UNFINISHED COMMENTARY OF THE

 LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Comment of Saint Augustine in the Retractations (1,25)

I had already embarked on the Exposition of the Letter to the Romans, as I did with the Exposition of the Letter to the Galatians. But there would be many books of that work, if the whole Letter had been finished; of them I only concluded one, which is the commentary to the initial greeting, to the words: The grace and peace of God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ be with you (Rm 1,7). It happened, by the way, that I stopped trying to solve the very difficult question -tangent to the words of our passage- about the sin against the Holy Spirit, which is not forgiven in this world or in the other (Mt 12,32). But then I gave up adding more volumes to expose the entire Charter, scared by the size and difficulty of the company, diverting me to other easier jobs. It turned out that the first book, already concluded, was left alone. I chose as a title: Inchoate exposition of the Letter to the Romans.

I say there that "grace is in the remission of sins and peace in reconciliation with God" (Cf 8,11). Wherever I have made this statement, it should not be taken as if peace itself and reconciliation did not enter into the general concept of grace, but there would be a specific name of grace to designate the remission of sins. It is like when we say «the Law», specifically, in relation to the expression: The Law and the Prophets (Mt 22,40), wanting to include also the Prophets. This book begins: "In the Letter that the Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans."

Unfinished Commentary on the Letter to the Romans

Foreword

In the Letter that the Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans, as can be deduced from its content, the question arises: Are the Jews the only recipients of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, for having deserved them with their observance of the Law?  Or are all the Gentiles, who without merit of previous works, are the recipients of justification by faith in Christ Jesus, bearing in mind that this faith did not come to them by being already righteous, but, believing, they received justification and began to live as righteous? What the Apostle really intends to demonstrate is that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ has come for all mankind. And he clarifies it by saying that grace has precisely this name because it is not something that is paid in justice like a debt contracted; No, it's a free gift. It turns out that some of the believers, coming from Judaism, had begun to revolt against those of the gentility, and especially against the apostle Paul, because he admitted uncircumcised to the grace of the Gospel, without subjecting them to the bonds of the old Law. he preached that they should believe in Christ, and that there was no need to submit to the yoke of carnal circumcision. But he does so with such a balance that the Jews are not tolerated by the pride of any merit in observing the Law, nor do they allow the Gentiles, by the merit of their faith, to become arrogant against the Jews for having accepted Christ, a whom the Jews crucified. The same idea develops in another place, where it says that it is placed as ambassador of the same Lord (Cf 2Co 5,20), cornerstone (Cf Eph. 2,20), which unites both peoples, both Jews and Gentiles in Christ, through the bond of grace. To each and every one of them takes away all possible arrogance, born of its merits; He makes disciples of humility to others, so that they are capable of justification.

[1,1] Thus begins his Letter: Paul, the servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, segregated for the Gospel of God. He immediately distinguishes in two words the dignity of the Church and the decrepitude of the Synagogue. The Church receives this name because it has been called. The Synagogue, on the other hand, makes reference to the gregarious. Being summoned is proper to men; to be added makes more reference to the animals: in fact the herd or flock is applied with more property to the cattle. It is true that in many passages of Scripture the Church is called "herd of God", "flock of God" and "fold of God". However, when metaphorically men are called by the name of some cattle, it is because they are still part of the ancient life. And it can be seen how these men do not aspire to the enduring food of the truth, but rather content themselves with the earthly bread of temporary promises. So, Paul, servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, a vocation that incorporated him into the Church. But it was segregated to proclaim the Gospel of God. Where did it come from, but from the flock of the Synagogue? If it is that the Greek meaning of these words agrees fully with its Latin sense.

[1,2] Paul, without a doubt, endorses with the authority of the prophets the strength of the Gospel of God, for whose service he tells us he was chosen. In this way he makes a new recommendation to the pagans not to be proud, since the believers in Christ, of whom he feels called to be a part, put them before the Jews, of whom he claims to have been separated. Actually the prophets are part of the Jewish people. And already they had once promised the Gospel, which brings justification to those who believe in him. This is what he says: Segregated for the Gospel of God, which had previously been promised by his prophets (Cf Eph. 2,20). There were also some prophets who did not come from God. In his writings there are several expressions about Christ, which they had heard and then expressed in their songs, as it is said, for example, of the Sibyl. I would not easily be inclined to believe it, if I did not mention it the most illustrious poet in the Roman language. Indeed, before speaking about the renewal of the world, whose verses could very well be called a song to the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, this verse advances: The final age of the song of Cumas has arrived.

Everyone knows that the Cumus Song is that of the Sibyl. The Apostle knew that these testimonies were found about the truth in the writings of the Gentiles; he expressed it explicitly speaking to the Athenians, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles (Rm 1,1-2). That is why he not only says: By his prophets, but he adds: In the holy Scriptures, lest someone, seduced by certain glimpses of the false prophets, fall into some kind of impiety. It is also his intention to declare that the writings of the Gentiles are plagued by a superstitious idolatry, not being able to qualify them as saints due to the fact that they contain an allusion referring to Christ.

[1,3] It could also happen that someone had preference for a prophet of antiquity, alien to the Jewish people, in whose writings there is no cult of idols, product of the hand of man; because in what refers to the simulacra of his fantasies, every mistake deceives his followers. Well, to prevent anyone from being led by preferences of this kind, to find the name of Christ there, and qualify them as holy Scriptures, excluding those divinely entrusted to the Hebrew people, it seems very opportune that, After having said in the holy Scriptures, he added: About his Son, born of the lineage of David according to the flesh (Rm 1,3). David, we know, was king of the Jews. It was therefore fitting that the prophets who proclaimed Christ should come from the same people in whom the one they were announcing was going to be incarnated. It was necessary to meet those who, in their impiety, only accept our Lord Jesus Christ in their humanity, assumed by him, but do not recognize his divinity, which distinguishes him and separates him from all creation. Thus the Jews thought, for whom Christ was only David's son, oblivious to the dignity for which he is Lord of David himself, being Son of God. That is why he argues in the Gospel, using the same prophetic words, from David's mouth. He asks them, in effect, how his son can be, being that David himself calls him Lord (Cf Mt 22,42-45). His answer should be that he is his son according to the flesh, but as to his divinity he is Son of God and Lord of David himself. The apostle Paul, who knew this well, comes up against it trying to avoid the belief that Christ was only and exclusively a man of flesh and blood. Hence, first say: for the Gospel of God, which had been promised by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures about his Son, who became a man of the lineage of David, and then adds: according to the flesh. By adding this expression, according to the flesh, he saved his divine rank. Of this rank, not only the lineage of David, but that of every creature, whether angelic or any other, however high their excellence, is lacking. It is the very Word of God, by means of which all things were created (Cf Jn 1,1). This Word became a man of the lineage of David and dwelt among us (Cf Jn 1,14); but he did not change, becoming flesh, but he clothed himself with flesh to manifest himself in the proper way to carnal men. The Apostle distinguishes humanity well from divinity, not only in these words: according to the flesh, but in those other words: it was done. Because it was not made (or was made) in its being of the Word of God, no: by it all things were made, and it is not possible for it to be made together with all the others. Nor was it done before all of them, so that all others, except her, could exist through her. Because if she, before the others, was created, the other things created by her environment could not be, nor could it be said that everything was done through her, if she was also made. This is why the Apostle, speaking of "being made" referring to Christ, adds: according to the flesh, to make it clear that inasmuch as it is the Word of God, that is, Son of God, it was not created by God, but rather of him was born.

[1,4] Of this same Christ, who according to the flesh was born of the lineage of David, goes on to say that he was predestinated with power to be the Son of God; and this not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit; but not any spirit, but the sanctifying Spirit in the resurrection of the dead. The resurrection emphasizes the power of the one who dies, and therefore says: Predestined with power, according to the sanctifying Spirit, in the resurrection of the dead. Later, sanctification brought the new life, which was initialed by the resurrection of our Lord. This is what the Apostle refers to elsewhere: If you have been raised with Christ, seek the things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God (Col 3,1). The order of the words could really be this: to the expression: Sanctifying spirit not to add to it in the resurrection of the dead, but: it was predestined; then the order of the sentence would be like this: that it was predestined in the resurrection of the dead, leaving as a clause the words: Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of sanctification. This order of phrase seems more accurate because it adapts better to its meaning, since this is the son of David according to the weakness of his flesh, and Son of God with the power of the sanctifying Spirit. Therefore he was born of the lineage of David, that is, he is David's son in his mortal body, so he also died. But he was predestined to be the Son of God - and Lord of David himself - in the resurrection of the dead. The fact of having died makes reference to being the son of David; on the other hand, his resurrection from the dead refers to his divine filiation, being also Lord of David himself. As in another passage the Apostle says: For although he died for his weakness, he is still alive by the power of God (2Co 13,4). Thus his weakness belongs to David, and his eternal life to the power of God. That is why David, referring to him in the words already quoted, calls him Lord: The Lord said to my Lord: sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet (Ps. 109,1). Because he has risen from the dead, he is seated at the right hand of the Father. David, inspired by the Spirit, to see the predestined to sit at the right hand of the Father, in the resurrection of the dead, did not have the audacity to call him his son, but his Lord. And for that reason, with the same reason, the Apostle added: From Jesus Christ our Lord, after saying: in the resurrection of the dead. As if he wanted to remind us why David testifies that he is his Lord, rather than his son. . Paul does not say of him that he was predestined in the resurrection "from among" the dead, but he says in the resurrection of the dead. In effect, it is not by his own resurrection that his divine filiation, with that highest dignity, is evident. his own and exclusive, for which he is also the head of the Church, given that the rest of the dead will also be resurrected. He was actually predestined to be the Son of God with a certain primacy in the resurrection, since his predestination was from the resurrection of all the dead, that is, he was destined to rise above others and before others. The words Son of God, placed behind it was predestined, are like the confirmation of such high dignity. Only the Son of God could be predestined to this, since he is also the head of the Church, and the same Apostle in another place calls him first-born from the dead (Cf Col 1,18). It was convenient that the judge of the resurrected was the one who had preceded them as a model. But not as a model of all the resurrected ones, but as an example of those who have to resuscitate to live and reign eternally: he is precisely their head, and they are their body. He was predestined in the resurrection, from among all of them to be his prince, while for the rest of the resurrected he will be not his prince, but his judge. It was not predestined precisely in the resurrection of those dead whom he was to condemn. By saying the Apostle who had been predestinated in the resurrection of the dead, he wants to imply that he would advance in the resurrection of the dead. But to those who preceded has been those who were to continue in the possession of the celestial kingdom. That is why he does not say: He was predestinated as the Son of God in the resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, but says: In the resurrection of the dead of Jesus Christ our Lord. As if to say: "Who has been predestined as the Son of God in the resurrection of his dead," that is, of those who belong to him for eternal life. As anticipating the question: "Of what dead?" Gives this answer: "Of those of Jesus Christ our Lord." In the resurrection of the remaining dead, it has not been predestined, it has not preceded them in the glory of eternal life, since they will not follow it: the resurrection of the wicked will be for the punishment. Thus, as the Only Begotten Son of God, and firstborn from the dead, he was predestinated in the resurrection of the dead. What dead people, but those of Jesus Christ, our Lord?

[1,5-6] Through him, he continues, we have received the grace and the apostolic ministry; the grace in common with all the faithful; the apostolic ministry only with some. If he had only said that he received the apostolic ministry, he would have been ungrateful to grace, for which his sins were forgiven, and he would give the impression that the apostolic ministry had been given as a reward for the merits of his previous conduct. That is why he focuses well on this point, so that no one dares to affirm that he has been called to the Gospel because of the merits of his previous life. Not even the Apostles themselves, who, after the head, are the most eminent members of the body, were properly capable of receiving the apostolic commission, without having previously received, like all others, the grace that justifies and heals sinners. And he continues: That among all the Gentiles there may be an obedience to the faith for the glory of his name. To this end he says he has received the apostolic ministry, so that obedience to faith may be obeyed for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that is, for that all who desire salvation believe in Christ and follow his name. This salvation has not only come to the Jews, as some of them believed, which makes it clear when saying: Among all the Gentiles, of whom you are also part, called by Jesus Christ (Rm 1,5-6). In other words: so that you too belong to that Jesus Christ who is the salvation of all people, even though you are not part of the number of the Jews, but of the rest of the heathen peoples.

[1,1-7] What he has said so far is who is the author of the Letter, that is, Paul, servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, chosen for the Gospel of God. And as the question seemed spontaneous: What kind of gospel? He answered: He who had been promised by his prophets in the holy Scriptures about his Son. And again the question came: Who is this his Son? To which he answers: He who became a man of the lineage of David according to the flesh, predestined to be the Son of God with power, according to the sanctifying Spirit, in the resurrection of the dead of Jesus Christ our Lord. Again another supposed question: And you, how do you belong? He answers: By means of which we have received the grace and the apostolic ministry, so that among all the Gentiles there is an obedience to the faith for the glory of his name. And as if he were again asked: What is the reason you are writing to us ?, he answers: Among those who are also you, called by Jesus Christ. Then, and according to the epistolary style, he mentions the recipients: To all beloved by God, who are in Rome, saints by vocation. Here too he emphasizes the goodness of God over his own merits. It does not say: To those who love God, but: To those loved by God. He loved us first, before all merit, so that we, the beloved ones, loved Him (Cf 1Jn 4,19). They reaffirm the words that follow: Saints by vocation. And although someone attributes himself to obey the one who calls him, no one can be attributed to having been called. Saints by vocation should not be understood as being called because they are already saints, but they have become saints because they have been called.

[1,7] To end, as usual, the heading of a letter, only the greeting remains, as a wish of health to the addressees. Instead of him, and by greeting, he says: Grace and peace to you, from our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. For not all grace comes from God. The evil judges, for example, favor some people with their grace, seduced by greed or cowed by fear. Nor does all peace come from God or come from him. The Lord himself makes distinction, when he says: My peace I give you, adding, moreover, that he does not give them the same peace that this world gives (Cf Jn 14,27). It is, therefore, of the grace that is born of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, through which the forgiveness of sins comes to us, that made us enemies of God; and peace is the fruit of reconciliation with God. When by grace our sins have been forgiven and our enmity has disappeared, there is nothing left but to adhere in peace to God, from whom only sin separated us. This is what the prophet says: He does not cover his ears to avoid hearing; what happens is that your sins put distance between God and you (Is 59,1-2). When they have already been forgiven by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, without separation, then peace will come.

[1,7] Perhaps someone wonders how God's justice can be understood as a judge, even though he grants his grace by forgiving sins. In God this is totally just; Yes, because it is truly just that, when the fear of punishment has not yet clearly appeared, those who are already repentant of their sins, are mercifully separated from those who are stubbornly looking for excuses to continue sinning, with no intention of repenting or correcting themselves. It would be unjust, on the other hand, for the latter to suffer the same fate in punishment as those who did not despise the invitation of God, and, aware of being sinners, were disgusted with themselves, to the point of hating their own sins as God. he hates them The doctrine, in short, of justice for man, is summed up in this: to love in himself only what there is of God, and to hate what is proper to man; not to approve their own sins, and in them not to blame anyone but themselves; or to think that it is enough for him to disagree with his sins, if he does not try to avoid them in the future with careful vigilance; that he will not think that his own resources are enough to avoid them, but that he should seek divine help. It is, therefore, just that God forgives them, whatever their sins committed in the past life; and it would be a great injustice to confuse them and equate them with those who have not repented. Therefore, not to forgive some is God's justice, and to forgive others is the grace of God. Thus, the grace of God is just, and justice gratifying, since in the sinner grace precedes the merit of repentance: no one could repent of his sins, if somehow God had not invited him with a call.

[1,7] We must not lose sight of the fact that the justice of God remains firm, and although the repentant has been absolved of eternal and spiritual punishment, no one is free of pain, and sometimes tortures, corporal - we well know how the martyrs were tested in them - and finally death itself, which our human nature deserved for sin. The fact that also the good and the pious pass through these sufferings, we must believe it as a just judgment of God. This is what is called in Sacred Scripture learning (discipline), which is not allowed to get rid of any righteous. No one is exempt from that saying: God whom he loves corrects him, and scourges all those he recognizes as children (Hb 12,6). The same Job, who suffered so much, to shine as a paragon of strength and servant of God, leaves us frequent evidence that their bodily torments are due to their sins. The Apostle Peter also exhorts his brothers to endure the sufferings for the name of Christ, and says: That none of you have to suffer for being a murderer, a thief or cursing others, or for meddling in other people's affairs; but if it is because he is a Christian, do not be ashamed of it; glorify God for bearing this name. The time has come to begin the judgment for the house of God. And if the beginning is for us, what will be the end of those who do not believe in the Gospel of God? If the just is barely saved, what will the wicked and the sinner stop in? (1P 4,15-18) Clearly we can see that the sufferings of the righteous are due to a just judgment of God, a judgment that begins, he says, by his house, so that we can deduce there how great will be the penalties reserved for the ungodly. And Paul says to the Thessalonians: We ourselves praise you in the churches of God, for your tenacity and your faith in the persecutions that you are suffering, as a testimony of the just judgment of God (2Ts 1,4-5). He fully agrees with what Peter says: The time has come to begin the judgment for the house of God, and with the quote that he makes of the prophet: if the just is barely saved, what will the wicked and the sinner stop? (Pr 11,31) And I believe that the threats that God made to David through the prophet Nathan come to mind here. Although he immediately repented and was forgiven, all of them came to him, (Cf 2S 12) to record that the forgiveness that was granted spiritually, was in view of the coming judgment of the penalties that await those who at the present time refuse to correct yourself Thus says Peter in another place: This is the reason why the Gospel was proclaimed also to the dead: to receive the sentence in his flesh as men, and to live according to God in his spirit (1P 4,6). I have said all this, to clarify, according to my capacity and as far as the present passage of Scripture allows, that when we speak of the justice and peace of God, human beings will not believe that God can turn away from justice. In fact, when the Lord promises peace, he says: I have told you this so that in me you may have peace, although in the world you will have sufferings (Jn 16,33). When tribulations and annoyances come because of sins, according to the justice of God, they do not cause them to fall back into sin. On the contrary, to all these, already good and just, and to those who dislike their own sins more than any bodily suffering, those tribulations purify them completely of all stain. The perfect peace, even the peace of the body, will become firm in due time, if now our spirit maintains in a constant and immutable way the peace that the Lord has deigned to grant us through faith.

[1,7] The fact that the Apostle wishes peace from God the Father and from our Lord Jesus Christ, without also naming the Holy Spirit, has no other reason, I believe, but that the same gift of God we identify with the Holy Spirit What else is grace and peace, but a gift from God? In no way can grace be given, which frees us from our sins, nor peace, by which we reconcile ourselves with God, if it is not in the Holy Spirit. Thus, in this greeting, the entire Trinity and its immutable unity are revealed. This is mainly the reason why I believe that it includes the same greeting in all the Letters that the churches, without exception, certainly recognize as the Apostle Paul. The letter that he wrote to the Hebrews is excepted, where it is said that he omitted this greeting on purpose, to prevent the Jews, who cruelly criticized him, from being offended at the sight of the name of Christ, or from reading the letter with hostile spirit, or even bother to read it, even though he had written it looking at his salvation. This is the reason why some have hesitated to include this Letter in the canon of the Scriptures. Anyway, whatever it is of this question, the truth is that in all of them he repeats the same greeting; only in the two written to Timothy does he add mercy. It says: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ our Lord (1Tm 1,2; 2Tm 1,2). The more familiar, the more lovingly he writes to Timothy, inserting this word, to clearly demonstrate that the Holy Spirit is not given to us by the merits of our previous conduct, but by the mercy of God with us. In this way we are granted the annulment of sins, which separated us from God, and reconciliation, to unite ourselves with him.

How all the canonical letters, in their beginning, they mention the Trinity in some way

But also the other Letters of the Apostles, commonly accepted by the Church, stop mentioning the Trinity in its beginnings. Peter, for example, says: Grace and peace to you in abundance; and immediately he adds: Blessed be God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (1P 1,2-3). In grace and peace the Holy Spirit means, so that the mention of the Father and the Son suggests to our mind the Trinity. The other one of Peter says thus: To you grace and peace multiply by the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ our Lord (2P 1,2). John, on the other hand, I do not know why, he omitted to begin in this way, and yet he does not omit mentioning the Trinity, replacing grace and peace with the word "communion": What we have seen, he says, we announce to you, so that you too may be in communion with us, and our communion with the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ. In his second Letter he agrees with the words of Paul to Timothy: May grace, mercy and peace from God the Father, and from his Son, Jesus Christ, be with you (2Jn 1,3). However, at the beginning of the third Letter, John does not mention the Trinity at all. And I think it's because of its extreme brevity. Thus begins: The priest to dear Gayo, whom I love in truth (3Jn 1,1). The term truth seems to me that it replaces Trinidad's. Judas, in his Letter, after naming the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, puts three words to imply the Holy Spirit, that is, the gift of God. It begins like this: Judas, servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, to the beloved of God the Father, and kept and called to Jesus Christ: may mercy, peace and charity reach you in their fullness. Grace and peace can not be conceived without mercy and charity (Judas 1,1-2). James, on the other hand, formulates in his Letter the customary exordium: James, servant of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes that are in the dispersion, health (St 1,1). I think he mentions health or salvation, bearing in mind that it is not given except for a gift from God, which includes grace and peace. Before health appoints God and our Lord Jesus Christ, but since no grace or peace can save men, but those that come from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, he probably uses the term health to designate, I believe, the Trinity, the same thing that John uses truth in his third Letter.

The word "health" and the Trinity

At this point, I think we should not overlook what the venerable Valerio tells us, surprised, about the dialogue between some peasants. It happened that when they said to each other: "Cheers!", One of them asked the one who knew both Latin and Punic, what was the Punic equivalent of the Latin word salus [health]. He answered that in Punic he says tria [three, in Latin]. Then, all content, knowing that our health is the Trinity, it seemed to him that this coincidence was not coincidental in the sound of the two languages, but it was a hidden design of Divine Providence that by saying salus in Latin, the Punic understood three [the Trinity], and vice versa, when the Punic, in their language, say tria, the Latins understand salvation. And the Canaanite woman, that is, Punic, came from the region of Tire and Sidon, which according to the Gospel represents to the pagans, begs for health for his daughter. And the Lord answers: It is not right to throw the children's bread to the dogs (Mt 15,26). She, without denying that serious sin that was thrown in her face, and as wanting to reach, with the confession of her sins, health for her daughter, and also, the new life for her, she replies: That's right, Lord, but also dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the table of their masters (Mt 15,27). When that Canaanite woman said tria, she meant "salvation, health." And if we ask our peasants what they are, they reply in Punic that "Cananos", omitting a letter, as is their custom. But what else do they mean, but are they "Canaanites"? When the woman asked for health and salvation, what she really asked for was the Trinity: the language of Rome - whose word "health" to the Punic people sounds like "Trinity" - at the time of the coming of the Lord it was the head of gentility. We already said that the Canaanite woman represented in her person the gentility. And when the Lord calls bread to the same thing that the woman asked for, what else is she referring to, rather than to the Trinity? In fact, in another passage he clearly teaches us how the Trinity should be understood in the three loaves. But this consonance of words, whether by chance or as a result of research, should not be universally accepted at all costs. No: there is a limit marked by these two coordinates: that the exegete does not cross the line, and that the good spirit of the listener accepts it.

Sin is not in the word, but in the sinner's intention

It is evident, therefore, that if the Apostle tries to evoke the whole Trinity in terms of "grace and peace," including, as it were, the Holy Spirit, it must be taken into account with all the attention of our soul. , and accept it with deep pity. And this to the point that everyone who loses hope, or mocks or despises this announcement of grace, that erases our sins, and of peace, that brings us reconciliation with God, refusing to repent of their sins , and deciding to remain until the end in his impious and poisonous, although pleasant, attractive, this one sins against the Holy Spirit. We should not, therefore, turn a deaf ear to the word of the Lord, when it says that man will be forgiven for every word uttered against the Son of man; but if he utters a word against the Holy Spirit, he will not be forgiven either in this world or in the future, but will be eternally guilty of sin (Cf Mt 12,32). Let us suppose an individual, ignorant of the Latin language, and who hears the phrase "Holy Spirit". Start asking about the meaning of these syllables that you have heard; and another, mocking him, with impious sarcasm responds something different from the truth, for example something vile and disgusting, to deceive him, as often happens with people of this ilk, who want to laugh at someone. And the first, suppose, despises the name of "Holy Spirit" for his ignorance of such words, throwing, even, some expletive against him. I do not think there is anyone so thoughtless and inconsiderate that he blames this man for any crime against religion. And vice versa, if this same one, even if the name is hidden from him, but coming to know the reality with words within his reach, profess insults of word or deed against such a high sanctity, he will be considered guilty. According to this, if someone, after hearing "Holy Spirit", thinks that it has a different meaning, and throws a word against this reality thought by him, it is evident, I believe, that he does not sin to the point of considering it as a sin against him. Holy Spirit. Likewise, if one were to ask the question of what the Holy Spirit is, and an ignorant person tells him that he is the Son of God, through whom everything was done, and that in due time he was born of the Virgin, who was killed by the Jews and resurrected; but he, after hearing it, refuses to believe it or laughs at all this, he should not be judged as if he had blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, but against the Son of God or the Son of man, as he deigned to be called and be it really. It must be attended not to what the words, said to an ignorant, meant, but to what he thought was in his mind. Against what he was in his curses, was against what was in his imagination, after what had been explained. Call it what you want, what matters here is whether reality itself sought to venerate, deny or vituperate. Because in this same way, if one asks who Jesus Christ is, and someone answers that it is not the Son of God, but the Holy Spirit, and, after hearing it, begins to blaspheme against him, his words will not be considered against him. Son of God, but against the Holy Spirit.

The one who is converted also forgives sins against the Holy Spirit

If we look lightly and without reflection at the phrase of Scripture: To the one who says a word against the Holy Spirit, he will not be forgiven either in this world or in the future (Mt 12,32), to whom could we assure that God grants him forgiveness? of sins? There are, for example, the so-called pagans, who to this day are completely forbidden, with weapons and even blood, our religion. They curse, they proffer insults against her, and, with contempt and blasphemies, deny everything that we affirm about the Trinity. They do not exclude, of course, the Holy Spirit, in order to render veneration and be merciless with the rest; on the contrary, they curse with all their impious folly of all that, without exception, that we, with all care, affirm about the triune majesty of God. It is not that they have a worthy concept of God the Father: because they deny it totally, as some do, or others confess, yes, but with false imaginations, and what they revere is not the Father, but the images of their fantasy. And in regard to our doctrine about the Son of God or the Holy Spirit, they have much preferred to laugh at it, as is their custom, than to worship Him in communion with us. We, however, encourage you as much as possible to discover Christ, and through him to God the Father; we try to convince them that they must be military under the banner of the supreme and true Emperor, and we invite them to embrace the faith, promising them the remission of all their previous sins. When one of them becomes a Christian, we do not have the slightest doubt that he is forgiven for even the blasphemies against the Holy Spirit, which he uttered during the period of his sacrilegious superstitions. Stephen witnesses to what extent the Jews opposed the Holy Spirit: they stoned him, filled as he was with the Holy Spirit, since it was he who spoke what Stephen pronounced against them. In that speech he said openly to the Jews: You always offer resistance to the Holy Spirit (Acts 7,51). The apostle Paul was part of the number of Jews who resisted the Holy Spirit, and who, precisely because they were full of him, stoned Stephen, the true vessel filled with the Spirit. Paul was in the hands of all when guarding his garments. Later, when he was already full of that same Spirit, which had previously opposed a useless resistance, he throws himself in the face, repentant as he was, ready to be stoned to defend the same truths that had once made him He stoned whoever preached them. And the case of the Samaritans? Do they not oppose the Holy Spirit, until they try to extinguish totally the same gift of prophecy, which has been granted to us by the Holy Spirit? Of course, the Lord himself gives testimony of his salvation, when in the episode of the ten clean lepers, only one, precisely Samaritan, returned to give thanks (Cf Lc 17,15-16). And the same in the passage of the woman, with whom she was speaking at the well at the time of the sixth, and also those who by her then embraced the faith (Cf Jn 4,7; 4,42). After the Ascension of the Lord, as it is written in the Acts of the Apostles, what was not the joy of the saints, seeing how Samaria welcomed the Word of God! There is the case of Simon Magus, whom Peter rebuked him for having a lousy concept of the Holy Spirit: he believed it to be a merchandise for sale, which he could buy with money. Well, not even he despaired of finding a place for forgiveness. In fact, he admonished him with meekness so that he would repent. Let's look, ultimately, at the authority and prestige of the Catholic Church, which by virtue of the same gift of the Holy Spirit, is spread throughout the whole world as the fruitful mother of all saints. What heretic or schismatic, if corrected, has never cut off the thread of the hope of salvation? Who closed the doors of access to the mercy of God? Do not you call them with tears to return to their mother's breasts, which with angry pride left? And who is among the heretics or their leaders, who has not opposed the Holy Spirit? Unless someone has such a crazy sense, that those who speak a word are guilty for him, and not those who, with their repeated behavior, offend the Holy Spirit. Who are fighting so openly against the Holy Spirit as those who, with disputes full of pride, are against the peace of the Church? But if it is about words, I ask to see if some do not verbally offend the Holy Spirit, when they categorically deny the existence of everything that properly distinguishes it, and that God is one, so that God himself is sometimes called Father, other Son and other Holy Spirit. There are those who recognize the existence of the Holy Spirit, but deny that it is equal to the Son, or in any case that it is not God at all. There are others who confess that in the Trinity there is only one and identical nature, but their ideas about that divine nature are so impious, that they have it as something changeable and corruptible; and in relation to the Holy Spirit, which the Lord promised to send to his disciples, they have invented that it was not passed fifty days after his resurrection, as the Acts of the Apostles (Cf Acts 2,1-4) testify, but some three hundred years later and by means of I do not know what an individual There are also those who deny the coming of the Holy Spirit, which we maintain, but who chose some prophets in Phrygia, a long time later, through whom he was speaking. And others eliminate their sacraments like a breath, and, without thinking twice, baptize again those already baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But I will not go through all the deviations one by one, since they are innumerable. What I do assure you is that all of these, which I have just quoted, so as not to stretch out, when they return to the Bride of Christ, and repent and condemn their error and their impiety, there is no Catholic discipline that denies them peace and gives them peace. close the bowels of mercy.