Thomas Aquinas

After showing that we are set free from sin through the grace of Christ, the Apostle now shows that through the same grace we are freed from slavery to the Law. In regard to this he does two things: first, he states his proposition; secondly, he excludes an objection [v. 7; n. 532]. In regard to the first he does two things: 263 first, he shows that through the grace of Christ we are freed from the slavery of the Law; secondly, that this liberation is useful [v. 4c; n. 529]. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he makes a statement from which he argues to his proposition; secondly, he clarifies it [v. 2; n. 521]; thirdly, he concludes [v. 4; n. 527]. 519. The statement he makes is presented as something known to them. Hence he says: Do you not know, brethren? As if to say: You should not be ignorant of this. The reason they should not be ignorant of it is shown when he says: I am speaking to those who know the law. 520. But since the Romans were Gentiles and ignorant of the Law of Moses, it seems that what is said here does not apply to them. Therefore, some explained this as referring to the natural law, of which the Gentiles were not ignorant, as he said earlier: "When the Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves" (Rom 2:14). Hence it is added: that the law is binding on a person, i.e., the natural law, as long as it lives, i.e., the law in man. And it lives as long as natural reason functions efficaciously in a person; but it dies, as long as natural reason succumbs to the passions: "They have broken the everlasting covenant" (Is 24:5), i.e., of the natural law. 264 But this interpretation does not seem to agree with the intention of the Apostle who always has in mind the Law of Moses, when he speaks of the Law with no modifying qualifications. Therefore, it is better to say that the Roman believers were not only Gentiles; there were many Jews among them. Hence it says in Acts 18 that Paul found at Corinth a certain Jew named Aquila, who bad recently arrived from Italy, and Priscilla his wife, because Claudius had expelled all the Jews from Rome. Therefore, the Law is binding on a person as long as he lives. For the Law was given to direct man in the way of this life, as it says in Ps 25 (v.12): "He will instruct him in the way that he should choose." Therefore, the obligation of the Law is dissolved by death. 521. Then (v.2) he clarifies what he had said with an example from the law of marriage: first, he gives the example; secondly, he clarifies it by a sign [v. 3; n. 525]. 522. In regard to the first he does two things [n. 523]. First, in the example he states how the obligation endures during life, saying: Thus a married woman is by divine law bound to her husband as long as he lives: "Your husband shall rule over you" (Gen 3:16); "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder" (Mt 19:6). And this indissolubility of marriage is especially considered, inasmuch as it is the sacrament of the indissoluble union of Christ and the Church, or of the Word and human 265 nature in the person of Christ: "This is a great mystery, and I take it to mean Christ and the Church" (Eph 5:32). 523. Secondly, he shows in the example how the obligation of the law is dissolved by death, saying: But if her husband dies, the woman, after the death of the husband, is discharged from the law concerning the husband, i.e., from the law of marriage by which she is obliged to the husband. For since, as Augustine says in his book On Marriage and Concupiscence, marriage is a good of mortal man, its obligation does not extend beyond mortal life. For this reason "in the resurrection," when life will be immortal, "they neither marry nor are given in marriage" (Mt 22:30). From this it is plain that if a person were to die and be restored to life, as Lazarus was, the one who had been his wife is no longer so, unless he marries her again. 524. But against this one might bring what is stated in Heb (11:35): "Women received their dead by resurrection!" But one should realize that the women received not their husbands but their sons, as the woman in 1 Kg 17 through Elijah, and another in 2 Kg 4 through Elisha. The case is different with sacraments which imprint a character, which is a consecration of an immortal soul. Now every consecration endures as long as the consecrated thing lasts, as is plain in the consecration of a church or altar. Therefore, if a baptized or confirmed or ordained person were to die and rise again, he would not have to repeat these sacraments. 525. Then (v. 3) he clarifies what he had said by a sign. 266 And first, in regard to the obligation of marriage, which continues for the wife as long as the husband is alive. The sign of this is that she will be called an adulteress, if she lives with another man, i.e., as wife and husband, while her husband is alive: "If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man’s wife, would not she be polluted and contaminated?" (Jer 3:1). Secondly, he adduces a sign of the fact that the obligation of the law of marriage is dissolved by death, saying: But if her husband dies, she is free from that law by which she is bound to the husband, so that she is not an adulteress, if she is carnally united to another man, particularly if she has married him: "If the husband dies," namely, the woman’s, "she is free to be married to whom she wishes only in the Lord" (1 Cor 7:39). 526. This shows that second, third or fourth marriages are lawful of themselves, and not only by dispensation as Chrysostom seems to say, when he says that just as Moses permitted a bill of divorce, so the Apostle permitted second marriages. For there is no reason, if the marriage law is dissolved by death, why the survivor may not marry again. It is not because second marriages are illicit that the Apostle says: "A bishop should be married only once" (1 Tim 3:2), but on account of the sacramental sign: for he would not be one of one, as Christ is the spouse of one Church. 527. Then (v. 4) he concludes to his main proposition, saying: Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, i.e., in becoming members of the body of Christ, dying and being buried with him, as stated above; you have died to the law in the sense that the obligation of the Law ceases in you, so that you may belong to another, namely, Christ, in whom through rising with him you have received a new 267 life. Hence you are held obliged not by the law of the former life but by the law of the new life. But this application seems awkward, because in the preceding example the man, died and the woman remarried without obligation of the law. But here the one released from obligation is said to die. However, if we consider it another way, there is a parallel, because since marriage is between two, it makes no difference which one dies. In either case the law is taken away by death. Hence the obligation of the Old Law ceases in virtue of the death by which we die with Christ. 529. Then (v. 4b) he shows the utility of this liberation. In regard to this he does three things: first, he mentions the utility, saying: that we may bear fruit to God. For if we have been made members of Christ and abide in Christ, we can bear fruit, i.e., good works, for the honor of God: "As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine" (Jn 15:4). 530. The second is there at While we were living. He shows that this fruit was impeded when we were under the slavery of the Law, saying: while we were living in the flesh, i.e., subject to the concupiscence of the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members, i.e., moved our members: "What causes wars and what causes fightings among you? Is it not your passions?" (Jas 4:1). And this to bear fruit for death: "Sin when it is full-grown brings forth death (Jas 1:15). The third is there at But now we are discharged. 268 He shows that this usefulness is acquired by those freed from the slavery of the Law, saying: But we are now discharged by the grace of Christ from the law of death, i.e., from the slavery of the Law of Moses, which is called the law of death, because it killed violators without mercy: "A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy" (Heb 10:28). Or better, it is called the law of death because if offered the occasion for spiritual death, as it says in 2 Cor (3:6): "For the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life." Dead to that which held us captive as slaves under the law: "Before faith came we were confined under the law" (Gal 3:23). We have been freed in such a way that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit, i.e., renewed in the spirit through the grace of Christ: "A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you" Ez (36:26); not in the old written code, i.e., not according to the old law. Or not in the old written code of sin which the letter of the law could not remove: "I have grown weak in the midst of all my foes (Ps 6:7).

After showing that through Christ’s grace we are freed from the slavery of the Law [n. 518], and that this liberation is useful, the Apostle now answers an objection which arises from the foregoing, namely, that the Old Law seems not to be good. In regard to this he does two things. First, he solves the objection through which it seems that the Old Law is not good; secondly, he shows that the Law is good, there [v.14; n. 556] at For we know. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he sets out the objection with regard to the Law; secondly, he solves it, there [v.12; n. 551] at Wherefore the Law indeed. 533. First, therefore, he says: I have said that sinful passions existed by means of the Law and that it is a Law of death. What then shall we say follows from such statements? Shall we say that the law is sin? 270 This can be taken in two ways. In one way, that the Law teaches sin, as is said in Jer 10(:3), "The laws of the people are vain," namely because they teach vanity. In another way, that the Law is called sin, because the one who gave the Law sinned by decreeing such a law. These two follow one from the other, because if the Law teaches sin, the lawgiver sins by decreeing the law: "Woe to them that make wicked laws" (Is 10:1). Now it seems that the Law does teach sin, if the sinful passions come through the Law, and if the Law leads to death. 534. Then when he says Let it not be, he solves the aforesaid objection. Concerning this it should be noted that if the Law per se and directly caused sinful passions or death, it would follow that the Law is sin in either of the two ways mentioned; but not if the Law were the occasion of sinful passions and death. In regard to this he does two things. First, he shows what the Law does per se; secondly, what follows from it as from an occasion, there [v. 8; n. 540] at But taking the occasion. 535. Concerning the first he does three things. First, he answers the question, saying: Let it not be, namely that the Law be sin. For it does not teach sin: "The law of the Lord is perfect" (Ps 19:7). Nor has the lawgiver sinned as though decreeing an unjust law: "By me kings reign and lawgivers decree just things" (Pr 8:15). 536. Secondly, there at But I would not have known, he indicates what pertains per se to the Law, namely, to make sin known and not to remove it. 271 And that is what he says: But I would not have known sin except through the law: "Through the law comes knowledge of sin" (Rom 3:20). This is clear if it is understood of the natural law, because man distinguishes between good and evil through the natural law: "He filled their heart with wisdom and showed them both good and evil" (Sir 17:6). But here the Apostle seems to be speaking of the Old Law, which he signified above when he said the oldness of the letter. One should say therefore that without the Law sin could be known insofar as it has the character of ignobility, i.e., as something contrary to reason, but not inasmuch as it is an offense against God, because through the Laws divinely decreed, man learns that human sins displease God, since he forbids them and commands that they be punished. 537. Thirdly, there at For I would not have known concupiscence, he proves what he had said, saying: For I would not have known concupiscence, if the law had not said: You shall not covet [non concupisces]. In regard to this it should be noted that his statement, I would not have known sin except through the law, could be interpreted as referring to the sinful act which the Law brings to man’s attention, when it forbids it. This, of course, is true in some cases, for it says in Leviticus 18(:23), "A woman shall not lie down with a beast." But that this is not the Apostle’s meaning is clear from what he says here. For no one is unaware of the act of concupiscence, since all experiences it. Therefore, it must be interpreted as saying that, as was stated above, it is only through the Law that sin is recognized as something subject to punishment and an offense against God. He uses concupiscence to prove this, because corrupt concupiscence is common to all sins. Hence a gloss says, with Augustine, "Here the Apostle chose a 272 general sin, i.e., concupiscence." Therefore the law is good, because when it forbids concupiscence, it forbids all evils. 538. It might be supposed that concupiscence is a general sin according as it is taken for the desire for something illicit, which is of the essence of any sin. This is not the way Augustine called concupiscence a general sin, but because the root and cause of every sin is some special concupiscence. Hence a Gloss says that concupiscence is a general sin from which all sins come. For the Apostle quotes a precept from Ex 20(:17), "You shall not covet [non concupisces] your neighbor’s property." This is the concupiscence involved in avarice, about which it says in 1 Tim (6:10): "The love of money is the root of all evils," because "all things obey money (Ecc 10:19). Therefore, the concupiscence about which he is now speaking is a general evil, not with the commonness of a genus or species but with the commonness of causality. Nor is this contrary to what is stated in Sir (l0:15) that "pride is the beginning of all sin." For pride is the beginning of sin on the side of turning away [from God]; but covetousness is the beginning of sins on the side of turning toward a changeable good. 539. But it can be said that the Apostle takes covetousness to clarify his proposition, because he wants to show that without the Law sin was not known, i.e., its aspect as offense against God. This is particularly clear from the fact that the Law forbids covetousness, which is not forbidden by man. For God alone considers man guilty for coveting with the heart, as it says in 1 Sam (16:7): "Man sees those things that appear, but the Lord beholds the heart." But the reason God’s law forbade coveting another’s property, which is taken by stealing, and another’s wife, who is violated by 273 adultery, and not the coveting involved in other sins is that the former sins involve a p1easure in the very coveting, which does not happen in other sins. 540. Then (v.8) he shows what follows from the Law by way of opportunity. First, he states his intention; secondly, he clarifies it [v. 8b; n. 544]. 541. First, therefore, he says that sin, finding opportunity in the commandment of the Law forbidding sin, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness. By sin can be understood the devil, because he is the beginning of sin; and according to this he works all kinds of covetousness in man: "He who commits sin is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning" (1 Jn 3:8). But because the Apostle had not mentioned the devil here, it can be said that each actual sin, as apprehended in thought, works in man a desire for it, as it says in Jas (1:14): "Each one is tempted by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin." 542. But it is better to say that this refers to the sin he described above (c.5) as entering this world through one man, namely, original sin, which before the grace of Christ is in men according to guilt and punishment. But with the coming of grace its liability to punishment passes, although it abides with respect to inclination or habitual covetousness, which works in man every act of covetousness, whether it be the kinds of covetousness involved in various sins (for the covetousness involved in stealing is not the same as that in adultery) or the various degrees of covetousness as found in thought, pleasure, consent and deed. 274 But to work this effect in man sin finds opportunity in the Law. And that is what he says: finding opportunity. Or because with the coming of the precept the aspect of transgression is added, for "where there is no law there is no transgression" (Rom 4:15); or because desire for the forbidden sin increases, for the reasons given above. 543. It should be noted that he does not say that the Law gave the opportunity for sin, but that sin itself found opportunity by reason of the Law. For one who gives an opportunity scandalizes and, as a consequence, sins. This happens when someone commits an unrighteous act by which his neighbor is offended or takes scandal; for example, if someone frequents places of evil even with no evil intention. Hence he says below (14:13): "But decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother." But if someone does a righteous act, for example, if he gives alms, by which someone else is scandalized, he is not giving an opportunity for scandal; hence he neither gives scandal nor sins, but the one scandalized finds the act an opportunity for taking scandal and sins. Thus, therefore, the Law did what is right, because it forbade sin; hence it gave no opportunity for sinning, but man takes opportunity from the Law. For this reason it follows that the Law is not sin, but rather that sin is on the part of man. Consequently, sinful passions, which pertain to the covetousness involved in sin, do not exist in virtue of the Law as though the Law wrought them, but sin causes them, taking occasion from the law. And for the same reason it is called a law of death, not because the Law begets death, but because sin begets death by finding opportunity in the Law. 275 Now in the same sense the words can be arranged another way to say that sin worked all concupiscence through the command of the law, and this by taking occasion from the command; but the first exposition is simpler and better. 544. Then (v.8b) he clarifies what he had said; and this through experience of the effect: first, he mentions the effect; secondly, he repeats the cause [v. 11; n. 550]. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he describes conditions before the Law; secondly, under the Law [v. 9b; n. 547]; thirdly, from a comparison of the two conditions he concludes to the outcome of the Law [v. 10b; n. 549]. 545. First, therefore, he says: But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness. This is obvious from the fact that apart from the law sin lay dead, not as though sin did not exist, because through one man sin entered this world before the Law (Rom 5:12), but in the sense that it was dead either with respect to man’s knowledge, which did not know that certain things forbidden by the Law were sins, for example, covetousness; or because it was dead as compared to what it was later. For it did not have as much power to lead men to death as it had later, when it took opportunity from the Law. For that is considered dead whose strength is weakened: "Mortify your members which are on earth" (Col 3:5). This, therefore, was the condition before the Law as far as sin was concerned. 276 546. But the condition so far as man was concerned is indicated when he says: I was once alive apart from the law. This can also be understood in two ways; in one way with respect to the fact that it seemed to man that he was alive, so long as he did not know that sin was that by reason of which he was dead: "You have the name of being alive, but you are dead" (Rev 3:1). Or this is said in comparison to the death which followed by occasion of the Law. For those who sin less are said to be alive in comparison to those who sin more. 547. Then (v. 9b) he describes conditions under the Law. First in regard to sin when he says: But when the commandment came, i.e., after the law was decreed, sin revived. This can be understood in two ways: in one way with respect to the knowledge of man, who began to know that sin existed in him, which he did not know before: "After I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh; I was ashamed and I was confounded" (Jer 31:19). He says, revived, because in paradise man had full knowledge of sin, although he did not have it through experience. Or sin revived as to its power, because after the Law was given, the opportunity was given for the power of sin to increase: "The power of sin is the law" (1 Cor 15:56). 548. Secondly, with respect to man himself; hence he says: and I died. This can also be understood in two ways: in one way as referring to man’s knowledge, so that "I died" means that I knew myself dead. In another way in comparison to the previous state, so that the sense is: I died, i.e., I was more bound to death than before. Hence what was said to Moses and Aaron is somewhat true: "You have killed the Lord’s people" (Num 16:13). 277 549. Then (v.10) he concludes from the comparison between the two states the outcome of the Law, saying that the very commandment which promised life according to the intention of the lawgiver: "I gave them my statutes and showed them my ordinances by whose observance man shall live" (Ez 20:11) proved to be an occasion of death for me, i.e., through sin which existed in man: "His food is turned in his stomach, it is the gall of asps within him" (Jb 20:14). 550. Then (v.11) he repeats the cause as though intending to clarify it by the outcome of the Law, saying: This happened, namely, that the commandment which promised life proved to be death, because sin, finding opportunity in the commandment deceived me through the covetousness it wrought in me. "Beauty hath deceived thee and lust hath perverted thy heart" (Dan 13:56) and by it, namely, the commandment, sin took occasion to kill me: "The written code kills" (2 Cor 3:6). 551. Then (v.12) he reaches the main conclusion, namely, that the Law is not only not sin but furthermore is good, making sin to be known and forbidding it. First he concludes with respect to the whole law, saying: As is clear from the foregoing, the law is holy: "The law of the Lord is without blemish" (Ps 19:7); "We know that the law is good" (2 Tim 1:8). Secondly, with respect to the particular commandments of the Law, saying: and the commandment is holy in regard to the ceremonial precepts by which men are directed in the worship of God: "Be holy because I am holy" (Lev 20:7) and just, in regard to the judicial precepts by which man is ordained to his neighbor in the proper way: "The ordinances of the Lord are true and righteous altogether" (Ps 19:9); and good, in regard to the moral precepts: "The law of thy mouth is better to me than thousands of gold and 278 silver pieces" (Ps 119:72). Yet, because all the commandments ordain us to God, he called the whole law holy. 552. Then (v.13b) he raises a question in regard to the effect of the Law. First the question, saying: Did that which is good, namely, in itself, bring death to me, i.e., act as a per se cause of death? For someone could falsely gather this from what he stated above, namely, that the commandment which promised life proved to be death to me. 553. Secondly, he answers negatively, saying: Let it not be. For that which in itself is good and life-giving cannot be the cause of evil and death, because "a good tree cannot bear evil fruit" (Mt 7:18). 554. Thirdly, he shows that what he is now saying is in agreement with what he had said above. For the commandment itself does not bring death; but sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, brings death. And that is what he says: But sin, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, worked death in me through what is good, because the Law is good by the very fact that it brings knowledge of sin. 555. This does not mean that sin worked death through the law, as though there was no death without the Law. For it was stated above that death reigned from Adam to Moses, i.e., before the Law was given. What it means is that sin worked death through the Law, because the damnation of death was increased when the Law came. And this is what he says: that sin might become sinful beyond the previous measure, either because the liability for transgression grew or because the inclination to sin increased with the coming of the Law’s prohibitions. 279 As stated above [n. 541ff.] "sin" here means the devil, or rather the inclination to sin.

After showing that the Law is neither evil nor productive of an evil effect [n. 532], the Apostle now proves that the Law is good. In regard to this he does two things: first, he proves its goodness from the very repugnance to good found in man, a repugnance the Law cannot take away; secondly, he shows what can take away this repugnance [v. 24; n. 589]. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he states his proposition; 280 secondly, he proves it [v. 15; n. 562]; thirdly, he draws the conclusion [v. 21; n. 583]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he asserts the goodness of the Law; secondly, man’s condition [v. 14b; n. 558]. 557. First, therefore he says: We have stated that the Law is holy. We said this because we, who are wise in divine matters, know that the law, i.e., the old, is spiritual, i.e., in harmony with man’s spirit: "The law of the Lord is stainless Ps 19 (v.7). Or it is spiritual, i.e., given by the Holy Spirit who is called the finger of God: "If by the finger of God I cast out demons" (Lk 11:20). Hence it says in Ex (31:18): "He gave Moses two tables of stone, written with the finger of God." Yet the New Law is not only called spiritual but "the Law of the Spirit" (Rom 8:2), because it is not only given by the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit imprints it on the heart in which he dwells. 558. Then (v. 14b) he indicates man’s condition. This passage can be interpreted in two ways: in one way so that the Apostle is speaking in the person of a man existing in sin. This is the way Augustine explained it. But later in a book against Julian he explained it as though the Apostle is speaking in his own person, i.e., of a man in the state of grace. Let us continue, therefore, by showing how these words and those that follow can be explained under both interpretations, although the second explanation is better. 559. The first statement, therefore, but I am carnal, is so interpreted that the word "I" stands for man’s reason, which is the chief thing in man; hence each man seems to be 281 his own reason or intellect, as a city seems to be the ruler of the city, so that whatever he does the city seems to do. 560. But man is called carnal, because his reason is carnal. It is called carnal in two ways: in one way from the fact that it is submissive to the flesh and consents to things to which the flesh urges it: "For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh?" (1 Cor 3:3). In this way it is understood of man not yet healed by grace. In another way reason is said to be carnal, because it is under attack from the flesh: "The desires of the flesh are against the Spirit" (Gal 5:17). In this way, even the reason of a man in the state of grace is said to be carnal. In both cases it is carnal on account of sin; hence he adds, sold under sin. 561. But it should be noted that the carnality, which implies rebellion of the flesh against the spirit, arises from the sin of the first parent, because this pertains to the inclination to sin derived from that sin. But the carnality which implies submission of reason to the flesh arises not only from original sin but actual, through which a man by obeying the desires of the flesh makes himself a slave of the flesh; hence he adds: sold under sin, namely, of the first parent or of the self. He says, sold, because the sinner sells himself into the slavery of sin as payment for fulfilling his own will: "For your iniquities you were sold" (Is 50:1). 562. Then (v.15) he clarifies what he had stated: first, that the Law is spiritual; secondly, that man is carnal, sold under sin [v. 17; n. 568]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he presents a proof; 282 secondly, he draws the conclusion [v. 16; n. 567]. The proof is based on man’s infirmity, which he first asserts; secondly, he gives the proof [v. 15b; n. 564]. 563. The proof is based on man’s infirmity, revealed by the fact that he does what he knows should not be done; hence he says: For what I do, I do not understand, i.e., do not know that it should be done. This can be taken in two ways: in one way of a person subject to sin, who understands in general that sin should not be committed, but overcome by the suggestion of the devil or by passion or by the inclination of a perverse habit, he commits it. Therefore, he said to do what he understands is not to be done, acting against conscience, just as "the servant who knew his master’s will but did not act according to his will" (Lk 12:47). In another way it can be understood of one in the state of grace. He does evil not by performing the deed or consenting with the mind, but only by desiring through a passion in the sensitive appetite; and that desire escapes the reason or intellect, because it exists before the intellect’s judgment. When the judgment is made, the desire is impeded. Therefore, it is significant that he does not say: "I understand it is not to be done" but "I do not understand"; namely, because such a desire arises before the intellect has deliberated or has perceived it: "The desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh" (Gal 5:17). 564. Then (v.15b) he proves what he had said by division and by effect. 283 First, he distinguishes under the division between "not doing the good" and "doing evil," because even a person who does not do the good is said to commit sin, i.e., the sin of omission. 565. In regard to he omission of the good therefore, he says: For I do not do the good I want [will]. In one way this can be understood of a man in the state of sin; then I do refers to a complete action performed outwardly with the consent of reason, whereas I will refers not to a complete act of will commanding the deed, but to an incomplete willing by which men want the good in general, just as they have a correct judgment about the good in general; yet this judgment is perverted by a bad habit or a perverse passion with the result that the will goes wrong, when it gets down to the particular case, and does not do what it knows in a general way should be done and would want to do. In another way it is understood of a man healed by grace; then, conversely, I will refers to a complete act of willing which lasts through the act of choosing a particular deed, whereas I do refers to an incomplete action which has gone no further than the sense appetite and has not reached the stage of consent. For a man in the state of grace wants to preserve his mind from wicked desires, but he fails to accomplish this good on account of disorderly movements of desire that arise in the sensitive appetite. This is similar to what he says in Gal (5:17): "So that you do not do all that you will." 566. Secondly, in regard to perpetrating evil he says: But the evil I hate, I do. If this is understood of the sinner, I hate means an imperfect hatred in virtue of which every man naturally hates evil; I do means an action completely performed in keeping with 284 reason’s consent. For that general hatred of evil is frustrated in a particular choice by the inclination of a habit or passion. But if it is understood of a person in the state of grace, I do means an incomplete action which has gone no further than existing as a desire in the sensitive appetite; I hate refers to complete hatred, by which one continues hating evil until its final reprobation: "I hate them with a perfect hatred" (Ps 139:22), namely, evil men, inasmuch as they are sinners: "While the laws were very well observed because of the piety of the high priest Onias and his hatred of wickedness" (2 Macc 3:1). 567. Then (v.16) he concludes from the aforementioned condition of man that the Law is good, saying: But if I do what I do not want. No matter which of the aforementioned ways is taken, by the very fact that I hate evil I agree that the law is good in forbidding evil which I naturally do not want. For it is clear that man’s inclination in keeping with reason to will the good and flee evil is in accord with nature or grace; and each is good. Hence, the Law also, which agrees with this inclination by commanding what is good and forbidding what is evil, is good for the same reason: "I give you good precepts; do not forsake my teaching" (Ps 4:2). 568. Then (v.17) he proves what he had said about man’s condition, namely, that he is carnal and sold under sin. In regard to this he does three things: first, he states his proposition; secondly, he proves it [v. 18; n. 572]; thirdly, he draws the conclusion [v. 20; n. 582]. 285 569. That man is carnal and sold under sin as though somehow a slave of sin, is clear from the fact that he does not act but is led by sin. For a free man acts of himself and is not led by another. Therefore, he says: I have said that I agree with the Law so far as my intellect and will are concerned, but when I act against the Law, it is no longer I that do it, i.e., do what is against the Law, but sin which dwells within me. So it is evident that I am a slave of sin, inasmuch as sin by exercising its dominion over me does it. 570. It is easy to understand this of a man in the state of grace; for the fact that he desires something evil, so far as the sensitive appetite pertaining to the flesh is concerned, does not proceed from the work of reason but from the inclination to sin. But a person is said to do what his reason does, because man is what he is according to reason; hence the movements of concupiscible desire, which are not from reason but from the inclination to sin, the man does not do but the inc1intion to sin, which is here called sin "Whence wars and fightings among you? Is it not your passions that are at war in your members?" (Jas 4:1). But this cannot properly be understood of a man in sin, because his reason consents to sin; therefore, he commits it. Hence Augustine and a Gloss say: Greatly deceived is the man who consents to the desires of the flesh and decides to do what they desire and then thinks he can say of himself: I am not doing this. 571. However, there is a way, although forced, to understand this even of a sinner. For an action is mainly attributed to the principal agent acting in virtue of its proper characteristic, not to the agent acting in virtue of a characteristic proper to some other thing by which it is moved. But it is clear that man’s reason, considered in the light 286 of what is proper to it, is not inclined to evil, but insofar as it is moved by concupiscible desire. Therefore, the doing of evil, which reason does, inasmuch as it has been overcome by desire, is not attributed principally to reason, which is understood here to be man, but rather to the desire or habit in virtue of which reason is inclined to evil. It should be noted that sin is said to dwell in man, not as though sin were some reality, since it is a privation of good, but to indicate the permanence of this kind of defect in man. 572. Then (v.18) he proves that sin dwelling in man does the evil which man commits: first, he presents the medium proving the proposition; secondly, he explains the medium [v. 18b; n. 577]. 573. First, therefore, he proves that sin dwelling in man does the evil which man commits. This proof is clear when the words are referred to a man in the state of grace, who has been freed from sin by the grace of Christ. Therefore, as to a person in whom Christ’s grace does not dwell, he has not yet been freed from sin. But the grace of Christ does not dwell in the flesh but in the mind; hence it is stated below (8:10) that "if Christ is in us, the body is indeed dead because of sin, but the spirit lives because of righteousness.’’ Therefore, sin, which the desire of the flesh works, still rules in the flesh. For he takes "flesh" here to include the sensitive powers. For the flesh is thus distinguished against the spirit and fights it, inasmuch as the sensitive appetite tends to the contrary of what reason seeks, as it says in Gal (5:17): "The desires of the flesh are against the spirit." 287 574. He says, therefore: We have said that in me, even though healed by grace, sin acts; but this must be understood of me according to the flesh along with the sensitive appetite. For I know through reason and experience that the good, namely, of grace by which I have been reformed, does not dwell in me. But lest this be understood to include reason according to the manner explained above, he adds: that is, in my flesh. For in me, i.e., in my heart, this good does dwell, for it says in Eph (3:17): "That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith." 575. This makes it clear that this passage does not favor the Manicheans who want the flesh not to be good according to its nature and, consequently, not a good creature of God, whereas it is written: "Everything created by God is good" (1 Tim 4:4). For the Apostle is not discussing a good of nature but the good of grace, by which we are freed from sin. 576. If this passage referred to man existing under sin, it would be superfluous to add, "that is, in my flesh," because in a sinner the good of grace does not dwell either in regard to the flesh or the mind. A forced interpretation would explain this passage by saying that sin, which is the privation of grace, is somehow derived from the flesh to the mind. 577. Then (v.18b) he clarifies what he had said: first, from man’s capabilities; secondly, from his action which proves his capability [v. 19; n. 581]. 578. Man’s capability is described first in regard to willing, which seems to be in man’s power; hence he says, I can will. For nothing is so much within man’s power as his will. 288 Secondly, he describes man’s capability, or rather his difficulty in achieving an effect, when he says: But I cannot do the good, i.e., I do not find it within my power, as it says in Pr (1:9); "The heart of a man disposes his way, but the Lord directs his steps." 579. This passage of Paul seems to favor the Pelagians who said that the start of a good work is from us, inasmuch as we will the good. And this is what the Apostle seems to say: But I cannot do the good. However, he rejects this interpretation in Phil (2:13): "But God is at work in you both to will and to do." 580. Therefore, the fact that I can will, once I have been healed by grace, is due to the work of divine grace, through which I not only will the good but also do some good, because I resist concupiscence and, led by the Spirit, act against it; but I do not find it within my power to accomplish that good so as to exclude concupiscence entirely. This indicates that the good of grace does not reside in the flesh, because if it did, then just as I have the faculty of willing the good because of grace dwelling in the mind, so I would have the faculty of accomplishing the good in virtue of grace residing in the flesh. 581. But if be referred to man existing under sin, then it could be explained so that to will is taken for an incomplete act of willing, which from the impulse of nature is good in some who sin. Then when he says, I do not do the good I want, he manifests what he had said by citing man’s action, which is a sign and effect of human capability. For man does not have the strength to accomplish good, because he does not do the good he wants but does the evil he does not want. This has been explained earlier [n. 564ff]. 582. Then (v.20) he concludes to what he had previously proposed, saying: Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it but sin which dwells within me. This, too, has been explained earlier. 289 But it should be noted that in virtue of the same medium the Apostle concludes to the two things he had proposed above, namely, the goodness of the law, when he said: "If I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good" (v.16), and the dominion of sin in man, when he says here: "If I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells in me." The first of these conclusions pertains to his statement that the Law is spiritual; the second to the statement: "But I am carnal, sold under sin." But he draws the first conclusion, which is about the goodness of the law, from that medium by reason of "I do not want," because his mind does not want what the law forbids, which shows that the Law is good. But in virtue of the phrase, "I do" he concludes that sin, which functions against reason’s will, holds sway over man.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After showing that the holy ones God advances can suffer no loss, as though from the evil of punishment [n. 710], the Apostle now shows that they can suffer no loss as though from the evil of guilt. First, he presents his proposition; secondly, he excludes an opposite view [v. 34; n. 718]. In regard to the first it should be noted that a person suffers injury for guilt from two sources: first, from an accusation; secondly, from the judge who condemns [n. 717]. First, therefore, he shows that no accusation can harm God’s holy ones, and this by reason of divine election. For whoever chooses a person seems by that very fact to approve him. But the saints are chosen by God: "He chose us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy" (Eph 1:4). On the other hand, whoever accuses, disapproves of the one accused. Therefore he says: Who shall bring any charge, i.e., successfully, against the elect, i.e., against those God has chosen to be saints; hence it says in Rev (12:10): "For the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down." 717. Secondly, he shows that no accusation can be harmful to the saints. He shows this by referring to another of God’s benefits, namely, that God justifies us. This benefit is mentioned when he says: It is God who justifies us, in keeping with what he had said above (v.30): "Those whom he called he also justified"; "You were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 6:11) But condemnation finds a place against the unjust: Who, then, is to condemn those justified by God: "When he is quiet, who can condemn" (Jb 34:29). 351 718. Then (v. 34b) he excludes an opposite view. For someone could fear that a person might be accused by Jesus Christ as a violator of Christ’s commandment in the same way as the Lord says of Moses: "It is Moses who accuses you, on whom you set your hope" (Jn 5:45); and also that he might be condemned by him, for "He is the one ordained by God to judge the living and the dead" (Ac 10:42). Furthermore, he is immune to sin: "Who did no sin" (1 Pt 2:22); consequently, he seems qualified to accuse and condemn, as it says in Jn (8:7): "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." And so he says, Christ Jesus. As if to say: Will Christ Jesus make accusations against God’s elect or even condemn them? And he says, not so; because even according to his human nature he confers great benefits on the saints, just as he also does according to his divinity. 719. Then he mentions four benefits from his humanity. First, from his death, when he says: he died, namely, for our salvation: "For Christ also died for sins once for all" (1 Pt 3:18). Secondly, from his resurrection, through which he vivifies us both with spiritual life now and with bodily life later. Hence he adds: yes, who rose from the dead. He says, yes, because it is preferable to commemorate him now for the power of his resurrection and for the weakness of his passion: "He was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God" (2 Cor 13:4). Thirdly, from his sitting with the Father when he says: who is at the right hand of God, i.e., equal to God the Father according to the divine nature and recipient of his choicest blessings according to his human nature. And this is also for our glory because, 352 as it says in Eph (2:6): "He made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus." For inasmuch as we are his members, in him we sit with God the Father: "He who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I myself conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne" (Rev 3:21). Fourthly, from his intercession when he says: who indeed intercedes for us as our advocate: "We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ" (1 Jn 2:1). But an advocate’s duty is not to accuse or condemn, but to repel an accuser and prevent condemnation. 720. Christ is said to intercede for us in two ways. In one way by praying for us, as it says in Jn (17:20): "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word." But now his intercession for us is his will that we be saved: "Father, I desire that they also may be with me where I am" (Jn 17:24). In another way he intercedes by presenting to his Father’s gaze the human nature assumed for us and the mysteries celebrated in it: "He entered into heaven itself to appear in the presence of God on our behalf" (Heb 9:24). 721. Then he draws the conclusion [n. 695]. But because this conclusion does not seem credible to the inexperienced, he presents it in the form of a question. Hence he does three things: first, he presents the question; secondly, he shows the need for this question [v. 36; n. 724]; thirdly, he presents the solution [n. 725]. 722. This question can be derived in two ways from the foregoing. 353 One way is this: So many and such powerful benefits have been conferred on us by God that no one can count them. Furthermore, they all tend toward one thing, namely, "that we be rooted and grounded in love" (Eph 3:17). Who, then, shall separate us from the love of Christ? i.e., the love by which we love Christ and neighbor as he commanded: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another" (Jn 13:34). Another way is this: God bestows great benefits on his holy ones, and when we consider them, such love of Christ burns in our hearts that nothing can quench it: "Many waters cannot quench love" (S of S 8:7). 723. He mentions the evils which might induce one to abandon love of Christ. And first, those that refer to life; secondly, the one which refers to death. In regard to those which threaten us in the course of our lives, he mentions present evils and evils to come. In regard to present evils he mentions evils to be endured; secondly, the loss of good things. Evils to be endured can be considered in two ways. In one way as they are present in the sufferer who is afflicted by them in two ways: first, externally in the body. Hence he says: tribulation. This word is related to "tribulus," a prickly herb: "Thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you" (Gen 3:18). But the just are not overcome by them: "Many are the tribulations of the just, and the Lord frees them from all of these" (Ps 34:19). A person is also afflicted by them internally in the form of mental anxiety, when he does not know where to go or which way to turn. In regard to this he says: or distress: "I am hemmed in on every side, and I do not know what to choose" (Dan 13:21). 354 26 Augustine, Ennarationes in Ps. 34, sermon 2, n. 13. Again such evils can be considered as they are present in the one inflicting them. In this respect he says: or persecution, For although persecution in the strict sense would imply pursuit of someone to make him flee: "If they persecute you in one city, flee to another" (Mt 10:23), yet in a general sense it can mean the infliction of any injury. Then he mentions the evils which consist in the removal of good things necessary for life, namely, food and clothing: "If we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content" (1 Tim 6:8). In regard to the removal of food he says: or famine; of clothing: or nakedness: "To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are ill-clad" (1 Cor 4:11). In regard to future evils he adds: or peril, threatening at any moment: "In danger from rivers, danger from robbers…" (2 Cor 11:26). In regard to death he says: or sword: "They were killed with the sword" (Heb 11:37). 724. Then (v. 36) he shows the importance of this question, inasmuch as he says that all these things lie at hand to be suffered by the saints for the love of Christ. And he quotes the words of the Psalmist as though spoken by the martyrs. These words mention, first of all, the cause of the suffering: "For it is not the suffering but the cause that makes the martyr," as Augustine says.26 Hence he says: for thy sake: "He who loses his life for my sake shall find it" (Mt 10:39); "Let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief; yet if one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed" (1 Pt 4:15). One suffers for Christ by suffering not only for the faith of Christ but for any righteous deed done for the love of Christ: "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake" (Mt 5:10). 355 Secondly, he mentions the severity of the suffering when he says: we are being killed, i.e., handed over to death: "For we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed" (Est 7:4). Thirdly, the duration of the persecution when he says: all the day long, i.e., during the whole period of life; "While we live we are always being given up to death for Jesus’ sake"(2 Cor 4:11). Fourthly, the persecutor’s readiness to kill when he says: we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered, i.e., marked to be killed in the meat market. So, too, the saints are intentionally killed: "The hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God" (Jn 16:2); "Feed the flock doomed to slaughter" (Zech 11:4). 725. Then (v. 37) he answers the question. First he gives the answer saying: No, in all these things, namely, the evils mentioned above, we overcome, as long as we preserve our love unsullied: "In his arduous contest she gave him the victory" (Wis 10:12). But we do not succeed by our own strength but through Christ’s help; hence he adds: through him who loved us, i.e., on account of his help or on account of the affection we have for him; "not as though we first loved him, but because he first loved us" (1 Jn 4:19); "Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 15:57). 726. Secondly, he clarifies the solution, showing that the saints’ love is insuperable. First he shows that it cannot be separated by creatures that exist; secondly, nor by creatures that do not exist but could [v. 39b; n. 733]. 356 727. In regard to the first he does two things. First he mentions things that exist in man, saying: I am sure that neither death, which is the first among things we fear, nor life, which is first among things we desire, can separate us from the love of God: "If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord" (Rom 14:8). In these two are included all the ones previously mentioned. For six evils previously mentioned refer to life; but one, namely, the sword, refers to death. 728. Then he mentions things outside of man. Among these are, first, spiritual creatures; hence he says: nor angels, i.e., the lower ones assigned to guard individual men: "He will give his angels charge of thee" (Ps 91:11). Nor principalities, i.e., those assigned to guard nations: "Now I will return to fight against the prince of Persia; and when I am through with him, the prince of Greece will come. And there is none who contends by my side against these except Michael" (Dan 10:20). He adds: nor powers, which is the highest order of ministering angels: "The powers of heaven will be shaken" (Lk 21:26). This can be understood in two ways: in one way of wicked angels, who struggle against the saints: "Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers" (Eph 4:12). In another way it can refer to the good. Here Chrysostom in his book On Compunction of Heart says that the Apostle said this, not that the angels would at some time try to separate him from Christ; rather, these impossible things would be more possible, so to speak, than for him to be separated from the love of Christ. He speaks this way to show how great in him is the strength of divine love, and to lay everything out in the open. For this is the way of lovers, that they cannot hide their love 357 in silence but assert and bare it to their friends and to the beloved, and they cannot confine the flames within their heart. They speak of them frequently, so that by constantly recounting their love they may gain some relief, some cooling of the tremendous burning within them. In just this way blessed [Paul] here acts as an outstanding lover of Christ: he gathers up in one sentence all things that are and that were, everything that can be and even those that cannot. It is similar to what is said in Galatians chapter 1(:8), "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach to you another gospel than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed." 729. Then he mentions visible creatures, and he sets out two distinctions. First according to time, by which they are distinguished according to present and future. Hence he says: nor things present, whether they cause pain or pleasure: "We look not to the things that are seen" (2 Cor 4:18). Then he adds: nor things to come. Whether we fear them or desire them, they cannot separate us from the love of Christ. Hence it says in Ac (21:13): "For I am ready not only to be imprisoned but even to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus." 730. Then he distinguishes visible creatures on the basis of magnitude: first he touches on magnitude of strength when he says: nor power, i.e., no strong creature, such as a raging fire or sea, can separate me from the love of Christ, because "love is as strong as death" (S of S 8:6). 731. Secondly, he mentions magnitude of dimension, describing them by what properly belongs to bodies, namely height and depth. Hence he says: nor height, from which someone might threaten to cast me headlong, as in Lk (4:29): "They led Jesus to the brow of the hill, that they might throw 358 him down headlong"; nor depth, in which someone might submerge me: "I sink in deep mire" (Ps 69:2). These three things can also be referred to the ways a person could turn a man away from God: in one way by the force of power: but as it says in 1 Sam (2:2): "No one is strong as our God." Secondly, by the lofty height of one’s authority; but "God is the highest of the kings of the earth" (Ps. 89:27). Thirdly, by the depth of one’s wisdom; but God’s knowledge is deeper: "Deeper than Sheol -- what can you know?" (Jb 11:8). 732. These two, height and depth, can be referred to adversity and prosperity, according to 2 Cor (6:7): "With the weapons of righteousness for the right and for the left." 733. With regard to creatures which do not exist but could, he says: nor anything else in all creation. According to Chrysostom, he says this about the things that are not, as though all things that are do not suffice, but he must so to speak challenge to battle even the things that are not. None of them, he says, will be able to separate us from the love of God: "Love never falls away" (1 Cor 13:8). This love of God is in Christ Jesus our Lord, because it was given to us through him, inasmuch as he gave it to us through the Holy Spirit: "I have come to cast fire on the earth and what will I but that it be kindled" (Lk 12:49). 734. But since it says in Ec (9:1): "A man does not know whether he is worthy of love or hatred, but all things are kept uncertain," why does the Apostle say that he is certain that nothing can separate him from the love of God? One can answer that the Apostle is not speaking of himself personally but is spokesman for all the predestined, about whom he declares that nothing can separate 359 them from the love of God because of the certainty of predestination. This certainty can be caused by the power of charity which, considering its nature, cannot be separated from certain persons, since it loves God above all things. Hence if a person falls away from love, it is not on account of a shortcoming in this virtue but on account of a defect in one’s free choice. But if Paul is speaking for himself, he could be certain of it only by a revelation, because it was said to him: "My grace is sufficient for you" (2 Cor 12:9). For as to the outcome of free choice he says elsewhere: "Lest while speaking to others, I myself become a castaway" (1 Cor 9:27).

Having shown the need [n. 97] and power [n. 381] of grace, the Apostle begins to discuss the origin of grace and ask whether it is conferred solely by God’s choice or from the merits of previous works. He raises this question because the Jews, seemingly called to God’s special protection, had fallen from grace; whereas the Gentiles, previously alienated from God, had been admitted to it. First, therefore, he discusses the election of the Gentiles; secondly, the fall of the Jews, in chapter 10 [n. 813]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he recounts the greatness of the Jews; secondly, he shows how the Gentiles have been drawn into that greatness [v. 6; n. 748]. 361 In regard to the first, he does two things: first the Apostle shows his affection for the Jewish people, lest anything he had said or was about to say against them should seem to proceed from hatred; second, he shows their dignity [v. 4; n. 742]. Concerning the first he does two things. First he confirms what he was about to say; second, he demonstrates his affection [v. 2; n. 737]. 736. Concerning the first he does two things. First, he confirms what he is about to say with a simple assertion: I am speaking the truth, which especially befits the preacher who is a witness to the truth: "My mouth will utter truth" (Pr 8:7); "Love truth and peace" (Zech 8:19). And because a person sometimes mixes falsehood with the truth, he excludes this when he adds: I am not lying: "Putting away falsehood, let everyone speak the truth to this neighbor" (Eph 4:25). Secondly, he confirms what he is about to say with an oath, which is a confirmation supported by the testimony of infallible truth. Such are the witnesses of the saints: first, God Himself, as it say in Job 16:19: "My witness is in heaven." Hence Paul says, in Christ, i.e., through Jesus Christ Who is the truth without falsehood: "The Son of God whom we preached among you was not Yes and No" (2 Cor 1:19). Secondly, the infallible witness of the saints is their conscience; hence he adds: my conscience bears me witness: "Our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience" (2 Cor 1:12). But because one’s conscience is sometimes erroneous unless it is corrected by the Holy Spirit he adds: in the Holy Spirit: "The Spirit himself bears witness to our spirit" (Rom 8:16). 362 737. Then (v. 2) he shows his affection for the Jews by the pain he suffered from their fall. First, he describes this pain; secondly, he mentions a sign of it [v. 3; n. 739]. 738. He emphasizes how much pain he has suffered in three ways. First by its magnitude: I have great sorrow, because it concerns a great evil, namely, the exclusion of such a great people: "Vast as the sea is your ruin" (Lam 2:13). But this seems to conflict with Sir (30:22) where it says: "Give not up your soul to sadness," which seems to agree with the opinion of the Stoics, who admitted no sadness at all in the soul of a wise man. For since sadness is a reaction to a present evil, it cannot exist in a wise man to whom no evil is present. For they supposed that virtue was the only good and sin the only evil. But this opinion is refuted in two ways. First, because bodily defect, although they are not such evils as make men evil, are nevertheless among the evils which nature abhors. Hence, even the Lord is described as saddened by them: "My soul is sorrowful, even to death" (Mt 26:38). Secondly, since charity requires that a person love his neighbor as himself, it is laudable for a wise man to grieve over a son of his neighbor as over his own. Hence the Apostle says: "I fear that I May have to mourn over many of those who sinned" (2 Cor 12:2). Thus, worldly sadness, which springs from love of the world, works death and is rejected, but sadness which is godly and springs form divine love works salvation, as it says in 2 Cor 7:10. Such was Paul’s sadness. 363 Secondly, he emphasizes his grief by its duration, when he says: and unceasing anguish; not that he never ceased to grieve actually, but habitually: "That I might weep day and night for the slain of my people" (Jer 9:1). Thirdly, he emphasizes how real it was when he says: in my heart; for it was not superficial but rooted in the heart: "My eyes are spent in weeping…. My heart is poured out in grief" (Lam 2:11). 739. Then (v. 3) he presents the sign of his sadness, saying: For I, who am so fervent in the love of Christ, as was shown above, could wish that I myself were accursed [anathema]. Here it should be noted that "anathema" is a Greek word formed by combining "ana" which means "above" and "thesis" which means "placing," so that something placed above is said to be anathema. For when they found among the spoils of war something they did not wish men to use, they hung it in the temple. Form this, the custom arose that things but off from the common use of men were said to be "anathema"; hence, it says in Jos 6:17: "Let this city be an anathema, and all things that are in it, to the Lord." 740. He says, therefore: I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ, i.e., separated from Him. One is separated from Christ in two ways: in one way by a sin, through which one is separated form the love of Christ for not obeying His commandment: "If you love me, keep my commandments" (Jn 14:15) But the Apostle could not wish to be separated from Christ in this way for any reason, as he explained in c. 8. For this is against the order of charity, by which a person is bound to love God above all things and his own salvation more than that of others. So he does not say "I wish" but "I could wish" during his days 364 of unbelief. But according to this explanation the Apostle is not saying anything great, because in those days he was willing to be separated from Christ even for himself. Hence, a Gloss explains that he says, I have great sorrow, referring to the sorrow with which he grieved over his past state of sin, during which he willed to be separated from Christ. In another way one can be separated from Christ, i.e., from the fruition of Christ possessed in glory. This is the way the Apostle wished to be separated from Christ, for the salvation of the Gentiles, not to mention the conversion of the Jews. For he says in Phil (1:23): "My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remains in the flesh is more necessary on your account." This he now says: I could wish, namely, if it were possible, to be anathema, i.e., separated from glory either absolutely or temporarily from Christ’s honor, which would be enhanced by the conversion of the Jews, as it ways in Pr 14:28: "In the multitude of the people is the dignity of the king." Hence, Chrysostom says: "Love so ruled his mind that to please Christ he would not only sacrifice being with Christ, which he deemed more desirable than anything else, but also the kingdom of heaven, which would be the reward of his labor for Christ." 741. The cause of this attitude is shown when he says: for the sake of my brethren. Hence Sir (25:1) says: "Three things are approved before God and men: the concord of brethren, the love of neighbors, and a wife and husband who live in harmony." Then to show that he was not referring to those who were his spiritual brethren in Christ, he adds: who are my kinsmen by race: "Are they descendents of Abraham? So am I" (I Cor 11:22). 365 742. Then (v. 4) he shows the greatness of the Jews in order that his sadness appear reasonable on account of the ancient dignity of a deteriorating people (for it is a weightier evil to lose greatness than never to have possessed it) and not as though it arose solely from worldly love. 743. But he shows their greatness in three ways. First, from their face when he says: They are Israelites, i.e., descending from the stock of Jacob who was called Israel (Gen 32:28). This pertains to their greatness, for it says in Dt (4:7): "Neither is there any nation so great as to have their gods coming to them…" 744. Secondly, he shows the greatness of that race from God’s blessings: first, the spiritual blessings, one of which refers to the present: to them belongs the sonship: hence it says in Ex (4:22): "Israel is my son, my firstborn." This refers to the spiritual men who arose among that people: but as to worldly men he stated above (8:15) that they received the spirit of slavery in fear. Another spiritual blessings refers to the future when he says: the glory, namely, of the sons of God promised to them. A reference to this is found in Ex (40:32): "The glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle." Then he sets out other, figural benefits, of which there were figures of present spiritual benefit. The first of these is the covenant, i.e., the pact of circumcision given to Abraham, as is recorded in Gen c. 17, although this could be referred to the new covenant preached first to the Jews. Hence, the Lord Himself said: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt 15:24); and Jer (31:31): "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel." The second is the Law given through Moses; hence, he continues: the giving of the law: "Moses commanded a law to us" (Sir 24:33). The third is 366 divine worship when he says: the worship with which they served God, when all the other nations were serving idols: "But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen" (Is 44:1). Then he mentions the blessing which pertains to future glory when he says: and the promises. For the promises made in the Old Testament and fulfilled by Christ seem made especially to the Jews; hence he says below (15:8): "I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs." Now many other promises were made to them about earthly goods, as is recorded in Lev (c. 26) and Dt (c. 18), but by these temporal goods spiritual [goods] were prefigured. 745. Third he describes the Jews’ dignity by their origin, when he says: to them belong the Patriarchs, because they were begotten according to the flesh by those ancestors who were especially acceptable to God: "I love your fathers and chose their descendants after them" (Dt 4:37); "Like the first fruit on the fig tree I saw their fathers" (Hos 9:1). 746. Fourthly, he shows their greatness from the a descendant when he says: and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ Who says: "Salvation is from the Jews" (Jn 4:22). 747. Then to prevent this from being underestimated he shows the greatness of Christ, saying: Who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen: "This is the true God and eternal life" (I Jn 5:20). In these words four heresies are refuted: first, Manichean, which held that Christ had not a true but imaginary body. This is refuted when he says, according to the flesh. 367 For He has true flesh, as it says in Lk (24:39): "A spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have." Secondly, Valentinus’ heresy which claims that Christ’s body was not taken from the human line but brought from heaven. This is excluded when he says that Christ was from the Jews according to the flesh, in keeping with Mt (1:1): "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." Thirdly, the heresy of Nestorius according to whom the Son of man was other than the Son of God. Against this the Apostle says here that He is from the patriarchs according to the flesh Who is God over all. Fourthly, the Arian heresy, which claimed that Christ was less than the Father and created form nothing. Against the first he says that He is over all; against the second that He is blessed for ever. For it is true of God alone that His goodness remains forever.

After asserting the greatness of the Jews [n. 735], the Apostle now shows that it did not refer to those who descended according to the flesh from the ancient patriarchs but to the spiritual progeny chosen by God. First, he shows that this greatness arises from God's selection; secondly, that this selection applies generally to Jew and Gentiles [v. 24; n. 796]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows how from God's choice men obtain spiritual greatness; secondly, he raises a question about the justice of God's choice [v. 14; n. 765]. In regard to the first he does two things: First, he states his proposition; secondly shows it [v. 7b; n. 751]. Concerning the first, he does two things. First he sets out the firmness of the divine election; second, he shows in whom it is accomplished [v. 6b; n. 750]. 369 749. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that the promises, the adoption of sons, and glory referred to people whose fall is to me a source of great sadness and unceasing sorrow. But it is not as though the word of God had failed, i.e., was frustrated, because although it has found no place in those who had fallen, it has a place in others: "The word that goes forth from my mouth shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose" (Is 55:11); "For ever, O Lord, thy word is firmly fixed" (Ps 119:89). 750. Then (v. 6b) he shows how and in whom God's word had failed. In regard to this it should be noted that the Jews boasted mainly of two things, namely, Abraham, who first received the pact of circumcision from God (Gen c.17) and Jacob of Israel, all of whom descendants were counted as God's people. This was not true of Isaac, for the descendants of his son Esau did not belong to God's people. Hence the Apostle states his proposition: first, by a comparison with Jacob: For not all who are descended form Israel i.e., from Jacob according to the flesh, are true Israelites, to whom God's promises belong, but those who are upright and see God by faith: "Fear not, Jacob, and thus most righteous whom I have chosen" (Is 44:2). Hence the Lord also said to Nathanael: "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile" (Jn 1:47). Now this name, "Israel," had been put on Jacob by an angel (Gen c.32). Secondly, he states the same things by comparison with Abraham saying: and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants, i.e., are not the spiritual sons of Abraham to whom God promised the blessings, but only those who imitate his faith and works: "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did" (Jn 8:40). 370 751. Then (v. 7b) he clarifies his statement: first, in regard to Abraham; secondly, in regard to Jacob [v. 10; n. 755]. 752. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he cites a text from Scripture, saying: through Isaac shall your descendants be named. This the Lord said to Abraham, as it says in Gen (c. 21), when describing the expulsion of Ishmael. As if to say: not all who were born from Abraham according to the flesh belong to that seed to whom the promises were made, but hose who are like Isaac. 753. Then (v. 8) he explains the quoted text so far as it applies to his thesis. To understand this it should be noted that the Apostle says in Gal (4:22): "Abraham had two sons, on e by a slave and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave," namely, Ishmael, "was born according to the flesh," because he was born according to the law and custom of the flesh from a young woman: "the son of the free woman," namely, Isaac, "through promise" and not according to the flesh, i.e., not according to the law and custom of the flesh, because he was born from a sterile, old woman, as it says in Gen (c.18); although he was born according to the flesh, i.e., according to the substance of the flesh he received from his parents. From this the Apostle decides that those adopted into the sonship of God are not the sons of the flesh, i.e., not because they are the bodily descendants of Abraham, but the children of the promise are descendants, i.e., those who are made songs of Abraham because they imitate his faith, as it says in Mt (3:9): "God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham." Thus, Ishmael, born according to the flesh was not numbered among the seed, but Isaac born by the promise was. 371 Thirdly, (v.9) he proves that his explanation is valid, when he says that the children of the promise are the ones signified by Isaac, namely, because Isaac was born as the result of a promise. Hence he says: For this is what the promise said. Indeed, this is the statement the angel or the Lord through an angel made to Abraham: About this time I will return, by which the time of grace is signified: "When the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son" (Gal 4:4) and Sarah shall have a son on account of the promise. Hence, it says in Gal (4:5): "So that we might receive adoption of sons." 755. Then (v. 10) he clarifies his thesis so far as it concerns Jacob. First he states his intention; secondly, he clarifies his position [v. 11; n. 757]. 756. First, therefore, he says: And not only she, namely, Sarah, begot a son about whom the promise was made, but also Rebecca, having in her womb two sons, one of whom pertained to the promise and the other only to the flesh, had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac. For it says in Gen (25:21): "Isaac prayed to the Lord for his wife, because she was barren, and the Lord gave her conception, but the children struggled together within her." And it should be noted that the Apostle cites this against the Jews who supposed that they would obtain righteousness through the merits of their forefathers, which is contrary to what is said about just men, namely, that "they will deliver neither sons nor daughters but they alone will be delivered" (Ez 14:18). This is why John said to the Jews: "Do not presume to say, 'We have Abraham as our father'" (Mt 3:9). Paul, therefore, 372 counters this opinion by reminding them that of Abraham's children one was chosen and the other rejected. But he could have ascribed this difference to the mothers, because Ishmael was born of a slave and Isaac of a free woman, or to the changed meriting state of the father; because while uncircumcised he begot Ishmael but circumcised he begot Isaac. To exclude any such subterfuge, therefore, he cites the case where one is chosen and the other rejected, even though both were born of the same father and the same mother at the same time and, indeed, from one coition. 757. Then (v. 11) he clarifies his thesis: first, by the authority of Gen (c. 28); secondly, by a text from the prophet Malachi (v. 13). 758. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he indicates the time of the promise and says that when they were not yet born, one of the sons of Rebecca was set over the other in virtue of the promise. And just as his previous statement excluded the opinion of the Jews trusting in the merits of their forefathers, so this statement counters the error of the Manicheans who claimed that a person's life and death were controlled by the constellation under which he was born, against what is said in Jer (10:2) "Be not afraid of the signs of heaven which the heathens fear." Then when he continues: though they had done nothing either good or bad, the Pelagian error is refuted which says that grace is given according to one's preceding merits, even though it says in *** (3:5): "He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy." 373 Both of these are shown false by the fact that before birth and before doing anything one of Rebecca's sons is preferred to the other. This also corrects Origen's error who supposed that men's souls were created when the angels were, and that they merited different lives depending on the merits they earned for the good or evil they had done there. This could not be true in the light of what is stated here, namely that they had done nothing either good or bad. Against this also is Job (38:7): "Where were you when the morning stars praised me together and all the sons of God made joyful melody?" For according to Origen's error, he could have answered: I was among those joyful sons of God. 759. Secondly, he shows what could be understood from that promise by which one of the twins in the womb was chosen over the other. He says: In order that God's purpose, by which one would be greater than the other, might continue, i.e., be made firm: and this not by reason of merits but of election i.e., inasmuch as God himself spontaneously forechose one over the other, not because he was holy but in order that he be holy, as it says in Eph (1:4): "He chose us in himself before the foundation of the world that we should be holy." But this is a decree of predestination about which the same text says: "Predestined according to the purpose of his will" (Eph 1:15). 760. Thirdly, he sets down the promise, saying, not because of works, for no works preceded it, as has been said: but because of his call, i.e., through the grace of God calling, for she was told, i.e., Rebecca, that the elder, i.e., Esau, will serve the younger, i.e., Jacob. This can be understood in three ways. 761. In one way, as referring to the persons involved, and then Esau is understood to have served Jacob, not directly but indirectly, inasmuch as the persecution he launched 374 27 A capsa was a box for holding parchment scrolls. A capsarius was slave whose job it was to carry the scrolls. against him ended in Jacob's benefit, as it says in Pr (11:29): "The fool will serve the wise." Secondly, it can be referred to the people who sprang from each, because the Edomites were once subject to the Israelites, as it says in Ps 60 (v.8); "Upon Edom I cast my shoe." This seems to fit Gen (25:23): "The nations are in your womb; the one shall be stronger than the other." Thirdly, it can be taken figuratively so that by the elder is understood the Jewish people, who were the first to receive the adoption of sons, in accord with Ex 4:22, "Israel is my firstborn son," and by the younger is understood the Gentiles, who were called to the Father later and were signified by the prodigal son (Lk c. 15). The elder people in this case serve the younger, inasmuch as the Jews are our capsarii,27 guarding the books form which the truths of our faith are drawn: "Search the scriptures" (Jn 5:39). 762. Then (v. 13) he proves his point by the authority of the prophet Malachi speaking in the person of God Who says: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. A gloss on this says that the statement, the elder will serve the younger, was spoken from foreknowledge, but that the present statement results from judgment, i.e., that God loved Jacob on account of his good works, just as He loves all the saints: "I love those who love me (Pr 8:17), but he hated Esau on account of his sings, as it says in Si (12:3): "The Highest hates sinners." But because man's love is preceded by God's love: "Not that we loved God, but that he has first loved us" (1 Jn 4:20), we must say that Jacob was loved by God before he 375 loved God. Nor can it be said that God began to love him at a fixed point in time; otherwise His love would be changeable. Consequently, one must say that God loved Jacob from all eternity, as it says in Jer (31:3): "I have loved you with an everlasting love." 763. Now these words of the Apostle identify in God three things pertaining to the saints, namely, election, by which is understood God's predestination and election. In God these are really the same, but in our understanding they differ. For it is called God's love, inasmuch as he wills good to a person absolutely; it is election, inasmuch as through the good he wills for a person, he prefers him to someone else. But it is called predestination, inasmuch as he directs a person to the good he wills for him by loving and choosing him. According to these definitions predestination comes after love, just as the will's fixation on the end naturally precedes the process of directing things towards the end. Election and love, however, are ordered differently in God than in man. For in men, election precedes love, for a man's will is inclined to love a thing on account of the good perceived in it, this good also being the reason why he prefers one thing to another and why he fixed his love on the thing he preferred. But God's love is the cause of every good found in a creature; consequently, the good in virtue of which one is preferred to another through election follows upon Gods willing it—which pertains to His love, Consequently, it is not in virtue of some good which He selects in a man that God love him; rather, it is because He loved him that He prefers him to someone by election. 376 764. But just as the love, about which we are speaking, pertains to Gods eternal predestination, so the hatred about which we are speaking pertains to the rejection by which God rejects sinners. It should not be supposed that this rejection is temporal, because nothing in the divine will is temporal; rather, it is eternal. Furthermore, it is akin to love or predestination in some respect and different in another. It is akin in the sense that just as predestination is preparation for glory, so rejection is preparation for punishment: "For a burning place has long been prepared, yes, for the king it is made ready" (Is 30:33). It is different in that predestination implies preparation of the merits by which glory is reached, but rejection implies preparation of the sins by which punishment is reached. Consequently, a foreknowledge of merits cannot be the reason for predestination, because the foreknown merits fall under predestination; but the foreknowledge of sins can be a reason for rejection on the part of the punishment prepared for the rejected, inasmuch as God proposes to punish the wicked for the sins they have from themselves, not from God; the just He proposes to reward on account of the merits they do not have from themselves: "Destruction is thy own, O Israel; thy help is only in me" (Hos 13:9).

After showing that by God's choice one is preferred to the other not from works but from the grace of the one calling [n. 748], the Apostle now inquires into the justice of this choice. First, he raises a question; secondly, he answers it [v. 14b; n. 768]; thirdly, he objects against the solution [v. 19; n. 786]. 766. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that God chose one and rejected the other without any preceding merit. What shall we say then? Does this enable us to prove that there is injustice on God's part? It seems so. For it pertains to justice that things be dispensed equally to equals. But when differences arising from merit are removed, men are equal. Therefore, if without consideration of merits God dispensed unequally by choosing one and rejecting the other, it seems that there is injustice to Him; contrary to what is said in Dt (32:4) 378 "God is faithful and without any iniquity"; "Righteous art thou, O Lord, and right are thy judgments" (Ps 119:137). 767. It should be noted that Origen fell into error trying to solve this objection. For he says in his Periarchon that from the beginning God made only spiritual creatures and all were equal, lest he be charged with injustice for any inequality; later, differences among these creatures arose from differences of merit. For some of those spiritual creatures were turned to God by love, some more and some less; on this basis the various orders of angels were distinguished. Others turned from God, some more and some less; on this basis they were bound to bodies, either noble or lowly; some to heavenly bodies, some to bodies of demons, some to bodies of men. Accordingly, the reason or making and distinguishing bodily creatures is the sin of spiritual creatures. But this is against what is said in Gen (1:31): "God saw everything which he had made, and it was very good," which gives us to understand that goodness was the cause of producing bodily creatures, as Augustine says in The City of God (c.11). 768. Therefore, we must set aside this opinion and see how the Apostle solves the problem when he says: Let it not be! In regard to this he does two things: first, he solves the problem with respect to choosing the saints; secondly, with respect to hating and rejecting the wicked [v. 17; n. 799]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he proposes the scriptural text from which the solution comes; secondly, he draws the conclusion from it [v. 16; n. 775]. 379 769. The text he adduces is from Ex (33:19) where the Lord said to Moses: "I will be gracious to whom I will and I will be merciful to whom it shall please me." But the Apostle quotes it according to the Septuagint version saying: For the Lord says to Moses: 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. The meaning is that all our blessings are ascribed to God's mercy, as it says in Is (63:7): "I will remember the tender mercies of the Lord, the praise of the Lord for all the things the Lord has bestowed upon us"; and in Lam (3:22): "The mercies of the Lord that we are not consumed; because his commiserations have not failed. 770. The text Paul cites is explained in two ways in a Goss, so that it solves the question and the objection in two ways. First, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, i.e., on him who is worthy of mercy. To amplify this he repeats: I will have compassion on whom I have compassion, i.e., on whom I judge worthy of compassion, as it says in Ps 103 (v.13): "The Lord has compassion on them that fear him." It follows from this that although he imparts his blessings from mercy, he is nevertheless excused from injustice; for he gives to those who should be given and does not give to one who should not be given, according to the correctness of His judgment. 771. But having mercy on one who is worthy can be understood in two ways: in one way so that one is counted worthy of mercy on account of preexisting works in this life, though not in another life, as Origen supposed. This belongs to the Pelagian heresy which taught that God's grace is given to men according to their merits. But this cannot stand, because, as has been stated, the good merits themselves are from God and are the effects of predestination. 380 772. But there is another way in which one is considered worthy of mercy, not on account of merits preceding grace, but on account of merits subsequent to grace; for example, if God gives a person grace and He planned from eternity to give him that grace which He foresaw would be used well. According to this the Gloss is saying that He has mercy on him who should be given mercy. Hence he says: I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, i.e., by calling and bestowing grace, I will have mercy on him to whom I know beforehand that I will show mercy, knowing that he will be converted and abide with me. But it seems that not even this is a suitable explanation. For it is clear that nothing which is an effect of predestination can be taken as a reason for a predestination, even if it be taken as existing in God's foreknowledge, because the reason for a predestination is presupposed to the predestination, whereas the effect is included in it. But every benefit God bestows on a man for his salvation is an effect of predestination. Furthermore, God's benefits extend not only to the infusion of grace, by which a man is made righteous, but also to its use, just as in natural things God not only causes their forms but all the movements and activities of those forms, inasmuch as God is the source of all movement in such a way that when He ceases to act, no movement or activity proceeds from those forms. But sanctifying grace and the accompanying virtues in the soul are related to their use as a natural form is related to its activity. Hence, it is states in Is (26:12): "O Lord, thou hast wrought for us all our works." 773. Aristotle proves this in a particular way when he discusses the works of the human will. 381 For since man is open to opposites, say to sitting or not sitting, it must be resolved by something else. But this is done by deliberation, which is followed by choosing one over the other. But again, since man has the power to deliberate or not to deliberate, it will be necessary that something move him to deliberate. But since this does not proceed ad infinitum, there must be some external principal superior to man which moves him to deliberate—and this principle is none other than God. In this way, then, the very use of grace is from God. But this does not mean that sanctifying grace is superfluous, any more than natural forms are superfluous, even though God works in all, as it says in Wis (8:1): "Wisdom orders all things sweetly," because through their forms all things are inclined spontaneously, as it were, to that to which they are planned by God. Consequently, it is impossible that the merits which follow grace are the reason for showing mercy or for predestination; the only reason is God's will, according to which he mercifully delivers certain ones. For it is clear that distributive justice has its field in things given as due; for example, if some persons have earned wage, more should be given to those who have done more work. But it has no place in things given spontaneously and out of mercy; for example, if a person meets two beggars and gives one an alms, he is not unjust but merciful. Similarly, if a person has been offended equally by two people and he forgives one but not the other, he is merciful to the one, just to the other, but unjust to neither. For since all men are born subject to damnation on account of the sin of the first parent, those whom God delivers by His grace He delivers by His mercy alone; and so He is merciful to those whom He delivers, just to those whom He does not deliver, but unjust to none. 382 Thus, the Apostle solves the question with a text which ascribes all to divine mercy. 774. Yet it should be noted that God's mercy is viewed according to three aspects: first, according to predestination by which He proposed from all eternity to deliver certain ones: "The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting" (Ps 103:17); secondly, according to His calling and justifying, by which He saves men in time: "He saved us in his mercy" (*** 3:5); thirdly, according to the bestowal of glory, when He frees from all misery: "Who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy" (Ps 103:4). Therefore, he says: I will have mercy, namely, by calling and justifying, on whom I have mercy by predestining and having compassion and finally by crowning with glory him on whom I have mercy by calling and justifying. This interpretation is more in keeping with the version before me: "I will be gracious to whom I will, and I will be merciful to whom it shall please me" where divine mercy is clearly ascribed not to merits but solely to the divine will. 775. Then (v. 16) he draws his conclusion from the authority he cited. This conclusion can be understood in a number of ways; in one say thus: So a man's salvation depends not on man's will or exertion, i.e., it is not owing to anyone through any willing of his own or any outward action; but on God's mercy, i.e., it proceeds from the sole mercy of God. What follows from the authority cited is found in Dr (9:4): "Do not say in your heart, 'It is because of my righteousness that the Lord has brought me into this land.'" 776. But it can be understood in another sense: all things proceed form God's mercy; so it depends not on man's will to will or exertion to exert oneself, but each 383 depends on God's mercy, as it says in 1 Cor (15:10): "it was not I but the grace of God which is with me," and in Jn (15:5): "Without me you can do nothing." 777. But if this is all that is understood in this word, since even grace without man's free judgment does not will or strive, he could have said the converse, namely, it does not depends on God's mercy but on man's will or exertion, which is offensive to pious ears. Consequently, something more must be understood from these words, if first place is to be given to God's grace. For an action is attributed more to the principal agent than to the secondary, as when we say that the hammer does not make the box but the carpenter by using the hammer. But man's will is moved to good by God, as it says above: "All who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God" (Rom 8:14); therefore, an inward action of man is not to be attributed principally to man but to God: "It is God who of his good pleasure works in you both the will and the performance" (Phil 2:13). But if willing does not depend on the man willing or exertion on the man exerting himself, but on God moving man to this, it seems that man is not master of his own action, which pertains to freedom of will. But the answer is that God moves all things, but in diverse ways, inasmuch as each is moved in a manner befitting its nature. And so man is moved by God to will and to perform outwardly in a manner consistent with free will. Therefore, willing and performing depends on man as freely acting; but on God and not on man, as initial mover. 384 779. Then (v. 17) he solves the above problem as it refers to rejection of the wicked. First, he quotes an authority; secondly, he draws the conclusion (v. 18). 780. He says, therefore: It has been shown that there is no injustice, when God loves the just from all eternity. But neither is there injustice in rejecting the wicked from all eternity. For out of God's mouth the Scripture says, I have raised you up, or according to another rendition: "Have preserved you" for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth. 781. The first point to notice here is what God does in regard to the rejected. He shows this when he says: For this purpose have I preserved you, i.e. you had deserved to die for the evils you had done: Those who do such things deserve to die" (Rom 1:32), but I did not call you to die at once; rather I preserved you in life for this purpose, namely, of showing my power in you. This interpretation can also be obtained from the version which reads: I have raised you up, i.e., although before me you deserved to be dead, I granted you life, as if I had raised you up. From this it appears that God works no injustice against the rejected, sine they deserved to be destroyed at once for their crimes; rather, the fact that He preserves their life proceeds from His exceeding goodness: "Correct me, O Lord, but yet with judgment; and not in thy fury, lest thou bring me to nothing" (Jer 10:24). Another interpretation is this, I have raised you up for sin, that you might become worse. This should not be understood as though God causes sin in man; rather, it should be understood in a permissive sense, namely, that from His just judgment he permits 385 some to fall into sin on account of previous sins, as it says above (1:28): "God gave them up to a base mind." But it seems to me that still more must be understood here, namely, that men are moved to good and to evil y God through an inward prompting. Hence, Augustine says in his book On Grace and Free Will that God works in men's hearts to incline their wills whithersoever He wills, either to good through His mercy or to evil according to their deserts. Thus, God is aid very often to tire p men to do good, as it says in Dan (13:45): "The Lord raised up the holy spirit of a young boy." He is also said to raise up others to do evil, as in Is (13:1): "I will stir up the Medes against them and with their arrows they shall kill the children." However, He stirs them to good and to evil in different ways: for he inclines men's wills to good directly as the author of these good deeds; but he is said to incline or stir up men to evil as an occasional cause, namely, inasmuch as God puts before a person, either in him or outside of him something which of itself is conducive to good but which through his own malice he uses for evil: "Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath" (Rom 2:4-5) and "God gave his place for penance: and he abused it unto pride" (Jb 24:23). Similarly, as far as in him lies, God enlightens a man inwardly to good, say a king to defend the rights of his kingdom or to punish rebels. But he abuses this good impulse according to the malice of his heart. This is plain in Is (10:6) where it is said of Assyria: "Against a godless nation I send him and against the people of my wrath I command him to take spoil and seize plunder..." and further on: "But he does not so intend, and his mind 386 does not so think, but it is in his mind to destroy." That is the way it happened with Pharaoh, who, when he was prompted by God to defend his kingdom, abused this suggestion and practiced cruelty. 782. Secondly, there is need to consider the purpose behind God's doing certain things and permitting certain things. For one must remember that God works in creatures to manifest Himself, as it says in Rom (1:20): "His invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made"; hence these promptings are ordained to this manifestation both for those present, for the very purpose of showing my power in you, "and Israel saw the great work which the Lord did against the Egyptians Ex (14:3), and for those absent, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth. Thus, it is clear that in this matter there in no injustice in God, because he uses his creature according to its merits for his glory. And it can be interpreted in the same sense if it be said I have raised you up, i.e., I have ordered your malice to my glory; for God orders the malice, but does not cause it. 783. Then (v. 18) he draws a conclusion from the two texts cited: from the text, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, he concludes: Therefore he has mercy upon whomever he wills: "The Lord has mercy on them that fear him" (Ps 103:11); from the text, I have raised you up, he concludes, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills: "You have hardened our heart, so that we fear thee not: (Is 3:17); "Some of them he blessed and exalted, and some of them hath he cursed and brought low" (Sir 33:12). There seems to be no difficulty about God's mercy, once we grant what has been said above. 387 784. But two difficulties seem to exist in regard to hardening: first, hardening of heart seems allied to sin, as it says in Sir (3:27): "A hard heart shall fear evil at the last." Consequently, if God hardens the heart, He is the author of a sin—contrary to what is said in Jas (1:13): "God is no tempter to evil." The answer is that God is not said to harden anyone directly, as though He causes their malice, but indirectly, inasmuch as man makes an occasion of sin out of things God does within or outside the man; and this God Himself permits. Hence, he is not said to harden as though by inserting malice, but by not affording grace. The second difficulty is that this hardening does not seem ascribable to the divine will, since it is written: "This is the will of God, your sanctification" (I Th 4:3) and "He desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim 2:4). The answer is that both mercy and justice imply a disposition of the will. Hence, just as mercy is attributed to the divine will, so also that which is just. Therefore, the interpretation is that he has mercy upon whomever he wills through His mercy and he hardens whomever he wills through His justice, because those whom He hardens deserve to be hardened by Him, as was stated above in chapter 1.

Having solved the question proposed [n. 765], the Apostle objects to the solution, particularly to the last part, which states that God has mercy on whomever He wills and hardens whomever He wills. First, he places the objection; secondly, the solution [v. 20; n. 788]. 787. First, therefore, he says: We have said that God has mercy on whomever He wills and hardens whomever He wills. You will say to me then: Why does he still find fault? i.e., what need is there to inquire any further into the cause of the good and evil done here, since all things are attributed to the divine will, which is a sufficient cause, since no one can resist Him? Hence he continues: For who can resist his will?" I applied my mind to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven" (Ec 1:13). Or in another way: Why does he still find fault? i.e., why does God complain about men when they sin, as in Is (1:2): "some have I reared and brought up, but they have rebelled against me." Therefore, He does not seem to have a just complaint, because it all proceeds from His will, which no one can resist. Hence he adds: Who can resist his will? 389 Or still another way: Why does he still find fault, i.e., why is man still required to do good and avoid evil: "He has showed you , O man, what is good and what does the Lord require of you but o do justice, and love mercy and walk with your God?" (Mic 6:8). For it is useless to require of someone that which is not in his power. But nothing seems to lie in man’s power, according to the above, in which all things seem ascribed to the divine will, which cannot be resisted. He adds: For who can resist his will? As if to say: no one. "There is none that can resist they majesty" (Est 13:11). And this seems to be the Apostle's meaning. 788. Then (v. 20) he answers the question. To understand his answer it should be noted that with regard to the election of the good and the rejection of the wicked two questions can arise. One is general, namely, why does God will to harden some and be merciful to some; the other is particular, namely, why does He will to be merciful to this one and harden this or that one? Although a reason other God's will can be assigned, in the first question the only reason that can be assigned in the second question is God's absolute will. An example is found among humans. For if a builder has at hand many similar and equal stones, the reason why he puts certain ones at the top an others at the bottom can be gathered from his purpose, because the perfection of the house he intends to build requires both a foundation with stones at the bottom and walls of a certain height with stones at the top. But the reason why he put these stones on the to and those others at the bottom seems to be merely that the builder so willed. First, therefore, the Apostle answers the problem involved in the second question, namely why He has mercy on this one and hardens that one; 390 secondly, the problem involved in the first question, namely, why He is merciful to some and hardens others [v. 22; n. 792]. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he censures the questioner's presumption; secondly, he cites an authority which solves the question [v. 21; n. 790]; thirdly, he explains the authority [v. 21b; n. 791]. 789. First, therefore, he says: But who are you, O man, fragile and unknowing, to answer back to God" How would you answer Him, if He were to contend with you in judgment? "If one wished to contend with him, one could not answer him once in a thousand times" (Jb 9:3). Again, as it says in Jb (39:30): "He who argues with God let him answer him." In this we are given to understand that man should not examine the reason for God's judgments with the intention of comprehending them, for they exceed human reason: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee" (Sir 3:22); "He that is a searcher of majesty shall be overwhelmed by glory" (Pr 25:27). 790. Then (v. 20b) he cites the authority of Is (29:16): "Shall the thing made say of its maker, He did not make me?" Here it should be noted that if an artisan uses base matter to make a beautiful vessel for noble uses, it is all ascribed to the goodness of the artisan; for example, if from clay he fashions pitchers and serving-dishes suited to a banquet table. If, on the other hand, from such base matter, say clay, he produced a vessel adapted to meaner uses, for example, for cooking or such, the vessel, if it could think, would have no complaint. But 391 it could complain, if from precious metals, such as gold and precious stones, the artisan were to make a vessel reserved for base uses. But human nature has baseness about it from its matter, because as Gen (2:7) says: "God formed man of dust from the ground," and more baseness after being spoiled by sin, which entered this world through one man. That is why man is compared to dirt, in Jb (30:19) "I am compared to dirt and I am likened to dust and ashes." Hence, any good that man possesses is due to God's goodness as its basic source: "O Lord, thou art our Father, we are the clay, and thou art the potter, we are all the work of they hand" (Is 64:8). Furthermore, if God does not advance man to better things but leaves him in his weakness and reserves him for the lowliest use, He does him no injury such that he could justly complain about God. 791. Then (v. 21) the Apostle explains the words of the prophet. As if to say What is molded, i.e., the vessel., should not say to the potter: Why have you made me thus?, because the potter is free to make anything he wishes out of the clay. Hence he says: Has the potter no right over the clay, to make without any injury to it out of the same lump of base matter one vessel for honor, i.e., for honorable use and another for dishonor, i.e., for meaner uses: "In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and earthenware, and some for noble use, some for ignoble." (2 Tim. 2:20). In the same way God has free power to make from the same spoiled matter of the human race, as from a clay, and without any injustice some men prepared for glory and some abandoned in wretchedness: "Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel" (Is 18:6). 392 792. Then (v. 22) he answers the first question, namely, why God wills to be merciful to some and leave others in wretchedness, i.e., to choose some and reject others. Here it should be noted that the end of all divine works ins the manifestation of divine goodness: "The Lord has made all things for himself" (Pr 16:4). Hence, it was stated above that the invisible things of God have been clearly perceived in the things that have been made (1:20). But the excellence of the divine goodness is so great that it cannot be manifested in one way or in one creature. Consequently, he created diverse creatures in which He is manifested in diverse ways. This is particularly true in rational creatures in whom is justice is manifested with regard to those he benefits according to their deserts and His mercy in those He delivers by His grace. Therefore, to manifest both of these in man He mercifully delivers some, but not all. First, therefore, he gives an account of the rejections of the wicked; secondly, of the election of the good [v. 23; n. 794]. 793. In both cases three differences should be considered. First, with respect to the end; secondly, with respect to use; thirdly, with respect to the divine act. Now the end of the rejection or hardening of the wicked is the manifestation of divine justice and power. Referring to this he says: What, i.e., But if God, desiring to show him wrath, i.e., retaliatory justice. For wrath is said of God not as an emotion but as the effect of retaliation: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven" (Rom 1:18). Then he adds: and to make known his power, because God not only uses wrath, i.e., retribution, by punishing those subject to him, but also by subjecting them to himself by his power: 393 "According to his work by which he can subject all things to himself" (Phil 3:21); "And they saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore, and the mighty hand that the Lord had used against them" (Ex 14:31). The use which God makes of the wicked is wrath, i.e., punishment. And this is why he calls them vessels of wrath, i.e., instruments of justice that God uses to show wrath, i.e., retributive justice: "We were by nature children of wrath" (Eph 2:3). But God’s action toward them is not that he disposes them to evil, since they of themselves have a disposition to evil from the corruption of the first sin. Hence he says fit for destruction, i.e., having in themselves an disposition towards eternal condemnation: "God saw that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times" (Gen 6:5). The only thing God does concerning them is that he lets them do what they want. Hence not without meaning does he say has endured. And the fact that he does not exact retribution immediately shows his patience; so he adds with much patience: "The most high is a patient rewarder" (Sir 5:4). 794. Then on the part of the good he likewise sets out three things. First the end, when he says in order to make known the riches of his glory. For the end of the election and mercy shown the good is that he might manifest in them the abundance of his goodness by calling them back from evil, drawing them to justice, and finally leading them into glory. And this is the meaning of that he might show the riches of his glory, the riches concerning which he said above (2:4), "Or do you despise the riches of his goodness?" "God who is rich in mercy" (Eph 2:4). 394 And it is significant that he says in order to make known the riches of his glory, because the very condemnation and reprobation of the wicked, carried out in accord with God’s justice, makes known and highlights the glory of the saints, who were freed from such misery as this. Second he describes their use, when he says for the vessels of mercy. He names them vessels of mercy because God uses them as instruments to show his mercy: "These were men of mercy" (Sir 44:10). Thirdly he sets out God’s action in their regard. For God does not merely endure them, as though they were of themselves disposed to the good, but rather he prepares and disposes them by calling them to glory. Hence he says which he has prepared beforehand for glory: "Preparing the mountains by your power." 795. Even to this point the Apostle uses an incomplete and suspensive construction, so that the meaning is: If God wants to do this, to have mercy on some and harden others, what can justly be said against it? As though to imply: Nothing. For he does not will to harden them in such a way that he compels them to sin, but rather he endures them so that they may tend to evil by their own inclination.

After showing that God's grace is given to men as a result of God's election through which men are called to grace [n. 748], the Apostle shows that such election or calling applies not only to the Jews (as if they could boast on account of what is said in Dt (4:37): "He loved your fathers,") but also to the Gentiles. First, he states the intended proposition; secondly, he proves it [v. 25; n. 798] 396 thirdly, he draws the conclusion [v. 30; n. 807]. 797. First, therefore he says: We have states that God prepared the saints for glory, whom he also called, namely, by His grace, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles: "Is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also?" (Rom 3:29): "They shall adore him, every man from his own place, all the islands of the Gentiles" (Zeph 2:11). 798. The (v. 25) he proves the proposition: first, with respect to the Gentiles, secondly, the Jews [v. 27; n. 801]. In regard to the first he cites two texts from Hosea speaking fro the Gentiles: the first of these promises them God's gifts; the second, divine sonship [v. 26; n. 800]. 799. First, therefore, he says: As the Lord says in Hosea, because it was he who spoke in the prophets: "The spirit of the Lord spoke through me, his word is upon my tongue" (2 Sam 23:2). Hence, too, it says in Hosea (1:2) "When the Lord first spoke through Hosea." Here it should be noted that the Gentiles were cut off from three blessings for which the Jews were famous: first, divine sonship, by reason of which they were called the people of God, as though serving Him and obeying His precepts: "We are the people of his pasture and the sheep of his herd" (Ps. 96:7). But the Gentiles were alienated from the society of this people, as it says in Eph (2:12): "Alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise." However, through Christ they have become God's people: "He gave himself for us to purify for himself a people of his own" 397 (*** 2:14). And that is what he says: Those who were not my people, i.e., the Gentiles, I will call my people, i.e., that they be my people. The second is the privilege of divine love: "The Lord loves the people of Israel" (Hos 3:1), because He offered them many benefits leading to special graces. From this love the Gentiles had formerly been excluded: "Alienated from God's truth because of the ignorance that is in them" (Eph 3:18). Hence, he says: and her who was not beloved, i.e., the Gentile races, I will call my beloved: "You who were once far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ" (Eph 2:13), "While we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of hi Son" (Rom 5:10). The third is deliverance from original sin through circumcision: "The Lord will have compassion on Jacob" (Is 14:1). But the Gentiles had no share in this compassion: "On the day you were born your navel string was not out and no eye pitied you, to do any of these things to you out of compassion for you" (Ex 16:5). But later through Christ they obtained compassion: "He saved us in virtue of his own mercy" (*** 3:5). He cites this text from Hosea according to the Septuagint, in the place where our text has: "I will have mercy on her who was without mercy, and I will so to not my people, ‘You are my people’" (Hos 2:23). 800. Then (v. 25) he cites another text from Hosea in which they are promised the dignity of being sons of God, about which the Jews boasted because, as it says in Is (1:2): "Sons have I reared and brought up" and in Dt (32:6): "Is he not your father?" For the Gentiles not only were not called sons, which applies to those who serve God out of love and are led by the Sprit of God; they were not even worthy to be called 398 the people of God, which could apply at least to those who had received the spirit of servitude in fear. Hence, he says: And in the very place, i.e., in Judea, where it was said to them, i.e., to the Gentiles by the Jews speaking as though in God's person: You are not my people, because they did not consider them God's people, there, i.e., even among the believing Jews, they will be called sons of God. Or in the very place, i.e., in the entire world where they will be converted to the faith. This would indicate that they would not be converted in the same way as proselytes, who would leave their native land and journey to Judea. That this would not happen in the case of those converted to Christ is shown in Zeph (2:11): "To him they shall bow down, each in his own place." Therefore, to each one living in his own place, where it was said to them in former times, "You are not my people," there will be called sons of God by divine adoption: "To all who believed in his name, he gave them power to become children of God" (Jn 1:12). 801. Then (v. 29) he proves his proposition with respect to the Jews and presents two texts from Isaiah. The first of these seems to pertain to all the Jews who came to believe; the second particularly to the Apostle [v. 29; n. 806]. 802. First, therefore, he says: We have indicated what Hosea said about the Gentiles. But Isaiah cries out, i.e., clearly speaks about the conversion of Israel: "Cry, cease not, lift up they voice like a trumpet" (Is 58:1). In this first citation he first shows how few will be converted from Israel, saying: Although the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea: "Judah and Israel 399 were as many as the sand by the sea" (1Sam 4:20), only a remnant of them will be saved, i.e., not all, not the majority, but a certain few who will be left after the pruning: "I am become as one that gleaneth in autumn the grapes of the vintage" (Mic 7:1); "At the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace" (Rom 11:5). 803. Secondly, he cites the cause of salvation: first, the efficacy of the word of the gospel, saying: A fulfilling and brief word. Note here a twofold efficacy of the evangelical word. The first is that the word is fulfilling, i.e., perfective: "The law made nothing perfect" (Heb 7:19); but the Lord says, "I have come not to abolish the law but to fulfill" (Mt 5:17), because He applied the truth to the figures of the Law, explained the moral precepts of the Law properly, removed occasions for transgressing them and even added counsels of perfection. Thus He said to the young man who had kept all the precepts of the Law: "One thing is lacking to you. If you would be perfect, go and sell what you possess and give to the poor" (Mt 19:21). For this reason He said to His disciples: "you must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt 5:48). The second efficacy is that the word is shortening. This is suitably joined to the first efficacy, because the more perfect a word is the more profound it is and, as a consequence, simpler and briefer. Now the word of the Gospel shortens the words of the Law, because it included all the figurative sacrifices of the Law in one true sacrifice, in which Christ offered himself as a victim for us (Eph 5:2). Furthermore, it includes all the moral precepts of the Law in the two precepts of charity: "On these two precepts depend the law and the prophets (Mt 22:40). 400 28 This sentence might also be rendered: "...because nothing of them remain to be fulfilled, which is equitable according to the dictates of natural reason." Hence he says shortening in equity, either because nothing is omitted of the multitude of figures and precepts of the law, but all are included in the brevity of the Gospel; or because nothing remains of them to be observed [but] what is equitable according to the dictates of natural reason:28 "All your commands are equitable" (Ps 118:72). 804. Secondly, (v. 28) he gives the reason for this efficacy, saying: For the Lord upon the earth, i.e., when He lives on earth as man: "Afterwards he was seen upon earth and conversed with men" (Bar 3:38), will execute his word. For the word which the Lord himself spoke in the flesh should be more perfect and powerful than the words He spoke through the prophets, as it says in Heb (1:1): "God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, in these last days he has spoken to us through his Son." 805. Or, in another way: For the Lord, i.e., God the Father, will execute his brief word, i.e., incarnate, because the Son of God emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave. He is called brief, not because anything was subtracted from the fullness or greatness of His divinity, but because He underwent our exile and smallness. 806. Then (v. 29) he cites the texts pertaining specifically to the Apostles, saying: If the Lord of hosts had not left us, namely, in His mercy, seed, i.e., the word of the Gospel: "The seed is the word of God" (Lk 8:11); or seed, i.e., Christ; "And to your seed which is Christ" (Gal 3:16); or seed, i.e., the apostles: "That which shall stand therein shall be a holy seed" (Is 6:13), we would have fared like Sodom and been made like Gomorrah. 401 For the sin of the Jews was greater than that of the men of Sodom: "The iniquity of my people has been greater than the sin of Sodom" (Lam 4:6) and "Your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done" (Ez 16:48). Consequently, it was an act of divine mercy that the Jews were not totally exterminated as were the Sodomites: "The mercies of the Lord that we are not consumed" (Lam 3:22). 807. Then (v. 30) he draws the conclusion from the above. First, with respect to the Gentiles; secondly, with respect to the Jews [v. 31; n. 809]. 808. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he draws his conclusion, saying: What shall we say, then, in the light of the foregoing/ I say it is this, namely, that the Gentiles have attained it, i.e., righteousness, by which they are called sons: "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were justified" (1 Cor. 6:11). And this, indeed, from God's calling ad not from any merits, because he says: The Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness: At that time you were separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel" (Eph 2:12). Secondly, he explains what he calls, righteousness through faith, i.e., not that which consists in works. For the Gentiles were not converted in order to observe the justice of the Law, but to be justified through faith in Christ: "The justice of God through faith in Jesus Christ upon all who believe" (Rom 3:22). 809. Then when he says but Israel, he draws his conclusion as regards the Jews. 402 And first he concludes what he intends, saying: but Israel, i.e., the people of the Jews, who pursued the righteousness based on the law did not succeed in fulfilling the law. The law of righteousness is the law of the Spirit of life through which men are made righteous and which the Jewish people did not attain, although they pursued it by observing the shadow of this spiritual law: "The law has but a shadow of the good things to come" (Heb 10:1). Or who pursued the law of righteousness, i.e., the Law of Moses, which is the law of righteousness, if it is well understood, because it teaches righteousness. Or it is called the law of righteousness, because it does not make men truly, but only outwardly, righteous, as long as sins are avoided not from love but from fear of the punishment the Law inflicted: "Hearken to me, you who pursue that which is righteous and you that seek the Lord" (Is 51:1), "Hearken to me, you that know what is just, my people, who have my law in your heart" (Is 51:7). 810. Secondly, he states the cause, saying, Why? Because they did not observe the Law in the proper way. And this is what he says: Because they did not pursue it through faith, i.e., they sought to be made righteous not through faith in Christ but as if it were based on works. For they followed the figure and repudiated the truth: "For by the words of the law no human being shall be justified before him" (Rom 3:20). 811. Thirdly, he explains the cause assigned: "first, he presents the explanation, saying: They have stumbled over the stumbling-stone, i.e., Christ, Who is likened to a stumbling-stone; for just as a stone against which a man stumbles is not guarded against 403 because it is small, so the Jews, seeing Christ clothed with our weakness, did not guard against stumbling over Him: "His look was as it were hidden and despised. Whereupon we esteemed him not" (Is 53:3); "Before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains" (Jer 13:16), i.e., upon Christ and His apostles who are called dark mountains, because their great dignity is hidden. 812. Secondly, he cites an authority for this, saying: As it is written, namely, in Isaiah. Here the Apostle gathers together the words of Isaiah found in various places. For it says in Is (28:16): "behold, I will lay a stone in the foundations of Zion, a tried stone, a corner stone, a precious stone, founded in the foundation." From this he takes the first part of his quotation: Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, i.e., as a foundation, by which is meant that by divine command Christ was established as the foundation of the Church: "For no other foundation can anyone lay that that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 3:11). Again it says in Is (8:14): "He shall be for a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence to the two houses of Israel." He uses this in the middle of the quotation where he says: A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall. Here the stumbling refers to their ignorance, because it says in 1 Cor (2:8): "if they had known this, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"; but the falling refers to their unbelief by reason of which they persecuted Christ and his apostles: "We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews" (1Cor 1:23); "Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel" (Lk 2:34). The end of the quotation is taken from Is (28:16): "He that believes, let him not hasten." In place of this he says: He who believes in him will not be put to shame, namely, 404 because he will receive a reward from Him: "Ye that fear the Lord, hope in him: and your reward shall not be made void" (Si 2:8).

After showing how the Gentiles have been called to faith by the election of God's grace and also some of the Jews, i.e., a minority who did not stumble and fall [n. 735], the Apostle now discusses in more detail the fall of the Jews. In regard to this he does three things: first, he explains the cause of their fall, over which he laments; secondly, he shows that their fall is not universal, in chapter 11 [n. 859]; thirdly, that it is neither unprofitable nor irreparable [11:11; n. 878]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that their fall is lamentable, considering its cause; secondly, that it is not wholly inexcusable [v. 18; n. 845]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that he feels pity for the Jews; secondly, the cause of his pity [v. 2; n. 815]. 814. First, therefore, he says: I have said that the Jews have not attained the law of righteousness, because they stumbled over the stumbling-block. But I am not indignant against them; rather, I feel compassion. And, therefore, I say to you, brethren, whether you be converts from the Gentiles or from the Jews: "You are all brethren" (Mt 23:8), my heart's desire is for their salvation, namely, that they be saved, as I have been saved: "I wish that all were as I myself am" (1 Cor 7:7); " would to God that all who hear me this day might become such as I am" (Ac 26:29). In this he was conformed to God, "Who desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim 2:4). Not only his will but his prayer were directed to their salvation, but even the affection of his will, hence, he adds: and y prayer for them is that they may be saved: 407 "Far be it from me that I should sin against the Lord by ceasing to pray for you" (1 Sam 12:23); "Pray for one another that you may be saved" (Jan 5:16). This makes it clear that we should pray for unbelievers that they may be saved, because faith is a gift from God: "By grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8). 815. Then when he says, I bear them witness, he discloses the cause of his compassion, namely, because they sinned from ignorance, not from set malice. In regard to this he does three thing. First, he cites their ignorance; secondly, he shows the area of their ignorance [v. 3; 817]; thirdly, he proves the truth of those matters about which they were ignorant [v. 5; n. 820]. 816. First, therefore, he says: I desire and pray for their salvation and I grieve for them, because I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, i.e., out of zeal for God they persecute Christ and His members: "The hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God" (Jn 16:2). He is a good witness to this, because he himself had once been in a similar state of mind: "As to zeal a persecutor of the Church" (Phil 3:6), but not according to knowledge, namely, because their zeal was not guided by correct knowledge as long as they were ignorant of the truth: "Therefore, my people go into exile for want of knowledge" (Is 5:13); "If anyone does not recognize this, he will not be recognized" (I Cor 14:38). 817. Then when he says, For, being ignorant, he shows wherein they were ignorant: 408 first, he makes his statement; secondly, he explains it [v. 4; n. 819]. 818. First, therefore, he says: I am right in saying that it was not according to knowledge; for being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, i.e., by which God justifies them through faith: "The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" (Rom 3:22), and seeking to establish their own righteousness, which consists in the works of the Law, which in their opinion awaited nothing from God but depended solely on the decision of the performer. Consequently, he describes their righteousness as human and not divine, as he says above (12:2): "If Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about" before men, "But not before God." For they did not submit to God's righteousness, i.e., they refused to be subject to Christ through faith in whom men are made just by God: "Only in God is my soul at rest" (Ps 63:1); "That the whole world may be subject to God" (Rom 3:19); "How long do you refuse to submit to me?" (Ex 10:3). 819. Then when he says, Christ is the end of the law, he explains what he had said, namely, that they are ignorant of God's righteousness and refuse to submit to Him, while they seek to establish their own righteousness based on the Law. In regard to this it should be noted that, even as the philosophers say, the intention of any lawgiver is to make men virtuous: much more, then, the Old Law given by God to men was directed toward making men virtuous. But the Law was unable to do this of itself, because "the law made nothing perfect" (Heb 7:19); rather, it ordained men to Christ Whom it promised and prefigured: 409 "The law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might justified by faith" (Gal 3:24). And that is what he says, namely, that the end of the law is Christ, to whom the whole Law is ordained: "I have seen the end of all perfection" (Ps 119:96); the end that through Christ men may attain the righteousness the Law intended: "For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, he condemned sin in the flesh in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us" (Rom 8:3-4). And this to everyone that has faith, because he justified his own by faith: "To all who believed in his name he gave power to become children of God" (Jn 1:12). 820. Then when he says, Moses writes, he proves the truth of those things about which the Jew were ignorant, namely, that God's righteousness is more perfect than that of the Law; and this he shows on the authority of Moses, the lawgiver of the Old Law. First therefore he shows by his words the condition of legal justice; Second, he shows the condition of the justice of faith [n. 823]. 821. First, therefore, he says: I have correctly distinguished human righteousness from God's righteousness, for Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on the law shall live by it, where my text has: "Keep my laws and judgments, which if a man do, he shall live in them" and (Ez 20:13): "They cast away my judgments, which if a man do, he shall live in them," namely, because by observing the Law a man obtained the advantage of not being killed as a transgressor of the Law: "A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy" (Heb 10:28); "Everyone who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death" (Lev 20:9), and so on for the other commandments. 410 822. We can also say that by observing the Law a man was regulated in the present life, for the Law promised temporal goods and commanded things "which were bodily regulations imposed until a time of reformation" (Heb 9:10). But all this seems contrary to what the Lord answered the person asking Him: "What good deed must I do to have eternal life?" (Mt 19:16); for He answered: "If you would enter life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17). Hence, a Gloss on Romans (5:20): "Law came in," says that righteousness based on the Law conferred not only temporal benefits but also eternal life. But Christ's words must be understood according to the spiritual sense of the Law, a sense which refers to faith in Him. But Paul's words refer to the inward sense of the Law according to which the Law makes no mention of eternal life. 823. Then when he says, But the righteousness based on faith, he quotes Moses on righteousness based on faith. First, Moses shows the certitude of faith which ought to be in man's heart; secondly, the effect of faith [v. 8; n. 826]. 824. First, therefore, he says: Moses speaks not only of the righteousness based on the Law, but also of that based on faith. But the righteousness based on faith says, i.e., speaks thus in a man's heart: "Who ascends into heaven and descends?" (Pr 30:4). Who will ascend into heaven? For to hold that this is impossible is to bring Christ down from heaven, i.e., to assert that Christ is not in heaven, which is against what it says in Jn (3:13): "No one has ascended into heaven but the Son of man who descended from heaven. 411 Or again do not say, "Who will descend into the abyss? i.e., into hell, as though considering this impossible; for to deny this is to bring Christ up from the dead, i.e., to deny that Christ died. For after dying He descended into the abyss: "I will penetrate to all the lower parts of the earth" (Sir 24:41). 825. This explanation prevents any doubt about two articles of Christian faith, namely Christ's ascension and his death and descent into hell, the first of which pertains to his supreme exaltation and the second to his lowest humiliations. But it can be explained in another way as giving us certainty about tow other articles: first, the incarnation, in which He descended from heaven to earth. Then the sense is: Do not say in your heart: "Who will ascend into heaven to bring Christ down?" As if to say: This was not necessary, because He came down of His own power. Secondly, of the resurrection, when he continues: Or do not say: "Who will descend into the abyss to bring Christ up from the dead?" as if to say: He descended there, so that he might call Christ thence, as is said in the person of the fool in Wis 2(:1), "No man has been known to return from hell." This explanation accords with the words of Moses in Dt (30:11): "This commandment that I command you this day is not above you, nor far off from you. Nor is it in heaven, that you should say: 'Which of us can go up to heaven to bring it to us?'" Nor is it unseemly, if the Apostle attributes to Christ what Moses said of the commandments of the Law; because Christ is the Word of God in which are all God's commandments. Therefore, one must interpret what he is saying, namely, Who will ascend into heaven to bring Christ down? as if he were saying: "Who can ascend into heaven to bring God's word to us?" and the same must be said in the other which follows. 412 826. Then when he says, But what does the Scripture say, he shows the fruit of faith on the same authority: first, he quotes the authority; secondly, he explains [v. 8b; n. 829]; thirdly, he proves that the explanation is fitting [v. 9; n. 830]. 827. First, therefore he says: But what does the Scripture say? It says this: The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart. For this is what follows after the aforementioned words in Deuteronomy (30:14): The word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart. As if to say: do not suppose that you are lacking the word of justifying faith, just because Christ is in heaven according to His divine nature and descended into hell after the death of His human nature. For in descending from heaven and rising from the dead, He impressed the word of faith on your lips and in your heart. 828. Hence the statement that the word is near you can be referred to the fact that we have obtained God's word through Christ's birth and resurrection: "It was declared at first by the Lord" (Heb 2:3); "Behold, I have given my words in your mouth" (Jer 1:9). Or, according to the Gloss, the word near should be understood with reference to usefulness, as we say something is "near" us when it is expedient or useful to us. For our heart is cleansed by the word of God: "Now you are clean because of the word which I have spoken to you" (John 15:3). Or it can be referred to the fact that the words of faith, even though they are above reason: "I have given my words in your mouth" (Jer 1:9). "Many things are shown to thee 413 above the understanding of men" (Sir 3:25) but they are not contrary to reason, because truth cannot be contrary to truth. "Thy decrees are very sure" (Ps. 93:5). 829. Then when he says, This is the word, he explains the above words. First, he shows what that word is about which Moses speaks, saying, This is the word of faith which we preach. "Preach the word" (2 Tim 4:2); "He that has my word, let him speak my word with truth" (Jer 23:28). Secondly, he explains how this word is on the lips by confession and in the heart by faith. And this is what he says" confess with your lips that Jesus Christ is Lord, i.e., recognize Him as Lord by submitting your will to Him; and believe in your heart with complete faith which works through love, that God raised him from the dead, because, as it says in 2 Cor (13:4): "He rose by the power of God," which is common to Him and to the Father, you will be saved: "Israel is saved in the Lord with an eternal salvation" (Is 45:17). When he says, Jesus is Lord, he is referring to the mystery of the incarnation; when he says, Christ, the reference is to the resurrection.

After explaining that confession on the lips and faith in the heart work salvation, the Apostle proves what he had said, setting out an example of this in two points which Moses seems to mention [n. 826], here he proves what he had said in the universal. And concerning this he does three things. First, he shows that by faith and confession of faith man obtains salvation; secondly, he lays down the order of salvation [v. 14; n. 835]; thirdly, he draws the conclusion [v. 17; n. 844]. 831. In regard to the first he does three things [n. 833, 834]. First, he presents his proposition, saying: I am correct in saying that if you confess with your lips and believe in your heart, you will be saved; for man believes with his heart and so is justified, i.e. he believes in order that he may obtain righteousness through faith: "Since we are justified through faith" (Rom 5:1). 415 Notice that he says man believes with his heart, i.e., his will, because man cannot believe, unless he wills. For the intellect of the believer, unlike that of the philosopher, does not assent to the truth as though compelled by force of reason; rather, he is moved to assent by the will, therefore, knowing does not pertain to man's righteousness, which is in the will, but to the belief: "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as justice" (Gen 15:6). But after he has been justified by faith, it is required that his faith work through love, in order to achieve salvation. Hence, he adds: he confesses with his lips unto salvation, i.e., to reach eternal salvation. 832. Three kinds of confession are necessary for salvation. First, the confession of one's own iniquity: "I said: 'I will confess my transgressions to the Lord'" (Ps 32:5), which is the confession of the repentant. The second is that by which a man confesses the goodness of God mercifully bestowing His benefits: "Sing to the Lord a new song, for he has done marvelous things: (Ps 98:11) and this is the confession of one giving thanks. The third is the confession of divine truth: "Every one who confesses me before men, I will also confess before my Father who is in heaven" (Mt 10:32) and this is the confession of the believer, about which the Apostle is now speaking. This confession is necessary for salvation, depending on circumstances of place and time, namely when one's faith is demanded, namely, by a persecutor of the faith, as when the faith is endangered by an alien [belief]. Prelates especially ought to preach the faith to their subjects. Therefore, the baptized are anointed on the forehead with chrism in the form of a cross, so that they will not be ashamed to confess Christ crucified: "I am not 416 ashamed of the gospel" (Rom 1:16). What is said about confessing the faith applies to all virtuous acts necessary for salvation according to circumstances of time and place. for the precepts commanding the performance of these acts oblige us always but not for every moment of the day. 833. Secondly, he proves his proposition with an authority when he says: For the Scripture, namely (Is 28:16) says: No one who believes in him with living faith will be put to shame, i.e., miss salvation: "Ye that fear the Lord, believe him: and your reward shall not be made void" (Sir 2:8). But our text has: "He who believes will not be in haste," as was said above. 834. Thirdly, when he says, there is no distinction, he shows that this applies to all men. First, he asserts that in this matter there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: "Here there cannot be Greek and Jew circumcised and uncircumcised" (Col 3:11). Secondly, he proves this with two reasons. The first is based on the fact that the same lord is lord of all; consequently, he provides for the salvation of all. The second is based on the fact that He bestows his riches upon all who call on him. For if His riches were not sufficient to supply for all, one might suppose that He could not provide for all believer. However, the riches of His goodness and mercy are inexhaustible "Or do you presume upon the riches of his goodness?" (Rom 2:4); "God, who is rich in mercy" (Eph 2:4). Thirdly, he proves the same thing on the authority of Joel (2:32): Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. This is done by calling on Him through love and devout worship: "When he calls on me, I will answer him" (Ps 91:15). 417 835. Then when he says, But how are men to call upon him, he presents the order in which one is called to salvation, which is from faith. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows that the later steps in this order cannot occur without the earlier; secondly, he shows that after the earlier steps have been taken, the later do not necessarily follow [v. 16; n. 842]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he presents the order of things required for salvation; secondly, he supports what he had supposed [v. 15b; n. 839]. 836. First, therefore, he presents five things in order, beginning with the step which calls upon God. Therefore, he says: How are they to call upon him in whom they have not believed? As if to say: It is certainly true that unless faith is present, one cannot call on God to save him. This calling upon God pertains to confession with the lips, which proceed from faith in the heart: "We believed, and so we spoke" (1 Cor 4:13). 837. Secondly, he moves from faith to hearing when he adds: and how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? For one is said to believe things which are said to him by others and which he does not see: "It is no longer because of your words that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world" (Jn 4:42). But hearing is twofold: one is internal, by which one hears form God revealing: "Let me hear what God the Lord will speak" (Ps 85:8); the other is that by which 418 someone hears another man speaking in his presence: "While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word" (Ac 10:44). The first kind of hearing pertains to the grace of prophecy, which is given to certain definite persons, but not to all, as it says in 1 Cor (12:4): "There are varieties of gifts." But because he is now speaking of something that can pertain to all without distinction, it is the second kind of hearing that he has in mind. That is why he adds: and how are they to hear without a preacher? For outward hearing in the listener cannot occur without an action of the speaker. This is why the Lord commanded the disciples: "Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mt 28:19). But preachers do not possess the truths of faith of themselves but from God: "What I have heard from the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, I announce to you" (Is 21:10); "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you" (1 Cor 11:23). Therefore, he adds: and how can men preach unless they are sent? As if to say: worthily: "I did not send the prophets, yet they ran" (Jer 23:21). 838. But some are sent by the Lord in two ways. In one way, immediately by God Himself through internal inspiration: "And now the Lord God has sent me and his Spirit" (Jer 48:16). Sometimes the sign of this sending is the authority of Holy Scripture; hence, when John the Baptist was asked who he was, he invoked the authority of a prophet: "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, "Make straight the way of the Lord, as the prophet Isaiah said'" (Jn 1:23). Sometimes it is the truth of what is announced. Hence, in contrast to this it says in Dt (18:22): "When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the words does not come to pass of come true, 419 that is a word which the Lord has not spoken." Sometimes the sign of this sending is the working of a miracle. Hence it says in Ex (4:1) that when Moses said to the Lord: "They will not believe me or listen to my voice," the Lord gave him power to perform signs. Nevertheless, the last two are not sufficient proof of a divine mission, especially when someone says something contrary to the faith. For it says in Dt (13:1): "If a prophet arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder comes to pass, and if he says, "Let us go after other gods," you shall not listen to the words of that prophet." Secondly, some are sent by God mediately on the authority of prelates, who take God's place: "With him we are sending the brother who is famous among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel" (2 Cor 8:18). 839. Then when he says, As it is written, he quotes an authority to prove what he had said about the need for preachers to be sent. He says As it is written, namely, in Is (52:7): how beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news! Here our text has How beautiful on the mountain are the feet of those who preach and announce peace, announcing good. And something similar is found in Nahum (1:15): "Behold on the mountains the feet of those who evangelize and announce peace." 840. In these words, first, the procedure of the preachers in commended when he says, how beautiful are the feet. This can be interpreted in two ways: in one way, so that by feet is understood their procedure, namely, because they proceed according to due order, not usurping the office of preachers: "How graceful are your feet in sandals, O queenly maiden!" ( Song 7:1). 420 In another way, by feet are understood their affections which are right, as long as they announce God's word not with the intention of praise or gain but for the salvation of men and the glory of God: "Their feet were straight" (Ez 1:7). 841. Secondly, he touches on the preacher's subject matter, which is twofold. For they preach things useful for the present life. These he designates when he says, who preach peace, which is of three kinds. First, they announce the peace which Christ made between men and God: "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, entrusting to us the word of reconciliation" (2 Cor 5:19). Secondly, he announces peace to be had with all men: "If possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all" (Rom 12:18). Thirdly, they announce the way a man can have peace within himself: "Much peace to them that love your law" (Ps 119:165). Under these three are contained everything useful in this life for salvation with respect to God, to ones neighbor and oneself. They also preach the things we hope to have in the other life. In regard to these he says, preaching good things: "He will set him over all his goods" (Lk 12:44). 842. Then when he says, But they have not all heeded, he shows that the later steps do not always follow. For although one cannot believe, unless he hears the word of the preacher, nevertheless, not everyone who hears believes; and this is what he says: But they have not all heeded the gospel: "Not all have faith" (2 Th 3:2). He says this to show that the outwardly spoken word of the preacher is not sufficient to cause faith, unless a man's heart is attracted inwardly by the power of God 421 29 Thomas comments in this paragraph on the Latin phrase auditui nostro, which could be translated in both of the ways he mentions. The ambiguity is difficult to reproduce in translation. speaking: "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me" (Jn 6:45). Consequently, if men believe, it should not be attributed to the industry of the preacher. It also shows that not all unbelievers are excused from sin, but those who do not hear: "If I had not come and spoken to them they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin" (Jn 15:22). And this is more consonant with what the Apostle will say further on. 843. Secondly, he cites his authority for this, when he says: for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he had heard from us?" As if to say: A few; "Thou art among unbelievers and destroyers" (Ez 2:6); "For I have become as one who gleans in autumn the grapes of the vintage" (Mic 7:1). Isaiah said this because he foresaw the future unbelief of the Jews: "With a great spirit he saw the last things" (Sir 48:27). And he says what he had heard from us, referring either to what they heard from God, as is said in Obadiah 5(:1), "We have heard a heard thing from the Lord, and sent messengers to the nations"; or referring to what men heard from the apostles: "They heard your words, and they did not do them" (Ez 33:32).29 844. Then when he says, faith comes from hearing, he draws his conclusion from the foregoing, saying: Therefore, since they do not believe unless they hear, faith comes from hearing: "As soon as they heard of me they obeyed me" (Ps 18:44). But if faith comes from hearing, how can it be a divinely infused virtue? The answer is that two things are required for faith: one is the inclining of the heart to believe; and this does not come from hearing, but from the gift of grace; the other is a decision about what to believe and comes from hearing. Thus, Cornelius whose heart 422 was inclined toward belief, needed Peter to be sent to him to point out what he should believe. From the fact that they do not hear without a preacher who must be sent (v. 14), he concludes that what is heard by believers is the word of the preacher, which is the word of Christ; either because it is about Christ: "We preach Christ" (1 Cor 1:23), or because they have been sent by Christ: "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you" (1 Cor 11:23).

After showing that the fall of the Jews is pitiable, because they sinned from ignorance [n. 813], here the Apostle shows that their fall is not entirely excusable; because their ignorance was not invincible or rooted in necessity, but somehow voluntary. 423 He shows this in two ways. First, because they heard the teaching of the apostles; secondly, from what they knew from the teachings of the Law and of the prophets [v. 19; n. 850]. 846. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he asks a question, saying: We have said that faith comes from hearing and that men cannot believe a person whom they have not heard. But I ask, have they not heard? so as to be totally excused for their unbelief, according to what is said in Jn (15:22): "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin." 847. Secondly, he answers the question by interjecting the authority of Ps (19:4): Their voice has gone out to all the earth; i.e., the voice of the apostles whose fame has reached every land, both of Jews and of Gentiles: "Destruction and death have said" with our ears we have heard the fame thereof" (Jb 28:22), namely, the wisdom preached by the apostles. For the Lord had commanded them: "Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mt 28:19). And their words, i.e., their distinctive message, has gone out to the ends of the world: "From the ends of the earth we have heard praises" (Is 24:!6),; "I have given thee to be the light of the Gentiles, to be my salvation even to the farthest part of the earth" (Is 49:6). 848. It should be noted that, according to Augustine, these words had not yet been fulfilled when the Apostle spoke them, but he foresaw that they would be fulfilled. So he uses the past for the future, because divine pr-ordination is certain of fulfillment; For David, whose words he employed, also used the past for the future. Augustine said this, 424 because even in his own day there were certain parts of Africa where the faith of Christ had not been preached. Chrysostom, on the other hand, says that what is said here had been fulfilled in the time of the apostles. He draws this from Mt 24(:14), "And this gospel must be preached in the whole world, and then will come the consummation," i.e., the destruction of Jerusalem. Each is correct in his own way. For in the days of the apostles some report about their preaching had reached all nations, even to the ends of the world, at least through their disciples and even through the apostles themselves. For Matthew preached in Ethiopia, Thomas in India, Peter and Paul in the west. And this is what Chrysostom means. However, during the times of the apostles it had not be fulfilled in such a way that the Church had been built up in all nations, but it would be fulfilled before the end of the world, as Augustine says. Yet Chrysostom's explanation is more in keeping with the Apostle's intention that is Augustine's. For the basic excuse of their unbelief is not undercut by the fact that these unbelievers would hear something in the future. However, this does not imply that a report of the apostles' preaching had reached every individual, although it had reached all nations. 849. Does this mean that those it has not reached, for example if they were raised in the jungle, have an excuse for their sin of unbelief? The answer is that according to the Lord's statement (Jn 15:22) those who have not heard the Lord speaking either in person or through his disciples are excused from the sin of unbelief. However, they will not obtain God's blessing, namely, removal of original 425 sin or any sin added by leading an evil life; for these, they are deservedly condemned. But if any of them did what was in his power, the Lord would provide for him according to his mercy by sending a preacher of the faith as he sent Peter to Cornelius and Paul into Macedonia. Nevertheless, the fact that they do what is in their power, namely, by turning to God, proceeds from God's moving their hearts to the good: "Turn us to thee, O Lord, that we may be turned" (Lam 5:19). 850. Then when he says, Again I ask, did not Israel understand? he shows that they were inexcusable, because of the knowledge they had from the Law and the prophets. First, he raises the question, saying: But I ask, did Israel, i.e., the Jewish people, not know the things which pertain to the mystery of Christ and to the calling of the Gentiles and the fall of the Jews? They knew fully: "Instructed by the law" (Rom 2:18); "He has not dealt thus with another nation" (Ps 147:20); "We are happy, O Israel, because the things that are pleasing to God are made known to us" (Bar 4:4). Secondly, he says, First Moses says, he answers the question and shows that they did know: first, through the teaching of the Law, saying: First Moses, who is the lawgiver. He says, first, because Moses was the chief teacher of the Jews: "There has not risen a prophet since in Israel like Moses" (Dr 34:12) or because he was the first among others to say this. I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation, with a foolish nation I will make you angry. Here our text has this (Dt 32:21): "I will provoke them by that which is not a people and by a foolish nation I will anger them." 851. Two differences should be noted here [n. 852]. 426 30 Aquinas’s interpretation here moves from non gens ("not a nation") to non gentiliter vivens ("not living in a Gentile manner"). The first in regard to Gentiles, since he says, not a nation, as though unworthy to be called a nation, because the Gentiles were not united in the worship of one god: "There are two nations which my soul abhors, and the third is no nation, which I hate" (Si 50:27). But he called the same nation a foolish nation. If in some sense it could be called a nation, inasmuch it is united and governed by human law, it is, nevertheless, called foolish, as though lacking true wisdom, which consists in the knowledge and worship of God: "You must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds; they are darkened in their minds, alienated from the life of God" (Eph 4:17). And in this way it refers to the Gentiles, namely in their state before conversion. These two things can also be applied to the Gentiles after conversion. They are called not a nation, i.e., not living in a gentile manner,30 as the Apostle says in the same place (Eph 4:17). And converted Gentiles are also called foolish by those who do not believe: "If anyone among you seems to be wise in this world, let him become foolish that he may be wise" (1Cor 3:18). 852. The second difference consists in the fact that he first mentions the jealous, i.e. the envy with which the Jews envied the converted Gentiles: "They make much of you, but for no good purpose" (Gal 4:17); secondly, he mentions the anger with which they were irked against them: "The wicked man makes plots against the just man, and gnashes his teeth at him" (Ps 37:12). These two are fittingly joined, because from envy springs anger: "Anger kills the foolish, and envy slays the little one" (Jb 5:2). 427 But God is said to produce jealousy and stir to anger, not by causing the malice in them but by withdrawing grace, or rather by effecting the conversion of the Gentiles from which the Jews take occasion for jealousy and anger. 853. Secondly, he shows that they knew through the teaching of the prophets, and first he quotes Isaiah as foretelling the conversion of the Gentiles, saying: Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, i.e., Isaiah boldly declares the truth, although this would put him in danger of death: "He goes forth boldly to meet armed men" (Job 39:21). Isaiah says: I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself plainly to those who did not ask for me; here our text has "They have sought me that before asked not for me, they have found me that sought me not" (Is 65:1). 854. He mentions first the conversion of the Gentiles, saying I have been found by those who did not seek me. This shows that the conversion of the Gentiles was beyond their merits and intention: "Christ became a servant in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy" (Rom 15:9). About this finding Mt (13:44) says: "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure in a field, which a man found..." Secondly, he shows the cause and manner of their conversion. The cause, indeed, because it was not by chance that they found what they were not seeking but by the grace of Him Who willed to appear to them. This is indicated, when he says: He showed himself; "The grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men" (*** 2:11). The manner was that Christ did not appear to the Gentiles in the enigmas and figures of the Law but in plain truth; hence he says: I have shown myself plainly to them, 428 i.e., the Gentiles, who did not ask for me, i.e., who did not ask for my doctrine: "They keep on praying to a god that cannot save" (Is 45:20). 855. Then he shows that Isaiah foretold the unbelief of the Jews, saying: But of Israel, i.e., against Israel, he says, All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people. Here our text has this: "I have spread forth my hands all the day to an unbelieving people, who walk in a way that is not good after their own thoughts. A people that continually provoke me to anger" (Is 65:2-3a). 856. That he says, I have held out my hands, can be understood of Christ's hands held out on the cross, which are said to have been held out all day long, i.e., the principal part of a whole day, namely, from the sixth hour until evening. And although during that time the sun was darkened, the rocks rent, and the graves opened, the Jews persisted in their unbelief, blaspheming him, as it says in Mt 28(:39). Hence he adds a people who do not believe, but contradict me: "Consider him who endured such contradiction against himself from sinners" (Heb 12:3). 857. In another way, it can be taken as referring to God stretching out his hands to do miracles: "When you stretch our your hand to cures and signs and prodigies to be worked through the holy name of your son Jesus." The meaning then would be: All the day, i.e., through the whole time of my preaching, I have stretched out my hands, by working miracles, to a people who do not believe, even when they see miracles: "If I had not done the works which no other man has done, they would not have sin" (John 15:24); but contradict me, i.e., slander my miracles, in accord with Mt 12(:24), "By Beelzebub, the prince of demons, he casts out demons"; "Your people are like those who contradict a priest" (Hos 4:4). 429 858. Thirdly, it can be understood of God stretching out his hands to give benefits to his people, in accord with Pr 1:24: "I stretched out my hands, and there was none who paid attention." The meaning would then be: All the day, i.e., through the whole time of the Law and the prophets, I stretched out my hands to give benefits to a people who do not believe but contradict me: "Always you have been rebellious against the Lord" (Dt 31:27).

After showing that the fall of the Jews is deplorable, though not entirely excusable [n. 813], the Apostle now shows that it is not universal. First, he raises a question; secondly, he answer it [v. 1b; n. 861]; thirdly, he draws a conclusion [v. 7; n. 872]. 860. First, therefore, he says: I ask then, has God rejected his people? i.e., the Jews, because he calls them unbelieving and contrary. Even the Psalmist asks: "O God, why dost thou cast us for ever?" (Ps 74:1; "The Lord has scorned his altar" (Lam 2:7). 861. Then when he says, By no means, he answers the question and shows that God has not totally rejected the Jewish people. And this is what he says: By no means has the Jewish people been rejected in its entirety. He proves this, first of all, with respect to himself, saying: I myself, living in the faith of Christ, am an Israelite by race: "are they Israelites? So am I" (2 Cor 11:22). And because there were among the people of Israel some proselytes not descended in the flesh from the patriarchs, he says that this is not so of him, adding: a descendant of Abraham: "Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I" (2 Cor 11:23). Furthermore, among the Jewish people the tribes were distinguished according to the sons of Jacob, some of whom were sons of slaves and some of wives. Joseph and Benjamin were sons of Rachel, Jacob's fondest wife. Hence he shows his eminence among the Jewish people, saying: a member of the tribe of Benjamin: "Of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin" (Phil 3:5). Hence, some apply to Paul what is in Gen (49:27): "Benjamin is a ravenous wolf, in the morning devouring the prey, and at evening dividing the spoil." 432 862. Secondly, when he says: God has not rejected, he shows that his people has not been rejected by God in regard to many chosen ones. First, he states is proposition; secondly, he recalls a similar situation [v. 2b; n. 864]; thirdly, he adapts it [v. 5; n. 871]. 863. First, therefore, he says: Not only have I not been rejected, but God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew, i.e., the predestined ones: "For the Lord will not reject his people" (Ps 94:14). The Apostle applies this to the predestined. 864. Then when he says, Do you not know, he recalls a similar situation which occurred during the time of Elijah, when all the people seemed to have turned from the worship of the one God. First, he presents Elijah's plea; secondly, the Lord's reply [v. 4; n. 870]. 865. First, therefore, he says: Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, i.e., in the book written about Elijah? For the entire Book of Kings was written mainly to make known the saying and deeds of the Prophets. That is why it is counted among the prophetic books, as Jerome says. How he pleads with God against Israel. 866. The word of Samuel seems to be contrary to this when he says: "Far from me be this sin against the Lord, that I should cease to pray for you" (1 Sam 12:23). Much less, then, should one intervene against the people. But it should be noted that prophets intervene against the people in three ways: in one way by conforming their wills to the divine will revealed to them, as it says in Ps (58:10): "The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance." In another way by 433 intervening against the kingdom of sin, in order that men's sins but not men be destroyed. In a third way that the intervention or prayer be construed as a denunciation, as in Jer (17:18): "Let them that persecute me be confounded," i.e., they will be confounded. 867. In this intervention Isaiah alleges two things against them. First, the impiety they committed against the worship of god. First, by persecuting His ministers, to which he refers when he says: Lord, they have killed thy prophets: "Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute?" (Ac 7:52); "Has it not been told my lord what I did when Jezebel killed the prophets of the Lord" (1 Kings 18:13). Secondly, impiety against God's holy places, as it says in Ps (74:7): "They set they sanctuary on fire." In regard to this he says: They have demolished thy altars. 868. Here it should be noted what the Lord commanded, saying: "You shall seek the place which the Lord your God will choose out of all your tribes to put his name and make hi habitation there; thither you shall go, and thither you shall bring your burnt offerings and sacrifices" (Dt 12:5-6). However, before the temples was built, the people were allowed to build altars in various places for divine worship; but because this became illegal after the temple had been built, the pious king Hezekiah destroyed all such altars. And that is what it says in 2 Kgs (18:220 "Is it not he whose high places and altars Hezekiah has removed, saying to Judah and to Jerusalem, 'You shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem'?" Therefore, what Hezekiah did in a spirit of piety, Achab and Jezebel did in a spirit of impiety in their desire to root out the worship of God entirely. 869. Thirdly [cf. n. 867], he alleges against them the impiety they intended to do, saying: and I alone am left, namely, to worship the one God, because the rest did not show very clearly that they were God's worshippers: and they seek my life. For Jezebel 434 had sent word to Elijah, saying: "so may the gods do to me, if I do not make your life as the life of one of them (1Kgs 19:2), namely of the prophets of Baal whom Elijah had killed. 870. Then he gives the divine reply, saying: But what is God's reply to him, i.e., to Elijah. It is this: I have kept for myself, i.e., for my worship by not permitting them to fall into sin, seven thousand men (this definite number is put in place of the uncertain number, because seen and thousand are perfect numbers), who have not bowed the knee to Baal, i.e. who have not abandoned the worship of God: "All who call on my name, whom I created for my glory" (Is 43:17). 871. Then when he says, So, too, at the present time, he adapts all this to the present situation. First, he sets out the adaptation, saying: So, too, at the present time, in which a multitude of people seems to have gone astray, there is a remnant chosen by grace, saved according to the choice of God's grace: "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you" (Jn 15:16). Secondly, he draws the conclusion from this: But if it is by grace that they have been saved, it is no longer on the basis of works: "He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy" (*** 3:5). Thirdly, that this conclusion follows from the premises is shown when he says: Otherwise, i.e., if grace is in virtue of works, grace would no loner be grace, for it is given gratis: "The free gift of righteousness through his grace" (Rom 5:17). 872. Then when he says, What then, he draws the conclusion he intended. 435 And first he sets it out, saying What then shall we say follows from what has been said? This, namely, that Israel, as far as the greater part of its people was concerned, failed to obtain what it sought, namely, righteousness. This is the way one must interpret what was said above (9:31): "But Israel whop pursued the righteousness based on the law did not attain it." Nevertheless, the elect of the Jews obtained it: "He chose us in him, that we should be holy" (Eph 1:4). But the rest were hardened because of their malice: "Their own malice blinded them" (Wis 1:22) 873. Then when he says, As it is written, he clarifies the first part of the conclusion: first, on the authority of Isaiah; secondly, of David [v. 9; n. 876]. 874. In regard to the first it should be noted that the Apostle bases himself on two passages from Isaiah. For it says in Is (29:10): "The Lord has poured out upon you a spirit of deep sleep." In regard to this he says: God gave them a spirit of compunction, which has to do with a perversity of emotion. For compunction implies a puncturing of the heart or sorrow. Hence there is good compunction by which ones grieves over his own sins, as it says in Ps 60(:3), "You have made us drunk with the wine of compunction." There is also evil compunction, i.e., the compunction of envy, by which one grieves over the goods of another. Therefore God gave them this spirit of compunction, i.e., envy, not by instilling malice but by withdrawing grace, as was said above (10:19): "I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation." 436 875. Likewise it says in Is (6:10): "Male the heart of this people fat, and their eyes heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears." In this vein he designates their weakened power of knowing, when he adds: eyes that should not see the miracles which Christ performed in their presence, and ears that should not hear fruitfully the teachings of Christ and the apostle: "He sees many things but does not observe then, his ears are open, but he does not hear" (Is 42:20). To this the Apostle adds on his own: down to this very day, because they will see and hear at the end of the world, when the hearts of the children will be converted to the hearts of their fathers, as it says in Mal (4:5). 876. Then when hey says, And David says, he presents the authority of David on the same point. First, he touches on the things which occasioned the fall of the Jews, saying" Let their table, i.e. the malice with which sinners are nourished: "Though wickedness is sweet in his mouth, though he hides it under his tongue" (Jb 20:12). This table is before them, when they sin from malice aforethought and it becomes a snare, i.e., a temptation to sin: "He who combs out of the pit shall be caught in the snare: (Is 24:18) and a trap, when they succumb to the pleasure of the temptation: "They shall be trapped and taken" (Is 8:15) and a pitfall, when they fall from one sin into another: "Much peace to those who love your law, and it is not a pitfall to them" (Ps 119:165) and a retribution for them, namely, when they will be punished for their sins. Or because they very fact that God permits them so to fall is itself a retribution for their sins: "Render to the proud their deserts" (Ps 94:2). 437 Or the table is the Sacred Scripture put before the Jews: "She has set forth her table" (Pr 9:2). It becomes a snare, when something ambiguous occurs; a trap, when it is not correctly understood, a pitfall, when it falls into obstinate error; and a retribution , as explained above. 877. Secondly, he mentions the weakening of their power to understand when he says: let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, which is said more as a prediction then as a desire; and their backs, i.e., free choice, which carries something for good or for evil, bend forever, i.e., bend from eternal things to temporal things, from the path of justice to iniquity: "Bow down, that we may pass over" (Is 51:23).