|
> Chapter 6 > Chapter 7 > Chapter 8 > Chapter 9 > Chapter 10 > Chapter 11 > Chapter 12 > Chapter 13 > Chapter 14 > Chapter 15 > Chapter 16 >
v. 1 Being justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: v. 2 Through whom also we have access through faith to this grace in which we stand, and glory in the hope of the glory of the sons of God. v. 3 And not only so, but we glory also in tribulation, knowing that tribulation works patience; v. 4 And patience trial; and trial hope; v. 5 And hope does not confound, because the charity of God is poured out in our hearts, through the Holy Spirit who is given to us. __________________________________________________________________________________ After showing the need for Christ’s grace, because without it neither the knowledge of the truth benefited the Gentiles nor circumcision and the Law benefited the Jews unto salvation, the Apostle now begins to extol the power of grace. Concerning this, he does two things. First, he shows what goods we obtain through grace; secondly, from what evils we are freed by it, there [v.12; n. 406] at Therefore as through one man. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he indicates the manner of reaching or the way by which we come to grace; secondly, the good things we obtain through grace, there [v. 2b; n. 384] at And we glory in the hope of glory. 196 In regard to the first he does two things. First, he exhorts to the due use of grace; secondly, he shows us the entrance to grace, there [v. 2; n. 383] at Through whom we have access. 382. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that faith will be reckoned as justice to all who believe in Christ’s resurrection, which is the cause of our justification. Being justified therefore by faith, inasmuch as through faith in the resurrection we participate in its effect, let us have peace with God, namely, by submitting ourselves and obeying him: "Agree with God and be at peace" (Jb 22:21); "Who has hardened himself against him and been at peace?" (Jb 9:4). And this through our Lord Jesus Christ, who has led us to that peace: "He is our peace" (Eph 2:14). 383. Hence he continues: Through whom, namely, Christ, we have access as through a mediator: "One mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5); "Through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father" (Eph 2:18). Access, I say, to this grace, i.e., to the state of grace: "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (Jn 1:17). In which, i.e., through which grace, we have not only risen from sin but we stand firm and erect in the heavens through love: "Our feet have been standing within your gates, O Jerusalem" (Ps 122:2); "We have risen and stand upright" (Ps 20:8). And this through faith, through which we obtain grace, not because faith precedes grace, since it is rather through grace that there is faith: "By grace you have been saved through faith" (Eph 2:8), i.e., because the first effect of grace in us is faith. 197 384. Then when he says and glory in the hope of the glory, he indicates the blessings that have come to us through grace. First, he says that through grace we have the glory of hope; secondly, that through grace we have the glory of God, there [v. 11; n. 404] at And not only so. In regard to the first he does three things. First, he shows the greatness of the hope in which we glory; secondly, its vehemence, there [v. 3; n. 386] at And not only so; thirdly, its firmness, there [v. 5; n. 390] at And hope does not confound. 385. The greatness of hope is considered in terms of the greatness of things hoped for. He sets this out when he says, and glory in the hope of the glory of the sons of God, i.e., in the fact that we hope to obtain the glory of sons of God. For through Christ’s grace we have received the spirit of sonship (Rom 8:15); "Behold how they have been numbered among the sons of God" (Wis 5:5). But to sons is due the father’s inheritance: "If sons, then heirs" (Rom 8:17). This inheritance is the glory which God has in himself: "Have you an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?" (Job 40:9). Our hope for this has been given to us by Christ: "We have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and to an inheritance which is incorruptible" (1Pet 1:3). This glory, which will be completed in us in the future, is in the meantime begun in us through hope: "For in this hope we were saved" (Rom 8:24), "All those who love your name will glory in you" (Ps 5:11). 386. Then when he says And not only so, he shows the vehemence of this hope. 198 For anyone who vehemently hopes for something endures difficult and bitter things for it, as a sick person who strongly desires health gladly drinks a bitter medicine to be healed by it. Therefore, the sign of the vehement hope we have for Christ is that we not only glory in virtue of our hope of future glory but also in the evils we suffer for it. Hence he says, And not only so, i.e., we not only glory in the hope of glory but we glory also in tribulation, through which we arrive at glory: "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God" (Ac 14:22); "Count it all joy when you meet various trials" (Jas 1:2). 387. Then he shows the cause when he says, knowing that. Here he mentions four things in order: the first is tribulation, about which he says, tribulation works patience, not in the sense that tribulation is the cause that begets it, but because suffering is the material and occasion for exercising the act of patience: "Be patient in tribulation" (Rom 12:12). 388. Secondly, he mentions the effect of patience when he says, And patience trial: "For gold is tested in the fire and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation" (Sir 2:5). For it is plain that we accept the loss of some thing easily for the sake of another thing we love more. Hence, if a person endures patiently the loss of bodily and temporal goods for the sake of obtaining eternal benefits, this is sufficient proof that such a person loves eternal blessings more than temporal. However, James (1:3) seems to say the opposite: "The trial of your faith produces patience." 199 The answer is that trial [probatio] can be understood in two ways. In one way, as it takes place in the one tested; then the trial is the very suffering through which a man is tested. Hence, it is the same to say that tribulation produces patience and that tribulation tests patience. In another way, trial is taken for the fact of having been tested. This is the way it is taken here, because if a person endures sufferings patiently, he has been tested. 389. Thirdly, he mentions the third, saying, and trial hope, namely trial brings about hope, because after a person has been tested, hope can be had by himself and by others that he will be admitted to God’s inheritance: "God tested them and found them worthy of himself" (Wis3:5). Therefore, from the first to the last it is clear that suffering paves the way to hope. Hence, if a person rejoices strongly in hope, it, follows that he will glory in his sufferings. 390. Then when he says And hope does not confound, he shows the firmness of such hope. First, he asserts it, saying, Hope, namely, by which we hope for the glory of the sons of God, does not confound, i.e., does not fail, unless the man fails it. For a person is said to be confounded in his hope, when he falls away from the thing he hoped for: "In you, O Lord, have I hoped; let me never be disappointed" (Ps 31:1); "No one has hoped in the Lord and been disappointed" (Si 2:10). Secondly, at because the charity of God, he presents two arguments for the certainty of hope. The first is based on a gift of the Holy Spirit; the second on the death of Christ, there [v.6; n. 394] at For why did Christ. 200 392. First, therefore, he says: We can be certain that hope does not confound, because the charity of God is poured out in our hearts, through the Holy Spirit who is given to us. The love of God can be taken in two ways: in one way, for the love by which God loves us: "He loved you with an everlasting love" (Jer 31:3); in another way for the love by which we love God: "I am sure that nothing in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God" (Rom 8:39). Both these loves of God are poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. For the Holy Spirit, who is the love of the Father and of the Son, to be given to us is our being brought to participate in the Love who is the Holy Spirit, and by this participation we are made lovers of God. The fact that we love him is a sign that he loves us: "I love those who love me" (Pr 8:17); "Not that we loved God but that he first loved us" (1 Jn 4:10). The love by which he loves us is said to be poured into our hearts, because it is clearly shown in our hearts by the gift of the Holy Spirit sealed in us: "By this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit he has given us" (1 Jn 3:24). But the love by which we love God is said to be poured into our hearts, because it reaches to the perfecting of all the moral habits and acts of the soul; for, as is stated in 1 Cor 13(:4), "Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful...." 393. Both interpretations of these words lead to the conclusion that hope does not confound. For if they are taken to mean the love of God by which he loves us, it is clear that God does not deny himself to those whom he loves: "He loved his people; all the holy ones were in his hand" (Dt 33:3). Similarly, if they are taken as referring to the love 201 by which we love God, it is clear that he has prepared eternal goods for those who love him: "He who loves me will be loved by my father and I will love him and manifest myself to him" (Jn 14:21).
After disclosing that hope is firm, because it is a gift of the Holy Spirit [n. 391], the Apostle now traces its firmness to the death of Christ. First, he asks a question; secondly, a difficulty arises in answering it, there [v. 7; n. 396] at Why, one will hardly; 202 thirdly, he answers the question, there [v. 8; n. 398] at But God shows his love. 395. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that hope does not disappoint. This is obvious to anyone who wonders why, while we were yet weak, Christ died for the ungodly; weak, that is, languishing in sin: "Be gracious to me, O Lord, for I am languishing" (Ps 6:2). For just as the due harmony of the humors is destroyed by bodily sickness, so by sin the correct order of our affections is removed. Therefore, when we were yet helpless, Christ died for the ungodly: "Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous" (1 Pt 3:18). And this according to the time, i.e., he was to remain dead for a definite time and then rise on the third day: "For as Jonah was three days in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Mt 12:40). Therefore, this is marvelous, if we consider who died; also if we consider for whom he died. But it could not have been so marvelous, if no fruit were to be obtained: "What profit is there in my death, if I go down to the Pit?" (Ps 30:8). None, if the salvation of the human race does not follow. 396. Then (v. 7) he shows a difficulty on the part of those for whom Christ died, i.e., the ungodly, saying, One will hardly die for the release of a just man rather, "the righteous man perishes and no one lays it to heart" (Is 57:1). That is why I say that one will hardly die though perhaps for a good man one will even dare to die, on account of his zeal for virtue. It is rare, because it is so great; for "no man has greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (Jn 15:13). Yet what Christ did is never done, namely, 203 to die for the just and the unjust. That is why there is reason to wonder why Christ did this. 397. This passage can be interpreted in another way, so that a just man will be one trained in virtue, and a good man one who is innocent. And although according to this the just man would be more excellent than the good man, yet scarcely anyone dies for the just man. The reason is that an innocent person, who is understood as good, seems more worthy of pity on account of his lack of years or of some such thing. But the just person, because he is perfect, lacks any defect that would elicit pity. Therefore, should anyone die for an innocent person, it could be through pity; but to die for a just man requires zeal for virtue, which is found in fewer persons than the emotion of pity. 398. Then when he says But God shows (v. 8), he responds to the foregoing question. First, he sets out his response; Second, he argues from this to what he intends, there [v. 9b; n. 400] at Much more; Third, he shows how this follows of necessity, there [v. 10; n. 401] at For if while we were enemies. 399. He says therefore first. It was asked why Christ died for the ungodly, and the response to this is that, through this, God shows his love for us, i.e., through this he shows that he loves us to the greatest degree, because if while we were still sinners, Christ died for us, and this according to the time, as was explained abound. The very death of Christ shows God’s love for us, because he gave his own son that he should die in making satisfaction for us: "For God so loved the world that he 204 gave his only son" (John 3:16). And so as the love of God the Father for us is shown by the fact that he gives his own Spirit to us, as was said above, so also it is shown by the fact that he gave his son, as is said here. But by the fact that he says shows he indicates a certain immensity of the divine love, which is shown both by his own deed, because he gave his son, and by our condition, because he was not moved to do this by our merits, since we were still sinners: "God who is rich in mercy, on account of the exceedingly great love wherewith he has loved us, while we were still dead in sins, has raised us to life with Christ" (Eph 2:4). 400. Then when he says Much more, therefore (v. 9) he concludes what he had intended from the foregoing, saying: If Christ died for us while we were still sinners, much more, therefore, being now justified by his blood, as was said above in chapter 3(:25), "whom God set forth as a propitiation through faith," through his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath, i.e., from the vengeance of eternal condemnation, which men incur by their sins: "Brood of vipers, who showed you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Mt 3:7). 401. Then when he says For if while were enemies, he shows the necessity of his conclusion, which proceeds by arguing from the lesser to the greater. And one should observe here two comparisons of lesser to greater, one on our part and one on the part of Christ. On our part he compares enemies to those who are reconciled. For it seems a lesser thing that someone should treat enemies well who are already reconciled. On the part of Christ he compares death to life. For his life is more powerful than his death because, as is said the last chapter of 2Cor (13:4), "He died 205 through weakness," namely the weakness of our flesh, "but lives through the power of God." And this is why he says: with reason I concluded that much more, being enlivened, shall we be saved through him. For if while we were still enemies we were reconciled to God, and this by the death of his son, much more now that we are reconciled shall we be saved, and this by his life. 402. Now one should note that a man is said to be an enemy of God in two ways. In one way, because he practices hostility towards God when he resists his commands: "He has run against him with his neck raised up" (Job 15:26). In another way, a man is said to be an enemy of God by the fact that God hates men, not indeed insofar as he made them, because in this regard it says in Wis 11(:25), "You have loved all things, and you have hated nothing of the things you have made"; but insofar as the enemy of man, i.e., the devil, has worked in man—i.e., as regards sin: "Similarly God hates the ungodly" (Wis 14:9), and "The most high hates sinners" (Sir 12:7). 403. Once the cause of enmity, namely, sin, has been removed by Christ, reconciliation through him follows: "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19); for our sin was removed through the death of His Son. In this regard it should be noted that Christ’s death can be considered in three ways. First, precisely as a death; and so it is stated in Wisdom (1:13): "God did not make death" in human nature, but it was brought on by sin. Accordingly, Christ’s death, 206 precisely as death, was not so acceptable to God as to be reconciled through it, because "God does not delight in the death of the living" (Wis 1:13). In another way Christ’s death can be considered with emphasis on the action of the killers, which greatly displeased God. Hence St. Peter says against them: "You denied the Holy and Righteous One…and killed the Author of life" (Ac 3:14). From this aspect Christ’s death could not be the cause of reconciliation but rather of indignation. It can be considered in a third way as depending on Christ’s will, which chose to endure death in obedience to the Father: "He became obedient" to the Father "even unto death" (Phil 2:8) and out of love for men: "Christ loved us and gave himself up for us" (Eph 5:2). From this aspect Christ’s death was meritorious and satisfied for our sins; it was accepted by God as sufficient for reconciling all men, even those who killed Christ, some of whom were saved at his prayer: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Lk 23:34). 404. Then when he says Not only so (v. 11) he shows what benefits we obtain even now through grace, saying, not only so, i.e., not only in the hope of the glory we expect in the future, but we also rejoice in God, i.e., in being even now united to God by faith and charity: "Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord" (2 Cor 10:17). And this through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have even now during this life received our reconciliation, so that we have been changed from enemies to friends: "Through him he reconciled to himself all things" (Col 1:20). 405. The verse, Not only so, can be connected with the preceding one, so that the sense would be: We shall be saved by his life from sin and punishment; and not only 207 shall we be saved from evils, but shall rejoice in God, i.e., in the fact that we shall be the same in the future with him: "That they may be one in us, even as we are one" (Jn 17:22). After indicating the benefits we obtained through Christ’s grace [n. 381], the Apostle now indicates the evils from which we were set free. And concerning this he does three things. First, he shows that through Christ’s grace we have been freed from the slavery of sin; secondly, from the slavery of the Law, in chapter 7, there [n. 518] Or do you not know, brothers; thirdly, from condemnation, in chapter 8, there [n. 595] at There is therefore now no condemnation. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that by Christ’s grace we are set free from original sin; secondly, that we are shielded against future sins, there [c. 6; n. 468] at What therefore shall we say. In regard to the first be does two things: first, he deals with the history of sin; 208 secondly, of grace destroying sin, there [v. 15; n. 430] at But the gift is not like the trespass. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he sets forth the origin of sin; second, he manifests it, there [v. 13; n. 421] at Sin was indeed in the world. Concerning the first, he does two things: first, he sets forth the origin of sin; secondly, its universality, there [v. 12b; n. 417] at And so death passed. In regard the first he does two things: first, he shows the origin of sin; secondly, the origin of death, there [v. 12b; n. 416] at And through sin death. 407. First, therefore, he says that we have been reconciled through Christ. For reconciliation came into the world from Christ, as sin came into the world through one man, namely, Adam: "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor 15:22). Here it should be noted that the Pelagian heretics, who denied the existence of original sin in infants, claim that these words of the Apostle must be understood of actual sin which, according to them, entered this world through Adam, inasmuch as all sinners imitate Adam: "But like Adam they transgressed the covenant" (Hos 6:7). But, as Augustine says against them, if the Apostle were speaking of the entrance of actual sin, he would not have said that sin entered this world through a man but rather through the devil, whom sinners imitate: "Through the devil’s envy death entered the world" (Wis 2:24). 209 Therefore, the interpretation is that sin entered this world through Adam not only by imitation but also by propagation, i.e., by a vitiated origin of the flesh in accordance with Eph (2:3): "We were by nature children of wrath" and Ps 51 (v.5): "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity." 408. But it seems impossible that sin be passed from one person to another through carnal origin. For sin exists in the rational soul, which is not passed on by carnal origin, not only because the intellect is not the act of any body and so cannot be caused by the power of bodily seed, as the Philosopher says in Generation of Animals, but also because the rational soul, being a subsistent reality (inasmuch as it can perform certain acts without using the body and is not destroyed when the body is destroyed), is not produced in virtue of the body’s being produced (unlike other forms which cannot subsist of themselves), but is caused by God. Therefore, it seems to follow that sin, too, which is an accident of the soul, cannot be passed on by carnal origin. The reasonable answer seems to be that although the soul is not in the seed, nevertheless there is in it a power disposing the body to receive the soul which, when it is infused into the body, is also adapted to it in its own way for the reason that everything received by something exists in it according to a mode of the recipient. That is why children resemble parents not only in bodily defects, as a leper begets a leprous child and a person with gout a gouty child, but also in defects of the soul, as an irascible parent begets irascible children and mad parents mad offspring. For although the foot subject to gout or the soul subject to anger and madness are not in the seed, nevertheless in the seed is a power which forms the bodily members and disposes them for the soul. 210 409. Yet a difficulty remains, because defects traced to a vitiated source do not involve guilt. For they are not deserving of punishment but rather of pity, as the Philosopher says of one born blind or in any other way defective. The reason is that it is the character of guilt that it be voluntary and in the power of the one to whom the guilt is imputed. Consequently, if any defect in us arose through origin from the first parent, it does not seem to carry with it the nature of guilt but of punishment. Therefore, it must be admitted that as actual sin is a person’s sin, because it is committed through the will of the person sinning, so original sin is the sin of the nature committed through the will of the source of human nature. 410. For it must be remembered that just as the various members of the body are the parts of one human person, so all men are parts and, as it were, members of human nature. Hence Porphyry says that by sharing in the same species many men are one man. Furthermore, the act of sin performed by a member, say the hand or the foot, does not carry the notion of guilt from the hand’s or foot’s will but from the whole person’s will, from which as from a source the movement of sin is passed to the several members. Similarly, from the will of Adam, who was the source of human nature, the total disorder of that nature carries the notion of guilt in all who obtain that nature precisely as susceptible to guilt. And just as an actual sin, which is a sin of the person, is drawn to the several members by an act of the person, so original sin is drawn to each man by an act of the nature, namely, generation. Accordingly, just as human nature is obtained through generation, so, too, by generation is passed on the defect it acquired from the sin of the first parent. 211 This defect is a lack of original justice divinely conferred on the first parent not only in his role as a definite person but also as the source of human nature -- a justice that was to be passed along with human nature to his descendants. Consequently, the loss of this original justice through sin was passed on to his descendants. It is this loss that has the aspect of guilt in his descendants for the reason given. That is why it is said that in the progression of original sin a person infected the nature, namely, Adam sinning vitiated human nature; but later in others the vitiated nature affects the person in the sense that to the offspring is imputed as guilt this vitiated state of nature on account of the first parent’s will, as explained above. 411. From this it is clear that although the first sin of the first parent is passed on to the descendants by generation, nevertheless his other sins, or even those of other men, are not passed on to their children, because it was only through the first sin that the good of nature, originally intended to be passed on by generation, was lost. Through all later sins the good of personal grace is lost, which does not pass on to one’s descendants. This also explains why, although Adam’s sin was removed by his repentance: "She delivered him from his transgression" (Wis 10:2), nevertheless his repentance could not remove the sin of descendants, because his repentance was performed by a personal act, which did not extend beyond him personally. 412. Consequently, there is but one sole original sin, because the defect following upon the first sin is the only one passed on to the descendants. Therefore, the Apostle is careful to say that through one man sin came into the world, and not "sins," which he would have said, if he were speaking of actual sin. 212 But sometimes it is said in the plural: "And in sins did my mother conceive me" (Ps 51:7) because it contains many sins virtually, insofar as the corruption of bodily desire [fomes] inclines one to many sins. 413. It seems, however, that original sin entered this world not through one man, namely, Adam, but through one woman, namely, Eve, who was the first to sin "From a woman sin had its beginning and because of her we all die" (Si 25:24). This is answered in a gloss in two ways: in one way, because the custom of Scripture is to present genealogies not through the woman but through the men. Hence, the Apostle in giving, as it were, the genealogy of sin makes no mention of the woman but only of the man. In another way, because the woman was taken from the man; consequently, what is true of the woman is attributed to the man. But this can be explained in another and better way, namely, that since original sin is passed on along with the nature, as has been said, then just as the nature is passed on by the active power of the man, while the woman furnishes the matter, so too original sin. Hence, if Adam had not sinned, but Eve only, sin would not have been passed on to their descendants. For Christ did not contract original sin, because he took his flesh from the woman alone without male seed. 415. Augustine uses these words from the apostle Paul to respond to the heretic Julian, who asked: "The who is born does not sin, the who begot him does not sin, the one who bore him does not sin; through what crack, therefore, in such a garrison of innocence do you suppose sin has entered?" But Augustine responds: "Why do you seek 213 22 Augustine, De Nuptiis et Conc., book 2, ch 28. a crack when you have a wide open gate? For according to the Apostle, sin entered into this world through one man."22 416. Then he touches on the entry of death into this world when he says, and death through sin entered this world: "Ungodliness purchases death" (Wis 1:12). However, it seems that death does not arise from sin but from nature, being due to the presence of matter. For the human body is composed of contrary elements and, therefore, is corruptible of its very nature. The answer is that human nature can be considered in two ways: in one way according to its structural principles, and then death is natural. Hence Seneca says that death is natural not penal for man. In another way man’s nature can be considered in the light of what divine providence had supplied it through original justice. This justice was a state in which man’s mind was under God, the lower powers of the soul under the mind, the body under the soul, and all external things under man, with the result that as long as man’s mind remained under God, the lower powers would remain subject to reason, and the body to the soul by receiving life from it without interruption, and external things to man in the sense that all things would serve man, who would never experience any harm from them. Divine providence planned this for man on account of the worth of the rational soul, which, being incorruptible, deserved an incorruptible body. But because the body, which is composed of contrary elements, served as an instrument for the senses, and such a body could not in virtue of its nature be incorruptible, the divine power furnished which was lacking to human nature by giving the soul the power to maintain the body 214 incorruptible, just as a worker in metal might give the iron, from which he makes a sword, the power never to become rusty. Thus, therefore, after man’s mind was turned from God through sin, he lost the strength to control the lower powers as well as the body and external things. Consequently, he became subject to death from intrinsic sources and to violence from external sources. 417. Then when he says and so death passed (v. 12c) he shows the universality of this process in regard both to death and to sin, but in reverse order. For above he treated first of the entry of sin, which is the cause of death’s entry; but now he deals first with the universality of death as with something more obvious. Hence he says, and so death or the sin of the first parent, spread to all, because men merit the necessity of dying on account of a vitiated origin: "We must all die" (2 Sam 14:14); "What man can live and never see death?" (Ps 89:48). 418. Then he touches on the universality of sin when he says, because [in whom] all men sinned. According to Augustine this can be understood in two ways: in one way, in whom, i.e., in the first man, or in which, namely, in that sin; because while he was sinning, all sinned in a sense, inasmuch as all men were in him as in their first origin. 419. But since Christ derived his origin from Adam (Lk 3:23 ff), it seems that even he sinned in Adam’s sin. Augustine’s answer in On Genesis is that Christ was not in Adam as completely as we were, for we were in him according to bodily substance and according to seed. But Christ was in him in the first way only. 215 Some who interpreted these words incorrectly supposed that the entire substance of all human bodies, which is required for a true human nature, was actually in Adam and that in virtue of a multiplication traced to God’s power, something taken from Adam was increased to form such a quantity of bodies. But this is far-fetched, because it explains the works of nature by a miracle. Indeed, it is obvious that the human body, even though it is required for the integrity of human nature, corrupts and becomes a corpse. Hence it is better to say that, because everything generable is corruptible and vice versa, the matter which was present under some form other than human before a man is begotten, received the form proper to human flesh. Accordingly, not everything in our bodies that belongs to the integrity of human nature was in Adam actually, but only according to origin in the way that an effect is present in its active principle. According to this, therefore, there are in human generation the bodily material, which the woman proffers, and an active force, which is in the male’s seed; both are derived originally from Adam as their first principle. Hence, they are said to have been in him according to seed and according to bodily substance, inasmuch as both came forth from him. But in Christ’s generation there was the bodily substance which he obtained from the virgin; in place of the male seed was the Holy Spirit’s active power, which is not derived from Adam. Consequently, Christ was not in Adam according to his seedly power, but only according to bodily substance. Thus, therefore, we not only receive sin from Adam and contract it; we also derive human nature from him as from an active principle -- which amounts to being in him according to seedly power. But this is not true of Christ, as has been stated. 216 420. Finally, it seems that original sin does not pass on to all, because the baptized are cleansed of original sin. Hence, it seems that they cannot transmit to their descendents something they do not have. The answer is that through baptism a man is freed from original sin as far as the mind is concerned, but the infection of sin remains as far as the flesh is concerned. Hence the Apostle says below (7:22): "I serve the law of God with my mind, but the law of sin with my flesh." But man does not beget children with the mind but with the flesh; consequently, he does not transmit the new life of Christ but the old life of Adam. After tracing the origin of sin and death and their entry into the world [n. 406], the Apostle now clarifies what he has said. First, he explains his statement; secondly, he clarifies the comparison he suggested (in v. 12), when he said: "as sin…so death"; thirdly, he explains it, there [v. 14b; n. 429] at who is a figure of the one who was come. 217 Now he had stated that sin and death passed on to all men. Here, in line with Augustine’s exposition [n. 418], he intends to explain this by the fact that sin remained even under the Law, implying that it was unable to expel it. In regard to this he does two things: first, he explains his statement as far as sin is concerned; secondly, as far as death is concerned [v. 14; n. 424]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that sin existed under the Law; secondly, what the Law did in regard to sin [v. 13b; n. 423]. 422. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that all have sinned in Adam, because even the Law did not take away sin. Before [until] the law, i.e., even under the Law, sin was in the world. This can be understood of the natural law and the Law of Moses; similarly, for actual sin and original sin. For original sin was in the child until the law of nature, i.e., until he reached the use of reason through which man adverts to these laws: "In sins did my mother conceive me" (Ps 51:5). Nor does this sin pass away with the coming of the natural law in a man; rather, it grows through the addition of actual sin, because, as stated in Ec (7:20): "There is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins." But if we understand it of the Law of Moses, then the statement that sin was in the world until the Law can be understood not only of original sin but also of actual, because both sins continued in the world before the Law and under the Law: "Who can say, ‘I have made my heart clean?’" (Pr 20:9). 218 423. But although the Law did not remove sin, it produced knowledge of sin which previously was not recognized. Hence he continues, but sin was not imputed. This is obvious, if it is understood of the natural law. For although original sin is in the child before the natural law and is counted against him by God, it was not imputed to him by men. But if it be understood of the Law of Moses, it is clear that some actual sins were not imputed before the Law, as those which are specifically forbidden by the Law, which men did not regard as sins; for example, "You shall not covet" (Ex 20:17). But certain sins were imputed, inasmuch as they were against the law of nature. Hence, Joseph is sent to prison on a charge of adultery (Gen 39:11 ff). 424. Then he deals with death, saying: Although sins were not imputed before the Law, yet death, i.e., spiritual, i.e., sin or eternal damnation, of which it is written: "The death of the wicked is very evil" (Ps 34:21), reigned, i.e., exercised its power over men, by bringing them to damnation, from Adam through whom sin entered the world, to Moses, under whom the Law was given: "The law was given through Moses" (Jn 1:17), not only over those who sinned actually, but even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who sinned actually: "But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me" (Hos 6:7), because even the children incurred damnation. 425. Under this sense it is also possible to understand bodily death, through which is shown the presence of sin, even when it was not imputed. As if to say: Sin indeed was not imputed before the Law, but we know that it existed, because death reigned, i.e., bodily, first by bringing suffering, such as hunger, thirst and sickness, and finally by 219 destroying life, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, i.e., even over children who committed no actual sins, because even they suffered bodily death before and after the Law: "What man can live and never see death?" (Ps 89:48). 426. Ambrose explained these words in another way, namely, of actual sin only, and of the Mosaic Law. According to him these words were written to explain that sin entered this world through the first parent and passed on to everyone. For until the law, i.e., before the Law of Moses, sin was in the world, namely, actual sin. For men sinned against the law of nature in manifold ways. Hence, it is said in Gen (13:13): "The men of Sodom were the wickedest." But sin was not imputed when there was no law, not as though it was not imputed as something to be punished by men, since there are records of men being punished for sin before the time of the Law (Gen c. 39 & 40); but it was not considered as something to be punished by God. For at that time men did not believe that God would punish or reward men’s actions: "Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see" (Jb 22:14). But after the Law was given by God, it was recognized that sins are imputed by God for punishment and not only by men. Consequently, because men did not believe that they would be punished by God for their sins, they sinned freely and without restraint, whenever they did not fear human judgment. Hence he adds: But death, i.e., sin, reigned, i.e., exercised its power in every way, from Adam to Moses excluded. For when the Law was given through Moses, it began to weaken the reign of sin, inculcating fear of divine judgment: "Oh, that they had such a mind as this always, to fear me and keep my commandments" (Dt 5:28). Sin reigned, I say, until Moses, not over all but over those who sinned in the likeness of Adam. 220 For Ambrose says that not is not found in the ancient manuscripts; hence, he believes it was added by corrupters. Adam, indeed, believed the devil’s promise more than God’s threat, as is clear in Gen (c.3); in a way, then, he preferred to devil to God. Therefore, idolaters sin in the likeness of Adam’s sin, because they abandon the worship of God to venerate the devil. Over such, therefore, death, i.e., sin, reigned completely, because it possessed them entirely. But there were true worshippers of God before the Law; yet even if they sinned, sin did not reign over them, because it did not separate them totally from God. Rather, they sinned under God, i.e., under faith in the one God, if they sinned mortally, or under charity, if they sinned venially. 427. From both these interpretations a third can he obtained which seems more in accord with the Apostle’s intention. For he had said (v. 12) that "through one man sin entered this world"; but because sin is a transgression of the divine law, it might seem that this would not be true during the time before the Law, especially since he had stated in (4:l5): "Where there is no law, there is no transgression. Consequently, one might suppose that sin entered the world not through a man hut through the Law. To exclude this he says, until the law, i.e., the time before the Law, sin was in the world, both original and actual, but it was not recognized as something to be punished by God. And this is what he adds, but sin was not imputed, namely, as something against God, since the law, i.e., divinely given, did not exist. 428. For there were certain persons, as the Philosopher says in Ethics V (ch. 10), who believed that nothing is just by nature and, consequently, nothing unjust, but only because there is a human law. According to this, a sin was not imputed as being contrary to God, especially original sin, since it was not known. 221 But the error of this opinion is shown by the effect, because bodily death reigned from Adam, through whom original sin entered the world, until Moses, under whom the Law was given. Consequently, since death is the effect of sin, especially original, it is clear that before the Law there was original sin in the world. But lest anyone suppose that they died on account of actual sins, he excludes this, when he says that it reigned even over those who did not sin by their own act, namely, children and the just who did not sin mortally, but did sin in the first man, as has been stated. Therefore, he adds, in the likeness of Adam’s sin, inasmuch as they contracted the likeness of that sin through their origin along with the likeness of nature. As if to say: The fact that they died without personal sin shows that the likeness of Adam’s sin had been spread in them in virtue of origin. And this is what the Apostle intends to convey, namely, that original sin entered the world through Adam. 429. Then (v.14b) he explains the likeness which was understood in the adverb, "as" [sicut] (v. 12). Hence he says, who, namely, Adam, was a type, i.e., a figure, of the one who was to come, i.e., of Christ, although in an opposite way. For just as sin and death entered the world through Adam, so justice and life entered through Christ: "The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven" (1 Cor 15:47). There are other likenesses between Christ and Adam, namely, that just as Adam’s body was formed without intercourse, so Christ’s body from the Virgin. Again, just as the woman was taken from the side of the sleeping Adam, so from the side of the sleeping Christ flowed blood and water (Jn 19:34), which signify the sacraments by which the Church was formed. 222 After discussing the entry of sin into this world, the Apostle treats of the history of grace, which abolishes sin. And concerning this he does two things. First, he shows how the grace of Christ removed sin, which entered the world through one man; secondly, how it removed sin, which superabounded with the coming of the Law [v. 20; n. 448]. 223 In showing how Christ’s grace removed the sin introduced into the world by Adam, he compares Christ’s grace to Adam’s sin, stating that Christ’s grace can accomplish more good than Adam’s sin accomplishes evil. And concerning this he does two things. First, he compares the causes, namely, Christ’s grace, with Adam’s sin; secondly, he compares their effects [v. 16; n. 435]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he gives the comparison; secondly, he clarifies it [v. 15b; n. 432]. 431. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that Adam is the type of the one who was to come, but not like the trespass is the free gift. As if to say: the efficacy of Adam’s trespass must not be considered the equal of Christ’s gift. The reason is that sin came from the weakness of the human will, but grace comes from the immensity of the divine goodness, which excels the human will, especially in its weakness. Therefore, the power of grace exceeds every sin; consequently, David said: "Have mercy on me, O God, according to thy abundant mercy" (Ps 51:1). For this reason Cain’s attitude is justly reproved: "My sin is too great to merit pardon" (Gen 4:13). 432. Then (v.15b) he explains what he had said, namely, that the gift of grace exceeds Adam’s trespass, saying, if through one man’s trespass, namely, Adam’s, many died, i.e., if sin and death passed on to many others, because it passed on to all who sinned in him, much more have the grace of God and the free gift, where the "and" serves to explicate. Or, grace of God refers to the remission of sin as above (3:24): "Justified by his grace as a gift"; but gift refers to the blessings over and above the remission of sins, as 224 in Ps 67 (v.19): "The Lord gave gifts to men." Much more, I say, have the grace and gifts abounded for many. For the more potent something is, the more it can extend to a greater number. But the fact of death, which was Adam’s sin, extended to many. Hence, he says significantly that by the trespass of one many have died. For death is the argument for original sin, as stated above, for God said to Adam: "In the day that you eat of it, you shall die" (Gen 2:17). God’s grace, which is stronger, extends much more abundantly to many: "Who brings many sons to glory" (Heb 2:10). 433. It should be noted that he says, abounded, because God’s grace reached many not only to erase the sin incurred from Adam but also to remove actual sins and to bestow many other blessings: "God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance" (2 Cor 9:8). For just as sin abounded from one man to many through the first suggestion of the devil, so God’s grace abounded to many through one man. Hence, he says, in the grace, i.e., through the grace, of that one man Jesus Christ. For grace is poured out by God upon many, in order that we might receive it through Christ, in whom every fullness of grace is found; "From his fullness have we all received, grace upon grace" (Jn 1:16). 434. This is how the text should be read according to Augustine’s interpretation, such that the word "many" is not taken comparatively but absolutely. So Augustine would have it that the comparison points to this, that if the sin of the one man Adam spread to many, much more will the grace of the one man Christ spread to many. But according to Ambrose the word "many" should be taken comparatively, so that the meaning is that by the sin, i.e., the actual sin, of one man, namely Adam, many, 225 not all, died by the death of sin, namely by imitating the sin of Adam by idolatry, as was explained above [n. 426]. Wisdom 13(:10) says of idolaters: "They are unhappy, and their hope is among the dead." And much more has the grace of God abounded unto many, namely more than in the idolaters who sinned in the likeness of Adam, because not only their sins are taken away by the grace of Christ but also the sins of those who persevered in the faith of the one God: "He will put away our iniquities: and he will cast all our sins into the bottom of the sea" (Mic 7:19). 435. Then when he says, and the free gift, he compares Christ’s grace to Adam’s sin as regards the effect, because not only does each affect many, but Christ’s grace had a greater effect than Adam’s sin. And concerning this he does three things. First, he states his proposition; secondly, he clarifies it [v. 16b; n. 437]; thirdly, he proves it [v. 17; n. 438]. 436. First, therefore, he says: Not only does Christ’s grace more abound for many than Adam’s sin, but it produces a greater effect in them. And this is what he says: The free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. As if to say: Not as great an effect comes to many through the one sin of Adam as comes to many through the gift of Christ’s grace. For the effect of a stronger cause is stronger. Hence, since it has been established that grace is stronger than Adam’s sin, it follows that it produces a greater effect. 437. Then (v.16b) he clarifies what he has said: For the judgment, i.e., God’s punishment, following one trespass, i.e., the sin of the first parent, brought condemnation on all men, because they sinned in his sin, as stated above (v.12): "Death spread to all 226 men because all men sinned." But the free gift, which is given through Christ, following many trespasses, i.e., following not only that one original sin but also many actual sins, brings justification, i.e., comp1ete cleansing: "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified" (1 Cor 6:11). 438. Then when he says, If, because of one man’s trespass, he proves what he has said, namely, that Christ’s grace passes from many sins to righteousness. First, he proves this from something later; secondly, from something earlier [v. 19; n. 445]. 439. In regard to the first it should be noted that in the foregoing comparison the Apostle does not posit things that correspond, i.e., things of the same class. For on the side of sin he posits condemnation, which pertains to punishment, while on the side of grace he posits justification, which does not pertain to reward but to the state of merit. Consequently, in stating that sin brings condemnation the Apostle intends to show that grace brings justification. He uses this argument: As the condemnation of death proceeds from the first parent’s sin, so the kingdom of life proceeds from Christ’s grace. 440. For these two correspond uniformly, but no one can attain to the kingdom of life save by justice. Therefore, men are justified by Christ’s grace. First, he lays down the premises; secondly, he draws the conclusion [n. 442]. 441. He states the first premise when he says, If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, because it was stated above (v.12): "Sin came into the world through one man and death through sin," much more will those reign in life, namely, eternal, through the one man Jesus Christ, who says (Jn 10:10): "I came that 227 they may have life, and have it abundantly," by sharing in the eternity of life, the abundance being designated here by "kingdom." Hence, it is stated in Rev (20:4) that they will reign with Christ a thousand years, i.e., eternally. The minor premise is presented in the words, those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of justice. As if to say: Men cannot attain to the kingdom of life except by receiving this. Here Christ’s grace is referred to the remission of sin, which no merits can anticipate and, therefore, is due entirely to grace: "If it is from works, it is no longer by grace" (Rom 11:6). Gift refers to the gifts by which men are advanced in blessings: "He gave gifts with royal liberality" (Est 2:18). Justice refers to upright actions: "Whom God made our righteousness" (1 Cor 1:30). 442. Then when he says, Therefore as one man’s trespass, he draws the intended conclusion which states the same thing as stated earlier, namely, that as by the sin of one man, Adam, the divine judgment led all men born of him according to the flesh to death, so by the righteous of one, namely, Christ, divine grace passed to all men, leading to acquittal and life for all men. 443. But this seems false, since not all men are justified by Christ, although all men die through Adam. To answer this it must be noted that just as all men born according to the flesh from Adam incur condemnation through his sin, so all men who are reborn spiritually through Christ obtain the justification of life, because, as stated in Jn (3:5): "Unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." 228 Although it can be said that Christ’s justification passes on to justify all men in the sense that it is capable of doing so, although de facto it passes only to believers. Hence, it is stated in 1 Tim (4:10): "He is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." 444. From what is said here we should gather that as no one dies except through Adam’s sin, so no one is justified except through Christ’s righteousness; and this is brought about through faith in him "The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe" (Rom 3:22). But the men who believe in him are not only those who lived after the resurrection but even those who lived before. For as we believe in him as one who was born and suffered, so they believed in him as one who would be born and suffer. Hence, our faith and theirs is the same: "Having the same spirit of faith…we too believe and so we speak" (2 Cor 4:13). Thus it is that the grace of Christ redounds to the justification of many by appeal to something later, namely to the reign of life. 445. Then the Apostle proves the same thing from something prior, when he says, For as by one man’s disobedience. For causes are similar to their effects. But the disobedience of the first parent, which bears the character of unrighteousness, made men sinners and unrighteous. Therefore, the obedience of Christ, which bears the character of righteousness, made them righteous. And this is what he stated previously, namely, that grace proceeds forth into all men unto justification (v.16). 229 446. But there seems to be some problem about the statement that by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, i.e., all who are born from his seed. For his first sin seems to have been pride rather than disobedience, as is stated in Sir (10:13): "The beginning of every sin is pride." In answer it must be noted that the same writer says in 10(:21), "The beginning of pride makes men separate themselves from God," because the first step of pride consists in a man’s not willing to be subject to God’s precepts, which pertains to disobedience. Hence, man’s first sin seems to have been disobedience, not as far as the outward action was concerned but in regard to the inner movement of pride, by which be wills to go against the divine command. Hence, the Lord reproves his disobedience: "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it, cursed is the ground…in your work. In you labor you shall eat from it all the days of your life" (Gen 3:17). On the other hand Christ’s obedience consisted in accepting death for our salvation in accordance with the Father’s command: "He became obedient unto death" (Phil 2:8). This, of course, does not contradict the statement that Christ died out of love for us (Eph 5:2), because the obedience proceeded from the love he had for the Father and for us. 447. And one should not that by obedience and disobedience he proves that through one man we were made sinners and through one man we were justified, because legal justice, which is the ensemble of all virtues, is recognizable in observing the precepts of the law, which pertains to the notion of obedience. But legal injustice, which 230 is the ensemble of all wickedness, is recognizable in transgressing the precepts of the law, which pertains to the notion of disobedience. Consequently, it is fittingly stated that by obedience men were made just and by disobedience sinners. _________________________________________________________________________________ (20) Now the law entered in secretly that sin might abound. And where sin abounded, grace superabounded, (21) That as sin has reigned unto death, so also grace might reign by justice unto life everlasting, through Jesus Christ our Lord. __________________________________________________________________________________ After showing that through the gift of grace that sin is removed, which entered this world through Adam [n. 430], the Apostle now shows that through Christ’s grace is taken away the sin that increased when the Law came. Concerning this he does two things. First, he mentions the increase of sin through the Law; secondly, the absolution of sin through Christ’s grace, there [v.20b; n. 464] at And where sin abounded. 449. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that through the obedience of one man many are made just. However, it was not the Law that could achieve this; rather, the law entered in secretly [subintravit] that sin might abound. 450. Two problems arise from these statements of the Apostle. 231 First, from the statement that the Law subintravit, i.e., entered secretly, "after original and actual sin or after the natural law," as the Gloss says. For the Law did not come in secretly but was given openly, in accord with John 18(:20), "I have not spoken in secret." The answer is that although the legislation had been given openly, the mysteries of the Law were hidden, especially in regard to God’s intention in promulgating the Law, which would point out sin without healing it: "Who has known the mind of the Lord?" (Rom 11: 34). It can also be said that the Law sub-intravit, i.e., entered into the middle, so to speak, between man’s sin and the gift of Christ’s grace, each of which he had said above passed from one [man] to many. 451. The second problem arises from the statement that the Law came in that sin might abound. For this would seem to make increase of sin the purpose of the Law; consequently, the Law would be evil, because a thing whose purpose is evil is itself evil. But this is contrary to the statement in 1 Tim 1(:8), "We know that the law is good." 452. A Gloss answers this in three ways [cf. n. 459, 460]. First, that the word that [ut] should be taken as indicating not a causal connection but a mere sequence. For the Law was not given in order that sins might increase; rather, the Law, as far as in it lay, forbade sin: "I have laid up thy word in my heart, that I might not sin against thee" (Ps 119:11). But, once the Law was given, increase of sin followed in two ways [cf. n. 458]. 232 453. In one way, as to the number of sins. For although the Law pointed out sin, it did not take away desire for sin [concupiscentia]. Indeed, when someone is forbidden what he desires, he burns with a stronger desire for it, as a torrent flows with greater force against an obstacle erected against it and finally breaks it. 454. There can be three reasons for this. First, because when something is subject to a man’s power he does not consider it anything great, whereas he perceives a thing beyond his power as great. But a prohibition against something desired puts that thing, as it were, beyond man’s power; consequently, the desire for it increases as long as it is prohibited. The second reason is that internal affections, when they are kept within and permitted no outlet, burn the more strongly within. This is clear in sorrow and anger which, when they are kept within, continually increase; but if they are given any kind of release outwardly, their vigor is dissipated. But a prohibition, since it threatens a penalty, compels man not to give outward expression to his desire, so that, being kept within, it burns more vigorously. The third reason is that anything not forbidden is regarded as something possible to do any time it pleases us; therefore, even when the opportunity is present, we often avoid doing it. But when something is forbidden, it is measured as something not capable of being ours at just any time; therefore, when the opportunity arises to obtain it without fear of punishment, we are readier to seize it. 455. These, then are the reasons why in the face of the Law, which forbade acts of concupiscence and yet did not mitigate that concupiscence, the concupiscence itself leads men more feverishly toward sin. Hence, it is stated in Ezekiel 5(:5), "This is Jerusalem; I 233 have set her in the center of the nations, with countries round about her. She wickedly rebelled against my ordinances more than the nations, and against my statutes more than the countries round about her." 456. But according to this it seems that every human law, which of course does not confer grace to lessen concupiscence, would make sin increase. However, that seems to be against the lawgiver’s intention, because his aim is to make the citizen good, as the Philosopher says in Ethics II. The answer is that the intention of human law is one thing and that of divine law another. For human law is subject to human judgment, which is concerned with external acts; but the divine law is subject to divine judgment, which is concerned with the inward movement of the heart, as is said in 1 Sam 16(:7), "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart." Accordingly, human law achieves its aim when by means of prohibitions and threats of punishment it prevents external sinful acts, even though the inward concupiscence increases more. But as far as the divine law is concerned, it imputes as sin even the inward evil desires, which increase when the law forbids them without destroying them. 457. Yet it should be noted, as the Philosopher says in Ethics X, that although a legal prohibition restrains the ill disposed from outward sins by the fear of punishment, it nevertheless guides the well disposed through love of virtue. Now that good disposition is present to a certain extent by nature, although its perfection is achieved only by grace. Consequently, even after the Old Law had been given, sin did not increase in all but in the majority. But some, guided by the law’s prohibitions and further strengthened by 234 grace, reached the heights of virtue: "Let us now praise glorious men…men great in virtue" (Sir 44:1). 458. Secondly [n. 453], with the coming of the Law sin abounded as far as the weight of guilt was concerned. For sin was more grievous when it became a transgression not only of the law of nature but also of the written law. Hence it was said above in 4(:15) that where there was no law there was no transgression. 459. A second answer [n. 452] is that the word that [ut] can be taken causally but in the sense that the Apostle is speaking of sin’s increase as far as our knowledge of it is concerned. As if to say: Law entered in secretly that sin might abound, i.e., that sin might be more abundantly known, according to the manner of speaking whereby something is said to come to pass when it is recognized. Hence, he said above (3:20) that through the law comes knowledge of sin. 460. The third answer also takes that [ut] in a causal sense, but not as meaning that increase of sin is the goal of the Law’s entering in, but what results from sin’s increase, namely, man’s humiliation. For after the Law came in, sin abounded, as was said in the first explanation. The consequence of this increase of sin was that man, recognizing his weakness, was humbled. For the proud man, presuming on his own strength, said: "There is no lack of doers, but of commanders," in accord with Ex 24(:7), "All that the Lord has spoken we will do and will be obedient." But when, after the Law had been given, the number of sins increased, men recognized how weak they were in observing the Law: "Man is weak and short-lived, with little understanding of judgment and laws" (Wis 9:5). 235 Therefore, God’s intention in giving the Law is not aimed at increasing sin but at man’s humility, for the sake of which he permitted sin to abound. Accordingly, because this [purpose] was hidden, he says that the law entered in secretly. 461. Since we are dealing with the Law and the end of the Law, two things propose themselves for consideration. First, the number of senses of the word "law"; secondly, what is the end of the law [n. 463]. In regard to the first it should be noted that "law," taken one way, names the entire scripture of the Old Testament; for example, John 15(:25) says, "It is to fulfill the word that is written in the law, that now they have sin and hated both me and my Father," when this was written in a Psalm [24:19]. But sometimes the "law" refers to the five books of Moses, in accord with Deut 33(:4), "Moses commanded us a law." Thirdly, the precepts of the Decalogue are called the "law": "I will give you the tables of stone, with the law and commandment, which I have written for their instruction" (Ex 24:12). Fourthly, the entire content of the ceremonial precepts is called the "law," as in Heb 10(:1), "Since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come." Fifthly, any definite ceremonial precept is called a "law," as in Lev (7:11): "This is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings." But in this section of the epistle, the Apostle takes "law" in a general way, i.e., as referring to the total doctrine of the Mosaic Law, namely, the moral and ceremonial precepts, because through the ceremonies of the Law grace was not given help man fulfill the precepts and to reduce concupiscences. 463. In regard to the end of the Law it should be noted that among the Jewish people, as among every people, there were three kinds of men: the adamant, i.e., sinners 236 and rebels, the proficient and the perfect. With respect to the adamant the Law was given as a scourge both as to the moral precepts to whose observance they were compelled by threats of punishment, as is evident from Leviticus 2, and as to the ceremonial precepts, which were multiplied to prevent them from cultivating alien gods: "With a strong hand and outstretched arm, and with anger poured out I will rule over you" (Ezek 20:34). For the proficient, who are called the ordinary people [mediocres], the Law was a pedagogue: "The law was our pedagogue in Christ" (Ga1 3:24). It was so with respect to the ceremonial precepts, by which they were restrained in divine worship, and with respect to the moral precepts, by which they were advanced toward justice. For the perfect the Law regarding ceremonies was a sign: "I gave them my Sabbaths, as a sign between me and them, that they might know that I the Lord sanctify them" (Ezek 20:12); the Law regarding morals acted as a consolation, as expressed below (7:22); "I delight in the law of God." 464. Then when he says where sin abounded, he shows how increase of sin was taken away by grace. First, he sets out that grace abounded; secondly, the effect of abounding grace, there [n. 467] at that as sin has abounded. 465. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that with the coming of the Law sin abounded. But this was no obstacle to the divine plan for the salvation of the Jews and of the whole human race, because where sin abounded, namely, in the human race and especially among the Jews, grace superabounded, namely, the grace of Christ forgiving sins: "God is powerful to make every grace abound in you" (2 Cor 9:8). 237 466. Two reasons can be given for what is said here. One is based on the effect of grace. For just as the enormity of a disease is not cured except by a strong and effective medicine, so an abundant grace was required to heal the abundance of sins: "Many sins are forgiven her, for she loved much" (Lk 7:47). The other reason is based on the attitude of the sinner. Some, realizing the enormity of their sins, give way to despair and contempt: "When wickedness comes, contempt comes also" (Pr 18:3); others by the help of divine grace are humbled when they consider their sins and so obtain a greater grace: "Their infirmities were multiplied; afterwards they made haste" (Ps 16:4). 467. Then when he says That as sin has reigned unto death, he shows the effect of abounding grace, an effect that corresponds by way of opposition to that of sin. That as sin, introduced by the first man and abounding through the Law, has reigned, i.e., obtained complete dominion over men, and this until it brought them unto death both temporal and eternal: "The wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23) – grace also, i.e., God’s, might reign, i.e., rule entirely in us, by justice, which it produces in us: "They are justified by his grace" (Rom 3:24). And this until it brings us to eternal life: "The free gift of God is eternal life" (Rom 6:23). And all of this is through Jesus Christ our Lord, who is the giver of grace: "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (Jn 1:17); he is justice: "Whom God made our righteousness" (1 Cor 1:30); and he is the giver of eternal life: "I give them eternal life" (Jn 10:28). |
Home > Romans > St. Thomas Aquinas on Romans > Chapter 1 > Chapter 2 > Chapter 3 > Chapter 4 >