Chapter 1 Salutation, Introduction

Lecture 1 Paul the apostle

^1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God. [n. 15]

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

In the first part three things are done.

First, the person sending the greeting is described;

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

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

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

16. The person writing is described by four things.

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

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

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

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

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

There are three opinions about this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lecture 2 The promise of the Gospel

^1:2 Which he had promised before, through his prophets, in the holy Scriptures, [n. 26]

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

Now the Apostle pursues these two commendations further:

first, on the part of the author;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

first, from his origin;

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

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

^1:3 Concerning his Son, who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh, [n. 29]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lecture 3 Christ’s power

^1:4 Who was predestined the Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of sanctification, by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead: [n. 42]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I answer that if the as is referred to the very suppositum of the man, it must be admitted that this suppositum is a divine person. But if it designates the condition of the nature or the cause, taken this way Christ as man is not a person, because the human nature does not cause a new personhood in Christ. For it is joined to a nobler person into whose personhood it passes.

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

I answer that such expressions must be explained so that the meaning is this: he who assumed and the nature he assumed are united in one person.

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

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

I answer that since a man implies a suppositum, in this case an eternal one, it cannot properly be said that a man was assumed by the Word; for a same thing is not assumed by itself. Hence, wherever the expression man was assumed is found, it is taken as the human nature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the first explanation is better.

Lecture 4 Christ’s liberality

^1:5 Through whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith, in all nations, for his name: [n. 60]

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

And he sets out two gifts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^1:6 Among whom are you also the called of Jesus Christ: [n. 65]

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

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

^1:7 To all who are at Rome, the beloved of God, called to be saints. Grace to you and peace, from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ. [n. 66]

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

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

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

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

68. Second, their calling when he adds called.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lecture 5 Prayer of thanksgiving

^1:8 First, I give thanks to my God, through Jesus Christ, for you all: because your faith is proclaimed in the whole world. [n. 74]

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

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

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

He shows his affection for them in three ways:

first, by giving thanks for their blessings;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^1:9 For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the Gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make a commemoration of you: [n. 78]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^1:10 Always in my prayers making request, if by any means now at length I may have a prosperous journey, by the will of God, to come unto you. [n. 83]

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, he mentions the desire;

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

In regard to the first he does two things:

first, he mentions a sign of this desire;

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

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

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

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

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

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

^1:11 For I long to see you that I may impart unto you some spiritual grace, to strengthen you: [n. 87]

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

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

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

^1:12 That is to say, that I may be comforted together in you by that which is common to us both, your faith and mine. [n. 88]

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

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

^1:13 And I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that I have often purposed to come unto you (and have been hindered hitherto) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other gentiles. [n. 89]

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

First, he mentions his plan;

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

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

In regard to the first he does two things:

first, he mentions his plan;

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

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

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

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

^1:14 To the Greeks and to the barbarians, to the wise and to the unwise, I am a debtor. [n. 92]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^1:15 So (as much as is in me) I am ready to preach the Gospel to you also who are at Rome. [n. 95]

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

^1:16 For I am not ashamed of the Gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes: to the Jew first and to the Greek. [n. 96]

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

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

Lecture 6 Wrath of God against man’s ungodliness

^1:16 For I am not ashamed of the Gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes: to the Jew first and to the Greek. [n. 97]

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

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

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

In regard to the first he does two things:

first, he sets forth what he intends;

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

In regard to the first he does three things:

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

second, he explains it, at for the justice;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^1:17 For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: the just man lives by faith. [n. 102]

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

This can be understood in two ways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

105. Four things must be considered here concerning faith.

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

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

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

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

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

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

^1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men who detain the truth of God in injustice: [n. 109]

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

First, he shows that it is necessary for salvation;

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

In regard to the first he does two things.

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

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

In regard to the first he does two things.

First, he states his intention;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^1:19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God has manifested it unto them. [n. 113]

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

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

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

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

In regard to the first he does three things.

First, he shows what they knew about God;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. [n. 117]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lecture 7 Impiety and injustice of the gentiles

^1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. [n. 123]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they had not glorified him as God or given thanks, but became vain in their thoughts. And their foolish heart was darkened. [n. 126]

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, he states his charge;

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

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

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

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

^1:22 For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. [n. 131]

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

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

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

^1:23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts and of creeping things. [n. 132]

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

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

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

In regard to the first he does two things:

first, he sets forth the sin of ungodliness;

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

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

First, therefore, he mentions what they changed;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^1:24 Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonor their own bodies among themselves, [n. 137]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. [n. 141]

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

First, he mentions the sin;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lecture 8 The punishments of the gentiles

^1:26 For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [n. 146]

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

First, he mentions the punishment;

second, he explains it, at for their women;

third, its fittingness, at and receiving in themselves.

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

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

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

First, in regard to women;

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

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

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

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

^1:27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. [n. 150]

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

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

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

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

^1:28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not fitting. [n. 152]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^1:29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness: full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity: whisperers, [n. 156]

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

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

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

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

First, their transgressions which disobey negative precepts;

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

Regarding the first he does two things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^1:30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, [n. 162]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^1:31 Foolish, dissolute: without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. [n. 165]

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

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

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

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

^1:32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they who do them, but they also who consent to those who do them. [n. 166]

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

In this regard there are three points to consider.

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

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

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

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

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

Přepnout postranní panelMagisterium AIMagisterium AI

Magisterium AI

Přihlaste se pro více využití a funkcí

Commentary on Romans

Magisterium AI
Magisterium AI