Fragmenta in epistulam ad Romanos

For all things are servants of Christ, and He Himself is the master of all. Therefore, having first named himself His servant, he thus leads the rest also to this. But he mentions only the mastery of the Son, as being unknown, and not that of the Father, which is acknowledged by all. And by saying "set apart," he showed that he was not only called but also chosen out of many as useful for the proclamation of the gospel. And for this reason he said "to all," since with Christ all are equal. Then he said "beloved of God, called to be saints," separating the unbelievers. And grace would be the forgiveness of sins and the gift of adoption; and peace would be the release from invisible enemies, from whom Christ releases us, and the not striving of the body against the reasonings of the soul, and the pious concord with one another. Instead of "before all the present discourse, I thank God for all of you," whether poor or rich; for the equality of believers in piety everywhere he shows to the Romans. And he appears also in other epistles beginning with thanksgiving, teaching those to whom he writes the letter to begin every word and deed with thanksgiving to God, not only for their own but also for others'. But here especially and most properly he uses this preface; for it was necessary that the one attempting, after Peter's teaching, to hand down to them the doctrines of piety, should show that he accepts the first things, and, finding no fault with them, makes his teaching to them. Yet what is said also contains no ordinary praise of the Romans.

And it is for this very reason that he continually uses this opening in his own letters, so as to make them more eager for the reading of what is written by means of these commendations; which he also did in the case of the Romans, with circumstances cooperating with him for this. And here too one must attend to the phrase "through Jesus Christ," how he does not use it in the sense of a ministry, as it seems to the heretics, but in the sense of a cause; for the apostle was certainly not going to use Christ as a servant for his thanksgiving to God, but he says, "I give thanks to God for you," Christ having provided us with the cause of this thanksgiving. Therefore he rightly said "in my spirit," contrasting it with the bodily worship of the Jews, which consists in circumcision and sabbath-keeping and such sacrifices; for in every respect it is not spiritual nor true. But some have taken "in my spirit" more simply, in the sense of "in my mind and eagerness." Rightly he says "if somehow now at last," as one who greatly longs to obtain his arrival among them and cannot even bear the delay of the time that has passed. He showed, then, through his desire to see them, the genuineness of his disposition, and through his eagerness to impart, that he was imparting to them a divine gift, not his own but one which he himself also had received. And spiritual gifts are a word of wisdom, a word of knowledge, faith, gifts of healings, workings of powers; for these make people more steadfast in the faith. For the present, from what is at hand he sufficiently shows also his own disposition, that having wished to come many times he was prevented; and at the same time he also brings them into fear, lest perhaps it was because of their own unworthiness that he was prevented.

But it is asked how he made repayment, first with “I give thanks to my God through Jesus Christ concerning all of you”; for he did not say “secondly.” I think, then, that here the repayment has come at “But I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers,” and what follows. “So, as far as it depends on me, I am eager.” He showed the reason and thenceforth acknowledged why he was eager to see them; for he says, “So, as far as it depends on me, I am eager,” instead of “for these reasons and in this way.” Since, then, the punishment appointed against the impious and unjust is near, it is necessary to run to the righteousness that is from faith, so that you may escape the troubles that are expected. And he spoke well in saying that the wrath of God is revealed; for in the present age it is covered, since God is forbearing and does not punish immediately, so that he may not shut out the time of repentance, so that either those who repent may be saved or those who despise may have no pretext for a defense. But, as we were saying, they exchanged the truth for the lie, and in this way God is truly God, but they falsely called the idols gods. So they placed the truth of God around the idols. And observe again that “they exchanged” means that they exchanged according to kinds, placing around the lie—that is, around the idols—the things that can truly be said and understood of God. And here, then, “he handed over” is instead of “he permitted” them to be carried away to whatever each one wished, since he made the choice not compulsory but free, toward whatever it wishes to incline. Since, then, if he had hindered it, it would not have happened, Scripture is accustomed to bring the cause, as it were, against the one who did not hinder. And here he calls licentiousness “dishonor.

He calls "judgment" the tribunal and court of God, and as if confirming the condemnation of the ungodly he added, "according to truth is" 116. And so that he might not seem to accuse them out of hatred, in the phrase he has made the "again" apply in turn, placing destruction upon those who sin lawlessly, and being judged through the law upon those under the law. But the discernment of these, he says, will be at that time when also of those who live according to law, there being one season in which God examines all men through Christ according to my gospel, so that he might say: just as I also continually proclaim it, that there will be a time of judgment, and it is necessary that those who have believed in Christ escape that punishment. "But if you are called a Jew" must not be read as a question, as some have supposed, but as a statement, so that he might say: not being truly a Jew even in secret, but only being called one and boasting as in the body. He calls "form" not the prefiguration, but the very substance and knowledge and truth, as in "who being in the form of God." "In spirit," not in the Holy Spirit; for he is not speaking about those who succeed in grace, but throughout he supposes those outside who do the things of the law, and shows them better than those who transgress within the law. And all things harmonize fittingly with his own purpose, since he has the intention also to show that Greeks are transgressors of the natural law, and Jews, in addition to the natural law, also of the written law, so that through all things he might establish that all need grace.

He says "in spirit" instead of "in purpose," as in the book of Numbers God says, "All those who provoked me shall not see the land, but my servant Caleb, because a different spirit was in him and he followed me," and so on, plainly calling the purpose a spirit. And the prophet: "They went astray in a spirit of fornication," meaning: they had a fornicating purpose. That he might say: Come then, after the refutation of those men, let us show the greatness of our own. He used the testimony not as though it had been spoken prophetically, but as fitting what had been demonstrated—that David says these things in a summary way about those who have fallen. Just as we too up to the present in the church's discourses have used testimonies as being able to fit, by their meaning, what is said by us; for that psalm was not spoken by David about all men. And it is clear from what he says: "Do not all those who work lawlessness know, those who eat my people as bread?" But whom was he about to name

Is it appropriate to God to have declared concerning all men that they turned aside to the worse? Certainly you will say to me: What law came in and cast this out? Since by law it is natural that the law which prevails is dissolved. To whom he says: It was not a law of works that came in and dissolved the former; for that one was most excellent in this respect at least, but the law of faith having come in reasonably showed this to be superfluous, since it conquers the boasting from the law of works, because these things exist for us from the divine grace, which with much labor could not come to be from the former things. And he showed through the law of faith, saying not simply "through faith," that boasting is alien to the law, even if he welcomes the name in the case of its own things. But "we reckon" he says not in ambiguity, but instead of "with the fitting reasoning I consider" that every man who wishes to partake of the justification according to faith without works of law. And it must be noted that he did not say simply "without law," as if we should also work when caring for virtue, not doing this by necessity of law, but being led to it by another. In the case of the Jews he set down "from faith," as having indeed other occasions for justification, but not able to partake of it except from faith; but in the case of the Greeks "through faith," as having the whole cause of justification from there.

Most wonderfully did he bring the testimonies into collision: in the case of faith, "and it was reckoned to him for righteousness"; in the case of works, "and the Lord will certainly not reckon sin." For there faith sufficed so as to be reckoned to him for righteousness, but here works, even those inclining to the opposite, are not reckoned, whenever the loving-kindness of God appears higher than what has come to be. "That he might be the father of all who believe." According to his own peculiar idiom he has also said here, as in "that they might be without excuse"; for he states what necessarily follows upon what has come to be. Hence he says: he is the common father of all, whenever they receive the likeness of faith toward him. For neither did the law, he says, having come in, dissolve sin, but as long as the law existed and was in force and prevailed among men, it even received the addition of sin, since the establishment of the law was able to contribute nothing to this for them. And in proof of what is set before him he adds: "but sin was not reckoned when there was no law." For the law, he says, was so far from abolishing sin that sin would not even come to be unless there were law. And by "law" he now calls whatever distinction arises either from nature or from establishment; for if the distinction did not exist, no one would be said to sin a sin—but rather the one who pursues the apparent evil distinguished from the good. But this he has set down for the increase of that in which all sinned. And keeping to his own sequence he added:

But death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of the one to come. Now the phrase "even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression" means this: that death held sway over all who had sinned in any way whatsoever. For it was not because the form of their sin was not the same—both that of Adam and that of the rest of mankind—that the rest were exempt from death; rather, for whatever sins they committed in any manner, all received the sentence of death. For death was not ordained as the penalty for this particular kind of sin, but for every sin. And there is in the ** [the phrase] "all," [beginning] from "not only," but also "boasting in God through our Lord Jesus Christ." For he says that we boast not only in this, that through Christ God reconciled us to himself, but also that he dissolved all the ancient evils. What are these? For when Adam had sinned, and indeed had thereby become mortal, sin also gained a passage into those who came after, and death held sway over all men, as is likely. For since all had sinned—even if not with a sin like Adam's, yet in some way or other, some in one way and some in another—it was necessary that death also hold sway over all alike. But not even the law, when it came in, was able to remove it from men; on the contrary, the occasion for sinning arose for us from this very fact, since it was not even possible for a sin to be judged outside of laws. And when our affairs were in this state, so that no hope of change for the better appeared, Christ brought about the dissolution of all evils.

Therefore he added concisely, "who is a type of the one to come," in order to say that the things concerning Adam became a type of the things concerning Christ, since just as through that one the passage of worse things came about, so through this one we received the occasion of the enjoyment of better things. And not even the form of the transgression, he says, is as great as that of the grace; for even if the sin of the one brought death upon human beings, yet the gift through Christ became something greater in relation to human beings. For the phrase "the many died" he says instead of "all"; for all died, as he himself says above: "death passed into all human beings." And it is clear that "it overflowed also to the many" he likewise says instead of "to all"; for the grace of the resurrection is also common to all, since all rise alike. He says this one cause of the difference: for there, he says, one man sinned and was condemned, and through this he prepared for the punishment to be carried to those after him, having all as sharers of the sentence of death. But the grace is not likewise; for it did not come from one man, as in the case of Adam, to those after him, but when many were already condemned, he made the swift extension of the gift both to those before and to those after. It is therefore much greater; if indeed that harmed those after, this benefited not only those after, but also released those who had come before from their accusations.

Moreover, he says, that also shows the great difference: that there death, introduced by Adam's sin and having prevailed over men, received a release, whereas the enjoyment of the gift, which came to us through Christ, through which we shall also obtain the resurrection and shall continue in righteousness, not admitting of sinning, will not receive a release; for we shall remain enjoying the life to come perpetually. Having sufficiently shown the difference in the preceding matters, he now reasons out the whole here toward the point "for this reason, just as through one man sin entered into the world," giving back these things and saying that it has been shown by these things to us how, when Adam both sinned and became the cause of death, Christ both granted us the release of sins and the deliverance from death by the hope of the resurrection, according to which we shall live as citizens outside all sin; for this he calls "justification of life." And just as that one's sin, he says, made the rest of men mortal and, through this, prone to sin—for this is what "sinners" means—so Christ granted us the resurrection, so that, having been established in an immortal nature, we might pass our lives free from all sin, living as citizens in exact righteousness. And he showed here also that he says "the many" in place of "all"; for having said "into all men unto justification of life," he added, "the many were made sinners," so that it is clear that he says "the many" in place of "all," both in the earlier passages and here. That sin reigned in death he says thus:

Having become mortal, we have acquired a greater inclination toward sinning. For many trespasses arise in us from pleasure—pleasure concerning food and drink, the outward adornment of the world, and indeed also intercourse with women—since in each of these the many do not stand fast at what is fitting but are carried away into excess. But these things could never arise in a nature that is immortal. For what pleasure, what love of money, will have a place in an immortal nature? But since we have become and are mortal by nature, we endure an indescribable disturbance from the passions just mentioned, and from this we receive a great inclination toward sinning. Rightly, then, he said that sin reigned in death, all but mastering us through the inclination toward sinning that is in us from this source. Just as, then, he says, sin at that time mastered us when we were driven toward it and often against our will, so also the generosity of God will hold sway, possessing an unshakable kingdom in us, when, having been deemed worthy of eternal life through the resurrection, we are to live in true and firm righteousness, no longer admitting of sin. Do you not know, he says, that baptism makes us sharers in the death of Christ? For just as we seem to be buried together with him when we are baptized, at least in the type, so it is fitting that we, just as the Lord, having risen from the dead, came to be in another, new kind of life, should likewise have come to be in a new kind of life after baptism, reckoning that we ought to display a manner of life worthy of that life into which we believe we have come through baptism.

That, then, is also clear, he says: that it is not possible for those who have shared in death figuratively not also to attain to the resurrection in the very realities themselves. And he well said "grown together," when speaking about both mortification and life-giving, since it is also proper to plants to be put to death in the planting, but to pass over to something far better and more glorious. And with good reason he confirmed the things to come from the things present; for since it was clear that they had a share in the Spirit in baptism, and this was clearly shown by the very realities, he well confirmed from what was then visible what was not yet clear to them. He also speaks of the passion of the Lord—for whom it took place—for the greater assurance of what has been said. For since, having come under the sentence of death, we became, by reason of mortality, as much as possible more inclined toward sinning, he says that with Christ crucified, as it were, our whole nature lying under mortality was crucified together with him, since it also rose together with him entirely, all men hoping to share with him in the resurrection. So that from this, on the one hand, our ease in sinning was made to vanish together through the body's transition to immortality, and, on the other hand, we were born and brought to stand outside the necessity of sinning. He says that, these things being so, it is right for us not to sin during the present life, even if, still being mortal by nature, you have a greater inclination toward this. But since he has placed "reign" in relation to sin, he well said, "Do not present your members"; for it is the custom of bodyguards to stand by kings.

Do not, then, he says, rush to serve sin as a queen and do what ought not to be done, but rather be eager to set yourselves apart for God, in the manner of those who have come back to life from the dead, having earnestly devoted yourselves wholly and entirely to doing the works of righteousness. And most admirable is his phrase "as though alive from the dead," showing that he does not demand the reality from them but imitation to the extent possible. For they will be alive from the dead then, when they are also placed outside the inclination toward sinning; but now, he says, "as alive from the dead," meaning, imitating that to the extent possible. And well, persuading them not to fear the inclination toward sinning and the impulses that arise from it, if the things of the will are kept intact, he adds: "For sin will not rule over you." For since he showed from what is to come that they ought not to sin, he consequently added that it is impossible for sin to rule over you completely. For the time to come will be when, freed from all sin, you will live as citizens, so that if now the things of your will are healthy, as you turn away from every form of sin and eagerly wish to do what is good, you need not fear the inclination toward the worse. For this will certainly receive healing in the proper time, and there is no need of your labors for this—and the greater point: for you are not under law but under grace. For you will then be so far removed from fearing anything of that sort that you will not even need laws to show you what ought to be done, and by the grace and generosity of the giver you will enjoy the gift of the Spirit.

It was possible to say this especially to Jews: that the nature of the law distinguishes what ought to be done from what ought not. If, then, we happen to be outside the law, nothing would prevent everyone from doing whatever comes to hand; but if there is a distinction between things to be done and things not of that sort, we are again under the law, and what you say is a mere pretence. So, setting this objection against himself, he says how it is fitting for us to be outside sin though not under the law, and how the enjoyment of grace does not give us license to sin. And immediately he adds, in his usual manner, "May it not be," considering even the name of sin something to be shunned. And he resolves the objection thus: every man, he says, whomever he chooses to obey, has made himself that one's slave, so as to obey him and do all that seems good to him. Either, then, choosing to obey sin, you are under necessity to do what seems good to it, awaiting the death that results from this, or, assigning yourselves to righteousness, you will certainly need to fulfill its will, expecting the good things that come from it. Most necessary, then, is also "But thanks be to God"; for one who is about to explain the gift of so many good things that came to us from God ought to begin with thanksgiving. And most timely is "the form of teaching to which you were handed over"; for the apostles kept saying everywhere that the old things have been dissolved, death has ceased, sin has been extinguished—in deed later, but in promise already.

We fulfill a certain type and symbols of those things at baptism through the gift of the Spirit given to us in it, as though being reborn in imitation of what will be then. This, then, is what he says: that by your own judgment you chose our teaching, through which we brought you near, and, so to speak, handed you over to the type of things to come through baptism. Having been persuaded of these things, it is necessary to do what is consistent with them, imitating in your life those things for which you were established in type. It is clear, then, he says, that one ought to have zeal for these things greater in proportion as virtue is superior to vice. But in order that, measuring my discourse to your weakness, which has its inclination more toward the worse, I may not say anything great or beyond human capacity, at any rate I wish you to have virtue as exceedingly abundant as you were attached to sin. The question, "What fruit, then, did you have at that time?" must be read as a question; then as an answer to the things of which you are now ashamed. For we have seen, he says, the gain of your zeal for those things which you are ashamed of even when others speak of them. 124. Showing the benefit of the things according to Christ, he adds: "so that we might bear fruit to God." He does not use the "so that" in the sense of a cause, but of what follows the matter, according to his custom. For he wishes to say that, having come to be in this life, we will continually bring forth the fruits of righteousness to God, having been released from the citizenship according to the law. But most wonderful is his not saying "you were put to death through baptism" but "through the body of Christ." For Adam became the beginning of the present life for all people, and Christ of the life to come. Just as, then, in the case of the

In the present life we have a kinship of nature with Adam, so in the future we receive a likeness to Christ, having from that source the beginnings of the resurrection. We are therefore called a part of the Lord's body, inasmuch as we receive communion with him. Hence, since we believe that we have come to be in those things typically through baptism, he says this: that having become a part of the body of Christ through the communion in the resurrection, whose types we consider we fulfill in baptism. You are dead, then, to the present life, and you stand outside the citizenship under the law, bringing no accusation against yourself, unless you live according to it, since it is its nature to have power over those who live the present life. Divine Scripture sometimes calls "flesh" nature itself, and sometimes not nature simply, but names it so from mortality, as though it could no longer be called this if it should cast off death—as when it says, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," as though in the age to come, having become immortal, it is no longer flesh nor can be called such. And sometimes it knows how to call the passion itself "flesh," as when it says, "who in the days of his flesh," meaning "in the time of his passion," when he was about to come near to death itself. Indeed, it also knows how to call everything temporary and easily dissolved by this name, as when it says in the letter to the Corinthians:

But God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame the wise, and the weak things that he might put to shame the strong, and the things despised and the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are, he added: that no flesh should glory before him, although he did not mention different kinds of living creatures, but so as to say that all temporary things appear powerless for the knowledge of godliness, and thus the living immortal one is never called life by this voice. But flesh is sometimes said of nature, and sometimes the designation is not taken of nature but signifies mortality, under which it has befallen us to be, and sometimes he calls all that is temporary, that which lies under the boundary of death, as that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Thus he says, when we were in the flesh, instead of when we were mortal, saying that to be in the flesh is to be mortal; for those who have believed in Christ and have already received the promise concerning things to come, and indeed have been deemed worthy of the type of grace in baptism, he no longer reckons to be mortal, whence also in the letter to the Thessalonians he calls those who die those who are asleep. And so also this: what? the passions of sins which were through the law were working in our members? Just as different passions naturally occur in our body, even if not all occur in all nor always, so also different passions of sins naturally trouble us, even if not all are committed by all nor always.

For just as in the body one person falls into passions less and another more, so also in the case of sins one person sins more and another less. Since, then, sins are judged by some law, whether by natural discernment or by ordinances given from outside, he says this: that all the passions of sins, as many as happen to arise in us when distinguished by some law, whenever we do something contrary to the good that appears to us or has been prescribed—all these things were also being done by us; so as to say that we, being mortal by nature and for this reason having a great inclination toward sinning, were committing every kind of sin, although we were being instructed by various laws from which it was fitting for us to abstain. And what is the result of this? To bear fruit for death. And he says that from this the penalty of death was being tightened upon us; for just as from mortality we endured a greater disturbance of sinning, so the penalty was being tightened upon us by our falling, and the law was able to help us in nothing, but on the contrary also

became the cause of sins, since we were doing the opposite of its ordinances. But all things now, he says, have been changed; for we have become dead to this life, by which, as it were, we were held under some necessity to live according to the law. Hence we have no fellowship of life with it any longer; for having been renewed by the power of the Spirit and having become different in place of different, and having passed over to an incorruptible life from the present life, we endure no disturbance of sins. Therefore we no longer need laws and written instructions that teach us abstinence from evil; for these things can be useful to those who are established in the oldness of this life, not to those who have been renewed by the Spirit and have become incorruptible, for whom there is no longer need of laws, because they no longer admit of sinning. Thus, he says, our condition is better than theirs, and the things according to Christ have much greater benefit than those who are trained under the law. Having perceived, both from the sufferings of sins that come through the law, and from the statement "but the law came in so that the trespass might abound," and from several other things which he had said in the earlier passages, that a certain slander was attaching itself to the law as though it were the cause and producer of sins, he turns to the argument concerning these things. And he begins the counter-argument, saying: What then shall we say? Is the law sin? But surely, he says, this is not shown by our words, that the law is base and productive of sin? May it never be; but I did not know sin except through the law.

On the contrary, I would not even have known sin, whose practice it is fitting to avoid, if there had not been law instructing us by the discernment of good and worse both what we ought to do and what we ought to abstain from; so that the law became for us the cause of hatred of sin, since it both pointed sin out and commanded us to flee from it. And making what was said clearer, he added: for I would not have known desire if the law had not said, You shall not desire. It has come about that we desire many things in the present life—not only foods and drinks and marital union, but also glory and money; and of those whose desire we have within us, we would never have considered any to be base, if the law were not teaching us that it is fitting to abstain from the things we desire. Just as, then, each of the irrational animals is driven to fulfill its own desire inexorably, since nothing draws them back toward the opposite by which they would be brought into conflict with their own appetite. Then he has used the example of the things concerning Adam for greater clarity of what is said; for the commandment that came to him concerning the plant was also a law, and the things concerning him contributed to the establishment of the arguments about the law. He has used the example of the things concerning Adam, since he too, when the plants of paradise were set before him, could partake of all of them without fear, if some law concerning abstinence had not been given to him, and it would not have been a sin to wish to eat of that one along with the rest.

But since he had received a commandment to abstain from eating of the tree, there was in him, as is likely, a certain desire to partake of the fruit, yet he was prevented by the commandment, considering it a sin to eat of the forbidden things. From this sin obtained a passage, the commandment restraining the eating, while Adam was unwilling to look to the credibility of the commandment, but rather gave credence to the words of the deceiver, and became wholly consumed by the desire to eat. And not only did an occasion of sin arise from this, but we have also learned this further point, that we ought not to follow our desires by deception, but, testing what we ought to do, to abstain from other things; by not persisting in these, we are plainly sinning in every way. So then, not only in that respect did sin obtain a passage through the commandment, inasmuch as we partook of the tree, but also because, learning from this not to follow all desires indiscriminately, we sinned, hastening to fulfill the things of desire beyond what is fitting. For this is what "it wrought in me all desire" means, instead of every sin being begotten from some desire. From this the beginning has come to us, and from this we have received the occasions of discernment. Thus also in the earlier passages, "I would not have known desire if the law had not said, You shall not covet," means "I would not have known that one ought not to do any of the things that lie in desire, if there had not been law defining this for us." For when he says "in me," he speaks of what is common to human beings, and he uses the case of Adam as a demonstration of things common.

Hence he says this too in his own person, wishing to show through all things that we necessarily live under laws in the present life, by which the innate discernment is stirred up, as people are taught both what to abstain from and what it is fitting to do, so that the rational element in us may also be active. But there is need of the future state for us, in which, having come to be in it, we shall be able easily to do also those things that appear to us to be good. Hence, keeping to his own sequence and to showing that there would be no discernment in us of the good and the worse, nor any recognition of sin, unless these things had been distinguished among us by law, and that we would have been about to do whatever came to hand, like irrational animals, he adds: For without law sin is dead. Neither, he says, would a sin be brought into activity if it had not been distinguished by law. Why? Because the action is not simply a sin, but for one who knows what it is fitting to abstain from to do something contrary to what has been rightly recognized. Again he proceeds to the example for the confirmation of the matter at hand, and says: But I was once alive without law, speaking about Adam, as being without law when he had just come into being, before receiving from God the command of abstinence from the tree; for it is clear that he came into being first, and then received the commandment afterward. Hence he adds: But when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died, and the commandment that was for life, this was found for me to be for death.

Since, he says, God gave the law concerning the plant, and a distinction arose between two things, sin gained an entrance, but I, having done the opposite of what was pleasing to God, was condemned to death, and from then on the law established by God became for us the cause of death, though it was given for life to those who obeyed it. For indeed the blessed Paul came to these words from the law, wishing to show that he does not regard it as worthless; but from then on he speaks in common about the nature of the law, teaching its necessity and usefulness, which is why he also mentions the commandment given to Adam, since that was the beginning of law for human beings. And combining both well, he adds: so that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and so on. He mentions the commandment given to Adam, since that was the beginning of law for human beings. And combining both, he says: so that the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good, in order to say that both are therefore exceedingly beneficial. And well did he use more praises for the commandment, inasmuch as its giving seemed to be granted for non-necessary things at hand and it became the cause of death for all. He called it holy as providing the occasions for the discernment of both good and evil and separating the better from the worse, and just as necessarily, after showing the good, bringing punishment upon the transgressor, but also good as productive of good things, both providing the discernment and promising greater good things to those who obey.

He sets over against himself what can be aptly said by others, and says: "So then, the good became death to me?" And this, he says, was good, which became the cause of death only, and of no good? By no means—that is, it is not so: it did not become the cause of death and provide no good. And what good did we enjoy from it? But sin, he says, so that it might appear as sin, worked death in me through the good. For if Adam, having been made and left receiving no law, would have differed in nothing from an irrational creature, having no distinction at all of good and worse, but doing everything that came his way simply and as it happened. Therefore he did not know either that it was a sin to do anything contrary to the divine laws, nor indeed that it was good to do whatever follows them; for from where should he have known this, having not received a law? Accordingly, the giving of the commandment provided him also with a distinction of the good and the worse; for both the power of obedience and of disobedience lay before him, since he was able to incline toward either of them, as he wished. And it made known to him what is sin and what is righteousness, recognizing that to obey the laws is good, but to do anything alien to the divine laws is sin. And since he transgressed the divine command, and then received the punishment for the offense, he acquired a greater hatred of sin, having been educated long before by reason that sin is something evil and productive of death, but later having known the vileness of sin from his deeds.

For to the extent that it happened that he was brought under punishment because of transgression, to that extent he was being prepared to hate sin as the cause of evils to him. So then, "that sin might appear as sin" is instead of "so that sin might be shown for what it is." And what is this? Sin itself, that is, so that he might call it evil. And from where did this appear? Through the good—that is, through the commandment—and how it appeared: working death, from the things of which it becomes the cause of death. So the good—that is, the commandment—contributed to me toward knowing that sin is the cause of evils and worse things, so as also to hate it for this reason. Therefore the commandment is good, since it provides us with the cause of discernment and of hatred toward sin. For "that" is not said with respect to causation, but he customarily speaks of what follows. And according to the sense, "through the good, sin, that it might appear as sin" must be assigned to "to me," not to what follows, "working death." For he says that through the good—that is, the commandment—sin appeared to me and became manifest, how great an evil it is, so as even to bring about death for those who practice it. Then also another point: "that sin might become exceedingly sinful through the commandment." Here too, "that" is not with respect to causation, but he customarily speaks of what follows. And according to the sense it is incomplete, attached to what precedes. For he does not say "that it might become" with respect to production, but with respect to manifestation—instead of "that sin might become manifest to us through the commandment, being exceedingly sinful." And what he says is of this sort: we call "sinful" the one who inclines toward the opposite things and practices them.

Thus also the divine Scripture says, whence also the apostle for the present calls sin "sinful," inasmuch as it became for us the promoter of the inclination toward sinning. But through all these things he wishes to say what good the giving of the commandment became the cause of; for he says that by sin we became mortal by nature, and having become mortal we acquired a great inclination toward stumbling. We have therefore come to know from every side the baseness of sin—both from the things of which it became for us the promoter of death, and from the things by which, through death, it produced in us a great inclination toward sinning, so that from every side hatred against it necessarily increases in us. But the cause of all these things is the giving of the commandment, without which it was not possible for us to know either the nature of sin or of how great evils it becomes the promoter. Most wonderfully, therefore, he declared the usefulness of the commandment, since it both pointed out sin and prepared us to hate it, so that even in the continual practice of stumbling we might take up a greater hatred against it because of the annoyance, having once come to know how great a cause of evils it becomes for those who practice it. Having answered these things, "So then, the good became death to me" follows in its proper sequence, and since through all these things he has sufficiently shown the usefulness of the law, which provided us the universal distinction of what things we ought to do and what things we ought to abstain from, he shows thereafter also its weakness, so that

so as to appear by comparison with the greatness of the things that are through Christ, and he says thus. "Spiritual" is instead of "being able to benefit and instruct the soul in what is needful," and "fleshly" is instead of "mortal" and for this reason having a great inclination toward sinning; for this is what he means by "sold under sin," since the sale altogether makes the one sold a slave, placed under the necessity of service, as though in this way we too, through mortality, had come into readiness for sinning. For he wishes to say that the law is good; for it instructs the soul as to what things one ought to love and what things to turn away from, and to prefer the will of the divine laws above all things. But no benefit comes to me from this for being released from sin; for being mortal by nature and having received through this great ease regarding sinning, I cannot be released from stumbling, even if I am instructed ten thousand times in what is needful for the soul through the law. And this, he says, is shown to be the usefulness of the law, from the things in which I please no one of those who are practiced; for I confess that they are improper, even if I practice them ten thousand times, because I have been instructed in this by the law. But the strength of sin is shown thus prevailing over me through mortality, so that even unwilling I am often carried away to the practice of improper things. And again the same: "For I know that there does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh, the good." For I know, he says, that as far as concerns the flesh, which has a mortal nature, nothing of the things that contribute to virtue can be done;

For mortality disposes us to desire only the things present, and from zeal for these, sins are rather engendered; but it is in no way possible to bring virtue to its height unless one looks down on things present, desiring immortal things with a better reasoning. Persisting in the same things: "For I do not do the good that I will," he says, "but the evil that I do not will, this I practice. But if I do this that I do not will, it is no longer I who work it, but the sin that dwells in me." For he says the same thing here too: that with the soul I choose the noble, being instructed by the law in what is needful, but I often do not what I wish, but rather what I do not wish; for I wish the things that follow the divine laws, but I practice the opposite of the noble things that I both know and wish, so that from this the strength of sin is shown, which it acquired against me through mortality, if indeed it can drag me even against my judgment to its own practice. For "it is no longer I who work it" he says both above and here of what is against my judgment. And through all these things, from "for we know that the law is spiritual," he wishes to say that the law is noble, instructing the soul in what is needful, and for this very reason exceedingly useful, but I, having received through mortality great ease in sinning, cannot be released from stumbling through the teaching of the word; for the law has great strength in the teaching of the soul, and this is clear from the fact that in it lies our accurate discernment of the noble and the evil.

At any rate, we have never yet cast aside this knowledge because of the multitude of our sins; on the contrary, even when we stumble countless times, we have not been outside the knowledge of the baseness of sin. Indeed, mortality has not been able to remove our sinning, since it has produced in us great ease for this, but even if through its own teaching it should work up a great disposition toward what is fitting, we are often carried unwillingly, and as if we did not know it, into the practice of what is absurd. It must be read with a division: "I find then the law, to me who wish to do the good," and then next: "that evil lies near to me." For each of these has its own complete and perfect meaning—the one, "to me who wish," speaking with respect to the soul, and the other, "that evil lies near to me," with respect to the flesh. For he says that with respect to the soul the law is useful, training it to desire the good and to turn away from evil, but it is in no way able to remove our ease regarding sinning, which came about from mortality. "For I greatly delight," he says, "in the laws of God, in my soul," praising them and esteeming them highly, "but sin, opposing the will of the soul through, so to speak, all the members, drags me away to its own practice." And he spoke well in saying "in the members," since sin is manifold, having a nature to be practiced through all the members; for some sins we commit through the eyes, others through the tongue, and others in another way.

It is worth marveling here at those who have raised the question whether the apostle means to speak of three laws or four, when his meaning is clear and absolute. For instead of saying "sin," he said "the law of sin," saying nothing different, but having used a certain idiom peculiar to himself. Thus he also says in the earlier passages: "the one through the law of faith," and shortly after: "for the law of the Spirit of life," instead of saying "the Spirit of life." For since every law has its own proper aim, he adds the name of "law" in each case, so as to express the aim of the matter about which he is speaking, saying the very thing itself and not something else. For with the soul, he says, I choose the things that seem good to the law of God, but by mortality I am dragged down to sin. But we have been released from all these things and have come to be outside all punishment—we who through faith in Christ have come to be outside mortality and the life according to it. For "according to the flesh" he says this instead of "to live as mortal beings," as "to live according to the law" also follows. For to mortal beings, who also admit the inclination toward the worse, the law is necessary, restraining them from the worse; but for those who have become immortal and immutable, it has necessarily become superfluous. The apostle says that the resurrection comes about through participation in the Spirit; for, he says, "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body," as though he were then ruling us in incorruption and immutability. So he calls it "the Spirit of life," as being the provider of the immortal life which we shall then obtain.

The Spirit, then, he says—the Spirit given to us in hope of immortality, the enjoyment of which faith in Christ has provided for us—has set me free from both death and sin. It is clear that he makes his demonstration from the things that are to come, of the things provided for us through Christ, when the outcome will be realized in actual fact, since then freedom from death will also come to us, not only when we are raised up, but indeed when we are deemed worthy of immortal life. Then too we are set free from sin, then, having become immutable by the grace of the Spirit, we no longer admit of sinning; for in the present life it is evident that we are mortal and lie under the annoyance of sin. The law, then, he says, even if it benefits the soul, nevertheless appeared weak in the accomplishment of virtue, since mortality opposed it and wrought in us a great annoyance of sin; but the Son of God, having come to be in this mortal nature that is subject to sins, for no other reason than to take away its sin, abolished the authority of sin that seemed to reside in it, removing its mortality and thereby also removing with it the annoyance of sin, so that for the rest the law's aim and will might be fulfilled in us who have been set free from mortality and established in immortality.

For what the law could not do in us, when we were still mortal by nature—although it spoke at great length about the obligation not to sin—this came to us in the removal of mortality, once we had become immortal by nature and could endure no disturbance of sin. From this point on he says more extensively that sin inevitably follows upon mortals, but having become immortal we have been released from it, so that by comparison the things pertaining to Christ are shown to surpass the law by far, since the law could not remove death, and it was entirely necessary that sin prevail in us, even if the soul were instructed in what is right ten thousand times; but Christ both removed death and, together with death, abolished the disturbance of sin that was in us. He began, then, from “Therefore, having been justified by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” to expound the greatness of what was provided for us through Christ, along with many other things, showing their superiority by comparison with the law. But since he turned to the solution of the questions that arose, having made his defense concerning them, as has been shown more clearly to us in what has preceded, and indeed also concerning the charge that the law produces sin, he necessarily showed its usefulness; and this too we have set forth more clearly in what has just been explained. Again, speaking by comparison with the law of the greatness of the things that come through Christ, he returns to the account of the earlier questions and to showing that Christ became the cause of the greatest goods for us.

For this reason he wants to show here through many arguments that sinning follows upon mortality, but having become immortal we have been released from it. Therefore he says: For those who are in the flesh think the things of the flesh, and so on. He says this: that those who are mortal by nature necessarily endure the greatest harassment of sinning; for what would a mortal nature even deliberate? But if there is any virtue in us, it is not of the flesh but of the mind of the soul, whenever it becomes higher than present things. Those, however, who have already partaken of the Spirit have their reasoning superior to these things, having become immortal by nature and released from every harassment that comes from worse things; for this is what he calls peace, since in the earlier passages he said that among those who are mortal by nature there is war, with sin opposing the will of the soul; here he calls peace the removal of the harassment of sin. But you, he says, are not in the flesh—he clearly shows that he is not speaking here about our nature; for he would not have written this to the Romans when they had not yet been outside the flesh—but he means the harassment of sin that is in us from mortality, so that the greatness of him who through Christ removed death from us might appear, to the end that we be released from the whole war of sin. For this reason he says that you are not in the flesh, that is, you have come to be outside the condemnation of death, but in the Spirit; for you have already been established in the promise of immortality. And what is the proof of this? If indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.

We have shown also in the earlier passages that he says the resurrection comes about through participation in the Spirit, and that we are then immortal and immutable by the divine grace. But since they were fulfilling the type of those things at baptism, they also received through this very fact a partial energy of the Spirit as a kind of pledge of things to come. With a view to having their opinion about those things also beyond doubt, he rightly said: If indeed you have the Spirit of God dwelling in you. It is clear that the promise concerning the resurrection is true, the enjoyment of which the participation in the Spirit is hoped to secure for you; for it is not possible that those who have received the pledge of those things should not also receive the rest. That the believers had the Spirit was beyond doubt from the signs that once accompanied them, for the confirmation of what was said. It is clear, then, that such persons will live the blessed life with their own Father. 136. The "again" he rendered as relating to slavery. We must read it thus: For you did not receive a spirit, then, having made a pause, one should add: of slavery again unto fear. For he is speaking about those under the law, and in the letter to the Galatians he says that one covenant from Mount Sinai gives birth unto slavery, placing those under the law as slaves by comparison with those of the age to come.

of good things, since these were under commandments and were either punished for transgressing or praised for keeping them, which is in fact the peculiar characteristic of slaves. But those who by the master's grace receive the enjoyment of the good things to come no longer suspect any change, which is in fact the custom that children have from their fathers. For just as he says in the letter to Timothy: "For you did not receive a spirit of cowardice"—not as though there were a spirit of cowardice, but instead of this: the Spirit does not have a nature to produce these things—so here: "For you did not receive a spirit of slavery again unto fear," instead of: you have partaken of the Spirit, not so that you might again be under slavery and fear, as those under the law were; for it is not possible for these things to be in those who have received the grace of the Spirit completely. "You received a Spirit making you sons of God," whence we are led to call God Father; for it is clear that, according to the Lord's tradition, those deemed worthy of baptism were calling God Father in the "Our Father in the heavens." And well does he say "Abba, Father," since it is peculiar to infants to call their fathers "Abba"; and infants in the present life were still those who through baptism had been deemed worthy of sonship, awaiting the perfect and true sonship in the age to come. So "Abba, Father" has been set down, on the one hand, to indicate the perfection that is awaited, and on the other, as a symbol of the present condition, in which, like infants, having not received the complete enjoyment of participation in the good things, they were waiting for those things too to come to them at some point, in accordance with the present promises.

The Holy Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we live in a spiritual manner; therefore we are also children of God. If, then, we suffer together with Christ—that is, if we choose to suffer the same things that Christ willingly suffered when he championed the truth—if, when persecuted, we endure and suffer whatever similar things for the sake of piety, we shall be glorified together with him in becoming children of God and co-heirs of Christ. What this inheritance is has been stated earlier, where the discourse was about "if those who are from the law are heirs, faith has been made void." "I reckon" is used in place of "I am persuaded by the fitting reasoning that this is so," as in "we reckon, therefore, that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law." "To watch with outstretched neck" is said to mean "to hope," while "to watch away with outstretched neck" means "to despair." What he is saying, then, is this: God made the whole creation one body, which is why everything is called a "world," whether visible or invisible, as he says in the letter to the Corinthians: "we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men." Since, then, there is a certain difference among them—that some are visible and others invisible—wishing all things to be joined into one, he made man composed of a visible body, akin to the visible creation (for it is composed of earth and air and water and fire), and of an invisible soul, akin to things invisible. And indeed he made him, as it were, a pledge of friendship for all things; for the visible things are useful to him, as we learn by experience itself, and the intelligible natures stand over them, moving them for our benefit. And the apostle is a witness to this when he speaks about the opposing power:

according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that now works in the sons of disobedience, so that it is clear to us that before the transgression the devil was assigned to the powers that preside over the motion of the air. And indeed, they are also accustomed to minister to our benefit for the teaching of piety, as the apostle says: Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth for service for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation? From this, then, the invisible natures set our affairs as their own, rejoicing whenever it happens that we incline toward the better. And the Lord teaches us this when he says that over one sinner who repents the angels rejoice in the heavens. And it is clear that our affairs, when disposed toward the worse, also cause them grief; for they would not rejoice when we turn away from the practice of what is out of place, unless our remaining in those things also moved them to grief. Thus, then, having this disposition toward us, as being a creature akin and related to them, when Adam, having come to be, received God's command, having at the same time also heard that if he transgressed he would die, they were considering what outcome his affairs would take; and since by transgressing he became mortal through the sentence, and the soul was separated from the body, as is likely, and the bond of creation devised through man was dissolved, in this way the intelligible natures were downcast at what was happening, and did not regard us with familiarity, as having become the causes of such evils.

But as time went on, the successive generations of men, advancing more and more greatly toward the worse, were tightening against themselves the sentence of death; they despaired of all our affairs, and took up a greater hatred against us. Hence they no longer wished to do anything on our behalf, partly turning away from us as strangers to themselves, and partly loathing us as enemies of God. What then happened in view of these things? The Lord declared to them that he would accomplish the correction of our condition, raising us up and making us immortal, so that we should no longer fear any change or dissolution of the common bond of creation. Having received this promise, they were of good cheer, having learned that divine grace would accomplish the correction of our transgressions, and would restore to us in generosity all those things of which we had deprived ourselves through our wickedness; and the universal bond would remain, admitting no dissolution for the future, and the friendship of creation with itself would remain unbroken. From this they did not hesitate to do everything on our behalf, even though we were reckoned among the worse, being held fast by the hope of things to come through the promise of God. This, then, is what he says: that creation, having often despaired of our affairs as far as it depended on us, awaits this correction of all things, the expectation of things to come, that we shall all rise to be immortal. For he calls the revelation of the sons of God the resurrection, calling immortality adoption in the fullest sense, since he considers it to belong to the sons of God to be immortal. Hence David also says:

I said, You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High; but you die as men, as though the sons of God who bore this name had no reason to die. Indeed, he says, the angels, no longer enduring to do anything further on our behalf, chose to do all things because of this promise, even though we are occupied with vain things, awaiting according to God's promise this very thing: that all things be released from corruption and changes and turning, whenever we too, deemed worthy of the resurrection, become immortal by the power of God. For they are released, he says, at that time even from being servants to corruptible things, whenever we become immortal and all things are released from turning, since there is no longer anything that compels them to the motion of serving these things. Well did he not say "groans and travails," but "groans together and travails together," since he also added here "the whole creation," having said above only "the creation." But he wishes to say that the whole creation shows this in agreement, so that by the same thing happening from all alike he might teach them to choose fellowship with all by endurance of griefs. But how did he say that the whole creation undergoes this? The invisible ones, as is likely, inasmuch as they are rational and have perception of what comes to be, and the visible ones by participation in the matter. He calls salvation the complete release from evils, which was going to come to them in the age to come; these things, then, he says, we have received in the present life to hope firmly that they will be added to us.

For if we were already enjoying the things we hope for, he says, they would certainly have lain before our eyes, and we would have had no need at all to hope for things that are visible; but since we hope for them as things not visible, it is reasonably necessary that we await their entire outcome and endure whatever we must suffer for their sake. It is a figure of speech, in accordance with the custom of divine Scripture, that what is said appears to the casual reader to be other than what it intends to say. For it says that we cannot even expect those things by the sequence of nature, but the grace of the Spirit, of which we have received the firstfruits here, unambiguously guarantees to us our participation in them. And it has been phrased thus: the things we hope for, these we also ask of God; but the things that it is impossible to hope to receive, these we would never even bring ourselves to ask for. Therefore, the inability to expect those things he called the not knowing how one ought to pray concerning them, since, as I said, one would not even ask for things that one cannot by any account expect. But the hope that by the power of the Spirit they will certainly be obtained for them—this he called the Spirit interceding; for since by prayer we often receive those things that we are in no way able to procure for ourselves, and the gift of the Spirit in the present life has also instilled in them the believing concerning things to come. The Spirit itself, he says, intercedes for us, so as to say that this is the cause of those things for us—which, given as it were in the rank of a pledge during the present life, necessarily also makes us believe concerning the perfect.

Therefore, so that you might not think he is speaking truly about prayer, he added, with unutterable groanings, in order to say that in an ineffable manner it draws those things to itself; for what has been given to us in the present life with respect to the promises to come provides us with those things in every way. And he spoke of groanings in accordance with the figure, as in the case of prayer, since those who pray with groanings are thought to be heard more, inasmuch as they make their petitions more intensely. Thus also above he spoke of the creation groaning and of us, that we groan, calling the expectation of those things a groaning everywhere, just as here too he said that the Spirit intercedes with groanings, as though providing us with those things and causing us to hope for what produces their fulfillment. Here he wishes to say that these things will be provided to us by the Spirit according to the will of God, who, since he wished us to receive the firstfruits of the Spirit in the present life, will necessarily provide also those things for the hope of which we received this. And since he framed it as in the case of prayer—that through the firstfruits of the Spirit here we necessarily hope for the things to come—he necessarily added that God also knows the will of the Spirit, and that he makes his petitions according to his will, and he attends to the prayer. And well also the phrase for the saints, so as to say those set apart for this and who have already partaken of the Spirit. And he calls the gift given to us in the present life the Spirit interceding, which he also calls the firstfruits of the Spirit—not of his substance, but of the grace then expected to be given to us for the complete participation in the good things.

However, it is customary for divine Scripture to employ figurative representation, as in these examples from the blessed David, who was continually accustomed to say such things: "having darkness under his feet," and whatever he says in that passage; for it is not the present occasion to speak of all of them. And in the twenty-third psalm he represents a voice addressed to the gates, as though they ought to be opened, and a reply from them; for none of these things, as has been said, can be understood literally, but there are certain other things that are signified through them. I have indeed set this down also so that no one may think that something novel is being said by us when we state that the words before us were spoken by the apostle by way of figurative representation. One should not wonder, he says, if we expect such good things to be ours at that time, while at present we find ourselves in exceedingly incurable evils, knowing full well that it is God's custom to benefit through all things those who love him, providing them with an ungrudging supply of good things, so that even from things that seem painful, eternal goods are procured for them in greater measure.

rewards. And this we know well, since he stated a matter that is thoroughly agreed upon by absolutely everyone who would in any way concur, that God is the provider of good things to those who love him, seeing that he even bears with those who do wrong, granting them the rising of the sun and the supply of rains. Then also, as he said, he confirms it by proofs to those who are called according to purpose. For God knew even long ago their purpose concerning them, what sort it would be, and hence he also called them, to honor them worthily of their own choice. Showing that one ought not to fear even the weight of the evils that are brought on, he reasonably added: but in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us; for from him even what seems to be the heavy part of afflictions is lightened for us, since by his cooperation he makes the experience of sorrows imperceptible. Well did he say "I am persuaded," as one who no longer entrusts the whole to his own power, but to the cooperation of Christ. Now "neither death nor life" is in place of "neither sorrowful things nor exceedingly pleasant things"; and "neither angels nor principalities nor powers" — it is clear that he means the invisible natures, but he wished also from their worthiness to show that he has judged all things to be less than piety. However, "neither height nor depth," that is, neither the exceedingly inglorious things nor indeed the exceedingly glorious things — and more wonderful still:

For since all people do everything for the sake of the expectation of things to come—so as to escape the punishment brought at that time upon the impious by God, and to enjoy the good things prepared for those who love him—he himself says that he does not depart from piety even on their account, reasonably, since he pursues piety not for a reward but out of love for Christ, having become the cause of so many good things for human beings, choosing both to do and to suffer all things. For such is the nature of love, causing the one who loves nowhere to take thought for his own interests, but preparing him to do and endure all things from which he thinks the beloved might receive some benefit. All the things said before are therefore great and fitting for the blessed Paul's love toward Christ, but beyond all of them is the phrase "nor any other creature" added to the rest. For since he went through all things, both those that exist and those that appear in whatever way, having added both the invisible powers and indeed the things expected to be, he finally added "nor any other creature," showing that he does not in any way consider all these things to be a counterweight to love toward Christ, because even if other things were to come along with these, he regards them as nothing in comparison with that love.

He confirms his statement with an oath. For since he had said that there is nothing that can separate him from the love of Christ, he adds that he is defeated only by his kinship with them; and he speaks concerning all those from Israel. Willingly, then, he says, I give both body and soul, so that they may recover again, by believing in Christ, those things from which they have fallen away. For what good thing did not belong to the Jews, in which the nations now take pride? The glory, the covenant, and—what is greatest of all—from them is also the Christ according to the flesh, who is God not only of them but of all in common. So then, in order that they might recover these things, I willingly became anathema for their sake. And anathema signifies that which is alien, since what has been set apart is alien to the one who sets it apart. What then, he says, would you say concerning the case of Esau and Jacob, where there was one father and one mother and the same conception? For by saying "from one" he means the womb, that the same mother bore from the same father, not in different conceptions. And so, though they were joined in all things both by the kinship of their ancestors and by birth, nevertheless God, before they were born and before they did anything good or evil, foreknowing, not only distinguished them but even overturned, if one must look at the truth, the sequence of nature—that the greater would serve

Having declared it to the lesser, knowing indeed what sort of people they would be, and not waiting for them to be distinguished by their own ways, but separating them from afar, so that through all things the grace of the election might become manifest, which is more to be preferred than both nature and all things. Most fittingly, then, in relation to the present circumstances, also the phrase "for not yet born"; for in this way, he says, it is not possible for God to lie, promising some things but doing others, because even before their birth, knowing the manner of each one, he chooses those whom he considers worthy. What error, then, could arise in such a matter, so as to think this according to the principle of ideas? And showing that the realities also followed the election according to grace, he adds: "as it is written: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Through all things, however, he clearly demonstrated that God does not know how to serve the sequence of nature, but by grace and generosity he chooses those whom he considers worthy of the election—those who, having first been deemed worthy of the grace from him, are then able to contribute their own part, displaying their own disposition in proportion to the grace. What then shall we say? he says: Is there injustice with God? By no means. But these things, he says, have been said by me, wishing to show that God does not follow the sequence of nature, but by grace and generosity chooses those whom he considers worthy of his own election. And let no one think that we are saying that God's election is unjust, as though he were eager to benefit some and harm others at random and without judgment; for may it never appear that this is said by us. Then, setting forth the opposing arguments more elaborately as well:

For he says to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. And after the testimony he draws a further inference in the person of those men: So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. And having set down another voice from Scripture: For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, For this very purpose I raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. He draws the inference again: So then he has mercy on whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills. All these things, then, he spoke as from the person of others, both stating the scriptural testimonies in such a way as those men were accustomed to bring them forward for the confirmation of their own argument, and adding the inferences in a manner consistent with the person of those men. And there are two things that are turned over in what has been said: whether God makes both the good and those who are evil in their disposition to be such as he wills, or whether the power of this choice lies with us; and whether he himself punishes whom he wills and again benefits according to what seems good to him, or whether the cause of experiencing both these things and those lies with us. And the second follows from the first. For when it is acknowledged that the power of the choice of both good and worse things lies with us, it was also proved together that the things that happen in our case come about from our own cause. But since the power of doing whatever we wish is not in us, neither did the things that happen in our case appear to happen otherwise than according to what seems good to the God who acts. Most excellently, then, the blessed Paul also divides the answer.

Just as, in the first part of the whole argument as it unfolds, he first attempts with strong proof to resolve that point, and after it he adds, as being consequent, the resolution of the second. So again, after the things set forth, he brings forward from their person what was consequent to what had been said: You will say then to me: Why does he still find fault? For who has resisted his will? That is, having taken courage from the scriptural testimonies, as though they taught us things in agreement with what you yourself say, you will say that you are worthy of neither blame nor any punishment, doing nothing by your own judgment, but yielding to necessity to the things that seem good to him, and not even able to choose other things besides those. And briefly exposing the absurdity of what has been said: Nay rather, O man, who are you that answer back to God, most wonderfully showing from their own answer the foolishness of what is said. For he did not bring this forward as a rebuke, as some have thought, since it is very foreign to the blessed Paul, when he has set down the objection of the opponents, to bring forward a rebuke before the resolution of the question. But those who thought this ought also to have looked at that fact, that the apostle is accustomed to use "nay rather" in resolution, saying "nay rather" instead of "and indeed." And one will find this not much later; for having proposed to himself: But I say, have they not heard? He adds: Nay rather, their voice went out into all the earth, clearly making the addition in resolution of what was proposed. So also here, resolving that it is not in them to do whatever they wish, he added: Nay rather, O man, who are you that answer back to God? You say, he says, that you are not worthy of blame.

For it is not in your power to do what you wish. And indeed I do not see the foolishness of what is said from any other source than from your own answer. For tell me, O man, whoever you may be who have used these words against God: what do you wish yourself to be, who claim to have no power of discerning good and evil, nor to know how to choose the good from the worse, but who do what seems good to God by necessity, inclining to this and taking pleasure in it, whether it happens to be good or evil? And how do you not demonstrate this by your own words? On the contrary, indeed, from the very things by which you speak back against God, you seem to know precisely the distinction between the good and the worse, since you both make arguments about each of these and have earnestly endeavored to refer the cause of what happens to God, acquitting yourself of blame for what has been done. Or is this not characteristic of one who knows the nature of the good and the worse and is able clearly to choose each of them from the other? Most fittingly, moreover, he countered the statements to produce a greater emphasis of the absurdity of what is said. For having said, from the person of the opponents, "For who has resisted his will?" he added, "Who are you who answer back to God?" — which is clearly contrary to what was said. For if one answers back, it is evident that one has resisted, so that "not to have resisted" is false. Such, then, in brief, is the solution of the question at issue: you do nothing by your own judgment, but all things according to what seems good to God, since you say that it is possible for no one to resist what seems good to him. How, then, do you answer back? It is evident that you have also resisted.

So then, you do not do everything by persisting in your own opinions, but by your own judgment, choosing as it seems good to you. Then also from the general principle: the thing molded will not say to the one who molded it, "Why did you make me thus?" For it is not possible for what has been made by the craftsman to blame the craftsman for the constitution of its own nature; for each thing rejoices in what is according to nature, whatever its condition. How then will it blame him for that which has most of all turned out to be according to its own pleasure? And confirming what has been said with an example: does not the potter have authority over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? For let us look, if you please, at the work of the potters, how from the same clay, with great authority, they make each of the vessels for whatever they wish, and nothing stands in their way, when they wish to make some for some useful purpose and others for the use of the dishonorable. Who has ever heard of vessels made for the more dishonorable uses blaming the potter for their workmanship, and that he did not rather fashion them for the better? For the matter does not have such a nature. If then you were in the same manner, having yourself also been made by God, so that by irrationality and ignorance of what is fitting you were handed over by some natural constitution to the worse, according to the likeness of the vessels and the potter, neither would any distinction of the good and the worse be seen in you, nor would you have been eager to bring the cause of what comes to be against God, acquitting yourself of blame, but you would continue rejoicing in what is according to nature entirely. But now

And you know precisely what is necessary and you make arguments about it, and that what is done is worthy of blame—even if you sin, you know it in such a way that you even acquit yourself of the charges and transfer the cause of the fault to another, thereby providing through all things the clearest token of the rational power that is in you, according to which you know how to distinguish the good from the worse and are able with great ease to choose what you wish. If, then, God had fashioned your nature for whatever he wished, you would necessarily have rejoiced, having come to be for this even in evil; but if you make arguments about the distinction of good and evil, clearly accusing the practice of absurdities, you are manifestly not made by God for this, but choosing what seems good by your own judgment. Having thus exercised the arguments concerning free will, he also speaks about those who are either subjected to punishments or examined among better things according to the judgment of God. That he has not been eager to take care for the beauty of expression we have also said in the earlier passages, and that there are many things he says by omission, especially by the excess of conciseness which, according to some peculiar idiom of his, he is accustomed to use, he produces obscurity in his words. Something of this sort is also to be found in the present expression of the apostle, if indeed instead of a complete thought he has set it down; for having shown that they have the discernment of what is fitting and are able to choose what seems good, instead of saying—

But if you ask this, for what reason few of the wicked pay the penalty while the rest are found in prosperity, and few of the good become approved in this life, while the majority of them enjoy no good at least in the present, then he has set down only the "but if" as though the matter of the inquiry were clear to those who encounter it from what has been said before, considering its repetition superfluous. Then he appends the solution of the inquiry: "Wishing God to show his wrath," and what follows. What he means is this: God has made the present life one of contests, not of recompense, allowing both the base and the good among men to be tested alike in things noble and things worse, so that there might be an exact assay of the choice of all, and that the good might be shown to pursue virtue by disposition, when in both kinds of changes in life they appear practicing the same things, neither boasting in prosperity nor being compelled to be impatient in adversity, while the wicked are convicted through all things as lovers of the worse, both disposing themselves ungratefully toward the cause in the enjoyment of good things and intensifying the depravity of their character in the experience of painful things. But he renders to each according to worth in the age to come. So then, that the outcome of these things may not be disbelieved, he provides riddles of them in the present life for the correction of all.

And he punishes some of the wicked for the correction of those who wish to pursue what is improper, and he makes some of the good approved for the encouragement of those who are eager to follow the virtuous life. Wishing, then, he says, that God should demonstrate his wrath and his power, so that he might say: in order that he may punish all who practice what is improper, he often endures the wicked, permitting them both to grow and to advance in this life, just as he also did in the case of Pharaoh; then, when they have become manifest in their own wickedness to all, he punishes them justly, providing to all a clearer proof that those who sin do not go unpunished. This same thing he again accomplishes in the case of the good as well, having made them conspicuous beyond all hope from being inglorious. And this he has done in the case of Moses and many others at various times, providing a demonstration of the glory that will belong to the virtuous in the age to come. Having summed up the answer to the questions in these words, he resumes the sequence of the argument. For it was set before him to show that God does not look to nature, but by grace

By his own choice he selects those who are worthy, rejecting the perverse among men. But since questions arose from what had been said, having made the fitting solution of them, he runs back to the matter at hand and says: "whom he also called us not only from Jews but also from Gentiles," saying this: that God, displaying his own goodness now as usual, chose us by grace, some from Jews and some from Gentiles, calling from both sides those whom he deemed worthy to piety, not looking to nature nor by this distinguishing us from the others, but by the testing of character rejecting some and receiving others. 9:25–26 Not as though spoken prophetically about the Gentiles, who were saved, did the apostle at present use the testimony of Hosea—for it was spoken clearly about Jews—but as one able to show that God does not respect nature, but is accustomed to make a testing of character, seeing that he both rejected Jews when they were wicked in mind, not choosing to honor them because of nature, and again took them into favor when they changed their character; for this is shown in the present testimony, whence also through another he confirms the same and adds: "But Isaiah cries out" and the rest. And through another testimony he confirms the same; for the prophet says that even if the Israelites are as the sand of the sea in number, few of them will be saved, those worthy to obtain the better things, and the promise made to the fathers concerning those who derive their race from there, having summed it up into few, he will fulfill among them, together with the righteousness of his promises, the truth.

He then states the reason why most of the Jews have come to be outside kinship with God, while for not a few Greeks it came about, beyond all hope, to obtain this; for it was consistent that the one who had spoken of the rejection of the one group and the appropriation of the other should add the cause of each of these. Therefore he says: "What then shall we say, that the nations that do not pursue righteousness," and the rest. What then, he says, should we say—that not a few of the Greeks obtained justification, having come to the teaching concerning Christ, although they never took thought for piety? For how could they, who were devoted to idols? But most of the Jews came to be outside this, men who always promised to attend to the law in hope of justification. For "pursuing a law of righteousness" he says concerning the Mosaic law, wishing to say that they pursued a law that promised righteousness, if one should keep it; but "to a law of righteousness" is according to his own peculiar usage, calling righteousness a "law of righteousness" as also faith a "law of faith." But some, dividing it thus, read "What then shall we say" as a question, then as an answer "that the nations that do not pursue righteousness," and the rest, having gone very far astray from what is fitting and being unable to discern the apostolic meaning; for in reading it must be joined together according to the interpretation set before us.

What then shall we say, that the Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness, and so on—the apostle saying this, that what could we say about this, which is both exceedingly new and has happened beyond all hope, that those who made no account of the matter obtained it, while those who had all zeal for it did not obtain it? To be justified from the works of the law is impossible; for one must never have sinned, and this is exceedingly impracticable when judged among humans, and one who has sinned must necessarily come under the sentence of the law. So far is he from obtaining the justification that comes from the law—the one who hopes to enjoy this through his own manner of life—that God has granted this by grace to humans, promising to remove all our inclination to sin, once he has raised us up and made us immortal; and it is possible to receive these promises through faith in Christ. These men, then, having made no account of the justification hoped for by us through faith by grace, but having hoped to be justified from the works of the law—which is impossible—neither obtained that one nor were able in any way to secure this one for themselves; for they stumbled at the stone of stumbling, which he brought in most wonderfully, so as to show that he blames not their former deeds but their present ones. They were running, then, he says, before this the race of righteousness according to the law, and there was no way to bring any accusation against them for their former deeds, but as if stumbling against the Lord as against some stone through unbelief and enduring a heavy fall, they showed that all their running in the things they had previously undertaken was vain.

And he brings forward a testimony not only suited to what has been said, but also contributing to the whole meaning together: "Just as it is written: Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and everyone who believes in him shall not be put to shame." For the part "they stumbled at the stone of stumbling" is suited to "Behold, I lay a stone of stumbling," but, as I said, the whole meaning contributed to it—the part "everyone who believes shall not be put to shame"—since he wishes to show that faith is something great and sufficient to make some his own and others strangers, if indeed it is also said among the prophets that faith is sufficient to fulfill for anyone whatsoever all the good things that come from God. And since he spoke not only of the rejection of the Jews but also of the cause of the rejection, he again confirms that he says nothing out of hatred toward them, and he says what follows. It is worthy of wonder how a meaning full of such bitterness he covered most skillfully with irony, punishing the weight of the word by the addition of "I bear witness." For it seems to them, on a superficial reading, that he is even bearing witness to something good, but it appears that he is saying their zeal is a pretense on God's part, while reproaching them for ignorance of what is fitting. And it is clear that he blames them for an ignorance that is not involuntary, since such a thing is not even worthy of accusation; for the Jews, when it was possible for them with the rest to recognize what was necessary, were passing over the learning of it by their own voluntary choice.

This, then, is what he says: that they disregarded the justification promised to us by God, and thinking that by their own works, living in accordance with the law, they could procure this for themselves, they took no earnest care to believe in Christ and to receive the justification promised to us from that source by grace. For what indeed do they say—that they have earnestly devoted themselves to living according to the law, so that justification might accrue to them? But this very thing can be obtained with all ease through faith in Christ, and what the law earnestly sought to provide for them but could not, because of our weakness, and because it is not easy for us to accomplish all things as it wishes—this Christ promises to provide for us who have believed in him, by his own grace, without toil, so that the aim of the law is fulfilled in us. The apostle wishes the usefulness of the law and of the conduct according to it to be established in these very words, and since he has completed what was set before him above, up to "For everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved," from this point he made the beginning of the following discourse: "How then shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed?" What he says is of this sort: it is clear to us, he says, from the divine Scriptures, that salvation comes to everyone who calls upon him, so that not even those from the Gentiles are prevented from obtaining it, if indeed they wish it. But how would they call upon him? It is worth inquiring. It is fitting to believe first; for it is not possible to call upon him without first believing. And faith—from where would it come? From hearing and instruction.

But if there is no one to teach, it is not possible to learn; and those who are to teach cannot appear in any other way than by the divine grace putting them forward, since it is hers alone to know how such men ought to be chosen. Therefore, before all things there is need of these who, chosen for teaching, will be sent as heralds of the inhabited world, through whom it is possible both to learn piety and, having learned, to believe, and having believed, thereafter to call upon him in the hope of receiving the salvation that comes from that calling upon him. But grace did not choose these men from anywhere else, thinking them fit, but from those who had come under the law and its pedagogy, who over a long time, by the foretellings of the prophets, had firmly received the expectation of the coming of Christ as the cause of many good things, so that not even the place was unclear to them from which he was going to appear—so that the salvation of men through Christ depends on the pedagogy in the law, both because he appeared from there, among those by whom he was also hoped for, and because the first believers came from there, who, having been deemed worthy of the grace from above, were judged fit for the teaching of all. Therefore, he says, if Christ is from there, and the teachers of all, the apostles, are from there, great is the divine economy according to the law, containing within itself the salvation of all; for in this way it came about for men both to learn what is fitting, and having learned, to believe, and having believed, to call upon him, and having called upon him, to receive the salvation that comes from that calling upon him.

And since he has made everything depend on the teaching of the apostles, so as to show the usefulness of the law, seeing that he has set forth the apostles as teachers of all, he adds: "As it is written: How beautiful are the feet," and so on. But these words were spoken by the prophet not about the apostles, but about those who were to announce the good things that were to come upon the Jews. But if those who announce those things, he says, are considered worthy of such wonder, how much more must the teaching of the apostles be considered a necessary thing and most profitable for all. The phrase "But not all obeyed the gospel" must be read as a question, placed by the apostle as part of an objection, in place of "But you will say that not all believed." And there is nothing wonderful in that; for long ago it was said by Isaiah that those who are persuaded are few. So then he puts the matter in a difficulty, as if to say: Who then will be the one to receive these things which we, having learned them by divine grace, proclaim? So then not even now has anything new happened. And having resolved the objection by the testimony, he draws from it the conclusions that follow upon the objection, namely, "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed," and the rest, and he says: "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing through the word of God." And it is clear to us, he says, from the voice of the prophet, even that which we were saying, that faith could never come about without learning, and learning of piety would not have been established unless God were showing the truth; which indeed has also now happened through those who were brought up under the law as a tutor, whom God, having trained over a long time through the prophets to await these things, in the fitting season set forth as teachers of the truth for all men.

Now "their sound went out into all the earth" — it is evident that he has set this down not as something said prophetically about them, but as something able to fit the present circumstances. And from this one must also know that "now indeed" is used for resolution, so that it is not unclear that even when he says, "Now indeed, O man, who are you who answer back to God?" he speaks resolving the question, not rebuking, as some think. Again he brings forward another objection: "But I say, has Israel not known?" — instead of: But you will not say this, that the matter has been considered new to them, namely that those from the Gentiles have been received into piety, and that for this reason, disturbed as at something new, they fight against our doctrine. And yet Moses himself, who gave them the law, is shown from afar to testify from God that, when these had inclined toward the worse, he himself will choose the nations before them, and will deem those worthy of his own providence, so that they might receive perception from the events themselves.

Since he showed the usefulness of the law from those who had believed, and by his answer to the objections he intensified the accusation against those who had disbelieved, on the ground that by their own wickedness they brought no discredit upon the law, he now defends himself also on the point that he has said nothing to the discredit of Abraham's kinship through his censure of those who had disbelieved. For, he says, have I indeed regarded the dispensation of the law as something wonderful, but show that the kinship of Abraham is worthless in my words? By no means. And what is the proof that I say these things? For I too, he says, am an Israelite, and so on. He could indeed have mentioned many of his race who had believed in Christ, but for the words "I say then" it was more fitting to speak of himself; for how could one who prided himself on the faith and taught about it not also make promise on behalf of others? And well did he mention not only the forefather but also the tribal ruler, so as to show that he does not fabricate the kinship. You have forgotten, he says, as it seems, the things concerning Elijah — how he accused Israel of turning to the worse, hesitating to be sent any longer to those so senseless, and God answered him that he had seven thousand who still cared for the knowledge of him and had not inclined to the worse, thereby urging him to hold fast to the work of teaching, since he would not labor in vain for the future.

And that God considered it sufficient if, out of the whole people of the Jews, seven thousand remained in piety through the teaching of the prophets, so that it is nothing strange that even now those who are unwilling to be persuaded by what is said about piety are more numerous. Yet what happens brings no reproach upon God's promises concerning the nation; for His usefulness is demonstrated in those who believe, while the unbelief of the rest has the refutation of their own wickedness, if they received no benefit from such great care. Some, out of great folly, read it thus: "What then does Israel seek?" joining to this "which he did not obtain," and furthermore effacing the apostolic words so that they might appear to establish their own folly, and removing the "which" that stands before "Israel seeks," and placing "this which he did not obtain," as though the apostle were saying: "What then, after all, is that which is sought by Israel? This very thing which he did not obtain." Most ridiculous indeed, thinking that the apostle strives to show what is sought by Israel, what it is, and not perceiving that he drew it as a conclusion by syllogism from what had been said before. One should read it thus: "What then?" instead of "What, then, is that which is gathered for us from what has been said before, in which we accused those who disbelieved and showed that those who believed most justly preferred the truth of the doctrines?" "What Israel seeks, he did not obtain," because it did not fall to the Israelites to obtain this very thing which they seem to seek—so that he might speak of righteousness; for it is similar to this:

But Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not attain to a law of righteousness. The word "all" is omitted, so that it means: all of them did not obtain it. For he adds: But the election obtained it, but the rest were hardened, so as to say that those of the election obtained righteousness, being considered worthy by their own manner, while all the rest were rejected because of their own wickedness. He did not use these utterances as though they had been spoken prophetically, but as being fitting for them from the Scriptures, in that they were also spoken concerning the Jews, at the same time showing that nothing new has happened now, but that they have suffered things similar to those then, having preferred the worse to the better. For since the Jews were trying to disparage the Christian doctrine on the basis of their own rejection, the apostle necessarily shows through many arguments that they had always been of this sort in regard to piety. But we do not say this: that having erred in regard to piety and not having believed in Christ they underwent a total rejection, so that no

Is there any hope of salvation left for them, even if they should ever wish to look toward what is better? By no means. For on the contrary, I remember having said that even if it happened that the majority of them were cast off because of their unbelief, nevertheless those from among them who believed—although they were very few in number—became the cause of salvation for all those from the Gentiles, since all these received the beginnings of the teaching of piety from there. So it is possible even for those Jews who now disbelieve to imitate those from among them who have already believed, and with a good zeal to desire the turning toward what is better. For the one who not only received them when they believed but also appointed them teachers of the world will clearly not regard these either as unworthy if they wish to believe in him. For the phrase "to provoke them to jealousy" does not refer to those from the Gentiles, as some supposed, but to those from among them, since he said it as proof that it is possible for these too to be received, if indeed they should wish to believe. However, he does not say "to provoke them to jealousy" as a reproach, but, as is his custom, he states the consequence as equivalent to: if those who wished to believe were received and became teachers to those from the Gentiles, it is evident that it is possible for these too, by imitating them, to obtain entry into the faith. Then, making their conversion desirable, he adds and says: For if, he says, in a few and very easily numbered persons such an abundance of good things came to be obtained by the people throughout the world, what then must one think will happen if it should come about that all of them together receive Christ?

For what reason does the apostle consider that the resurrection of all follows the correction of all? It is necessary to say. To irrational creatures all things belong by nature, and they are not able, by distinguishing evil from good and by the power of judgment, to choose what seems best, but every necessity is upon them to remain within the bounds of nature; and for this reason every law is superfluous for them, since they can neither learn nor understand any such thing. But for rational creatures it is entirely the opposite: for they can distinguish good from evil, and by the power of judgment they choose what seems best, and the enactment of laws is exceedingly suitable for them, since they are able from it to be taught what is good. Such, then, is our race that God made, having given us a nature suited for learning and having shown us what is better by the enactment of very varied laws. For it was not possible for us to have the attainment of virtue untaught, since we are rational by nature, inasmuch as this is the clear distinction between rational and irrational creatures: the former are able to know everything in nature and to learn nothing beyond, while the latter, as time goes on, learn more things which they did not know before. For this reason he made us mortal in this present life, and gave laws sufficient to lead us to the remembrance of the correction of what is good, so that in this way we might receive the learning of virtue complete. Hence, even if it happens that we have a great inclination toward what is worse, nevertheless we have a firm knowledge of what is good in the soul, and there is no man who does not altogether know what the better thing in life is.

Thus, then, in the present life he provides us with the teaching of virtue both safe and sure. But since we are not able, as we know the good, so also to do it easily, as long as we remain in mortality, the Maker has bestowed on us through the resurrection a second life, the one to come, far better than the present, immortal and impassible and freed from all sin. These things, then, are not only a renewal and correction of the present things, but indeed also a perfection; for the things which, having learned here, we are not strong enough to do, these will then be present to us without labors, with great ease—both, I mean, to be freed from the practice of worse things and to have in the soul an unhindered love of good things. The wise steward of souls judged it not right to establish us straightway in those things, so that we should not have a certain irrational and undiscriminating habit of the good within us; but when the learning of the good has come to be in us in the present life in the manner I have stated, he most opportunely and quite necessarily provides the establishment of the things to come—on the one hand, so that by comparison with the present things we may know accurately the difference of those things; on the other hand, so that, as is fitting for a rational nature, we may perceive the accomplishment of the good—seeing these things, which here we received in varied ways as knowledge according to the ineffable wisdom of God, then accomplished in us without labors by the grace of the Spirit, although even in the present we are not able, even with labors, to be pure from the practice of improper things in a manner similar to those things then.

These things have been said by us so that it may become clearer what the apostle wishes to say by "What is the reception, if not life from the dead?" For as that man contributes to the perfection of those here below, and for this reason we have come to be in the present life as mortal, so that the teaching of virtue may first come to be in us as is fitting, and then we shall receive the enjoyment of the things to come in the perfect accomplishment of what we have known, he says this: that a few of them who believed became the cause of the salvation of the Gentiles, and through them it came about that almost the whole world obtained reconciliation with God. But if all the Jews had believed, thinking in accordance with the pedagogy of the law, it is evident that faith in Christ would have come more readily to the Gentiles too through their concord. And with the lesson of piety remaining for all thereafter, nothing would have prevented the resurrection of the dead from following upon them as the most perfect good. And it is not for this reason that we have not obtained it until now—namely, that the precise learning of the good should first come to be in us—since if that had happened, that would certainly have followed as well. However, the blessed Paul, since he declared that their change ought to be reckoned a matter of good fortune, holding this as his aim throughout—to teach the Gentiles rather to receive them, and not to reject those who wish to come to the lesson of piety—tries to show even from events that they are not unacceptable, but worthy of zeal if they wish to incline toward the better; and he says 158.

Some thought that the apostle was saying that the firstfruits and the root are the same thing, not considering that the firstfruits is chosen after the gathering of the whole, whereas the root is regarded as a kind of beginning of a thing. Hence here too, consistently, he called Christ the firstfruits, as one taken from the whole assembly of the Jews, and he calls Abraham the root, from whom the entire race sprang. He set out well to speak from each of the two what was suited to their piety, if only they had not chosen the worse by their own judgment. For it is ridiculous to regard their firstfruits as worthy of all honor, yet to thrust away those who wish to approach the teaching of piety as unworthy of the matter. It is worthy of wonder how, from the very things in which those of the Gentiles seemed especially to pride themselves, he accurately established that it was fitting for them both to grieve with the Jews in their misfortunes and rather to fear for themselves. For why, he says, do you pride yourself, that they were rejected and you were brought in? But it is not right for one who boasts in their misfortunes not also to regard their calamities as his own; rather, for this very reason it was fitting for you to fear more, being disciplined by the memory of them. Nevertheless, he says, it is possible to be taught what is fitting through each: both by reckoning the honor of God toward you, of which you were deemed worthy through faith, become more zealous for piety; and by considering how he rejected them because of unbelief, guard yourself with all your power lest you fall into the same things. For he calls severity not cruelty but the cutting off, that is, how he divided them and cut them off from the register of the pious.

If you change your mind, he says, there will be no benefit from what is present, and it is again possible for those others, if they change, to obtain adoption by God. 159. I will not hesitate, he says, to tell you that as well, although it is unclear, so that you may not think that they have been most justly rejected out of ignorance of what is to come; for the phrase "so that you may not be wise in your own estimation" means "so that you may not think that you have something understanding in yourselves"—their rejection. And what is this? That these will not remain forever alien to piety, but there will be a time when they too will recognize the truth, when people everywhere receive the teaching of piety, and so all Israel will be saved; so that he may mean both those who have kinship with Israel by nature—that is, the Jews—and those who by faith have made themselves worthy of this designation, and he means those from the Gentiles. That, then, you ought to know: that I, for the sake of the gospel, whenever they wish to ridicule it, blaming your coming and putting this forward as a plausible pretext, as they think, for not being persuaded by our teachings, have regarded them as enemies, inasmuch as they are hostile to the faith; for then I do not shrink from saying anything that ought to be said for the refutation of their wickedness, but because of my kinship with the fathers I have been eager to value them so highly that I do not even hesitate to suffer anything, if need be, for their salvation.

For I know precisely that God, having not changed his mind about the election of the fathers, did not reject them; rather, they themselves by the wickedness of their disposition became the cause of their own alienation from God. Since he has completed the doctrinal arguments, he now takes up the ethical ones from here, making his beginning most necessarily from exhortation. For in those matters it was not difficult for those who wished to retain what had been said after the instruction, but with virtue toil is also yoked, so that one approaches its working with much hesitation, and when beginning needs much labor for success. He therefore lightens the toilsome nature of the matter by exhortation, and he has made the exhortation most persuasive by saying "through the mercies of God." For since he made the greatest teaching in the doctrinal sections concerning God's love for humanity, which he exercises toward all people, he necessarily persuades them by reminding them of these things to take care for virtue, showing that it is not right for that to become for them a provision for laziness, but on the contrary again that they ought to contribute their zeal, being ashamed to appear ungrateful toward one so kind. And what is the exhortation? "To present your bodies," and the rest. He says that it is right for you to set apart your own body for God, serving his laws, since it is right that what has come from God should not be an instrument of vice but of virtue.

What he means by "to present" is "to set apart," taking the expression from a metaphor of those who stand in attendance upon kings or masters for service, to whom it necessarily follows that they fulfill the necessities of service, as he also said above: "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body," then, following up as in the case of a king: "neither present your members as weapons of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as weapons of righteousness to God." And most wonderfully he intensified the counsel throughout, not only by saying "to present" but also by calling it a sacrifice; for he showed that it in no way befits anyone to misuse the service of the body for the opposite purpose, since indeed it was not lawful even for the sacrifices of irrational animals brought to God according to the law to be handed over to the common use of men any longer. And he called this "living," since the offerings brought according to the law were, as is likely, dead after the sacrifice, whereas these were brought to God for this very reason, so that in the

To live in accordance with what is done by his laws; and hence he also called this holy, since it was possible for that other not to be such, being judged by the wickedness of those who bring offerings, but also well-pleasing to God; for that other was not altogether such. And "your reasonable service" showed the great difference; for it is not the same to serve God with an irrational offering and to demonstrate, by the perfection of one's reasonings, the conscience toward God in one's deeds. The preceding things, then, spoken about virtue in general, could be well; but from here on he proceeds to particulars, forbidding pride before all things as the worst of evils, no longer by exhortation but rather by authority; for it is not the same to urge toward virtue and to forbid the practice of what is improper; whence it would be fitting for the former to be joined with exhortation, but for the latter vehemence also will often be suitable, for by the addition of the grace given to me he made the turning away from evil more fearful. Calling pride madness, and sound-mindedness moderation, so that he may not seem from this to produce some confusion, as though the good order of the church ought not to be preserved among them because of an excess of moderation, he rightly adds: "to each as God apportioned a measure of faith." I wish, he says, that all be moderate, but that order also be preserved among you in proportion to the gifts distributed to you by God; for since the gifts among them were very many, he calls the distribution of the gifts a apportionment and measured allotment of faith.

Now the connection of this passage one person rendered by reading it without the conjunction and joining it to what came before. For thus, he says, it must be understood: we are members of one another, having gifts differing according to the grace given to us; for even if these are different, nevertheless they have been supplied by the divine grace for common benefit. He says "the one who leads" in place of "the one who takes care." Thus also in the letter to Timothy: if anyone does not know how to lead his own household, how will he take care of the church of God? Clearly calling leadership care. For different ways of doing good especially at that time existed from the wealthier to the poorer among fellow believers, about which he now speaks, both "the one who distributes" and "the one who leads" and "the one who shows mercy," speaking about the same things. "In brotherly love" — "be devoted to one another" is somehow similar to "love without hypocrisy," since being deeply devoted does not differ from truly loving, but it has something more by the addition "to one another." For he wishes all to have the same zeal for one another, since love cannot otherwise be maintained, except that the one loved is eager to preserve the same disposition toward the one loving; and if this should not happen, the one loving will altogether refrain from loving, however great the friendship he has, not enduring to be loved while being disregarded. "In the needs," he says, "of the saints, sharing." Some of the copies have "in the memorials," the meaning being the same; for he says that it is right for you always to remember the saints, and to consider their needs as common, and thus to lighten their want.

Do not be, he says, wise in your own eyes, this again being something else that comes from arrogance. Do not, he says, simply choose what appears to your own mind, when it seems absurd to common opinion. And well also is the phrase rendering evil for evil to no one; for again he has gone out from matters concerning one another to matters concerning adversaries. He added therefore to no one instead of that it is not right to display this even in the case of those outside the faith. In both respects, he says, being subject to such persons is fitting, on the one hand so that by doing what is fitting we may avoid the punishment from there, and on the other so that by our reverence toward them we may appear to render to God, who ordained these things, the conscience that is owed. And that too is surely clear, that the blessed Paul advises being subject to rulers in these matters. Not so that we should obey even if they compel us to act impiously; for he clearly stated both the purpose of the rule and that for the sake of which God so ordered human affairs, so that legislating about piety in ways one ought not would not be of the purpose of the rule, but of the disposition of those who do not use ruling as they ought. For matters that pertain to God are not the proper concern of rulers to judge, since they were not appointed for this either, but concerning matters that are moved among humans and the rights that people have toward one another, the rulers, being appointed as mediators and arbiters of justice, when they act in accordance with their own purpose, show rule to be a most necessary thing. He calls tribute the contribution for the land, and tax the payment for commerce or some bodily craft.

To put it briefly, the fulfillment of the law is the keeping of love, and since what was said was exceedingly paradoxical, he added what follows. Every legal ordinance involves either a prohibition of evil or the doing of good; for the lawgiver set forth some things so that we might not harm one another, and others so that we might do some good to one another according to our ability. But all these things are encompassed in the ordinance that commands loving one's neighbor; well, then, does he say "is summed up," meaning that all those things legislated through many provisions are, as it were, a kind of summary contained in loving one's neighbor. For he who loves, he says, does not endure to harm the one he loves, if indeed he has true love for him; therefore the keeping of love is the accomplishment of the whole law. Then he brings his discourse to exhortation and says what follows. It should be read thus: "and this," then after a pause, "knowing the time," and what follows; for he wishes to say that we must also take care of this, that we do what we ought, knowing that the time is at hand for us to put off the pleasure that comes from sins, like some deep sleep. And he calls our salvation the resurrection, since then we shall enjoy the true salvation. He calls "day" the time from the coming of Christ, since his manifestation made the most manifest distinction between things good and things not so, and "night" the time before this; and he says both of these especially with reference to those who were devoted to idols, among whom there were no ordinances nor teaching of what ought to be done.

The time of ignorance, then, he says, has passed, when you were as in night, neither knowing God nor having received the declaration of the laws; but the time of day has come, when the greatest light, the presence of Christ, has shone upon us. But put on, he says, the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh unto desires. He says "put on" instead of "you put on"; for he means to say that through the regeneration of baptism, having been joined to Christ and shown to be a member of the common body of the church, of which he is the head, you have, as it were, put him on by the fellowship of the things hoped for, inasmuch as you also hope to share with him in the resurrection. You would therefore be righteous if you thought the things fitting that state, in which all such things must necessarily have ceased; nothing, then, of such a kind ought you to do as that age will not receive. But for those who love sin, it has passage in the present time, where our body is still subject to corruption, and from this comes great disturbance of the passions for us. We have also said above that Scripture often calls "flesh" not nature itself but the mortal, that is, the temporary. This, then, he says here too: make no provision for the flesh unto desires, not speaking of nature itself, but instead of "do not follow after your own desires, making it your earnest endeavor to do those things which in the present life receive their motion through the mortality that is in us." He calls "provision for the flesh" the earnest pursuit of present things, or even of improper things, as being done in this life.

being able only, but in the coming age no longer; which is why he also set over against it the very phrase, "Put on the Lord Jesus Christ," which is indeed an imitation of the coming state. Do not, then, he says, have your earnest effort set on this, that you might fulfill the desires of the present age, with which there is no fellowship at all toward the coming state. And this again he says by way of concession; for above he discussed the observance of foods, but here that of days. Let us, then, grant that some observe the days according to the legal ordinance, doing nothing on this one but touching works on that, celebrating on this day and ceasing from the feast on another; while others wish to hold every day alike, and on every day both to work and to feast to God, always touching bodily things as urgency demands and never ceasing from thanksgiving to God. It is not right, then, that you fight over this, but better to be free from fighting, leaving each one in such matters to remain in his own persuasion. What am I saying, he says, about eating and not eating? Neither living are we our own, nor dying; for if we live, we live his life, and if we die, we die according to his definition. This, then, ought everywhere to be our aim, to please God, reckoning that whether living or dying we are altogether his. And showing that this is not from creation only, but also from what was recently dispensed through Christ, he added: "For to this end Christ" and the rest. For consider.

He says that Christ both died for us and, having died, rose. And having risen, he lives, having accomplished everything for us unto unending life, so that we too, having died, might share in his resurrection and enjoy the life, so that from every side it appears that we are under necessity to serve Christ, since even when we die we are wholly his who died for us so as to raise us up; and while we live we owe our life to him who granted us life after death beyond hope. The phrase "Why do you judge?" was spoken to the one from the Jews, and "Why do you despise?" to the one from the Gentiles. Neither, he says, is fitting for either of you, since there is a necessity that those who stand before the judgment seat of Christ give an account of the life they have lived. And as confirmation of what has been said he sets down a testimony; for it is written: "As I live, says the Lord," and the rest. That he brought forward the testimony as confirmation of what was said about Christ is clear, but this must be known: that where Isaiah says this, it is continually said, "I am God, and there is no longer any other," and "I am the Lord, and there is no other besides me; righteous and savior, there is none besides me," and as many such things as these. One must therefore inquire how the apostle applied these to Christ. To the heretics who wish in every way to diminish the divinity of the Only-begotten, one might say that whether he used these here as spoken about Christ—the worthiness of the divinity of the Only-begotten is manifest, being in no way diminished from the Father—or whether, when the apostle used the testimony spoken by the prophet about the Father, he was speaking about the Lord;

And thus the Son has been acknowledged as not being of another divinity, since he has employed the expression, so that it can be said similarly also of Christ, even if it happens to have been spoken concerning the Father. One might say this, then, against the heretics; but the truth is that it has been spoken neither specifically concerning the Father nor concerning Christ, but simply concerning the divine nature, the highest and the cause of all things. And for this reason the apostle applied the testimony to Christ, considering that such things are fitting alike for Father and Son, since there is no difference according to nature. Similarly this is also evident in the passage to the Hebrews, "But you are the same, and your years shall not fail," which he used concerning Christ. No longer, then, he says, let us judge one another. This has been said in common, but from here on he directs his discourse to those from the Gentiles, as though he had said enough to the Jews. It is not right, then, he says, for you to set yourselves up as judges of those of the same faith, since the judgment seat of Christ remains for all; but rather judge this, not to place a stumbling block or an offense before your brother. For many of those from the Greeks, being more influential among the Romans both in number and in the respectability of their persons, did these things rather for the mockery of the Jews, endeavoring to eat in their sight those things from which they were especially eager to abstain, so that from this those Jews were often disturbed and fell away from piety, and indeed, growing negligent of the common assembly, they became rather by themselves.

It is good, then, he says, that you rather approve this: to do nothing to the harm of a brother, nor to practice such things as turn him aside from piety. And so that he might not seem himself to be introducing the observance of foods and saying these things, he added: I know and am persuaded that nothing is common through him, and what follows, necessarily employing both the ordinance for the confirmation of what is said, and by his own addition making the declaration more trustworthy, as though Christ were sufficient to show that all things are pure. Nothing, then, he says, do I say is unclean of those things appointed for food, unless someone by weakness of reasoning holds such an opinion concerning foods. Thus I do not accept such observance; but what did he add? For if your brother is grieved because of food, you are no longer walking according to love; but because it is not just, he says, for you to grieve your brother because of food, when it is necessary even to endure greater things under compulsion. It is fitting, indeed, to laugh at the simplicity of those who think that after the resurrection we shall eat and drink, supposing things very contrary to the voice of Paul, who says that the kingdom of God is not limited to food and drink. He says that the salvation of men is the work of God. It is not just, then, for you to destroy that which God raises up because of food. Do you see to what extent he has magnified the sin? And since it was likely that some, being rather strict in these matters, were displeased at the exhortation, and perhaps even said: What need is there of these many words? For why does he not himself also clearly say that they are unclean? He takes it up again, securing it, and says:

All things are indeed pure, but it is evil for the man who eats through a stumbling block. Again, guarding against the appearance of attending to the observance of foods, he himself adds: All things are indeed pure to the pure. I say these things, he says, not wishing that observance to prevail; for on the contrary I consider all things pure, as many as have been made by God for food. What, then, do the words mean for you? But it is evil for the man, he says, who eats through a stumbling block—but even if the food is pure, at any rate its partaking is not good for you when you eat not simply, but to the harm of another, for mockery and derision. Blessed, he says, is the one who does not judge himself in what he approves. He has set down a voice necessary not only for those men, but indeed for all who wish to pursue anything at all of the things that contribute to precision. For I, he says, reckon that man most blessed who, whenever he has approved something to pursue through precision and virtue, holds to the work, yet does not for this reason consider himself superior to those who do not pursue the same thing; for it is good to accomplish virtue apart from all conceit, not considering oneself superior for these things which one pursues out of desire for better things, nor indeed rejecting the one who is not examined in the same things. This, then, has been said by the apostle in common, not only concerning those present,

But in every case, whatever it may be, it is worth guarding against. And again he brings the argument back to the point at hand: But the one who doubts, if he eats, is condemned, because it is not from faith; and everything that is not from faith is sin. He says that the one who doubts is condemned not on account of the food, but on account of the one of the same faith; for the one who partakes simply and without distinction of the things set out for food, he says, eats most excellently on account of faith, but the one who quarrels with his brother and for this reason eats with strife against him is harmed, making the food rather an occasion of strife against his neighbor; for he seems not to do it without distinction on account of faith, but rather out of contentiousness against him; and what is not done in simplicity with faith, but in strife against one's neighbor, is an acknowledged sin. Again he says this to those from the Gentiles, who spat upon those from the Jews on account of the observance of the law. You, then, he says, who are strong, would be just to bear with the weakness of those and to endure those who are unable to depart from the old opinion. Do not, however, look to your own interests only; for this is to please yourselves, but it is better also to look to the interests of the one of the same faith, so that he too might be improved. And to persuade them to do this, he added the examples that follow. He says that God will grant you all endurance and encouragement, so that, being of one mind with one another, you may hold to the faith in Christ, and thus render the hymn of praise in harmony with God and the Father. And this too is an exhortation in the form of a prayer; for such as he wishes them to be, such he prayed that they might be.

Therefore, not departing from his own aim, he again brings the argument forward. So, he says, it is right that you should rather draw to yourselves the weaker, considering that Christ also made you his own, though you were strangers to piety, so that you might obtain the glory that is to come from God. And since he made a lengthy argument to those from the Gentiles, calling them strong and naming their opinion concerning foods faith, lest he seem to disparage the things of the Jews as though worthy of no account, he added what follows. What has been said before, he says, has been said by me to reprove the untimeliness of those who, after the coming of Christ, wish to cling to the observance of the legal ordinances, since I have judged it to be altogether absurd, after the perfection according to Christ, to run back again to those things. But I said nothing in disparagement of the things according to the law; on the contrary, I have judged all those things to be wonderful and great, knowing that they came about through the ordinances of God, who, having chosen Abraham, made promises to him that he would take care of those from him, and would also make all the nations, through their being made his own in relation to him and his seed, to obtain the blessings from him, so that all might recognize God as the cause of all things and might in turn inscribe Abraham as their own, valuing highly the kinship with his seed. It was necessary, then, that the promises to Abraham be fulfilled, that all the nations through him and his seed might obtain the blessings from God.

But since most of the Jews were doing nothing worthy of God's care, nor could God's promises obtain their fulfillment because of their wickedness, Christ, therefore, who traced his lineage according to the flesh from that people, endured to receive circumcision, although he had no need of it as the rest of the Jews did, who by reason of their own ignorance necessarily bear the reproof of that practice in the flesh. For what need did Christ have of outward things, when by his own will he confirmed the promises and fulfilled the intent of the law? But he also chose this, so as to have the symbol of the promise made to the forefather, in order that when all believe in Christ, he who traces his lineage from Abraham, bringing with him the natural kinship and the symbol of the promise made to him, may receive a true and certain fulfillment—namely, that those from the Gentiles who believe in Christ, being his seed, may at once be inscribed as having Abraham for father, and through their kinship with him who came from him may enjoy the good things from God, confirming the truth of what has been said. He chose, it says, having received circumcision, to become, as it were, a servant of the promises given on this condition by that symbol, so that God's truth might appear, the promise to the fathers thus receiving its fulfillment. Therefore the Jews, whenever they believe in Christ from that lineage, accordingly pass from good things to better; while those who come from the Greeks receive, by God's loving-kindness, kinship with these things.

He said these things, then, to establish the points concerning the law, in order to show how great is the difference between the Greek practices and those of the Jews, so that he might not seem to disparage the things of the law on the basis of what had preceded. And consequently he again safeguards against giving the Jews an occasion against those from the nations, as though they had received something recent, and he says: He used these testimonies in order to show that always, even among the prophets, the nations have been approved as trustworthy for the learning of piety, if indeed they wished it—since the prophet promises that they will even give thanks in their sight, and they are commanded to share in the joy with the people and to send up hymns to God. Since he has made the teaching to them sufficient, he again runs back to the safeguard of his own person. He had also said many things in the introduction, so as not to seem to be undertaking the teaching to them out of arrogance, having received the doctrines of piety from the blessed Peter, and defending himself also concerning his not having come to them until now, but rather conversing with them now by letter. And yet, having come to many others, he discusses both matters here as well, now being at the end of the letter, very earnestly endeavoring to show that he finds no fault with the teachings of the blessed Peter, and defending himself next also concerning his not having come to them. Here, then, he says: I am thoroughly persuaded concerning you, that you have been filled with every good thing and possess the knowledge of all that is fitting, so as even to be able to admonish others; for such is the one who taught you.

I wrote to you more boldly, in part," he says. Well does he say "in part," so that he might not seem to declare this about himself universally and thus to cast out his own teaching, since indeed he ought not to have done it, if he had undertaken something universally bold toward those who did not belong to him. For now, by the addition of "in part," he both demonstrated the necessity of his own teaching and made clear the reason for which he said he had written more boldly—not by teaching them, but by [coming] after Peter. Showing, then, the necessity of the matter, he says, as one reminding you again. Well does he say "reminding again"; for in this way, he says, I receive those things and consider them to be admirable, so that I do not promise even to teach, but to bring [you] to a reminder of the things you have learned. And showing that it was fitting for him to do this, he added: "because of the grace given to me by God," and the rest. I was deemed worthy, he says, of the grace from God, so that I might serve Christ by proclaiming to people everywhere the greatness of the things provided to us through him, so that they too, having believed and been deemed worthy of the grace of the Spirit, might obtain the good things to come. Necessarily, then, having been entrusted with this as well, I have made use of the teaching toward you, not promising to teach something new, nor what you did not know from Peter, but leading you to a reminder of what had come before. 171. For this reason, he says, I was eager to come to you, since God sent Peter to you as a teacher sufficient for piety, but me for the [task] of the

He wished to be occupied with the benefit of the rest. He said "in part" as one who would again come to them, since the blessed Paul did not arrive in Rome only once. And having sealed this fruit for them, instead of "having fulfilled it," he says, so as to say "having brought it and given it"; for even if the fruit was complete in the intention of those who gave, yet in usefulness it was incomplete, since those for whose sake it was given had not yet received it. Wonderful, then, is the foreknowledge of the blessed Paul, who so accurately promised that he would come to them and from them to Spain, and did not indicate that this would happen only once, which indeed he signified by "in part." But what follows is beyond wonder. He clearly shows that he also knew the manner in which he was going to go to them; and this was that he would be led as a prisoner from Judea to Rome for the sake of piety. And this too was no small proof of the knowledge he possessed concerning future things. As he himself was about to be tested in many tumults, having reasonably exhorted them also to pray, for this very reason he prays on their behalf that they always enjoy peace, showing that even if he himself is in these things on behalf of others, he prays that the rest at least may pursue piety with all ease. This one seems to be the same whom the blessed Luke also mentions in the Acts, as an eloquent man and one who, from his knowledge of the divine Scriptures, restrained the Jews in his refutations. The word "blessing" is used to mean "praise" and "flattery," which they often practiced for deception.

He is speaking about those from among the Jews who went about everywhere trying to persuade the believers from the Gentiles to adhere to the observances of the law, whom he sufficiently ridiculed by saying that they do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ but their own belly, since indeed they do everything so that, by deceiving, they may fill their own stomach. And he showed in this also that he greatly praises the teachings of Peter, seeing that he wishes them to remain in those teachings and to turn away from those who attempt to teach anything contrary to them. He calls "steward of the city" one who has been entrusted with some civil care by the rulers from outside for the correction of the city. And this man also was clearly among those who had believed in Christ.