Jas 1:22); "A good understanding have all those who practice it" (Ps 111:10). 212. But this point seems to conflict with his own statement below (3:20) that "no human being will be justified in his sight by the works of the law." Consequently, no one is justified precisely for doing the works of the Law. The answer is that justification can be taken in three ways: in one way, in regard to reputation; then one is said to be justified, when he is regarded as just: "You have made your sisters appear justified," i.e., by reputation (Ez 16:51). In this sense, the doers of the law are justified, i.e., are considered just before God and men. Secondly, by doing what is just: "This man went down to his home justified" (Lk 18:14), because the publican performed a work of justice by confessing his sin. In this way is verified the statement that the doers of the law will be justified, i.e., by performing the justices of the Law. In a third way justification can be considered in regard to the cause of justice, so that a person is said to be justified, when he newly receives justice, as in (5:1): "Since we are justified by faith, we are at peace with God." It must not be supposed, however, that the doers of the Law are justified as though acquiring justice through the works of the Law. This cannot be accomplished either by the ceremonial works, which confer no 112 justifying grace, or by the moral works, from which the habit of justice is not acquired; rather, we do such works in virtue of an infused habit of justice. 213. Then when he says For when Gentiles who (v.14) he clarifies his position. First, he shows that doers of the Law are justified even without being hearers; secondly, that hearers of the Law are not justified without observing the Law, there [v. 17; n. 224] at But if you are called a Jew. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he mentions the worthiness of those who observe the Law without having heard it; secondly, he clarifies what he had said, there [v. 15; n. 218] at They show that what the law requires; thirdly, he proves it, there [v. 15b; n. 219] at while their conscience also bears witness. 214. In regard to the first he touches on three things relating to the Gentiles [nn. 215, 217]. First, their lack of the Law, saying, when Gentiles who do not have the law, namely, the divine, which they have not received. For the Law was not delivered to the Gentiles but to the Jews: "The law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the congregations of Jacob" (Si 24:24); "He has not dealt thus with any other nation" (Ps 147:20); "When Moses commanded us a law, as a possession for the assembly of Jacob" (Dt 33:4). From this it is clear that the Gentiles did not sin by not observing the ceremonies of the Law. 113 215. Secondly, he commends their observance of law, when he says, they do by nature what the law requires, i.e., the moral precepts, which flow from a dictate of natural reason. Thus Job (1:1) was blameless and upright, fearing God and turning away from evil. Hence he himself says: "My foot has held fast to his steps; I have kept his ways" (Jb 23:11). 216. But the expression, by nature, causes some difficulty. For it seems to favor the Pelagians, who taught that man could observe all the precepts of the Law by his own natural powers. Hence, by nature should mean nature reformed by grace. For he is speaking of Gentiles converted to the faith, who began to obey the moral precepts of the Law by the help of Christ’s grace. Or by nature can mean by the natural law showing them what should be done, as in Ps 4 (v.6): "There are many who say, ‘Who shows us good things!’ The light of thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us," i.e., the light of natural reason, in which is God’s image. All this does not rule out the need of grace to move the affections any more than the knowledge of sin through the Law (Rom 3:20) exempts from the need of grace to move the affections. 217. Thirdly, he shows their worth in that they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law, inasmuch as they function as a law to themselves by instructing and inducing themselves to the good, because the Philosopher says: Law is a statement laying down an obligation and proceeding from prudence and understanding (Eth. 11). Therefore, it says in 1 Tim (l:9) that "the law is not laid down for the just," who is not compelled by a law outside of him, "but for the lawless," who need to be compelled from without. 114 It is, of course, the highest level of greatness among men, when they are induced toward the good not by others but by themselves. The second level belongs to those who are induced by others but without force. The third belongs to those who need to be forced to do good. The fourth belongs to those who cannot be directed to the good even by force: "In vain have I smitten your children; they took no correction" (Jer 2:30). 218. Then when he says They show (v. 15) he explains how they are a law to themselves. This can be likened to a law presented to man from without and which it is customary to deliver in writing on account of the memory’s weakness; whereas, those who observe the law without externally hearing the law show that what the law requires is written "not with ink, but" first and chiefly "with the Spirit of the living God" (2 Cor 3:3), and secondly through study: "Write them on the tablet of your heart" (Pr 3:3), i.e., the precepts of wisdom. Hence, here, too, he continues, on their hearts, not on parchment or on stone or copper tablets: "I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts" (Jer 31:33). 219. Then when he says their conscience also bearing witness (v.15) he proves his statement that the work of the Law is written in their hearts by citing actions which announce its presence. First [cf. n. 222], he mentions those actions, one of which is the witness of conscience. He touches on this when he says, while their conscience also bears witness, conscience being the application of one’s knowledge in judging whether some action was good or bad to do. 115 Hence, this conscience sometimes gives testimony of good: "Our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience" (2 Cor 1:12); and sometimes of evil: "Your conscience knows that many times you have yourself cursed others" (Ec 7:23). However, no one can testify that an action is good or bad, unless he has knowledge of the Law. Hence, if conscience bears witness about good or evil, this is a clear sign that the work of the Law has been written in the man’s heart. 220. Another function is to accuse and defend. Here, too, knowledge of the Law is required. In regard to this he says, and their conflicting thoughts accuse [accusantium] or perhaps excuse [defendentium], i.e., accusantibus or defendentibus, following the Greek practice whereby a genitive is used in place of an ablative. And these are conflicting. For an accusing thought in regard to some action arises in a man, when he has reason to suppose that he has acted evilly: "Mow I rebuke you and lay the charge before you" (Ps 50:21); "The show of their countenance witnesses against them" (Is 3:9). But sometimes a defending thought arises, when he has reason to suppose that he has acted well: "My heart does not reproach me for any of my days" (Jb 27:6). Between this accusation and defense the testimony of conscience has the final say. 221. This passage, their conscience bears witness, can be interpreted in another way, so that there is consciousness not only of one’s deeds but also of thoughts; but the first is better. 222. But because testimony, accusation, and defense occur during a trial, he mentions the time, when he says, on that day. He says this not to designate the quality of 116 the time but the disclosure of things hidden: "I will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness" (1 Cor 4:5). Yet it is sometimes called night on account of the uncertainty of that hour: "At midnight there was a cry" (Mt 25:6). The accusing or defending thoughts are not those which will arise on the day of judgment, because on that day each one’s salvation or damnation will be clear to him; rather, such thoughts as exist now and the testimony of conscience that exists now will be represented to a man on that day by divine power, as Augustine says in book 2 of The City of God. Indeed, the recognition of those thoughts that remain in the soul seems to be nothing lees, as a Gloss says, than the debt of punishment or the reward, which follow them. 223. Then he shows the author of the judgment, when he says, when God judges: "He will judge the world with righteousness" (Ps 96:13). He also describes what the judgment will concern, when he says, the secrets of men, matters about which men cannot now judges. "He will bring to light the thing now hidden in darkness" (1 Cor 4:5). He also shows the teaching from which faith in this judgment is had when he says, according to my gospel, i.e., preaching by me: "On the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word" (Mt 12:36). He says, according to my gospel, although he could not say, "my baptism," and be a minister of both, because in baptism a man’s diligence effects nothing, but in preaching 117 the Gospel the preacher’s industry achieves something: "When you read this you can perceive my insight in the mystery of Christ" (Eph 3:4) Then he mentions the judge, when he says, by Christ Jesus, Who has been appointed by God to be "judge of the living and the dead" (Ac 10:42); "The Father has given all judgment to the Son" (Jn 5:20), Who will appear to the good and the wicked during the judgment: to the good in the glory of the godhead: "Your eyes will see the king in his beauty" (Is 33:17), but to the wicked in His human form: "Every eye will see him" (Rev 1:7).

224. After showing that the doers of the Law are justified even without being hearers, which pertained to the Gentiles, the Apostle now shows that hearers are not justified, unless they are doers, which pertains to the Jews. First, therefore, he shows the Jews’ privileged state in receiving the Law; secondly, their shortcomings in transgressing the Law, there [v. 21; n. 232] at You then who teach others. He shows their privileged state on three counts: first, in being the race to whom the Law was given; secondly, as regards the Law itself, there [v. 17b; n. 226] at and rely upon the law; 119 thirdly, as regards the effect or work of the Law, there [v. 18; n. 227] at and know his will. 225. In regard to race he says, But if you call yourself a Jew, which is an honorable name: "Judah became his sanctuary" (Ps 114:2); "Salvation is from the Jews" (Jn14:22). They are called Jews not after Judas Maccabeus as some say, probably on the ground that he united and protected that people, when they were scattered: "He gladly fought for Israel" (1 Macc 3:2); for the name, "Jews," was in use before his time, as in Est (8:l6): "The Jews had light and gladness..." Rather, it seems that the Jews were named after the patriarch Judah: "Judah, your brothers shall praise you" (Gen 49:8); for in the time of Roboam, when ten tribes seceded from his kingdom and adored a golden calf, they were led away captive by the Assyrians (1 Sam l7). Scripture makes no mention of their return; rather, the land remained occupied by strangers later called Samaritans. But two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, remained in the kingdom of Roboam and persevered in the word of God. Although they were led away captive to Babylon, they were permitted to return to their native land by Cyrus, the Persian king (1 Ezra 1). Then, because the tribe of Judah was the greater, the entire group was named after him: not only those from the tribe of Benjamin but those from the other tribes who joined them. 226. Then when he says and rest on the law (17b) he mentions their prerogative in regard to the Law. First, in regard to the Law itself, when he says, and rest on the law, as certifying what they believed and did. For an intellect in doubt is not at rest but is solicited by both 120 sides; but once it has the certainty of wisdom it rests: "When I enter my house, I shall find rest with her" (Wis 8:16). Secondly, in regard to the lawgiver, when he adds, and boast of your relation to God, i.e., in their worship and knowledge of one God: "Let him who glories glory in this, that he understands and knows me" (Jer 9:24); "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord" (1 Cor 1:31). 227. Then when he adds and know his will (v. 18) he mentions their prerogative in regard to the fruit of the Law: first, with respect to the person himself; secondly, with respect to others, there [v. 19; n. 229] at and if you are sure. 228. In regard to the first he mentions two fruits. The first corresponds to boasting of their relation to God, when he says, and know his will, i.e., what God wants us to do: "That you may prove what is the will of God" (Rom 12:2). The second corresponds to their resting in the law, when he says, and approve what is excellent, i.e., able to select not only good from bad things but better from less good. Hence someone asked: "Which is the great commandment?" (Mt 22:36). And this, because you are instructed in the law: "Happy the man whom you teach your law and teach him about your law" (Ps 94:12) 229. Then he mentions its fruit with respect to others who find themselves in three different situations, so far as knowledge of the Law is concerned [n. 230ff]. For some are entirely ignorant of the Law, because they lack natural talent, just as a man is physically blind, because he lacks visual power: "We grope for the wall like the 121 blind" (Is 59:10). To such persons cannot be given the light of knowledge enabling them to see by themselves what to do; rather, they must be led, as the blind are, by commanding them to do this or that, even though they do not understand the reason for the command: "I became an eye to the blind" (Jb 29:15); "They are blind and leaders of the blind" (Mt 15:14). Others are ignorant through lack of training, being as it were in the exterior darkness and not enlightened by teaching. To such persons a wise man can offer the light of training, so that they will understand what is commanded. This is why he says, a light to those who are in darkness: "To give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death" (Lk 1:79). 230. Secondly, he touches on those who are on the way to knowledge they have not yet attained either through lack of full instruction; hence he says, a corrector of the foolish, i.e., of those who have not yet received wisdom who are said to be instructed, i.e., free from ignorance which is present in everyone from the beginning when they are first instructed: "Do you have children? Discipline them" (Si 7:23). In another way, through lack of age, as children. Hence he says, a teacher of children: "Where is the teacher of little ones?" (Is 33:18). 231. A third group are already advanced in knowledge, but they need instruction from the wise in order to possess the authoritative sayings of wisdom as their rule or pattern. In regard to this he says, having in the law the embodiment [pattern] of knowledge: "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me" (2 Tim 1:13); "Mark those who so live as you have an example in us" (Phil 3:17). 122 However, people so patterned must be instructed by the authority of their forbears, if they are to know what has been handed down in the Law. Therefore, he says, of knowledge: "Wisdom gave him knowledge of holy things" (Wis 10:10). This is also necessary if they are to know the true understanding of what has been handed down. That is why he says, and truth: "Send out thy light and thy truth" (Ps 43:3). 232. Then when he says you then who teach others (v.21) he indicates some of their failings. First, failings toward themselves, when he says, You then who teach others by directing them to the good, will you not teach yourself? This can be taken as a question asked with an overtone of indignation or with an overtone of mildness which, nevertheless, suggests wickedness on their part, as it does in Job (4:3): "Behold, you have instructed many" and (4:5): "The scourge has now touched you and you are dismayed." Secondly, their failings toward their neighbor: first, in regard to things taken furtively, when he says: While you preach against stealing, do you steal?: "Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves" (Is 1:23); then in regard to defiling another person through adultery, when he says: You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?: "They are all adulterers, like a heated oven" (Hos 7:4); "Each neighing for his neighbor’s wife" (Jer 5:8). 234. Thirdly, he indicates their failings with respect to God: first, that they sin against His worship, when he says: You who abhor idols, since you know from the Law that they are not to be adored, do you commit sacrilege by abusing the things of divine worship. 123 This they did during the Old Law: "You profane it when you say that the Lord’s table is polluted" (Mal 1:12) and later, when they blasphemed Christ: "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons" (Mt 12:24). 235. Secondly, that they sin against His glory, when he says: You who glory in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? For as observance of the Law by good works is an occasion for others to honor God, so its transgression by evil works is an occasion for others to blaspheme: "That they may see your good deeds and glorify God" (1 Pt 2:12). Hence, he says in 1 Tim (6:1): "Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed" and in Ps 119 (v.158) it is said: "I look at the faithless with disgust, because they do not keep thy commands." 236. In support of this he quotes an authority, when he says The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, i.e., because the Gentiles, noting the evil practices of the Jews, laid it to evil training dictated by the Law. He says: it is written, namely, in Is 52(:5), "Their rulers wail, and continually all the day my name is despised" and in Ez 36(:22), "It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, but for the sake of my holy name which you have profaned among the nations." 237. Then when he says Circumcision (v.25) he shows that circumcision is not sufficient for salvation any more than the Law is, and for the same reason, namely, that without circumcision there is value in the Law’s observance, without which circumcision has no benefit, as was said above. In regard to this he does three things. 124 First, he compares circumcision to the circumcised Jews; secondly, to the uncircumcised Gentiles, there [v. 26; n. 240] at So, if a man who is uncircumcised; thirdly, he explains what he had said, there [v. 28; n. 242] at For it is not the one who is so outwardly. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows how circumcision is of value; secondly, how not, there [v. 25b; n. 239] at but if you break the law. 238. First, therefore, he says: Circumcision indeed is of value, inasmuch as it remits original sin; hence, it is written in Gen (17:14): "Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people." But it will benefit you as an adult, if you obey the law, just as profession benefits a religious, if he keeps the rule. For circumcision is a form of profession obliging men to observe the Law: "I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law" (Gal 5:3). However, the Apostle’s statement in Gal (5:2) that "if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you," refers to the era after grace; but now he is referring to the time before the passion of Christ, when circumcision had status. 239. Secondly, there at but if you break the law (v. 25b), he shows how circumcision has no value, when he says: If you, a Jewish adult, break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision, i.e., has no more value than your previous condition, because you do not observe what you profess by circumcision: "All these nations are uncircumcised and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart" (Jer 125 9:26). In fact they are more guilty for not observing what they promised: "A foolish and faithless promise displeases him" (Ec 5:3). 240. Then when he says, so, if a man who is uncircumcised (v. 26), he considers circumcision in relation to the Gentiles in two ways. First, from the aspect that the Gentiles obtain the benefits of circumcision by observing the Law. Hence he says: Since circumcision profits, if the Law is observed, but not, if it is not; then, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the law, i.e., the moral precepts of the Law: "All your commandments are true" (Ps 119:86), will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? As if to say: He will enjoy the fruit of true circumcision. For a man is circumcised outwardly in the flesh in order to circumcise himself in the heart: "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, remove the foreskin of your hearts" (Jer 4:4). 241. Secondly, at then those who are physically uncircumcised, he shows that on account of observing the Law the Gentile is preferred to the Jew. Hence he says, Then those who are physically uncircumcised, but keep the law through natural reason will condemn you, the circumcised Jew, who have the written law but break it by transgressing the precepts of the written law and have circumcision, i.e., of the flesh. Hence on the basis of this comparison it is written in Mt (12:4): "The men of Nineveh will arise with this generation...and condemn it." 242. Then when he says For it is not the one who is so outwardly (v. 28) he assigns the reason for his statements. First, he gives the reason; 126 secondly, he proves it, there [v. 29b; n. 245] at His praise. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he assigns the reason why circumcision or Judaism without observance of the Law is fruitless; secondly, why observance of the Law without Judaism and circumcision has value, there [v. 29; n. 244] But he who is so in a hidden way. 243. He says, therefore, that circumcision in one who breaks the Law is uncircumcision and will be judged by the uncircumcised who obey the law, because he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly according to carnal birth: "Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel..., but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants" (Rom 9:6-9). Similarly, true circumcision is not that which appears in the flesh, for it is a sign: "It shall be a sign of the covenant between you and me" (Gen 17:11). But it is not a true sign, unless the reality signified corresponds to it. Hence, if a Jew transgressed the covenant, his circumcision would not be true; consequently, it would be regarded as uncircumcision. 244. Then when he says but he who is so in a hidden way (v. 29) he assigns the reason why the uncircumcision of one who keeps the Law is regarded as circumcision and will judge bodily circumcision. The reason is that he is truly a Jew who is one inwardly, i.e., whose heart is possessed by the precepts of the Law, which the Jews professed: "Your father who sees in secret will repay you" (Mt 6:6). Again, true circumcision is of the heart in the spirit, i.e., made by one’s spirit, which expels superfluous thoughts from the heart. Or in the spirit, i.e., effected by a 127 spiritual and not a literal understanding of the Law: "For we are the true circumcision who worship God in spirit" (Phil 3:3). 245. Then when he says His praise (v29b) he proves this reason. For it is obvious that in all matters the divine judgment must prevail over the human. Now things that appear outwardly, such as Judaism or circumcision, are praised by men, but things that exist within are judged according to God’s judgment, because "man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart" (1 Sam 16:7).

After showing that Judaism, which involved receiving the Law and circumcision, is not sufficient for salvation without the Law’s observance, through which the Gentile without external Judaism and circumcision obtains the fruit of each [n. 163 and 210], he now objects to his own doctrine: 129 first, he presents the objection; secondly, he answers it, there [v. 2; n. 248] at Much in every way. 247. First, he objects: If what I say is so, i.e., that the true Jew and true circumcision are not something outward but inward in the heart, then what advantage has the Jew, i.e., what has been given to him more than to others? It seems to be nothing. But this is not fitting, since the Lord had said: "The Lord, your God, has chosen you to be a people for his own possession" (Dt 7:6). Or what is the value of circumcision, i.e., outward? It seems from his previous teaching that there is no value. But this is not fitting, since it was imposed by God, Who says: "I am the Lord, your God, who teaches you unto profit" (Is 48:17). 248. Then when he says Much in every way (v. 2) he answers the objection: first, in regard to Judaism’s prerogative; secondly, in regard to the value of circumcision, in chapter 4, there [n. 322] at What therefore shall we say? In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows Judaism’s prerogative; secondly, he rejects their boasting over the Gentiles, there [v. 9; n. 271] at What then?. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he states his position; secondly, he explains it, there [v. 2b; n. 250] at First indeed; thirdly, he excludes an objection, there [v. 3; n. 251] at What if some. 130 249. First, therefore, he says: the question is raised what advantage has the Jew. The advantage is both quantitative, which is indicated when he says, much, and numerical, which is indicated when he says, in every way. For they have an advantage both in contemplating divine matters: "In Judah God is known" (Ps 76:1) and in the provision of temporal things: "He has not dealt thus with any other nation" (Ps 147:20). They have further advantages relating to their ancestors, to the promises and to their offspring: "They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenant" (Rom 9:4). In each of these there is no small advantage, but great and important ones, which are summed up when he says, much. For man’s greatest good lies in knowing God, in clinging to God and in being instructed by God: "Blessed is the man whom thou dost teach out of thy law" (Ps 93:12). 250. Then when he says First indeed he explains his statement, saying: First indeed, i.e., the chief advantage is that to them are entrusted the oracles of God, being His friends: "I have called you friends" (Jn 15:15). This is important, because the oracles of God are trustworthy: "The ordinances of the Lord are true and righteous altogether" (Ps 19:9) and pleasant: "How sweet are thy words to my taste" (Ps 119:103) and useful for avoiding sin: "I have laid up thy word in my heart, that I may not sin against thee" (Ps 119:11). 251. Then when he says What if some were unfaithful (v.3) he excludes an objection: first, he presents it; 131 secondly, he rejects it by showing its consequences, there [v. 3b; n. 253] at Does their faithlessness; thirdly, by showing that the consequence is unfitting, there [v. 4b; n. 254] at But God is true. 252. Someone could belittle the Jews’ prerogative by citing their ingratitude, through which they would seem to have set aside the value of God’s message. Hence he says, what if some were unfaithful? Does this show that the Jew has no advantage, especially in the light of 2 Pt (2:21): "It would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandments delivered to them." For they did not believe the Lawgiver: "They had no faith in his promises" (Ps 106:24) or the prophets: "They are a rebellious house" (Ez 2:6) or the Son of God: "If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?" (Jn 8:46). 253. Then when he says Does their faithlessness (v3b) he excludes this objection by showing the unsuitable conclusion it engenders. For if the Jews’ prerogative were taken away on account of the unbelief of some, it would follow that man’s unbelief would nullify God’s faithfulness -- which is an unacceptable conclusion. This is what he says: Does their unfaithfulness, namely, of those who have not believed, nullify the faithfulness of God? This can be understood in two ways: in one way, as referring to the faith by which one believes in God. For the faith of believers is not nullified by those who have not believed, because the evil in some members of society does not nullify the good in other members: "Some of them he blessed and exalted and some of them he made holy and 132 brought near to himself; some he cursed and brought low, and he turned them out of their place" (Si 33:12). This is against those of whom Augustine says in The Letter to the People of Hippo: "What other motive inspires them and what else do they discuss save that when a bishop or cleric or monk or nun falls, they believe that all are such, but not all can be exposed?" In another way, it can be understood as referring to the faith with which God is faithful in keeping His promises: "He who promised is faithful" (Heb 10:23). This faithfulness would be nullified, if it happened that the Jews had no advantage, just because some have not believed. For God promised to multiply that people and make it great: "I will multiply your descendants" (Gen 22:l6). 254. Then when he says, Let it not be!, he shows that it is unfitting for God’s faithfulness to be nullified on account of men’s unbelief. First, he gives a reason for this; secondly, he cites a text, there [4b; n. 256] at As it is written; thirdly, be excludes a false understanding of this text, there [v. 5; n. 262] at But if our injustice. 255. The reason is based on the fact that God in Himself is true: "The Lord is the true God" (Jer 10:10); "This is the true God and life eternal" (1 Jn 5:20); though every man be false: "I said in my consternation, ‘Men are all a vain hope’" (Ps 116:11). Hence, it is plain that man’s mendacity or unbelief in not adhering to the truth does not nullify God’s truth or faithfulness. This is easier to understand, if we consider that truth implies agreement between thing and understanding. But things are in agreement with our understanding in one way 133 and with God’s in another way. For our intellect derives its knowledge from things; consequently, the cause and measure of our truth stems from the thing’s being. For an opinion is called true or false depending on whether the thing is as stated or is not. Hence, our understanding can be true or it can be false, for it can be in agreement or disagreement. But whatever is open to being or not being needs someone acting to make it be; otherwise, it continues not to be. For as air without something illuminating it remains dark, so our intellect by itself, unless it is enlightened by the first truth, continues in falseness. Hence, of himself every man is false in his intellect and is true only in virtue of participating in the divine truth: "Send out thy light and thy truth" (Ps 43:3). The divine intellect, on the other hand, is the cause and measure of things. For this reason it is of itself unfailingly true, and everything else is true inasmuch as it conforms to that intellect. Similarly, considering truth on the part of the thing, man of himself does not have truth, because his nature is convertible into nothing. Only the divine nature, which is not produced from nothing or convertible into nothing, has of itself truth. 256. Then when he says, As it is written, he proves his statement on the authority of a text in Ps 51 (v.4): That thou mayest be justified in thy words and prevail when thou art judged. How this is to the point can be gathered from considering what the Psalmist had said just ahead of it For he says just before this, "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned," and then: "So that thou art justified in thy sentence and blameless in thy judgment." For God through the prophet Nathan had promised David that He would establish his kingdom forever in his seed, as is gathered from 2 Sam (7:16). But later, when he fell into serious 134 sin, namely, adultery and murder (2 Sam 11:2 ff), some said that on account of these sins God would not keep the promises made to him. 257. Hence, the Psalmist’s intention bears on two things. First, that God’s justice, which involves keeping His promises, is not changed on account of sin. Touching on this he says, that thou mayest be justified in thy words, i.e., that You may be shown just in your words, since You do not disregard them because of my sins: "All the words of my mouth are righteous" (Pr 8:8); "The Lord is faithful in all his words" (Ps 145:13). Secondly, that God’s promise imitates men’s judgment. And this is what he says, and prevail, namely, by keeping Your promise, when thou art judged, namely, by men, that on account of my sins You did not keep Your promises: "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Rom 12:21), which is said to men. Accordingly, it is truer of God. 258. It should be noted that God’s promise to David was to be fulfilled in Christ’s incarnation. Hence it was a predestinative prophecy, in which something is promised as destined to be fulfilled in every way; whereas something promised or foretold by a prophecy of warning is not predicted as destined to be fulfilled in every way but according to men’s merits, which can change. Therefore, if the promise made to David had not been fulfilled, it would have been prejudicial to God’s justice; whereas the non-fulfillment of a promise made through a prophecy of warning is not prejudicial to God’s justice, but indicates a change in deserts. Hence it is written in Jer (18:7): "If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a 135 kingdom that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it." Therefore, it is plain, according to this sense, that man’s sin does not exclude God’s faithfulness. 259. Other senses of this text are presented in the Gloss [of Lombard, col. 1352], but they are not closely related to the Apostle’s intention. The first is that these words are linked with the words, "Wash me more thoroughly from my iniquity" (v. 4) to the end "that you may be justified," i.e., appear just, "in thy words," in which You promised pardon to sinners not only in Ezekiel, because these words antedated that, but also in Lev (26:41): "If they make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember my covenant," and Dt (30:1): "If, lead by repentance of heart, you turn to God, the Lord your God will bring you back, and have compassion on you." Thus "may you prevail when you are judged" by men that you ought not pardon me. 260. Secondly these words are connected with the verse, "Against you only have I sinned," i.e., in comparison with you who alone are just. And this is what he means when he says "that you may be justified," i.e., by you may appear just in comparison to me and other sinners: "The Lord is just, and loves justice" (Ps 10:8), and this not only in deeds but also in your words, which is the greatest of all according to Jam 3(:2), "If anyone does not offend in word." "And that you may overcome when you are judged," i.e., when you are compared to anyone else in judgment: "Judge between me and my vineyard" (Is 5:3). 261. Third, these words are referred to Christ, Who alone is without sin: "He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips" (2 Pt 2:22) and is, therefore, justified in 136 His words as compared to all men. And you prevail over sin, death and the devil: "The Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered" (Rev 5:5), when you are judged unjustly by Pilate: "Thy cause has been judged as that of the wicked" (Jb 36:17). 262. Then when he says, But if our wickedness, he excludes a false understanding of the text he cited. For someone might understand these words according to the sense that "that" [ut] would be taken in a causal, not a consecutive, sense. Then it would follow that man’s sin would be directly ordained to commend God’s justice. But the Apostle shows that this is false. Hence he says that "that" is used consecutively, on the ground that David sinned and then the manifestation of divine justice followed, but not causally, as if a man’s sin commended God’s justice. He proves this by showing that it leads to something unfitting in two ways: first, on the part of divine judgment; secondly, on the part of human judgment [v. 7; n. 267]. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he presents the false sense; secondly, he shows that something unfitting follows from this, there [v. 5b; n. 264] at What then shall we say? Is God unjust; thirdly, he shows that it is unfitting, there [v. 6; n. 265] at Let it not be! 263. It should be noted that above (v.4) the Apostle had made two comparisons; in the first he compared divine truth to human falsity when he said: "Let God be true, though every man be false"; in the second, God’s justice to human sin, in the words of Ps 137 51 (v.4), where it is said: "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned.... That thou mayest be justified." In regard to the first comparison he says: If these words are taken to mean that our iniquity directly commends God’s justice, what shall we say? In other words, we could not accept the inconvenience that follows. For sin is not necessary for God to have His justice commended: "He does not desire a multitude of faithless and useless children" (Si 16:1). 264. He expresses the inconvenience that follows, when he says: Is God who inflicts wrath on us, i.e., vengeance for sin, unjust? For this follows from the supposition. For if sin were directly ordained to commending justice, it would not be deserving of punishment but of reward. Consequently, God would be unjust in punishing men for sin, contrary to what is stated in Dt (32:4): "God is faithful and without iniquity." 265. He rejects this inconvenience, when he says, Let it not be that is God unjust. I speak according to man, i.e., I say these words not from my understanding but from that of a man in error, as is stated in 1 Cor (3:3): "For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh?" 266. He shows that this must not be admitted, adding: For then, namely, if God is unjust, how could God judge the world, i.e., how could He be the universal and supreme judge of the world? For it is necessary that the first and highest item in every class be unerring, just as the first mover is unchangeable. Hence it is written in Ps 96 (v.13): "I will judge the world with righteousness." 138 A like argument is presented in Jb (34:12): "Of a truth God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice. Who gave him charge over the earth and who laid on him the whole world?" In other words: If He were not to judge justly, it would be necessary to suppose that someone else is judge of the world. 267. Then when he says For if the truth (v.7) he shows the same on the part of human judgment. He does three things: first, he presents the false understanding of the above words; secondly, he shows the inconvenience that follows, there [v. 7b; n. 269] at Why am I sill; thirdly, he shows that it is inconvenient, there [v. 8b; n. 270] at Their condemnation. 268. He expresses the false understanding according to the comparison of divine truth to human falsity, when he says: But if through my falsehood, i.e., on account of my falsity, God’s truthfulness, being manifested, abounds to his glory, man’s falsity directly obtains an increase of glory. This is contrary to what is stated in Jb (13:7): "Does God need you to speak deceitfully for him?" 269. Then he adds two inconveniences that follow: one is that man should not be regarded a sinner for lying, on the ground that it is directly ordained to God’s glory. And this is what he says: Why am I still, i.e., even now, being condemned by men as a sinner for being false: "Whereas wickedness is fearful, it bears witness of its condemnation" (Wis 17:8), because sinners are condemned by the judgment of all. 139 The other inconvenience is that it lends support to the false accusation leveled against the apostles. For they preached that through the abounding grace of Christ the debt for an abundance of sins was paid, as is stated below: (5:20): "Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more." For this the apostles were blasphemed, as if preaching that men should do evil in order that good be obtained. This would follow, if man’s falsehood directly commended God’s grace and truth. Therefore, he says: and why not do evil by sinning and teaching falsehood, that good may come, i.e., that God’s truth and justice be commended, as some people slanderously charge us: "When slandered, we try to conciliate" (1 Cor 4:13) with saying by twisting our words: "Which the ignorant and unstable twit to their own destruction" (2 Pt 3:16). 270. He rejects these inconveniences when he says, Their condemnation is just, i.e., those who do evil that good may come. For just as it is not correct to deduce truth from falsity, so it is wrong to reach a good end through evil means: "Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive?" (Jer 12:1). Or their, namely, those who accuse us of this falsely, condemnation is just. For perverters of sacred doctrine are justly condemned: "If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book" (Rev 22:18).

271. After showing the Jews’ advantage over the Gentiles so far as God’s blessings are concerned [n. 248], the Apostle now rejects their vainglory, by which they preferred themselves to Gentiles converted to the faith. First, he states his point; secondly, be proves it, there [v. 9b; n. 274] at For we have charged. 272. First, therefore, he says: I have asked what advantage has the Jew. The first is that God’s words were delivered to them. What then shall we Jews say to converts to 141 the faith? Are we Jews any better off than Gentiles converted to the faith? For this was a matter discussed among them: "A dispute also rose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest" (Lk 23:24). He answers this when he says, No, not at all. 273. But this seems to be at variance with an earlier statement (v. 2), which said that their advantage was much in every way. The gloss [of Lombard, col. 1356] explains that in the first statement the Apostle was thinking of the Jews in the time of the Law, but now he is speaking of the time of grace because, as is written in Col (3:11): "In Christ there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised," since these make no difference so far as the state of grace is concerned. But this explanation does not seem to be altogether in keeping with the Apostle’s intention, because later he will show that even while they were under the Law, they were under the power of sin, just as the Gentiles were, and even more so: "This is Jerusalem; I have set her in the center of the nations, with countries round about her. And she has wickedly rebelled against my ordinances and become more wicked than these countries" (Ez 5:5). Hence, it seems that above he was showing the excellence of God’s blessings; consequently, he did not say that the Jew was more excellent, but that something greater had been conferred on the Jew. Here he is rejecting the notion that they are excellent persons, because in spite of receiving God’s blessings they did not use them properly. 274. Then when he says For we have charged (v. 9b) he establishes his points: first, that the Jews do not excel the Gentiles so far as the state of sin is concerned; 142 secondly, so far as the state of justice is concerned, there [v. 2; n. 299] at But now apart from the law. He establishes the first in two ways: first, from what has been stated above; secondly, from an authority, there [v. 10; n. 176] at As it is written. 275. First, therefore, he says: We have already charged, i.e., we have supported with reasons, that Jews and Greeks, i.e., Gentiles, are all under the power of sin: "From the sole of the foot even to the head there is no soundness in him" (Is 1:6). For he showed, first of all, that the Gentiles suppressed the truth they knew by their wickedness and unrighteousness; secondly, that the Jews, after receiving the Law, dishonored God by transgressing it. 276. Then when he says, As it is written, he establishes his point by the authority of the Psalmist: first, he quotes him; secondly, he explains, there [v. 19; n. 290] at Now we know. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he mentions sins of omission; secondly, sins of commission, there [v. 13; n. 282] at Their throat. He touches on the sins of omission in two ways: first, by removing the sources of good works; secondly, by removing the good works themselves, there [v. 12; n. 280] at All have turned aside. 143 277. Now there are three sources or principles that make a work good: one of these pertains to the righteousness of the work, namely, justice, which he says is lacking: no one is just: "The godly man has perished from the earth; and there is none upright among men" (Mic 7:2). No one is just can be interpreted in three ways: in one way as meaning that no one is just within himself and of himself, but of himself everyone is a sinner and it is owing to God that he is righteous: "The Lord, a God merciful and gracious, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty" (Ex 34:6). In another way it means that no one is just in every way but has some sin according to Pr (20:9): "Who can say, ‘I have made my heart clean’?" and Ec (7:20): "Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins." In a third way it can be understood as referring to the wicked members of a populace, among which no one is just. For it is the custom of Scripture sometimes to speak of an entire populace in terms of its evil members and sometimes of its good members as in Jer (26:8 ff) where it is stated that when Jeremiah finished saying everything the Lord had commanded him to say to the entire populace, the priests and prophets and the entire people took hold of him and said that he would die the death. Then it is added: "Then the princes and all the people said to the priests and prophets: ‘This man does not deserve the sentence of death.’" (Jer 26:16). However, the first two meanings seem to be more in keeping with the Apostle’s intent; and the same must be said for the following. 144 278. The second element that makes a work good is intellectual discernment, whose absence is declared when he says, no one understands: "They have neither knowledge nor understanding" (Ps 82:5); "He would not understand" (Ps 36:3). 279. The third element is a right intention, whose absence is described when he says, no one seeks after God, namely, by directing his intention toward Him: "It is time to seek the Lord that he may come and rain salvation upon you" (Hos 10:12). 280. Then he removes the good works themselves. First, he cites offenses against the divine Law when he says, all have turned aside, namely, from regulation by divine Law: "They have all turned to their own way" (Is 56:11). Secondly, failure to pursue the end; hence he adds, together they have become unprofitable. For we call unprofitable whatever does not attain its end. Therefore, when men turn from God for Whom they were made, they are rendered unprofitable: "The brood of the ungodly will be of no use" (Wis 4:3). Thirdly, he excludes the good works themselves, when he adds, no one does good: "They are skilled in doing evil, but how to do good they know not" (Jer 4:22). 281. He adds, not even one. This can be taken exclusively, to mean: except the one who alone did good by redeeming the human race: "One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found" (Ec 7:28). Or it can be taken inclusively, to mean: there is not even one pure man doing good, i.e., what is perfect: "Search the squares [of Jerusalem] to see if you can find a man, one who does justice and seeks truth" (Jer 5:1). 282. Then when he says Their throats (v. 13) he mentions the sins of commission: 145 first, sins of speech; secondly, sinful deeds, there [v. 15; n. 287] at their feet are swift. The sins of the heart can be gathered from these. 283. In regard to sins of speech he mentions four things. First, readiness and foulness, when he says: their throat is an open grave. For an open grave has two features. For it is ready to receive the dead. According to this, a man’s throat is said to be an open grave, when it is prepared to utter deadly remarks in the manner described by Jer (5:16): "Their quiver is like an open tomb." Secondly, it exudes a foul odor: "You are like white-washed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness" (Mt 23:27). Therefore, a person from whose mouth proceeds the foul odor of filthy remarks has a throat which is an open grave: "Fire and smoke and sulphur issued from their mouths" (Rev 19:17). 284. Secondly, in regard to sins of speech, he touches on deception when he says, they use their tongues to deceive, having one thing in their heart and another in their words: "Their tongues is a deadly arrow; it speaks deceitfully" (Jer 9:8). 285. Thirdly, he mentions the havoc wrought by their words, when he says: The venom of asps is under their lips, because they utter words which kill their neighbor either spiritually or bodily: "Their wine is the poison of serpents and the cruel venom of asps" (Dt 32:33). 286. Fourthly, he designates the abundance of these sins when he says: Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness, because they have a plentiful supply of curses, for 146 they curse in slandering others, contrary to what he says below (12:14): "Bless and do not curse them". And bitterness, inasmuch as they do not hesitate to say insulting words to their neighbor’s face, being provoked by bitterness, contrary to what is written in Eph (4:31): "Let all bitterness be put away from you." 287. Then when he says their feet are swift (v.15) he touches on sinful deeds, in regard to which he mentions three things. First, readiness to do wickedly. Hence he says, Their feet are swift, i.e., their feelings, to shed blood, i.e., to commit any serious sin, because among the sins committed against our neighbor, murder is the most grievous: "Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed blood" (Pr 1:16). 288. Secondly, he touches on the number of injuries they inflict on others when he adds: in their paths, i.e., in their deeds, are ruin; because they crush others by oppressing them: "It is in his mind to destroy" (Is 10:7); and misery, inasmuch as they deprive men of their goods and reduce them to wretchedness: "They send men away naked, taking away their clothes" (Jb 24:7). Yet these two, ruin and misery, can be taken as designating the punishment rather than the sin. Then the sense is: In their paths are ruin and misery, i.e., their deeds, which are signified as paths, lead them to misery. In this case, ruin would refer to the oppressive punishment they suffer for their sins: "They shall be broken as a potter’s vessel" (Is 30:14) and misery, to the punishment of damnation, because they will be refused eternal happiness: "They are miserable, with their hopes set on dead things" (Wis 14:10). 147 289. Thirdly, he shows their persistence in evil, from which men are returned in two ways. In one way by a desire to be at peace with others. Against this he says, the way of peace they have not known, i.e., have not accepted: "Among those who hate peace I was peaceful" (Ps 120:6). In another way by the fear of God; but they neither fear God nor regard man (Lk 18:2). Hence he adds, there is no fear of God before their eyes, i.e., in their plans: "The fear of the Lord casts out sin; for without fear a person cannot be justified" (Si 1:27). This could also refer in a particular way to the Jews who did not believe Christ, i.e., that they have not known the way of peace, name1y, Christ, of Whom it is written: "He is our peace" (Eph 2:14). 290. Then when he says Now we know (v. 19) he explains the text he quoted in three ways: first, by expounding its sense; secondly, its intention, there [v. l9b; n. 294] at that every mouth; thirdly, he gives the reason for his words, there [v. 20; n. 295] at For by the works of the law. 291. It should be noted that the Jews, against whom the Apostle was speaking, could, to excuse themselves, pervert the sense of the text he cited and claim that it referred to the Gentiles, not to the Jews. But the Apostle rejects this, saying: Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, i.e., to whom the Law is given and who profess 148 the Law: "When Moses commanded us a law" (Dt 33:4). But the Gentiles were not under the law; accordingly, the above words pertain to the Jews. 292. Two objections are raised here. The first is that the above words were not taken from the Law but from a psalm. The answer is that the word "Law" is sometimes taken for the entire Old Testament, not for the five books of Moses alone, as in Jn (15:25): "It is to fulfill the word that is written in their law, ‘They hated me without cause,’" which was written in the Old Testament, not in the five books of Moses. This is the way, "Law" is taken here. Again, the Old Testament is sometimes divided into three parts, namely, the Law, the psalms and the prophets, as in Lk (24:44): "That everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled." Finally, the entire Old Testament is sometimes divided into two, namely, the Law and the prophets, as in Mt (22:40): "On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets." In this sense the Psalter is included under the prophets. 293. The second objection is that in the Law, i.e., in the Old Testament, many things are said that pertain to other nations, as is clear in many passages of Isaiah and Jeremiah, where many statements are directed against Babylon and other nations. Therefore, not everything that the Law says speaks to those and about those who are under the Law. The answer is that whatever it says indeterminately seems to be directed to those to whom the Law has been given; but when the Scripture speaks of others it mentions them by name, as when it is written: "The burden of Babylon," "The burden of Tyre," etc. Furthermore, whatever was said against other nations in the Old Testament was 149 somehow directed to the Jews, inasmuch as ill fortune was foretold for their consolation or fear, just as any preacher should say what pertains to his audience, not what pertains to others: "Declare to my people their transgressions" (Is 58:1), as if to say: "not others’ transgressions." 294. Then when he says that every mouth (v. 19b) he states the intent of the text cited, for Sacred Scripture accuses all of injustice for two reasons. First, to suppress their boasting, by which they considered themselves just, as in Lk (18:12): "I fast twice a week." In regard to this he says, that every mouth may be stopped, which presumptuously ascribes justice to itself: "For the mouths of liars will be stopped" (Ps 63:11); "Talk no more so very proudly" (1 Sam 2:3). Secondly, so that recognizing their guilt, they might subject themselves to God as the sick to a physician. Hence he continues: and the whole world may be held accountable [made subject] to God, i.e., not only the Gentiles but the Jews also, after recognizing their guilt: "Shall not my soul be subject to God?" (Ps 62:1). 295. Then when he says For by the works of the law (v. 20) he assigns the reason for these words: first, he assigns the reason; secondly, he explains it, there [v. 20b; n. 298] at Since through the law. 296. First, therefore, he says: The reason no one is just is that no human being will be justified in his sight, i.e., according to His judgment, by works of the law; because, as is stated in Gal (2:2l): "If justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose," and in *** (3:5): "Not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy he saved us." 150 297. However, a work of the Law is of two kinds: one is peculiar to the Mosaic Law, as the observance of ceremonial precepts; the other is a work of the Law of nature, because it pertains to the natural law, as "Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal," etc. Now some take the Apostle’s words as referring to the first works, namely, that the ceremonials did not confer the grace through which men are made just. But this does not seem to be the Apostle’s intent, for he immediately adds: "since through the law comes knowledge of sin." But it is clear that sins are made known through prohibitions contained in the moral precepts. Consequently, the Apostle intends to say that by no works of the Law, even those commanded by the moral precepts, is man justified in the sense that justice would be caused in him by works, because, as he states below (11:6): "But if it is by grace it is no longer on the basis of works." 298. Then when he says, since through the law, he proves his statement, namely, that the works of the Law do not justify. For the Law is given that man might know what to do and what to avoid: "He has not dealt thus with any other nation; they do not know his ordinances" (Ps 147:20); "The commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light and the way of life" (Pr 6:23). But from the fact that man knows a sin he should avoid as being forbidden, it does not at once follow that he avoids it (because this pertains to the nature of righteousness), because concupiscence subverts the judgment of reason, when it bears on a particular moral action as performable. Consequently, the Law is not enough to make one just; another remedy is needed to suppress concupiscence.

299. After showing that Jews and gentiles are equal as far as the state of previous guilt is concerned [n. 274], the Apostle now shows that they are also equal as far as the state of subsequent grace is concerned. In regard to this he does three things: first, he states his teaching; secondly, he explains something he had presupposed, there [v. 29; n. 318] at Or is God the God of the Jews only?; thirdly, he answers an objection, there [v. 31; n. 321] at Do we therefore destroy the law? 152 In regard to the first he does three things: first, he states his teaching; secondly, he manifests it, there [v. 22c; n. 304] at There is no distinction; thirdly, he draws the intended conclusion, there [v. 27; n. 313] at Where therefore is your glorying? In regard to the first he does three things: first, he states the relation between justice and the law; secondly, he gives the cause of justice, there [v. 22; n. 302] at the justice of God; thirdly, he shows that such justice is available to all, there [v. 22b; n. 303] at in all. 300. First, he sets down a twofold comparison or relation of justice to the Law [n. 301]. The first is that it is not caused by the Law. This is what he says: It has been stated that in times past God’s justice could not exist in virtue of the works of the Law, either because the just one himself fulfills the promises about men’s justification: "For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God’s truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs" (Rom 15:8). Or, rather, God’s justice, by which a person is justified by God, of which it says below: "not knowing the justice of God" (Rom 10:3). This justice of God, I say, has been manifested now, i.e., in the time of grace, by the teachings of Christ, by his miracles, as well as by the evidence of the fact, inasmuch as it is evident that many have been divinely made just. And this apart from the Law, i.e., without the Law causing righteousness: "You are severed from Christ, you who had 153 been justified by the Law; you have fallen away from grace" (Gal 5:4); "Soon my salvation will come, and my justice will be revealed" (Is 56:1). 301. But lest anyone suppose that this justice is contrary to the Law, secondly, he sets down another relation of justice to the Law when he says: although the law and the prophets bear witness to it. The Law bears witness to Christ’s justice by foretelling and prefiguring it: "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me" (Jn 5:46); and also by its effect, for, since it could not justify, it bore witness that justice was to be sought elsewhere. The prophets bore witness by foretelling it: "To him all the prophets bear witness" (Ac 10:43). 302. Then he assigns the cause of this justice, and says the justice of God through the faith of Christ Jesus, i.e., which he delivered: "Looking to Jesus the perfecter of our faith" (Heb 12:2); or which is held concerning Him: "Because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom 10:9). God’s justice is said to exist through faith in Christ Jesus, not as though by faith we merit being justified, as if faith exists from ourselves and through it we merit God’s justice, as the Pelagians assert; but because in the very justification, by which we are made just by God, the first motion of the mind toward God is through faith: "Whoever would draw near to God must believe" (Heb 11:6). Hence faith, as the first part of justice, is given to us by God: "By grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing; for it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8). 154 But this faith, out of which justice exists, is not the unformed faith about which James 2(:26) says, "Faith without works is dead," but it is faith formed by charity, about which Gal 5(:6) says, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith [working through love]," through which Christ dwells in us; "that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith" (Eph 3:17), which does not happen without charity: "He who abides in love abides in God and God in him" (1 Jn 4:16). This is the faith about which Acts 15(:9) says, "He cleansed their hearts by faith," a cleansing that does not occur without charity: "Love covers all offenses" (Pr 10:12). 303. And lest anyone suppose that only the Jews are made just through this faith, third, he shows that this justice is common, when he adds in all. In other words this justice is in the heart, not in fleshly observances, about which Hebrews 9(:10) says that carnal observances were directed to the justification of the flesh, being regulations for the body and imposed until the time of reformation. And over all, because it transcends human power and merit: "Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us" (2Cor 3:5). He adds, who believe in him, which refers to the living faith, by which man is justified, as has been said. 304. Then when he says for there is no distinction, he manifests what he had said: first, in regard to the common availability of justice; secondly, as to its cause, there [v. 24; n. 306] at justified by grace; thirdly, as to its manifestation, there [v. 25b; n. 310] at for the manifestation. 305. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that the righteousness of God is in all and above all who believe in Christ. For in this matter there is no distinction between 155 Jew and Gentile: "In Christ Jesus there is not Gentile and Jew" (Col 3:11), namely [a Jew] who has some distinction, as though the Jew does not need to be made just by God as the Gentile does. Since all have sinned, as has been shown above: "All we like sheep have gone astray" (Is 53:6) and for this reason need the glory of God, i.e., the justification that redounds to God’s glory. Furthermore, man should not ascribe this glory to himself: "Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to thy name give glory" (Ps 115:1); "Give glory to God" (Ps 66:2). 306. Consequently, because all have sinned and cannot of themselves be justified, they need some other cause to make them just. This cause he indicates when he continues, being justified. First [cf. n. 307], he shows that such justification exists without the Law, i.e., that it does not come from the works of the Law, when he says being justified freely [gratis], i.e., without the merit of previous works: "You were sold for nothing and you shall be redeemed without money" (Is 52:3). And this is by his grace, namely, God’s, to whom glory is due on this account: "By the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor 15:10). 307. Secondly, he shows what is the cause of justification. First [cf. n. 308ff.], he discloses the cause itself, when he says, through redemption. For as is stated in John 8(:34), "Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin." From this slavery a man is redeemed, if he makes satisfaction for sin. For example, if a man owes a king a fine for some guilty action, the one who paid the fine would be said to have redeemed him from the debt. Now, this debt involved the whole human race, which was infected by the sin of the first parent. Hence no other person could satisfy for the sin of the entire human race except Christ alone, who was immune from all sin. 156 Hence he adds, which is in Christ Jesus. As if to say: in no other could there be redemption: "Not with perishable things, such as silver and gold" (1 Pt 1:18). 308. Secondly, he shows whence this redemption has efficacy, when he says whom God put forward as an expiation. For Christ’s satisfaction was efficacious for justifying and redeeming by the fact that God had assigned him to this in his plan, which he designates when he says whom God put forward as an expiation: "According to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will" (Eph 1:11). Or put forward, that is, he put [him] forward for all, because the human race had no way of making satisfaction unless God himself gave them a redeemer and satisfier: "He sent redemption to his people" (Ps 111:9). And so, while making satisfaction, he redeems us from the debt of sin and obtains pardon for our sins, which the Psalmist begged: "Be propitious to our sins" (Ps 79:9); and this is why he calls him a propitiation. Propitiation. As a figure of this it was commanded in Exodus (25:17) that a propitiatory [seat], i.e., Christ, be placed on the ark, i.e., the Church. 369. Thirdly, he indicates how the effect of redemption reached us, when he says, by faith in his blood, i.e., faith concerning his blood poured out for us. For in order to satisfy for us, it was fitting that he undergo the penalty of death for us, a penalty man had incurred by sin, as indicated in Genesis 2(:17), "In the day that you eat of it you shall die." Hence 1Peter 3(:18) states, "For Christ also died for sins once for all." This death of Christ is applied to us through faith, by which we believe that the world has been redeemed by His death: "I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me 157 and gave himself for me" (Gal 2:20). For even among men payment made by one man does not benefit another, unless [that other] considers it valid. And so it is clear how there is justification through faith in Jesus Christ, as has been stated above. 310. But because he had stated above [n. 300] that God’s justice is manifested now, he considers this manifestation [n. 311ff]. First, he touches on the manner of this manifestation, saying for the manifestation. As if to say: I say that we are justified by the redemption of Christ and by faith in his blood, for the manifestation of his justice, i.e., to the end that God might show his justice, and this because of the remission of former sins. For in remitting former sins, which the Law could not remit or men by their own power sufficiently guard against, God showed that the justice by which they are made just by God is necessary for men. But only through the blood of Christ could sins both present and past be remitted, because the power of Christ’s blood works through man’s faith, which the men who lived before his passion had, just as we have: "Since we have the same spirit of faith . . . we too believe" (2 Cor 14:13). Hence another way of reading it is: for the remission of the sins of those men who preceded the passion of Christ: "He will tread our iniquities under foot and he will cast all our sins into the depth of the sea" (Mic 7:19). 311. Secondly, he shows the time of its manifestation, when he adds: in the forbearance of God, for the manifestation of his justice in this time. As if to say: former sins before the passion of Christ were in the forbearance of God as, so to speak, under a certain divine support [sustinentia], because he neither damned believers and penitents 158 for them nor completely absolved them, in the sense that, the sins notwithstanding, they might enter into glory. Or, according to another reading, it can mean that the saintly fathers themselves were in God’s forbearance, because they were detained in limbo, not suffering sensible pain but waiting to enter into glory through the passion of Christ: "Wait for the forbearance of God" (Sir 2:3). For this purpose, I say, previous sins and the ancient fathers were in the forbearance of God, namely to for the manifestation of his justice in this time, i.e., that in this time of grace he might manifest his justice perfectly by granting full remission of sins: "Now is the acceptable time; now is the day of salvation" (2 Cor 6:2). And this is what he had said above, namely that God’s justice is now manifest. Up to this present time former sins had be in the forbearance of God, in order to convince man of his lack of knowledge, since in the time of the law of nature man fell into errors and base sins; and of his lack of power, since after the written law, which gave knowledge of sin, man still sinned through weakness. 312. Thirdly, he shows that by remitting sins God’s justice is shown, whether it be taken as the justice of God by which he himself is just or as the justice by which he justifies others. Hence he continues: that he himself may be just, i.e., that by remitting sins God may appear to be just in himself, both because he remitted sins as he had promised and because it belongs to God’s justice to destroy sins by leading men back to his justice: "The Lord is righteous, he loves righteous deeds" (Ps 11:7). 159 19 Cf. n. 274, 299, and 304. And also the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ, i.e., who approaches God through faith in Jesus Christ: "Whoever would draw near to God must believe" (Heb 11:6).

After showing that Jews have no advantage over the Gentiles either in regard to sin or to righteousness,19 he now presents the intended conclusion, by rejecting the boasts whereby they preferred themselves to the Gentiles. He does three things. First, he proposes that this boasting be excluded; secondly, the reason for this exclusion, there [v. 27b; n. 315] at by what law?; thirdly, the way it is excluded, there [v. 28; n. 317] at For we judge. 160 20 RSV Ps 68:30. The Hebrew text of this verse is obscure. 314. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he raises a question: Inasmuch as you, 0 Jew, are under sin just as the Gentile, and the Gentile is made just by faith just as you are, then what becomes of your boasting, whereby you take glory in the Law, as stated above, and on this ground wish to prefer yourself to the Gentile? "Your boasting is not good" (1 Cor 5:6); "Let us have no self-conceit, envying one another," (Gal 5:26). Secondly, he answers this, saying, it is excluded, i.e., is taken away: "The glory has been taken away from Israel" (1 Sam 4:21); "I will change their glory into shame" (Hos 4:7). Or excluded, i.e., expressly manifested. For the Jews gloried in the glory and worship of the one God, and he says that their glory was excluded, i.e., pressed out [expressam] by Christ, as artists who press out an image in silver are called "excludors," in accord with Ps 67:31, "That they might exclude those who were tried by silver."20 But the first meaning is more literal. 315. Then when he says by what law, he states the cause of this exclusion. Since the Jews’ boasting was about the Law, as has been stated above, it seemed that their boasting had to be excluded by something of the same genre, i.e., by some law. Therefore, he asks on what is their boasting to be excluded? For someone might suppose that the Apostle means their boasting was excluded by certain legal precepts which commanded greater works. That is why he asks, on the principle of works? As if to say: Do I say that their boasting has been excluded by some law of works? But he answers: No, but by the law of faith. 161 So it is plain that the Apostle alludes here to two laws, that of works and that of faith. At first glance it would seem that by the law of works is meant the Old Law and by the law of faith the New Law, through which the Gentile is made equal to the Jew. 316. But there is some doubt about this distinction. For even in the Old Law faith was necessary, just as it is in the New: "You who fear the Lord believe him" (Sir 2:8); "I believed; therefore I have spoken" (Ps l16:l0). And indeed, works are required in the New Law, namely, the works of certain sacraments, as commanded in Luke 22(:19), "Do this in memory of me" and of moral observances: "Be doers of the word and not hearers only" (Jas 1:22). Consequently, it should be said that what he calls the law of works is the law outwardly presented and written, through which men’s external works are directed, when it prescribes what he ought to do and forbids what ought to be avoided. But what he calls the law of faith is the law inwardly written, through which are directed not only external works but even the very motions of the heart, among which the act of faith is first: "Man believes with his heart" (Rom 10:10). Of this second law he speaks below (8:2): "The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus." 317. Then when he says, For we hold, he shows how the Jews’ boasting is excluded by the law of faith, saying: For we apostles, being taught the truth by Christ, hold that a man, whomsoever he be, whether Jew or Gentile, is justified by faith: "He cleansed their hearts by faith" (Ac 15:9). And this apart from the works of the law. Not only without the ceremonial works, which did not confer grace but only signified it, but also without the works of the moral precepts, as stated in Titus 3(:5), "Not because of deeds done by us in righteousness." This, of course, means without 162 works prior to becoming just, but not without works following it, because, as is stated in Jas (2:26): "Faith without works," i.e., subsequent works, "is dead," and, consequently, cannot justify. 318. Then when he says Or is God the God of the Jews only?, he manifests something he had presupposed, namely, that the righteousness of faith stands in the same common relation to all. He had previously explained this with a reason based on the material cause, when he stated above (v. 23) that "all have sinned and need the glory of God," i.e., they are sinners, who need to be made just by the grace of God. But a proof based solely on the material cause is not enough, because matter is not moved to a form by itself without an agent cause. Accordingly, he now presents a proof based on the agent cause, i.e., the justifier, who is God: "It is God who justifies" (Rom 8:33). Now it is manifest that our God by justifying saves those whose God he is, according to Ps 68(:20), "Our God is a God of salvation." But he is the God not of the Jews only but of the Gentiles also; therefore, he justifies both. 319. On this point he does three things. First, he raises a question concerning the Jews, when he says, Is God the God of Jews only? It might seem that he is, because it says in Exodus 5(:3), "The God of the Hebrews called us." Hence it must be said that he was the God of the Jews only by the special worship paid to God by them; hence it is stated in Ps 76 (v.1): "In Judah God is known"; yet he was the God of all by his common reign over all things, as is stated in Ps 47(:8), "God is king of all the earth." 163 Secondly, he raises the question on the side of the Gentiles, saying: Is he not God of the Gentiles also? and he answers: Yes, of Gentiles also, whom he governs and rules: "Who would not fear thee, O king of the nations?" (Jer 10:7). Thirdly, there at for God indeed is one, he manifests what he had said with a sign, as if to say: It is clear that he is the God not only of the Jews but also of the Gentiles, for God indeed is one and he will justify the circumcised, i.e., the Jews, from faith, as is said in Galatians 5(:6), "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail." 320. According to the Gloss, "from faith" [ex fide] and "by faith" [per fidem] are exactly the same. However, a slight difference can be noted. For the preposition "from" [ex] sometimes designates a remote cause, while the preposition "through" [per] designates a nearer cause. Therefore, the Jews are said to be justified "from" faith because faith was the first cause from which circumcision and the other sacraments of the Law proceeded; thus, faith justified the Jews as a primary cause through intermediate causes. But the Gentiles are justified by faith itself immediately. 321. Then when he says Do we therefore overthrow he excludes an objection. For someone might claim that he is overthrowing the aforementioned Law; therefore, he asks: Do we therefore overthrow the law by faith, inasmuch as we say that men are justified without the works of the Law? He answers: By no means! in keeping with Matt 5(:18), "Not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law." Rather, he adds: On the contrary, we uphold the law, i.e., by faith we complete and fulfill the Law, as Matt 5(:17) says, "I have come not to abolish the law but to fulfill it." 164 This is true as regards the ceremonial precepts because, being figures, they were upheld and fulfilled by the fact that the truth signified by them is shown forth in the faith of Christ. This is also true as regards the moral precepts, because the faith of Christ confers the help of grace to fulfill the moral precepts of the Law and even adds special counsels, through which the moral precepts are more safely and securely kept.

After excluding the glory which the Jews took in the Law, on the basis of which they preferred themselves to the Gentiles [n. 169 and 248], the Apostle now excludes their glory in regard to circumcision. About which he does two things. First, he takes up the question he had raised earlier [n. 247], when he asked: "What is the usefulness of circumcision?" And because Abraham was the first to receive the command about circumcision, as stated in Genesis 17(:10), he repeats the question in the person of Abraham himself, saying: If it is true that God justifies the uncircumcised as well as the circumcised, What usefulness then shall we say Abraham to have found, who is our father according to the flesh? That is, according to circumcision and other bodily observances. For it does not seem fitting to say that he found no usefulness, since it is stated in Isaiah 48(:17), "I am the Lord, your God, who teaches you useful things." 323. Secondly, when he says, For if Abraham, he answers the question he had raised. He does two things. First, he shows that Abraham did not obtain justification through circumcision and the other works of the Law, but rather through faith; secondly, he commends his faith, there [v.18; n. 367] at who against hope. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he explains his position with a reason based on divine acceptance; secondly, by reason of God’s promise, there [v. 13; n. 351] at For not through the Law. In regard to the first he does three things. 167 First, he proposes a conditional statement; secondly, disproves the consequent, there [v.3; n. 326] at For what do the Scriptures say?; thirdly, he proves the conditional statement, there [v. 6; n. 332] at As David also. 324. In regard to the first the Apostle intends to argue in the following manner: If Abraham were justified from works of the Law, he would have no glory with God; therefore, he was not justified from works. Hence, he presents the conditional [statement, saying]: It has been asked what Abraham found in virtue of bodily circumcision, and it is obvious that he did not find himself justified from works of the law, such that his justice consisted in the works of the Law. For he has glory, namely, before men, who see the outward works, but not before God, who sees in secret: "The Lord looks on the heart" (1 Sam l6:7); "So let no one boast of men" (1 Cor 3:21). Hence it is written against some that "they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God" (John l2:43). 325. Against this one might object that becoming accustomed to outward works generates an inward habit, according to which a man’s heart is also well disposed and so made ready to perform well and take pleasure in good works, as the Philosopher teaches in Ethics II. The answer is that this takes place in human justice, through which man is ordained to the human good. For the habit of this justice can be acquired through human works, but the justice which obtains glory before God is ordained to the divine good, namely future glory, which exceeds human ability, as is stated in 1 Cor 2(:9), "It has not arisen in the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love him." 168 Consequently, a man’s works are not proportioned to causing the habit of this justice; rather, a man’s heart needs first to be justified inwardly by God, so that he can perform works proportioned to divine glory. 326. Then when he says For what do the Scriptures say, he disproves the consequent, which was negative, by proving the opposite affirmative, namely, that Abraham did have glory before God. He proves this on the authority of Scripture: first, he cites the authority; secondly, he explains, there [v. 4; n. 328] at Now, to him. 327. First, therefore, he says: I say that Abraham was justified in a way that gave him glory before God. For what do the Scriptures say (Gen 15:6): Abraham believed God who promised that his seed would be multiplied. "Believe God and he will help you" (Sir 2:6). And it was reputed to him, i.e., by God, as justice: "Was not Abraham found faithful when tested?" (1 Macc 2:52). Consequently, it is clear that before God, by whom that he believed was reckoned to him as justice, he has glory. But it should be noted that Abraham expressed the justice described, which God regards, not in some outward work but in the inward faith of the heart, which God alone sees. Indeed, since the act of faith is said to be threefold, namely, to believe God [Deum], to believe God [Deo] and to believe unto God [in Deum], he mentions this act, namely to believe God [Deo], which is the proper act of faith and indicates its nature [species]. For to believe unto God shows the ordering of faith to its end, which is through charity; for to believe unto God is to go to God by believing, which charity does. Consequently, it follows upon the nature of faith. 169 But to believe God [Deum] indicates the matter of faith taken as a theological virtue, having God for its object. Consequently, this act does not yet attain the nature of faith, because if one believes in God in virtue of certain human reasons and natural signs, he is not yet said to have the faith of which we now speak, but only when he believes something for the reason that it was said by God—which is indicated by the phrase, "to believe God [Deo]." It is from this that faith takes its nature [specificatur], just as any cognitive habit takes its nature from the reason in virtue of which it assents to something. For a person possessing scientific philosophical knowledge is inclined to assent to its statements for one reason, namely, through demonstration, but one having the habit of opinion is inclined to assent for a different reason, namely, through a dialectical syllogism. 328. Then, when he says Now, to him who works, he explains the aforementioned biblical citation as regards the words it was reputed to him as justice. Two explanations of these words are given in the Gloss. In the first explanation they are linked to the final reward, concerning which first, he shows how it is related to works; secondly, how it is related to faith, there [v. 5; n. 330] at But to him who does not work. 329. First, therefore, he says that to him who works the works of justice, the reward of eternal recompense—concerning which Isaiah 40(:10) says, "Behold his reward is with him"—are not reckoned as a gift [secundum gratiam] only but as his due: "Did you not agree with me for a denarius?" (Mt 20:2). 170 But on the contrary it is stated below (6:23), "The free gift [gratia] of God is eternal life," and again: "The sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us" (Rom 8:18). Therefore, that reward is not made as due, but as a gift. The answer is that human works can be considered in two ways. In one way, according to the substance of the works, and considered this way they do not have anything deserving [condignum] that the award of eternal glory should be given. In another way, they can be considered according to their source, namely, insofar as they are performed under God’s impulse in accord with the intention of God who predestines. And in this respect the aforesaid reward is due them by debt, because, as is stated below (8:14): "All who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God"; "and if sons, then heirs" (8:17). 330. Then (v. 5) he shows how the eternal award is related to faith, saying, but to one who does not work outward works, for example, because he does not have time to work, as in the case of one who dies immediately after baptism, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, namely, in God, of whom he says below (8:33): "It is God who justifies," his faith is reckoned, i.e., faith alone without outward works, as righteousness, so that in virtue of it he is called just and receives the reward of justice, just as if he had done the works of justice, as he says below (10:10): "Man believes with his heart and so is justified," according the purpose of the grace of God, i.e., accordingly as God proposes to save men gratuitously: "Who are called according to his purpose (Rom 8:28); "He accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will" (Eph 1:11). 331. Another explanation refers those words to man’s justification. 171 Then to the one who works, i.e., if anyone be justified by works, the justice would be reckoned not as a gift but as his due: "If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace" (Rom 11:6). But to him who does not work, so as to be justified by his works, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith will be reckoned as justice according to the purpose of God’s grace, not that he merits justice through faith, but because the believing itself is the first act of the justice God works in him. For from the fact that he believes in God justifying, he submits himself to his justification and thus receives its effect. This is the literal explanation and accords with the intention of the Apostle, who lays special stress on the words, "it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Gen 15:6)" a saying which is used when that which is lacking on someone’s part is reckoned to him gratis, as if he had accomplished the whole. That is why the Apostle says that such reckoning would have no place, if righteousness were from works, but only as it is from faith. 332. Then when he says As also David (v. 6) he proves the conditional statement by a quotation from a psalm. First, he gives its sense; secondly, he presents its words, there [v. 7; n. 334] at Blessed they whose; thirdly, he excludes a false interpretation, there [v. 9; n. 339] at So does this blessedness? 333. He says: So also David pronounces a blessing [happiness] upon the man to whom God reckons, i.e., confers, justice apart from works, i.e., gratis, without preceding works: "Not because of deeds done by us in righteousness" (Titus 3:5). 172 But man’s happiness is from God, as Ps 40 (v.5) says: "Blessed is the man who makes the Lord his hope." Hence, it is plain that he has glory before God who is justified not by the works of the Law, as has been said. 334. Then when he says Blessed they (v. 7) he presents David’s words containing the previous judgment and says that those whose sins are forgiven are blessed; consequently, they did not previously have good works, from which they obtained righteousness or happiness. 335. But sin is divided into three classes: original, actual mortal and actual venial. First, in regard to original sin he says: Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven. Here it should be noted that original sin is called iniquity, because it is the lack of that original justice, by which in equity man’s reason was subject to God, the lower powers to reason, and the body to the soul. This equity is removed by original sin, because after reason ceased to be subject to God, the lower powers rebel against reason and the body is withdrawn from obedience to the soul and subjected to decay and death. Hence Ps 51 (v.5) says: "I was brought forth in iniquities." In both texts original sin is presented in the plural, either because of the multitude of men in whom original sin is multiplied or better because it virtually contains within itself all sins in some way. Such original sin is said to be forgiven, because the reatus passes with the coming of grace, but the effect remains in the form of fomes or concupiscence, which is not entirely taken away in this life, but is remitted or mitigated. 336. Secondly, in regard to actual mortal sin he says, and whose sins are covered. 173 For sins are said to be covered from the divine gaze, inasmuch as he does not look upon them to be punished: "Thou didst cover all their sin" (Ps 85:2). 337. Thirdly, in regard to venial sin he says, blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin, where sin refers to venial sins which, although light, if they be many, man is separated and distant from God: "The good Lord will pardon everyone who sets his heart to seek God, even though not according to the sanctuary’s rules of cleanness" (2 Ch 30:18). 338. These three can be distinguished in another way. For in sin are three things, one of which is offense against God. In regard to this he says, blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, the way man is said to remit an offense committed against him: "Her iniquity is pardoned" (Is 40:2). The second thing is the fact that the disordered deed has been done and cannot be said not to have occurred, once it has been perpetrated; but it is covered over by the hand of God’s mercy and is held as if not committed. The third is the debt of punishment, in regard to which he says: Blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin, i.e., to punish. 339. Then when he says So does this blessedness (v. 9) he excludes a false interpretation of the text. For a Jew could interpret it as meaning that the grace of forgiveness of sins is conferred only on the circumcised. Therefore, to exclude this the Apostle first raises the question, Is this blessing by which God confers righteousness without works, pronounced only upon the circumcised, i.e., affects only the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised, i.e. on the Gentiles? 174 Plainly it is for both, according to what he says below (10:12): "The same Lord bestows his riches upon all who call upon him." Secondly, there at For we say, to show this he appeals to the authority of Scripture (Gen 15:6), as if to say: I ask this, because we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. Thirdly, from this text he concludes to the answer, although he states it in the form of a question: How then was it reckoned to him, namely, Abraham’s faith as justice, i.e., was it before, i.e., when still uncircumcised, or after he had been circumcised? He answers: It was not after, but before he was circumcised. This is obvious from the reported sequence of events. For Gen (15:6) reports that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness, but the fact of receiving circumcision is not recorded until Gen (17:23 ff). Therefore, if Abraham, still uncircumcised, was justified by faith, it is plain that the justice of faith, through which sins are forgiven gratis, occurs not only in circumcision but also in uncircumcision, i.e., in Gentiles.

Having showed that the blessing of forgiveness of sins is obtained not only in circumcision but also in uncircumcision on the ground that Abraham was justified when he was still uncircumcised [n. 339], the Apostle now responds to an objection. For someone could say: If Abraham was justified before circumcision, then he was circumcised without reason and for no purpose. To exclude this objection, he first states that circumcision was not the cause but the sign of righteousness; secondly, he shows what he obtains from this sign, there [v. 11b; n. 344] at that he might be the father; thirdly, how he obtains it, there [v. 12b; n. 345] at who are not merely. 342. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he states that circumcision is a sign: "You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin and it shall be a sign of the covenant between you and me" (Gen 17:10). Secondly, he shows what it is a sign of, saying: a seal of the justice of faith, i.e., the justice that comes through faith, which faith is in uncircumcision, i.e., which Abraham had while he was still uncircumcised. 176 21 Aquinas elucidates the meaning of signaculum, which can mean the signet impressing a seal, by pointing to a sigillo, the seal impressed by a signet. As in Latin, however, but the signet and the impression made by the signet can be called the "seal." This makes translation difficult. 343. "Seal" is said in two ways. In one way, a seal [or signet] is a visible sign possessing a likeness to the thing signified, as in Ez (28:12): "You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom." Circumcision had this visible likeness to Abraham’s faith. First, in regard to what he believed. For Abraham believed that his seed would be multiplied; hence, it was fitting to receive its sign in the organ of reproduction. Secondly, in regard to the effect of his faith, namely, the removal of fault, and this is signified by the removal of superfluous skin. In another way, "seal" [signaculum] means a sign hiding something which is to be revealed to friends, as is clear in the case of a sigillo:21 "Worthy art thou, who wast slain, to take the scroll and to open its seals" (Rev 6:9). Hence, the secret of the incarnation of Christ from the seed of Abraham was enclosed under the seal of circumcision. 344. Then he shows what follows from what has been said. For Abraham, still uncircumcised, was justified by faith and later received circumcision. From this he obtains the honor of being the father not only of the circumcised but also of uncircumcised believers. And this is what he says: The purpose was to make him father, i.e., from the foregoing it comes about that Abraham is the father, of all who believe without being circumcised, i.e., who are in the state of uncircumcision. Or Abraham is the father through uncircumcision, i.e., in virtue of what he had in uncircumcision, namely, that it be reckoned to them also as righteousness, namely, the fact that they believe, just as it was reckoned to Abraham. The power of this fatherhood is indicated in Mt (3:9): "God is able from these stones to raise up children to 177 Abraham." And likewise the father of the circumcised, who derive their origin from him: "Abraham is our father" (Jn 8:39). 345. Then he shows the manner in which he is the father even of the uncircumcised, namely, by imitation. And this is what he says: That he might be the father not merely of the circumcised but also of those who follow the example of the faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised, i.e., which Abraham had, while he was still uncircumcised: "If you were Abraham’s children, you would do what Abraham did" (Jn 8:39). 346. Since we are speaking of circumcision, it is fitting to consider three things about it, namely, why it was instituted [n. 347], what power it had [n. 349] and why it was changed [n. 350]. 347. In regard to the first it should be noted that circumcision, just as the other ceremonies of the Law, was instituted for two purposes. First, for divine worship, for which men were disposed in accordance with these ceremonies. In keeping with this, circumcision had three reasons for being instituted, the first of which was to signify the faith and obedience by which Abraham submitted to God, so that those who accepted the circumcision of Abraham should observe his faith and obedience. For it is stated in Heb 11: "By faith Abraham was circumcised." Hence, circumcision was instituted to signify his faith in future descendants, as has been stated. The second reason was to express in a bodily sign something that was to occur spiritually, namely, just as superfluous skin was removed from the organ of reproduction, which is the chief servant of concupiscence, so every superfluous desire should be 178 removed from man’s heart, as Jer (4:4) says: "Circumcise yourself to the Lord, remove the foreskin of your hearts." The third reason was to distinguish the people worshiping God from all other people. This is why God commanded circumcision for the children of Israel, who were to dwell among the other nations after first living alone and uncircumcised in the desert. 348. The other purpose of circumcision and all the ceremonies is based on a relation to Christ, to whom they are compared as the figure to the reality and as the members to the body: "These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the body belongs to Christ" (Col 2:17). Accordingly, by bodily circumcision is signified the spiritual circumcision to be accomplished by Christ: first in the soul, inasmuch as it is through him that concupiscence and the effects [reatus] of sin are removed by Christ: "In him," namely, Christ, "also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ" (Col 2:11). Secondly, in regard to the body, namely, when in the resurrection all possibility of suffering and death is removed from the bodies of the elect. Hence, circumcision took place on the eighth day, because it signified the eighth era. For the seventh is the era of those who are at rest in Christ, while the other six are the eras during which the world runs its course. Again, circumcision was done with knives of stone (Jos 5:2) to signify that spiritual circumcision was to be effected by the Rock, who is Christ, as stated in 1 Cor (10:4). However, it was not the general practice to use a knife made of stone. 349. In regard to the second question, namely, what power circumcision had, it should be noted that, as the Gloss [of Lombard, col. 1372] says here—the quotation is 179 taken from Bede—"During the Law, circumcision offered the same curative help against the wound of original sin as baptism is wont to give in the era of revealed grace." This shows that the power of circumcision extended to the removal of original sin. However, some say that grace was not conferred in circumcision; for without righteousness God’s grace cannot be present. But the Apostle says in Gal (2:21): "If justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose." And we can argue in the same way: If justifying grace were through circumcision, Christ died to no purpose. But this cannot be, for sin is never forgiven without grace: "Justified by his grace we have peace with God (Rom 5:1). Therefore, others say that grace was conferred in circumcision to produce privative effects, namely, to remove guilt, but not positive effects, namely, the work of righteousness. But this does not seem fitting either, for the positive effects of any form precede in the order of nature the privative effects; for example, light does not expel darkness except by illuminating. Similarly, grace expels guilt by producing righteousness. But if the prior is removed, the subsequent is removed. Therefore, it is better to say that ex opere operato circumcision did not have effective power either to remove guilt or to produce righteousness. It was merely a sign of righteousness, as the Apostle says here. But through faith in Christ, of which circumcision was a sign, it removed original sin and conferred the help of grace to act righteously. 350. In regard to the third question, it is clear from what has been said, why circumcision had to be changed. For it was a sign of something to come. But the same 180 sign does not suit the present, past and future. Therefore, baptism, as the sign of present grace, produces a more copious and more beneficial effect of grace, because the closer the agent is in time and place, the more effectively it works. 351. Then [n. 323] when he says, For not through the law, he explains his statement that circumcision or any work of the Law did not justify in virtue of a divine promise. In regard to this he does two things: first, he states his proposition; secondly, he proves it, there [v. 14; n. 354] at If it is the adherents of the law. 352. First, therefore, the Apostle accepts on the authority of Genesis the promise made to Abraham and his seed that they should inherit the world, i.e., that all the nations of the world would be blessed in him: "By you all the families of the earth shall be blessed" (Gen 12:3). He says, and to his seed, because even though this promise was not to be fulfilled in him, it was to be fulfilled in his descendants: "By your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (Gen 23:18). But this seed is principally understood as Christ: "Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say, ‘and to seeds,’ referring to many, but referring to one" (Gal 3:16), because in the one in whom it is to be fulfilled Ps 2 (v.8) it is shown that he would inherit the world: "Ask of me and I will make the nations your heritage." Secondarily, it is fulfilled in those who through Christ’s grace are spiritually the seed of Abraham: "The children of the promise are reckoned as descendants" (Rom 181 9:8). Through Christ they inherit the world, inasmuch as all things are for the glory of the elect: "All are yours and you are Christ’s" (1 Cor 3:22). 353. In regard to this promise he denies one thing and asserts another. He denies that such a promise came through the law. This is not said on account of the promise itself, because at the time of the promise the Law had not been given, but in reference to the fulfillment of the promise, so that the sense is that such a promise was not made to Abraham as something to be fulfilled through the Law, because, as it says in Heb (7:19): "The law made nothing perfect." What he asserts is that such a promise was to be fulfilled through the righteousness of faith, because "the saints through faith conquered kingdoms" (Heb 11:33). 354. Then when he says If it is (v.14) he proves his statement: first, in regard to the denial that the promise is to be fulfilled through, the Law; secondly, in regard to the assertion that it is to be fulfilled through the righteousness of faith, there [v. 16; n. 359] at Therefore it is of faith. In regard to the first he presents this argument: If the promise made to Abraham were to be fulfilled through the Law, Abraham’s faith believing the promise would be null, because the promise made to him would be abolished. But this is not fitting. Therefore, the first. In regard to this he does two things: first he presents a conditional statement; secondly, he proves it, there [v. 15; n. 356] at For the law. The destruction of the consequent is manifest. 182 355. He says first, therefore, that the promise was not made through the Law. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, i.e., if, in order to share in the promised inheritance, it is required that one obtain this from observing the Law, faith is null, i.e., the faith by which Abraham believed God promising Gen (c. 15) as been made futile. But this is not in keeping with what has been stated in 1 Cor (15:17): "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins." Why it is futile is shown when he adds, and the promise is abolished, i.e., emptied, because it does not produce its effect. But this is contrary to what is stated in Heb (11:11): "She considered him faithful who had promised" and to what is stated in this chapter (v.21): "Fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised." 356. Then when he says For the law (v. 15) he proves the conditional statement through the effect or result of the Law. First, he proposes the effect or result of the Law; secondly, he proves it, there [v. 15b; n. 358] at For where there is no law. 357. He proves the conditional thus: If a promise is to be fulfilled through something which prevents its fulfillment, such a promise is void and the faith of believers futile. But the Law prevents one from obtaining the inheritance, for the law brings wrath; therefore, if the promise is to be fulfilled through the Law, faith is null and the promise is void. Now the Law is said to bring wrath, i.e., vengeance, because through the Law men were made deserving of God’s vengeance: "Great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book," i.e., of the Law (2 Kg 22:13). 183 But someone might suppose that the Law brings wrath as far as legal ceremonies observed in the era of grace are concerned, in line with Gal (5:2): "If you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you." However, what is stated here refers even to moral precepts, not because they command something which makes its observers deserving of God’s wrath, but because the Law commands and does not confer the grace to fulfill, according to 2 Cor (3:6): "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life," namely, because "the Spirit helps us inwardly in our weakness" (Rom 8:26). 358. Then when he says For where there is no law (v.15b) he shows how it brings wrath, saying: But where there is no law, there is no transgression, because even though a person, with no law given, could sin by commission against what is naturally just, he is not called a transgressor, unless he violates a law: "I looked at the transgressors with disgust, because they did not keep thy commands" (Ps 119:158). Yet every sinner can be called a transgressor, inasmuch as he transgresses the natural law: "I have accounted all the sinners of the earth transgressors" (Ps 119:119). However, it is more grievous to transgress at once the law of nature and the written law than the law of nature alone. Hence, the Law having been given without the help of grace, transgression increased and deserved greater wrath.

After showing that the promise made to Abraham and his seed was not to be fulfilled through the Law [n. 354], the Apostle now shows that it is to be fulfilled through faith. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows through what such a promise is to be fulfilled; secondly, in whom it is to be fulfilled, there [v. 16b; n. 361] at to all the seed; 185 thirdly, by whom it is to be fulfilled, there [v. 17b; n. 364] at who gives life to the dead. 360. First, therefore, he concludes to his proposition, as it were by division. For it seems necessary that the promise be fulfilled either by faith or by the Law; but not by the Law, because the promise would be abolished. Hence, he concludes, that is why it depends on faith, if we are to attain the promise of being heirs of the world: "This is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith" (1 Jn 5:4). Then he confirms this with a middle term contrary to the one he used above. For it was stated that if justice were from the Law, the promise would be abolished; but if it be from faith, the promise remains solid in virtue of the power of divine grace justifying man through faith. And that is what he says, in order that the promise may be guaranteed and rest not on actions, which can fall short, but on grace, which is infallible: "My grace is sufficient for you" (2 Cor 12:9); "For all the promises of God find their Yes in him," namely, Christ, i.e., they are true (2 Cor 1:20). 361. Then when he says to all the seed (v.16b) he shows in whom this promise is fulfilled. First, he proposes what he intends and says that this promise, which is to be thus fulfilled through faith, is guaranteed by grace to all the seed, i.e., to every man who would be in any way descended from Abraham: "Their prosperity will remain with their descendants, and their inheritance to their children’s children" (Si 44:11). 362. Secondly, at not only, he explains what be meant by all the seed. For there is a bodily descendant, as is referred to in Jn (8:33): "We are the descendants of Abraham," and there is a spiritual descendant, as is referred to in Mt (3:9): 186 "God is able from these stones," i.e., from the Gentiles, "to raise up children to Abraham." Only the bodily descendants of Abraham kept the Law, but the spiritual descendants also imitate his faith. Thus, if the promise were solely through the Law, it would be fulfilled not in all the descendants but only in the bodily ones. But because it is fulfilled through faith, which is common to all, it is plain that it is fulfilled in all his descendants. 363. Thirdly, at he is the father, he proves something he had presupposed, namely, that the descendants of Abraham are not only the children of the Law but also the children of faith. He proves this with a text from Scripture. First, he gives its sense, saying, he, name1y, Abraham, is the father of us all, i.e., of all believers, Jew or Gentile: "The purpose was to make him father of all who believe" (Rom 4:11); "Look to Abraham, your father" (Is 51:2). Secondly, he cites the text, saying, as it is written (Gen 17:4), ‘I have made you the father of many nations,’ Another version has, I have appointed you. But it does not change the sense. "Abraham was the great father of a multitude of nations" (Si 44:19). Thirdly, at in the presence of God, he explains what he had said. For "I have made you" seems to imply that something destined to be fulfilled in the distant future had already come to pass. However, things that are future in themselves are present in God’s providence: "Before the universe was created, it was known to him; so it was also after it was finished" (Si 23:20). Accordingly, the Apostle says that the statement, I have made you, should be understood in the presence of God, i.e., in his presence in whom he believed. For Abraham had believed God promising things to come as if he saw them 187 present, because, as is stated in Heb (11:1); "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." 364. Then when he says who gives life to the dead (v. 17b) he shows by whom this promise is to be fulfilled, saying, who, namely, God, gives life to the dead, i.e., the Jews, who were dead in sin for acting against the Law; he vivifies with faith and grace to enable them to rea1ize the promise to Abraham: "As the father raises the dead and gives them life so the Son gives life to whom he will" (Jn 5:21). And calls the things that are not, i.e., he calls the Gentiles to grace as those that are, i.e., as the Jews: "Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people’" (Rom 9:25). He refers to the Gentiles as those that are not, because they were completely estranged from God, and it is stated in 1 Cor (13:2): "If I do not have charity, I am nothing." Consequently, through this call the promise to Abraham is fulfilled even in the Gentiles. 365. Or he calls those that are not refers not to one’s temporal calling but to the call of eternal predestination, because even those who are not, are called and chosen as if they were: "He chose us in him before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4). Concerning this call it is stated below (9:11): "Not because of works but because of his call she was told, ‘The elder will serve the younger.’" Or he is calling God’s simple knowledge a call, or the knowledge by which he knows the future as present. This is the way it is taken in Ps 147 (v.4): "He calls the stars by their names." According to this sense, what is said here is mentioned on account of an earlier statement (v.17): in the presence of God in whom he believed. 188 Two things seem to militate against what was said: I have made you the father of many nations. One of these was that Abraham was as good as dead from old age. Against this he says, who gives life to the dead. The other is that those many nations did not exist yet. Against this he says: He calls into existence the things that do not exist. 367. Then [v.18; cf. n. 323] he commends Abraham’s faith. First, he shows the greatness of his faith; secondly, its efficacy or fruit, there [v. 22; n. 377] at This is why it was reckoned. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the greatness of Abraham’s faith as far as the promise of multiplying his descendants is concerned; secondly, in regard to the promise to exalt his descendants, there [v. 20; n. 374] at No distrust made him waver. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that his faith was great; secondly, that it was solid, there [v. 19; n. 370] at He was not weak in faith. 368. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he mentions the greatness of Abraham’s faith, saying, In hope he, namely, Abraham, believed that he should become the father of many nations, but against another hope. Here it should be noted that hope implies a certain expectation of a future good, the certainty being based sometimes on a human or natural cause as in 1 Cor (9:10): "The plowman should plow in hope," or on a divine cause as in Ps 31 (v.1): "In thee, 0 Lord, have I hoped." 189 Therefore, in regard to this good of becoming the father of many nations Abraham had certainty on the part of God promising, but the contrary appeared on the part of natural or human causes. Hence, he says, against the hope of natural and human causes he believed in hope of the divine promise. 369. Secondly, this promise is set out when he says, as he had been told, namely, in Gen (22:17): So shall your descendants be as the stars of heaven and as the sand on the seashore. Both of these are mentioned, because they suggest an uncountable multitude. For as to the stars it is stated in Dt (1:10): "The Lord your God has multiplied you, and you are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude"; as to the grains of sand it is stated in 1kg (4:20): "Judah and Israel were as many as the sand by the sea." Yet a difference between the two can be noted, if the just, who were of Abraham’s seed, be compared to the stars: "Those who turn many to righteousness are like the stars forever and ever" (Dan 12:3) and sinners be compared to the grains of sand, because they are overcome by the waves of the world as of a sea: "I placed the sand as the bound for the sea" (Jer 5:22). 370. Then when he says, he did not weaken, he shows Abraham’s firmness. For as temperance is shown not to be weak, because it is not overcome by strong temptations, so faith is shown not to be weak but strong, because it is not overcome by great difficulties: "Resist him, firm in your faith" (1 Pt 5:9). 371. Secondly (v.19b), he mentions the difficulties from which it is shown that his faith was not weak. 190 First, on the part of Abraham himself when he says, Neither did he consider, namely, to question the promise, his own body, now dead, namely, because the reproductive power in it was slack on account of old age; hence he says, because he was about 100 years old. For "Abraham was a hundred years old when Isaac was born to him" (Gen 21:15) and it was the year before that a son had been promised him: "The Lord said, ‘I will surely return to you in the spring, and Sarah your wife shall have a son’" (Gen l8:l0). 372. But it seems that his body was dead as far as the reproductive power was concerned, because even after Sarah died he took another wife, Keturah, who bore him a number of sons, as is recorded in Gen (25:1). Some answer that the reproductive power in him was dead as far as reproducing from an old woman was concerned, but not as far as reproducing from a young woman. For old men are wont to beget offspring from the young but not from old women, who are less fit for conception. However, it seems better to say that Abraham’s reproductive power was miraculously restored both in regard to Sarah and to all women. 373. Secondly, he mentions difficulty on the part of the wife when he says, nor the dead womb of Sarah, i.e., he does not consider it so as to question the promise. He says, dead, on account of sterility as well as old age. For "it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women" (Gen 18:11). Hence in Is (51:2), where it is written: "Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you," the preceding passage says: "Look to the rock from which you were hewn and to the quarry from which you were digged," in order to show the feebleness and frigidity of both. 191 374. Then when he says, concerning the promise of God, be commends Abraham’s faith in the repeated promise that his seed would be exalted. First he mentions the firmness of faith; secondly, the cause of the firmness, there [v. 20b; n. 376] at giving glory to God. 375. First, therefore, he says: concerning the [repeated] promise of God, i.e., the promise that his seed would be exalted or that it would be multiplied, which was repeated: "Look toward heaven and number the stars…So shall your descendants be." (Gen 15:5); "You shall be the father of a multitude of nations" (Gen 17:4); "I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven" (Gen 22:17). Or it can refer to the exaltation of his descendants, because when he had said: "I will multiply your descendants," he added at once: "And your descendants shall possess the gates of their enemies and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Concerning this promise of God no distrust made him waver, i.e., doubt the truth of the divine promise: "He who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind" (Jas 1:6); but he grew strong in his faith, i.e., clung firmly to his belief: "Resist him, firm in your faith" (1 Pt 5:9). 376. Then (v .20c) he gives the reason why Abraham’s faith was firm, for he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God by considering his omnipotence: "Great is his power" (Ps 147:5). Hence he continues: fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised: "Thou hast power to act whenever thou dost choose" (Wis 12:18). 192 From this it is clear that whoever is not firm in faith detracts from God’s glory either in regard to his veracity or his power. 377. Then (v.22b) he commends Abraham’s faith in regard to its effect. First, he mentions the effect it had in him, saying, that is why, namely, because Abraham believed this so firmly, it was reckoned to him as righteousness: "And it was reckoned to him as righteousness" (1 Macc 2:52). 378. Secondly, he shows the effect which his faith had on others. In regard to this he does three things. First, he shows the likeness between the effect it had in him and in others, saying, But the words, ‘It was reckoned to him,’ were written not for his sake alone, so as to make us think that for Abraham alone faith was reckoned as justice, but for ours also. It, name1y, faith, will be reckoned to us as justice: "Whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction" (Rom 15:4). Therefore, it was written for him that he might be an example to us, and for us that he might raise our hope for righteousness. 379. Secondly, there at believing in him (v.24b), he shows a likeness in faith. For what was reckoned as justice was Abraham’s faith believing that his body, as good as dead, and the barren womb of Sarah could be vivified for procreating children. It will be reckoned also to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord and in God the Father, to whom he says in Ps 41 (v.10): "But do thou, 0 lord, be gracious to me and raise me up." And because the power of the Father and of the Son is the same, he also rose by his own power. 193 That this faith justifies is shown below (10:9): "If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." 380. Thirdly, (v. 24c) he assigns the cause why faith in the resurrection of Christ justifies, saying, who, namely, Christ, was put to death [was delivered over] by God the Father: "He did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all" (Rom 8:32), by himself: "He gave himself up for us" (Eph 5:25), by Judas: "He who delivered me to you has the greater sin" (Jn 19:11) and by the Jews: "They will deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked" (Mt 20:19). And raised for our justification, i.e., to justify us by rising: "So that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:4). That he was put to death for our sins seems plain from the fact that by his death he merited the remission of our sins, but he did not merit by rising, because in the risen state he was not a pilgrim but one who had arrived.